Mr. Speaker, there are so many fabrications in the question that was asked that I am going to focus on the Manley report. Obviously, I know my Conservative Party colleague and he is somewhat like the motion. As I said, it is incomplete and riddled with vague words and assumptions.
I would like to tell him about the Manley report. When Mr. Manley was appointed, it was very clear to us that this process was also politically motivated, that is, appointing a former minister, particularly the previous government's Minister of Foreign Affairs, to lead such a commission. Yet, upon reading the Manley report, it is interesting to note that 75% to 80% of the report is a clear criticism of the Conservative militaristic approach in the Afghanistan file, and that, contrary to all expectations—in my opinion, in response to a political directive—manages to come up with a series of flimsy conditions that allow the Prime Minister and the government the possibility of extending the mission from February 2009 to 2011, thereby laying a trap for the Liberals, which they fell into.
If I may, I would like to read part of the Manley report, from page 32:
It is essential to adjust funding and staffing imbalances between the heavy Canadian military commitment in Afghanistan and the comparatively lighter civilian commitment to reconstruction, development and governance.
This is what the Bloc Québécois has been calling for from the beginning and what we continue to ask for: a rebalancing of the mission, with a shift from a military focus to development.