Madam Speaker, I noticed that everybody has been congratulating you that you are now in the chair. I would like to say that it is nice to see a woman in the chair and I say kudos to you.
I have not been on House duty today but this is one debate I have been watching on my TV monitor in my office all day with a great deal of interest because the variety of the discussion and the difference in thoughts have been very interesting to me.
All of us who have spoken on this issue today are representative of all Canadians. We have represented all different points of view which will certainly give our government at lot to think about, in particular the role of our peacekeepers in Bosnia-Hercegovina and the former Yugoslavia and should we bring our troops home.
However, I believe the issue is much broader than just simply bringing our troops home. I believe other issues are at play here. We need to look at redefining the role of the United Nations and we need to address Canada's foreign policy relative to our defence policy.
Canada and its soldiers have participated in UN peacekeeping missions in many areas around the world since shortly after World War II. In fact, Canada was the founding member of both the United Nations and NATO and in both cases has worked to develop these institutions into effective bodies that could prevent and manage crises and provide a forum where countries could work together and collectively solve the crises.
As I stated at the outset, the issue at hand is much greater than simply bringing our troops home. For example, what would be the cause in effect or the risk if Canada did that? Would we be sending the wrong message to the other world participants? Would it cause other nations to pull out thereby abandoning the UN role and our support of the Secretary General's agenda for peace developed in 1992? Would it cause a spillover of hostilities into other regions of the Balkans?
I wish I had the time to request a broad range of opinions from my Nepean constituency. I have been fortunate because quite a few have phoned and quite a few have written me. I would like to quote from only four of them.
One World War II veteran said: "There is no peace to keep. There is no need for them to be there to defend Canada. Our forces should be withdrawn".
Another said: "In the spirit of Lester Pearson's vision, the UN should get out and return only when the combatants arrive at a peaceful settlement amongst themselves.
Of the opposite point of view was the comment from another Nepean constituent who said: "As my MP, this message is to inform you that I strongly support Canada's contribution to the United Nations protection forces in Bosnia. We should continue our efforts in the international arena by trying to convince other nations to accept their responsibilities in resolving the unfortunate situation in Bosnia. A withdrawal at this time of our support to the UN sends a negative message to other nations when we should be demonstrating positive leadership at the international level".
A fourth is a retired colonel who wrote a paper entitled "The Perils of Peacekeeping". The article suggests that a reasonably sufficient defence establishment is an important block in Canada's national foundation. Moreover, peacekeeping is but one component of that block, which is what I said initially.
The key point is that Canadians need to accept that a coherent defence policy and an effective armed forces to implement it are essential for advancing their national interest. Needless to say, sufficient resources have to be made available for the policy to succeed and to protect the soldiers, sailors and aviators who carry it out.
In a briefing available to us all yesterday by the Canadian military and external affairs, we were advised that Canada has 2,400 troops in the former Yugoslavia. At one point during this mission Canada was contributing 10 per cent of the troops in the mission. He said that by April of this year it could be as low as 2.4 per cent.
The UN mission has two objectives. The first is to contain the conflict from spreading beyond its current borders. The second is the protection of people through humanitarian aid to the people of Bosnia-Hercegovina. This could be through food or through medical supplies. In this respect at least 2.5 million civilians have been assisted directly by UN intervention.
The military advisers at yesterday's briefing believe the merits of the UN forces in the former Yugoslavia are:
They have been able to contain the fighting. An agreement of sorts has been reached between the Serbs and the Croats over borders in Croatia and in Srebrenica, and the fighting has been contained.
They also have been reasonably successful in delivering humanitarian aid which is their prime mandate, including medical evacuations and the protection of hospitals.
I questioned the general. I asked him if in his opinion more civilian lives would have been lost had we not been there. He responded that many more surely would have died, especially the elderly and the children who cannot fend for themselves.
The military advisers went on to say that the solution to the problem in the former Yugoslavia must come from within the country by the heads of the warring factions, probably brought on by international pressure. A UN military solution would simply be too costly, both in terms of equipment and manpower. It would require over 100,000 troops to enact a peace enforcement mandate. There are not enough countries willing to offer the number of troops required. While our Canadians are adequately equipped to carry out their role as peacekeepers, they do not have the offensive equipment necessary to carry out a peace enforcement mandate.
In speaking with my constituency, I have not spoken to anyone who would want to send their son or daughter into a full conflict situation in the former Yugoslavia.
As the former Minister of External Affairs said in a recent commentary: "Canadians must search their hearts to see whether they will accept the wholly different risks of withdrawal. The cynics view is that the killing, the atrocities, the ethnic cleansing can get no worse, but that is not so. Vengeance killing and localized thuggery are just as likely to soar beyond contemplation as they are to end. Canadians would be here at home, safe, but at the cost of shattered lives, ideals and values and bearing
that uneasy burden of having abandoned a vulnerable civilian population.
Considering the unsatisfactory alternatives, Canada's best bet," said the former external affairs minister, "is the unsatisfactory status quo". To further quote Ms. McDougall: "It was Canada, and we were the only country, that called for early UN intervention in 1991, when it could have limited the devastation that followed.
Today, western leaders have decided that the defence of our values is not worth the casualties that would result from the tougher actions. Canada initiated the process that led to the war crimes tribunal. We have a responsibility to ensure our presence, that war crimes are prevented and that criminals if necessary are punished".
This brings me to the issue of the United Nations reform. I managed to take a few weeks of holidays at the beginning of January and took along the book "Peacekeeper: The Road to Sarajevo" written by retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie. It was a pretty heavy book to read on the beach but I managed to get through it all.
He states that "the international community gets a good deal when it borrows a nation's soldiers. Peacekeepers carry out the job they are trained to do without questioning. UN soldiers risk their lives every day in an attempt to create conditions whereby political discussions can take place, leading to peace in areas of armed conflict or tension". He was very critical of the UN's role.
This is where I commented again at the outset. Reform of the UN must be one of the parameters. The UN is apparently incapable of providing adequate logistics to support the many missions around the world. No one is on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Heaven help you if somebody in Sarajevo or in Somalia wanted some help from the United Nations on a weekend. There is no one there. They go home at five o'clock on a weekday and there is no one there on the weekend.
The third point in my equation is Canada's defence policy and how it ties in with foreign affairs. The centre of Canada's foreign relations must be an effective United Nations. This is still the best way to protect our nation's ties in with defence. We spend $2.5 billion on foreign aid. Is it being well spent? Should we be concentrating on the basic needs of third world nations? Do we have a responsibility to spread prosperity and can this be done without pushing our country further into debt? I think we can with an equitable defence policy.
In summary, I applaud our peacekeepers. Their dedication and commitment to their job is unsurpassed. To an extent, we have let them down. Our government must move quickly to work with the member nations of the UN to reform the institution.
The Canadian government must define our foreign policy objectives in relation to a defence policy. Canada is in a position to lead if we knew where we were going. Our peacekeepers are the professionals, they deserve nothing less from us.