The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): As is the practice, the division will be taken row by row, starting with the mover and then proceeding with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover.
[Translation]
Then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be recorded in the same order.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
Hubbard
Jacob
Jennings
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Maloney
Marchand
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest/Sud-Ouest)
McCormick
McKinnon
McWhinney
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Minna
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien (London-Middlesex)
O'Reilly
Paradis
Paré
Parrish
Patry
Peric
Picard (Drummond)
Pillitteri
Plamondon
Regan
Rocheleau
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Serré
Simmons
Solomon
Speller
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Taylor
Thalheimer
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Venne
Verran
Volpe-103
Speaker
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Torsney
Valeri
Vanclief
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Wood
Young
Zed-112
(1800 )
[English]
(Bill negatived.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The House will now proceed to the consideration of the next item under Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat ironic that after we have spent most of this day responding once more to time allocation we now have an opportunity with motion M-31 to discuss at least partial restoration of the prerogatives, dignity and relevance of Parliament.
I would like to open my address by quoting some remarks made by the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the House on October 23. I quote from Hansard: ``When a peacekeeping mission is being launched, reviewed or renewed, debate is encouraged and the House is asked to support the initiative''. There is no requirement in that statement that the House give its consent but only that it be encouraged to support the government's moves.
In the same address the parliamentary secretary went on to say: ``The government agrees that a debate on our commitment should be held either in this House or before the Parliament of Canada, but it is quite another story to ask that there be a vote before Canada can make any commitment''. Is that not nice? ``It is quite another story to ask that there be a vote before Canada can make a commitment''.
It has not always been that way. There was a time when Parliament had some relevance, when Parliament had real power.
As usual I notice that most of the Liberal members are conspicuous in their absence from the House. Those sweethearts may have nothing but contempt for this institution but, by God, they should have a little respect for their fellow members. They should show that respect by at least hearing our views and going through the motions of having a real debate.
There was a time when cabinets, no matter how powerful, respected this place. I quote Hansard for June 30, 1950, when the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent said the following:
If the situation in Korea or elsewhere, after prorogation, should deteriorate and action by Canada beyond that which I have indicated should be considered, parliament will immediately be summoned to give the new situation consideration.(1805)
``Parliament will be immediately summoned''. How Liberal attitudes have changed in this post-Pearsonian era. Parliament is now regarded as little more than a nuisance, but never a serious threat to governmental activity.
In September 1950 Parliament was indeed recalled to debate sending ground troops to Korea. The debate began on September 4. The mobilization order was issued on September 9. Some might call this undue delay, but remember that the UN resolution calling for joint action had been passed on June 27. The government had waited for two months before it decided to bring the matter to a head, discuss it in the House and set the subsequent events in motion.
When the Suez crisis developed in November 1956 the House was already in session, but Canadian participation was nevertheless determined by order in council. That was only six years after the Korean involvement.
In theory, and it is a great theory, Parliament had 10 days in which to determine whether to fund the action. However, in practice, as we all know, it was an exercise in rubber stamping. Here in Canada, with no separation of executive and legislative powers, Parliament cannot, without a vote of non-confidence, restrain the government by denying funding for its adventures.
In contrast, the U.S. Congress 25 years ago was able to stop military operations in Laos and Cambodia by tying the purse strings of the government.
In this century, for those of you who have not followed the political life of our giant neighbour to the south, the U.S. president, prior to the Laos and Cambodia situation, had gradually usurped the power of Congress to declare war. However, Congress is nevertheless the ultimate authority because of its power to withhold funds.
Of course, the flip side to that is, contrary to our domestic situation, the power of the president as commander in chief confers what has been described by some as a vast reservoir of powers in time of emergency, with the authority to do just about anything anywhere that can be done with an army or navy. It is the type of power which has been usurped by cabinet in this country.
It has become possible to deploy troops in situations where, although combat is not technically involved, there is danger of provoking conflict or where the deployment of troops could be regarded by others as a hostile act. Under the Canadian system governments are not supposed to possess such draconian powers, but cabinet abuses in the post-Pearson era have conferred them as a matter of custom, a custom which must be reversed if we want to reaffirm democracy in this country.
