House of Commons Hansard #85 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was vote.
Commissioner of Official Languages
The Speaker
I have the honour to lay upon the table, pursuant to section 66 of the Official Languages Act, the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the period starting on April 1, 2000 and ending on March 31, 2001.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)( a ), this report is permanently referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages.
Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wrote to the Prime Minister last night asking if he would make a full statement to the House, as is the custom in this place, with regard to his recent conversations yesterday with the president of the United States on a matter of such grave interest to the House of Commons.
Has the House received any indication as to whether or not the Prime Minister would take advantage of that parliamentary opportunity to inform parliament, in the normal way, of those discussions?
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I thank the right hon. member for his question. I will take it under advisement. I do not have any information on that at the moment.
Art Hanger Canadian Alliance Calgary Northeast, AB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-396, an act to amend the Criminal Code (dangerous child sexual predators).
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill titled, Carrie's Guardian Angel Law. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the fullest force of the law is brought to bear upon violent sexual predators.
Under the bill a violent sexual predator would receive a sentence of 20 years to life, with no chance of parole, in cases of sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault situations on a child, which also involved the use of a weapon, repeated assaults, multiple victims, repeat offences, more than one offender, confinement or kidnapping or the use of position of trust with respect to the child for sexual advantage.
To the victims and their families, the bill represents a return to fundamental justice. To those who prey on the young and the vulnerable in our society, if caught, they will be punished and punished severely.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Gilles-A. Perron Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-397, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (support payments).
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce a bill to amend the Income Tax Act. This bill will allow parents having joint custody of their children to claim basic deductions proportionally and equitably.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North Centre, MB
Madam Speaker, I pleased to present a petition that is very timely in terms of a motion passed overwhelmingly by the House last April.
The petitioners acknowledge a couple of well established facts: one that the consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems; and the other, that fetal alcohol syndrome and alcohol related birth defects are preventable by avoiding alcohol during pregnancy.
They call upon the House to mandate the labelling of alcoholic products to warn pregnant women and other persons of certain dangers associated with the consumption of alcoholic beverages.
Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Madam Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of 90 constituents in Nanaimo--Cowichan who are deeply concerned about the fact that many health care workers in Canada are expected to assist in providing controversial services, such as abortion and promoting controversial material against their conscience.
The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to enact legislation that explicitly recognizes the freedom of conscience of health care workers.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
Shall all questions stand?
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
moved:
That this House urge the government, in any reprisals taken in reaction to the terrorist strikes in New York on September 11, not to commit Canadian armed forces in any offensive action until the House of Commons has been consulted and has voted on the matter.
Madam Speaker, I would first like to advise that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Saint-Jean.
We are here today to discuss a motion by the Bloc Quebecois. The motion's importance stems from the tragic events of the last weeks, events to which we are trying to find the best and most peaceful solution possible.
It is important that the Parliament of Canada be consulted by the government before any major decision is taken regarding Canadian participation in any military action.
It is democracy that has been attacked and, therefore, it is up to democracy to defend itself. When the terrorists attacked the Pentagon, what they targeted was the power, the symbol of military power, not only of the United States but of the free democratic world as a whole. When the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, it was the economic powers that they attacked. When they targeted the White House, fortunately without success, it was the political power that they singled out. Since the target was democracy, it is up to democracy to defend itself. This is critical, in our view.
Parliament must also be consulted because, should there be military action, the lives of hundreds of thousands of Quebecers and Canadians would be at stake. The decision to send its sons and daughters to fight for democracy has to be the most important one a parliament can make. Such a decision cannot, we believe, be made by the government alone. It cannot decide to put the lives of our fellow citizens at risk and not ask those elected to represent them to make this most important decision in a non-partisan spirit.
Parliament must also be consulted because the events that will unfold in the coming weeks and months could very well shape our whole future. Democracy and the free world are at stake. The goal pursued by terrorists was to destabilize the values, which are dear to us and which we have fought to defend over the years and down through the generations. These are the values we are fighting for daily in this parliament, despite our ideological differences.
The issue of consulting parliament is so fundamental, in our view, that we have a hard time understanding why the Prime Minister who on the very first day of this session opened the door to a critical consultation of parliament and a vote on crucial issues, is now backtracking. It is unbelievable.
