Evidence of meeting #39 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 africa.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Wilfert, Mr. Anderson wants to ask you something.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I just want to make the point that I'm not a regular on this committee—
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I think what Mr. Obhrai has suggested will allow the committee, hopefully, to have unanimity on the motion, and then you can go forward as a committee with the hearings. You have to decide whether the unanimous support for a motion is important or not. I think Deepak's is fairly open, and it lets you have your hearings in the fashion that you want. It will, I assume, allow the committee to be unanimous in supporting it. And then you've got what you want out of this.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
Mr. Wilfert came out with a subamendment, an amendment to the amendment. Does Mr. Dosanjh accept it? I just want to be sure. Is it accepted?
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I will accept Mr. Wilfert's amendment as a friendly amendment.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
Okay. What we have right now is as follows:
That this committee hold hearings, starting at the earliest, for the purpose of evaluating Canada's mission in Afghanistan, and review the present focus, and accordingly invite the appropriate minister, departmental officials, civil society, representatives of the diaspora and other relevant witnesses.
That's what we have in front of us right now.
Mr. Obhrai.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
I want to go on record as saying that the reason we will oppose this particular motion with this sentence is that there is a political connotation to this motion. The motion I have proposed is far more open and has far more leeway, but the committee is rejecting it. This one brings it down and has thrown a critical question of focus in there, which is why I want to be on the record as saying that the government would oppose. I again would like to say that my motion, which calls for hearings for the purpose of evaluating the mission, is very wide open and exactly what everybody wants, but we will not have it.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
We have Mr. Casey and Madame Barbot.
Maybe we can try to go a little faster.
Mr. Casey.
Conservative
Bill Casey Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Thank you. I asked to speak two rooms ago, and I'm pleased to do so.
Conservative
Bill Casey Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Everything has changed since then anyway, so it's okay.
Conservative
Bill Casey Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
I have two points.
First of all, I think Mr. Obhrai's motion covers everything. You can bring in witnesses and ask about focus; you can ask if there's a focus or a balance; you can ask anything you want under his motion. It's wide open. I think it would have a much better impact if we did have a unanimous vote and support for a motion. There are absolutely no restrictions on Mr. Obhrai's motion. You can talk about anything you want—balance, focus, diplomatic or development efforts—and I would support that.
The other thought is that I think we're going into a very changing environment, and we may be wasting our time, because NATO has predicted a very aggressive spring offensive that's going to cause things to change a lot. Some of the things we may talk about may not be effective or applicable anymore. If I remember correctly, the United States has just announced that they're going to put $3.5 billion extra into Afghanistan right away—billion I think it is.
Conservative
Bill Casey Conservative Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS
Well, it's billions. I mean three and a half thousand million dollars. A lot of the countries involved there are expecting the spring offensive to be aggressive and the environment to change a lot, so all of our deliberations might be for naught.
I cannot understand why the opposition wouldn't support Mr. Obhrai's motion when it opens it up to anything. There are no limits on his motion.
Those are my thoughts.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
Thank you, Mr. Casey.
Madame Barbot.
Did you want to speak? You asked to have the floor.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
I would certainly agree with my colleagues that Mr. Obhrai's motion is quite encompassing. The concern here is in trying to presumptuously re-analyze the issue to see how it is focused and then have some determination on focusing at that period of time when the situation is so fluid in Afghanistan. We know that the situation is changing, and there are upcoming offensives that will be affecting it as well.
I would think that Mr. Obhrai's motion is quite encompassing and would allow examination and evaluation by witnesses from the diaspora and any other groups who are willing and who wish to attend here. I, too, really question why Mr. Obhrai's motion, which seems to be all-encompassing, would not be quite sufficient, unless there were other ulterior ideas behind trying to have these ambiguous words like “examination” and “focusing” in there.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
Thank you.
I don't see any more people asking for questions. Can I call the question on the subamendment of Mr. Wilfert?
(Subamendment agreed to)
