House of Commons Hansard #210 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was war.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I believe that every effort should be pursued diplomatically while the issue of this attack is ongoing. Diplomatically it is incumbent upon our government to pursue it at great length. I applaud the member for taking that initiative. I will tell him personally that I will support the initiative to see that it does go to the UN as one more step in attempting to bring a reasonable resolution to the crisis in Kosovo.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Reform

Derrek Konrad Reform Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, whether we have the United Nations or a united nation, I believe that a vote in this House would mean that we would be speaking with one voice. We would be a united nation, uniting behind our troops for their morale and our allies for support. It would be more than just the largest party in this House—

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The member for Calgary Northeast has 15 seconds to wind up.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that question. That is exactly what it shows, that this House, on a standing vote, with everyone being accounted for, is supportive of our troops and the initiative we have embarked upon with NATO. I agree with him and I thank him for the question.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to debate this very important issue. A very important motion has been brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois today. It basically boils down to whether the House of Commons should not only be consulted but also have an opportunity to vote on any deployment of troops, especially ground troops, in the Kosovo region.

I will take the House back to 1995 when I brought forward Bill C-295. That bill would have provided an approval process for any deployment of troops overseas in a combat role. I was on the foreign affairs committee at the time. What triggered this bill was an all-party defence committee report which was tabled in the House in the fall of 1994. Part of that report stated that defence policy cannot be made in private and the results simply announced. Canadians will not accept that, nor should they. Nor should the government commit our forces to service abroad without a full parliamentary debate and accounting for that decision. It is our expectation that, except in extraordinary circumstances, such a debate would always take place prior to any such deployment.

That was the unanimous decision of an all-party defence committee report of 1994, which followed the major defence and foreign policy review. I see some members here who took part in that report. One of the conclusions they came to was that not only should parliament be consulted, but that consultation should take place, except in extraordinary circumstances, prior to any deployment of troops overseas.

The all-party committee which recommended that would be saddened, as I am today, to see that six fighter bombers went over to Kosovo, then twelve and now eighteen. We do not have any idea of what other commitments the government will be making because we take note in our debates but we never vote and we never know before the government acts. This is in complete contradiction to an all-party decision, which I think is even more powerful than the government, which says that is not the right way to do it, and the government does not enjoy broad Canadian support when it acts unilaterally.

I brought up other things that are very germane to the debate we are having today. If this bill had been adopted we would not be having this debate because it would not be necessary. The member for Red Deer brought forward two similar motions since Bill C-295. They were all along the same line and all of them were defeated by the government.

The benefit of having a vote in the House of Commons is that through this political process Canadians would decide Canada's role. Our reason for sending ground troops must meet the satisfaction of the Canadian people. Many people in this debate and in the previous take note debates have talked about the necessity of military intervention. On this side of the House we are not denying that it is a necessary role and that Canadian troops need to be and are a part of it. However, the political process, the approval of the House before those troops are actually deployed, is the very least that the opposition demands on behalf of Canadians. We all should be involved in sending troops overseas when they are put in harm's way.

Second, I believe that asking for that vote, not just the debate but the vote, would allow the government to gauge support for the mission before Canada actually commits troops. I think it would be unanimous. I have not heard a single member stand to say that we should not be over there doing what we can to stop the ethnic cleansing. I think it would be a unanimous vote.

This an opportunity for the government to gauge the level of support. Parliament should be the instrument. We should not be reading the National Post or the Globe and Mail and waiting for Léger & Léger to do a poll. That is not the way to do it. If the government is as sure as it says it is, and in this case I think it is reading the tea leaves pretty well, it should put it to parliament, let all of us vote, and go forward with the confidence of knowing that the House and not just the government supports the move.

Third, a vote would strengthen the ministers' hand. When the Minister of Foreign Affairs goes to Brussels and enters into negotiations with our NATO allies, and when the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and National Defence deal with cabinet, it strengthens their hand to know they are going forward with the confidence of the House behind them.

This an opportunity for them to say to cabinet “We have to move and this is why we have to move. You saw the vote. You saw the House. The House brought its decision down and we had better listen”. It is not just us, it is the Canadian people who are represented. This is an opportunity to strengthen the ministers' hand by having a vote in this place.