It is out of the question for us to accept such an attitude on the part of the government on issues that are so fundamental for us and for those who may be called upon to put their own lives at risk in a conflict, the outcome of which is unfortunately never known at the outset.
It strikes us as unacceptable that the government is settling for responses that are not only ready made but, let us admit it, partisan along the lines of “We are consulting parliament”.
It is true that parliament is consulted on a certain number of subjects, when missions of this nature are involved, but most of the time the discussions held here are for the purpose of obtaining the members' points of view after the important decisions have already been reached.
It makes the Prime Minister and the government look good to say that there is a new type of debate in parliament and that from now on members can express their points of view when troops are to be deployed.
What we are calling for, however, is that before the government commits to actions of such importance it require not only the opinion of members, and a general point of view on what must or must not be done, but also the approval of parliament, pure and simple. There must be votes in this parliament so that the government knows where the representatives of the people stand on future actions. This is the very basis of democracy.
What we are asking is not unrealistic. Let us look at what other countries have done in the same context.
In France, Prime Minister Jospin said “--decisions of this kind could not be reached by the executive without consultation of the National Assembly and the Senate”.
Argentina made its participation in any military intervention conditional on a vote in its parliament.
In Germany the lower chamber, the Bundestag, voted to give the government the mandate to take part in any military action.
From information I received only this morning as I was preparing my notes for this speech, in India. The opposition was consulted, and will be consulted on any participation involving services or other contributions.
In Great Britain, although their parliament is not sitting, when Mr. Blair returned he consulted not only the European Union but also MPs from all the parties in order to find out their opinion.
When the major democracies of the world are behaving like democracies, we have trouble understanding, as do those who are listening to us, why the Prime Minister is afraid to submit to a vote in this parliament decisions of such great importance as the one to join in the fight against terrorism. Why do the Prime Minister and his government fear democracy?
We in the Bloc Quebecois have shown a sense of responsibility from the beginning of this crisis. We have tried, through our suggestions, to support the government and to give it credibility. In response to this co-operation, the Prime Minister is now rejecting any confirmation by a vote the consultation of parliament.
Yesterday, our Prime Minister went to Washington. Observers consider that he was not taken so seriously. What stature he would have commanded if he had met the president of the United States armed not only with his opinion and that of his ministers' who incidentally are appointed by him, but also with the opinion of all Canadian parliamentarians, with a serious, credible vote that would have given him a credibility that he unfortunately did not have?
When one wants to look like a head of state, one behaves like a head of state, and the Prime Minister did not behave like a head of state. He refuses to consult parliament.
He went to a Liberal Party fundraising dinner to talk about his visit with the president of the United States and he expects to be taken seriously.
He still has a chance to make amends. He must allow parliament to voice its opinion by voting on any major decision to be taken in this context.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
I see a member rising on questions or comments, but unfortunately he is not in his place. Or is he rising on debate?
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
I am sorry, but since the member is not in his place, I must give the floor to the member for Saint-Jean.
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I invite my colleague to put his question to me after my speech. I think it is important for him to be in his seat. I am sure that is the message you were trying to get across. It is also important for him to get closer to our House leader and to those who will be speaking later on. The discussions that we are having here today are very important.
The motion asks that the House urge the government to consult parliament. I believe this is a very serious issue. Yesterday, we saw the Prime Minister of Canada go to Washington without the formal support of parliament. He may have had the support of the executive, of cabinet, but he did not have the support of parliament.
He went to meet with the President of the U.S., who has the support of both houses of Congress. In the U.S. Senate as well as in the House of Representatives, these discussions went beyond any partisan considerations.
I think this is what parliament is all about, that is to give all elected members not only the right to express their views on an issue, but also the fundamental right to vote on the issue. It is the same as if an election campaign were to provide for heated debates between candidates but, in the end, no opportunity for the people to vote.
I think people have to be asked to vote. When the people voted, whether they voted for an individual and a party or an individual representing a party, they asked that person to sit in parliament, to which they had elected him, to debate and to vote on all of the issues. That is what counts.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister did not have a mandate from parliament. He had a mandate from cabinet, but not from parliament.
If we look at all of the countries of the world in the context of this crisis, I think armed forces, including those of the G-7, will certainly draw on the decisions of their respective parliaments. The French president has just made a commitment. He has said, “We cannot use force, involve our army, without consulting the National Assembly”. He has made that commitment.
