Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I guess there are a couple of things here.
The first is that I think Mr. Battiste just made a very reasonable suggestion, which was to help facilitate a conversation with colleagues around the table with the ministers. That would allow us to bypass the rigidity of the structure that we often have during witness testimony at committee. If the intent is genuinely to engage in a conversation, then the ability to do that is there.
If the desire is to have ministers in front of the camera and to take partisan shots, then that's a different story. Ministers, I'm sure, would be happy to reappear in front of the committee during the study of this legislation, for example. However, I take some opposition to the assertions here, which I think you referenced in your ruling a few moments ago, Mr. Chair, that there is a difference between not liking the answers to questions that you ask and getting answers from the ministers.
On a technicality, Mr. Chair, as you may know, I'm the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, so I was a bit curious about the admissibility of this particular motion, not by virtue of the fact that it was introduced outside of committee business or the relevancy of the discussion at hand, but more so that it asks for the committee to compel ministers. I've checked with the law clerks here. There is nothing in a standing order that gives a committee the power to compel a minister to appear. If my colleagues in opposition can point to the standing order or the precedent that exists to allow for that to occur, I'd love to hear it.
In the absence of that—and perhaps we're getting there—my suggestion would be that we very quickly move to amend the motion as is in order to make it admissible, in my view, and in line with what the Standing Orders allow a committee to undertake vis-à-vis the inviting of witnesses. If not, then my suggestion would be—and I'll come back to the mic if necessary—that we adjourn the conversation so that we can get on with the very important business of leveraging the expertise and the guidance of our officials, who are here to help us undertake the study on Bill C-61, which matters very much to all of us.
Again, my hope is that we can very quickly amend this and make it consistent with Standing Orders that currently exist. Otherwise, I would recommend to my colleagues that we adjourn debate on this, and if not, then I would like to get a ruling from our law clerks, who just so happen to be here today because of the study on Bill C-61, to clarify for us whether the motion, as currently written, is actually legitimate insofar as it is asking the committee to do something it is not actually within its rights to do.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.