In M-31 it is stated that not only should Parliament be vested with the power to send our troops abroad, but that it should be subject to a free vote of the members. It should not be a partisan issue. Members of Parliament, before they put their constituents or the sons and daughters of their constituents into life-threatening situations, should be able to look into their own souls and they should be able to consult with their constituents to make a decision which bears the imprint, if you will, of the will of the country. We should not be rushing about, sending troops hither and yon without the absolute support of the people of Canada.
(1810)
It is possible, although I would say by no means certain, that if we had had a reasoned debate and a free vote in the House on the Rwanda adventure that particular fiasco might have been avoided.
I see the Speaker is giving me the finger. I will terminate my remarks at this point.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): I was only indicating to the hon. member that he had one minute left. If he wishes to continue for another minute the time is his. I was not in any sense being disrespectful to the hon. member whose views are very important to the House.
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to join in the debate on this motion put forward by the member opposite.
On the surface the bill differs a little from what the government has already put into practice. In fact the government has made a point of encouraging public debate and more open consultation in all major foreign and defence policies.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): When did we vote on any of them?
Mr. Richardson: Peacekeeping debates held in the House have been numerous, a practice to which the government remains committed. It is my belief, however, that while this motion is similar in spirit and steps have already taken by the government to increase consultations, it has the potential to deprive Canada of its ability to respond effectively to crisis situations. This motion would transform a well functioning system into a more cumbersome process.
The value of Canada's involvement in promoting international peace and security cannot be overstated. As the government has emphasized in the House on numerous occasions, Canada has a long and proud tradition of helping global communities defend peace, freedom and democracy. It remains committed to creating, in association with its friends and allies, a stable international environment. We realize that our security and prosperity depend on a safer, more secure global order.
As a responsible member of the international community and as a major trading nation, Canada understands the need to contain and prevent conflict. We also want to help reduce the human suffering in situations where outside assistance can make a difference.
Canada has consistently seen peacekeeping as an extremely useful tool in international efforts to manage and resolve conflict. We have excelled at peacekeeping. Our experience and skills are unmatched. We have a long tradition of peacekeeping and expertise based on professionalism, training and courage of our personnel.
We have a wealth of experience in preparing, deploying, sustaining and repatriating peacekeeping forces of various strengths and, more recently, have been in a vanguard of new concepts. Our corporate memory and reputation in peacekeeping thus makes us a natural choice for a wide variety of missions.
For Canada to remain on the leading edge of peacekeeping operations, it must recognize and be prepared to adjust to new global realities. Events in today's world unfold with startling speed. We have seen numerous examples in recent years of tensions, left simmering for years, suddenly boiling over with terrible ferocity.
It is for this reason that the government rejects the motion before us. At a time when an efficient response would be critical, this motion would complicate unnecessarily the government's capacity to react to the UN's request for assistance in peace operations and to respond to changes in the peacekeeping mandate. That certainly is the consensus of many former Canadian UN commanders. They have identified the length of time it takes for the international community to respond to a crisis as a major problem.
(1815 )
Major-General Romeo Dallaire has been an eloquent and passionate advocate of the need for efficient response to emergencies. And who should know better than a man who saw the horrible carnage that took place in Rwanda and Burundi? He witnessed it firsthand.
The motion before this House would add another step, one which is redundant to the decision making process. Should we support a motion which in practice could erode Canada's capacity to become involved and provide help when and where it is needed? If a situation is deemed an emergency, it should be treated like one.
Improving the ability of Canada and the UN to react promptly and effectively to a wide range of humanitarian crises has been a priority of this government. For example, the Canadian Disaster Assistance Response Team, or DART, was established this year as part of the response to the kind of conditions found two years ago in the Rwanda crisis. In Rwanda a terrible price was paid because of the slow and ineffective response. Many, many lives were lost.
For some time Canada has played a leading role in efforts to design a specialized military unit to respond to humanitarian emergencies. We have now put our plans into action. The DART team will be able to respond to a crisis in Canada or almost anywhere in the world within 48 hours of a government decision to send assistance. It has the capacity to assist and complement the work of humanitarian organizations in critical situations, conducting emergency humanitarian assistance operations for up to 40 days.
For example, DART might work with non-governmental organizations such as CARE in responding to a major cholera epidemic. They will be able to provide medical resources and treat up to 500 patients a day. They will be able to help provide electrical power and clean water for up to 10,000 people a day. They will be able to build temporary shelters as needed. This capability will also buy time for Canada to assess the situation and determine long term assistance strategies.
