I want to apologize in advance. I have always taken a view of these September whip reports, the PHA membership reports, which differ, apparently, from those of the Clerk of the House....
The Standing Orders of the House of Commons state very clearly that the committees continue live--I haven't got the wording--from session to session. That particular standing order was inserted for the purpose of.... It's a default mechanism to avoid any inference that a committee isn't in place or in session.
Since then, they've made a couple of modifications to try to buttress the view of the Clerk of the House. But it's still my view that this committee actually never ceased to exist, and the business that existed at its last meeting is the same business that continues in other meetings. And the chair who was the chair is still the chair. I would rely on that standing order for that purpose.
I haven't had anybody make the argument that this committee didn't exist one hour ago or three hours ago. In fact, the Standing Orders state very clearly that the committee does exist from session to session. So when the chair raises an item of business here at the meeting, it really is simply something that follows from the previous meeting. And if in the previous meeting there was business that rolled over to this one, then it would. But that's not the case. So the committee has absolutely no agenda.
If the committee didn't have any business, and there was none in the notice for today, then the points taken today are probably pretty well founded. But I had thought that there was business in the pipeline. If there wasn't, then there still isn't any. But if there isn't any, and we're going to adjourn, I think we'd better actually take steps to put some business in the pipeline.