As a corollary to that, I have some fears with the government having made this decision. What would happen if sometime down the road one of the parties opposite started to criticize the decision? What if, heaven forbid, someone was killed? It could happen. It is a war zone. If someone was killed, a member on this side of the House could get cold feet and say, “I sort of supported it in my speech, but I sure never would have voted for it”, which is probably malarkey. However, by asking members to stand and vote, to actually stand in their places and tell us what they think, there will be no turning back. They would be saying “I supported the decision. We sent our men and women overseas and I am behind them all the way”.

This brings me to my fourth point. A vote sends a message to the troops like nothing else can. We bring forward motions. It was tried last Friday to bring a motion forward regarding Wayne Gretzky. There was a member today who talked about Wayne Gretzky. We bring forward motions of support about things which, frankly, are not terribly life threatening. I am a great hockey fan, but it does not stir me like the very deep, troubled emotions I have over what is going on in Kosovo.

We could send a message to our troops by standing and voting in support of a measure that the government could bring forward. Then we would be sending a message to our troops that not only did we stand here literally, but we are standing with them symbolically as they do Canada's work abroad, putting themselves in harm's way, to who knows what kind of detriment in the months to come.

The last time I spoke to this topic I told the story of a person from my riding, Mark Isfeld, who was killed in a land mine accident in Bosnia. It was a very sad moment in my community. There was a huge funeral and a terrible outpouring of grief that followed in our community, which is not that large.

Heaven forbid that would happen, but before it could happen I would hope that members of the House would be able to stand and say “We are with you, members of our armed forces. We are standing here, and by standing here we are standing with you. We appreciate what you are doing for peace, what you are doing to prevent more slaughter and more ethnic cleansing. We are with you as you stand to represent the values that Canadians hold dear about truth and peace and trying to do the right thing in a very difficult situation”. However, we cannot do that in the same way unless we vote.

I am happy to support the motion. It is a half measure, given that we are already involved in the Balkan conflict, but I think all Canadians would like to see their members of parliament stand and be counted. I for one would stand and say “Ready, aye ready” along with our men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, just as the Reform Party did, we have many criticisms of the consultation and discussion process. This process will not end in a vote as it should. This should have abeen voted on long time ago, especially since the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs has recommended it.

I just received a document that shows how little the government wants to inform us and how much it lacks transparency. I have just received a note by a person responsible for the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade that informs us that the briefing on Kosovo that was scheduled for 10 o'clock tomorrow at National Defence Headquarters will not take place.

I would like to ask my colleague of the Reform Party what he thinks of the last minute cancellation of this briefing. Also what does he think about the meeting tomorrow at the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. That meeting should last all of 30 minutes, and that is going to be the only briefing the members of the House will get. Will we have a briefing on Thursday, as promised? Maybe it too will be cancelled. So, can my friend from the Reform Party say what he thinks about these cancellations and this lack of transparency on the part of the government?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I can sympathize with the member who brings up the problem of trying to get all the information on the table in a short, 30-minute briefing in a formal committee structure.

As we have seen so often, a minister might make a 10 or 15 minute presentation which leaves other parties—not to mention government members who may or should have questions about the same issue—with maybe two three-minute questions, maybe the same amount of time for answers and then no follow-up. It is a very inadequate briefing for something that appears to be escalating quite rapidly.

We sent six fighter bombers, then twelve and now eighteen. Negotiations are taking place in NATO circles regarding numbers; 50,000 to 100,000 ground troops. It is a huge discussion and should be part of a huge debate that should, I would argue, eventually lead to a vote, and not a vote just in committee where eight or ten people might be well informed for 30 minutes.

A motion should be brought forward by the minister with a proposal in hand giving the House the situation and the military and political objective. We all know the moral objective is to stop the ethnic cleansing. However, the minister should come to the House and let all of us be briefed, not just the few who are fortunate enough to attend committee.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member has been following the debate in the House. I am sure he is aware that over the course of the past century we have entered into quite a number of conflicts all of which have primarily been done without a resolution of this House. We entered into the second world war, the Korean conflict and so on without a resolution of this House.

