Mr. Speaker, first I would like to reiterate that Canada is committed to the fight against international terrorism. I think we have clearly demonstrated our support both for the United States and the international community with regard to this issue.
The issue before the House is does parliament have a role in this. I think emphatically that, it does have a role. To demonstrate that I would like to review a few points.
Since the government came to power, it has placed a premium on consulting with and soliciting the views of members of the House, particularly where matters of military and defence issues are at stake. Many of us have participated as recently as last week in those debates. The government does not take lightly its prerogative to initiate military action and deploy members of the Canadian forces. It views the opportunity to discuss these issues in parliament as a crucial step when we are looking at decision making.
From Iraq to Kosovo to central Africa, members of all parties in the House have had the opportunity to voice their views on what Canada's response should be in the face of various international crises. I believe that is the way it should be, and that is the way it is.
At the same time, however, we must preserve the ability of any government to respond rapidly, once all views have been heard and the time to act is upon us. We must know when to set aside our partisan differences and speak with one voice as a nation. Our solidarity in support of decisions to deploy troops not only increases the legitimacy of our actions in the eyes of the Canadian public and in the international community, but it lets members of the Canadian forces know the people of Canada are behind them.
The government's approach to consulting members of the House regarding deployment of troops has been well documented. The government recognizes the importance of hearing from all sides when such important issues are at stake. It goes above and beyond its duty to solicit them. I would like to provide some examples of this.
The government has held innumerable consultations and debate, both in the House and at various committees on all aspects of foreign and defence policy issues. Going back as far as 1994, special emergency debates were held regarding Canada's current and future peacekeeping roles in Yugoslavia, Haiti and Rwanda.
One year later another series of debates were held on whether to extend the mission of the Canadian forces serving in UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. At that time the Minister of National Defence himself suggested that Canadian participation should periodically be reviewed thereby giving parliament the opportunity to consider our defence commitment at regular intervals. In fact the House has had innumerable opportunities to discuss our deployments in the Balkans right up to and including Canada's participation in NATO led air campaigns in Kosovo.
As many of us will remember, these consultations took many forms. The government held several debates on Canada's reaction and subsequent response to the humanitarian crisis that was breaking out in Kosovo. At the same time, the Standing Committees on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and Foreign Affairs and International Trade received numerous briefings from senior officials from various departments, even as those events were unfolding.
The value of debates and deliberations is not to be underestimated. I think there has been and continues to be the belief that a broad consensus emerges in the House which gives Canada the legitimacy it needs when the time comes to make the difficult decisions to intervene.
Let me reiterate that the government does not take lightly the decision to deploy Canadian troops in any mission. We value the input provided by members on all sides of the House as well as deliberations at the various committees. Being a member of the Standing Committee for National Defence and Veterans Affairs, the committee has been and continues to be seized by these issues, including the issue of readiness of the armed forces.
Those issues have come before the House on several occasions and each time the government has made it clear its commitment to preserving the vital role that parliament plays in times of crisis. That has been demonstrated both in words and in deeds.
Again, today we are reaffirming the position that has been taken by several ministers as well as the Prime Minister. The government is fully committed to consulting parliament on the situation as it unfolds before us.
As others have said, no decisions have been made by the United States nor has any request been made for formal Canadian forces participation in any operations.
We are all understandably very concerned about the horrific events that took place on September 11 and their aftermath. We have had the opportunity to express these concerns three times in the House since the House resumed. We saw the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs carry that message, the Prime Minister yesterday in his meeting with President Bush.
A resolution passed in parliament. We have had some references to the gulf war. Supporting the deployment of the Canadian troops during the gulf war was the measure taken in support of the various United Nations resolutions at that time. As the campaign on terrorism evolves, it may be necessary to consult parliament further on the issue of deploying Canadian troops much as the government did during the gulf war. However that time has not come. I would agree with my hon. colleague that it is hypothetical at this time. We have not yet been given a motion as to the specifics of what would be asked for.
Members of the House need only in my view look at history to be reassured of the role they play in contributing to the foreign policy of the nation. I believe that the role of parliament is to debate it and to make sure that members provide the necessary input for any future government actions.
