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.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
But when we sit down to go through clause-by-clause, I may be sitting here and we may be debating, and I may say, “Gee, you know, I think we should change this.” I should not be constrained by that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
You're part of the process of clause-by-clause. You have the right to do that.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
As long as that's clear and on the record.
And there's another question. Mr. McKay, I know, intended to bring some amendments. Have we seen those yet?
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I circulated them but I have not officially submitted them. They haven't been formally tabled.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
That satisfies me. If we've seen them, then I'm happy. I don't think we need to write that into the motion.
Conservative
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
I don't want to leave any confusion that I'm not absolutely committed to our moving ahead with this as quickly as possible. The government has had this bill for two years, for heaven's sake. It's not as if they have to decide now what they want to say about it.
NDP
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
However, having said that, I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be a more honest and realistic thing for us to say that the committee should deal with clause-by-clause Wednesday the 29th, but not lock ourselves into “complete”, because we may in fact be in a full discussion around a couple of aspects. Maybe it should say clearly that the committee proceed with clause-by-clause on Wednesday the 29th. It seems to me to short-circuit a process that, in good faith, hopefully we're all buying into. I think that's a bit of a mistake.
Secondly, we don't have it in writing, so could I just clarify the amendment that's coming from Peter? If I understand it, it's that the government should submit amendments...did you say “prior to Monday the 27th” or did you say “no later than Monday the 27th”?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Yes, it doesn't have to be the Sunday or the Friday.
Mr. Wilfert is going to shed some light on the—
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I just want to say that I understand the rationale for clause-by-clause on Wednesday the 29th. We may not have a fixed date, but the chairman has indicated—and I stress this—in good faith more than once to me privately and now publicly that before December 15.... That doesn't mean we're going to wait for two weeks to get it out of here.
I'm presuming, Mr. Chairman, that we have your commitment that we will get this bill out of here, that we will not try to filibuster, and the next thing you know, we're talking about February.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
No, we've already talked about the filibustering. I'm not going to shut down any debate on amendments from either side.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
But we'll work to get it out of here before the session ends.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Our intentions are very clear: that we have this thing so that it's delivered on time, and that will be in December.
Conservative
Peter Van Loan Conservative York—Simcoe, ON
Was there an agreement to amend it in accordance with the suggestion of Madam McDonough? I just want to be clear on that. From the mover of the motion, was there agreement to amend it in accordance with the suggestion?
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
My only concern is having the amendments by Monday night. I'm not sure that's doable.