Has the hon. member read the resolution? I am curious as to what it is he is actually voting on. The resolution states that this House demand that the government submit to a debate beforehand with a vote in the House of the possibility of sending Canadian soldiers to the Balkans who may be involved in military or peacekeeping operations on the ground of the Kosovo and Balkan region. Is he voting on whether we have a vote? Is he voting on whether we are hypothetically sending troops? Is he in effect sanctioning what the government is already doing, namely having already committed airplanes to the conflict and to bombing missions? Is he sanctioning a military operation, in which case is he prepared to—

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I am sorry, I need to interrupt. The member for Fraser Valley has 60 seconds for a response.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do have the motion in front of me as amended. It is pretty straightforward. It says that this House demand that the government submit to a debate and a vote in the House prior to the possibility of sending Canadian soldiers to the Balkans who may be involved in military or peacekeeping operations.

From my point of view and taking this at face value, we are asking the government, prior to sending people in as peacekeepers or into combat in a military zone, to submit a proposal to the House for debate and a vote. It is straightforward, it is the same in both official languages and it is easy to understand. I encourage all hon. members to support the motion. It is a step forward for democracy.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

John Richardson Liberal Perth—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate today.

The proposition before the House today is very interesting. It is as if there was not already precedence in the House of Commons. The House of Commons works on the concept of precedence.

This government and governments before it have allowed soldiers, sailors and airmen to go offshore, either to act on behalf of the United Nations in peacekeeping or peacemaking; or, in the case of the second world war, to go to war; or, in the case of the Korean conflict, to go into another area of live fire and face death. These conflicts were not voted on and have never been voted on in the House of Commons.

We are looking at a precedence. We have given this subject many hours of debate. As a consequence, we keep hearing “Why do you not do this?” We are following the practice of the well-worn and well-tried system of the British House of Commons theory which is to practice by precedence.

This breaks the parliamentary practice. The proposal put forward by the sponsoring member is hypothetical. If we ask a hypothetical question it is generally turfed out. We do not work on hypothetical situations in the House of Commons. We work on real situations.

In looking at the situation as presented, it would and could be unworkable. I do not want to get into a debate on it. I feel it is ultra vires because it breaks the precedence in the House. We believe the energies of the House are best directed toward considering ways of resolving the crisis in Kosovo not engaging in procedural wrangling like this.

The Canadian parliamentary system responsible for deploying the Canadian forces lies with the government. It is the responsibility of the government, through the Speech from the Throne, through the empowerment of the defence minister and through the government as such. We should not go off trying to invent a new form of style in the government at this time.

The opposition should remember that we sent troops to Cyprus, to the gulf war and to the Golan Heights. We have sent troops offshore and many of them at the request of the United Nations. In this case there is an explicit commitment involved. We are a member of a security alliance which has asked us to participate in the action in Kosovo and thereabouts. As legitimate alliance members, we are being asked to participate on that team and we are doing that. As members of this group, and through information from our foreign affairs committee and defence committee, we know it is our solid commitment to take part.

I do not know why we are coming up with all of this cobweb stuff, with a little bit of angel dust on it, when it is not the reality. The reality is that we have a commitment in writing to participate with our defensive alliance. We should make that commitment and we will make that commitment.

I should mention at this time that I will be splitting my time.

The government delivered on this and we said it would have take note debates and have an airing. If there was an airing where we were doing something wrong, it would have been picked up sufficiently by the opposition and the opposition's commitments would be there. However, there has been no such identification of somewhere that we are off on the wrong track. We are on track by being with our allies. We are on track by trying to bring peace to a bewildered and beleaguered country.

We have no plans to deploy any armed soldiers on the ground in Kosovo at the moment. That does not eliminate the possibility of this happening. We always have to keep paratus in front of us as the model of readiness in the infantry.

Very few of our NATO allies have put the Kosovo incident to a vote. The United Kingdom has not voted nor debated this issue. France has not voted. President Chirac decided to intervene and consult the legislature but has had no vote. We are not off centre with our allies.

The motion before us could be a very unworkable precedent if it passed. It suggests that it would be appropriate for the House of Commons to micromanage the aspects of troop deployment in the Balkans, even on simple housekeeping items.

