Debates of June 10th, 1998

National Defence Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

At the request of the the chief government whip the vote on the motion is deferred until tomorrow at 1.00 p.m.

Business Of The House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I tabled a motion and I am seeking unanimous consent to make a minor amendment in the sixth paragraph of the motion at the fifth line to add after the word question, “necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of Bill C-37”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this amendment to the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

(Amendment agreed to)

Information Commissioner

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in accordance with section 54(1) of the act to extend the present laws of Canada that provide access to information under the control of the Government of Canada, Chapter A-1 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, this House approve the appointment of the Hon. John M. Reid, P.C., as Information Commissioner.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take these few moments today to submit to the House the candidacy of the Hon. John Mr. Reid for the position of Information Commissioner.

The Hon. John Reid, a native of Fort Frances, Ontario, studied at St. Paul's College, at the University of Manitoba, and at the University of Toronto. He was first elected to the House of Commons in 1965, and again in 1968, 1972, 1974, 1979 and 1980. He was parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council in 1972 and became Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations on November 24, 1978.

For a number of years, he worked for a group well known to all parliamentarians, the Company of Young Canadians, to which he gave distinguished service.

Far more important in today's context is the fact that, during his time here, the Hon. John Reid was one of those in favour of our country's having campaign expenses legislation. He did excellent work in support of that cause. Many credit him for the existence of certain components of the legislation we now have in this area.

Later, he worked along with another former MP, Alfred Hales, and others, on the creation of an access to information system to allow the Canadian public to gain a greater knowledge of this country's government machinery.

The position of information commissioner, which we are about to fill, is not an easy one. It requires that an individual be dedicated to the ongoing development of democratic practices. It also requires that one be willing and able to express strong opinion, and yet have an excellent knowledge of the inner workings of government and of the public service.

The position was held, until recently, by Dr. John Grace. His term, as I understand it, expired on April 30, 1998, just a few days ago. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Dr. John Grace for the work that he did as information commissioner.

Under the Access to Information Act, 1983, Canadians have a broad legal right of access to information recorded in any form and controlled by most federal institutions, but subject to limited and specific exemptions.

The information commissioner is a very special ombudsman appointed by parliament to investigate complaints about the refusal to provide information pursuant to the act. The commissioner's priorities are: to convince government to release information informally, without the need to resort to legal proceedings or the rigour of the courts; to follow, where possible, a non-adversarial approach; to resolve complaints in a fair, equitable and expeditious manner; and to ensure that response deadlines are consistently respected across government.

The position requires experience in managing at the senior executive level and in innovating and leading the management of a multidisciplinary team on sensitive issues in a public environment.

In addition to possessing a thorough knowledge of the Access to Information Act, and of course an understanding of the rules of natural justice and fairness, the commissioner must have an extensive understanding of the principles of public administration, current government structure, the internal government decision making process, the complexities of federal and provincial jurisdictions and government security requirements.

The government and I believe that the Hon. John Reid has the unusual kind of qualities necessary to achieve the desired result of providing information to members of parliament and the public, to respect the limitations that I have just described and to recognize the Privacy Act and the counterweight that it provides where appropriate and necessary.

In this regard I thank my colleagues in the House who brought the candidacy of the honourable John Reid to my attention and to the attention of the government. Even though the honourable Mr. Reid was a member of a Liberal government in the past and sat as a member of parliament, I think the fact that his candidacy was brought to the attention of the government by members of other parties in the House speaks very highly to his qualifications.

I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona and the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for drawing his name to the attention of the government. Of course the government officially proposes the candidacy of an individual, which is what I am doing and what the government has done through the authority of the Prime Minister. Now I am seeking the consent of the House to have this nomination ratified.

The honourable Mr. Reid is an historian by training. As I said a while ago, he was a member of the House for a number of years. His brother, Patrick Reid, served for many years and was the dean of the Ontario legislature at the time that I sat at Queen's Park many years ago, so long ago that I even had hair in those days.

[An hon. member]

That was some while ago.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

“That was a while ago”, says an hon. colleague. Probably the opposition House leader would understand just how I feel in that regard.

Returning to the honourable John Reid I want to say a word as well about the late Jed Baldwin. Jed Baldwin, a Conservative member of parliament, worked tirelessly for the adoption of the access to information laws in Canada. I remember as a junior staffer working on the Hill many years prior to my first election as an MP, walking by Mr. Baldwin's office and seeing him work tirelessly as he did then. I pay homage to him as well as a pioneer of this legislation.

With these few words, I offer to the House on behalf of the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the government the candidacy of the Hon. John Reid, PC, as information commissioner for Canada. I thank in advance my colleagues across the way for not only their generous support of the candidacy of the honourable John Reid but also for having drawn his name to the attention of the government, recognizing that it is the nomination of the government that will be supported hopefully later this day by the House of Commons.

I highly recommend this person. I believe he will serve the country faithfully as he did in his previous function. With access to information laws being what they are often individuals who administer those functions tend to do so and sometimes their judgment displeases the government more than they do the opposition. As we say “Them's the breaks”.

