Debates of May 17th, 2007

Property Rights

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that there is not going to be any opposition on this side of the House with regard to the importance of the charter, the need to protect and defend it and, indeed, to improve it wherever possible, and to protect the accessibility of all Canadians to the charter.

I would ask the member this question in view of his position on the charter and the importance of the charter and making it accessible to Canadians. Does he support his government's cancellation of the funding of the court challenges program, which in fact was established to ensure that there was accessibility for all Canadians to the rights and freedoms presented by the charter?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize his party from time to time has been accused of not supporting the charter. Here is a great opportunity not only to support the charter, but to enhance the it.

There has been all party support given at various times throughout the century of what that means. With the ability to enshrine property rights, this would go a long way to making the Charter of Rights and Freedoms even stronger.

I encourage all hon. members on the other side of the House to help me and support this motion.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a rural area. My question for the hon. member relates to property in rural areas and real estate.

What we see happening at both the federal and the provincial level, although in Ontario it is happening more at the provincial level than at the federal level, are restrictions on people's use of their property, usually in the service of perfectly defensible environmental laws. These laws impose the cost, for example, of ensuring we have clean waterways, with substantial setbacks for animals to graze on, or requirements that large holding tanks be built for liquid manure in order to continue existing farming operations or so on. These actions are taken so they cause the use and enjoyment of property to be restricted unless substantial costs are paid. Title is not effected, but in reality part of the value of the property is confiscated.

Does the hon. member envision this kind of restriction on people's property and de facto compensation as being covered in some form in this kind of partial expropriation?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have seen, and that is a great example, is the restricted uses of property. I come from a rural area that has been designated greenbelt. There is not much in the member's particular example where individuals are required to do something. It may be more about what they are not allowed to do. That is one of the challenges our farmers face.

Farming has become increasingly difficult over the years. We know there is always a challenge in terms of what we ask from farmers in terms of environmental regulations, what they are allowed to grow or when they are allowed to grow it. One thing this would provide would be some certainty, as farmers move forward, with their property rights and rights to their land. Maybe there could be some compensation given for environmental restrictions.

More important, this would provide some security for our farmers as we move forward. In some of our rural areas it has become more difficult over time to suit the original purposes for which the land was intended.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak to the motion presented by the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook:

That, in the opinion the House, the government should amend Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to extend property rights to Canadians.

I listened with great interest to the impassioned speech of the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook. He spoke about certain rights being enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the importance of extending property rights to section 7 of the charter. This would ensure that governments could no longer repossess lands without due process. There would be fair and transparent systems put into place to ensure the owners of the property, whatever the nature of that property, if land was expropriated, removed or repossessed from them, they would get proper, fair and reasonable compensation.

I listened with interest to the member's response to a question asked by the Liberal member of Parliament for Mississauga South about his position on the court challenges program.

We know the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has rights that are already enshrined in it. We know we have three levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, that have the authority to adopt laws and regulations and in so doing, they may violate the existing rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We also know that not everyone has the financial means to mount a challenge of what they believe is a violation of their charter right before the courts.

As a result of that, the federal government put into place the court challenges program. Let me mention how the Conservative government qualified the court challenges program: “inherently flawed in that it encourages special interest groups to promote issues not supported by Canadians”; “it's a waste of taxpayers' money”; “all laws will be constitutional and therefore there is no need for the court challenges program”. Those statements were made by ministers and the Prime Minister of the Conservative government. They go in direct contrast to what the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook just stated.

He said that the reason why it was necessary to enshrine property rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was because we had situations right now where people's lands or other property may be seized or had been seized by governments or by government agencies without proper due process, without proper and reasonable and fair compensation. I find it interesting that I have not heard the member once rise to question his own government's decision to abolish the court challenges program.

Does the court challenges program actually encourage special interest groups to promote issues that are not supported by Canadians? Let us look at some of the issues that went before the courts in which certain individuals, groups or communities were able to benefit from the court challenges program to either intervene in a case or oppose a decision made by a government or a government agency.

I will go to R. v. Prosper, 1994, volume 3 of the Supreme Court Reporter, page 236. In this case the Supreme Court of Canada considered that whether an impoverished accused upon arrest had a right to state funded counsel. An intervenor in the case argued that depriving poor people of access to counsel would result in equality in access to justice that would be inconsistent with section 15 of the charter.