Canadian peacekeepers are trained to respond effectively in times of crisis. They have leadership to assess situations and implement plans to assist others. These are the assets so valued in times of crises, assets we cannot allow to be unnecessarily compromised by the added step this motion would introduce in the decision making process.
The proposal from the member opposite may well introduce rigidity where flexibility currently exists, and impede decision making rather than assist it. Rigidity, inaction and cumbersome decision making are exactly the problems Canada is trying to alleviate at the international level.
Members from both sides of this House have acknowledged that the UN must improve its ability to respond rapidly and effectively. The UN needs to do so to identify and prevent impeding crises from escalating. In the aftermath of the cold war there is no reason the UN cannot ultimately perform this role.
Unfortunately, the UN does not currently have the capability, politically, militarily, administratively or logistically, to react rapidly to conflicts or humanitarian crises where security is at risk. The current ad hoc method of obtaining and assembling units from member states while at the same time trying to set up operational headquarters makes true rapid response impossible to achieve.
New approaches are being implemented. This was the impetus behind the Canadian study of the UN's rapid reaction capability in peace support operations. Canada has emphasized the need to create within the UN a capability to respond with humanitarian, diplomatic, military and logistical aid in a more efficient manner and a much improved crisis management apparatus.
Sovereign states must adapt to this new world in order to permit the UN to do the job they do not want to do individually, or cannot do for various geopolitical reasons. Change is required if we were to manage properly future humanitarian crises. In an emergency situation where many lives are at risk, surely the members of the House would not want to complicate Canada's response mechanism by placing an unnecessary procedure in the way. At a time when flexibility of response is critical to meeting demands of rapid change, eastern Zaire being the current example, the motion before us would complicate our process, which has been proven to be effective, and would potentially place the lives of many in unnecessary jeopardy.
(1820)
The government has demonstrated its commitment to consultation. We have listened to the views of parliamentarians and the Canadian public in formulating peacekeeping policy. We will continue to do so in the future. But not every decision can be reached by committee. The government has established the political guidelines and reciprocal trust must prevail in their implementation. There is a time when action backed by discretion and experience is crucial to success. To abandon flexibility is to be imprudent.
We have listened to those who gave us the mandate to govern, the citizens of this country. They have made it clear through their support the existence of a consensus among Canadians on the approach we have taken in peacekeeping. Now it is up to us to make the difficult decisions that will enable us to accomplish the mission, but to do so the government must have the ability and flexibility to choose from among different options.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as I rise in the House today to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Red Deer and the amendment of the hon. member for Témiscamingue, I would like to start by saying that the first few times I took part in debates of an international nature in this House, I realized this could have a tremendous impact, both on the people and the countries where interventions take place and in our own ridings, where we have members of the military who are called upon to take part in these operations.
After being involved in the debates we have had on Bosnia, Haiti, Rwanda, and perhaps tomorrow in another debate which may arise unexpectedly, I think the motion before the House is a very interesting one and is also very balanced, which is very important in the area of international relations, especially when we consider the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Témiscamingue.
If the motion were adopted, as amended, it would say as follows: ``That all projects of military commitments abroad involving Canadian troops must, as soon as possible, be the subject of a vote in the House''. As soon as possible, and that is in response to the arguments of the government, which contends this would paralyze the government's activities. No, the Bloc Quebecois amendment is intended to ensure that the government retains enough flexibility but at the same time will respect the advice it is given in the House. It would do so as soon as possible, always, of course, depending on the emergencies that arise.
I will resume my reading of the motion: ``-must, as soon as possible, be the subject of a vote in the House in order to recommend their approval or rejection to the government''. The government's responsibility remains intact. There are always aspects of international relations, diplomatic and security aspects that may be considered and of which each member of this House is not necessarily fully aware.
However, I think it would be useful for the government, as part of a review of Canada's international policy, to make a rule of what has been its practice for a number of years, which is to consult the House regularly when it has decisions to make regarding the presence of Canadian troops abroad.
It is important because, as I said earlier, one of the first speeches I made in this House was one I made in a debate on Bosnia. There are young men and women of 20, 25 or 30 in my riding who took part in these operations. I met some of these people last week and they described their experience, the results and how things worked over there.
