Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
It's our first real meeting. I didn't mention this when I spoke a few moments ago, but it's a relevant point and I hope Mr. Genuis doesn't take it the wrong way. Surprise motions are just that, surprise motions. When we had that occur in the previous session, there were members around the table who didn't go for that. It never really served this committee when we had those sorts of motions come up like that out of nowhere, as they have today.
In any case, we're here, and as I said before—colleagues on the Liberal side have echoed this—there's no intent here to push this aside. What has been suggested is that we leave it for the clerk to look at and then come back and discuss further.
For example, if you look at the text of Standing Order 106(4), while the word “committees” is used, “special committees” is not used at all. For that reason, I feel uncomfortable in supporting what Mr. Genuis has suggested. We have to be completely onside when it comes to parliamentary convention and protocol. While the motion Mr. Genuis has put forward here today does merit a close look, analysis and debate, I'm not sure we're in a position to comment on it without the full analysis given to it by someone who's an expert on these things, and that would be the clerk.
Mr. Genuis has said that including something like this was the intention of the Conservatives when they first put the motion forward in Parliament to create a special committee to analyze Canada-China relations. We cannot analyze intentions. It's a guessing game if we get into that. We have to analyze facts. What stands out to me is that Standing Order 106(4) does not say anything about special committees. For that reason we have to leave it in the hands of the clerk.
I would ask Mr. Genuis if he would respectfully be open to taking back his motion, taking it off the table and reintroducing it at such time when we have had the clerk look into the matter. We can then debate it based on what she finds is appropriate and in order.