Madam Speaker, I hope my colleague from the other side thinks he made a useful contribution to the discussion. However, you will agree that he did not add one single valid point to the debate.
Instead of shouting, getting all excited and changing place constantly, if he had listened to what I was saying, the member would know that my point is totally relevant to the issue at hand. So I would ask him to listen up, stay put, listen to the simultaneous interpretation and hear what I have to say.
I was saying that our colleagues from the Canadian Alliance were very generous in the motion they submitted to the House, because they referred to certain contradictory statements. What I am saying now is that there are other contradictions besides those mentioned by our Canadian Alliance colleagues in the motion or the question of privilege that led to the motion we are now discussing.
These were a few of the contradictions that I was in the middle of describing when our colleague got his knickers in a twist for no reason. Among these latest contradictions, which were not included in the question of privilege, but which most certainly could have been included, and I commend the kindness of our friends from the Canadian Alliance for wanting to protect or at least spare the government and the Minister of National Defence from too much worry, but among these contradictions, there is certainly the fact that we were told that the Geneva agreements and the Geneva convention would be respected.
We were even told in the House again today that the government, that Canada, had done what it had to do, when clearly we did not respect the Geneva conventions.
This is most certainly cause for concern, for how can we be a credible player on the international stage during a conflict of this type, when we are crying from the hilltops that we will respect the Geneva conventions, when quite clearly we have not?
There are of course a number of contradictions with respect to dates, facts, chronology, and obviously this brings us to the motion at hand which will soon lead to the calling of a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which will have the official mandate, by order of the House, to get to the bottom of this issue.
First, I would like to commend the government members for their decision to support the motion. I think that this is a demonstration of openness and of their responsibility. I hope that this is not simply a diversionary tactic they are using to smother the affair in some obscure committee that is never televised.
In closing, I hope that the government members will make a conscientious effort and will truly try to get to the bottom of things, that they will allow us to call witnesses who will truly allow us to get some answers, and that this is not another pathetic attempt or operation, as has often been the case in the past, to cover up this affair as quickly and as cleverly as possible.