Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House this evening to debate the issue of whether we should once again send troops into the Balkan theatre to aid that area in implementing the peace initiative which has recently been achieved at Dayton, Ohio.
The first question we have to ask ourselves is whether Canadian troops should go back. Should we be sending our troops back to this area where they have already performed with such skill, with such professionalism and have brought such pride to Canadians by the contribution they have made in the humanitarian rescue of unfortunate people in that region?
Our troops have made tremendous contributions in that area. Many members of the Reform Party have taken the position that they have done enough. Let us cease our contribution. Let us stop there.
As many other Canadians do, I might subscribe to that point of view myself if things had not changed. Things have changed enormously in the last couple of months. There has been a dramatic change in the conditions under which that whole region is presently evolving.
We have heard described in this House the conditions of the Dayton, Ohio peace agreement which has been achieved. There is no reason for me to go over the conditions and the parameters of that agreement.
It is not a perfect agreement, but the Serbian government of Mr. Milosevic is committed to it. There will be problems in Sarajevo. There will be problems in other areas but the Serbian government is committed to the agreement and various other governments in the area are committed to it. It is clear that without some form of active intervention from outside forces to make that peace treaty
work there will be no opportunity or no possibility of peace being established in the region.
We must ask ourselves the question, should we intervene at this time and give peace a chance? Should we listen to what Mr. Clinton said on television the other night when he laid out the reasons why for the first time he is prepared to commit United States' troops to this grand enterprise?
Should we recognize the tremendous contribution that the United States has made and is making to this and the difference that that will make? Should we then take these risks, for risks there will be? There are always risks in any enterprise worth the game.
It seems to me that this is an enterprise where we can balance the risks with the reasonable certainty of a better opportunity of ensuring peace than we could have before, if we take, for example, the position of the security of our troops, a matter referred to at great length by members from the third party.
It seems to me that the security of our troops in the present circumstances is far superior to what it was before. When we were debating this matter before, the members of the third party were constantly saying we should not be putting our troops in harm's way. They have no opportunity of defending themselves. They are in this awful position where they can be taken hostage, they cannot defend themselves, they have been put in an impossible position.
We are going to send them back equipped. We are sending them back with a force of the United States of America, 20,000 troops of the most important army in the world, with the most sophisticated weaponry in the world and with the authority to take defensive measures if they are attacked.
In my view, they are in a far better position than they ever were before. I am far more at ease as a parliamentarian to know that our troops will be going in those circumstances than where they were before.
If they were being asked to go back and produce in the conditions they were in before I would agree that they should not go back but these are not the same conditions. They are not so inconsistent.
Look at what the local countries around are dealing with, the determination of Croatia and Serbia. There is a contribution from all countries in the area. We can now be assured that the risk of this war spilling over can be eliminated.
It makes sense to send our troops back under these circumstance. This confirms our overall policy objectives in this area and all other areas, which is to provide effective humanitarian aid, to assure the evolution of multilateral peacekeeping which goes directly to fulfil the need for security and peace in the world. The joint foreign policy review by the Senate and House of Commons laid great emphasis on the need for Canada's participation in multilateral peacekeeping because that is the future of the world. That is where Canada can make a contribution and it is where its contribution is needed.
Finally, it corresponds to our commitment to the human rights of the people in these areas. There can be no human rights without peace, security and stability. Without that the talk about human rights is empty talk. This gives us an opportunity to contribute to the establishment of human rights in this area.
We have made these contributions before. We have not just contributed arms forces in this area before. We have contributed mounted police who on a day to day policing mission gave stability and proper peace and security to small neighbourhoods to ensure that individuals could get some opportunity for justice and fair treatment.
Our non-governmental organizations have provided food aid, resettled people, provided an opportunity for people to try and get their lives back together. This can only be accomplished in an area where peace has been established and where there is some form of security guaranteed by troops. It is our troops that will be doing that.
I feel we must support this initiative. We must urge the government to be part of any comprehensive scheme in which our NATO allies are participating and in which we can make an important contribution. It corresponds to our interests in establishing peace in the region. It creates credibility for the multilateral peacekeeping process which is an important contribution which Canada can make to the world today.
In conclusion, I would like to say that this initiative is in keeping with Canadian interests and values. It is in our interest, because we have an interest in peace and in humanitarian aid, and we can be proud of what we have already done and what we will be doing in this area. It is in keeping with our values, because our values are those of a society that is fair, equitable and peaceful.
We want to contribute to a world where these values prevail in place of those of war and aggression. It is, moreover, our duty to take part in this initiative. Chances are good this initiative will succeed and that we will make a significant contribution to its success. I am very proud to speak in favour of this government initiative.