Evidence of meeting #10 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was obhrai.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
No, it's not bureaucratic; the thing needs to be done in a proper way.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Chan Liberal Richmond, BC
Why don't you read the whole amendment, so we know what we are talking about?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
That's what I asked you to do in the beginning: read your proposition. And you wanted to vote right away without reading your proposal? Read your proposition and we'll discuss your proposition.
Go ahead.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Just hang on here.
It's the chair's view that this, as amended, was exactly what they had done. I looked over here at the clerk to check. That's where he stopped the reading.
That other paragraph, stating “that the joint proceedings occur during the ordinary scheduled time”, is facilitating the joint committee meeting. That was the part taken out.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Yes, because we are not meeting with the joint committee, as I said, so that portion does not apply. That was the whole idea.
You're absolutely right, Mr. Chair.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I think we're all right now.
We still understand what the amended motion was.
Continue.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
The amended motion states:
Pursuant to standing order 108(1)(a), that the committee meet to discuss the Manley Report
and that the committee call the Hon. John Manley and all members of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan, the ministers of National Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, with the option of adding further witnesses to provide their perspectives on this report;
that the committee table a copy of the evidence;
that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report;
and that these meetings be televised.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
So that's the two paragraphs that I stated earlier would be taken out.
So we're okay there, Mr. Patry?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
I'm okay. You read it, but I disagree. I disagree on some things.
You said “that the committee table a copy of the evidence”, and “that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the government table a comprehensive response to the report”. We don't do a report; we table the evidence. We don't do a report and we don't make any recommendations.
How can the government give a response if we don't give any recommendations to the government? Explain this to me. That's all.
5:20 p.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
I will say two things, Mr. Chair. In my opinion, if Mr. Manley had wanted to see us, he could have come to see us while he was writing his report. He could have come to see the committee, but we were entirely excluded from this whole process. Which does not make me very sympathetic to the idea of inviting Mr. Manley. The report has been made and everyone has read it. It is public, we know how to read, we have read it and made notes on what it has to say.
I do not understand. The Manley report is not our business, so why are we asking the government to report to us on something that is totally beyond our jurisdiction? It is obvious. That is why I do not even understand why this request came to us. What are we supposed to do with it? I have a very hard time understanding the rationale for this suggestion.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Kramp, I had you on the speaking list, and I apologize because I think I just skipped over you.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Actually I just want to speak to the motion. Once we have a final motion, I will speak to the motion.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Okay. Just very briefly then, this is a very, very serious priority issue for all Canadians, whether you agree or disagree with everything from the Manley report to the direction the government is going or not going in and/or whatever. As such, I really feel we have a responsibility to bring this to the attention of the committee as well as Canadians. If we had universal support on this issue, this might not be necessary. But there is dissenting opinion. There is fractured opinion in this country on this issue. And as such, I think we have a serious obligation and a responsibility, not only to present the arguments for and against, but to present every opportunity we have to the Canadian population.
It will do two things. Hopefully, it will make our public more aware, more informed. Secondly, it will present Parliament with possibly more and/or additional information so that we can make a committee recommendation. I do think the Manley report goes directly to government. But this committee has a responsibility to put a report forward. Whether it is unanimous or whether it is a dissenting opinion, I do think it is important that it comes before Parliament.
To not take advantage of an opportunity to do this, I think honestly, is a complete abdication of our responsibility as a committee. I believe we should move forward with this, and I would wholeheartedly support this motion.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Kramp.
I have Mr. Chan and then Mr. Dewar.
I will note that the bells were ringing and now have stopped. I didn't think there was supposed to be a vote today.
Continue, Mr. Chan.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Chan Liberal Richmond, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, with due respect to what the government side has been saying about the importance of this report and so on, I have problems with the whole notion of the process by which the government is coming to its decision after just looking at the Manley report. To me, the Prime Minister has appointed a group of elitists, a group of five people, who he thinks is knowledgeable on those matters, and he has ignored the input or the feelings of Canadians at large.
As Mr. Kramp and Mr. Obhrai have said, all Canadians are very concerned about the Afghanistan issue. I don't think the government or Parliament should make any decisions without going to the people. I also echo Madame Barbot; it is amazing this panel ignored consulting Parliament, people in this committee, for input before they made their conclusions in their report. Further, the government, without consulting Parliament and without consulting the foreign affairs committee, has made a decision on the government's position and on government policy on how to proceed. The Prime Minister and the cabinet—whether he consults the cabinet or not, I don't know, but the Prime Minister has come out and said this is what we're going to do. This has shown contempt for the parliamentary process, for the people.
I respect the Manley report. There is something in it, but it is a product of five people out of a country of 33 million people, and there is no democratic input from grassroots Canadians. To me, the responsibility that was put on our shoulders to represent the people of Canada is to come up with some policy recommendations to the government, with the Manley report as part of the input. I would weigh the importance of the Manley report just as heavily as the evidence of the witnesses we are going to see in the days to come and other representations we may have.