Debates of Feb. 1st, 2002

Vacancy

[The Speaker]

It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely Mr. Preston Manning, member for the electoral district of Calgary Southwest, by resignation effective January 31, 2002.

Pursuant to subsection 25(1)( b ) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed on Thursday, January 31, 2002, my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.

Privilege

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar concerning statements made in the House by the Minister of National Defence. I would like to thank the hon. member for his presentation and the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough for his comments.

I also appreciated the interventions of the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, the right hon. member for Calgary Centre and the hon. member for Lakeland, and I want to thank the hon. Minister of National Defence for his statement.

The hon. member for Portage--Lisgar alleged that the Minister of National Defence deliberately misled the House as to when he knew that prisoners taken by Canadian JTF2 troops in Afghanistan had been handed over to the Americans. In support of that allegation, he cited the minister's responses in question period on two successive days and alluded to a number of statements made to the media by the minister. Other hon. members rose to support those arguments citing various parliamentary authorities including Beauchesne's 6th edition and Marleau and Montpetit. In this regard, I commend to the House a citation from Erskine May, twenty-second edition, quoted by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough as follows:

The Commons may treat the making of a deliberately misleading statement as a contempt. In 1963 the House resolved that in making a personal statement which contained words which he later admitted not to be true, a former Member had been guilty of a grave contempt.

The authorities are consistent about the need for clarity in our proceedings and about the need to ensure the integrity of the information provided by the government to the House. Furthermore, in this case, as hon. members have pointed out, integrity of information is of paramount importance since it directly concerns the rules of engagement for Canadian troops involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, a principle that goes to the very heart of Canada's participation in the war against terrorism.

I have carefully reviewed all the interventions on this issue and the related media reports and tapes referred to in those exchanges. I have also examined the minister’s replies during question period and the statement he made in reply to these allegations.

In response to the arguments of opposition members on this question of privilege, the Minister of National Defence stated categorically, and I quote, “At no time have I intended to mislead this House—” and then went on to explain the context in which he had made statements that ultimately proved to be contradictory.

As the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst has pointed out, in deciding on alleged questions of privilege, it is relatively infrequent for the Chair to find prima facie privilege; it is much more likely that the Speaker will characterize the situation as “a dispute as to facts”. But in the case before us, there appears to be in my opinion no dispute as to the facts. I believe that both the minister and other hon. members recognize that two versions of events have been presented to the House.

I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House. Nevertheless this remains a very difficult situation. I refer hon. members to Marleau and Montpetit at page 67:

There are...affronts against the dignity and authority of Parliament which may not fall within one of the specifically defined privileges...the House also claims the right to punish, as a contempt, any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions; [or that] obstructs or impedes any Member or Officer of the House in the discharge of their duties...

On the basis of the arguments presented by hon. members and in view of the gravity of the matter, I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events is one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee, if only to clear the air. I therefore invite the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar to move his motion.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the charge against the minister of defence, for making misleading statements in the House, be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I need the guidance of the Chair. Does the debate proceed immediately on this issue or do we need consent for it to proceed? I do not know the rules.

[The Speaker]

The debate may proceed immediately. It is a privilege motion that takes precedence over all other business.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in the House should be pleased with your ruling this morning.

The reality of the situation unfortunately is that conflicting facts have been brought to the attention of the House in response to an issue of grave importance, an issue of importance not just to me personally or to members of the opposition parties but to all members of the House, for when one member decides not to be forthcoming with information and answers on an issue of importance that is one thing, but when a member decides to come forward with information and then with subsequent information which conflict with one another that is misinformation. When a member decides to respond to a question in the House in a way that misinforms the House that member is disrespecting the House.

I do not take this as a matter of personal disrespect to me, but rather as something far greater than that. I take it as a matter of disrespect to my constituents, the constituents that I hold dear, the constituents I am here to represent. When I or any member in the House ask a question in question period we deserve to have an honest answer. We deserve to have an answer that is reflective of the understanding that this Chamber, this place, is a place that is to facilitate the democratic rights of all citizens of the country. It is not a Chamber that exists for the convenience of the government. It is not a Chamber that should exist to quell discontent within the government caucus, for example. It is a Chamber that exists to facilitate the rights and the honest concerns of Canadians at all times in all ways, in every respect, not just in some selective manner. The fact of a matter is hard to ascertain when a member opposite provides misinformation in response to a question.