Canadian forces members are currently deployed on nine missions of varying size in the Balkans, each of these managed on a day to day basis by established Canadian forces policies with respect to personnel rotation and replacement. Under the terms of the motion, all of these decisions would be subject to House approval.

The BQ would have the House convene to vote on whether a cook could be dispatched to Croatia. Even deciding to dispatch a rescue team for a downed Canadian pilot could be subject to a House vote. The motion would slow down Canada's ability to respond swiftly and flexibly to the kind of rapidly developing humanitarian crisis that has become so much the norm in the past. The cold war conflicts, of which Kosovo was just the latest example in the Balkans, would draw us in.

None of our current missions in the Balkans were voted on by the House. There is no question that the swift deployment saved innocent lives and, for us, saving lives will always be the priority over procedural wrangling.

Mr. Milosevic's unacceptable conduct predates the current crisis in Kosovo. His use of the Yugoslav army to support fellow Serbs during the war in Croatia and Bosnia materially contributed to the ethnic cleansing that occurred during those conflicts.

Prior to Mr. Milosevic's rise to power, Kosovo was made up mostly of ethnic Albanians who had a constitutional autonomy within Yugoslavia. This right was stripped away by Mr. Milosevic in 1989 and from that point forward he has deliberately worked to impoverish the oppressed Kosovars.

Since early last year his security forces have mounted a campaign in which innocent civilians have been subjected to ethnic atrocities similar to those we witnessed in Croatia and Bosnia. We were part of the European community monitoring mission for the United Nations protection force from 1992 to 1995. More than 1,300 Canadian forces personnel remain in Bosnia at this time as part of the NATO led stabilization force.

Our commitment to peace and stability in the region is well established. This commitment is a logical extension of Canada's longstanding policy of promoting international peace and stability.

A diplomatic solution to the Kosovo conflict has always been the course preferred by Canada and its allies. In March 1998 the United Nations passed resolution 1160 calling on all parties to reach a peaceful settlement. This was followed in September 1998 by UN resolution 1199, that both sides cease hostilities and improve the humanitarian situation.

Regarding parliamentary consultation, on October 1, 1998 all parties agreed that Canada should join our NATO allies on air operations. They proved necessary. We had a second meeting on February 17, 1999. There was hope that a peace agreement could be signed and that our involvement would be consistent with that of a peacekeeping force. On April 12, 1999 when the House once again discussed the events in Kosovo, all parties supported Canada's position to participate in the NATO led air operations.

In addition, both the defence and foreign affairs standing committees held a number of meetings on the developments in Kosovo. There was a joint meeting on March 31 of the ministers of foreign affairs, national defence and international co-operation and they outlined the government's response to these crises. On April 15 the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared before the foreign affairs committee to discuss the developments in Kosovo. All interested members were invited.

That is involvement of the whole House at all levels.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague and I hope he will stay with us to answer a few questions.

I do not believe that Canadians and Quebeckers see any procedural wrangling, as the hon. member said, in the fact that we not only want to debate the deployment of troops but also to vote on the issue. This is the purpose of our motion, which does not appear excessive to me, and which would not bind the government in the future, although it might be interesting that parliament be called upon to debate and vote on the issue of sending large contingents.

The member's other argument, actually the second argument I heard today, is that we should not change the established practice, based on the British House of Commons' model.

First of all, this practice has not always been followed, because there have been votes in the House prior to sending troops abroad. If the hon. member had listened to the speech of the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, he would know that votes have been asked for by his party, by the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was the foreign affairs critic at the time his party was the official opposition, and that this practice had been changed from time to time.

Therefore, practices can be changed and I would add that it is even advisable to do so. I would like to know what the hon. member across the way thinks of what Mr. Clinton said today, when he asked Congress to unanimously and immediately support a supplementary budget bill authorizing additional funds for the American action in Kosovo. President Clinton said that these funds are required urgently and immediate lynecessity and that Congress would clearly serve national interests by dealing with the issue.

Why would the Canadian parliament not vote on this issue, like the U.S. Congress?

SupplyGovernment Orders

April 19th, 1999 / 5:35 p.m.

