Foreign Affairs Committee on May 16th, 2022

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

I'd like to be recognized.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Zuberi, please proceed.

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

Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Chair.

I'd ask all colleagues to allow the chair to recognize them before they enter into any form of debate or intervention in the committee, if that's possible, so that we can move ahead with our business, as we all want to do. Our colleague Mr. Genuis also expressed in his initial remarks that he wants to move into studies and whatnot, for us to be productive and do the work we need to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

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

May I have the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Is it a point of order?

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

Yes.

I think it's interesting that Mr. Oliphant is providing rationale for the chair's decision. I think the chair is perfectly capable of providing that rationale himself.

To respond to Mr. Oliphant, who made substantive arguments with respect to this, the chair was presented with a motion, which the chair allowed. The previous chair allowed it. The same thing happened at the status of women committee. The same thing happened at the immigration committee. Those are three different committees that I know of where three different chairs, in two out of three cases.... Those were members elected within the government party—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Mr. Genuis, I believe you're engaging in debate once again.

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

Respectfully, Chair, I'm responding to Mr. Oliphant. Continuously, he is allowed to finish his remarks, and I'm being told I'm engaging in debate when I'm offering a more limited response to Mr. Oliphant's argument.

It's a new day with a new chair. There are some things that are happening here and I want to make sure that I'm afforded the same opportunities as Mr. Oliphant to be able to make arguments with respect to procedure. I think all members from all parties should be treated fairly and given those same opportunities, regardless of whatever different staffers are hoping to see.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis.

I have to say that I very much agree with you that all members should be treated fairly. However, as it was noted, the previous chair did not render a ruling on this issue, so no ruling was made by the previous chair.

In this particular instance, having had an opportunity to refer to the rules, I have made a ruling.

Is it your intention to challenge my ruling?

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

Mr. Chair, before I make a decision on that, I'd like to get some advice from the clerk, if that's acceptable.

Is it acceptable for a member to ask the clerk for advice on a matter?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

For me to ask—

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

No, for a member to ask the clerk for advice on the record.

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

Ask for a suspension.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Do you want to ask for a suspension?

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

Would you grant a suspension to consult on this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Yes—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm happy to listen to the question and to the clerk's response, so that we can perhaps get on with it.

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

I'm not agnostic in general, but I'm agnostic on this matter, whether you want to suspend or I can pose my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Do you want to pose the question to the chair, and I will undertake to consult with the clerk?

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

I'm sorry. Is the clerk going to be able to respond to the committee, or are you going to consult with her and then tell us your interpretation of the response?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

We will ensure that the clerk can speak to every member of the committee.

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

Okay, wonderful. Thank you.

I wonder if the clerk can highlight any precedents that she's aware of with respect to the issue of suspension with a condition. In particular, can the clerk share information about how committees are typically guided by historic practice, as well as by the interpretation of written rules?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ali Ehsassi]

Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I can speak to this a little bit.

In this committee in particular, the adjournment motion with a condition has been used in the past. One of the recent examples I can think of is during the meeting of May 5, when there was a motion on the floor and our Tibetan delegation was here. You moved to adjourn debate on the motion until the questioning of the witnesses was completed. That would be another such example of what we had before us.

Now, it is up to the committee to decide which way they would like to run their own proceedings. They do that within the framework that is provided to them by the Standing Orders of the House and House of Commons Procedure and Practice. If a committee finds a practice that it likes and it is able to continue with that practice within that same framework, then it's completely up to the committee to decide whether or not they will continue with that practice.

If there is a question as to whether or not that practice is contrary to the rules of procedure set out by the House of Commons, which is a higher procedural authority, it is then raised in a point of order. It's up to the chair to determine whether or not that practice should continue.

I can address a little bit about precedents from one committee to the other, if you like.

Precedents within the House of Commons chamber are very important because there is only one chamber. While there are multiple committees, precedents from one committee to the next generally do not transfer because the committees are masters of their own proceedings. You cannot say, on the one hand, that you're the master of your own proceeding, but you're also tied down to the precedents that happened in not your own committee, if that makes sense.