Daniel Turp

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the consent of parliament was requested by the former foreign affairs critic, now Minister of Foreign Affairs, as my colleague mentioned earlier.

However, any consent must first and foremost be an informed one. One must be well informed before one can give consent and, on matters of such importance as the deployment of troops abroad, in countries such as Kosovo or Yugoslavia, the consent must not be implicit. It must be quite explicit, and it will be only if we vote.

I would like to ask my colleague if he considers, in this case, that the consent to which the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence and even the Prime Minister refer is an informed consent, given that the meeting scheduled for tomorrow, where we were to be briefed on the situation in Kosovo, has been cancelled?

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

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?

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

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?

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's arguments are no more convincing than those of his counterpart at foreign affairs.

One of the reasons they are even less convincing is that this morning one of his colleagues reminded us that this House had voted on several occasions on sending troops, not only to Iraq, but also to the Congo, Cyprus, and the Middle East.

There are examples when the House voted. Why is the government refusing to change the practice it brought in when it came to power, according to which it refuses to hold a vote after a debate?

The government should learn something from this war, a lesson in democracy.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Your arguments are not convincing, sir—

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call on the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, who has been sitting in this House for six years and who has a masters degree in political science.

I would like him to tell us why parliament should really have to deal with an issue such as this one? Why is it not enough to let the government decide, on such an issue? Why is it critical to call on parliament, as other parliaments have done—and my colleague could provide examples of other parliaments that debated the issue and voted on it—to have a decisive say on this issue?

[Kosovo, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this shows once again that the government is providing information bit by bit.

Friday, something will happen and we will get information. This is something about which we were never told until now.

If NATO asks Canada to contribute to the sending of ground troops to Kosovo, will the Prime Minister pledge at last to seek the approval of parliament before sending such troops to the Balkans?

[Kosovo, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday NATO's secretary general, Javier Solana, and the U.S. secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, both stated that they were no longer ruling out sending ground troops to Kosovo.

According to some reports, these troops could be deployed in six to eight weeks and have a strength of 280,000.

Does the Prime Minister support the comments made by the NATO secretary general and by Mrs. Albright, and can he confirm the reports on the time necessary to send ground troops to Kosovo and on their possible strength?

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I agree with the criticisms the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska made about the briefings given by the government.

We learned earlier this morning that instead of being briefed tomorrow morning from 8 to 9 a.m., we would be called to a half hour briefing tomorrow afternoon, and we do not know yet if we will get the briefing we were promised for next Thursday.

The government is not forthcoming. They obviously have something to hide. They lack transparency and, throughout this debate, we have to blame the government as often as possible.

Our colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska indicated that there is a major precedent in this House that should govern us, that should inspire those who, for several years now, have been addressing the issue of sending troops abroad.

Our colleague said that his party will be supporting our motion, and we appreciate it. However, he also mentioned that he will not be voting for the amendment. Why will he not support the amendment?

In 1991, his party ensured that debates and votes would be held before troops are sent in. The Bloc Quebecois would like the vote to be held before troops are sent abroad and that can be done, as we saw in 1991.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I have listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The only argument he appears to be using to justify this Parliament's not voting on this motion is that of flexibility. That is the only argument I heard.

It is not valid because section 32 of the National Defence Act gives the government that flexibility. I would invite the Parliamentary Secretary to read that section with care, as it provides that, when parliament is not in session, the governor in council may place the Canadian forces on active service and that it can, moreover, recall Parliament within a certain period of time so that the matter may be presented and eventually discussed in parliament.

That is the only argument he used, and it is not convincing. What would be convincing, however, would be to hear the parliamentary secretary, and through him, his government, state a belief in parliamentary democracy. This is a parliamentary democracy.

My question is this: ought a parliamentary democracy not to give MPs a true voice when it comes to sending troops abroad, soldiers whose lives could be in danger, and to committing major funding for the purpose of ensuring international peace and security, as we have since the beginning of the conflict? Does a parliamentary democracy not require the government to accept, as a previous government did, our voting on a motion like the one to authorize sending troops to Kosovo?