Mr. Speaker, I just arrived. Certainly it is a great way to start off one's debate on this very important matter.
I heard people across the way saying that the government should make a decision on this thing. I suppose if the government had made a decision on it, then we would have been doing the wrong thing and should have had the debate in the first place. As I understood, this was the object of the exercise, to have a debate. At the end of the day, with the feelings of the House of Commons made known, the government will make a decision as to our participation in the former Yugoslavia.
It is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate today because I am one of the people who believe that Parliament should take part in these debates and decisions that are being made in this type of operation to send our troops to foreign countries. This is something we have said in this place for the seven years I have been here, that these debates should take place. By and large that is what happened since our party came into power in 1993.
I have no doubt, and I do not think many have, in what should happen to our role in the peace process in the former Yugoslavia. Peace in the region has been a long time coming, but it has finally arrived. I am glad to say that with the participation of the implementation force with Canada peace will be maintained.
Some hon. members from across the floor, as well as some other Canadians, have questioned the role we have played in the former Yugoslavia to date and have even questioned if we should be there at all.
As I have said before, I believe we were needed then and, more important, we are needed now more than ever. The conflict that ended with the agreement reached in Dayton, Ohio contained many atrocities the global community should never have witnessed and hopefully will never witness again.
To ensure this Canada must continue its tradition of peacekeeping and participate in the implementation force. We must help maintain the fragile peace that has been maintained.
International involvement is a benefit to everyone. The world is a complex community. States are interrelated in many ways, economically, politically and socially.
Conflict breeds conflict and we must do all we can to prevent conflicts from occurring and end the ones that already exist. Better relations among nations carry a benefit shared by all. Peace operations are a major part of this philosophy.
All of us know Canada has a long distinguished tradition of peacekeeping. We all like to trot out the name of the hon. Lester B. Pearson. He was the man who invented it.
Our forces are not strangers to international missions, and we all speak about that. We are all so proud of that. Only a select few such as Canada have taken a lead in peacekeeping. Since 1947 more than 100,000 Canadians have served abroad in over 30 peacekeeping and related operations.
This is unmatched by our allies. We have recently paid homage to the 103 Canadian soldiers who gave their lives in these missions. Unfortunately I doubt they will be the last, but this is a risk we must take.
We are acting for a greater goal. International peace and security do not come without a price. The end of the cold war was celebrated by many, but little did we realize that such a vacuum would bring about so many regional conflicts. The importance of joint intervention has increased tremendously over the last number of years.
As a result international organizations, primarily United Nations, have become more involved in interest state disputes, having to toil with human rights and humanitarian issues on a far greater scale than ever before.
The potential for peace is there and Canada must do its part to achieve it. Without international co-operation how can we expect world peace to become a reality? We are not magicians and we cannot pull a white dove out of a black hat. We, as a member of the industrialized world, must accept reality and participate in the fight for peace. Canada long ago accepted this fact.
Not only are we members of numerous international organizations, we have continually participated in every United Nations peacekeeping operation. It is our duty to continue to play our role in this way.
As everyone knows, the nature of peacekeeping missions has changed dramatically since they were first established. From unarmed observers of peace agreements in the early years of peacekeeping, they have since taken on stronger roles of armed enforcers of peace agreements. It was a slow transition until recently. Since the end of the cold war international missions have been given much tougher mandates. In some cases, such as Bosnia, they were not wanted, they were not respect and they were even used as human shields.
Yes, much has change since 1947. Generally we speak of peacekeeping in general terms, but peacekeeping has not always been peacekeeping in the true sense of the word. Missions have been used to contain the conflict and maintain the surrounding peace, to actually make peace or to enforce the peace once it had been reached.
The signing of the peace agreement with the formal peace accord to be signed on December 14 has stopped the fighting and the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Peace has been made. Canadian personnel were there and will be there to assist humanitarian operations.
We were not there to keep the peace earlier because there was no peace. Now that peace has been reached as part of IFOR, we will be there to keep the peace, hence that is where peacekeeping comes from.
Although the mission will be a NATO led enforcement mission and not a peacekeeping mission in the traditional sense, to me it is still very much a peacekeeping mission. There will be peace to be kept.
Already we have heard some members focus on the specific role our men and women should play in IFOR. Before I add my views on these matters I will talk about the process of determining our role. Let us have no doubt that the Canadian government will have the final say on all rules of engagement used by Canadian forces.
To me there is little question that we should participate in IFOR, but how many, for how long and in what capacity is up for debate. The Minister of National Defence has consulted our allies on what is still needed for this force. What other countries have already committed will also determine what we will say.
There are many ways we can participate and contribute to the implementation force. There is a multitude of military tasks within the mission, all of which I will not dwell on given the amount of time I have, but I would like to mention a few.
Recently we heard the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands suggest we send an air squadron rather than land forces. All of the air power required is needed from other countries. We have always had troops on the ground to cover the front line. Our troops should be there. Our troops have much to offer in enforcing the ceasefire, enforcing the demilitarization zones to defend persons, property or areas designated as protected, and so on.
Do not get me wrong, that should not end our contribution. Besides having our infantry we should contribute in areas of logistical, medical and air support.
The parameters of the implementation force appear to be quite broad and they are not just to keep the peace but in co-operation with civilian assistance to help rebuild the region. War has devastating effects on people, their communities and countries.
The former Yugoslavia has much to rebuild. The capital city, Sarajevo, where just 10 short years ago the Olympic Games were held, is in ruin. Canada should participate in the non-military operations as well. Getting the region rebuilt quickly will diffuse many grudges held and allow countries to withdraw their forces sooner rather than later.
We all know Canada is proud of its troops, for they are among the best in the world. We should give them a symbol of that admiration. To my colleagues on all sides of the House I say yes to the implementation force, yes to sending our troops and yes to giving them the recognition they need when it is over.