I would like to raise a few points on this issue. I know this was on the agenda that was passed in one big hurry moments before we broke. I have to say we really didn't have the kind of discussion on the agenda that I think we ought to have before the committee. Not to say that the agenda is not in basic good form, but certainly I think we left the meeting with the understanding that we'd come back to the agenda, have a further discussion on it, and maybe revisit it. I'm not so sure that we shouldn't have this motion put forward for another day and discussed in light of the bigger agenda.
Secondly, and I'm a little bit irked by this, when I try to put a motion on procedure I was told you have to have 24 hours' notice or something like that, and then we get a motion that can't be any different from my procedural one, put before you just as you're sitting here, without being given a chance to think upon it.
I feel the motion should be put forward when we have a look at the agenda, which I assume we will at some point, in the sense that we as a committee haven't had an opportunity to express our views whether indeed we want to travel to Kingston.
I know that the subcommittee, at least, felt they should, and my recollection is a one-day visit. And I'm not sure that we won't end up going there, but we as a committee as a whole we haven't discussed whether we want to make that kind of a trip. When it comes to making trips outside of here, we should at least probably discuss it around the table.
Those are my passing thoughts, that it should be combined with the agenda. If indeed we pass the agenda exactly as it is and we're going to go to Kingston, and that's the decision the committee makes, then we can appropriate the funds to do it.
I would prefer to see it combined together in the motion, to see it moved over to another time when we're dealing with the agenda itself.