Liberal

John Richardson Liberal Perth—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, first of all the proposition put before us is not in line. It is a hypothetical situation which the hon. member should know well.

Second, the Americans have often gone back to congress when they need more money for offshore fighting. There is a precedent. This is nothing new. It is a typical redressing and refuelling of the number of people they will send over there by making a budget increase.

A hypothetical question is something we should not vote on. Also the American analogy does not work. That is a precedent, an American practice in their politics when the president asks for more money to aid in a situation such as has taken place with the NATO operation in Kosovo.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member had to say. His contributions to this debate on the opposition motion by the Bloc were very useful.

We have heard the Reform Party vigorously support this motion. We know that the Reform Party has had its own opposition day since the all night debate on Kosovo. Does my colleague have any thoughts on why it is the Reform Party chose to debate a very trivial motion for an entire day following the Kosovo debate, rather than put a motion of this type forward itself?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

John Richardson Liberal Perth—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party does a number of things that do not always make sense. I was not here when that motion was put forward so I cannot speak with any authority upon it. I would just say that I cannot answer that question with qualified authority.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Reform

Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB

Mr. Speaker, very briefly I would like the member to explain why his colleague asked him to state the Reform Party's intentions and positions rather than asking the Reform Party. Can he explain that?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I realize the member has only just joined us, but I did ask the same question of the Reform Party earlier this day.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I do not think that is really a point of order, but perhaps the hon. member for Perth—Middlesex would care to respond.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

John Richardson Liberal Perth—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, again I do not feel I am in a position to make a response to that question. I would be working in the dark on that one.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Winnipeg South Centre Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that excluding the last several hours of debate, this House has already had the opportunity over the last couple of months to have 26 hours of debate on the important issue of Kosovo. Over 100 members have participated. There has been 20 to 25 hours of work in committees. There has been a major examination during the study of the estimates by the committee to determine the responsibility and accountability of the government on this important issue.

It is a little strange that there has been these great calls about lack of information, lack of consultation. In fact if we look at the record of many of the other countries in the NATO organization there has been no debates, no votes whatsoever.

I point that out not for reasons of comparison, but simply to point out that in this parliament we have established very important advances in engaging members of parliament in the decisions relating to foreign policy and international activities.

For example, I heard the previous question to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary. I want to point out one thing. I was here during the time of the gulf war. The warships were sent from Canada in August. Parliament was not even reconvened until the end of September, almost five weeks later. There was not any parliamentary involvement whatsoever. There was not even a debate for another month beyond that. We went almost two and a half months without any kind of parliamentary consideration, even though Canada had committed itself to a major enterprise in the gulf war.

When the vote did come a month or two later, it was not to authorize troops or ground involvement, it was simply a vote to endorse a UN resolution. That was the vote, pure and simple. All precedents that have been cited by hon. members opposite simply do not conform with the parliamentary history or the parliamentary facts.

The fact is important. I always pay great deference to my predecessors. I point to the statement made by the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark who was the Minister of External Affairs at that time. I notice that he took occasion this morning to talk about parliamentary responsibility. On September 25 he said that we cannot always wait for deliberative bodies to deliberate and act, which is why he said he would not guarantee a vote in the House of Commons on the use of Canadian forces.

When we go back and cite history and precedent, it is important to get the facts right. What we decided when we became the government was to change all that, to open up the format so that parliament would have the opportunity to be heard, to hear the voices. We already have. Over 100 members of parliament have expressed themselves very clearly on the most unmistakable commitments.

I want to acknowledge the fact that the House has made itself unified on the question of the reprehensible terrorism that is being wrought on the people of Kosovo by the Milosevic regime. We have made ourselves heard on the need to come to the aid of the hundreds of thousands of refugees.

Indeed I would say we have recognized that as we go through a transition in world affairs, we are also making a very major statement as Canadians toward the acknowledgement that new humanitarian standards are being established in the world. We are establishing new norms of behaviour which say that even the so-called sacred altar of national sovereignty should not stand in the way of protecting the lives of innocent human beings, of civilians who are being repressed and terrorized by their own government.