Yesterday, Tony Blair, the British prime minister, not only briefed people, but he is planning to recall parliament before the date set, because he also wants to draw on parliament. He will thus be speaking on behalf of all members of the British parliament. It is important to remember this.
The same is true in Germany. Probably for historical reasons, this is in the German constitution. Because of the two world wars, when Germany wants to use force, it must consult its parliament.
The Canadian Prime Minister cannot remain outside what the major powers are doing. Of course, we already have problems with our army. We cannot contribute a whole lot. Still, if parliamentarians have the opportunity to speak their mind, we can then come up with solutions. Democracy will then decide. How will it do so? By letting each member of this parliament vote on these questions. That is the aim of the motion before us.
Each of the members is well equipped to do so. We are used to making decisions. I would even say that we can make decisions that are often very difficult. The decision for which we want the government to respond to our request is a difficult one. The decision to send Canadians and Quebecers into a conflict that could be lengthy and dangerous is the responsibility of each member. We each have our points of entry in this debate and in the vote. We will hold a considered vote based on what each member must do.
A member is someone who already—this is true in my case—has a file, who is in contact with the army, who can discuss at length with members of the armed forces and listen to their viewpoint.
A member of parliament is also someone who listens to his constituents. Since there cannot always be unanimity, a majority of voters may say “I think you should defend my point of view and go so far as to vote according to it”. This is the fundamental role of a member in this House. His role is not to merely discuss issues.
So far, we have been discussing and we have expressed our opinion to the Prime Minister. Now, we want to go the next step, a step without which it is useless and totally pointless to discuss issues. If we have a debate without a vote, we can talk until we are blue in the face. However, the fundamental decision, the decision that history will remember, will be the one recorded in Hansard , following a vote, that will show how members voted on the motion. So, this is very important.
Members of parliament also listen to interest groups. Peace groups come to see us and so do more aggressive ones. We must listen to these people. This is why I say that we are perfectly capable of making these sometimes difficult decisions.
We should not miss this opportunity to strengthen the role of MPs. How many times have we heard comments such as, “Backbenchers never have a say”. This is a typical example of the importance of the members of the House as a whole, both backbenchers and ministers. When a vote takes place here, everyone has a voice. The Prime Minister or any minister does not carry more weight. The process is fair to everyone. Sure, the government can always rely on its majority, but this is normal and at least members can vote on these issues.
Members who will be expressing their opinions today want to do more than talk. They want to do more than have a debate. They want to do more than engage in rhetoric. They want all these speeches and discussions to end with their vote, a vote based on what I mentioned earlier namely their files, their voters, the interest groups that contacted them and the feedback provided by their office, which receives calls every day on this issue. We must take all this into account and give MPs an opportunity to give some finality to the debate through a vote.
There is the importance of debating and the importance of voting. There is also the importance of knowing, in the motion before us, what the financial consequences will be, for there are financial consequences. However, at the outset I must say that the primary consequence for a member is that Quebecers and Canadians will be sent into a risky conflict. That is the main thing I said earlier that we were used to taking decisions. The most difficult part about taking those decisions is that we are the lives and health of people.
We know that not everyone is killed in a conflict but some people come back in pretty rough shape. We have only to think of the gulf war and the conflict in the Balkans. Some people who went over lost their lives, but others came back with their health broken, which is almost as bad. We therefore have a very great responsibility.
Similarly, the cost to the Canadian taxpayer will also be great. Once again, members do not want to be restricted to debating the matter.
They want to have their say in a vote on a motion, with the financial consequences that vote will imply.
So far, the performance of the Minister of Finance has been sadly lacking. He has said nothing has been planned yet in this regard and that he would do everything possible to avoid a deficit.
If we decide to make an additional commitment and troops are sent to Afghanistan or if we increase our participation to make up for the shortfall in our international commitments such as replacing the Americans in the field in Bosnia, this is bound to have financial consequences.
I therefore think that members of this House have everything they need to be well informed in the debate and that they are certainly in a position to vote, which is essential in a democracy.
Just to tie this in with the proposal I just made regarding financial resources, I wish to move an amendment to the motion moved by the member for Roberval.
