Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our two guests who are leaders in this area, Mr. Bland and Mr. Coulon, whose report I read after it was presented to us about a month ago. I must tell you that you are making quite a substantial contribution to this committee's work. I think that we are getting off on the right foot by listening to you and your suggestions. My questions are for both of you.
In a previous debate, we decided to do something about peacekeeping missions. Members began the conversation by asking whether we were dealing with peacekeeping, or peacebuilding. I find your way of making those distinctions original.
Yes, there still are peacekeeping missions. And yes, there will surely be a lot of peace enforcement missions too. And, there will be peacebuilding missions. I wonder if, as we look at the problem as a whole, it might be useful to develop a whole series of toolboxes, if you will, so that when considering a particular conflict, we can say, well, here is what we have available to us under this particular mandate. The international community could indicate that the NATO mandate should be used to carry out a particular type of mission, or the European Union mandate for another type of mission. So, that would be your first toolbox.
Naturally, I would like to hear what you have to say about the UN reform. It is not normal that the Security Council should have to sometimes take years to respond to a conflict where hundreds of thousands of people are being killed. And so, in my opinion, there will be no progress on this until the UN is reformed.
Now, the doctrines would constitute another toolkit. We could look at the array of existing doctrines, and also those new ones that are coming to the fore. And I would also like to hear your thoughts about the duty to protect. We could add that to the array of actual services we provide, by saying that we can no longer wait for the UN or NATO. Canada would intervene by itself under its duty to protect. This is a doctrine which has not been fully fleshed out, and that the UN has not really fully delved into.
As far as the rules of engagement are concerned, they could be adapted. You're not talking about the same types of rules of engagement for peacekeeping missions as you are for a peace enforcement mission. How should we address the matter of rules of engagement when the various national parliaments that are taking part in the operation are free to set the rules of engagement?
And finally, when it comes to component parts, I think that the UN is currently making an effort to tack on the civilian component. I believe that it was you, Mr. Coulon, who recommended a unified command. When I say “civilian”, that means that the other components are the military or police. I think that it would be difficult to convince the military that a civilian could direct the operation. I would like to hear your opinion on that. It is true that currently there is a civilian coordinator, often from the UN, but generally speaking the command on the ground is in the hands of the army and the military forces rather than the police.
I may have jumped around a bit, but let me sum up. Who do we get the mandates from? When it comes to doctrines, I would like to hear what you have to say about the duty to protect. How do we address the matter of the rules of engagement? Given the various components at play, is a unified command the best way or is there another way of coordinating between the various groups, the military, police and civilians?