I acknowledge that that is a change. Just as the world has changed in geological terms, there is a shifting of the plates of international relations. I am pleased to say that as Canadians over the last several years we have increasingly been on the forefront of establishing a need for new standards and new norms.

We say innocent people should not be killed by those weapons. Whether it is the land mines campaign, advancing the work of the international court, or standing up against the trade in small arms, it is all part of the same fundamental, elementary process. This is to say that we now must begin to provide higher levels of protection for the safety and security of individuals, of human beings, of people.

That is why it strikes me as somewhat curious that the House would spend so much of its time on the question of a vote as opposed to getting down to the essentials, which is how does this country prepare itself to take the action required for that protection of human life, of individual security, of human responsibility and safety? That is what Canadians are interested in.

As the Prime Minister said in the previous debate last Monday, each circumstance will present itself. The government will make a choice as to what the nature of that parliamentary consultation and that parliamentary role will be. But to insist now on a vote on something that has not happened yet simply runs contrary to the very essence of relevance of the House. Please do not expect us to vote on proposition, speculation, what might be, what could be, what should be.

We want a government to make a decision and bring it to the House. That is what it is about. Under the cabinet parliamentary style of government, we assume that we give responsibility to confidence of the House, of parliament to a government. If the House does not like it, then it has every right to take that confidence away. It can put a motion of non-confidence in the government.

As my hon. friend pointed out earlier, there have been occasions when the opposition has done that. The Reform Party did not do it in the last motion, but it had the opportunity to do it as it has done in economic matters and other matters. That is the way parliament works. Those are the fundamentals of parliament. It is not to suggest that somewhere, someplace down the road, there may be a commitment and that we should therefore tie our hands.

In the incredibly fluid situation that we are in, we are finding out that a decision one day may not be what we need the next day. Changes have to be made. There has to be a flexibility of response. There has to be the capacity to make judgment calls because we are also working inside an alliance.

Canada is not acting as a sole agent. We are not in this by ourselves. We are members of a broad alliance of a wide range of countries. We are engaged on a number of fronts. There is the military campaign and the incredible commitments to humanitarian assistance that we are making. There is active diplomacy going on. That requires the responsibility and capacity to be able to make those judgments, to be able to make those assessments, and to be able to try to respond to the circumstances as they are.

I do not think that any hon. member of the House would want to provide a handcuff on the capacity of the Government of Canada, representing Canadians, to make those judgment calls and to be able to respond, but to do so in the full recognition that parliament has a role.

There is no other place in the world in which governments show up every day to be questioned by members of the opposition. When we talk about accountability, where else would it take place as it does here every day? President Clinton does not show up in Congress every day. The British Prime Minister goes once every two weeks. Our Prime Minister is in his seat every day to answer questions on where they come from and who provides them.

When we talk about the role of parliament, I suggest to members opposite that it is a vital role, a critical role, and a role that is being exercised very well by parliament. Hon. members on both sides of the House are deeply engaged in this critical issue. Whether it is through caucus meetings, their questions in the day, by showing up for briefing meetings or by making their commentaries known, parliament is engaged on behalf of Canadians.

It would be a serious mistake if we all of a sudden tried to put a restraint or limitation on what parliament can do, adapting day by day to the changing circumstances. We have had the opportunity to debate the principles, the fundamental objectives that Canadians do not want to see a government repress its own people and deny them the dignity of their rights. It is prepared to take action necessary through a broad based alliance to establish a new standard of human security which provides the sense that individuals in the world, someday, somewhere, will know that they can count upon the international community to protect their integrity as human beings and their rights as members of the human family.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with my intervention, in recognition of the minister's appearance in the House this afternoon I wonder if we could seek unanimous consent to extend the period for questions and comments by 10 minutes.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there consent?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

An hon. member

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:45 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Mr. Speaker, if anybody from any other democracy, I might say any real democracy, were to read the motion, it would give him or her cause to pause and reflect that we would actually be debating in the House a motion calling upon the government to let us have votes on matters of grave national importance. This is unheard of.

I have lived in countries where parliaments always operate this way, where the government puts forth legislation and it is immediately approved by all and sundry because that is the only choice they have. I would really hope for something better in the Parliament of Canada. As I read this motion, what is being proposed is simply that this House have a voice—