With the advice of people who were in the field and also what I would call the sense of balance, the sense of responsibility we find in this House when we deal with international issues and when we do not get the same kind of partisan debate we might have on
domestic issues, I think it is important for the government to be able to consider these roles and the advice that may be forthcoming.
(1825)
All this is especially important since in future, Canada will undoubtedly be asked to take on an expanded role in these operations. We can expect all kinds of unusual situations on this planet. Every time, this will require a detailed and balanced analysis. We will have to look at the pros and cons of our involvement. The latest crisis in Rwanda and the Zaire question are a case in point.
During a debate in this House on the question, we realized that both the government and the opposition parties had a very balanced approach. They all wanted to ensure that nothing ill-advised was done on the international scene which would be harmful to the populations concerned. This obliged the government to take all recommendations into consideration.
I recall that, among the things that were said, it was stated that care must be taken to avoid sticking obstinately to military intervention if this proved to no longer be the right solution. This was said in the House. Suggestions were made, enriching the debate and enabling the government to take a stand.
The motion presented to us is important in that connection. It restores to Parliament a responsibility which is rightly ours. I know that we are in a British parliamentary system, in which the government assumes total responsibility; it is different from the American or the French system.
When international security is concerned-international military interventions in which human lives are at stake-it is important to give members of Parliament the chance of putting forward their points of view and, whenever possible, a vote ought to be taken when the situation is not urgent and does not require action to be taken within hours.
We have seen the case of Rwanda. We had the time to discuss the situation, to adjust our positions. By taking into consideration the opinions expressed during the debate, the government avoided taking actions that would have been badly perceived, as well as ineffective on the international scene.
They could have come back and asked the opinion of the House, in light of the new information available. The government would have been well advised to base its positions on the results of House votes. In the case of a major international situation for example, the unanimous support of the House would strengthen the government's intervention. The government would also be in a better position internationally.
At home, it can always be argued that decisions are made democratically. They are made in consideration of elected officials' opinions. If we passed the motion before us, we would show our belief in letting elected officials have a say not only in principle but also in reality.
Our opinion must be taken into consideration, because increasingly a precise way of consulting elected officials in such situations must be defined. The trend will be increasingly to create an international emergency force that would act in difficult situations or situations involving military or humanitarian interventions, matters of practical logistics and of principle.
The government benefits from considered opinions on all these things and from the opinions of the members of the House of Commons, which represents all parties in Canada. This is equally valid in the case of interventions in francophone and anglophone countries, whatever the make-up of the Canadian force and the type of intervention involved.
Recently, on the question of Zaire and Rwanda, we wondered about an American presence and the type of aid they could provide. Would a vote in the House not have given the Government of Canada a stronger position from which to defend its viewpoint? Would that not have been worthwhile? We would all have benefited from such a position.
(1830)
I would like to come back to the impact that I think is the most important, the human impact. In the course of our duties as MPs, we are often called upon to vote or take a stand on economic, social or cultural issues. When we talk about the presence of foreign soldiers, we are talking about human issues, about families that will be left worrying, separated from one of their own. Therefore, we must be sure that, when these situations arise, we have truly weighed all sides of the issue, because we cannot really afford to be wrong. We must identify the position most likely to resolve the situation and to allow Canada to fulfil its international role. The support the House of Commons can provide in these cases is, in my view, an important factor.
I am not in complete agreement with the arguments we heard earlier from a government member, who said that this would take away the government's room to manoeuvre, that we could not always change course rapidly enough. I think that the opposition parties, in these situations, have learned to weigh all the facts carefully before adopting a position.
The amendment proposed by the member for Témiscamingue meets all these criteria, and it would be a sign of maturity on the part of this Parliament and of the government majority to approve it, so that all proposed military commitments abroad involving Canadian troops can be the subject of a vote in the House of Commons with a view to their approval or rejection. Democracy and Canadian diplomacy abroad would stand to gain.
[English]
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 31 put forward by my colleague from Red Deer. The motion asks that our peacekeeping commitments, which involve 100 or more personnel, be put to the House of Commons in a manner that would allow a free vote.
