Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me on behalf of all constituents in the great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to speak to this motion and highlight this government's commitment to enhancing the role of parliament in the consideration of Canadian defence and foreign policy issues.
A similar motion was debated in October 1996. At that time the government noted that any additional steps in the deployment process would seriously undermine Canada's ability to respond rapidly and effectively to international crises. The government's view remains unchanged as the nature of international crises does not make this motion a viable option for Canada.
However, a comprehensive public discussion of any major Canadian forces overseas deployment is a healthy and important activity that must be encouraged. Thus the government has continued its active engagement in consultation with parliament on Canadian forces troop deployments wherever possible and necessary.
Recent history shows us that these are not empty words or vacuous rhetoric that on occasion is the mantra for some members opposite. I am excluding the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore but I could be including the member for Lakeland when I say this.
Earlier this month the House debated the evolving situation in Kosovo and the prospect of Canadian involvement. All parties agreed that this was a serious humanitarian crisis and supported action if no diplomatic solution could be reached. We all agreed that air strikes may be necessary to quell the violence there.
In April of this year the House was consulted on two highly visible international developments. A special joint meeting of the House of Commons defence and foreign affairs committees attended by both ministers came to the unanimous conclusion that Canadian participation in a peacekeeping force to the Central African Republic was necessary. It is worth noting that the peacekeeping force was deployed in record time. Later that month a House debate led to unanimous House approval of continued Canadian participation in the NATO led stabilization force in Bosnia. There are many more examples of the government's commitment to open debate.
In addition to consulting parliament on troop deployments, many major foreign policy issues have been discussed in parliament. The Dayton peace agreement, cruise missile testing, NATO enlargement and NORAD renewal have all received consideration by parliament. Few areas of public policy receive more open discussion than do Canada's contribution to international security.
Indeed, it has been the policy of this government from the beginning that major defence and foreign policy issues be brought to the House. We have kept our word.
In addition the government called on the House for a comprehensive review of Canadian defence and foreign policies prior to the government reaching decisions on these matters. Parliament's recommendations were highly influential in defining Canadian policy for the 1990s and beyond.
My hon. friend's motion might be interpreted by some to imply that this government's decision on troop deployments rarely if ever involve parliament, that these decisions go against the democratic grain in this country. This is simply not the case.
We should all recall that Mackenzie King, a champion of full parliamentary sovereignty over Canadian policy, called parliament back from recess for an emergency debate on Canadian participation in the second world war. This government also strongly believes in parliamentary involvement. Earlier this year our Prime Minister called upon the House for urgent debate regarding Canadian involvement in the Persian Gulf, regarding Kosovo, and the Central African Republic and SFOR. Mackenzie King's democratic tradition continues.
It is also suggested that this motion will lend parliamentary support, approval and legitimacy to the deployment of Canadian forces abroad, as if these qualities were somehow absent today. The fact of the matter is that parliament is consulted on troop deployments whenever possible and necessary, and that these discussions are taken seriously by the government. The views of this House are taken into consideration when decisions are taken by the government.
And what of the international environment? The new international security environment is unstable. Crucial developments occur at astonishing speeds. It has been suggested that predicting international crises is relatively easy, that nothing comes up overnight.
Collapsing states and ethnic violence are not overnight developments but decisions on multinational intervention are. These actions, be they through the UN or NATO, are not often afforded the luxury of time. In this era of ethnic cleansing, of genocide and of untold human suffering, a few days delay could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. This happened in Rwanda.
Our ability to deploy rapidly has even more significant implications for Canada. Our NATO and NORAD commitments are founded on the promise of immediate action against a threat to any alliance partner. Canada takes these promises extremely seriously. If ever the need to defend our allies arose and our troops remained waiting idly by because of undue delay, our international reputation would be severely damaged. Hence the need for speed.
The international community's pursuit of a fully functional rapid reaction force especially at the UN is well documented. Canada has and will continue to build an important role in the development of such a force.
Canada's 1995 study “Toward a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations” was a highly influential examination of how the UN and individual countries could improve their ability to respond to international crises. This initiative spawned an agreement in principle to develop a rapidly deployable mission headquarters. This headquarters will increase the UN's ability to get operations under way in a far shorter time. Also related to this is the United Nations multinational standby high readiness brigade, or SHIRBRIG, a co-operative effort between Canada and many European states. We hope that this brigade will be available to the UN by January 1999.
To address humanitarian disasters, national defence maintains the innovative Canadian forces disaster assistance response team under the acronym DART, which is not to be misconstrued with another DART, the acronym for Draconian arrant reform truculence. The Canadian forces DART is composed of 180 personnel who can be deployed for humanitarian and disaster relief within 48 hours.
Canada's commitment to developing rapid reaction capabilities is unparalleled. But Canada also tries to lead by example. Our quick contribution to address the recent crisis in the Central African Republic and the deployment of troops and equipment to help Italian regions devastated by mudslides are cases in point.
Our well earned reputation has been won in part by our willingness and our ability to act quickly. We must do nothing that threatens this. In fact we must do the exact opposite. It would not be wise to add any step in the approval process that could hamper our ability to respond. Requiring a vote on the deployment of Canadian forces abroad could in some circumstances impose delay and the cost of such delay would be measured in human suffering.
The record of the last five years shows that where a mission is about to be launched or the government is considering the renewal of an existing commitment, parliament will normally be involved. This can take the form of debate in the House or the appearance of ministers before standing committees.
Matters related to the overseas deployment of Canadian forces personnel are usually brought before this House for debate. I see no sign that the government will stop taking advantage of the opportunities to do so.
It is vitally important that the government retain the ability to act quickly. To limit its ability to do so in the manner proposed in this motion would be incompatible with Canadian values and interests. Given the government's record in consulting parliament regarding these matters, I also see little practical advantage to be gained by imposing such a requirement.
To support this motion, one would not only have to ignore a well-established and consistent record of consultation, one would have to ignore the reality of the world around us. Events today are unfolding rapidly and often with tragic consequences. Rapid response is necessary.
The now well-established practice of consulting parliament has served this House, this government and Canadians very well. The government will continue to consult parliament on major defence and foreign policy issues.
In the final analysis, the Liberal government's commitment is to be strong. The Liberal government's commitment is to safety. The Liberal government's commitment is to save lives.