The issue itself, the issue of whether in fact Canadian troops should be handing over prisoners to another sovereign jurisdiction in which no commitment has been made as to how it would treat such prisoners, is an issue that Canadians have been debating. It is an issue that members on the government side have been debating. It is an issue that many members on the government side have expressed grave concerns about and many members on this side have expressed grave concerns about, because their constituents have grave concerns about that issue.

The fact of the matter is that as we have questioned the Prime Minister on the issue, as we have done for many days, he has been saying that this is a hypothetical question only, not a question in reality but a question that calls for conjecture or supposition in some way. Such is not the case. Such was not the case. Such was not the case for some time. The fact of the matter is that when one is debating an issue, a hypothetical situation does not call for the same degree, necessarily, of seriousness in response that a real situation does. The Prime Minister, in assuming this was a hypothetical case, was perhaps not giving it the grave consideration that he might have had he known in fact that the case was real, that it happened fully a week before he became aware of it.

This raises another obvious question. I am sure this is a concern that many of my constituents have and many other members' constituents would logically have as well, and that is this: how is information that is pertinent and relevant to Canadians being transferred through the chains of command? Is it solely at the whim of the minister of defence as to whether information in fact is exchanged with other members of his cabinet? Is it at his discretion that these decisions are made? Or are there other channels of communication possible and in place to assure Canadians that important, pertinent and relevant information is being passed through the government's management structure? If that is not happening, then Canadians would be very concerned and rightfully so.

The events of the last few days have raised in the minds of all thinking members of the House, I am sure, the grave concern that this is the case, that at a time when Canadian troops have just left to add to our forces in Afghanistan, risking their lives abroad, the communication and command structure is one of confusion and disarray. Logically, that is the impression that has been created here.

In my personal view, and this is of course only my view, I believe that the Prime Minister was made aware of this information. I believe that he knew of this information. I will say that I do not have any doubt that the Prime Minister himself must have known this information in advance. I do doubt the responses that have been given by both the Prime Minister and the minister of defence.

Some have said to me, when I expressed the belief that the Prime Minister knew this information, that I am being hard on the Prime Minister. I would suggest the opposite. I would suggest that we have a choice to make. There are two options.

We can believe that the Prime Minister knew that this information was available, that he knew our troops were involved in some respect in taking prisoners and handing them over to the United States. We can believe he knew that and chose not to let it be public, not to let it inflame the divisions within his own caucus prior to last weekend's caucus retreat, not to put fuel on the fire of discontent in his own party. We can choose to believe that this is the reason he did not come clean on this issue. Or we can choose to believe that he did not know at all.

I would suggest that believing the Prime Minister is devious and manipulative and a political animal is not such a stretch for most Canadians. I would suggest that Canadians would rather believe that than believe he is incompetent and does not have proper information at his disposal; I would suggest that would be the favourable belief for Canadians. To believe he knew is not such a stretch. To believe he did not is a monumental stretch and defies belief.

There are deep divides within this Chamber as to whether in fact we should be handing over prisoners to another sovereign jurisdiction. This is a matter of important debate. We should have an open debate. We should be encouraging that debate. We should be encouraging the free exchange of information in a free society. That is what we should be doing. We should not be dismissing debate on the basis that it is just a hypothetical supposition.

We should be having the debate in a constructive way. Perhaps in that manner we could arrive at some outcome which would assure Canadians that we have considered this issue at length, as they would want us to. That would not necessarily heal all the divisions within our Chamber. It would certainly not make everyone in this country think the same way. That is not the objective. However, it would give Canadians the belief that this Chamber is a place where we can debate issues openly and honestly with one another.

Instead, what has been created is the impression that we are unwilling to do that here or at least that the government is unwilling to foster that kind of climate here.

