Madam Speaker, I invite you to reconsider, because I believe it is very relevant and it ties in with the matter at hand.
What I am trying to convey to the member, who said himself that there were other priorities, is that we are debating a motion aimed at giving a committee the mandate to shed light on this matter. Parliamentarians are having their say and they are saying what their expectations are, and they are putting in context the facts known to the public. These are all important things that will help members in their work when the committee starts sitting.
I find his comments unacceptable and I would ask him to repeat what he said earlier, if he really believes it, namely that defining the terms of engagement under which soldiers operate when on a mission as important as this one is not important to him. Is this really the message he wants to send and does he not think that the House should have its say regarding the fact that Canada must carefully define the terms of engagement for these people, and also live up to its international commitments, namely the Geneva convention and others?
There is no doubt there is a connection here. If the House was misinformed, it is because there is a hidden agenda. There is a reason why things were done the way they were. The committee might be able to shed some light on this as long as members opposite who will sit on the committee work in good faith. For now, I assume they will. For the rest, we will see. In this context, it is an extremely important question.
What I have to say is that for us it is important enough that we must take the time to talk about it.