Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I was waving on a related topic that we had at committee on Burma. There was a motion that I thought we had consensus to pass four or five meetings ago. I want to make sure: if the spirit of this committee is to deal with Madame Lalonde's motion in earnest, that's fine; I think there was a consensus on the Burma motion that we could table it and pass it.

What I'm looking for, if people are willing to support Madame Lalonde's motion, is that we read it and vote on it, and we could get to the Burma motion. That's all I'm pleading for.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madam Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Before we get to the Burma motion brought forward by Mr. Dewar, I brought forward a motion in May about the Burmese situation. I think it is incumbent on this committee to do that study before we go to the motion that was brought forward by Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

A point of order, Mr. Chair, on that note. My motion comes out of the intervention we had from the delegation, and it's very specific to that. Madam Brown's motion is like many of the other motions we have—they're good motions. If you go back to the list, I actually have the next one up from February 2, so the Burma motion was very tailored to the presentation we had at committee. That's why I'm referring to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

Mr. Abbott, and then Ms. Brown.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

This is a very interesting discussion. If I understand what the clerk is telling us, it is that if either Mr. Dewar's motion, which he is stating came out of the testimony of the people who represented the situation in Burma, or Ms. Lalonde's for Rights & Democracy had been raised specifically at that time, there still had to be unanimous consent of the committee to accept the motions. That's my first question. I'd like to continue my intervention, but I do need an answer to that question.

[The Clerk]

After the 48-hour notice—you're not talking—?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

No, I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that in the case of the Rights & Democracy testimony, if Ms. Lalonde had immediately, at that time, within seconds of the testimony, moved her motion, there still was the requirement for unanimous consent of the committee members.

[The Clerk]

The 48-hour period is waived and there's no need for unanimous consent if that's the matter under discussion at that meeting.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

But am I correct that there is a requirement for unanimous consent in order for the committee to debate and handle the motion if she has not given 48 hours? She can raise the issue because it's a motion coming out of the testimony, but she still requires unanimous consent to waive the 48 hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think the problem here is a definition. What we're defining as a substantive motion would have to be in 48 hours. A motion just coming out of a discussion doesn't need 48 hours. You have to do it then and you have to.... They can't take over a meeting with unlimited debate on an insubstantive motion. My point is on the definition of a substantive motion. I may be wrong here, and this is something that, again, I'll refer to you, but if we have substantive motions in the pool and if we move into a debate or a study somewhat related to that, does that give them the opportunity to withdraw that motion from anywhere in the pool? I'm not certain that it does.

Madame Lalonde.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think the clarifications are worth receiving for later work. But I believe we have before us a motion that can be approved now. We should vote on the motion immediately and ask for clarifications to be used later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have another committee meeting here. Unless people are willing to waive their debate...are you willing now to move directly into a vote on this motion without debate?

[A voice]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. So if we aren't willing to do that, again, we'll have to wait until another meeting. We're at 11 o'clock—

[A voice]

It's the second time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It's the second time, and it'll have to be a third time. I'm going to have a clearer definition on this. We are not trying to push this thing off. We'll just have the clerk come back with the definition.

I encourage you all. We have a meeting in room 209; the Israeli professor from Israel was here. We also have a lunch brought in supplied by this committee, so we have spoken about that and we hope all of you will go down to that.

We're adjourned.