Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House tonight and to have you in the chair. In spite of late hours we have certain colleagues still here with us.
May I say that I believe it is truly appropriate that the first special debate of this Parliament is on peacekeeping. I think it appropriate for several reasons.
First, this Parliament with 200 new members represents Canadians' desire for new direction at the same time that they desire Parliament to get back to basics. Surely the search for peace and justice is the basic role for government. Peace is a challenging goal. Great thinkers of the past have pondered its elusive nature. Is it the inability of individuals to resolve their differences without violence that spills over from the home to the streets to civil war and to international conflicts, or is the large conflicts between nations which leave in their wake a pattern of violence that works its way from the battlefront to the cities and the neighbourhoods and indeed into family homes?
Second, the topic is appropriate because our Fathers of Confederation recognized this issue when they listed peace first, followed by order and good government, as their three main goals for this country.
Third, the appalling situation which goes on in Bosnia-Hercegovina causes anguish for all Canadians who watch the human suffering on their television screens each night.
Therefore I wish to thank the Prime Minister for announcing reviews of foreign policy and defence and the Minister of National Defence for giving us the opportunity to put forward our opinions.
I have no personal connection with the military and no personal connection with the area under debate but I do know that currently Canadians are interested in the expenditures of their government and are even questioning the long term value of military expenditures. They no longer believe the Russians are coming and if they consider the concept of being defended they wish to be defended against threats to their security in terms of job loss, poverty, hunger, illness and the escalation of violence in their society.
They understand that the military and its acquisition of ever more sophisticated equipment eats up precious resources that could be used for building the country. For example it has been said that health care workers and community volunteers working to raise money for local hospitals wonder why they are having bake sales while governments contemplate huge military expenditures.
At the same time, Canadians recognize that the military represents jobs to some workers, careers to some scientists, profits to some business persons and local support to some politicians.
In spite of the current question about the cost of our defence establishment, I do believe that most Canadians are truly proud of the peacekeeping function and the reputation we have for responding to trouble spots around the world. Very few realize that the cost of peacekeeping amounts to only about 2 per cent of that military budget they are concerned about.
Canadians know that the end of the cold war and the emergence of tribalism have changed the nature of conflicts that have erupted since.
The realities that UN peacekeepers face today are different. Does that mean we should abandon our traditional honourable role? I think not. Rather I see a need to redefine and work through the most effective way to aid the innocent victims of violence.
We do not have to reinvent the wheel. Work has been ongoing by subcommittees of the House in the last Parliament and indeed by the Canadian Senate which published a report last year called: "Canada's response to a new generation of peacekeeping". I believe this work can serve as a common sense guide to future decisions.
It is tempting to say: "It is hopeless. Let's pull out" or, on the other hand, to respond to the violence we see and say: "Let's get tough. Let's increase our intervention through more troops and perhaps air strikes". These are tempting suggestions.
If we are truly peacekeepers we will recognize that violence begets more violence. If we are truly a peacekeeping nation we will follow the moderate course set out by the Senate with its step-by-step recommendations that indeed respond to most of the concerns raised in the Chamber today.
Let us not back away from our tradition of moderation. It has served us well. Let us not be forced to an extreme position by a deadline. That happened much too often in the last Parliament in my view. Let us be the leaders in this field of international decision making.
All members of the United Nations are fumbling in their attempts to respond to these ethnic wars. We can best serve our brothers and sisters in this global village by having a well thought out foreign policy which then guides our military activity.
We are a new Parliament. Let us take the time required to develop a cohesive plan. Let us not abandon the vulnerable in Bosnia and let us not abandon our tradition of moderation in international relations.