I recognize that will probably happen every now and then once Mr. Reid assumes these functions. I certainly undertake to respect that as I am sure all of us will once he begins to discharge the duties of information commissioner. I am sure, though, that he will perform these functions with wisdom and that he will do a good job for the country he loves so much, Canada.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see so many of my colleagues here today. I will talk about the process of appointing an information commissioner.

We are going to support this appointment. I had the opportunity and indeed the pleasure to interview Mr. John Reid and I was quite impressed. I will go through a bit of the process. I hope to influence my colleagues on the other side that the process was not as harmful as they thought it could be.

During my lifetime I have probably interviewed 300 to 600 people. I lost count years ago. I have always seen a benefit in it. It is not just for bureaucracy but for business. The process of interviewing people is so common that it is uncommon not to do it. The selection process of any individual is common.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have done it in your past businesses. You have to know the type of individual you want in your business, in your company or in any job like that of information commissioner. You have to advertise as widely as you can to get the most prominent applicants. You have to look at all the applications and short list which does not come as a surprise to anybody over here. You have to interview, talk to the individuals you have short listed and make a selection. Then you check references to double check that your selection is right.

That process is not a strange process in the land but it is strange in the House. I do not want to degrade any conversation in terms of patronage appointments, but I really want to try to influence my colleagues that we have started a process which could actually work for officers of the House of Commons. Perhaps someday we could expand it. At the very least what should have occurred here is the process I was talking about.

Instead some time ago an individual was proposed by the government. I did not know that individual. I do not know how many of my other colleagues or the media actually need this function as much as the opposition and others do. Once the name was proposed there was quite a backlash. A lot of people said that the person was inappropriate for the job.

There are two problems with that. First, whoever thought this individual could be good enough for the job made a drastic error. Second, we managed to embarrass the individual. The individual had a job somewhere else and suddenly half the country turned on her because they did not like the fact that the individual could be an information commissioner. That process clearly does not work. It is very much like patronage.

Let us look at the process we went through further to that. Once that individual was basically turned down prior to even being interviewed or talked to, up came another name. Fortunately the two of my colleagues who put the name forward had a good person in mind, but that may not have been. We took a chance. The government took a chance and said let us bring this person before the government operations committee to be more or less interviewed by members of parliament.

If that person had been much like the first individual it could have been extremely embarrassing. It turned out the individual was in my opinion quite competent. When we went through the interview process I asked questions as I normally would with hundreds of other people: what are your skills, what are your abilities, what are your qualifications, where are you going to take this job, and how does it apply to society in general and to the people who are looking for information. Lo and behold this person not only had good answers to those questions but had excellent answers. John Reid had excellent answers to those questions.

What is the impact? Here is the impact I think we have just gone through. John Reid in my opinion was a very good candidate. I will never know in my own mind whether he is the best because I only had one to talk to.

I am not belittling in any way, shape or form this individual because I think he will do a very good job. However I think even John Reid would be one of the first to admit that he could go against anyone else in an interview and probably win the job. I would have guessed had we gone and asked him that he would probably have insisted. That is how much I thought of this individual and his character.

We have left an open door on the whole process. We will never know whether we got the very best, but we do know we have a very good individual.

There is another impact of this process. What about all other well qualified individuals in Canada today? There are well qualified executives who have been replaced and are out of their jobs because their companies closed down or for whatever reason. These are well qualified people who would like access to these types of jobs. They would at least like to have the opportunity to compete. They do not insist they get the job; they just want the opportunity to compete. What we are telling good people out there is that they do not have the opportunity to compete. I think that is wrong.

I see another impact. Perhaps this is the positive part. I think we have come a long way. I applaud the whole House for that. However, the next time a position for another officer of the House becomes vacant I ask my colleagues to go through the process of advertising, go through the process of knowing what kind of individual they want, go through the process of a short list and interviews, and then at the end of the exercise they will truly know they have the best person beyond any amount of reasonable doubt.

We will support Mr. John Reid and I congratulate him. I think he is a very good candidate. I also congratulate my colleagues in the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party who had the ability to assess whether or not this individual was good and put his name forward.

We have to go the next step. Just one more time, I think the government will realize that this one did not hurt a bit. It only gave credibility to the process. The next time it should try it all the way. From the official opposition's point of view, if the government goes through that process there will be no tomfoolery. There will be no games played. It will be business and it will be fair and square and above board at all times.

My congratulations to Mr. John Reid. My congratulations to a process that is halfway there and that has yet to come.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We are very quickly coming to Private Members' Business but we will start with the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I know the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has a few comments to make.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is procedurally possible to seek unanimous consent of the House to finish with this matter before we move on to Private Members' Business. I do not know if the member from Red Deer would be amenable to that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona has requested unanimous consent of the House to extend Government Orders for a period of time long enough to accommodate five to ten minutes for the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. Then the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough would have five minutes to finish with this and then proceed to Private Members' Business.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.30, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Military Missions Beyond Canadian Boundaries

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should seek majority support, through an official vote in the House of Commons, prior to committing a significant contingent of Canadian military personnel to an active military mission beyond the boundaries of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I will explain the motion further before I really get started.

I have not put specific numbers in there and that is intentional so that the government would use its discretion. We are not talking about three people going off for telecommunications duty. We are not talking about some of the smaller missions. We are talking about major engagements and about the kind of events that have occurred. Many of my colleagues across the way were very vocal during the late 1980s and early 1990s about the government's not coming to the House of Commons to talk about the issue, to inform Canadians and to seek permission of parliamentarians to send troops on these kinds of missions.

