Evidence of meeting #3 for National Defence in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
It would read like this: “Whereas the Standing Committee on National Defence is resolved to study Canada's mission in Afghanistan, be it moved that the minister be invited to appear...”.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
The clerk has pointed out something interesting here, that the only part of the motion that is procedurally acceptable to the committee is the part that states “...that the Minister be invited to appear before the Committee at its next meeting on Thursday, June 1st, or as soon as possible prior to the upcoming NATO Defence Ministers' meeting.”
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
It's not really allowed, I understand, from Beauchesne's and other rulings previously.
Are you all right with that, Mr. Khan? You're the mover.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Yes, everything, Ms. Black. The line that says “period of only one hour, be it moved”. From there where it starts: “...that the Minister be invited to appear before the Committee at its next meeting on Thursday, June 1st, or as soon as possible prior to the upcoming NATO Defence Ministers' meeting.”
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Okay, so it would just be, “that the minister be invited”.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Mr. Dosanjh, we're just working on your motion. It's been brought to our attention that the preamble and the conclusion are not acceptable in terms of procedural issues when presenting a motion to the committee. So we're going to take that out and make the motion.
Is there any further discussion on that?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
When is the meeting of the NATO defence ministers?
4:50 p.m.
A voice
Next week.
4:50 p.m.
A voice
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I suggest it would be a little difficult to pin the Minister of National Defence down, or any other minister, on a timeframe that short and compel the minister to appear here.
That is subject to his availability; obviously that's understood.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
I understand it's an invitation and that we can't compel any member, minister, or senator to be here on a certain date, but the invitation to appear would be there.
Mrs. Gallant.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Is there a theme that we would be having the minister on? We just asked some pretty exhaustive questions today.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
If I may, Mr. Chair, from my perspective, and I believe others may feel the same, I have not exhausted all of my questions. I had a list of about 15 questions related to Afghanistan. I'm sure others have questions.
I think it would be appropriate for the minister to be here. We were civil to him. I think it's important that we have a respectful debate, an exchange of ideas and questions and answers. That's the only intent I have. I want to be able to exhaust the questions I have, if at all possible.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
The understanding would be that his appearance would be under the same motion as the one under which he just appeared. It would be under the same premise.
Does that answer your question?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wajid Khan Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
The intent is to just have a better understanding; it's not anything different from what we've seen today.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Casson
Is there any other discussion?
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Dawn Black NDP New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC
Just on a point of clarification, if a motion is circulated and parts of it are out of order, would it not be a good idea for the committee clerk or someone else to let us know that ahead of time, instead of our fiddling around with it? If you're circulating it, perhaps you could let the person who's moved the motion know ahead of time if parts of it are out of order.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