I move:
That the motion be amended by adding after the word “action” the following:
“nor any financial resources”.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
I would like to inform the member that the Chair will take the amendment into consideration and report later to the House as to whether it is in order.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague from Saint-Jean thinks about the comments made by representatives of the Liberal Party in 1990, when, on the issue of the gulf war, the member at that time, the Deputy Prime Minister, stated:
Liberals insist that before Canadians are called upon to participate in any offensive action, such participation must first be brought before parliament and voted on here in the way it was done at the time of the Korean conflict.
It was the Liberals who were calling on the government for a vote, as we are doing today.
What does my colleague from Saint-Jean think of this?
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague has just given us an example where the Deputy Prime Minister, back then, answered back to the Conservative government in office “You must consult us, but you must also allow us to vote on it”.
Incidentally, I would like to remind my colleague that there was not only one member of the opposition at the time who questioned the government about this. I believe all the Liberal members of the opposition asked that there be a vote.
Unfortunately, this is not the only example of an opposition party that forgets the past once elected to government. They should re-read Hansard and ask themselves if they are not contradicting themselves on their positions of the past.
In the case that my honourable colleague raised, the Liberals are indeed in contradiction with their stand at the time. For this reason, we are asking them to demonstrate that they are listening and to allow all members a vote on this issue.
As for the Bloc Quebecois, while I do not believe we will ever form the government, we would not contradict ourselves, unlike the Liberals certainly are, from when they were the opposition compared to today as government.
Robert Lanctôt Bloc Châteauguay, QC
Madam Speaker, during question period, when we came back we asked the Prime Minister if there would be a vote, since consulting the House appeared essential in such an important debate on the attacks. In his reply the Prime Minister indicated that there would be consultation in the House.
Our understanding was that it would not be mere consultation as part of an exploratory debate, but that a vote would be taken in the House of Commons to give ourselves some power.
Later the Prime Minister recanted. What does my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, think of that tactic on the government's part?
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Châteauguay, for his question. I believe there is indeed a discrepancy between what the Prime Minister said at the beginning of the session and the statement he made later, saying that he was not sure whether people would be asked to vote on the issue.
Today it must be clear that this motion is more than just a motion put forward by an opposition group or a political party. It concerns all members who are not ministers or the Prime Minister. What matters today is that members realize that we are sending a message, not only to opposition members, but also to all members of this House who, sadly, are all too often confronted to positions taken by this government's executive branch the cabinet that is, and are expected to toe the line.
What we want to do today is get a vote. We are asking the Prime Minister to allow all backbenchers of his party to vote. We want these people, all the members, not only to give their opinion on the issue but also to vote on it. This is a fundamental principle and the Prime Minister must not miss this opportunity to take a measure which will satisfy all members of the House of Commons.
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to this motion and to reassert the government's commitment to consulting and having an open debate on defence and foreign policy issues.
The first part of the motion presented by the hon. member for Roberval calls for consultation. We on this side of the House have no difficulty with that. We have put it into practice and used it in a meaningful way for a great number of years.
However the second part of the motion calls for a different kind of procedure and debate in the House that would culminate in a vote of parliament. It is for that reason that I rise to oppose the Bloc motion.
First, I do so because it would break with a current Canadian parliamentary practice that has been in effect for some eight years, the life of this government, a practice that has worked exceedingly well.
Second, the motion deals with a hypothetical situation. We do not know whether our armed forces will be called on for a combat role in the campaign against terrorism at this time.
Third, the motion creates difficulty in terms of the timeliness and effectiveness of being able to move our resources, both assets and personnel, to help deal with these kinds of struggles and tragedies. This would sometimes require swift deployment of troops, perhaps at times when the House is not sitting. The government would not be able to wait a very long time to do that.
Finally a reason for not supporting the component of the motion which calls for a vote of parliament is that quite frankly such decisions should be made by the government. That is what we were elected to do.
Yes, we need to consult with and fully inform as best we can members of parliament. However it is ultimately the responsibility of the Government of Canada to make the decisions for which it must be accountable to parliament and the people of Canada.
It would be better to direct the energies of the House toward responding to the tragedy of September 11 than to engage in the kinds of procedural debates or wrangles we are seeing this morning.
If we take the discussion beyond the current eight year practice in terms of the matter being dealt with in parliament, it is interesting to note that no formal parliamentary resolution was ever made with respect to the entry of Canada into the Korean war in 1950.
