Evidence of meeting #14 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was discuss.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Yes, the issue has been here, but the motion to all of a sudden invite him to our standing committee is a fairly substantive motion. It's not something we've discussed, to invite him to our committee. This is different; that's why we're having this discussion.
I have Mr. Obhrai, and then Mr. Rae.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Mr. Chair, the steering committee has all these motions that we've put forward to study that are of more importance. We have the Arctic motion, and we have the Sri Lankan one. We have all these things that we've brought forward.
All of a sudden, at the last minute, because it is politically expedient, you have put forward a motion, and you want to jump ahead of all the others. Saying that we are pulling something is not a matter of fact.
Let me just say, Mr. Chair, that in his motion, Paul wants to call the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. When that motion comes forward among all the other motions that have been brought forward, only then can he bring forward this motion to be part of the discussion.
I do not see any argument at all that today we have to drop everything else and go to his motion because it's his expedient matter, an issue that he has been fighting in the House of Commons. I do not see why the foreign affairs committee should suddenly drop everything. Why would I agree now to bring a motion forward that is at the bottom?
Yesterday I offered him a compromise, and I'm offering him compromise now: that tomorrow we can discuss this, and then on Wednesday we will decide what has been discussed at the steering committee and has come through, before we put it on the committee agenda. But there is no way I am going to agree to a motion being brought forward that is at the bottom and is a matter of political expediency and move everything else, including his own study of Mr. Judd, on which he wants to talk about the issue of Abdelrazik. Ideally, this motion should be included in that study, when it comes before the committee.
So it is not possible for us to agree to this. I'm going to turn that back to you. We can discuss this tomorrow in camera and then proceed from there.
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
As I understand it, we are being asked to vote on a proposal from Paul that the motion, which is at the end, should be brought up at the beginning. This is a two-step procedure, isn't it? We're not being asked today to vote on the substance of the motion; we're being asked to vote today on a procedural motion that says that because of what's happened....
I just want to be clear as to what we're actually debating. Am I right?
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
So if we vote for this motion today, it doesn't mean that the substantive motion passes. It just means that it will be the next motion to be considered.
I would be in favour of that.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
I have concern about this as, first of all, jumping the queue. But also, if this is a sensitive issue, and if there are considerations to be discussed that it's necessary or desirable to discuss in camera, and if it's simply holding this motion up for another day or two to discuss it properly, I think it would be not appropriate to pass judgment on this motion at this time, for a number of reasons. Clearly, if there's an indication of concern about its nature, we should have a discussion in camera—in confidence—first, and the steering committee meeting is only a day or two days away.
I don't see why we wouldn't take that appropriate step: take it to the steering committee, where you can have the discussion in camera on how confidential or how sensitive it might be. Quite frankly, I have no idea upon whom this might impact, whether this person or other people, or what the nature of the confidentiality is that it is sought to discuss. I think it should be taken to the steering committee to have that confidential discussion, if it's to be.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
We have two options. The first option is a motion to adjourn, which would have to pass our committee. The second option is a vote on this motion, on which debate is still open. We have those options right now.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
The first option is a motion to adjourn, which has to pass. And let me just say that if we adjourn, the intention, then, is that this goes to steering committee tomorrow at nine o'clock in the morning. All right?
The other option is that we move towards a vote on Mr. Dewar's motion, on which debate can be endless.
So summing this thing up, we have a motion to adjourn, with this going to steering committee, or, putting it quite frankly, the option of a filibuster--the option to continue debate on it--or a third option, the option to have the vote. But you can't have the vote without unlimited debate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Yes, that means we would go to the vote. You'd have to shut down for the vote.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Mr. Chair, if I may, Mr. Obhrai asked that we bring this to steering committee. Fine. I'm just asking that the vote, as Mr. Rae pointed out, be on just the consideration of this motion at committee. It's simple. I'm not talking about adopting the motion.
If we can just vote on that, we don't have to get into the scenario, which you were kind of leading us to, of people perhaps running clocks, and so on.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Well, we don't know until we ask. So I'm asking that we call the question to be voted on.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
No, I'm not ready to call the question, because there's still a speakers list here. That's the point. That is the option we have.
I haven't heard a motion to adjourn.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Are we all in favour of a motion to adjourn and bring this to steering committee tomorrow?
(Motion negatived)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Now we'll go back to debate of the motion to bring this forward to first on priority.
Go ahead, Ms. Brown.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
It's a matter of process for me, Mr. Chair. I'm new to the committee. I didn't realize that anybody could bring a motion forward at any time, and I'm really asking what's going on. I thought we had something of a list of topics we were going to be discussing. My understanding was that the Arctic was an issue we were very concerned about.
I sit on the committee for transport and infrastructure. We have just gone through clause-by-clause debate of the legislation to extend the Arctic waters. There has been considerable discussion in the House today, with representations from all parties, on issues related to infrastructure in the north. It would seem to me that this is an area of focus for us. I'm wondering how it is that we can move so easily off our agenda on to another issue that really hasn't been put forward before and that I would think should be part of a larger discussion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Ms. Brown.
Just to clarify a couple of things, you're correct. When motions are brought forward, they are brought forward in an order, but we do allow the movement of motions forward. The reason for that is that there may be motions put in place that are time-sensitive, and the mover doesn't want to discuss them right at this moment. There is a problem with that. We're seeing that here. Once someone gets the number one spot, it always has to go through them. So there's never any movement to get out of that spot once you're there. That can be a real problem. However, the part about bringing motions forward is that it takes not a unanimous vote but a vote of the majority to bring that forward. I think that's fair. Otherwise, it could sit on the bottom of the pile forever.
So that is an option, and Mr. Dewar is employing it now, and it's in order.
We have Mr. Goldring.
