Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to recognize that excluding the last several hours of debate, this House has already had the opportunity over the last couple of months to have 26 hours of debate on the important issue of Kosovo. Over 100 members have participated. There has been 20 to 25 hours of work in committees. There has been a major examination during the study of the estimates by the committee to determine the responsibility and accountability of the government on this important issue.
It is a little strange that there has been these great calls about lack of information, lack of consultation. In fact if we look at the record of many of the other countries in the NATO organization there has been no debates, no votes whatsoever.
I point that out not for reasons of comparison, but simply to point out that in this parliament we have established very important advances in engaging members of parliament in the decisions relating to foreign policy and international activities.
For example, I heard the previous question to my colleague, the parliamentary secretary. I want to point out one thing. I was here during the time of the gulf war. The warships were sent from Canada in August. Parliament was not even reconvened until the end of September, almost five weeks later. There was not any parliamentary involvement whatsoever. There was not even a debate for another month beyond that. We went almost two and a half months without any kind of parliamentary consideration, even though Canada had committed itself to a major enterprise in the gulf war.
When the vote did come a month or two later, it was not to authorize troops or ground involvement, it was simply a vote to endorse a UN resolution. That was the vote, pure and simple. All precedents that have been cited by hon. members opposite simply do not conform with the parliamentary history or the parliamentary facts.
The fact is important. I always pay great deference to my predecessors. I point to the statement made by the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark who was the Minister of External Affairs at that time. I notice that he took occasion this morning to talk about parliamentary responsibility. On September 25 he said that we cannot always wait for deliberative bodies to deliberate and act, which is why he said he would not guarantee a vote in the House of Commons on the use of Canadian forces.
When we go back and cite history and precedent, it is important to get the facts right. What we decided when we became the government was to change all that, to open up the format so that parliament would have the opportunity to be heard, to hear the voices. We already have. Over 100 members of parliament have expressed themselves very clearly on the most unmistakable commitments.
I want to acknowledge the fact that the House has made itself unified on the question of the reprehensible terrorism that is being wrought on the people of Kosovo by the Milosevic regime. We have made ourselves heard on the need to come to the aid of the hundreds of thousands of refugees.
Indeed I would say we have recognized that as we go through a transition in world affairs, we are also making a very major statement as Canadians toward the acknowledgement that new humanitarian standards are being established in the world. We are establishing new norms of behaviour which say that even the so-called sacred altar of national sovereignty should not stand in the way of protecting the lives of innocent human beings, of civilians who are being repressed and terrorized by their own government.
I acknowledge that that is a change. Just as the world has changed in geological terms, there is a shifting of the plates of international relations. I am pleased to say that as Canadians over the last several years we have increasingly been on the forefront of establishing a need for new standards and new norms.
We say innocent people should not be killed by those weapons. Whether it is the land mines campaign, advancing the work of the international court, or standing up against the trade in small arms, it is all part of the same fundamental, elementary process. This is to say that we now must begin to provide higher levels of protection for the safety and security of individuals, of human beings, of people.
That is why it strikes me as somewhat curious that the House would spend so much of its time on the question of a vote as opposed to getting down to the essentials, which is how does this country prepare itself to take the action required for that protection of human life, of individual security, of human responsibility and safety? That is what Canadians are interested in.
As the Prime Minister said in the previous debate last Monday, each circumstance will present itself. The government will make a choice as to what the nature of that parliamentary consultation and that parliamentary role will be. But to insist now on a vote on something that has not happened yet simply runs contrary to the very essence of relevance of the House. Please do not expect us to vote on proposition, speculation, what might be, what could be, what should be.
We want a government to make a decision and bring it to the House. That is what it is about. Under the cabinet parliamentary style of government, we assume that we give responsibility to confidence of the House, of parliament to a government. If the House does not like it, then it has every right to take that confidence away. It can put a motion of non-confidence in the government.
As my hon. friend pointed out earlier, there have been occasions when the opposition has done that. The Reform Party did not do it in the last motion, but it had the opportunity to do it as it has done in economic matters and other matters. That is the way parliament works. Those are the fundamentals of parliament. It is not to suggest that somewhere, someplace down the road, there may be a commitment and that we should therefore tie our hands.
In the incredibly fluid situation that we are in, we are finding out that a decision one day may not be what we need the next day. Changes have to be made. There has to be a flexibility of response. There has to be the capacity to make judgment calls because we are also working inside an alliance.
Canada is not acting as a sole agent. We are not in this by ourselves. We are members of a broad alliance of a wide range of countries. We are engaged on a number of fronts. There is the military campaign and the incredible commitments to humanitarian assistance that we are making. There is active diplomacy going on. That requires the responsibility and capacity to be able to make those judgments, to be able to make those assessments, and to be able to try to respond to the circumstances as they are.
I do not think that any hon. member of the House would want to provide a handcuff on the capacity of the Government of Canada, representing Canadians, to make those judgment calls and to be able to respond, but to do so in the full recognition that parliament has a role.
There is no other place in the world in which governments show up every day to be questioned by members of the opposition. When we talk about accountability, where else would it take place as it does here every day? President Clinton does not show up in Congress every day. The British Prime Minister goes once every two weeks. Our Prime Minister is in his seat every day to answer questions on where they come from and who provides them.
When we talk about the role of parliament, I suggest to members opposite that it is a vital role, a critical role, and a role that is being exercised very well by parliament. Hon. members on both sides of the House are deeply engaged in this critical issue. Whether it is through caucus meetings, their questions in the day, by showing up for briefing meetings or by making their commentaries known, parliament is engaged on behalf of Canadians.
It would be a serious mistake if we all of a sudden tried to put a restraint or limitation on what parliament can do, adapting day by day to the changing circumstances. We have had the opportunity to debate the principles, the fundamental objectives that Canadians do not want to see a government repress its own people and deny them the dignity of their rights. It is prepared to take action necessary through a broad based alliance to establish a new standard of human security which provides the sense that individuals in the world, someday, somewhere, will know that they can count upon the international community to protect their integrity as human beings and their rights as members of the human family.
