Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand in the House today and support Bill C-295, put forward by my colleague for Fraser Valley East.
The part of this bill I would like to address is clause 4, dealing with the authority of the House of Commons. As everyone in this House knows, much to the distress of the Liberal government, the Reform Party strongly endorses the notion that the House must be accountable to Canadians, and not just financially accountable. Everything we do in the House must reflect the desires and expectations of the people. Only under the most extreme circumstances should Parliament act without consulting the people who elected us. This is especially true when Canadian lives are at stake.
Last year I had the privilege of being a member of the special joint committee reviewing Canada's defence policy. During this year of intense research and consultation with Canadians, we made a number of recommendations in our report, entitled "Security in a Changing World". This is one of the recommendations, and I quote:
Defence policy cannot be made in private and results simply announced. Canadians will not accept that, nor should they. Nor should the government commit our forces to service abroad without a full parliamentary debate and accounting for that decision. It is our expectation that, except in extraordinary circumstances, such a debate would always take place prior to any such deployment.
This recommendation was endorsed by all members of the committee, including those sitting opposite today. Though there have been eleventh hour debates on peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia and the government's white paper on national defence did recognize many of the special joint committee's recommendations, this specific recommendation was overlooked by the minister and the government.
Currently, cabinet has the full authority to designate soldiers to be on active service for war or for peacekeeping activities. If Parliament is not sitting, section 32 of the National Defence Act requires that the House reconvene 10 days after placing soldiers on active service. Strangely, the government is not required to hold a debate on this. The notion of accountability is conspicuously absent. Canadians have no say in committing our troops to life threatening circumstances.
Clause 4 of Bill C-295 provides a method for full parliamentary review in the spirit of the special joint committee report and holds the government accountable for all peacekeeping commitments. Clause 4 states: "No Canadian forces shall serve or be committed to service in peacekeeping service or continue in such service beyond the time or expenditure limit previously approved by the House of Commons, pursuant to this section, unless the Minister of National Defence has moved in the House of Commons a resolution" outlining five criteria that must be debated and passed.
This opportunity for debate is essential. Since the end of the cold war the government has designated more troops to active service than any time since the Korean war. While we are very proud of our international recognition as peacekeepers and in some cases peacemakers to the world, the missions we have engaged in are becoming increasingly dangerous and uncertain in purpose. Canadians should be proud of our peacekeepers, because our troops are indeed the best in the world.
The first criterion in the resolution authorizes the specific mission for peacekeeping service. This is extremely important. The House of Commons must be told exactly what the specific mission is.
When I talk to my constituents about defence issues many ask me what our specific mission is in hot spots such as the former Yugoslavia. They also ask why we are still there when the troops are fired on and held hostage by the combatants. They seem to realize there is no will for peace in that troubled nation and wonder exactly what we are doing to resolve the conflict.
This brings me to my second criterion. Bill C-295 would ensure the resolution specifies the objectives, duties and role of the mission. This is important in the new peacekeeping roles we find ourselves in.
In the former Yugoslavia it is often unclear what objectives we are striving for. The classic peacekeeping role of keeping two warring factions apart from each other while they negotiate a final peace or maintaining a ceasefire to which all parties agree is absent in Bosnia. In a conflict such as this where all warring sides clearly do not want peace and look at our troops as occupiers, it is difficult to ascertain exactly what our objectives are.
If we are to send peacekeepers into dangerous situations such as this it is imperative Parliament pass a resolution specifying the objectives of our troops, what objectives they will be attempting to meet.
Canadian troops cannot be pawns in any conflict. We must have a clear role spelled out. This is particularly important when communications between Canada's peacekeeping forces and the Canadian public are weak.
The third criterion of the resolution defines the state or area in which the mission is to operate. Only Parliament should have the authority to specify where our troops are to be committed.
The fourth criterion in the resolution specifies the date on which the authority expires. It is essential for Parliament to decide the exact date on which the mission ends.
Some of our former commitments have seemed unending in scope. Our service in the former Yugoslavia is on a six-month term but other peacekeeping missions, such as our mission to Cyprus, lasted 30 years.
Giving Parliament the authority to determine the date on which the authority is to expire for a mission also gives Parliament the opportunity to cancel or renew the mission. Parliament will be able to evaluate the mission and decide whether we have accomplished our objectives. It can also re-evaluate the conflict and assess whether it has changed in scope and whether we still have a role to play.
In common with the fourth criterion is the fifth. It specifies a maximum planned expenditure for the mission. Peacekeeping missions, like anything else the government does, must have financial bounds. The nation does not have a bottomless purse. We must determine what we can afford.
Clause 4 of the bill also provides for a five-hour debate on the resolution before the question is put to the House. As with any bill, the resolution can pass with or without amendments and it can also be defeated.
The time for Parliament to become accountable to the Canadian people for designating our troops on active duty is now. We must be the ones to decide and those who represent them in Parliament are their voice.
I strongly urge all members of the House to support Bill C-295.