This motion has a lot of credibility because, if there is one single issue that I have had a lot of calls from my constituency about, it has been the sending of our troops to different parts of the world to be involved in peacekeeping activities. The opportunity to have free votes on this issue is certainly justified as a result of the input I personally have had from the people of Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
Also, on page 92 of the Liberal red ink book, the Liberal Party promised more free votes in the House. However, these Liberals have not allowed very many free votes.
We do have debates on certain peacekeeping missions. When it comes to peacekeeping and the lives of our Canadian soldiers, it is absolutely essential that Parliament as a whole is able to have meaningful debate and provide input in these matters. But the fact is that cabinet and only cabinet has the ultimate authority to designate soldiers to peacekeeping activities.
That is an awesome power for the cabinet to have. Regardless of what our constituents may have to say about it, regardless of what the Canadian people may feel about it, the small group in cabinet can make the unilateral decision to send our soldiers abroad. And that has been done. It has been done over and over again. There is no requirement to hold a debate on these matters. It is only required that Parliament be reconvened within a 10-day period following the decision to commit troops in the first place. That is sort of the reverse.
(1835)
I would think the proper way to handle these matters would be to have a debate and after the debate cabinet would make a decision based on that input. It can make a decision with the confidence that the concerns and the voices of the Canadian people have been heard in the House. But that is not the case.
It is interesting that in the fall of 1994 a special joint committee released a defence policy paper. Lo and behold, the paper had the support of all the parties in the House. Liberals know very well that one of the recommendations stated ``nor should the government commit our forces to service abroad without a full parliamentary debate and accounting for that decision''.
As we have seen on the GST issue, the Liberal government can take a promise to scrap the GST many different ways. I would imagine the way it has taken this is that there will be a full parliamentary debate in the accounting for that decision but it will come after cabinet has already made the decision to commit troops. I stated earlier that is the reverse of the way one would assume things should operate in this House. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you would agree with me on that point. We have had token debates on peacekeeping and cabinet does what it wants anyway.
If we want to have a full accounting of our peacekeeping decisions as recommended by this policy paper which all the parties agreed on, then MPs must have the opportunity to debate these matters in the House of Commons.
This motion in no way attempts to limit our international obligations; it does not do that. It in no way attempts to somehow remove Canada from its very distinguished role as a peacekeeper.
We have much to be proud of when it comes to peacekeeping. We have done a good job. Since 1947 over 100,000 Canadians have served abroad in over 30 peacekeeping and related operations. We are the only country that can legitimately claim to have participated in almost every peacekeeping mission organized under the UN.
When countries are in need of someone to enforce ceasefire agreements or provide humanitarian aid, they come knocking at our door. We should be proud of that record. The international community is very aware of Canada's professionalism and its commitment to neutrality and evenhandedness.
In helping other countries we are also helping ourselves. A safer and more secure international environment is key to our very own security and prosperity.
While our record on peacekeeping speaks for itself and while we are anxious to assist other countries in dire need of our soldiers' services, these Liberals have not given the military the support it needs and deserves and the lives of Canadian soldiers overseas have been put in danger because of that.
The Liberals have committed our troops to war zones with antiquated equipment. Stories came out of Bosnia of Canadian peacekeepers trading helmets and flak jackets with their replacements at the airport because there was not enough gear to go around. That is an incredible thing to comprehend.
Furthermore, the armoured personnel carriers they were using provided our troops with inadequate protection against bullets and land mines. That is frightening. These are Canadian soldiers. It was only last summer that the Liberals announced that the armoured personnel carriers would be upgraded. That is some consolation but we did have those dangerous situations prior to that.
(1840)
Outdated equipment at the department of defence should come as no surprise since it has faced continual cutbacks under the Liberal government. As a matter of fact the 1996 Liberal budget predicts that expenditures at national defence will be cut by 20 per cent in 1998-99.
That leads us to this scenario. While the government is committing our troops to more and more missions, they are being sent off with poorer and poorer equipment. That is not a mission a Canadian soldier really wants to go on. This is why I say that the policies of the Liberal government are putting the lives of our peacekeepers at risk, sending them into areas of peacekeeping and providing humanitarian aid without being properly equipped or properly prepared.
We can see that in the most recent issue as we have been talking about sending our peacekeepers to Zaire. There was no real plan. As far as I know, there is still no plan but the government has been intent to send our troops over there.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs himself has stated that we need to have the views of members of Parliament. The views of members of Parliament are what this motion asks for, nothing more than that. It is not designed to impede our peacekeeping activities. It simply asks that members of Parliament be given a chance to have meaningful debate in the House to put the views of their constituents forward in this House before a cabinet decision is made to send our troops abroad.
