Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't usually believe in conspiracy theories, but what we have heard today is almost unbelievable. I'll tell you what I have been thinking. There's a little voice telling me that what we are hearing today, with all due respect to the witness, is an attempt at damage control.
I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how all the normal procedures surrounding a bill could have been short-circuited. Moreover, I find that Canada seems to be patting itself on the back for having rectified the situation. That's what my inner voice is telling me.
It seems, when you say that Canada wasn't aware... We'll be asking a question later about the Strategic Advisory Team, which was replaced by civilians. They are supposed to be close to the president. You will have to tell me how many people are on that team. These people usually should be aware of any forthcoming bills. They're not military members, they are people from civil society who are accustomed to this type of bill. Normally, they should have been aware of it. My inner voice is still telling me that even if I don't believe in conspiracies, I have been in politics long enough to know that sometimes, political strategies resemble conspiracies.
Do you really believe that the president signed off on a bill that he was not familiar with, that he was poorly advised, that customary parliamentary procedure was short-circuited and that the matter was referred to the Supreme Court? Do you really believe that we can wait three months? What's happening in three months? It seems to me that there's an election coming up in August. At the political level, are people saying that this matter will be settled after the election? Was Mr. Karzaï trying to garner votes from the Shiites? Naturally, I don't believe in this conspiracy theory, it's just my inner voice talking.
First, do you think that the government wanted to adopt a measure that was popular with the Shiites in order to win votes? Second, do you believe that the civilian SAT was not at all aware of this law? Third, when you say that this will be reviewed in three months, isn't this just a way to delay it until after the election, once the dust has settled?