Let me then make my contribution.
Obviously, over the last year, there have been issues and concerns with respect to the balance of the mission, and there have been opinions from one end of the spectrum to the other. Those opinions have been aired publicly. Some argue that the mission needs to be balanced, or rebalanced, whatever word you want to use. Others argue that the mission is not in need of balance.
I believe we want to have witnesses come here, both governmental and non-governmental, to continue to explore the issue of how we can make Afghanistan more secure, how we can engage in more development and more reconstruction, and how we can engage in better diplomacy.
The motion before you, given the way it's worded, can deal with all three of those issues. I believe it is nothing more than dilatory tactics on the part of my colleagues opposite, the government members, to not have a vote on this issue.
I would simply suggest that if we want to get into the merits of the debate, we will have lots of time in these hearings to ask questions of different witnesses. We will be able to provide our own lists of witnesses to the clerks so that witnesses can be called. I think we will have a lot of time. I think Canadians need to know what's going on with respect to this mission. Government is usually evasive in its responses in the House. This is a forum in which we can explore all of these issues with experts who might be independent, and in fact with government ministers as well.
So I would simply suggest that we pass the motion before you, as amended with a friendly amendment.