Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 27th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

It's CHRC's own decision. All right. So then it's to withdraw the motion until such time as we've had the CHRC come as a witness before us. That's what the motion is. I didn't word it very elegantly, but you all know what it is.

Do we have unanimous consent to do that? I'll just go around the room and find out if everybody is in agreement.

Mr. Dorion, you are the key one. Are you agreeable to that?

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

There will not be any unanimous consent. Some explanations have already been provided by the government in the House. As parliamentarians, we are quite aware of those explanations. On the other hand...

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I was actually just looking for a yes or no. Thank you. We'll now find out what we have to do in the event that we don't have unanimous consent.

One option at this point, then, would be to propose an amendment to the motion calling for a witness. But it actually won't work, because that implies....

All right. We will continue debating the motion. Essentially we're back to debating it, and we'll continue to do so until there are no more people who want to speak to it and someone calls the question.

Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Doesn't a motion of deferral go first, before the motion? Somebody has asked for deferral.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

But our clerk told us we need unanimous consent for that.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

For deferral?

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

You didn't have unanimous consent, so you now have to move to a vote.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

But the motion of deferral always goes before the main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

What's the answer to that, Julie?

I'm sorry I don't have these things at the tip of my tongue. However, I want to do it right.

If this were one of the committees where everybody fights all the time, I'd have the answer through experience of these things, but you've all been so nice up until now that I've been able to get away with not being as conversant as I ought to be in such matters.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

A motion to table is not debatable unless there are instructions with the motion. If there are instructions with the motion, only the instructions are debatable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Mr. Marston, I don't think anybody has actually made a motion to table.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Well, you see, that's the thing with the way the motion was put by Mr. Sweet. That's why I was asking if it was a motion to table or defer, because if it's a motion to table, it becomes entirely different. If it's a motion to defer....

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Okay. If he makes a motion to table, we then simply have a vote, with no debate on the—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Unless he has instructions, because if his motion to table has instructions about bringing witnesses, then you get to debate those instructions. So we're into a debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Right. Okay.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

The outcome is what we're after here, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

I agree. Let's see if we—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Can I offer one more thing?

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Yes, you may.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

There's another wording that I spoke of a few minutes ago that might be palatable to people, without witnesses—if it's not, that's fine—where you have the word “denounce”. If this committee “expressed its very serious concerns” with the decision to close, without assigning guilt or anything, and if the mover of the motion is amenable to it, that might resolve it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We got rid of the word “denounce” already.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes, but “deplore”.... What I'm trying to do is to make the motion acceptable to the government side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

So effectively you're suggesting an amendment—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Yes, that would change it from “deplore” to “that the committee express its very serious concern with the decision”.

We're not assigning guilt to anybody in this at that point, but we're expressing those concerns plus the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

All right. We can find out whether that's agreeable to Mr. Sweet and Mr. Hiebert.

What do you think of Mr. Marston's suggestion?