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.
"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.
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.