The court held that where an arrested person requested counsel, the police must desist from attempting to obtain a statement until counsel had been provided. Justice McLachlin, as she was at that time, now Chief Justice McLachlin, in a concurring judgment stated:

—the Charter right to counsel cannot be denied to some Canadian citizens merely because their financial situation prevents them from being able to afford private legal assistance. The poor are not constitutional castaways.

Let us look at another one, R. v Mills, 1999. Mr. Mills was accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl and wanted to obtain records of visits she made to a counselling agency and a psychiatrist for use in his court case. He did not want to follow the procedures for accessing these records, which are imposed by Bill C-46. He argued that the Criminal Code violated his rights to a fair criminal process.

The victim, L.C., was able, through the court challenges program, to appeal a ruling of a lower court that said Mr. Mills was right, that he should be able to access that 13-year-old victim's records about her visits to seek counselling and psychiatric treatment and help. It was only because of the court challenges program that this young victim was able to appeal the ruling directly to the Supreme Court of Canada.

There were groups representing women, children, service providers and mental health consumers and providers who intervened in the case to explain why Bill C-46 was needed to protect the equality rights of sexual assault victims. A majority of the Supreme Court of Canada found that the provisions of that bill did not interfere with an accused person's right to a fair criminal process under section 7 and 11(d) of the charter.

The court pointed out that the scope of these rights was not unlimited and must take into account the rights and interests of other people involved in the process, namely the survivors of sexual assault who must report the crime and testify in court. Sexual assault victims who are primarily women and children have historically been subject to bias and stereotype within sexual assault trials. The Supreme Court of Canada made it clear that equality was an integral component of the concepts of fairness and justice, particularly in the criminal law.

I would like to hear the Prime Minister say that this young 13-year-old victim of sexual assault was a special interest group representing an issue that most Canadians would not support.

We also have the case of R. v. Williams, 1988. This ruling is of particular importance to those who have experienced the effects of racism within the Canadian justice system. The central issue in Williams was whether perspective jurors could be questioned about their racial bias to ensure a fair trial before an impartial jury. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that where there was a realistic potential of bias, it was reasonable for the accused to have the opportunity to challenge the impartiality of the jurors.

I would like the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook to rise and to defend the court challenges program. Should property rights ever be enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians of limited means, who may have worked all their life in order to obtain and possess and own certain property, will not have the financial means to contest an abusive repossession of their property. It is only through a court challenges program—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in the House to the motion put forward by the hon. member from the Conservative Party. This is the third attempt at tabling this type of motion. In 1998 and 2005, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville put forward similar initiatives in the House.

In 1998, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, who was then in the Reform Party, introduced Bill C-304 to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights to include property rights. One of the arguments in support of this bill was that such reform would help protect handgun owners from laws to limit the use and possession of such guns.

I will try in all this ambient noise, which is being caused by a discussion between colleagues on the other side of the House, to quote what was said at the time.

In 1998, the mover of this motion said:

I have only time to cover one arbitrary taking of property by the federal government. I will use the example I know best. ...chapter 39 of the Statutes of Canada arbitrarily prohibited an estimated 553,000 registered handguns: 339,000 handguns that have a barrel equal to or less than 104 millimetres in length, about 4.14 inches, and 214,000 handguns that discharge 25 and 32 calibre bullets.

The original intention, which goes beyond the virtuous principle of protecting property, was, among other things, to weaken legislation and provisions that limit the right to possess firearms, because the right to property, as an unlimited concept, is quite broad.

In 2005, the same member, with the same idea, but now a member of the Conservative Party, put forward Motion M-227, which was worded as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that full, just and timely compensation be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property or suffer a loss in value of that property as a result of any government initiative, policy, process, regulation or legislation.

This is not the first time that this issue has come before this House, and it is before us today by virtue of the motion that is before us. Obviously, it is well intentioned. In my opinion, few people are opposed to property rights in our society. Moreover, this protection already exists.

There are a number of sections of the Criminal Code pertaining to property, including section 346 on extortion, sections 343 and 344 on robbery and section 322 on theft. We could go further with more subtle references, such as section 430, which punishes mischief relating to property; sections 361 to 364, which pertain to false pretence; and section 380 on fraud.

The member who introduced this motion could also consult the Canadian Bill of Rights, a quasi-constitutional document whose first section reads as follows:

It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely,

(a) the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;—

The civil laws in place on this in the various provinces would be too numerous to cite. Article 952 of the Quebec Civil Code, for instance, states as follows:

No owner may be compelled to transfer his ownership except by expropriation according to law for public utility and in consideration of a just and prior indemnity.