Even in 1939 at the outset of World War II there was no specific resolution of parliament declaring war on Nazi Germany. Parliamentary approval for the government's policy was shown through support in the Speech from the Throne and the defence estimates. There was no resolution of parliament. There was no vote at all in parliament on the declaration of war against imperial Japan.
Since 1950 Canada has had over 50 peace support operations of varying size. For many of these missions parliament was not consulted at all if they were small. For the roughly 20 major missions debated in the House there were only five recorded votes. Three motions were agreed to without a recorded vote.
The government has delivered on what it promised to do: expand the rights of parliament to debate major Canadian foreign policy initiatives such as peacekeeping deployments.
Since 1994 we have consulted parliament on many of the international missions carried out by the Canadian forces. We held a debate most recently in October 2000 prior to deploying Canadian forces personnel to Ethiopia and Eritrea. Debates were held in the House during the Kosovo crisis. The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs met numerous times, either jointly or separately, to discuss the issue.
There was in addition a series of detailed technical briefings by military and other officials to make sure members of the House were well informed of developments in the Balkans. Two debates were held in April 1998 and February 1999 regarding the deployment of peacekeeping forces to the Central African Republic. We held a debate on potential military action against Iraq in February 1998.
In November 1996 we debated Canada's leadership role in alleviating the suffering in the African great lakes region. We also held more than one debate on Canada's role in implementing the measures taken by the international community to maintain stability and security in Haiti. This demonstrates that parliament's role has extended beyond consultation on deployments.
In 1994 a series of joint committees were especially organized to take an indepth look at Canada's foreign and defence policies. Their work led to the adoption of a new defence policy and a review of Canada's foreign policy.
Parliament has also played a major role in many other aspects of foreign and defence policy. For example, the expansion of NATO, the renewal of the NORAD agreement that provides for the security and defence of North America, and Canadian policy on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, arms control and disarmament have all been subjects of consultations with parliament.
As for the tragedy that struck the United States, there have been three separate debates about it over the last week.
The September 17 special debate, the September 18 Canadian Alliance opposition day debate and the September 20 evening debate on the Prime Minister's meeting with President Bush have all been the subject of discussion in the House. I think these examples show that this government and this party are committed to consulting with parliament and will continue to do so.
I will also add that the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois deals with a hypothetical situation. The question of armed forces outlined in the motion is clearly hypothetical. There is no UN, NATO or United States request to deploy Canadian troops to respond to the events of September 11. There is none at this point in time.
What is certain, however, is that the struggle that lies ahead will be a long and difficult one. This will not be a simple or a quick campaign. The world is faced with an elusive enemy that works in the shadows and uses unconventional techniques. We do not expect this campaign to be run by the conventional methods of war. President Bush himself underlined this in his speech last Thursday.
This will not be like World War II. This will not be like the Gulf war. It will not be like Kosovo. There may be aspects of conventional military operations involved, but ultimately it will take a different kind of effort to weed out the perpetrators of this violence.
For that reason we must be prepared for a sustained and intensive effort, one that uses all available tools at our disposal, including diplomatic, military and economic means. Yesterday, both in the House and in the United States, there was much discussion about cutting off the funding to these people who inflict this terrorism.
The United States has already pre-positioned some of its military forces into the Middle East area where many of the terrorist organizations exist, near Afghanistan, near the operation that is the headquarters of Osama bin Laden. It is normal in times of crisis for military forces to move in such a fashion and pre-position, but let me make it clear that no decision has been made by the United States as to how this campaign will be carried out and how these forces will be used. This is clearly positioning. It is also quite obviously a tool to put pressure on the Taliban and Afghanistan to give up bin Laden.
The Americans have not asked for anything specific from Canada at this time in terms of future military contributions. However, we have already responded to the United States requests as events unfolded between September 11 and now. I think the Canadian forces have been doing an excellent job in meeting those requests.
Canadian CF-18s work closely with their American counterparts in Norad to defend North American airspace from further terrorist attacks. We put additional planes into the Norad system at their request. Three Canadian forces vessels were put on a heightened state of readiness to deliver humanitarian aid to the United States ports if it should be necessary. At the same time members of the disaster assistance response team, who responded so quickly and effectively to natural disasters in Turkey and Honduras, were also put on active alert in Trenton in order for them to be able to move into the United States to assist in New York or Washington.