I am certain today that my hon. colleagues on the government side will be supporting the motion. I could list all the quotes from many of the people who are still there regarding the past government and how it did not talk to parliamentarians.

I want to relay some of the motivation for this. I want to talk first of all about some of the Canadian troops I have encountered as I have travelled in many parts of the world. Specifically I want to talk about our troops in Bosnia and Haiti.

I had the privilege of meeting with these troops in both these locations. In Bosnia I was there observing elections. I was part of the OECD mission to observe the elections, basically working for the European Union in terms of that observation role.

In Haiti I was travelling with the foreign affairs minister and at that time he and I together had an opportunity to see the kind of role our troops and the RCMP were playing in that situation.

I was proud of what I saw. I was proud of the men and women I had the opportunity to go out on patrol with. While in a rented car, a Swedish translator and I were out in the boonies and we came across a Canadian armoured carrier with a Canadian flag and Canadians soldiers. I flagged them down in the middle of the road and they stopped and asked what a member of parliament from Canada was doing in Bihac. They were surprised.

As a Canadian serving Canadian voters there was a pride there I cannot describe to the House.

The fact that they are there doing that job for all of us is something we should know more about. I really feel Canadians know little about what our troops are doing in foreign countries. If for no other reason, bringing that information to the House will help Canadians to find out exactly where we are sending our men and women.

I cannot help but relay to members the pride when those little kids took me to a school in Bosnia and said “Look at that. There is a Canadian flag. There is a Bosnian flag. Your troops on their own time rebuilt this school, put the windows in it, put the desks up and we now have a school”. A little old lady took me to the hospital and said “There is a Canadian flag and your troops on their own time came to this hospital and volunteered to do all kinds of things to make our lives a little better”.

As well I will never forget going into some of the really hard areas of Haiti on a 2.00 a.m. patrol. I saw the kind of relationship that our troops had built with those people in that very impoverished country.

We need to think about this issue and the motion at hand and what I am trying to accomplish in this private member's motion.

I love taking pictures. When I talk to a rotary club or when I talk to a chamber of commerce I have watched people's faces when they see those little kids, that little old lady or that hospital in some of those pictures. I have seen their faces light up with pride. They said they did not know we were doing that sort of thing. They did not know our troops got involved in that sort of stuff. All they have heard about is the negative stuff the media love to print. They have not heard about the schools or the hospitals and all the positive things.

To involve our young men and women in a foreign country I believe it is vital that we bring into this House and talk about this issue. I believe that the top down cabinet decision about committing to some part of the world is not acceptable.

We may hear these things come up overnight and we will not have time. Nothing comes up overnight. We knew about Bosnia. In the 1980s we talked about Bosnia and its potential. Many people thought Kosovo would be the place that would ignite first. It turns out that it might be the place that ignites last. We knew that something was going to happen there. We have known for 1,500 years that things were not well there.

I was in Rwanda in 1985. It was very clear at that point that there was a problem. When General Dallaire was there in 1990 he clearly told everyone there was going to a serious problem. He told us that there was a problem between the Tutsis and the Hutus. Nothing much happened. People were not made aware of it. These things do not just happen.

The Americans were in Haiti in 1925 trying to solve the problems of Haiti. They built schools and infrastructure. We know that 85% of the people are illiterate and do not have jobs. We know the potential places. We know the problems in Sudan. We know the problems in Nigeria.

It is a poor excuse to say that this would handcuff the government into not being able to discuss this issue. That is not possible.

Unanimous consent would be given in this House, I am positive, to discuss the issue when it comes to the lives of our troops going to a foreign country.

I do not think there is a single person in here who would dare stand up and oppose that sort of motion. To say it cannot happen is just not acceptable. To say it would handcuff the government is just not possible. That is what was said in 1990 and so on but that is not true. That is not an excuse.

How should we handle this sort of thing? How should we get accountability and transparency? How would it work in this House?

What I would like to put forward is a process something like this. Members are aware of the special debates that we have in this House. These special take note debates in the last case occurred the day after the press release and press statements were made downstairs, that this was what we were doing, extending our mission in Bosnia for a year and so on.

Then we had the next day the take note debate, of which there was an audience of one or two members. That has been typical. That is not what I am talking about. That is not an excuse for democracy.

What I am talking about is where we have a problem in the world the Canadian government says this is a problem we should get involved with and Canadians should be interested in.

We then come to this House and committee of the whole and we inform this House so that every member has the opportunity and the responsibility to be in this House to listen to experts. This is non-partisan politics.

This is where every member is going to hear from the military experts, the foreign affairs experts, the academic experts and about the history of that part of the world we are proposing to send troops to.

This is an education for us and for Canadians. I would even go so far as to say it would be to our advantage as parliament to vote some advertising funds to let Canadians know that on their national television network they will be able to watch and get firsthand expert information on Bosnia, on Haiti, on Zaire, on Nigeria, on Sudan, wherever it is.

We heard yesterday from parliamentarians from Pakistan. The question was asked of how to solve the problem in Kashmir.

