Madam Speaker, I think the proposal raises an excellent topic, which is the issue of how to appropriately respond to a circumstance we are faced with as a nation that is certainly not without precedent but without precedent in terms of its impact on North America.
The events of two weeks ago are events we deplore. The question of how we should respond in the House and how the government should respond is at issue. Certainly the Canadian Alliance policy position should be put on the record and I will do so now. I quote from our policy document which states:
We will make Parliament responsible for exercising effective oversight over the conduct of Canadian foreign policy, and the commitment of Canadian Forces to foreign operations.
The issue of parliamentary oversight is one that I have heard addressed here, in the few months that I have been here, and it certainly has been addressed by members on this side of the House with increasing frequency since the government came to power. Part of the reason for that increasing frequency is the fact that as the government remains in power there seems to be a tendency for that power to increasingly centralize in the Prime Minister's Office and in the hands of the Prime Minister himself as opposed to remaining dispersed, as it more appropriately should be, among the members of this responsible body.
This view is shared by many. I will quote from Donald Savoie's book, Governing from the Centre , in which he says:
While I argue that the centre and, in particular, the hand of the Prime Minister, has been considerably strengthened in recent years, this is not to suggest that the federal government is better able to define new strategic direction or a coherent plan to which all government departments can contribute. It is ironic perhaps that as the hand at the centre has been strengthened, its ability to manage horizontal issues has been weakened.
At no time has it been more evident than in recent weeks that Mr. Savoie's comments are not only accurate but are illustrative of a problem for our country. The reality is that the Prime Minister's office has centralized responsibility for decision making within its own confines. The reality is that the government did not even bother to strike a committee to discuss defence issues. The reality is that the Prime Minister and his close advisors, his closet or his court, made decisions immediately following the events and very likely will continue to make decisions that will affect us in many profound ways.
One of the key aspects that we should be addressing in the House is our relationship with the United States. Bilateral relations with the United States are key to our country in many ways, not the least of which is economically.
One trend that all of us should be aware of is the increasing closeness between the populations of these two countries. As with many trends, the effects of this change will be felt disproportionately throughout our country, but the reality is that Canadians and Americans are closer than ever before. An illustration of that is the reaction among the Canadian people to the events in the United States over the last few weeks. The impressive display of support and of honest friendship among the peoples of the two countries was heartfelt and genuine.
The second factor that affects our bilateral relationship is the reality that Canada is less significant as a global economic player than it was two decades ago. Once our GDP ranked us among the largest national economies. Today many economies in the developing world have grown larger in terms of their aggregate GDP but Canada has, in some ways, become a smaller player even though it has continued to grow. Developing countries and many smaller developed countries are better able to participate in the numerous international forums where once Canada served as a champion of their concerns.
However, it is also true that a significant part of our decline in world affairs is self-inflicted. Canada's military has shrunk so badly that it cannot serve in much more than a symbolic role even in disaster relief efforts around the world. The debate we are having today, in its specific terms of whether or not we should contribute to military effort elsewhere, is largely a symbolic debate. The real concern that many of us have is that our military has declined. That is a concern and it reduces the esteem with which many of our allies hold us around the world.
Our foreign service is shrinking. Our entire public service is losing talented people through attrition and downsizing. We have an excellent diplomatic corps around the world but they are starved for resources and are overwhelmed by the burgeoning number of international talks, commissions and negotiations in which they are asked to be involved.
At the same time we understand and Washington certainly understands the need for our government not to appear to be acting as puppets to the United States. We understand the ambivalent relationship required of governments in the country as to the position of the United States on a variety of issues. The Prime Minister understands that. At the 1998 NATO meeting he was quoted as saying to the Belgian prime minister “I like to stand up to the Americans. It is popular. But we have to be careful, they are our friends”. That is the defining reality of the government's position vis-à-vis the United States.
The government, in many instances, has refused to co-operate with the United States or, on the surface at least, tried to portray itself as standing against U.S. concerns and for Canadian ones. That is fine when those concerns are different concerns but the concerns raised as a consequence of the terrorist acts are not different concerns but relatively the same in both nations.
Historically the United States asked us to address the issues of illegal movement of people across our border, cross border drug smuggling, drug enforcement, light sentences, et cetera. It has also expressed concern about the looseness in our scrutiny over the diversion of sensitive technology to rogue states, as they are sometimes referred. In each of these instances, Canada and the government failed to take proactive approaches which would have addressed the concerns raised by the Americans.
The recent Ressam case highlights the concerns the United States has had with Canada being a transit point or a staging ground for terrorist activity. It is well understood that the Americans have expressed these concerns, not just recently but over a long period of time.
As Her Majesty's loyal opposition, we have proposed solutions to these various problems and others. Refusing to co-operate with an ally does not make one stronger. We share enormous interests with the people of the United States, yet the government's refusal to co-operate with them in so many ways has done nothing to safeguard our sovereignty. On the contrary, it makes us less of a nation.
Working in partnership enhances our influence and our sovereignty. European Union members have already acted to harmonize their approach to terrorism and they did not surrender their sovereignty in the process. Responsible nations around the globe are responding co-operatively to the terrorist threat. The Liberal government seems to be missing the boat on what is a global trend and a global opportunity to focus resources on solving a problem that affects all of us, not just in the free world but those in other areas of the world where terrorists are domiciled as well.
Canadians overwhelmingly agree that we should be fully engaged in the fight against terrorism on all fronts, yet the government seems to oppose any policy simply on the basis that the United States supports it. This is a very dangerous attitude, especially when it is applied to continental security concerns.
We see a number of areas where the government must proceed, such as on immigration reform but not necessarily harmonization. Canadians want us to do a proper job of making sure that terrorists do not use this country as their bed and breakfast. This does not mean we must do it exactly the same way but we should share good ideas, effective methods and data.
Other areas should include faster and more effective deportation of rejected applicants, intelligence co-ordination, foreign intelligence capability, and safeguards against embassy corruption which is an issue that we raised. There are hundreds of examples of various acts of a criminal nature in our embassies over the last few years but when the issue is raised in the House, the minister dismisses it by saying that it is an exaggeration. However we have data showing that there were over 300 cases between 1993 and 1996. This would be another opportunity for us as a nation to safeguard our perimeter defence; our embassies, after all, are key to that exercise.
Another issue on which the government has taken baby steps is on anti-terrorism legislation. This was debated in the House last week and had the support of my PC colleagues and members of the Alliance. The government's proposal is to limit the ability to give tax receipts to terrorist organizations.
Martin Collacott, a former ambassador and a diplomat for Canada in Asia, calls the proposal laughable. Many Canadians have the same attitude.
Discussions have been absent on emergency preparedness, military defence and homeland defence for the United States. Another issue concerns proactive principal diplomacy. The government's insistence on supporting Syria in its bid to become a member of the United Nations Security Council does not support the idea that Canada's values are being represented by the government.
There are many other areas, such as economic measures, in which we can do a great deal to assist in the battle against terrorism besides the military option we are debating today. The government seems hidebound in its unwillingness to enter into productive partnerships and discussions with our greatest partner in the world. Waiting at the perimeter for the United States to change its mind on these issues will not work. We need to take matters into our own hands. If we fail to do so it will be a recipe for marginalization and anxiety on the part of the Canadian people.