I urge all members of the House to support this most worthwhile motion put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to participate in the debate on Motion No. 31 put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer.
In late October in the first part of our debate on this motion we heard criticism of our record of consultation on Canadian participation in peacekeeping operations, especially in former Yugoslavia and Haiti. I would like to remind hon. members opposite that since January 1994 our participation in peacekeeping operations has been debated in this House eight times. They should have been here between 1988 and 1993 and compare that record to this one.
On most of these occasions, particular attention was drawn to our role in former Yugoslavia and Haiti. Furthermore, numerous other consultations took place in discussions with the standing committee on foreign affairs, of which the hon. member is a member, which also has a voting mechanism.
I cannot overemphasize that at every opportunity this government has endeavoured to facilitate the debate on Canada's peacekeeping commitments. The apparent objective of Motion No. 31 to generate such debate has already been accomplished by this government.
This motion contains no innovative proposals to strengthen the Canadian policy making process with respect to peacekeeping. The only effect it would have would be to hamper Canada's ability to act by making the existing process more cumbersome, which could only compromise the respect and admiration the country has merited through its peacekeeping actions for more than 40 years.
In light of Canadians' ability to express their concerns regarding any peacekeeping operation, their willingness to do so and the frequency with which the House is debating this matter, the motion under consideration is really unnecessary. It can only sap Canada's ability to act swiftly in accordance with its international peacekeeping commitments.
We are the first to implore the international community to react swiftly in times of crisis, as stressed in the report on the United Nations' rapid response capacity which I am pleased to note resulted from a Canadian initiative.
The international community must react efficiently. Having pressured the international community for action on this issue, Canada has a responsibility to play a leading role and must not run up against redundant mechanisms. Even when confronted with humanitarian emergencies such as in eastern Zaire, we were prepared to consult the House, as is only right. Nevertheless the opposition leaders chose to trust us and not to recall members to the House unnecessarily.
(1845)
Let us take a look at peacekeeping and peace building in the aftermath of the cold war. In the post-cold war era the whole context of peacekeeping has changed. Increasingly, instead of the classic cross-border conflict between states, we are dealing with internal conflicts which threaten to spill over into regional conflicts and to fall into unending cycles of violence. We have seen this pattern most clearly in the former Yugoslavia and in the great lakes region of Africa.
These changes have sparked debate in Canada and internationally about how best to respond to these needs, a debate that informs the quest for reform within the United Nations. In this context, and as I mentioned earlier, Canada tabled a study on ways to enhance the UN's rapid deployment capabilities. Work is under way within the United Nations to implement many of the recommendations made in this study. That is one aspect of the debate, making us better peacekeepers, able to react more efficaciously, with a more flexible, integrated response. This is the premise on which we have built our international reputation as some of the best peacekeepers in the world.
The other aspect is recognizing the need for a broader approach, not just keeping the peace now, but building peace to last. This broader approach has been termed peace building. Peace building is rooted in the recognition that human rights and basic freedoms, the rule of law, good governance, sustainable development and social equity are just as important to world peace as arms control and disarmament. In other words, if we want to restore and maintain peace in countries plagued by conflict, we must guarantee human security as well as military security.
While peacekeeping seeks to guarantee security on a military basis, the goal of peace building is to put in place a lasting infrastructure for human security. Once a peacekeeping operation is under way, peace building seizes on a brief opportunity, a crucial moment to help a country turn to the road of lasting peace and stability.
It works to bring about the minimum conditions that will enable a country to take control of its destiny after which social, political and economic development become possible. Peacekeeping and peace building clearly have to play closely linked roles, complementary roles, to put an end to the conflict.
In planning international missions to Haiti, Bosnia, and now Zaire, we are becoming increasingly aware that multi-disciplinary actions are needed that address more than one aspect of a problem. Armed forces cannot only enforce a ceasefire but can also establish a framework in which civilians, including NGOs, can act. Civilian operations include both a humanitarian assistance component and peace building activities.