The senator said the way to solve that problem and what Canadian parliamentarians could do would be to send a mission to Kashmir to see the atrocities occurring, 60,000 people dead so far, to report those to the international community and then the international community could take action.

That is a role he suggested he would like to see Canada play. That would be the best thing they could do to diffuse the issue in Pakistan and India.

Maybe that is something the government would like to propose and get the best information we can on. The second phase would be speakers from each party would from a military and a foreign affairs perspective present their party's opinion on sending troops to wherever it is.

There would be all party input. We would not have to listen to ten speeches, some of them written by researchers and simply read. People would speak who have worked on the issue, are knowledgeable about the issue.

Let us face it. We are busy enough in this place that members cannot be specialists on everything. They zero in on their little area of responsibility and that is what they work on. Those are the people we would hear from and I believe parliamentarians would listen.

There has been an information session of two hours. There has been debate for two hours. Now comes the most important part of all. All members who have received the information, have heard the positions of the parties would vote on whether we send our young people to some unsafe place in this world.

We have a responsibility. We owe it to Canadians to give them the opportunity to become informed and to know where we as parliamentarians stand. Then in a free vote we stand up and are counted.

To me that is a responsible way to decide whether we send troops to foreign countries. I cannot see how any government going into the 21st century cannot agree with that sort of approach. It takes care of the accountability factor. It takes care of the responsibility factor. We are responsible for every single life that we put in jeopardy when we send people to those places.

I would imagine that we would get unanimous agreement once we had gone through that process. I cannot believe that it would be very controversial. All of us would feel better. Canadians would be informed. They would know about what they are reading in the newspapers. As a result of that we would probably have done the best service that we possibly could.

Putting this in the form of a motion allows it to be transferred to the committee and the committee can fine-tune it. The committee can adjust and fix it however it wants.

That is the framework we are talking about. With that framework I believe we have taken an approach with which everyone can agree.

I truly hope that all parties will be in favour of that and will speak in favour of that and not use the tired arguments that we so often hear that it would tie the hands of government and that government is responsible. We are all responsible. We all want to share the information. We all want to share the pride.

We want to share the pride of knowing what our young people are doing over there. I find it very troubling that we do not know what they are doing. It is troubling that we have to hear all the negative stuff about our troops when there is so much positive out there.

A recent poll done by the government showed that 61% of Canadians want to know more about foreign policy. This poll was commissioned by the foreign affairs department and was tabled by the minister. The minister's poll said that 61% of Canadians want to be informed.

What better way to inform them than to start with peacekeeping and to inform them in the House. What better way to raise the profile of the House and of all its members, that we are really taking part. I would challenge any party or member not to be here for those take note debates. If they have young people in the forces in their ridings, they had better be here. If they have the parents or grandparents of those people in their ridings, they had better be here.

Canadians are going to be looking at them and saying it is a responsible way to make that decision. Canadians are saying that is what they want. The minister's polls have shown that.

This would lend legitimacy to budget figures that many people do not understand. There are budget figures of millions of dollars for missions. This would lend some legitimacy to the spending of that kind of money.

In conclusion probably the most important thing would be to tell our troops: “We care. We parliamentarians are giving you an endorsement.

We have studied the issue. You have watched us on national television studying this issue. We have spoken to the issue and we have voted on the issue. We are saying to you that we are behind you. Canadians are behind you. We do not care what that media might do to you. We believe in you. We trust you and we are giving you our confidence”.

That is what it is all about. That is why I hope all members will see fit to support this motion. Adjust it, send it to committee and work on it, but this kind of concept should be carried through.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer has been a constructive and co-operative member of the foreign affairs committee. We sometimes disagree but not in terms of the general thrust of his positions. As I said yesterday in the committee, his ideas are listened to and we pick the best ideas out of them.

Let me say that there is a fundamental issue of constitutional law. The hero of the persons case was really not the five ladies, although they were magnificent, but the shy law lord, Lord Sankey, who actually decided, and it was a revolutionary decision, that women are persons. He also enunciated the concept of a constitution as a living tree, not a frozen cake of doctrine. One has to remember that with parliament. Parliament is evolving.

It was very surprising for the people who were elected and defeated before 1993 to come back to this parliament and realize how much has changed. In 1994, 1995 and 1996, and the hon. member for Red Deer was there, we changed parliament.

We instituted those debates on foreign policy and they went on to the early hours of the morning. There were 20 to 30 people staying until two or three in the morning to speak on these issues. This is something that was started by this government, continued by two foreign ministers, three defence ministers and it is not reversible. It is a change in parliamentary practice, the accessibility to ideas and the debate.

We have some problems with constitutionalizing in an American sense. The Americans put rigid amendments into the constitution and then spend their best time and best legal brains in evading that. We all know the provisions in the American constitution but we will remember that President Johnson with excellent legal advisers literally turned them around. If one looks at the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, one can see that it is a bypassing of the constitutional provisions.

What we would rather see is the evolution and continuance of the trends already established by this government and which have opened up the issue of peacekeeping to parliamentary opinion. There is a flexibility here that lends itself to problem solving in a very concrete sense. I will cite a perfect example.

