Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Ahuntsic, for having thought to introduce Bill C-513.
I am very pleased to speak about Bill C-513, especially because the Bloc Québécois has long been asking Parliament for legislation requiring that Canada's involvement in important missions subject to international treaties or long-term foreign military missions be debated and voted on in the House of Commons.
Just as the House of Commons must ratify an agreement or a protocol with other countries, we believe that in 2008, the House must ratify a decision that commits Canada to a long-term military mission with an offensive facet.
The government must make decisions and choices, but when the decision pertains to long-term military operations where we must deploy men and women to another country and there is a risk of losing lives, we must, as democratically elected representatives, have the right to debate the matter in the House. This is a matter that goes well beyond political partisanship here in this House.
Furthermore, although Bill C-513 amends the two sections of the National Defence Act on sending troops on foreign missions that are deemed offensive, in other words, sections 31 and 32, it recognizes the government's prerogative to place the Canadian Forces on active service.
We are calling on the government to introduce a motion in the House of Commons before deploying Canadian troops on a foreign military mission that includes an offensive facet.
Bill C-513, introduced by my colleague from Ahuntsic, is a step in the right direction for updating the National Defence Act. In the past, there have been historic precedents where the government sought the support of parliamentarians before deploying troops abroad. I will provide some examples in a few minutes.
The wording of the bill is clear. The Minister must table a motion for ratification of the declaration of intention to place the Canadian Forces on active service before the House of Commons. In fact, the motion must specify the purpose of the mission, the location and the duration of the intervention. That said, this bill is not about one military operation in particular, but all military operations with an offensive facet.
As elected members, we all have a role to inform our constituents. When we make an important decision on a mission, it is extremely important to inform the public of the issues involved.
The National Defence Act currently stipulates that putting troops on active service is the prerogative of the government in power. We believe this act should be amended so that it is the elected representatives of the public who determine whether or not Canada takes part in an offensive mission abroad.
Since there is nothing in Canadian legislation that stipulates that the government must seek the permission of House of the Commons to pursue a foreign mission, we believe that the amendments to the National Defence Act will help modernize this legislation.
In the case of Afghanistan, the minority status of the Conservative government and pressure from the opposition parties to debate the matter in the House forced this government to introduce a motion in Parliament and hold a debate on the issue.
Bill C-513 would simply require future governments to use more or less the same formula. In case of an emergency or a foreign mission expected to last less than a week, the parliamentary approval process would not apply.
My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I believe that it is important to hold an emergency debate and a vote on the issue in order to make an informed decision.
To the Bloc Québécois, sending Canadian troops abroad is a very important matter. Such decisions must not be taken lightly. The Bloc Québécois believes that we have to modernize this legislation in order to democratize the deployment of troops to foreign countries.
Currently, the dynamics of the minority Conservative government are advantageous because a majority in the House is needed to make a decision. Canadians and Quebeckers would frown on a government that does not have the support of the majority making such important decisions without the support of a majority of the members of the House of Commons.
I would like to take a few moments to explain why this law has to be modernized. It is for reasons of principle and democratic reform.
All parliamentarians know that soldiers put their lives at risk during foreign missions. These soldiers are Quebeckers and Canadians with families and friends. They risk their lives in other countries because Canada asks them to go there to achieve a set security objective, such as protecting local people from attackers, protecting the interests of Canadians, or establishing peace.
No decision is more important than the one to deploy soldiers to foreign offensive missions. It goes without saying that managing the army and deciding which operations to participate in should be the prerogative of the government in power. It is up to the Minister of National Defence and the chief of the defence staff to decide which offensive actions to recommend.
Our bill does not seek to remove that power from the government. We believe that the decision to deploy troops to foreign countries should have the support of the people. In other words, to deploy troops to offensive missions on foreign soil, the federal government should have a mandate from the people through their representatives.
There are some clearly identifiable historical precedents. We can look at World War I, World War II and even the Gulf war.
With regard to World War I, in August 1914 both Houses of Parliament debated the matter on the occasion of the throne speech. Subsequently, the House adopted a motion approving the throne speech and thereby accepting the deployment of troops.
For World War II, the House also adopted a motion, in September 1939, and the next day the government issued an order in council declaring war on Germany.
As for the Gulf war, in 1990 the House passed a motion to send military members, vessels and aircraft. However, this motion gave approval after deployment. That is the difference.
The Gulf war example is more similar to modern conflicts. In Canada, governments currently make their decisions without true debate, simply by accepting a unilateral intervention sanctioned by an organization such as the UN. Yet, it should be imperative that debate on the matter take place before authorizing the deployment of troops.
In closing, although the Conservatives and the Liberals have advised us that they do not support Bill C-513, I hope that all parliamentarians in this House will take the time to study it properly before voting against such important modernization of legislation.