All governments tend, over time, to believe that secrecy and the management of information is superior to open, honest and frank discussion. History tells us that, but this has been revealed this week in truth. Members on the opposite side have expressed strong concerns that the government should not be outsourcing our moral authority to other nations. I believe that is the phrase they have used. We may differ in our views on this issue. Certainly that is the case, but members on the government side have been open. Frankly this is a rarity with the members of the Liberal caucus. They have been very open. Perhaps it has been exacerbated by some of the members' frustration at not being included in the recent cabinet shuffle or not having the position they would have liked as a result of the Prime Minister's decisions a couple of weeks ago. That is quite possible and it is only human nature.

The fact of the matter remains that on this issue members opposite have expressed their opposition to the government's position and in response to their concerns the Prime Minister has been dismissive and has said it is just a hypothetical situation. Yet we are asked to believe that for a week, in regard to the most contentious issue the government had to deal with internally, the issue being that of the taking of prisoners, the defence minister had in his possession information which clearly and graphically demonstrated that actually we do not have a hypothetical situation on our hands but a real one. We are asked to believe that this information was kept from not only the Prime Minister himself but his entire office, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Privy Council Office, and the new minister of everything, the Deputy Prime Minister, who is in charge of security issues, who is supposed to be involved in or responsible, I am told, for daily briefings of the Prime Minister.

We are supposed to believe that the department of defence, being in possession of this information, did not share it with any other one of these agencies of government at a time when each of these agencies knew of the severity and seriousness of this debate and this issue that the government was facing and that it should face openly. That is what we are being asked to believe.

Picture the minister of defence, knowing full well that Canadian JTF2 troops were involved in the taking of prisoners and the handing over of those prisoners to the United States of America, sitting in cabinet when the issue was raised and remaining silent. When others of his colleagues no doubt raised the issue out of genuine concern, the Prime Minister said it was only a hypothetical issue and dismissed it.

Imagine the defence minister being in possession of that information and not releasing it to the Prime Minister after that discussion. Imagine still further, if we can, that a complete and full meeting of caucus was to take place, where various members of caucus would raise the issue with a genuine concern that it be dealt with openly. Imagine that the minister of defence, as part of that caucus, would sit silent in his place in that room, knowing that this was not a hypothetical debate but that it was real, and not allowing the facts to enter into the consideration of the issue.

Imagine still further that the meeting was to take place over a period of two days. Imagine as well that a subsequent cabinet meeting would be held and that again the minister of defence would not reveal this information to his Prime Minister. It defies belief. It defies comprehension that such a series of events would take place. For a Prime Minister who has a notable character for managing his caucus and limiting and centralizing discussion in the consideration of issues, it especially defies belief.

After all these meetings and all these opportunities to present information and after Monday night's debate here on the deployment of troops, there was still no information forthcoming after a full week. What would be the appearance to our allies? What would be the appearance to our friends abroad? What would be the appearance to Canadians if they were to find out subsequent to that entire week's events that one member on that front bench knew full well and had in his possession information of such gravity and importance and did not share it with the Prime Minister? What would the appearance be?

What would the reality be? It would be that the government does not have its act together, that it does not have a communications strategy in place so that it can command with confidence the real issues of the country, the issues that Canadians want us to deal with. What does it say about the government's ability to manage the deployment of troops and work co-operatively within itself in terms of the deployment of our Canadian citizens abroad?

I close by saying--

[The Speaker]

I want to say something for the benefit of the hon. member and all hon. members. I point to page 127 of Marleau and Montpetit:

Once the motion is properly moved and proposed to the House, it is subject to all the procedures and practices relating to debate on a substantive motion...Members are subject to the rules of relevance and repetition and the Speaker must ensure that the debate is focussed on the terms of the motion.

I urge the hon. member to confine his remarks. I know he feels that a lot of these other issues tie in, but the question here is the minister's statements to the House only. I would urge him to focus his remarks on those statements and the question of referral of those statements to the committee, which is, after all, the subject of the motion before the House.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you for the guidance, Mr. Speaker. What I am doing as best as I can is making the case that the minister did know and that the minister should have known this information was important to his colleagues. He also very likely knew the gravity of this information not being made available to his colleagues in caucus prior to the caucus meeting last weekend, because it would have created deep divisions. It would have allowed the divisions that are there to fester and magnify and he knows that. I am speaking to the issue of him knowing and of him knowingly presenting conflicting information to the House. I am attempting to do that.

