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.