This relates to fair compensation in the event of an expropriation for public utility. This is, therefore, a concept related to arbitration and requires a degree of equilibrium already in place in the legislation. We fear that the proposed Charter amendment would affect that existing equilibrium.

The intent of the motion is perhaps not stated clearly but is certainly present: to institute property rights as an absolute right to which all others would be subject. The text offers no nuances or conditional applications for this property right. Also worthy of note are the perspective and location of this proposed addition of property rights as set out in the motion. Reference is made to section 7 of the Charter, which reads:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

I would respectfully submit that putting property rights on the same level as the rights to life, liberty and security of the person strikes me as somewhat overdoing it. It indicates a certain lack of perspective. Everyone of course wants to see his possessions protected and is attached to his worldly possessions, but to claim that citizens place this right to material possessions on the same footing as their rights to life, liberty and security is completely unreasonable, ill-advised even.

In any state, a necessary balance must be maintained between rights and the administration of the state. Constitutional recognition of property rights in such an absolute manner without any nuances or conditions opens the door in the most unbelievable way to all manner of legislational challenges, thereby essentially benefiting the most well-off members of society. One might, for example, think of environmental legislation, which often places restrictions on how people can dispose of, or make use of, property in their possession. Or the Income Tax Act, which allows the government to appropriate assets which are the property of citizens. Would declaring property rights to be virtually divine, absolute and near-sacred mean that the government could no longer legally appropriate the assets of an individual by virtue of the Income Tax Act? I will leave hon. members to imagine the consequences this would have for our society, if such were the case.

This government ought to have a look at a few other rights it is diminishing at the moment: the right to be presumed innocent, the right not to be deprived of one's freedom arbitrarily, the right to live in a society that recognizes judiciary independence. All of these have been diminished by the present government. Legislation should be beefed up before rights—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Yorkton--Melville.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Motion No. 315.

This will be the last speech I will deliver that Dennis Young in my office has helped me prepare. I want to publicly say that I will greatly miss him, as will the Conservative Party and Canadians right across Canada. I will miss the tremendous work he has been doing and the fantastic research he has put together on countless issues for almost 14 years. He has helped me prepare many speeches over these years. I will miss him greatly and I thank him very much.

I will begin by thanking the hon. member for Niagara West—Glanbrook for introducing this motion. As everyone knows, property rights were intentionally left out of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was a big mistake and now this House has an another chance to correct this major oversight.

I say that we have another opportunity or chance to change this because since 1983 property rights bills and motions have been debated 10 times in this House. I know that because five of those debates were on private members' bills or motions that I introduced. Sadly, Conservative MP John Reimer's property rights motion of 1987 was the only one that was passed by this House.

Now that China has put property rights in its constitution, I believe it is time for us to do the same. This is why I support Motion No. 315. And the vast majority of Canadians agree.

In 2005, the Canadian Real Estate Association commissioned an extensive survey involving almost 10,000 respondents. Ninety-two per cent of the telephone respondents thought it was important that the government fairly compensate property owners if their property was expropriated. Eighty-eight per cent thought it was important for the government to fairly compensate property owners if restrictions were imposed on how their property was used.

I am sure many Canadians are asking: “But doesn't that already happen?” Sadly, it does not.

We just need ask the grain farmers in the prairie provinces who grow their own wheat and barley but still cannot sell their grain to the highest bidder. When they try to take their grain across the border because they cannot sell it in this country, the federal government throws them in jail just for trying to sell their own crops. This is a fundamental economic freedom that grain producers in Ontario and Quebec take for granted, but not out west. By the way, the court challenges program has not helped these people one bit and all the examples that I will cite have not helped.

We just need to ask farmers who have had their land taken out of production by the Species at Risk Act. This federal law does not even guarantee them to be compensated for their own loss at fair market value.

We just need to ask the tens of thousands of law-abiding gun owners who have had their legally registered firearms banned, completely devalued by Bill C-68 in 1995. These owners never did anything wrong or unsafe with their property and yet it was banned anyway. They have also been denied permits so that they cannot even enjoy their property at the range. They have been denied compensation for the loss and value of their property, many of which are family heirlooms. In the case of a few hundred owners of section 12(6) handguns, the government is taking them to court because they want to register their firearms but the law that was passed, Bill C-10A, by the previous government was never implemented fast enough to take effect.