I will close by saying that at this time in our country's history I think it is especially important that we consider our troops and their families and that we consider this: right now we have Canadians who are going to a place in the world where, on behalf of all of us, they are putting their lives at risk. They are doing that because they love this country. They would go in red serge to represent this country if they had to, but the fact of the matter is that those are not Liberal troops. This is not about managing information for the good of the Liberal Party. This is about Canada's troops, all of our troops. This is about giving confidence and assurance to their families. It is about making sure and certain as best we can that this confidence is deserved.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you at this point for having the motion referred to committee.

I have observed the events as they have unfolded. I feel it is absolutely essential at this point to have this matter properly examined by the committee. When this comes forward, I urge the committee to take a look at all the circumstances here.

I would just make a point to lay the groundwork on why this matter is important for the committee to discuss. This really strikes to the very heart of what must happen in a democracy. For a democracy to work and for decisions to be made properly, there must be a free exchange of information and people must know what is happening so we as parliamentarians can make the proper decisions.

If that information, which should normally shared in the House, is not made available to us, we in opposition cannot perform our duties properly. That is why I want to underscore the importance of this matter. For a democracy to work properly, we must have an opposition that has information and can do its job effectively, and we must have a media that properly scrutinizes the issues and informs the people of the country about the issues.

Democracy cannot function if those things do not happen. For those things to happen, there must be information readily available to the members relevant to the decisions to made in the House of Commons. That is why this must be referred to committee. That is why this strikes at the very heart of this matter. That is why I feel it is so important that it is referred to committee.

I want to emphasize the fact that information which does not put the country at risk and does not violate the security of the country must be shared in a timely fashion. If the government withholds information, if it does not release it when it should and if we do not have the information in a timely fashion, those decisions which should be made, discussed and decided upon cannot be made.

This is something that is running through many questions of privilege and points of order in the last while. I have noticed and observed that. That is why it is so important for the committee to do a proper investigation of what has happened. It can set a precedent for a more open and accountable government and an improvement to the democracy in this place.

One frustration I have is we do not have the information that should be released to us through access to information. The committee could look at whether the information for which we apply comes forward properly. I have had a lot of experience in a certain area. Many times an application is made and the excuse is given that it is cabinet secrecy. There are times when that is the case, but not in relation to many of the things for which we in opposition apply. That excuse should not be given when there is no reason why certain information should not come to us.

I want to make one other brief point before my colleague replies to my comments. I have been involved in a battle to make private members' business votable. That impacts directly on what we are doing here. At the present time the government does not want to have all the private members' business that comes before the House made votable. Even though the members of the House have said they wish to have them made votable, this has not been the case. That means the government is trying to restrict information to the House and that strikes at the very core of what we are trying to get this committee to do.

[The Speaker]

I think the hon. member heard my admonition to the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar earlier and he will want to ensure that his remarks are entirely relevant to the motion before the House.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was very important at the beginning of this discussion and before it went to committee that members understand why this was so important to the way things operated in the House. That is my point here. I am using several examples to explain why the committee must properly examine it.

Canadians are becoming very cynical about what is happening in parliament and this can reverse that process. I urge the committee to properly examine this because it will enable us in opposition to do a much better job of holding the government accountable. We will end up with a much better government if we can have a free flow of exchange of information.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just quickly because I accept your admonition and I know we are here to debate this issue. The issue of openness of information is central to the good operation of this Chamber. Yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister asked a question of members opposite in response to one of our questions, not an uncommon thing here. I believe he asked why would it matter or words to that effect. He said that it would not matter if the Prime Minister knew.

There are a number of reasons why it does matter. Even in his attempt to deflect the criticism in the question, I am sure the member knew as he said those words that they were foolhardy.

Why would it matter that our Prime Minister know proper information? It would matter because it would give confidence to our troops. It would matter because it would give confidence to their families. It would matter because it would speak to the effectiveness of the management of the government and it would speak very effectively to the ability of the government to share information important to the operational command.

