Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 25th, 2021

[The Clerk]

In committee, Mr. Chair, members are free to challenge the decision of the chair. In this case, your decision, your ruling, was that Mr. Chong did not properly have the floor. The decision was challenged. The majority of the committee members determined that Mr. Chong did properly have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

That means he now properly has the floor, unless there's a point of order on his—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I have a point of order.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

But he had the floor properly. That's why I was interested in the way in which the question was posed originally on the challenge. The question that was posed was whether he properly had the floor, and I don't think that was the question. Yes, he properly had the floor on a point of order, but a point of order does not provide you the opportunity to move this type of motion. Yes, he had the floor, but not the ability to move a motion such as this.

Shouldn't that be the question?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Yes, Dr. Fry.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I think the clerk, in the original instance in which Mr. Genuis asked for a point of order and then, after the chair ceded the floor to him, used that to move a motion to get unanimous consent, had made a very clear ruling on that. He had been given the floor in order to speak to whatever his motion was.

Then we had Mr. Chong, when there was a debate on the floor, when there was a motion to end the meeting, coming up with his own.... Having asked for a point of order, he did not speak to a point of order. He moved a motion instead.

To my understanding, the chair said he did not allow Mr. Chong to have the floor to speak to that motion. That was what we were ruling on. If we're going to play politics with clear rulings that have been made by the clerk and that are in the actual rule book, the Standing Orders, on standing committees, then what is the point of even looking at rules? Let's just have a free-for-all.

It seems to me that if we want to work together as a committee, which Ms. Sahota has spoken about repeatedly—she thinks we should all work together—how do we ever get to work together when there is such disrespect shown for the rules and for the chair? When someone is speaking, a person does not wait their turn. They just jump in and decide they're going to utilize a bona fide rule, which is a point of order, not to speak to a point of order—

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

What about disrespect for your colleagues?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

—and to speak over someone when they're speaking. This happens a lot in this committee. No one waits their turn. They just talk whenever they feel like it.

Mr. Chair, I am just suggesting that I think if we accept that the chair was wrong in his ruling, then we are actually throwing away the rule book on standing committees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Dr. Fry, I appreciate the point. Let me see if we can unravel this.

My ruling had been overturned to give Mr. Chong the floor. He has the floor. He was trying to seek unanimous consent. He can't move a motion, but he can seek unanimous consent on a ruling that has overturned mine.

If I detect, as I do seem to detect, that there is no unanimous consent to accept this motion, in light of the fact that we're well past 5:30 p.m. and now cutting into the time of two other committees, I suggest that we adjourn and continue this discussion at the next possible opportunity. I think there are lots of views on both procedure and substance—most importantly, on the substance of Ms. McPherson's motion—that still need to be unpacked.

I take all the points that have been made by all members from all sides with respect to privilege and the importance of parliamentary dialogue. We're simply at the point now where I'm—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Mr. Chong, as a result of the vote of the committee, has a right to seek unanimous consent for the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Yes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

At that point any member can say no to his request for unanimous consent, and at that point the meeting can adjourn. All of that needs to take only 30 seconds. I have much to say about the procedural issues raised here, but I will save that for another time, perhaps for private conversation.

Please allow Mr. Chong to move his motion according to the wish of the committee—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Well, he can't move a motion, Mr. Genuis, but he can seek—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Right. Let him seek unanimous consent for the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

From the shaking of heads, I have gained the perception that—

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

I do not give consent. There is no unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Thank you, Dr. Fry.

With the consent of the committee, I believe this is a point where we should adjourn tonight's discussion and resume it at the very next opportunity.

I thank all members for their views. The vibrancy of the discussion reflects the importance of both the procedural and the substantive issues. I wish you a safe and good evening. We will see you at the next opportunity.

The meeting is adjourned.