Evidence of meeting #1 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was motions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
If the government gets eight motions in first, we may never get a motion from the opposition.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Let me give you an example. A member could travel with a minister, be away for a full week travelling, and when he comes back there will no longer be any of his motions. That's what happens.
We'll leave it like it is right now and we'll see. It's always worked like this. The problem is, we cannot simply abandon, delete, or remove a motion of a member. I think it's a privilege for members to put a motion, and we cannot simply withdraw any of these motions because, for example, I don't like Mr. Allison's motion and he's not here today, so bump it. No. It's the privilege of the members to have motions.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
To clarify my thoughts, I appreciate Madam Barbot's concern about not having time to get to the motions. My thought was that if these were motions that were arbitrarily thrown on to the order of precedence and were not dealt with, or were not asked to be dealt with, they should be removed after two meetings if someone hasn't said, listen, we haven't been able to get to my motion and I would still like to get to it next week. I thought of this, as opposed to arbitrarily filling up the paper with all kinds of motions.
Once again, in my experience in HR, we had 30 motions that no one was talking about, yet we always had to bring them forward every week. This is not to say that people can't bring them back. This is not to say that if someone is going to be away they couldn't say, “I'm not going to be here next week to deal with it, but I'd like it to remain on.” This is dealing with motions that clearly are set there that the committee has no intention of dealing with at the present time. That would be my thought, just to balance that off.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I think from the opposition's point of view you should think about this, because even to say that they have to stay in the precedence in which they were submitted, I think you're defeating the point of a motion. If I'm simply going to sit with a motion here that I'm not going to bring forward for a long time, but we have to deal with it before we deal with this one from the opposition that is timely, it can tie your hands in some way.
So shall we leave it as is or what?
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
We'll take the risk that the government side is always going to be nice with us--no problem--and we're going to take that risk.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Maybe the language of “abandonment” isn't the right way to put it, but certainly the indication is to perhaps have some form of sunsetting to it so that when they do accumulate and there are too many of them there is a way of addressing it. Maybe not two meetings, but a specific period of time that will apply to them all so that you can start it over again.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
This may be something we can refer to the subcommittee if we see it is going to be a problem. We dealt with this during the last parliament because it was an issue.
Mr. Patry.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
If we're dealing with it after two or three weeks, the clerk could send a note to that member to see whether he wants to keep it on the order paper. If the member says he wants it or he doesn't want it, then you could deal with it at that time.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I don't think Mr. Goldring really made an amendment. All in favour of the way it is...? We have already passed that, haven't we? That was something totally new?
Is that something we want to vote on or not?
11:50 a.m.
A voice
Sure.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
We'll leave “abandonment” out:
That all motions shall be dealt with by the Committee within two weeks of the first meeting of being listed on the agenda as Committee business, failing which the motion shall be deemed withdrawn by the mover and shall be dispensed with and may no longer be subject to the Committee's consideration.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Let's say “shall be abandoned by the mover and shall be dispensed with”.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
11:50 a.m.
An hon. member
It said “shall be deemed”.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay. All in favour of Mr. Goldring's motion?
(Motion negatived)
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
That was a motion on its own.
The last one is the creation of a subcommittee on human rights and international development.
Mr. Wilfert.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Mr. Chairman, maybe my perception is incorrect, but I had a great deal of difficulty in the last session with regard to the subcommittee. The reasons are that none of us are on it and there was no liaison between the subcommittee and us. The difficulty was that they were doing things and suddenly we got calls on issues we were not aware of. It says that these are associate members of the committee. I would prefer that some member of this committee be on the subcommittee.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I was on the subcommittee and Madame St-Hilaire was on the subcommittee.