When I became parliamentary secretary in the foreign ministry in July last year, there was an immediate issue of the extension, because it was raised by the American president and others in response to an emergency, of the mandate of our forces in Haiti. Parliament was out of session. Could we convoke it?

I took the step in consultation with the foreign minister, who I think was abroad at the time, of calling the porte-paroles of all the opposition parties and telling them what we proposed to do and asking them if they would agree while parliament was not in session. They all replied they would and I thanked them for it. I told them I thought we were making a precedent.

We have established in addition to the consultation of parliament when it is in session, the principle of consultation with the porte-paroles when it is not in session. If one gets a strong expression of opinion that it cannot or should not be done, then it goes back to the minister.

In a very real sense the Prime Minister and the foreign minister are constitutional activists.

I look at the foreign affairs committee and it is astonishing the changes in that very august body, somewhat conservative in its approach in recent years before the new wave, of which the hon. member for Red Deer is as much a part as I am, of new members elected in 1993, the 208 new members.

I look at what we have done and at the report made by the foreign affairs committee, its special subcommittee on international trade, on the MAI, multilateral agreement on investment. That is as good a report as one could get from an American committee which is endowed with the power and with the legal officers, minority and majority. It is an excellent report and synthesis and breaks new ground. In any other major problem of that sort coming within the ambit of the foreign affairs committee, I hope similar studies will be made.

We have instituted travelling committees. One went to Bosnia. The hon. member for Red Deer had been to Bosnia on a previous mission. Another, headed by a minister to conform to the exigencies imposed by the Algerian government, went to Algeria.

A third one has just been to Chiapas, Mexico. Three opposition parties. That was an all-party group. It functioned as a team I am assured by the chair and all those who took part in it. It has reported back. It follows up our direct negotiations or consultations with the Mexican government and we expect it to be a standing concern of ours. There is a Mexican-Canadian parliamentary committee formed now.

That is what I call law in the making in a very dynamic sense. As the hon. member quoted today, we have had visits reciprocally. An Algerian group is in Canada today and we hope there will be another Canadian group in Algeria and one further following.

The committee is in evolution. I would cite also the example of the special regional study group, the foreign minister's proposal, the outer Middle East, the area between the classical Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, the unknown area. The foreign intelligence services do not give enough information. We will study it and I am delighted to have the co-operation and support of the hon. member for Red Deer in that because if it is a go-ahead as a foreign affairs study, we want all parties in it.

There is the change, evolution of parliamentary committees. That is the example of the pragmatic, empirical, step by step, problem oriented approach to constitutional development. It is not the American way, but we think it is more effective. It has that built-in element of flexibility. We do not have to hire a lawyer to get around the constitutional provisions which I think too frequently the Americans do that builds distrust and distaste for the constitution.

I think we have picked up the substance of the hon. member's idea. I will assure him that with his support and others, the role of the foreign affairs committee will keep expanding. I am very proud to have been associated with this committee, vicariously in a sense as the connection between it and the minister. The work is impressive and it represents a revolution in the style of parliament of the sort that was unknown to those whose parliamentary term ended before 1993.

If I may make to the hon. member a valuable suggestion, we would prefer the flexibility that now exists, but I would say the essential spirit of what he wants is there. The defence minister and the foreign minister accept parliament's interest, all parties' interest in the engagement of our foreign troops. There is the very clear understanding that if parliament is in session, parliament will debate to allow, under circumstances, 20, 30 and if necessary 50 members to speak. It may exhaust the occupant of the Speaker's chair from time to time, but I am sure the Speaker would agree that is a small price to pay for the cause of enlightenment.

This is law in the making in the Canadian way. I think the substance of the hon. member's suggestion is incorporated. By the way, there is absolutely no inhibition to the parliamentary foreign affairs committee to study this and other issues of constitutional change. It has already been suggested we examine the issue of treaty-making power. I believe I had a discussion with the distinguished member opposite on the subcommittee on that. May I simply say that that is a somewhat inactive subcommittee. I wonder whose fault that is.

Nevertheless let us face it. We like the idea of consulting parliament. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has made the changes. They are not reversible now and I expect a continuing momentum.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to say that the Bloc Quebecois will support the motion by the member for Red Deer in which the member wants Parliament to play a greater role in the deployment of Canadian soldiers abroad.

The hon. member for Red Deer and I have, on a number of occasions, during the deliberations of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, expressed concern over the process used to send contingents of soldiers abroad to serve in peacekeeping operations under the aegis of the UN or NATO. We feel this process should be more democratic and involve elected representatives to a greater extent than in the past in the important decisions governments make and are asked to make increasingly.

The number of these missions is increasing significantly and requires today's armies, including the Canadian army, to play a major role in maintaining international peace and security.

I think the revolution mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs is far from over. While it is true that, since 1993, there have been debates in this House and in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs on the issue of sending troops abroad, they have been held either in this House or in committee.

Those debates have had little impact on public opinion. They include the recent debate on renewing the mandate of the Canadian forces within SFOR, in which the Minister of Foreign Affairs followed by his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, spoke to a nearly empty House.

It is time to complete this reform. I think the motion by the member for Red Deer today is very constructive in this regard.

