Thanks, Chair.
I appreciate the amendment and the discussion that followed. I want to make a few notes. I know we're going to encounter bells before 12:30.
Chair, what happens in this committee is not in a vacuum, nor is the work of other committees. We've seen play out at other committees the hasty decisions by chairs, and though I have strong opinions, of course, on how I would like each vote to go, I get one vote, but the chair makes his rulings and, while I haven't been in the room for the other meetings, I know, based on your comments, that you consult extensively with the clerk.
In the room, for this ruling, I don't have a stake in the decision by the chair. I wasn't voted as chair by colleagues on this committee. That responsibility was given to you for what I would say would have been a pretty easy decision. I think it could have been adjudicated quite quickly. The meeting was suspended, and you consulted with the clerk on the question before rendering your decision.
I'd like to contrast that for my colleagues on the committee against what we've seen at other meetings when we know chairs have, during this session of this Parliament, during heated discussions, adjourned meetings without a vote while members withheld consent to do so. We've seen a number of procedural irregularities at best, if not violations of the rules of this place.
We hear an awful lot about “with respect” and “with reservation on the vote”—