Well, with all due respect to Mr. Goldring, I think a couple of things need to be pointed out in terms of his concerns about queue-jumping.
I note that the next four motions happen to be mine, so if there's any effect or concern, I appreciate his concern about the motions I've brought forward, which we would then be discussing. I've taken that into careful consideration, obviously, but more importantly, it's not about me; it's about this committee, and the most important issue this committee has been seized with is the issue of Afghanistan.
In fact, we're just rolling up our study on Afghanistan. I would argue that the minister's most recent visit to Afghanistan deeply affects not only how this committee sees our role there and how we're doing, but has also affected how our Parliament views Mr. Bernier as minister.
We're about to enter a new phase--that is, post-extension of the mission to 2011. I had no idea that Mr. Goldring or anyone on the government side had all of a sudden decided that Afghanistan was not important, because by default that's what you're saying. You're saying there are more important things that we're....
In the narrow focus there's an amendment that could be made, if you wish to, and questions that could be put to him. The narrow focus that you may be concerned about has an opportunity to be dealt with when we get to the motion, and that's all I'm asking for. I'm asking that this motion be dealt with by this committee and be amended if you wish.
I meant to add that instead of just calling for the resignation of the minister, as was done by others, I asked that this minister come before this committee. If it's not to be this committee, then where do we have an opportunity to hold the minister to account, and what is the role of this committee? The role of this committee, in my opinion and in the opinions of the people I represent, is to make sure we hold the government to account and to make recommendations to the government, and that's exactly what's in this motion. You'll get your talking points right now so that you can refute me, but to say that it's not important to this committee or to Canadians to have the Minister of Foreign Affairs appear to talk about what he did most recently in Afghanistan is, I think, out of bounds.
However, I will just leave with the two points I made at the beginning of my intervention. The first is that if you're worried about the sequence of the motions, the next four motions happen to be motions that I've submitted, so we'll be dealing with them. I'm fully aware of that and I'm taking that into careful consideration. The second and most important point is that the mission in Afghanistan, no matter what you think of it, is the most important issue that we're seized with. We're studying it right now, and that's what we should be dealing with. I would disagree strongly with the point that this isn't important. If you believe it's too narrow a scope, then, of course, we can amend it, but you have to have it in front of this committee to be able to amend it.
On that, Mr. Chair, I would refute what has been stated by Mr. Goldring. I would like this committee to at least have this motion in front of us so that we can deal with it. If it is to be amended, then that we can do, but the essence of it is to ensure that this committee will have the minister in front of us so that the committee can hold the minister to account. It is being responsible and not just going off and calling for his head. I'm not doing that; in fact, I'm doing what I think Canadians want us to do--be responsible, be evidence-based, and do our job as a committee.