The Canadian forces also responded quickly to the domestic demands of more than 200 rerouted planes placed in Canadian communities across the country. Within hours of learning that flights were being diverted into Canada, Canadian forces Airbus and Hercules aircraft worked closely with local airports, Transport Canada, Red Cross workers and countless volunteers to provide important resources across the country to help cope with the heavy influx of travellers. Their efforts deserve recognition and the gratitude of Canadians. We can be proud of their reaction.
At the same time members of the Canadian forces were setting up shelters and bases in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Manitoba to accommodate some of the thousands of distraught passengers and crew who found themselves stranded in our country. The assistance that was both offered and provided by the Canadian forces was an important part of the overall national response efforts.
Organizing the many aspects of this response was no small task and here the federal government's new Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness played and continues to play a key co-ordination role. Officials at OCIPEP are working in close co-operation with the U.S. federal emergency management agency, FEMA, in this connection.
I think the excellent work of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces in the days following the attacks demonstrates that we are ready and able to respond whenever we are called upon. As we move forward the Canadian forces continue to work with the U.S. and our allies through our intelligence community, which has put on an extra effort at the request of the United States in terms of intelligence gathering and analysis. From them to our binational command of NORAD, our Canadian forces are maintaining a close working relationship with their counterparts in the United States.
As we can see, we have been there with the Americans and they have thanked us for what we have done. We will continue to be there as we prepare to embark on this campaign against terrorism. We have capabilities in the Canadian forces that we can still make available. Moreover last Friday I authorized more than 100 Canadian forces personnel who were serving in the United States and other allied military forces to participate in any operations conducted by their host units in response to the recent terrorist attack.
I can assure the House that we are not looking to play a symbolic role. We are looking to play a very meaningful role. As the United States comes through the planning stage it will then consult with Canada and other allies to determine how we can work together. It is by working together that we will be able to use our capabilities in a complementary way. That is why the Prime Minister travelled to Washington yesterday and why I leave for Brussels later today to meet with our NATO allies.
We are in the process of building a coalition of countries that recognize the need to suppress terrorism. Let me assure the House that Canada will work with our allies, but we will not rush into any decisions concerning our response without thorough and balanced consideration. If, after consultations with the United States and our allies, it is decided that Canada would contribute combat troops, let me remind the members of the House that the Prime Minister has already pledged that the House, as is our custom and has been our practice for many years, will be fully consulted.
Let me make one last point concerning the Bloc Quebecois motion. It is important that Canada be able to respond quickly and flexibly to the events of September 11. While we are committed to consulting Canadians and members of the House, we are equally committed to making the most effective contribution to peace and freedom.
That is precisely what we have been doing since September 11.
This is what we will continue to do in the coming months as we stand with the United States and our allies in this campaign to suppress terrorism.
Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister some questions. I have been asking them for two weeks now and have not been getting a lot of answers so I am hoping that today we can just have a little back and forth and get some real information.
The minister said that we should not be spending the energy of the House on this motion, that we should be talking about deployment, so let us talk about deployment. The minister also said that Canada's contribution would not be just a token contribution, that it would be substantial, with our NATO allies.
I would just like to ask the minister exactly what that contribution could be, not what it will be, but what Canada is capable of supplying looking at the fact that the number of our forces has dropped from 90,000 when this government took office to probably under 55,000 now, and according to some experts it is heading down still quite rapidly. Considering that this government has cut the defence budget in real terms by 30%, that our equipment is so badly outdated, starting with the Sea King and going right down the line, that we have mostly gaps in our equipment, we do not have an awful lot to offer. It is important that if we send our troops into a combat situation they have good equipment.
Even our F-18s, which the minister so often refers to, have been cut from 122 to 80 now, with a pledge to cut the number to 50. It is not just the planes themselves, of course, but also the pilots. We have lost more than half of our experienced pilots who flew in Kosovo. In regard to ordnance, I have had rumours fed to me, and judging from where they came I would say they are more than rumours, that in fact we are so short of smart bombs and other equipment needed in this type of situation that we cannot possibly go ahead until we restock in these areas.
I would like to ask the minister just what we can send and what his plans are in terms of emergency spending to restock some of this ordnance and to take other emergency measures to deal with this important situation.
