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.