Mr. Fisher, I appreciate your bringing that up, and in anticipation that this question was coming, I did seek guidance from the clerk as it relates to the rules and procedures of committees. I'm going to refer to O'Brien and Bosc.
As there's no order paper in committee, there's no precedence with regard to motions. For the clarity of the committee, I'm going to read directly what it says:
The idea that committees are “masters of their proceedings” or “masters of their procedures” is frequently evoked in committee debates or the House. The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.
In the event that there is a situation where there is an adjournment and the debate still continues, in the rules and procedures it says what happens at the next committee meeting. The committee is under no obligation to resume the debate on this motion. If the debate is not resumed on the motion and a new motion is moved and also adjourned at the subsequent meeting, it will be up to committee to decide which motion will have precedence over the other and which debate should be resumed.
If the debate should be resumed, how should it be done? When debate is adjourned—which it was—at the ordinary hour of adjournment of the meeting, some committees will agree on a date on which the debate should be resumed, while others will leave that decision to the chair, who has the administrative responsibility to decide “on the agendas for the meeting”. That, again, is from O'Brien and Bosc, page 1031.
Unless there is an objection… from a member, there is implied consent from the committee to proceed this way. Should an objection be raised, the chair will either maintain his or her decision or leave the decision to the committee. Often, the difference between the committee resuming debate at its next meeting or not is simply a matter of possibilities. If a notice has already been published for the next meeting...and it has.
I'm not sure that this is in relation to this, but I'll continue.
If a notice has already been published for the next meeting and witnesses are already confirmed to appear, or if something is already scheduled, such as a consideration of a report or a bill, the chair may decide to proceed with what is already organized and scheduled. If—like in today's situation—we are without any witnesses, the chair may decide to put resuming debate on the notice so that we get to the end of the motion and vote.
This is precisely what I have done.
When no decision has been taken by the committee on the resumption of the debate, and the chair has not placed this item on the agenda, the member who wishes to resume debate must have a formal motion to that effect. The motion that the committee proceed to a specific order of business, i.e., resuming and adjourning debate on the motion moved on whatever date, does not require notice and must be put to a vote immediately, without debate or amendment. “If the motion is carried, the committee immediately proceeds to the 'order' referred to in the motion.” Again, that's O'Brien and Bosc.
Note, since the motion is still in the hands of the committee, it need not be on the agenda or on the notice of meeting. To that end, Speaker Fraser ruled that there is “no procedural impediment to a committee's dealing with any matter within its mandate at any meeting of that committee regardless of the stated purpose or purposes of a particular meeting”. That came from December 18, 1989, Mr. Fraser's decision, volume 2, page 593.
This is the part that I think is germane to the question of Mr. Fisher. It says that in both situations, when debate resumes, the member who was speaking at the time of adjournment will have the floor. When, as a consequence of the interruption, a business prescribed by the standing orders of a debate has been adjourned while a member was speaking, he is entitled on the next occasion to resume adjourned debate and continue with his speech. That's from Erskine May, 24th edition, 2011, pages 433 and 434.
After reviewing the blues and determining where we were at.... Members will recall that there was a lot of confusion at the end of the last meeting. I'll go back to the intervention by Mrs. Shanahan.
Mrs. Shanahan concluded her remarks at 18:25. Next on the list on the amendment was Mr. Caputo, at which point I said, “Go ahead, Mr. Caputo.” Mr. Fisher then raised a point of order. This is near the end of the meeting, again, from the blues. We addressed Mr. Fisher's point of order.
After that, we were dealing with the amendment, and I said to Mr. Caputo, “You have the floor”. I went back to Mr. Fisher, and asked, “Does that clarify that for you, Mr. Fisher?”
There was further discussion. Within that discussion, again, Mr. Simard rose on a point of order, to which I answered. Mr. Barrett also had a point of order to clarify things. It was at that point, after Mr. Barrett's point of order, that we adjourned the meeting.
Given the situation that Mr. Caputo did, in fact, have the floor, I stated that, when debate resumed, the member who was speaking at the time of the adjournment will have the floor.
It is my decision that Mr. Caputo had the floor when we adjourned the meeting. I will go to Mr. Caputo to start, followed by Ms. Khalid and Mrs. Shanahan.
Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.
