Madam Speaker, I will be splitting this 20 minutes segment with my colleague, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
I want first of all to urge the people of Canada to accept the offer made by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, who chairs the committee, to listen to what you have to say because it is essentially the point of my speech today.
I do welcome the opportunity of addressing the House on the topic of Canada's foreign affairs policy.
My feeling is that the more our foreign policy is reviewed publicly, such as in this discussion, the more the policy will be understood and supported by the public. To go a step further, if the discussion is carried outside the House in communities across the country the more accurately will our foreign policy reflect the majority opinion of the electorate. This is particularly important, in my opinion, when it comes to revising or formulating defence policy, which should be a subset of foreign policy.
The Canadian public is very supportive of its armed forces in time of war, but it is less interested in time of peace. However, what Canada has experienced in the nearly 50 years since the end of World War II cannot properly be called peace. We have had relative peace within our boundaries but that was so, in large part, because Canadian troops were engaged overseas in smaller wars such as in Korea and in the cold war.
Throughout this half century as well Canadian forces were engaged, as they are at the moment, in peacekeeping operations around the world. The public must realize, therefore, that the terms war and peace are subject to redefinition. It should also accept the responsibility for engaging in this debate on foreign policy including defence and peacekeeping.
In asking for public consideration and input, it might be helpful to do several things. We should probably define peacekeeping, then examine what we have been doing in that field. We should also postulate our ideals of foreign policy. What should Canada's policies be and why? It might then be instructive to compare the ideal with current policy to see if there are anomalies or gaps in our policy.
Finally, we should zero in on defence policy and the specifics of peacekeeping.
Concerning definitions, the Canadian public should at least be aware of the difference between peacekeeping and peacemaking. Peacekeeping implies that there is an agreement in place, as is the case between Serbians and Croatians in parts of the former Yugoslavia. Peacemaking implies an action to bring hostile parties to agreement, which is the case in Bosnia.
In reviewing our foreign and defence policies, the public should decide if it supports both activities and under what circumstances.
If we examine Canada's participation in peacekeeping and peacemaking operations over the years, we find that changes in operations and our commitments have taken place without our necessarily having changed policy. Through an apparent zeal to participate in all peacekeeping operations, we have gradually become immersed beyond the intent of our policy and almost beyond our resources.
We have also learned some lessons over the years. I cite as an example our experience in Indo-China. Canada was part of a moribund commission there for many years. It was a wasted effort. However, when it came time to help the Americans extricate themselves with their prisoners of war from Vietnam in 1973, Canada wisely joined the new commission with much revised terms of reference but pulled out after six months when the main part of the job was over. It made good sense.
We said that we should postulate our foreign policy ideals. What do we believe in as Canadians and therefore what should our foreign policy be?
I believe that we are a generous people who believe in democracy and the rule of law. We do not believe in imperialism and we do have strong humanitarian feelings.
We are also pragmatic enough to believe in collective security. All of these beliefs shape our foreign affairs and defence policies. I do encourage the public to think about these basics and to add its own ideas.
A comparison of our ideals with what we have been doing as a country in peacekeeping should tell us how far off our policies are. My personal conclusion would be that we are fairly close but that a review is very necessary. As said earlier, the public should participate to the maximum extent in that review.
In addition to encouraging public participation in the review process, I would like to leave the House with these thoughts. First, the Canadian forces, through years of efforts overseas, have created for Canada an international reputation of real value. We should do more as a country to capitalize on our
standing by taking a greater leadership role in the shaping of international peacekeeping policy and procedures.
Second, in reviewing our foreign and defence policies we should take full account of the work of previous House standing committees. Some of the reports I have read have been excellent and should not be wasted.
Third, if as expected the review reaffirms the role of aid of the civil power for the Canadian forces, it must be confirmed that the forces are of sufficient strength to meet that commitment as well as their other obligations.
In a similar manner, the equipment state of the forces should be checked after the forthcoming review to ensure that it is adequate to perform the given tasks.
Finally, policy review of foreign affairs and defence, including peacekeeping, should be an ongoing process by the departments concerned, by Parliament and by the public.