Mr. Chair, I have had the opportunity to talk to Mr. Dorion today to make him aware of my concerns with those different motions.
I might probably support the first one but I have some difficulty with the second and third ones. That being said, I indicated that I would listen to the comments of the members of this committee before finalizing my decision.
However, I have a major concern. During the four years that I have been a member of this committee, we have always tried to find a consensus. Some of the issues dealt with in those motions--I speak on my behalf, not on behalf of my party--are a little outside our jurisdiction. The main mandate of our committee is to look at international issues and to express our concerns relating to human rights issues.
In a way, this motion destroys the consensus existing within the committee. We are not like the other committees which always try attacking the government. We try to work together. I believe that Mr. Sweet also had a proposal suggesting that we set up a meeting with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in order to know why it decided to close three different offices.
We could still keep the motion. We would finalize our decision for or against the motion after hearing the Commission. If it had no reasons, if we still had some concerns and still deplored their decision, we would still be able to vote for your motion, myself included.
However, there was a possibility to reach a consensus. I mean that a suggestion had been made that would perhaps allow us to come to a consensus. Why not accept that suggestion? I find it quite reasonable. At the end of the day, we could all reach the objective of your motion. There was a suggestion, and I believe you did not clearly indicate if you approved it or not. I know that you were suggesting to replace the word “denounces” by the word “deplores”, which is good, but have you thought about moving your motion later, after having heard the Commission? That is the answer we need.