Yes, Madam McDonough.
Evidence of meeting #15 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lebanon.
Evidence of meeting #15 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was lebanon.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
I'd like to make a totally friendly suggestion, to be helpful. I suggest that it remain as it's worded, “across the Israeli-Lebanese border”, but that “as expressed by the Blue line” be added, in brackets.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Martin, are you still all right with this as a friendly amendment to your amendment?
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
I did, but if somebody else wants to go one step ahead of me, that's okay.
5:20 p.m.
The Clerk
We haven't started a new list yet.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Again, I'm very concerned about what we're doing here. We are trying to achieve something more constructive and more in step with the international sphere, that would give our statement greater weight. In the spirit of trying to work towards that, what I'd like to do is suggest that we consider, as an alternative, the wording adopted today by the European Union--that's 25 countries.
I know that Madame Lalonde, Madame McDonough, and members of the official opposition have all talked about the importance of working together with the international community and not having Canada isolated. Perhaps the best way for us to do that is to go with the wording that came out of the European Union today.
August 1st, 2006 / 5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
But Mr. Van Loan, is this a major change to the amendment we're dealing with?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Right now, I'm offering this up in the spirit of consensus, in the hope that everybody can embrace this. I may have to introduce the wording as a formal amendment, if it comes to that, but I would hope that in the spirit of consensus, everyone could rally around it. It would be: “The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs calls for”--and this is the wording the European Union used--“an immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire”. That wording is out there right now and has been endorsed by the European Union, which represents 25 countries.
I think Canada's adoption of that wording would achieve what you are looking for in terms of an immediate end to hostilities and in terms of immediate action to protect lives. It would also achieve the long-term sustainability we're looking for.
I'll read it again. In this case, it would be: “The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs calls for an immediate end to hostilities to be followed by a sustainable ceasefire”. So if there is an appetite among the opposition to lend our voice to that of the European Union, that might be a way to go on this.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
As the person who introduced this amendment to Madame Lalonde's motion, I would say no. We have a good amendment--an amendment that's constructive and that can make a difference--and we should really get on with the business of voting on it so that we can move forward.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Obhrai, were you signalling?
Mr. Van Loan, were you prepared to move a subamendment?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
I will now move it as a subamendment. What is the first word in that? The way the subamendment would work is that with regard to the current conflict--
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Maria Mourani Bloc Ahuntsic, QC
Mr. Chairman, I understood you to say earlier that we were discussing the member's proposed amendment. Why all of a sudden is there a sub-amendment on the table? We could be here until midnight debating sub-amendments. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, something isn't right here. We were discussing the proposed amendment to the motion. We've already discussed and rejected a Conservative Party sub-amendment. Now we're on to the proposed amendment. We could continue for some time dealing with sub-amendments. I think this is highly irregular, even though I'm not a procedural expert.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I'll tell you what, I don't have any degrees in procedure, but I'm sitting next to someone who does. Basically, what we are told is that once the subamendment fails and you go back to the amendment, you can bring forward another subamendment and debate it. So if Mr. Van Loan decides to move another subamendment, Mr. Van Loan can bring it forward.
Yes, Madame Lalonde.
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Can I get these learned individuals to understand that this is a major change. We're going from a ceasefire to a cessation of hostilities, not to mention everything else. This is more than a mere sub-amendment. It's a complete rewrite of the amendment.
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
It is an amendment to the amendment. It's not a full-frontal change. It's bringing forward the wording that the European Union adopted today and putting it into the motion we have here.
Mr. Martin, go ahead, please.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
With all due respect, Mr. Chair, this particular subamendment does change the amendment quite significantly, and it should be submitted by Mr. Van Loan as a motion if he wants to do that. But his so-called subamendment is not a subamendment at all; it is an entirely different motion, and if he wishes to exercise his rights to do that, then he's free to do that and give this committee 48 hours' notice.