Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 25th, 2021

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

In the interests of many people anticipating the subcommittee's report on the Uighur genocide, I believe if you seek it, you may find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the committee adopt the report of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights titled “Human Rights Situation of the Uighurs” and that the chair report this report to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Mr. Chong, that is a motion that should not be brought on a point of order. I see heads shaking. I take that to mean there is not unanimous consent at the moment.

In any event, I was going to interrupt Ms. Sahota to let the committee know we're at 5:30 p.m. This is a hard constraint tonight because of other committee work taking place. With your consent we will adjourn this discussion—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'd like to challenge the chair's ruling with respect to Mr. Chong's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

I've been challenged on the ruling that Mr. Chong's motion should not have been brought on a point of order.

Madam Clerk, first of all, we have the 5:30 p.m. time issue. We may have a minute to deal with this or we may not. I'm in your hands on this. In any event, I don't believe we should simply override the fact that we have a hard time constraint at 5:30 p.m. with respect to other committees having to do their work.

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

That's why I put in the challenge.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Chair, I move that this meeting be now adjourned.

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

I challenged the chair. We have to take a vote on the challenge to the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Okay. Let's get advice to unravel this.

Madam Clerk.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

No, that this committee be now adjourned is a priority motion. I'm sorry.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It's a dilatory motion.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, but—

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

Ms. Fry did not have the floor when she moved that.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Neither did you. Neither did Mr. Chong.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, a challenge to the decision of the chair is also a dilatory motion that we would need to decide right away, but I just need to clarify. Was it your decision that Mr. Chong did not have the floor correctly to seek unanimous consent?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

That is correct. That's why I was challenged by Mr. Genuis.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Genuis is challenging the decision of the chair.

The question is whether the decision of the chair should be sustained.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

That means then, effectively, Madam Clerk, that Mr. Chong gets to seek the unanimous consent of the committee.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

That's right.

I move, Mr. Chair, that the committee adopt the report of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights titled “Human Rights Situation of the Uighurs”, and that the chair report this report to the House of Commons.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Ms. Sahota, is there a point of order on Mr. Chong's motion?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

No. I am confused about this and I need to understand it better.

Earlier we heard from the clerk that codified procedures are superior and stand above any other unanimous consent motions or anything we would call for. After me—if I was even seen to have ceded the floor—it would have been Ms. McPherson's turn next.

Mr. Chong raised a point of order and then continued to bring a motion on that point of order. The chair ruled according to what Procedure and Practice states. How can that be challenged, when it's not really a discretionary ruling? The chair did not make that ruling based on his own discretion. He made it because he had to make it. There was no other ruling he could have made.

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

On the same point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sven Spengemann]

Madam Clerk, perhaps you could just explain. Is that a ruling that could have properly been challenged?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

You did not cede the floor to him.