Finally, we just need to ask the 30,000 mentally disabled war veterans who were denied payment of the millions of dollars of interest on their pension benefits by the federal government when they lost their case before the Supreme Court of Canada in July 2003.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the government's amendment to the Veterans Affairs Act by stating:

Parliament has the right to expropriate property, even without compensation, if it has made its intention clear and, in s. 5.1(4), Parliament's expropriative intent is clear and unambiguous.

The Supreme Court went on to say:

Lastly, while substantive rights may stem from due process, the Bill of Rights does not protect against the expropriation of property by the passage of unambiguous legislation.

At that time I asked: “If property rights guarantees in the Canadian Bill of Rights do not protect an individual's fundamental property rights, what good are they?”

Proper constitutional protection of property rights by amending section 7 of the charter, as proposed by my hon. colleague, would prevent all of the above injustices.

It would also prevent a colossal waste of time and money by our citizens and by the federal government. It would also go a long way to protect the environment because people take far better care of our land and resources than the government ever has or ever will.

Section 7 of the charter states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Section 7 needs to be amended to include property rights because the right to life and the right to property go hand in hand. We cannot have one without the other.

I urge all members of this House to support this motion, so that we can give Parliament the opportunity to fix one of the major flaws in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Prime Minister spoke in December of last year in favour of adding property rights to the Constitution. However, if it were passed by this House, we would still need the approval of seven provinces and 50% of the population. It is not an easy thing to do, but it is high time we approve this and start that process.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force on April 17, 1982, and as has been mentioned, we marked the 25th anniversary of this. A striking omission is the absence of the right to own and use property, and that is why I would like to give the House three reasons why this must be included.

First, property rights are crucial for the building of a just and prosperous nation. The right to own property, to enjoy one's property, and the right not to be unfairly deprived of one's property, is fundamental to a free and democratic society. Property rights are essential to a Canadian way of life, to political freedom and autonomy, and to a well-functioning economy. These protections in themselves are not enough.

If property rights are essential for the well-being of our economy and our way of life, why do they have so little protection? The Bill of Rights is second best and it has been referred to already. We need to include these in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Second, property rights have been at the centre of the human rights movement from the beginning. Since the 17th century, people have understood that the right to own and use property is necessary for political freedom.

After the English civil wars, John Locke famously argued that the rights to life, liberty and property were natural, inalienable rights, and if the state was to have legitimacy in the eyes of the people, it had to secure these rights.

People are disillusioned with government today. One of the ways we can correct that is by adding these to the charter, so their rights will not be run over roughshod by government.

Against this background, the charter appears to be an anomaly. As a document that guarantees rights and freedoms in a free and democratic society, its silence about property rights is clearly an omission that has to be corrected.

There is a third reason why the absence of property rights in the charter is an omission. Property rights were originally supposed to be in the charter. Early drafts of the charter naturally included the protection of property rights. This is what we would expect in any bill of rights. The Conservative Party at that time supported including these property rights in the charter. I could go on and explain many other things that we need to do in regard to this.

I am hoping that all members in this House will not be distracted by some of the things that I have heard here in the last hour. We need to focus on property rights, why they are important, why they need to be included in the charter, and then work together to try to accomplish this.

I appeal to all members to have an open mind on this and not listen to some of the distractions that I have heard already in these arguments.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard all the speeches so far and it is a very good debate. I am a big fan of private members' items. I was interested to know a little bit of the history which was provided about the number of times this issue has come up. We have a history with regard to the charter and about, as the member who just spoke referred to, the early drafts in consideration.

It is not one of those cut and dry issues. There were reasons why those who drafted the charter felt that there were other considerations.

What prompted me to rise is perhaps to point out how sometimes things that are said in debate tend to be explained in a way or presented in a way which would paint a particular picture, but maybe not be totally reflective of the facts and in fact all of the facts painting another picture.

To give an example, the member who just spoke referred to some farmers who tried to sell their crop across the border and were arrested and thrown in jail.

I remember that case. I happened to be the parliamentary secretary at the time to the then minister of public works and government services who also had responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board. This happens to be under the Wheat Board and the House has dealt extensively with Wheat Board issues because the current government wants to disband the Wheat Board. It just wants to throw it away.

I did a lot of work to understand the history and why the Wheat Board was there. It was the fact that without a Wheat Board, that meant that those who had to transport their product a lot farther than others would not have the accessibility to the same kind of profitability from the existing markets.

