I suppose that's my major concern, that we're jumping the queue, calling for the minister on a narrowly focused issue when the minister could be brought forward in other circumstances on much broader issues. I think we have a responsibility to utilize in the best way possible the most efficient method for the time of the committee business. I don't think we should be jumping queues unnecessarily in situations such as this.
Certainly there are time-sensitive issues. We have a great number of outstanding motions here that are to be discussed, and which one of those should be moved forward because of a priority over the others?
Either we have an organized process to manage the business of the committee or not. I think it's the first prerequisite, particularly if we examine the nature of the motions themselves. As I said, I think we have that overarching responsibility to address the issues of importance and significance in an orderly fashion. If somebody brings forward a motion that is too narrowly focused, it takes time from the committee business. That is one reason.
The other one is that it should be an issue or a motion of importance that is of great significance to the committee, for the committee's time to be able to properly deal with it.
And then, what do we do with the other motions we have on this list, and how much time on our schedule over the next months do we have to go through them? I believe there are many motions here that have value, have significance, and should be accorded the proper amount of time of the committee. I fail to see that there is a great need to have this urgent requirement to push this one narrowly focused motion to the head of the agenda over all the other motions we have here, each one of them deserving the time and attention of the committee to individually address their concerns.
There are many issues throughout the world that are very important and very deserving of being brought forward to the committee, and most of those, unless there are absolutely urgent circumstances, should be dealt with in the orderly fashion of the committee's normal way of business.
I don't see that urgency on this motion, that great need to jump a queue. I think, rather than that, this really is just the opposite: it would be giving preferential treatment to what I would consider to be a more minor and narrowly focused, insignificant motion, compared with many of the other motions here.
Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty seeing the great need to bring this forward. I do not believe it has the sense of urgency, of immediacy that would warrant that type of queue-jumping, and I think it would be precedent-setting also to put this in the order of contents of what I would call important motions, when it is of a more minor nature than many of the others that are here. If you set this precedent to tie up committee time on the discussion and debates of minor motions, then we may not be able to get to the more major motions that are very deserving of the committee's attention and time.
So, Mr. Chairman, I do not support the bringing forward of this motion, and jumping the queue over the other ones, mainly because of its narrow focus of intent and also because there are many other issues here that should be discussed and have the appropriate time spent by this committee.