Mr. Chair, regarding my colleague's amendment, we know quite well that the Standing Committee on Official Languages has no authority over parliamentary associations. This includes the Canada‑United Kingdom Inter‑Parliamentary Association, to which the Bloc Québécois belongs, and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, to which it also belongs. Incidentally, I find this a bit odd, because it relates to the King. However, that's the Bloc Québécois' issue, not mine.
I'll get back to the amendment. A committee doesn't vote on the workings of parliamentary associations. The Standing Committee on National Defence, for example, never votes on the workings or membership of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly or any other association. The same applies to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. Committees don't vote on the workings of parliamentary associations. The members of these associations do so.
When this motion was moved, some members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages weren't even members of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. They wanted to vote on the workings of an association to which they didn't even belong. You know that, at the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, the members can vote. Parliamentarians are free to decide whether to join the association.
Mr. Samson's amendment strikes me as reasonable. It makes the motion admissible, since the committee and you, Mr. Chair, don't have any authority over parliamentary associations. Mr. Samson's amendment addresses the inadmissible points that remain the subject of debate, since the opposition challenged your ruling that the motion was out of order.
In addition, the members of the Canadian section of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie will be voting on the issue this evening. If the Standing Committee on Official Languages wanted to vote on this issue, you could write to the clerk or the vice‑chair seated to my right. I think that this would be more reasonable than moving an inadmissible motion.
Lastly, I have a question. Is it reasonable to invite former federal election candidates to appear before parliamentary committees? I know that this isn't related to the amendment. However, it strikes me as a bit odd that this was done and that there wasn't any transparency.