The member added a few words of explanation concerning the new three-stage process he is proposing in his motion, which provides that members of this House be adequately informed of the issues and intentions of the government and of the defence and foreign affairs ministers; that a real debate take place between members of all parties in this House; and that this House may express an opinion, this question remaining a matter of prerogative.

I would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who gave us a crash course of sorts on constitutional law, that this Parliament could change this prerogative. It could even abrogate it, if it wanted to.

One may argue that the motion put forward by the hon. member for Red Deer could have been broader. Indeed, if it so desired, this Parliament could pass legislation, as other countries have, to ensure that parliamentary approval is required before forces can be sent abroad and expenditures made in this respect.

I therefore believe that the proposal of the hon. member for Red Deer is one that meets democratic and transparency requirements, which are not currently met, although we must recognize that there has been more debate on the deployment of Canadian contingents abroad.

We in the Bloc Quebecois have repeatedly been asked to comment on the way decisions have been made or announced, and debates prepared, since Parliament reopened in September, to discuss the deployment of Canadian contingents.

I said in this House before that, in my opinion, such a practice is inconsistent, that it lacks consistency and uniformity. Perhaps this lack of consistency and uniformity is what the parliamentary secretary seeks to preserve in trying to maintain the flexibility that all too often appears to suit the government.

We are therefore in favour of this motion, which I feel makes a very useful contribution to the debate on the democratization of government foreign affairs decisions and important decisions such as those to send contingents abroad.

I would also like to add, since the parliamentary secretary referred to this earlier, that the debate must be broadened to include additional foreign policy issues. The parliamentary secretary implied that the House, through its Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, had been fairly closely associated with the debate over whether to approve the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.

This involvement or association is still too minimal. The only reason the issue of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment came to the attention of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and its subcommittee was because there was a leak. The text of the MAI, or the draft agreement, was made public by a non-government organization that pointed out the problems that could ensue if Canada or other countries signed this agreement.

Here, too, and the Bloc Quebecois and your humble servant intend to follow up on this, it will probably be necessary at some point to introduce a motion or a private member's bill requiring the government to obtain the approval of the House before ratifying agreements, a trend that is surfacing in other countries and jurisdictions, such as Australia.

This trend toward involving Parliament in this will grow as the number and importance of international treaties, regulations and peace missions continue to increase.

What the hon. member for Red Deer is doing by tabling this motion is calling upon us to respond to a true democratic shortcoming, one which has the effect of giving the government in the parliamentary system with which we are familiar the power of common law, a power which has without a doubt become excessive, and which it must now give thought to sharing with the House of Commons, with elected representatives. These have the responsibility to be answerable to their fellow citizens for the government's leeway in setting Canada's foreign affairs policy.

When it comes to such vital questions as sending military contingents, the House must not only be consulted, it must also be increasingly integrated into the decision-making process. One day, without a doubt, it will want to take part in the process of deciding whether or not to send contingents.

In conclusion, then, in a world where there will be an increasing use of the armies, the military forces of nations, for maintaining international peace and security, it seems to me increasingly imperative for Parliament to be associated in such decisions as sending contingents abroad. The motion by the hon. member for Red Deer is, therefore, a most praiseworthy initiative, and one that deserves further refinement. It has the support of the Bloc Quebecois.

The hon. member for Red Deer can count on the support of the Bloc Quebecois MPs, and our parliamentary assistants, in further refining this proposal, and getting the government to share our conviction that it is in its best interest to share its responsibility with this Parliament.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Red Deer and I congratulate him for bringing it forward.

This motion gives us an opportunity to debate something which I think is very important for this parliament to consider and that is the extent to which parliament is not properly consulted by this government and in many cases by previous governments on the occasion of Canada's armed forces being committed to military missions outside our boundaries.

That is not to say that we have not had debates from time to time with respect to various peacekeeping assignments. I can remember some of those debates because I participated in them. They take the form of “take note” debates. However, we do not have a debate in which parliament gets to express itself, up or down, yea or nay, with respect to a particular military mission outside Canada's boundaries, to use the language of this particular motion.

I would certainly want to speak in favour of the motion. I would speak in favour of deepened and broadened parliamentary consultation on the part of the government when it comes to making these types of decisions. This is not just out of respect for parliament. Something as significant as this ought to be brought before parliament in a meaningful way and not simply in a “let them talk about it for a little while” kind of way. It should be brought before parliament in a way that allows parliament to truly express itself.

By and large the types of things the government commits our troops to are things that would receive the support of parliament. Our military men and women could participate in these particular assignments with the comfort and the encouragement of knowing they did so with the full backing of the Canadian people expressed through their representatives here in parliament. That is the reason I speak in favour of this motion.

I listened to the parliamentary secretary, who outlined the extent to which he felt the government was already in conformity with the spirit of this motion.

Let me cite what I think is a glaring exception, that is, the fact that this government signed an order in council with respect to NATO enlargement, a major commitment of Canada's armed forces, beyond our boundaries, without it being debated for a single minute here in parliament.

Through NATO enlargement we are committing the men and women of Canada's armed forces to the defence not only of the countries which are already members of NATO, but to new members such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary. Was this ever debated in parliament? We did not just commit our armed forces to the defence of those three countries, we committed Canada, given NATO's flexible use doctrine when it comes to nuclear weapons, to a nuclear exchange with whomever would breach those boundaries of the three new countries, in addition to the existing countries, without so much as a sentence being uttered in defence of that particular decision.

