It might facilitate our actually hearing.... I am concerned with the way this has transpired. I think Mr. Laframboise, from what I can gather here in the correspondence, has taken all reasonable steps to try to secure agreement that these would be accepted at committee, and clearly they're not.
I'm not sure, as a member of Parliament, what test he's expected to meet. We got the clarification from the legislative clerk earlier about the role of a drafter and the role of legislative counsel, but this is a grey area where I don't think it is as black and white as it's being presented.
I am going to suggest we consider setting it aside, not in the interests of delaying this but to make sure this is properly treated.
I don't see, Mr. Jean, the concerns raised by Mr. Laframboise in his amendment reflected in the government's omnibus amendments at all. I see the same test being put forward—not causing unreasonable noise—and I would remind all of us that we had at least eight witnesses who came here and gave us written briefs and oral presentations saying that one of the biggest problems with this bill was the unreasonable noise test.
I am in your hands procedurally, Mr. Chair, and I sympathize with you. My support is with you. I'm not sure where we are now, but I think we're still on the question of debating Mr. Laframboise's...the appealability of your decision.
I am in your hands procedurally as to where we go here from now. How do we actually move forward and deal with this question of appealing your ruling on the admissibility or inadmissibility of this amendment?