Evidence of meeting #31 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 afghanistan.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
In that case, Mr. Martin, do you have the friendly amendment there? Can you read the friendly amendment into the record?
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
The joyously friendly amendment to Mr. Wilfert's motion is that the committee hear from witnesses from Foreign Affairs and Finance on Tuesday, November 28; and that the committee commence and complete clause-by-clause on the bill on Wednesday, November 29; and that the amendments of the government be submitted to the clerk by Monday, November 27; and that the government witnesses on Tuesday have prepared written text, relevant to Bill C-293, that will be submitted to the committee no later than Monday, November 27.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Martin, I guess I'm a little disappointed, because that certainly does not reflect the discussions we had just previous to the former meeting.
Most of what we talked about was the concern that the government come with all their amendments before we hear from the final two committees. I don't think that's doable. If we have our amendments ready on the Tuesday after we hear from them, so that everyone will get them that night, right after the meeting, then that's doable. But to say to come with our amendments before we've heard from the final two committees certainly is not the way that I would suggest this committee start proceeding. If we're going to, there's a bigger problem down the road. For the set of amendments to be tabled, here they are even before you hear a department, I think that's problematic.
Mr. Menzies.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I would agree with that. That was certainly the discussion that I was part of. I think we need to remember that we're all here to try to make this bill, if it passes, the best it can be. I think that's our job as parliamentarians: to make sure this is the best it can be, because if it passes and it becomes law, then we want to make sure it's going to do the right things and that it's not going to provide the wrong direction in wanting to do what we need to do.
I think we're all here wanting to do the right thing. But to expect witnesses to come from Finance and Foreign Affairs to provide the input after they've given us the suggested amendments...I would suggests that's the cart before the horse.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
With the greatest respect to Mr. Menzies, these amendments are already written. They've already been in translation. There's not a doubt in my mind that this bill has gone through all three departments. If the motion goes through, we are committing ourselves to a specific date by which we will have dealt with the amendments and with the bill itself. It's not unreasonable for the opposition to at least have a look at the amendments in the context of whatever the department officials might say. Presumably, if they're just here for commentary, that's fine. They can have their commentary, but amendments are where it's at.
I appreciate that it's slightly out of order, but the commitment to have clause-by-clause by Wednesday, having essentially wasted yesterday with a mishmash presentation, is not unreasonable. If the government does in fact have amendments, put them on the table. We can talk about them, and we can talk about them with officials who can actually answer questions, as opposed to yesterday.
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
5:50 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
With regard to the amendments, I can understand some desire to see them in advance. I'm going to make a suggestion that I have no authority to make.
The problem is that we're asking witnesses to appear. The point is to test their evidence. The point is to hear what they have to say. Believe it or not, they may get some benefit from our questioning as well.
If the suggestion is that they submit their amendments without prejudice to bringing further amendments after the evidence, then I think that might be a reasonable common ground. Is that something people can live with, the idea of amendments without prejudice to bringing additional amendments afterwards? Otherwise, the whole process of taking evidence is a joke. Everybody has made up their minds and we aren't doing serious work.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I'd also like to see their written submissions on Monday. It's not unreasonable to ask for witnesses to have their presentations. That was the problem yesterday.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I've already talked about that former one. It could have been a lot better if there had been a written presentation. There wasn't. We can't say with certainty, but certainly we can encourage the two departments to come with written recommendations, a written version of what they're going to say.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
Could we just go through the amendment to make sure we have what Mr. Van Loan was—
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Yes, and I want to speak to that too.
Mr. Martin, with due respect, there are a couple of things that disappoint me in this, in that what we talked about is not reflected in that amendment. You have the right to do that. But for you to say that we commence and conclude that day, I think....
We will have this report well before Christmas. If we have to bring in another meeting, we're still open to doing that, because there's a motion. But in terms of saying we're going to start and conclude, we made it very clear that was not what we were willing to look at.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
What's the amendment? I don't have the text of the actual motion. I'm just trying to get it down.
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
I'll state it again. The first part is fine: that the committee hear from witnesses from Foreign Affairs and from Finance on Tuesday, November 21. Nobody has any problem with that, right?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
The second part is that the committee commence and complete clause-by-clause on the bill on Wednesday, the 29th--
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
--that the amendments of the government be submitted to the clerk by Monday night, the 27th--
5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
--without prejudice to the bringing of additional amendments following the evidence of the witnesses on November 28.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
November 22nd, 2006 / 5:55 p.m.
Liberal
Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC
And that the government witnesses, on Tuesday, have prepared written texts relevant to Bill C-293 that will be submitted to the committee members prior to Monday, the 27th.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
I have a question about other amendments. Are you talking about the government's amendments that may come out of the department, or anything else that may occur to us when we're sitting there doing clause-by-clause?
5:55 p.m.
Liberal