Evidence of meeting #21 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Chair, my understanding of where we are in the process is that, having completed the election of the chair, we're now back into the committee business rubric.
With that in mind, I'd like to suggest to the committee, perhaps move, that we establish a calendar for the remaining meetings in June. That would allow us to make progress on and complete our existing studies in the areas of vaccine equity, Ukraine and Taiwan.
I'd like to move that, and we can proceed to discussion on it.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
I'm not sure that you can move another motion while there is a motion on the floor. I would further seek direction from the clerk as to what motion is currently on the floor, because in reviewing the blues last week, I noticed that there may, in fact, be two motions on the floor at the moment.
Perhaps we could get some direction from the clerk as to what is possible at this time. I'm certainly very interested in getting to the scheduling of witnesses and to proceeding with the important work of our committee.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Maybe I could join in on the same point of order.
We just completed the election of a chair. I don't understand how the election of the chair could occur without our not being on another item of business.
Members may want to propose the resumption of some other matter, but our view is that we should get on with the studies that we have on the table, and insofar as we've just completed the election of the chair, there aren't any motions before the committee right now. I've just moved a proposal in terms of how we move forward.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
On that, I think we're on a point of order. I'd like the chair to actually advise the committee as to what motion....
This was not an adjourned meeting; it was a suspended meeting. I think the opposition is clearly aware of what the difference is between a suspended meeting.... Maybe they're not. Maybe you'll need to explain that to them. Experienced parliamentarians should know what a suspended meeting is. When a meeting is suspended, we will have work on the floor. The resignation of a chair and the election of a new chair is simply not related to the suspension of the meeting. The meeting continues.
We have a motion. I believe it might have been amended and it might have been subamended. We would like to have clarity about that and then perhaps a discussion on where we are with those. Thank you.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Could I just respond quickly to Mr. Oliphant?
I'm fully aware—
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
On a point of order, if you allow him to respond, he may allow it.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I apologize on behalf of all of us for making your job challenging on your first day here with these procedural questions.
I understand the difference between an adjourned meeting and a suspended meeting. I also understand the long-established precedent of the committee that if we're debating an item of business and then we are debating another item of business, we cannot also be debating the original item of business.
Insofar as we are obliged by the rules of the House of Commons to have moved immediately to the selection of a chair, having done that, it is illogical—there may be precedents that can be cited, but it seems illogical to me—to say that something else is still on the floor when we have just completed the election of the chair, which is clearly a distinct item.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Thank you.
I must say, as you have rightly pointed out, that I face a unique dilemma. I think it's only fair that I consult with the clerk and defer to her better judgment as to the point of order that Ms. Bendayan has raised.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Mr. Chair, may I make a point on this point of order?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Marty Morantz Conservative Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB
Mr. Chair, I just want to point out that under Bosc and Gagnon, chapter 20, essentially when the chair resigned, the committee became unconstituted. Under chapter 20 it says very specifically, “Before a committee can begin to consider its work at the beginning of a parliamentary session, it must be properly constituted; that is, its members must be appointed and a Chair designated.”
I think the argument here is that because the chair resigned, the committee became unconstituted. It has now been reconstituted with the election of a chair and new motions can be entertained.
5:30 p.m.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have two things to say.
The first has to do with Mr. Oliphant's comment. He suggested that the opposition didn't know the difference between a suspended meeting and an adjourned meeting. I would appreciate it if he could make clear that he was referring to the official opposition. I am a member of the opposition, and I was the one chairing the meeting when it was suspended, so I know full well the difference between a meeting that is suspended and one that is adjourned.
The second is in response to Mr. Morantz's remarks. I must point out that the committee cannot be considered to have been unconstituted because there was no election of a vice-chair. He and I remained the vice-chairs of the committee. For that reason, I think it was just a mandatory motion, something that had to be dealt with immediately—electing a chair—so that the committee could carry on. We are definitely resuming the meeting that was suspended the last time.
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
My having had the benefit of speaking to the clerk, we will now resume.
There are a number of different issues that I had an opportunity to speak to the clerk about.
The first one is the issue that was raised by Mr. Bergeron. The reality is, as was pointed out, that the meeting was previously suspended, so the manner in which we have been proceeding is actually correct.
Insofar as Mr. Morantz's issue is concerned, I did have an opportunity to look at the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. I did find the passage that you referenced, Mr. Morantz, and it reads as follows:
In the event of a vacancy in the office of Chair, the committee cannot conduct any other business until a new Chair is chosen. This is similar to procedure in the House, where a vacancy in the office of Speaker must be filled before any other matter can be considered.
A reading of this particular passage does confirm that we did proceed in the appropriate fashion. That would have been the first order of business: to come up with a chair.
Moving to the point of order raised by Ms. Bendayan, I think it's fair to say that the practice of this committee under the previous chair has been to make sure that we are masters of our own proceedings. The practice that was previously developed and followed was that we could deal with various issues that did arise concurrently if that was the will of the members.
Now, we have a point of order from a procedural standpoint that the practice is that if there are two substantive motions, that should not be allowed.
In fact, if members look at page 1068 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, they'll see that it says, “If a dilatory motion is accompanied by a condition, it becomes a substantive motion.”
Ms. Bendayan's read and interpretation of the rules is quite correct. We have two substantive motions before us.
I should emphasize that, as always, the chair is guided by the will of the committee. Until now, members have seen fit to embark on the original practice, and the previous chair allowed members to intervene and make their positions known with what I imagine to be the ultimate goal of concluding debate in a way that could be meaningful for all.
Now that a point of order has been raised, I find myself in the position of having to rule in line with the procedures outlined previously, as I pointed out, that you cannot concurrently have two substantive motions.
Currently, the committee has these two substantive motions on the floor simultaneously. I will rule accordingly in reference to the procedures that the second motion is to be deemed out of order.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
I guide the committee back to the original motion and amendment that is currently before it.
As always, I should emphasize that should any member of this committee not agree with this particular ruling, they may challenge this decision.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I want to make a number of points with respect to the point you made.
First of all, a point of order was raised with respect to the question of whether or not we are currently debating motions. You ruled that there cannot be multiple substantive motions on the table, and I will get to the issue of the adjournment piece of that in a moment.
My point was we had been dealing previously with the substantive matter of the election of the chair, which is clearly a substantive matter.