Art Eggleton Liberal York Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is getting way ahead of himself. I clearly indicated that we should not be getting into procedural debates. I also indicated that it is premature to talk about a hypothetical situation. We really do not know what will be required. I will not speculate on what is required in terms of the long term or even the short term campaign against terrorism.
We are in consultation with our allies and with the United States and as it is determined what role we can play we will, as best we can, be happy to provide that information, subject, always, to national security.
With respect to the strength of the Canadian forces, as has been said time and again, we have a recruitment challenge as every other country does, the United States and other countries. We are down to a total strength of about 58,500. Our effective strength--I noticed some article on that this morning--is lower than that but that is because we have a number of people who are in training. At any given time people are going through education courses and various training activities.
I must also say, on an optimistic note, that our recruitment is way up. Recruitment numbers this year are up substantially over last year with our new recruitment program. Our attempts also to retain current military personnel, together with the recruitment, will help us to bring our numbers up.
It is also worth bearing in mind that while these numbers are lower we do have a lot of new equipment and technology which means the force projection of those numbers is greater than what the force projection of those numbers would have been, certainly 10 years ago.
The hon. member talked about budget cuts again. Back in the days of the deficit, way over there on that side of the House, in that party in particular, they were saying cut government spending. I did not hear them say cut government spending but do not cut defence.
I was here back in 1993 and I never heard that at all. It has become convenient for them to say that nowadays but back in those days they were saying cut government spending. Everybody was saying it. Nobody said exempt defence. Nobody said exempt health care or exempt anything else. Everything was put on the table and the budget cuts were based so we could get our fiscal house in order. We have been able to do that. Other countries have done that as well. Many other countries, including the United States, cut their defence budgets but now our defence budget is going up. We have invested some $3 billion more in the last three years.
In terms of equipment, the member conveniently forgets that we do have a lot of good, modern equipment. Yes, we have some equipment that needs replacing. Of course the Sea King needs replacing. However we have new Coyotes that are the envy of many other militaries and were requested recently by the United States and other countries to be part of the operation in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
We played a very frontline role in Kosovo with our CF-18s. We have more precision guided munitions on order and if we were to engage in any conflict, we would need to make sure we had the necessary equipment to do that.
However, it would be very premature to talk about that. The member talked about the cut in the number of CF-18s. We have cut them down to a level that is still higher than what the white paper on defence policy of 1994 said we required.
I do not think the member has his facts right at all. We have more pilots now than we had at Kosovo. We may not have the same pilots, as there is always a turnover, but we have good pilots.
During an interview the other day involving the former supreme allied commander, General Clark, he said that the Canadian pilots were exceptional, that they were top class and that they continue to be top class. We have and have always had great training programs in this country. These are some illustrations. The member has a lot of his facts wrong.
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Madam Speaker, I will point out to the Minister of National Defence that history will tell whether Canada has done what had to be done.
More and more observers are beginning to say that Canada is not taken seriously. On the other hand, what is put forward today in this House is serious. There might be terrorists inside our country. As members know, the Prime Minister said yesterday that it was an attack that was carried out against our neighbours, close to home. That is why the Bloc Quebecois wants the issue to be considered in the House and a vote taken here with regard to any military intervention.
I quote the Deputy Prime Minister, who was sitting in the official opposition in 1990 when he said this:
Liberals insist that before Canadians are called upon to participate in any offensive action, such participation must first be brought before Parliament and voted on here in the way it was done at the time of the Korean conflict.
I would therefore ask this to the Minister of National Defence: Why not accept today what the Liberal Party was asking for in 1990, all the more so since it is about a crisis happening at our doorsteps?
Art Eggleton Liberal York Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, the hon. member noted the debate about Korea but there was no vote in this parliament on Korea.
I was not here in 1990 so I do not know the circumstances that led to the call at that point in time by our party, then in opposition, for a vote on the matter. I can tell members that each case has to be judged on its own merit and on its own individual circumstance. In the eight years that I have been here and this government has existed, we have developed a very open consultation process for all members to engage in the major potential deployments of our military. That practice will continue. The Prime Minister has made it clear that there will be consultations here.
Canada is prepared to play a meaningful role and will play a meaningful role in both the short and the long term. We have already played one. If it involves the deployment of our Canadian forces overseas, then there will be consultation with parliament.