Mr. Speaker, the motion by the member for Red Deer invokes the principle of respect for all parliamentarians when the time comes to decide whether or not to send an active military mission to another country.
It appears that all the opposition parties are prepared to support this motion, and the Bloc Quebecois has already said that that is what it will do. Unfortunately, the only arguments we have heard against have come from the government, the Liberal Party, which is getting ready to vote no for one reason alone. The main reason mentioned is that of wanting to retain room to manoeuvre so as to be able to act quickly.
This motion gives us an opportunity to solve a serious problem, which is that of asking Canadians and Quebeckers who are soldiers, who are members of a military force, to go overseas to defend the freedoms in which we believe, to defend democracy. We are asking them to put their lives on the line. These troops, who have partners, children, and families, are being asked to risk their lives, in most cases, to protect ours.
It seems to me it is important for these people to know that they have the support of not only a small number of people sitting at the cabinet table, but of all parliamentarians, regardless of their political stripes.
This is the principle behind the Reform Party's motion. Instead of attacking that motion, as the Liberal Party is about to do, we should support it and refer it to a committee for a more thorough review.
Sure, this is a motion which can be improved, but the only way to do so is to support it so that it can be referred to a committee which will conduct a more thorough review and which will suggest ways and solutions so that the motion, which would become a bill, would address the objections raised by the government and allow it to maintain some flexibility.
To show that this is possible, let me refer to a dissenting opinion expressed by the Bloc Quebecois in the report that followed the review of Canada's foreign policy by a joint special committee. The suggestions made by our party would help improve the motion of the Reform Party member.
We wrote, among other things, that Canada should encourage the setting up of a permanent contingent available to the UN for its peacekeeping missions abroad. We also said that there should be a limit on the number of troops in that contingent. We thought it might be reasonable to have 2,000 or 2,500 troops available to the UN for peacekeeping missions.
If Canada were in favour of the establishment of such a contingent, we would not have to come before the House every time to ask “Do we use the permanent contingent for this or that mission abroad?” No. There would be a permanent mandate from the House indicating to the UN “You can use these 2,000 or 2,500 armed service personnel people as you see fit, in peacekeeping missions anywhere in the world where freedom and democracy are being threatened'?.
Having this contingent would give the government the necessary latitude to respond to additional requests in specific cases. If there were a particular need for more than 2,000 or 2,500 Canadian military personnel, the government could then come before the House and hold a debate, in order to determine whether it had the support of the House for Canada's sending more than its regular contingent in order to resolve a problem. This would be one way of responding to the desire expressed in the motion, while at the same time allowing the government to maintain this necessary latitude.
With a permanent contingent there could be a response to need at all times, without the House having to make a decision, while specific additional requirements could be discussed in advance in the House, in order to give the Prime Minister a mandate as follows: “Mr. Prime Minister, in such and such a country on which there has just been a debate in the House, we will agree to Canada's having a supplementary contingent in addition to its permanent contingent”. The Prime Minister would then have the responsibility to decide the timing for Canada to send this additional contingent.
Then all the recognized principles would be in place, principles like making the system more democratic and involving all the members of this House in the decision to play an active role in maintaining world peace. The government would then have a perfectly legitimate right to enjoy some leeway when the time comes to make a decision.
More importantly, we want to prevent the government from having to side with the United States simply because the President of the United States picked up the phone one evening and worked out an agreement or discussed some other matter with the Prime Minister of Canada. We want to make sure that the decisions or arrangements will not be made by a select few with a hidden agenda.
When asking our military personnel to put their lives on the line to protect us, we ought to make sure that they have a mandate that has been given to them in the most democratic manner possible, involving as many people as possible. This kind of support is essential. Our troops must feel that they have the entire nation behind them, and not only the ruling party. In terms of quality of life in the military, this is certainly one way of showing respect for our troops and to let them know that they are emissaries, sent out with the unanimous consent of Parliament to protect and defend our lives. That is what this motion is all about.
If the government really wanted to uphold this principle, instead of tossing out this motion, it could support it or say that it will refer it to committee for further study and we could come back to it later, thus respecting the wishes of both the opposition and the government. It is in this spirit that we are going to support the motion and we hope that the government will give it more serious thought before rejecting it out of hand. This is a unique opportunity to improve our decision-making process when world peace is threatened.
For Canada, it would represent an opportunity to transcend the role of peacekeeper. That is our international reputation. Canadians are viewed as the best peacekeepers in the world but, with this sort of solution, we could become the architects of peace, and not just its keepers. We could create conditions favourable to peacekeeping operations, to the advent of international peace. There is a world of difference between keeping the peace and actually creating it.
I hope that the government will think about what I and my colleagues have said and that it will support the motion when it is put to a vote next Tuesday.
