Foreign Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2008

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm a little dismayed that there are motions, and one of mine--and this is in response to my colleague there--has been languishing. It is of a very significant nature. We talk about security in relation to Afghanistan--my colleague wants the foreign minister to come here--yet the most important and significant and major change that has taken place in that region has been the February 18 election in Pakistan. There are issues of FATA that will be discussed there. There will be issues as to how the current government is going to handle the circumstances going forward with the domestic fundamentalism or terrorism, how they're going to react to the changes we bring about--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We have a point of order.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

On a point of order, we seem to be getting into debate around the motion as opposed to whether or not we're going to bring this motion forward.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I think the motion is not of such a critical nature that it has to jump ahead of every other motion.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

But we're debating motions. That's my point of order.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I'm answering your question.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, the way parliamentary procedure works--

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

The motion is not of such special importance--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Chair, I'm asking you to rule on my point of order. It's simple.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Khan, I'll encourage you to stay to the substance.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you. That's all I'm asking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Is this motion worthy of leapfrogging to the front of the--

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I'm just trying to tell you why it is not, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to tell you about the significance--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay, without getting into the substance of the motion.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

No, I'm saying this motion of mine is far more significant and important to issues relating to our country, our deployment in Afghanistan, and the region. So this is a motion that I do not want to have leapfrogged by another motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

You'll bring your motion--

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Yes, that's right, sir. Just to bring the foreign minister to ask a question, which he's made a public statement about on Afghanistan--which is answered--that can be done at a later date. The question is, why are we not going to this motion? Everybody on this committee recognizes the importance of Canadian deployment and the changes that have occurred in the region and to our national security, which is being impacted. I can tell you, sir, there have been huge changes, and there's lots going on. We need to discuss that here. Bring in the departmental people.

If you read the motion and look at the intent of it, even Mr. Dewar and Mr. Rae would agree that this is so significant, so important to our security, to our deployment, to our mission in Afghanistan and how the engagement is going to continue, how we're going to stop the terrorism. I can tell you that all those banned organizations are now opening their doors to terrorism because they know that there's been a change from military rule to civilian rule, and they're having serious difficulties. I'd like to see the departmental people come here and tell us what is going on. Are they engaged? What is our high commission doing over there? I can tell you that this is so significant and so important that this must be the first motion of this committee that we deal with.

I'd like to urge and request the engagement of all of my colleagues on this committee: let's address the issue. We have now formed an Afghanistan committee, and Mr. Rae is a member of that. That is an important committee, and that committee needs to hear this. He's a member of that foreign affairs committee and he needs to be engaged in that, and we must bring the departmental people here so we can hear them, listen to them, and move forward on the agenda, which is significant to our country. It's not just political games within the parties. The foreign minister made a statement to clarify....

You want the foreign minister here? By all means, but let's not leapfrog over such important issues of national interest and national security and our mission in Afghanistan, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Khan.

Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree with the comments that have been made, and particularly comparing the two. If we're going to be leapfrogging one ahead of it or moving one up the line, I think there should be significant capacity, significant meaning to it. When we look at the reasoning for the second motion, if there was time to do it for the main estimates and to have a more overall engaged and more comprehensive discussion on the issue.... We did just set up the Afghanistan committee. That is under way now. It would be good for us to have an update and understanding of what happened on that committee.

We also have, of course, many other initiatives ongoing there. Minister Oda went over to Afghanistan recently as well. It would be good to have, from the foreign affairs perspective, a complete update and statements from the foreign affairs minister in relation to the main estimates committee and comparing what could possibly be brought forward and what should be brought forward. I would certainly think that one is far more comprehensive in its character and nature, and I think that motion itself would be far more important.

These issues and discussions could all be part of the main reason for the minister to be brought forward on the main estimates. It doesn't have to wait. It could include that, whereas the discussion just on the narrowly focused aspect of the motion that's being put forward does not really allow for that form of discussion too.

So we have a timing element here. What are we best doing? What are we best to plan for the remainder of this session and period of time that we have? I think the meeting with the foreign affairs minister and having him appear here for a discussion on the estimates would be far more important, far more comprehensive, and of much greater value to this overall committee and the work we've been doing.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right. The bells have started, so in order to continue with this motion we have to have unanimous consent to continue to sit.

Do we have unanimous consent? We don't.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. The next time we return to business, we'll continue the debate on this motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

When we return to committee business, yes.

We are adjourned--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

This is for all the committee members. I think on Thursday we're supposed to be meeting at 3:30. I know there is an event for the Holocaust remembrance, and many of us, I think, would want to be in attendance for that. I believe it would take us to four o'clock, for those attending, and I'm just wondering if, through the clerk, we could see if there's a consensus to start a bit later that day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

What do we need for that?