As my colleague said, this is not a security issue. The issue of this information being released to the public is not even within the realm of dispute. Why it would not be shared among members opposite defies belief.

Most of all, we should recognize this would speak to the ability of the government to manage with the best interests of the nation, as a whole, at heart as opposed to organizational interests. It would speak to the ability of the government to manage information not for political gain or for strategic benefit, but so it could better manage the affairs of the nation, particularly at this time of war. It would be able to adapt and manage strategically better in response to the needs of our troops and in response to the needs to be represented effectively by those troops.

Finally, why would it matter? It would matter because this Chamber needs to be accountable and it needs to represent accountability. To do that, it has to represent transparency and openness at all times. When it fails to do that, it risks losing whatever legitimacy it may retain in the minds of Canadians today. That is an ongoing challenge we should all take to heart.

To restore the integrity and the sense of integrity that this Chamber has in the minds of other Canadians is a central pursuit of mine and of the Canadian Alliance. I would like to see it embraced by all members of the House. I would certainly like to see it embraced by the government.

I look forward to the discussion in committee, as you have advised, Mr. Speaker. I believe it would be very helpful in advancing a cause which we should all hold very near and dear, the cause of raising the degree of respect that this Chamber holds in the hearts and minds of Canadians.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the mover of the motion, as well as the Chair for in their wisdom taking this matter in a most serious and very professional way. I think Canadians will look to this with some encouragement.

Integrity, honesty and truthfulness in this Chamber should not ebb and flow like the tides. This should be something that is as solid as the ground we walk on and as solid as the foundation of this very building in these hallowed halls. Every time we come into this Chamber, we should be reminded of that.

At this very moment, as we embark on this debate, we have an opportunity to illustrate to Canadians this renewed commitment to that sentiment in keeping with the ruling that has been made and in keeping with the intention we have to perhaps revisit some of these principles that should be omnipresent here and should be with us every day. Coming from a legal background, it is very much akin to putting one's hand on the Bible and taking an oath when one walks into this Chamber.

I want to ask the hon. member this. To preserve the integrity of this process that we will be embarking on, examining the words, the actions and the statements that have been made by the minister, would it be advisable for minister to voluntarily remove himself from office and step aside for the interim during the examination of what has occurred in this case?

[The Speaker]

A very brief response. We are out of time for questions and comments.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

A very brief response, Mr. Speaker. Having been here only a very short time, certainly as opposed to yourself, Mr. Speaker, or many of the members, yesterday was a high point for me. Yesterday we celebrated the contribution to this place of a gentleman named Preston Manning, who has throughout his political career demonstrated integrity and honesty in his dealings with others and with this Chamber.

I make the point because I think that was--

[The Speaker]

In trying to speed things up, you have run out of time. Resuming debate, the hon. government House leader.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, we want to thank you for your decision today, which was reasoned and careful. You have noted in your remarks, and you have accepted the minister's categorical statement, that he had at no time any intention to mislead or misinform the House. You also noted the Chair's view that the matter before us required some further ventilation to clear the air by discussion in a committee.

Therefore, I simply want to make it clear that without accepting some of the more extreme insinuations that have been put before the House today by others, the government is prepared to support the reference of this matter to the appropriate committee to bring clarity as expeditiously as possible. It is in that committee of course that all the relevant details can be properly pursued.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate both the brevity and the clarity of the minister's stance on this. I agree with him that the committee is the proper place to examine this matter, perhaps in a less passionate and some might say less public way. That is very much the intent of this exercise.

I ask the minister to consider whether in fact it would be appropriate for his colleague to voluntarily remove himself from the position of minister of defence while this exercise is underway. Does he not feel that this would add to the credibility and integrity of that process? I would submit that thus far there has been at least an admission that an inappropriate action was undertaken by the minister in giving two very different versions of the facts as they pertained to Canada's taking of prisoners in Afghanistan.

Would it not be preferable and would it not assist us in this process, if the minister were to simply remove himself, albeit temporarily, so that we could examine this issue in perhaps a less passionate way?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that in all these matters reason and common sense will prevail. The minister laid before the House earlier this week his explanation of the flow of events with respect to this matter. He made it very clear that at no time did he intend to mislead the House.

