Mr. Speaker, I also thank my colleagues in the House for allowing me to speak to this important issue.
The decision to involve ground troops can be heavy with consequence, and I think we must also not ignore the fact that it could well lead to loss of life. There is no doubt that parliament must be much better informed than it is at the moment before it makes a decision. A true debate must be held before parliamentarians can make an enlightened decision on such a serious matter. Then this debate must necessarily be sanctioned by a vote, which will give the government a clear mandate on the relevance of sending ground troops.
The purpose of the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois is not to take a stand on a possible military engagement on the ground in Kosovo, but rather to force the government to have a debate and a vote on this issue in the House should this possibility arise. To avoid thinking about it right now would just postpone a problem we will have to face sooner or later.
It is clear to us that the government cannot claim to have firm democratic approval if it does not have a vote on this issue in the House of Commons. Moreover, without a vote, the position of the various parties carries no real weight. All day, government members avoided taking a stand on this issue claiming it is only a hypothetical question.
First of all, I want to say that, as the situation progresses, the chances of a ground intervention becoming necessary are increasing constantly. Also, even though it is just a hypothetical question, nothing prevents the government from making a commitment today to consult parliamentarians before sending in ground troops. In fact, to us, it is impossible to justify the government's current position, which is simply undemocratic.
Moreover, the government is probably worried that some members or some parties may express their opposition to the deployment of ground troops, which would be perceived as dissension and would send the wrong message to the Yugoslav leaders.
In fact, by acting the way it is acting now, that is by keeping information from the House of Commons and by refusing to let it play an important role, the government forces members and parties to be more and more critical.
If, in fact, members of the House are not informed of diplomatic or military initiatives and if the reasons for decisions made by NATO or the Canadian government are not explained and discussed in the House, this cast doubts in the Bloc members' minds as to the appropriateness of these decisions.
For the government to refuse a vote for misleading reasons would send a negative signal to all members of parliament. That would be denying the House the possibility to play its role and would jeopardize the present consensus.
The government should not be afraid of having a real debate and of answering certain critical questions. It would be stupid to act as though 100% of Quebeckers and Canadians agreed with Canadian participation in the present NATO operation.
In fact, it is important to stress the fact that many Canadians are concerned and critical of the situation. The government must be accountable to them. Taking a serious decision without the consent of parliament would amount to a denial of our democratic system.
I will conclude by saying that our riding offices receive many calls from citizens asking questions. They want their elected representatives to debate the question. They also want their member of parliament to represent them well and, for that, there obviously must be a democratic vote.