Evidence of meeting #3 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 americans.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
No, it hasn't. The House rose. We had, like, five minutes to talk about it and it was over.
It's the same with the Khadr report. I'll just say, quite frankly, if you want to withdraw the Khadr report from that, I don't know...fine, but I thought....
These three items were items that the previous foreign affairs committee had worked on, had passed, and had just gotten to the House before we recessed.
So that's the intent. Just so you know, that's why that's there. It's not about doing extra work. It's not about delaying us. It's actually finishing the work that this committee had done in the last Parliament.
I think it's important that this committee does its work and that it also finishes the job. The job, as you know, is not just the work here; it's also sending it to the Commons. If we don't do that, then we're working on another planet. It actually wastes our time.
So those three items I've brought back simply to clean up, to do mop-up.
On the second item, I'm happy to fold that in, Bob or anyone else, to the work that we're going to do. The issue I put down here, on resolutions 1325 and 1820, is something the government signed onto and is actually doing work on. This isn't playing gotcha. This is actually, in light of what we had talked about at committee, when I was bringing up the Congo and Darfur, the role of Canada...as a resolution that was passed, 1325, which is the role of women in peacekeeping, and 1820, which actually goes further and prescribes how to do that.
Instead of saying we should take a country, I was wanting to apply these principles, which we've passed in the UN, and take a look at it. But I'm happy to fold that into the approach that we'd taken at the steering committee.
No problem; if that's...but I just want to make sure that's part of our study. If we're trying to actually move this along, fine. But these other two items, as I said to Mr. Obhrai, he helped amend, in the case of CSR, to the liking of the government, I assume, at the time. It's simply to make sure that these two items, along with the Afghanistan report, get out of this committee to Parliament. We never had that opportunity, because the House rose.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I'm rather in favour of referring these motions to the steering committee for its consideration. That body could then look at the motions and recommend if some should be brought back before the full committee. We could consider Mr. Obhrai's motions, in particular. At least six of the eight, or five of the seven motions do not deal with urgent matters, but rather topics that we will be examining in the course of our larger study. Normally, the steering committee could have decided that the motion on the Arctic would be integrated when this matter came up for discussion. However, this does not preclude the possibility of other motions or urgent matters.
For instance, the conflict in Sri Lanka is an urgent matter. We could decide to hold one or two meetings to discuss the situation. We're trying to decide how the committee will proceed. If we are confronted with a stack of motions every week, then we will spend all of our time dealing with them and we won't be doing any in-depth studies. However, we could agree to send the motion to the steering committee for further consideration of how it ties in with our larger study. If the motion does not tie in, then it can be referred back to the full committee for debate. This approach would help us filter out a number of issues.
The Arctic is already one of the topics on our agenda, along with the United States and Africa. There are two motions pertaining to international cooperation. The steering committee could also look at whether international cooperation should be part of our study and if so, when it should be on the table for discussion. I'm not sure if we need to move a motion, but in any case, I think we should refer these motions to the steering committee and await its recommendation to the full committee. That way, we will potentially be saving the full committee many hours of fruitless additional debate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I know there are different reasons why people bring forward motions. I remember back in 2001-02 the NDP had an individual who was very good at bringing forward motions, leaving them there so that he could get his media and everything else set up, and then at the right time bring them forward. So those are the reasons, and they're politically sound. It makes sense. But sometimes it's frustrating.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Members are still free to table motions, but at least there would be a process in place to determine if a particular motion on the table ties in with the larger study.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I agree with you, but what it does is that everything being vetted takes the opportunity away from some other MP. If they really have an issue they want to put forward, the steering committee can vet it all and it can hamper them doing it. So it's a warning.
I think we have to try to do something—you're right—but there's a caution here as well.
Mr. Abbott.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
In the spirit that I think we're getting to here, I certainly agree with Mr. Rae.
If I may, with your indulgence, Chair, just refer to the next motion by way of illustration—I don't want to debate the motion. The point that Mr. Dewar himself made is the fact that this is a work in progress. He may be unhappy or dissatisfied with the progress the government is making, but nonetheless the government is already undertaking work on those two resolutions. So this motion wouldn't lead to any new policy. It just would reflect on what we've done, and if we were trying to create an aura here, we'd probably say yes, let's have it, because it would put us in very good stead.
I'm afraid I'm not very good at procedure, and I don't know how to phrase this, but my suggestion would be that if we could set these aside.... I don't want to use what I think is the appropriate word, because that shuts off all debate. But if we could set these aside, I think there is a great deal of interest in Mr. Obhrai's second motion on the back of the English page, in any event. I think there is a lot of interest on the part of all people on the committee and a sense of goodwill toward doing a study on Sri Lanka, because it's so urgent.
I don't want to use—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I understand what you're saying here, except that we can't do that. We are debating the motion that's been put forward. Mr. Dewar has every right to bring forward that motion.
Mr. Rae.
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
I'm just saying this as a factual matter, but we agreed that we would resubmit the report on Afghanistan to the House and the reason for that was because it didn't report until the summer, until we were adjourned as a committee. Is that right?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
That's correct. Every report there has been tabled in the House.
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It was in July, because the House had risen. We had passed a motion--
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
That's my point. My point is the House wasn't sitting.
I think the House was sitting for the--
Conservative
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
That's the difference. So I would argue, Paul--just to niggle about it--that the difference between the Afghanistan report and the other reports is that they were reported to the House. They are there. People can refer to them. We adopted them. You and I referred to the Khadr report, Mr. Crête, at the press conference this morning. It exists.
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
The difference with Afghanistan is the House wasn't in session. We were on summer recess, so we never really had an opportunity. There is the argument that not everybody accepted it, but at least we got it through, so that's going forward.
I don't see the parallel with the other cases.