Mr. Speaker, the member said she had a problem with what was in the preamble. I am going to read the preamble. I do not see the problem. I would like her to explain the problem.
Before I read the preamble I would like to comment that the member sort of supported the military in her statement. However, the bottom line is, and this is so common in that party, when it comes to actually committing the resources necessary to provide the kind of support that we are talking about, its members will not do it.
I want to know specifically what the member finds offensive or unacceptable in the preamble which states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government's national defence policies are seriously out of date and funding has fallen dramatically short of what is needed to meet defence commitments,--
That is pretty clear. How can she argue with that? That is a fact. It goes on to say:
--the combat capabilities of the Canadian Forces have been permitted to decay and the government is continuing this trend by proposing to raise a peacekeeping brigade at the expense of existing combat ready forces;--
That is the preamble. What part of that would she argue with? Would she argue that the government's commitment of 5,000 peacekeepers who would not be combat capable troops, that there is no problem with that?
I would like the member to explain why that would be? Does she think it is okay to send people into harm's way when they are not properly equipped, when they are not properly trained, and they may have to deal with a combat situation when it arises? Is that what the member is saying?