Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mississauga West.
I feel it is essential for me to address the House and comment on the critical issue we are grappling with today.
Certain members of this House seem to feel it would be appropriate for the government to allow not only a debate but also a vote on the decision to deploy Canadian ground troops to the Balkans who might become engaged in military operations and/or peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and the Balkans.
First of all, I would like to say that I am opposed to this motion, just as I was when we debated a similar motion on three occasions during the past year.
We remain convinced that by adopting such a motion we would paralyze the government for no good reason in the midst of situations which often require a rapid and effective response. We also believe that in adopting this position we are respecting the wishes of the Canadian people. Finally, we persist in our belief that parliament is capable of making an important contribution under such circumstances through the process of consultation.
I would point out that the government is taking into account the vital role played by parliament in this crisis. We obviously feel that obtaining the support of all members of this House is essential. Government decisions can only gain further legitimacy in the eyes of the international community when they receive the unanimous support of parliament. And it is in this spirit that we have decided to hold three debates on this issue thus far.
In October 1998, the House held a special debate on the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and the special measures the government planned to implement in concert with the international community in order to resolve the conflict.
In February 1999, when we were hoping to see a peaceful end to this crisis, we held another debate, this time focusing on the possible deployment of Canadian troops to Yugoslavia.
And last Monday, April 12, we again debated the issue, allowing every MP who wished to comment on this serious humanitarian crisis to do so.
I would respectfully point out that on every one of these occasions we fortunately saw our policy receive unanimous support from members of every party.
As the Prime Minister himself has pointed out several times, it is critical that we speak with one voice and that Mr. Milosevic be in no doubt as to the position of the Canadian government. Peace, respect for human rights and democracy constitute values that are unanimously respected and supported by the Canadian people and their parliament.
The current situation is so serious and so important that we must not allow him any openings whatsoever. Mr. Milosevic must understand that our position is unwavering. This is no time for playing political games. To act otherwise would only display a lack of respect for Canada's democratic institution par excellence, the House of Commons.
The government remains committed to consulting parliament. It has undertaken to ensure greater parliamentary involvement in reviewing major issues relating to foreign and defence policy, and it has held a significant number of parliamentary debates.
Since 1994, the government has consulted parliament regarding many of the internatinal missions carried out by the Canadian forces. For example, we held two debates, in April 1998 and February 1999, regarding the deployment of a peacekeeping force 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 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, in 1995 and 1997.
With respect to our involvement in Yugoslavia, we have held seven parliamentary debates so far. I will not list the innumerable sessions of the House of Commons defence and foreign Affairs committees at which Canadian participation on a wide variety of peacekeeping forces was discussed.
In 1994, a series of joint committees were specially organized to take an in-depth look at Canada's foreign and defence policy. These committees held unprecedented and comprehensive public hearings. Their work has led to the adoption of a new defence policy and the 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 the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, arms control and disarmament have all been the subjects of consultation with parliament.
In 1998, the Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, which I had the honour of chairing, carried out an unprecedented study on the social and economic challenges confronted by Canadian Forces members. This study contributed significantly to the development of a government quality-of-life program designed to meet the challenges posed by military life. Furthermore, this committee is currently examining the federal government's procurement policy and holding hearings with the defence industry across Canada.
All these measure testify to the government's willingness to consult parliament in shaping Canada's foreign and defence policy.
I would like as well to reaffirm the position taken by the Minister of National Defence: the government is fully committed to consulting with parliament and, as I have shown, has proved repeatedly that it has kept its promises in this regard.
However, the Canadian government, which is duly elected by the Canadian people, must not relinquish its ability to govern responsibly and to make hard decisions where necessary. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and would be viewed as such by the Canadian people.
Any additional steps in the deployment process would undermine Canada's ability to respond rapidly and effectively to international crises. Requiring a vote on the deployment of Canadian forces abroad could even impose pointless delays.
Once again, I must underscore the fact that the situation is so serious and the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo so great that it cannot be used as a pretext to serve political agendas. Even if we were to agree to consult the Canadian people and the members of this House, we would still be as determined as ever to do whatever possible to maintain, and in some cases to re-establish, peace and freedom. We have listened to Canadians and we have consulted parliament.
Our government and the Canadian people are proud of the role played by Canada both as a world leader in peacekeeping and as a faithful partner in times of crisis. We will continue to consult parliament, both through debates in the House and through the testimony of ministers and other spokespersons before standing committees. Anyone who wants government to remain sensitive to the opinions of the elected representatives of Canadians will understand that this must be the case.
But those same Canadians will understand how misguided it would be to adopt a motion that might compromise Canada's ability to respond when events call for immediate intervention.