The shame and embarrassment of this is that we are the only country in NATO to be in this position. Every other country in NATO, and I have checked and studied this, with the exception of the United Kingdom, requires parliamentary ratification of a move like agreeing to the enlargement of NATO. But not Canada. Only in Canada you say. Not in Canada. In Canada a decision of this magnitude can be made by executive order. The United Kingdom can do the same thing because it has the same tradition of the crown being able to enter into these types of agreements.

But in the United Kingdom they had enough respect for parliament that they had a debate regarding NATO enlargement in the House of Commons at Westminster. Did we have such a debate here? Did we have a ministerial statement that members of the opposition could have responded to? No.

So imagine the embarrassment if we were to think it through given all the self-congratulatory rhetoric that we use about Canada being a great democracy and wanting to export our democratic values and culture to all these poor third world countries that need to be more like us.

Yet here we are in Canada where a major decision like this can be made without parliament's ever being consulted, without there ever being a parliamentary debate. All other members of NATO require some kind of congressional or parliamentary ratification.

I bring this up as a counter example to what the parliamentary secretary said. The government should examine its own parliamentary conscience with respect to how this transpired.

This major military and foreign policy decision could have been made without the benefit of debate in parliament. It is one of the reason I rise in support of the hon. member's motion. Although the motion does not particularly reference NATO or the enlargement of NATO, I think the member would agree that this is an example of the kind of thing he might have had in mind when he was framing his motion. I think he was probably thinking in a more routine way about various commitments of forces but certainly the enlargement of NATO involves a major potential commitment and actual commitment of Canadian forces. This was done without benefit of parliamentary debate whatsoever.

That is why I hope we would be able to pass the member's motion or that the debate on this motion would lead the government to examine its record in respect of this issue and others and improve its procedures accordingly.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion because I will have the chance to reveal some truths about both the Liberal Party and the Reform Party, which put forward this motion.

While the Liberal Party has no interest in seeing parliament's having a real role in the most crucial national decisions, those involving sending young Canadians into danger, the Reform Party by wording the motion the way it has chosen to demonstrates once again it has absolutely no concept of foreign affairs or the way the real world works.

I want to read the motion so the House is clear on what I am speaking to:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should seek majority support, through an official vote in the House of Commons, prior to committing a significant contingent of Canadian military personnel to an active military mission beyond the boundaries of Canada.

The sentiment behind this motion is good and I applaud the Reform Party for that. Twice since this parliamentary session began in September the House has met to debate the government's decision to send Canadian troops abroad. The first instance was in February of this year. I remember it well. Let me share with the House the reasons why I remember it so clearly.

As tensions in the Persian Gulf grew because Saddam Hussein refused to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to do their job, United States and Britain continued to build up their power in the region. The situation looked very serious. It looked like there might be another war.

The Sunday before this House resumed sitting after the winter break the leader of my party called the Prime Minister and told him we were going to request an emergency debate. The Prime Minister and this House refused my party's request for an emergency debate. It was not until the following week after President Bill Clinton requested Canada's help did the Prime Minister concede that debate was needed.

He told this House that he had told the president that he could not give him an answer until it was debated publicly in the House. He told Canadians he would not give the President of the United States an okay that Canada's troops could be used until he checked with this House. That was not accurate.

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright went on U.S. television and told the world that President Clinton had Canada's support. That was on the Sunday morning, February 8. The Prime Minister did not tell the Canadian public that he had even spoken to the president until Sunday afternoon.

The same debate the Prime Minister said was necessary before he made a commitment to the Americans was not until Monday evening, February 9. By that chronology either the U.S. secretary of state said she had Canada's support before she really did or the Prime Minister gave the U.S. Canada's support before there was a debate. Under the latter scenario the Prime Minister fooled Canadians into thinking the debate had actual meaning. That is disgraceful.

The second time this House met to debate sending troops abroad was on April 28 of this year. That debate concerned Canadian participation in Bosnia, now under the NATO banner, beyond the current June 20 deadline.

The motion put forward that night by the government was that this House take note of an intention of the Government of Canada to renew its participation in the NATO led stabilization force.

Take note of the government's intentions; that is all that was accomplished on that evening. The ministers concerned in such a decision, a decision to keep young Canadians in a dangerous military zone, had the right under House rules to speak for 20 minutes. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of National Defence split their time that evening. Keeping Canadian forces in Bosnia was not important enough for this government's ministers to take all the time available to them. That is rather disgraceful. It is disheartening to Canadians and to members of the Canadian forces who serve Canadians.

Let there be no mistake, when this government enters into a debate of crucial importance it is not because the Prime Minister is interested in the opinions of other parties. It has everything to do with optics, the show, the media.

I made the point that it should not have been a take note debate. I said that if this government had the courage it would not have been a take note debate but a votable motion. This government has no courage.

But just because this government has no courage, the Reform Party seems to think there has never been a Canadian government to show courage or that there will ever be a government that will show courage.