It is absolutely essential to link and co-ordinate these two aspects: assistance and peacekeeping in the short term and peace building in the long run. This need has been recognized in the United Nations Security Council resolution on the forming of a multilateral force in response to the situation in Zaire. The resolution explicitly called for a second follow-up phase in the force's mandate. Planning for that phase began immediately which has never happened before.
This is an example of new approaches to conflict resolution. Other methods may be needed in other situations but what is important is to react in a flexible and innovative way. In accepting his Nobel prize, Lester B. Pearson stated: ``The best defence of peace is not power but the removal of the cause of war, and international agreements which will put peace on a stronger foundation than the terror of destruction''.
Implicit in this statement are several basic Canadian values. In line with the third pillar of our foreign policy we see peacekeeping as a means to project these values. First and foremost is the commitment to peace itself and to the non-violent resolution of disputes, values which resonate throughout our society.
(1850 )
Crucial to achieving peace is the pursuit of a process of dialogue and consultation, leading to mutual agreements. Our federal system could not work without a firm commitment to the consultative process. Broad international support fortifies such agreements by providing recognition and legitimacy.
Strengthening the foundations of peace, as I have just described, fosters the establishment of an international order based on rules to which Canadians are strongly attached. In short, peacekeeping goes hand in hand with our vision of Canada, our vision of a progressive country that is open to the world and committed internationally. In addition, it strengthens Canadians' fundamental belief in the effectiveness of civil society, good governance and respect for human rights and the rule of law.
I would like to say a few words about Canadian expertise in peacekeeping. Nourished by these values and by four decades of on-the-ground experience, Canada has developed extensive expertise in peacekeeping. The notion of civil-military co-operation to enhance the effectiveness of peacekeeping is the cornerstone of the new peacekeeping partnership. This partnership was put into action by the Lester B. Pearson Canadian International Peacekeeping Trading Centre. It is also at the core of the DART, the Disaster Assistance Relief Team, a concept developed by DND to intervene efficiently in the case of a humanitarian disaster and to co-ordinate in theatre efforts with humanitarian agencies.
A national consensus for our peacekeeping policy and operations is also very important. Canadians have a remarkable degree of support for peacekeeping which is a great satisfaction to all of us. Polls indicate that 80 per cent of our fellow citizens take great pride in our country's peacekeeping role. Many of our fellow citizens see it as our most important contribution to the international community. Our national consensus on this issue transcends partisan differences and is supported by all segments of society. The Canadian media as well echo and strengthen that consensus.
I see, Mr. Speaker, you are giving me a signal that my time is up. I thank the hon. member for Red Deer for bringing forward this motion so that we can talk about peacekeeping and peace building. I hope in the future the hon. member would bring more constructive and creative ideas to the whole idea of conflict resolutions.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak today on Motion M-13 put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer.
As official opposition critic on foreign affairs and vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, I am in fact entitled to draw attention to the appropriateness
of this motion, which would make the process of sending our troops overseas much more open and democratic.
Let me start off, however, by reminding you that the Bloc Quebecois has proposed a very important amendment, because we felt that Motion M-31, while very pertinent, was still flawed. Thus, with the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the motion would read as follows, and I quote:
That, in the opinion of this House, all proposed peacekeeping or peace enforcement commitments involving Canadian troops must, as soon as possible, be the subject of a vote in the House in order to recommend their approval or rejection to the government.This amendment would be totally acceptable to the present government, since it would have the advantage of adding to the transparency of the decision making process associated with sending our soldiers abroad, without tying the hands of the government when prompt action is required.
You will see that the Bloc Quebecois is being very consistent with its previous positions, because we had already, in the dissenting opinion we tabled in November 1994 in conjunction with the report by the Special Joint Committee reviewing Canada's Foreign Policy, recommended that the House of Commons be more involved in decisions involving foreign affairs.
I will quote, if I may, an excerpt from page 4 of the Bloc Quebecois dissenting opinion: ``We consider that Canada should submit any decision to participate in peacekeeping missions to a vote in the House of Commons, as rapidly as possible, when time allows''.
(1855)
Now that the irritants in the motion tabled in this House by the Reform Party have been removed, we sincerely believe that it would be illogical for this government to vote against it, especially since the Minister of Foreign Affairs is constantly reiterating his desire to consult MPs and the general public to a larger extent.
