Many of us who have chaired meetings in the past have dealt with Robert's Rules of Order. The motion to table is a Robert's Rules of Order motion. Here at the House of Commons, we deal with Marleau and Montpetit.
If members wish to remove a motion from the table, they can do one of two things. They can request an adjournment of debate. So let us say we were debating a motion on the table and people felt they just didn't want it; that is not debatable. If a member requests or moves a motion for ending debate, then it is not debatable. The chair immediately has to call the question on the motion on the floor.
A member could, however, as in the case of Ms. McLeod, actually put a motion forward to request adjournment to a particular date, asking for particular information for whatever reason. Now, that motion is debatable, so we can debate the motion or the feasibility of moving it forward. Then we vote on that, and if it passes, then we just get the information. If it doesn't pass, we have to get on with the debate on that motion.
Those are just the rules. I mention them just so you know them. I am used to the idea of tabling; and as soon as tabling goes on, there is no more discussion, and it moves forward. But that is in Robert's Rules of Order, whereas in Marleau and Montpetit, these are the rules.
Is everyone clear on that, so we can understand how we want to achieve what we want to achieve down the road?
Is it not clear, Sylvie?