Okay, members, let's find our seats.
Does everyone have a copy of Mr. Brison's motion?
As the chair, I'm going to explain what I'm going to do in the context. The motion and the context surrounding it have put the chair in a very difficult position. I hope you all know I try my best to be a very fair chair and to govern by the rules. I am going to rule a certain way on this motion, but I do want to give the context to the committee.
This motion does not technically satisfy the 48-hour notice requirement. The clerk advised Mr. Brison's office that the committee would require unanimous consent to allow a member other than Mr. Brison to move his motion, given that Mr. Brison would be absent today. Based on this advice, the office of Mr. Brison advised the clerk not to put the motion on notice for the meeting of Thursday, May 15.
But in fact if a member is properly signed in as a substitute for Mr. Brison, that member would indeed be allowed to move the motion. That was, I think, the McGrath committee recommendation in 1985. So a substitute enjoys the same rights and privileges as a regular member of a committee being replaced. Substitutes are counted for purposes of establishing a quorum, and they may participate in debate of motions and votes.
What happened here was that the motion does not technically satisfy the 48-hour requirement, but that is a result of incomplete advice from our clerk, unfortunately.
The notice of motion was originally sent to the clerk on Monday, which was within the 48-hour requirement, but because of the advice given and because of the action of Mr. Brison's office as a result of the advice, we do not have the 48-hour requirement fulfilled.
I am going to rule this motion out of order. Obviously, if the motion is ruled out of order, any member can appeal that decision. If the decision is not sustained, the motion would be debated and voted upon, and that's an option.
Another option is that committees can deal with motions at meetings while they travel. If we do travel the week of May 26, the motion could be debated in Winnipeg on May 27.
I want to give the context, I want to give options to members, and I want to explain why I'm ruling this way. The reason I'm ruling this way is that I accept fully that incorrect advice was given unbeknownst to me, but the advice was not given in bad faith. Technically it does not satisfy the 48-hour requirement, and I'm ruling the motion out of order for that reason.
Mr. Silva.