The matter is now on its way to a committee where all the details can be examined. That is the appropriate course of action.

To be specific in my response to the hon. gentleman, no, I do not believe the Minister of National Defence should step aside. This country is involved in a major international conflict. This is a time for the minister of defence to be at his post, and he shall be.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just to follow up on the House leader's comments, this country is involved in an international conflict. It is involved in the most delicate of negotiations with our neighbours to the south, the Americans, who are spearheading the war against terrorism. We are involved in trying to apply international law, things like the Geneva convention. This is not Trivial Pursuit. This is the nub of international law when it comes to international conflict. We are up to our necks in this.

We are proud of the contribution of our troops. The fact that they even took prisoners is another indication of the quality of our troops and the necessity of their job. We are proud of them. They are doing the job and they are doing it well. The fact that they have prisoners is not the issue.

I would argue with the House leader to consider that the issue is we are involved in an complex international conflict right now, a war. We are on foreign soil and taking prisoners who are to be handed over to a third party, another nation, to be taken to another nation again. Because of that very issue the minister should step aside. It is serious.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I tried to caution hon. members that the issue before the House today does not have anything to do with troops or the handing over of inmates. It is the question of the minister's statements in the House. That is the issue before the House. I would ask hon. members to please stay relevant to that point.

The motion before us is to refer the statements to committee. We are not dealing with any other matters with which the minister might be concerned. I believe it is important that members keep their comments relevant to the subject of this debate.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you again for that guidance.

I have been involved in several cases, though not as serious as this, of referring issues to the procedure and House affairs committee for consideration. These issues take a long time to deal with.

I know the course of events and it is not that there is anything wrong about it. We will get in procedural experts to tell us about rights and wrongs. We will get people in to tell us about precedents. It will be a long process. It is not as if we can go in on Monday, solve this thing and put it behind us.

In the meantime, because of his statements in the House the minister will have no authority until this is settled. It is not as if we can sweep it aside and forget about it. There is a prima facie case that this is contempt of parliament. It may well be ruled that way in the long run. In the meantime the minister has lost the moral authority and, I would argue, the right to lead the most difficult portfolio in the House right now: that of directing our armed forces in a war situation.

I urge the government House leader to reconsider. He can stand behind the minister. He can say what he wants to support him. He can say that in the long run he has done the right thing or whatever he might want to say, but it is not the time to say it does not matter. It does matter.

Because of the length of time this will be hovering over the minister's head it is in even his best interest to step aside. I urge the government House leader to reconsider. I urge the government to say it is time to put the troops and parliament ahead of our own partisan interest.

Let us do that. It is in the minister's own best interest and certainly the best interest of the House.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with your admonitions from the chair the issue of the incumbency in the position of the Minister of National Defence has absolutely nothing to do with the terms of the motion before the House. That is a technical observation but I believe it is correct.

From the government's point of view we are glad to hear the opposition's unequivocal endorsement of the Canadian armed forces and Canada's current engagement in Afghanistan. The Canadian Forces have no stronger advocate anywhere than the current Minister of National Defence.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will respectfully reply to what the government House leader has said. He made the point that because we are involved in an international conflict the minister should remain in his present position. However for the committee to properly do its work the opposite is true.

We are involved in an international conflict. It is for precisely that reason that the minister should step aside. Trust is a very important thing when a government is operating and running the affairs of the country. If the nation does not have confidence and trust in the minister we would ask that he step aside until the committee has finished its work. For the committee to properly do its work it is absolutely imperative that he step aside until the issue is resolved.

I appeal to the House leader to reconsider his decision in the matter.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the representations from the hon. member as similar representations were made by the hon. member before him. Once again I maintain as a matter of the rules of the House that the issue of the incumbency in the office of the minister is not directly related to the terms and conditions of the motion before us.

We have indicated we are prepared to accept the motion. For whatever reasons the members wish to pursue the larger criticism. It is not a criticism the government is prepared to accept.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the short time that is left and direct my question to the government House leader.

In terms of directions that should go to the committee, does he agree that members of both the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office should be available to testify as to what information and briefings they may have received from the Minister of National Defence during this period with regard to the facts that will be before the committee?