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.