Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to go back to the question I asked on March 3 about respecting the specific conditions and obligations in the motion that was passed concerning the Canadian armed forces mission in Afghanistan.
We explained our stance on a motion that required the Conservative government to orient the armed forces' mission toward overall reconstruction of the Afghan state and to withdraw from going after the Taliban after 2009. As we know, the purpose will be to establish legal, security and economic institutions in a country ravaged by war for over 40 years.
That motion also called on the government to coordinate with the departments and agencies involved in reconstruction in the province of Kandahar. We still do not know how the cabinet committee on Afghanistan will carry out that mandate on the ground.
The wording of the motion committed the government to greater transparency and accountability toward citizens and Parliament with respect to the three parts of the mission. As planned, the government created a special committee of the House, but up to now, we have been hearing anything but good news.
We learned from General Hillier that NATO had known since 2006 that we needed at least 1,000 more soldiers to secure the province of Kandahar. This information was not originally taken into account, because members were not informed during the debates held recently. This probably meant that the Taliban was able to carry out more attacks on the troops in that region. It is probably one thing that limited Canada's chances for success.
Another 1,000 soldiers will fight alongside us, and we learned that they will be Americans. So there will be 1,000 more soldiers. However, based on what we know about them, will they respect the spirit of the motion adopted by the House of Commons? Do they even know about it? Will they adapt their strategies to take into account their Canadian comrades in arms and the role given to them by Parliament?
Will the Canada-U.S. forces work on rebuilding and on securing roads and villages to enable Afghans to live in peace, or will they continue their hunt for the Taliban?
We also learned that the cost of the mission had been hidden from Canadians and their representatives. The military budget for Afghanistan went from $402 million in 2005-06 to $803 million in 2006-07. In 2007-08, the cost of the mission will surpass $1 billion.
Even though the government had this information, it waited for the motion to be voted on before giving it to us. So much for the transparency and accountability referred to in the motion.
Only later did we learn that the cost of the mission was increasing and that the Canadian government was hiding this fact from us. Everyone will agree that this was nonetheless an important factor to consider in an honest vote on the motion, like the one my colleagues and I took part in in this House.
In the end, our unbelievable Minister of Foreign Affairs ruined months of work by calling for the resignation of a governor, interfering in something that diplomats were handling perfectly well and thereby seriously damaging our diplomatic credibility.
I am beginning to think that the extraordinary work of the soldiers, aid workers and government officials is being undermined by the federal government's incompetence and I must ask, once again, in concrete terms, what difference will we make in Afghanistan?