Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot.
Today, I want to speak to the motion put forward by the Bloc asking, and I quote:
That this House urge the government, in any reprisals taken in reaction to the terrorist strikes in New York City 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.
First, let me take this opportunity to extend my condolences to the families of the victims, to wish a speedy recovery to all those who were injured but managed to survive and to express my great regret to the American people who were affected by these evil acts perpetrated not only against their country but against all of us.
The government shares the views of all hon. members that the tragedy in the United States has been and is the immediate priority for the House. That is why the first order of business when the House returned on September 17 was a special debate on the tragedy in the United States, not just the debate after the adjournment hour, not just the so-called emergency evening debate, but in fact the government order of the House, which was followed by a vote.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the House leaders of all parties for agreeing to the format which eventually resulted in the vote and the transmission to the United States congress of the Hansard of that day, expressing our condolences, our heartfelt support and of course our commitment to eradicate terrorism. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the House.
The House debated the issue again on September 18 with an opposition day motion from the Canadian Alliance.
We had a special take note debate on September 20. Again, the opposition asked for, and which the government agreed, a special debate in the evening so that all hon. members could put on record their feelings, their thoughts of this historic moment. For the members who had not had the opportunity to express their condolences, this was another mechanism by which they could do so.
In total, 24 hours of debate took place and 85 different members of parliament spoke on September 17, 18 and 20.
Today's debate is the fourth on the U.S. tragedy in the first six days of sitting of the House since we returned after the summer recess. That does not include members' questions and statements under Standing Order 31, some of them as late as today, regarding this terrible tragedy.
In addition, I know that Canadians have been pleased that their members of parliament have been debating this issue in the House of Commons. Indeed, my constituents spoke to me about my own remarks when I was in my riding over the weekend. More particularly, I received a scroll signed by thousands of people, at the Rural Expo and International Plowing Match, in which Canadians expressed their wishes of sympathy and solidarity, which I intend to present to His Excellency the Ambassador of the United States of America.
The government's respect for parliament and the views of parliamentarians on foreign policy issues reflects its red book number one commitment to expand the rights of parliament and to debate major foreign policy initiatives.
We on the government side oppose today's motion because it, first, breaks with Canadian parliamentary practice and it deals with a hypothetical situation. Notwithstanding what has been said, there has been no troop deployment in a theatre of action as of yet, and there has been no request in that regard, as we all know.
I believe that it would set an unworkable precedent tying the hands of government when it comes to the timeliness and effectiveness of deployment of Canadian forces, whether in peace time or otherwise.
In the Canadian parliamentary system the responsibility for troop deployment lies with the government. Since 1950 there have been 50 peacekeeping operations of various sizes. In most cases parliament was not even consulted at all, and the previous government failed to allow any voice in the initial decision to deploy Canadian forces in the lead up to the 1991 gulf war. It is important for Conservative members of parliament to know this.
Second, it is important to point out that there was no parliamentary consultation about our entry into the Korean war. Even in 1939 there was no resolution declaring war on Nazi Germany.
Parliamentary approval was shown in 1939 through support for the Speech from the Throne and the defence estimates. It is a far cry from the consultations we are now carrying out.
Also, there was no vote and no consultation at all about the declaration of war against imperial Japan.
As I mentioned earlier, our government has changed all that. We changed the previous government's approach and other governments approaches too. We sought the views of parliamentarians on major policy issues.
We all remember the paper produced by the parliamentary committee in 1994 and 1995 concerning the role of our Canadian Armed Forces and our foreign policy. It was an excellent report. It was the role of this parliament and its committees. We have ensured that parliament has a voice.
We have had many special debates, which in parliamentary jargon are called take note debates. There was one as late as last Thursday. Were there to be a troop deployment, I commit myself today, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the government, to have such a debate again.
The question of combat troops outlined in today's motion is clearly hypothetical. As late as yesterday, Canada was not even formally requested by the United States, not even informally, for such a participation.
At the present time there is no UN, NATO or U.S. request to deploy Canadian troops to respond to the events of September 11.
As I said earlier, the Prime Minister promised, and I made the same commitment, that parliament would be consulted through debates in the House. I would also like to remind the House that, in the past, there was no vote on any of our peacekeeping missions.
Let me also add that today's motion by the Bloc is almost identical to the motion also put forward by the Bloc on April 19, 1999, concerning Kosovo.
So, things have not changed. The Bloc is reiterating what they said in 1999 and the government is answering the same way it did the first time around. Of course, this is a different parliament so, technically, this is the first time it has to deal with this issue. However, as I said before, we all realize that it is about the same issue.
The energies of the House are best directed at considering how to respond to the U.S. tragedy, not through engaging in procedural wrangles.
I therefore urge all my hon. colleagues to vote against the motion brought forward by the Bloc.