I do not have to remind my hon. colleagues in this House that the principal role of a member of Parliament is to represent his or her fellow citizens. The government ought, therefore, to do everything it can to involve MPs in decisions as important as sending our soldiers overseas. The lives of Quebecers and Canadians are at stake, whom Canada takes the risk of sending into parts of the world where instability or danger, or both, are constantly present.
Of course, our military personnel possess all of the qualities required to carry out such missions successfully. Moreover, they have our total support and affection, given the excellent reputation they have built for themselves in their many peacekeeping assignments.
We believe, however, that not just the soldiers, but the people of Quebec and Canada are entitled, at the very least, to be informed of the dangerous situations our troops might have to contend with. What is surprising today is that the Liberal government might well vote against this Reform Party motion as amended by the Bloc Quebecois, although the Liberals themselves promised in their famous red book that they would increase the involvement of Parliament and the public in debates on major foreign policy issues.
I shall, if I may, quote a particularly significant excerpt from the red book which would be a mere pamphlet if it only included the promises that were kept. It says, and I quote:
A Liberal government will also expand the rights of Parliament to debate major Canadian foreign policy initiatives, such as the deployment of peacekeeping forces, and the rights of Canadians to regular and serious consultations on foreign policy issues.The conclusion is that it makes no sense at all to debate this motion today, since it is clear that if the Liberal Party had kept this promise, the case would already be closed. Of course some of our Liberal colleagues are going to argue that the government would not be as functional or that it has to be able to act quickly.
During the debate in April 1995 on Bill C-295, whose purpose was to promote parliamentary control of peacekeeping operations, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and Veterans Affairs implied that he would not go along with the idea of being subjected to a set of rules that would restrict the speed with which the government could react.
Motion M-31 as amended would allow the government to act quickly. Adding the phrase ``as soon as possible'' means that the government could act immediately in a crisis and would not have to wait for Parliament to reconvene before making a decision.
If, for instance, a crisis arose somewhere in the world, our troops could be dispatched immediately to the theatres of operations and subsequently, parliamentarians would be able to have a debate on this decision.
The Americans have already thought about this and came up with a solution in 1973 in the form of the War Power Resolution. The three main points may be summarized as follows: after sending troops abroad, the president has 48 hours to inform Congress in writing of what he intends to do; the use of force by troops must cease within 60 days, unless Congress authorizes an extension. However, the president may request a further 30 days to ensure a safe withdrawal of the troops. Congress could demand the withdrawal of the troops within 60 to 90 days by passing a resolution to that effect, a resolution that would be passed simultaneous by both chambers.
It is clear that we are nowhere near this kind of control. Motion M-31 as amended by the Bloc Quebecois merely proposes to have an open debate on sending our troops abroad.
This motion would give members a chance to make their suggestions and opinions known in this House. The last time troops were sent abroad, it was clear that the members of this House had not been consulted but merely informed.
It is too bad government does not pay more attention to the advice of parliamentarians, despite its claims of openness and transparency.
(1900)
Take for instance the case of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. The minister does not seem to realize that the members of this committee examine a certain number of issues thoroughly. We hear witnesses from all walks of life with often exceptional knowledge of often very complex subjects.
The minister keeps saying that the work done by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is very important. He says that he intends to keep committee members informed of the government's decisions, and to take into consideration the positions formulated by this committee.
Is there not something ironic about the fact that these eloquent, gratuitous and inconsequential statements come from the same government which waited until the members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade were held up abroad as members of a parliamentary delegation to sneak through the House the bill to implement the Canada-Israel free trade agreement, despite the reservations expressed by members of this committee during clause by clause consideration of the bill and after hearing witnesses?
When the government decided to lead what was supposed to be a multinational force that would go and help refugees in the African great lakes region, it did not even bother to consult or even inform members of the committee or at least the chairman of its decision.
The government has already promised that members sitting in this House will have a say in the deployment of peacekeepers. That is exactly the purpose of motion M-31.
I see you are signalling that my time is up, but you allowed the member of the Liberal Party a few seconds more, so I shall, if I may, use the time I have left to say that this is exactly the purpose of Motion M-31 as amended by the Bloc Quebecois. It does not deny the government the authority to act quickly when the situation so requires and it would have a major impact in that it would open a window on that rather closed decision making centre which is the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken): The hour 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.