I am in favour of the sentiment behind this motion. Unfortunately the Reform Party as usual did not get it right. The phrase “significant contingent of Canadian military personnel” is not clear. The hon. member for Red Deer said it was to give the government more leeway. If we give it an inch it will take a mile, just as it does now. That is no change at all. I suppose I should give the member for Red Deer credit. I am sure he was under pressure from Reform leadership to include in his motion a referendum. Is that not what the Reform Party would like, a referendum to send a significant number of troops out of Canada? Would the party of referendum not support that idea?

The Reform Party has no faith in Canada's institutions, including the institution of the prime minister. To be fair, this Liberal government does not provide much reason to have faith. However, my party believes that the prime minister must have the ability to act decisively in times of crisis. That means sending troops at short notice when they are needed. Only a fool would pretend to know what sort of emergencies a prime minister will face. To say that there will never be a time when national security depends on the prime minister's acting decisively and immediately would not be prudent. I support the intentions of the this motion and I am eager to discuss it further with the member for Red Deer.

In my view one of the problems is that parliamentarians do not have the information the prime minister and cabinet have needed to make such a decisive decision. Most parliamentarians and, as is sometimes evident with this government, some ministers get their information from press and once in a while limited departmental briefing. In my opinion that is the root of the problem.

Earlier today we debated Bill C-25, an act to amend the National Defence Act. During this debate and at other times I referred to a report from the commissioner of the defunct Somalia inquiry called “The Need for a Vigilant Parliament”. Its recommendations included having a real staff of experts that answered directly to the defence committee. This would inform parliamentarians, keep parliament vigilant and improve democracy.

Although this government does not have respect for this place, as was demonstrated earlier this week by not having members in this Chamber, I am eager to discuss this with the member for Red Deer and any other members in this House who are eager to make this place more democratic.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion because I believe that any time spent by this House addressing the important work done by the Canadian forces is well spent.

In 1996 a similar motion was debated and at that time we did not support the suggestion that a vote be required before a deployment of Canadian forces abroad. This remains the view of the government.

Additional steps in the deployment process risk delaying our ability to respond. This must be avoided.

In the 1996 debate government emphasized its desire to engage parliament on troop deployments whenever possible. The government remains committed to this principle. A full discussion of any major deployment of Canadian forces is an important and valuable activity and we have engaged parliament on these matters.

In February of this year parliament debated the possible participation of Canadian forces in military action in the gulf against Iraq. The majority of this House supported a Canadian role if all diplomatic efforts were exhausted.

In April of this year the House debated the renewal of Canadian participation in NATO led stabilization forces in Bosnia. After thorough debate all parties agreed that Canadian troops should remain and continue the valuable work they are doing in that troubled country.

Also in April a special joint meeting of the committees on foreign affairs and defence was held discuss possible Canadian participation in a peacekeeping force in the central African republic. This option was chosen because of the need to make a decision and deploy troops as rapidly as humanly possible. Both ministers attended the special meeting and a unanimous resolution in favour of Canadian assistance was adopted.

This government has engaged parliament because that is what Canadians want. Canadians are proud of the role Canadian forces are playing abroad. They believe the world is a better place because of Canada's willingness to participate internationally.

Canadians also understand these missions can be very dangerous. As a result they expect their elected representatives to be engaged when a potential mission is being considered or an ongoing one renewed. We must take care, however, to ensure that Canada can react rapidly and effectively to international events. Why is this the case? It is because Canadians also demand that we have a defence policy that meets the challenges of the post-cold war era. This government has risen to that demand and our defence policy recognizes the new security conditions that shape the world of the 1990s.

It is worth noting that a special joint committee of this House and the Senate made an enormous contribution to developing this policy. The government rightly believed that the members of this House would play a valuable role in helping define how Canada should act in the new international security environment.

Canadian action in the new security environment includes continuing our great tradition as the world's pre-eminent peacekeepers. The peacekeeping contribution of Canadian forces is second to none and Canada's commitment to peacekeeping has never diminished.

By the end of the cold war 80,000 Canadian military personnel had served and it is hard to devise a list of peacekeeping missions, UN or otherwise, which does not include prominent Canadian participation.

Many have suggested that Canada wrote the book on peacekeeping. This expertise is still required in the post-cold war era. It is true that this new security environment has much to commend it. The end of the bipolar struggle between east and west was a very welcome development. The threat of global war has diminished and in this sense the world is a safer place.

However, in other senses safety is hard to find. Regional security issues remain and in some instances are more threatening than ever. Recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan are a good case in point. As well, we have seen the collapse of states into anarchy, and the cost in human terms has been staggering.

Conflicts fueled by ethnic nationalism have become a depressingly constant story in the daily news. These problems are demanding the attention of the international community. They are too horrifying simply to ignore.

By way of conclusion let me then say in most circumstances where a mission is about to be launched or where the government is considering renewal of an existing commitment, there will be time to engage parliament either through debate in the House or through the appearances of ministers and officials before standing committees.

The government will continue to take advantage of the views of the House. It is vitally important that the government retain the ability to act quickly and decisively where needed and when needed.

The now well established practice of consulting parliament in this regard has served us well. We do not support the motion because it risks delaying our ability to respond. I ask all members to take note of that accordingly.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have been advised that when this order is next called the hon. member will have five minutes remaining of the time permitted for his remarks.

The time 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 .