Evidence of meeting #37 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 point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Montarville, QC
I must admit I expected that today we would continue the debate on turbines, which we had begun at the previous committee meeting. Instead, we have started to look at something else, which I am quite happy with, but will we have an opportunity to discuss things with the witnesses following their testimony, or will committee members continue to raise points of order, allegedly, when it is a matter of taking a position on what is happening at the moment?
If that is the case, we will all raise points of order to have the right to speak. There is an order for people who wish to speak, so let's follow it, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I believe this is a point of order. I believe it is, because Mr. Bergeron has suggested that we should, by the Standing Orders, continue with the debate that we ended with in our last meeting.
However, my understanding is that the meeting was adjourned. It was not suspended. Therefore, no, we can't continue with that debate.
This is truly a point of order. Maybe it's my only one, but it truly is a point of order to suggest to the chair to rule on whether or not Mr. Bergeron is right.
However, in my mind, the meeting was adjourned. Therefore, the agenda of today's meeting is as it was in the calendar and approved by this committee, as opposed to the continuation of a debate.
I think what I just said is correct.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
That is absolutely correct, Mr. Oliphant. The last meeting was adjourned and all the members....
Mr. Genuis, you can't move a point of order when you're sitting there as a witness, as you're fully aware.
That being the case, Mr. Oliphant, you are absolutely correct, and the motion that was first brought is inadmissible.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
That's fair enough. I accept your decision on that, but I read a second motion in place of the [Inaudible—Editor].
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Sure it does. It's a different motion.
The motion is to proceed to the consideration of the motion of Garnett Genuis moved on Monday, November 14—
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I said it on the mike. It's probably in the blues. If you want to go check it, go ahead.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
No. If no one's heard it, you can't now change the rules and say, “I had another motion that no one has heard here”, and say on that basis, we're allowed to—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Mr. Genuis, you have not been recognized to speak. You are a witness today.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I move that the committee proceed to consideration of the motion that Garnett Genuis moved on Monday, November 14.
For Mr. Oliphant, that's the Gazprom motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ali Ehsassi
Fine. We'll go to a vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Thank you very much.
We will now resume with our—
Conservative
November 16th, 2022 / 5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair, and I indulge the committee. It's always good to have a healthy debate. That's what makes our democracy so great.
Senator—
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Exactly right, Ms. Fry. What they're here to do is follow the rules, and I'm glad to do that. Win or lose, we follow the rules, and that's something that makes our democracy great.
Senator, with regard to this piece of legislation, can you give a few examples of people who are impacted, as you did in your testimony, and how that impact reflects back into tourism coming out of Canada for harvesting of organs?