The Wheat Board is an interesting issue. To be relevant to the debate in terms of property rights, the member did say that they tried to sell their grain in the United States and they were thrown in jail. That was not the case.

In fact, they were in violation of the rules of the game under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. They were charged with violations. They were charged, there were a number of them, and they were fined. The member will know that. They were fined for violating the rules of the Wheat Board. Two of them decided they wanted to make a demonstration and decided they would not pay the fine. Therefore, the consequence of that, if they did not pay their fine, was that they had to serve some time in jail. That is a little bit different than saying they tried to sell their grain and they were thrown in jail. That is not true; they were fined.

The member talked about the poor gun owners, for example, who have these legally owned guns and they did not hurt anybody, but the government comes up with Bill C-68 which basically identifies guns which are very dangerous, automatic weapons, and all the listed firearms which have absolutely no useful purpose other than to kill people. The member says, “This is my property right. I should be able to have an automatic weapon. I should have an Uzi”.

When we twist it that way, the member knows that even under the existing gun legislation the firearms which are properly fixed can continue to be collector's items and so on, but now the member and the Conservative Party do not want to register long arms. They continue to defer things like that.

The big issue has to do with property in a sense, and maybe others would be considering this, but it would be things like one's land.

One of the members raised the issue of the species at risk and that land could be confiscated. I remember debating that bill. I remember being involved in doing the research, just like this member does with his staff. I do my own.

When we look at it and say here are the species at risk, there are certain habitats within large farms which in fact include designated species at risk. It means that there are protected habitats. It does not mean that the property is totally expropriated. It could be that there is a restriction on the use of certain parts of the property.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

It's completely devalued.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

The member says it is completely devalued.

At what point in time do we decide that we are going to protect species at risk? The laws of the land are evolutionary. It takes into account important aspects.

There was never this idea, as was presented by the member I think very erroneously, that somehow all the land would be expropriated without compensation. That is absolute nonsense.

The final point I wanted to raise has to do with the court challenges program. The member's motion is suggesting that we want to enshrine something else in the charter. I think this is a good debate.

It is not a good debate when the starting point is that there is no guaranteed accessibility for all Canadians to the charter. If more things are put in, but the court challenges program is destroyed, how does that help? How does that help all Canadians?

The issue is that the government has abolished the court challenges program. That program was put in there to make sure that all the protections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms were accessible to all Canadians. If a person did not have the money to challenge a decision, whether it came from a municipal, provincial or a federal jurisdiction, the Federal Court, that individual would be able to defend his or her charter rights.

This costs money. Some people cannot do it. The members are suggesting and they have suggested on the public record that these are just a bunch of special interest groups. It really is sad when we look at something like the Montfort Hospital. This is a bilingual hospital that was trying to survive and is still there today because of the court challenges program.

I raise it because if we want to enshrine more things into the charter, then obviously accessibility is an important part. That is what is missing in this debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the House will now go into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering votes under national defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2008.

I now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

(House in committee of the whole for consideration of all Votes under National Defence in the Main Estimates, Mr. Royal Galipeau in the chair)

National Defence—Main Estimates 2007-08

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Bourassa has 15 minutes. Will he be sharing his time with another member?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Centre. We will each have seven and a half minutes.

[The Deputy Chair, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, this evening is not a question period. We will be discussing supply.

I would like to begin by talking about respect. I think that this evening's exchange should take place in the spirit of respect for our troops and taxpayers. I will raise a number of questions about the costs of the mission, acquisitions and other items.

First, I would like to ask the minister what the mission in Afghanistan has really cost to date.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, the incremental costs for Afghanistan to date are $2.6 billion.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, it seems to me that last year, on November 7, they said that the estimated total cost to the end of February 2009 was $3.9 billion. Now it seems that these estimates have been increasing since the beginning.

What are the expected costs of the mission in Afghanistan from now to the end of February 2009?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, the incremental estimates for the mission to the end of February 2009 are $4.3 billion.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, can the minister tell us if that also includes equipment or if that is just the operating budget?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, it does not include major equipments. Major equipments are calculated differently because they are retained by the armed forces and reused elsewhere.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, when we introduced Operation Archer in 2005, we were talking about $280 million for equipment at the time.

What are the current additional operating budget costs for the mission in Afghanistan, taking into account all of the announcements the minister has made about the mission in terms of equipment?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am afraid the member will have to repeat the question. I do not understand what the member is asking.