I recognize that Mr. Lamoureux is a very dedicated member of Parliament. We see him 24 hours a day, if there's an opportunity for him to be there 24 hours a day. We know that about him. However, I find it very reckless for us to indicate.... As I indicated, you said that we've seen Ms. Normandin and other individuals. Perhaps the clerk could share with me what the ruling on that would be. There has to be some sort of precedent.
I know that we are now in a very different time, when we have people coming in virtually, but earlier today Mr. Turnbull put his name on the list so that he could be back on it for a second time because of the last meeting. He wanted to be back on the list. We saw that happen. I am greatly concerned because I know that we are dedicated to this.
To the note on political games, this is just what we have seen. I've seen some of these people continue to talk. I've heard Mr. Lauzon say, “We want the minister here” and “We don't want the minister” within four hours. Obviously he had a good night's rest on that.
I don't mean to be sarcastic, but I believe we are going into an area where things are becoming really loosey-goosey. This is the procedure and House affairs committee. We are the grandfather committee. Basically, precedent is set here. If we're seeing loosey-goosey rules, that is what we're going to see in all of our standing committees, so I think there needs to be something done.
Perhaps the clerk can share with us how this would work. If we have people exiting and entering the meeting all the time, we could be in this filibuster.... As Mr. Lauzon indicated the other day, he will speak till the election. We could be in this until then, but we want to get work done, so I'm very concerned.
Madam Chair, If we can get a ruling, if we can get something, we should, because this is very loosey-goosey. You're opening this up to multiple interpretations, and to be honest, we know what can happen from there. Let's just set this—