Foreign Affairs Committee on June 21st, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You're asking for the vote.

Mr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I only want to tell Mr. Epp that we received this motion--I'm not talking about the two previous ones--a week ago.

This is a friendly amendment, and I agree with this friendly amendment. One is to delay all parties when there is time for a signatory. I think that's good. The other one is to be tabled in the House for a report, and that's it.

My point is only to let you know that we received it.

Ms. Bourgeois asked for the vote. Let's have the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do you want to speak to it?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

If I wanted to put forth a motion that was intended to embarrass the government, this would be worded in an entirely different manner. Nowhere in any of these motions, Mr. Epp, is there any comment about castigating or criticizing the government. All three motions are clearly intended to simply get us to collectively move forward on three issues, as you said, that are very serious and deserve to be dealt with now, not down the road.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Mr. Van Loan, in closing, and then we're going to the question.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I have a point of information.

I don't have the actual edited version in front of me, and I didn't catch everything that was going on back and forth. The version that I have says: “That the government prepare to support this mission through all diplomatic, economic and military means available.” That means a military deployment.

Does this motion still call for Canada to send a military deployment to Sudan? Is that what the motion still calls for? Has that changed through the amendment?

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

We already have.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Well, it's a means that's available. If we pass this motion, we're calling for the sending of troops to Sudan.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

No, not at all.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

It says: "That the government support this mission through all diplomatic, economic and military means available." Troops are military means.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

It specifically mentions the military, so you would assume that.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

And that we must "support" it.

I just wanted to make it clear that the call for military deployment is still in there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, and then I'll give Mr. Martin the last chance. Then we'll vote on the amendment and on the motion.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

In these amendments that are coming, Mr. Chairman, everybody's twisting a word here, twisting a word there, twisting a word here, twisting a word there. That's why the government side is having such a problem. When you twist words here and there, you can give very different connotations and meanings. That is why--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Specific to an amendment, Mr. Obhrai--

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Let me talk. I had to raise my hand, and I have a right to talk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

This is why we are having such severe difficulties with this motion. As my colleague just pointed out, there are some ramifications that people have to think deeper about.

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, that in future we look into issues so that amendments like this don't happen--unless we have notice or something like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, procedurally this is correct.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I'm asking for the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Obhrai, if they bring forward a motion, we can always have amendments brought forward.

It's unfortunate that the government hadn't seen or wasn't privy to this, but in the spirit of working together...and that might be deteriorating, but we want to try to keep it fairly good. This committee has a long history of working together, of working in unison, and usually by consensus--not always agreeing, but working together. Today, I think, has been a step back from that.

But this is in order.

Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

As the mover of two simple amendments, I'd like to have a chance to speak to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes, and you do.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

I stated them, and I'd like to speak to them before we vote.

The first amendment would eliminate four words and substitute them with two. In order for there not to be a lot of concerns of how many times, say, and by whom, "its signatories" would just simplify it.

The second amendment simply says that we want the traditional report back from the government.

I don't think it's fair of you, Deepak, to characterize these as having all kinds of twists and turns and deceptions and all sorts of things. They're very straightforward.

I think probably everybody around the table could handle an amendment that substitutes two words for four words.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Let's call the question.