Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

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

Mr. Chair, with respect, Mr. Oliphant had an opportunity to run for chair and he chose not to.

I would like to be able to make my point of order, to make the argument with respect to the matter of procedure, and then I invite you to make a ruling on those arguments, because what seems to be happening here is that, following the ruling of a previous chair, a new chair is making a different ruling to negate the ruling of the previous chair and to throw out a motion that was on the floor and to do so without allowing arguments from members of Parliament with respect to the appropriateness of that matter.

That is incredible, so I'm asking at a minimum for the opportunity to make arguments with respect to the matter of order for your consideration, Mr. Chair. Surely, you'd like to hear the views of members with respect to matters of order before we proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis, but I believe you are engaging in debate.

Is it your intention to challenge the ruling?

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

Mr. Chair, it is my intention to assert the privileges of members of Parliament in this committee; that is, it is my intention to make arguments to you, the chair, with respect to a matter of order. That is to make the point that at multiple committees in this House, at the citizenship and immigration committee, at the status of women committee and previously on multiple occasions at this committee—those are the cases that I know of in the last few months—members have proposed motions for adjournment.

Mr. Chair, who is the staff member you're consulting with? I hope you're listening to the arguments that are being made.

Mr. Chair, there have been multiple instances in this Parliament in multiple committees where members have moved motions to adjourn with conditions, and those motions have been deemed debatable. Ms. Zahid, the chair of the immigration committee, Ms. Vecchio, the chair of the status of women committee, and your predecessor, Mr. Spengemann, have all ruled those motions to be in order.

Now we have a new chair, after the resignation of Mr. Spengemann, who all of a sudden wants to overrule the precedent on this matter. Parliament should be guided by precedent. Precedent is the basis on which we understand the interpretations of these rulings. That precedent has consistently been, at multiple committees in various committees of this House, that when there is a substantive motion on the table, it is considered legitimate to move an amendment motion with a condition. While it is not acceptable to move a different substantive motion on a different matter, when it is an adjournment motion with a condition then it is legitimate to do so.

Now, insofar as that is a grey area in the rules, because the rules don't specify with respect to an amendment motion with a condition, we should be guided by the precedent, by the precedent of multiple committees, including by this committee.

What you're saying is to try to overrule the precedent and the ruling of the previous chair without even giving opportunities for other members to hear arguments.

That is outrageous, Mr. Chair, and we're not going to function very well as a committee if you show such flagrant disregard for the rights of members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis, one more time I will repeat the question that I have posed to you previously. Is it your intention to challenge my ruling?

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

Mr. Chair, I would like you to consider the arguments that have been made about precedent in previous committees.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Chair, making a point of order on that, I would read from the rules of procedure:

Disorder and misconduct in a committee may arise as a result of the failure to abide by the rules and practices of a committee or to respect the authority of the Chair.

In the event of disorder, the Chair may suspend the meeting until order can be restored....

I would remind the committee that you have that authority. If your ruling is being disrespected by one of the members of the committee, it is disorder. There are precedents for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Oliphant.

I presume that you are referring to chapter 21, which relates to disorderly conduct. However, just to clarify further, I would like to draw everyone's attention to page 1059 of the rules of procedure. The third paragraph reads as follows:

Decisions by the Chair are not debatable.

I understand that Mr. Chong has a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, my point of order is that I'm unclear exactly what your ruling was, so I'd like you to clarify.

I think you ruled the motion out of order. You made reference to two motions. I believe you ruled the second motion out of order, and I am not certain what that second motion was. Are we referring to the motion that I believe Mr. Genuis introduced regarding adjourning debate?

Is it the motion Mr. Genuis introduced referring to Ukraine that we were debating previously before the previous meeting was suspended that you ruled out of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

That is correct. The ruling was that you cannot concurrently have two substantive motions before a committee. The basis for that decision, if you'd like to know, is on page 1068 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. It states:

If a dilatory motion is accompanied by a condition, it becomes a substantive motion.

Therefore, it's debatable and amendable.

It's also true according to—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to clarify that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

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

Mr. Chair, I have another point of order.

The original question raised by the point of order, as I understood it, pertained to the election of the chair as if that was a substantive matter before the committee.

Could you clarify in your ruling whether the election of the chair was considered a substantive matter before the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis, I can assure you that was not what was decided. That is an issue that is separate and apart. At no point was it suggested that the election of a chair would constitute a second substantive motion.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm seeking further clarification.

Your ruling seems to me to be that the election of the chair is not a substantive matter, but a motion to adjourn is a substantive matter if it is attached to a condition.

Could you maybe explain a little more to the committee to help our understanding about why you would deem that the election of the chair is not a substantive matter but that the adjournment motion is a substantive matter? I think it might be helpful for those who are trying to reconcile the conflicting precedents in the future.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I do believe this is disorder and disrespect of the chair's ruling. You have made a ruling, and you do not—

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

You were not recognized, Mr. Oliphant. That's disorder. You started speaking before you were recognized.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Could I?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Go ahead, Mr. Oliphant.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, can I be recognized?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

You decide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

I will allow Mr. Oliphant to proceed, and then, if you have a point of order, Mr. Zuberi, we will—

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Chair, this is the third attempt by Mr. Genuis to disrupt the meeting and disrespect your ruling as the chair. He has parliamentary privilege to challenge the ruling. That challenge may be made, and there's a process for it to be made. It will be voted on immediately and then we can proceed to the business.

My understanding is that there was a motion on the floor to do a future study. There's an amendment, which was not challenged. Mr. Spengemann, as chair, did not rule on it. He allowed it, so it wasn't a case of procedure that you are changing. It's the first time a point of order has been raised on whether that was a substantive or dilatory motion. The point of order has been raised. You have ruled on it.

I would ask us now that we either proceed to the original motion that was raised or have the chair's ruling challenged.

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

On the same point of order, I see that—

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'm sorry, but I had the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis, you have not been recognized.