Madam Speaker, I think it would have made a difference because of the conflicting statements and the questions we were able to ask in the House of Commons subsequently.
It is one thing to take a minister at his word when he says what happened. We believe it has to be the truth because we are all compelled to tell the truth here and we want to hear the truth. Yet when we do not hear the truth and do not get the whole goods it changes the entire focus of the House's questioning, particularly on the rules of engagement.
The Prime Minister stood up and said there were two kinds of prisoners, he argued that there were prisoners involved in terrorism and prisoners involved as unlawful combatants in the Taliban government.
We on this side of the House said there were no prisoners anyway so it really did not matter, it was just a theoretical discussion, but it did matter and the fact that we got conflicting views from the Minister of National Defence made an entire difference on our follow up here in the House to get to the facts.
I would argue that, since we did not get the facts from the minister, it made a big difference on how quickly we pursued the idea of rules of engagement. The Americans had the rules of engagement in their wallets which explained what they would do if they took prisoners.
The commander of our troops said that we went there with the rules in our heads. If we knew, and when we knew, that prisoners were taken, I would bet that we would not have said that we should do our best and we would live with the consequences.
If this side of the House, the general public and the armed forces had a set of facts that were consistent and we knew that we were actually at the point of taking prisoners, this would no longer be theoretical.
It is essential to know what we do when we take prisoners. It is not a matter of guesswork or of taking it down in one's head. It is a matter of the military saying to the Minister of National Defence that based on his word the armed forces will do the following.
We on this side of the House will support our troops fully but we need to know that when we get an answer from the minister it will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth because otherwise everything else falls from that. We cannot then say the rules of engagement are somewhere in the mix and our troops will get them sometime.
The Princess Pats left last night still without the rules of engagement in their wallets. They are going there saying they will pick it up when they get there and hopefully some of the other guys will fill them in on what they will be doing.
We need to know the facts. Without consistency in the facts, how can anybody in the chain of command or in the House of Commons follow up with any meaningful discussion about where we go from here? That is why it has been referred to committee. It goes to the core of ministerial competence and confidence, not only that which we have but that the Prime Minister should have in that minister.
Everything flows from that. When one's word is in dispute then nothing else will work. If the word is in dispute then all bets are off because we do not know where to start the conversation. We cannot have a debate on issues because we do not know what the starting point is. We need to know the facts.
The minister was incredibly wrong to give two answers to one question that involved things about notification when he knew things and how he communicated them. It is beyond the pale that we would say whatever, because everything follows from the first statement of truth. When we do not start with the truth everything that follows is wrong, flawed, weak, feeble and just wrong.
I would like the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough to talk about why ministerial accountability in this case, and the unwillingness of the minister to communicate the truth to the House, put the entire ministerial accountability system into disrepute. More importantly, it has hampered the ability of the House of Commons, the Fifth Estate , the people who reported on this, and the Canadian people to have faith in the minister and that is why the minister should step aside until this investigation is over.