Yes, so it's all pertinent and relevant.
Now we have the motion here by Mr. Dewar:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development report to the House the following recommendations; that the government adopt the recommendations put forward in the Advisory Group Report: National Roundtables on Corporate Social Responsibility and the Canadian Extractive Industry in Developing Countries, and that the government announces its proposals for the implementation of the Report's recommendations.
Well, why would that one be bumped? Why would we move reports ahead of that one? Why would we move motions ahead of the motions that this member already has in place?
We also have a motion here:
That, this committee recognizes that the situation in Sudan is a genocide, and reports to the House the recommendations that the government recognizes the crisis in Darfur as a genocide.
Well, is that not a timely issue too? Is that not an important issue? Why would we move that one aside in deference to another motion put forward here? So why are we doing this? Why are we wanting to ignore a well-meaning motion, one that is certainly long overdue in recognizing the crisis in Darfur and is important to the international community?
Now we have another one:
That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs recognizes that Members of Parliament should decide whether or not Canada joins the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership and reports to the House the recommendation that Members of Parliament hold a debate and vote before Canada joins the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Well, that's another important international issue and something that Canada can take great pride in. I think Canada and the Ukraine are the two countries in the world who have not subscribed to nuclear arms and have given up nuclear arms. So it's quite relevant here. So I again ask the question, why are we asking that one motion move ahead of this one? Does this one not have relevance for discussion in the committee here today?
And then there's a motion on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
That the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs reports to the House of Commons and it endorses the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 September 2007 and calls upon the Parliament and Government of Canada to implement fully the standards contained therein.
Once again, we have another motion from the same member. Are we to say that we're moving all of these motions aside for one particular one that has just come in? Once again, I'm saying that we've gone through the process of putting these on the agenda and bringing them forward. Now should we just move all of them aside when there are other alternatives than just moving this particular member's report forward?
Now we have another motion here from the member across, Mr. Martin:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development calls upon the Minister of International Cooperation to appear before the Committee to discuss Canada's International Development Program in Afghanistan.
Once again, this is something that is broad-ranging—and certainly more questions can be asked of a broad selection of particulars from the minister. And why would we move an all-encompassing motion and set it aside to have a narrowly focused motion replace it? Once again, you have to ask the question, why would we move a motion ahead of that particular motion, which is a much broader motion and much more encompassing motion, from which you could have more material benefits for the committee as a whole?
And then we have a motion from Mr. Khan:
That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, in light of the importance of Pakistan to our security, that the Committee invite departmental officials and other experts to provide updated analysis of the situation in Pakistan....