Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to speak this evening on peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia.
I emphasize a few of our concerns regarding the lateness of the debate and how it is just two days away from the mandate ending. I discussed this point with the minister a month ago. It was felt that we could be part of briefings much earlier and that then we would look at whether we needed to have this debate. We felt that before a decision was made there could be all-party involvement. We would agree. We would work toward that. We would co-operate in every way possible.
This last minute type of thing certainly makes us wonder how serious the government is and what is the real purpose of our being here. Let us take that it is for honest reasons and that the government really wants to hear what we have to say.
To move to the issue itself, as the foreign affairs critic for the Reform Party I state very strongly and clearly, as did the last speaker, that Canada should not renew its peacekeeping commitment to Bosnia or Croatia.
Canadians have served honourably for almost three years now but enough is enough. Canada has performed above and beyond the call of duty in all its commitments to the UN. No country can say that we did not try our utmost to re-establish peace and facilitate a long term negotiated settlement to the disputes.
The facts are sad but obvious. The warring parties have shown no serious commitment to peace negotiations. Over the winter many have rearmed and resupplied their soldiers so they can start fresh fighting in the spring. The mid to long term prospects for peace are bleak and no amount of Canadian peacekeepers can change that fact. If we could just see light at the end of the tunnel, possibly this speech could be quite different.
The Reform Party believes the time to leave is now. If predictions about an increase in the level of fighting over the late spring and summer are true, we must act quickly to pull out our troops now. It may not be easy but now is our best chance to get them home without incident. If we wait and things get tougher, our troops will face an even greater unnecessary risk.
Last fall we saw how increased levels of fighting led to a corresponding increase in hostage taking of UN soldiers. This could happen again if we fail to act decisively now. The conditions in Bosnia during high levels of fighting remind me of the Eagles song "Hotel California". I will not sing it because it would certainly clear the House. Basically the words are: "You can check out any time you like but you can never leave".
If Parliament dithers we may find some time down the road that we want to check out but will not be allowed to leave without fighting our way out through militias and possibly even through civilians. If we are to act responsibly we must leave now.
As far as Croatia is concerned its president does not want UN peacekeepers any more. Although he is no longer forcing the UN out, he has demanded that it scale down its operations dramatically. As the process is going on Canadian troops would have a perfect opportunity to end their tour there without disrupting the ability of the UN to fulfil its new and more modest mandate.
Speaking in more general terms about Canada's role in peacekeeping around the world, it is high time that Parliament rethink how we can be most effective in our UN commitments and set clear criteria for our participation in future missions. We are not saying to get out of peacekeeping; we are saying to set the criteria.
Canadians are not prepared to give up on their proud traditions of caring and intervention for the sake of peace. However these times cannot be seen from a purely international perspec-
tive. Our foreign commitments must be in harmony with our domestic needs. Therefore we must be sure when we support peacekeeping that we are operating in Canada's best interests and within the very real financial constraint that must be the primary concern of any good government.
We must pick our spots and we must choose wisely. Today's debate should be a step in that direction. One thing is clear. Canada can no longer be the 911 phone number for the world or for the UN. As much as we want to help others, this desire is tempered by the fact that we cannot be all things to all people. Therefore it is better that we help effectively in a few cases rather than spread ourselves too thin. In this way Canada can protect its own vital interests and provide the most effective help for the international community.
As we examine the issue of peacekeeping it is worthy of note that since the end of the cold war the demand for peacekeepers around the world has sky-rocketed. If the past few years have taught us any lesson it is that instability will continue. New hot spots will continue to crop up and Canada must be ready.
If more requests come from Africa, Southeast Asia or the former Soviet republics, how will Canada respond? Clearly Canada must establish criteria to test the importance of each request for our help. While this is a sensitive issue and I do not claim to have all the answers, I would argue the following could be considered by Parliament when deciding whether to approve of peacekeeping missions.
First, the conflict's impact on the state of international stability is an obvious test of whether Canada should get involved. If the conflict has a serious potential to escalate or destabilize a whole region, we should consider it seriously when making our decision.
Second, geographical ties are very important. For reasons of regional stability, the world would be a better place if countries co-operated to make sure that their own part of the world remained stable. Where peace does break down, regional organizations should co-operate to make things right. After all, it will be the member nations of such regional groups that have the greatest interest in restoring stability. For logistical reasons as well, proximity is an important factor in determining whether a country can respond to a crisis in a timely and effective manner.
Third, humanitarian considerations must also be taken into account. While Canadians want bang for the buck they also want Canada to maintain its tradition for compassion.
Fourth, our prior commitments must be given more weight than is the current practice when determining what else we are going to do. We only have so many troops and a limited amount of high quality equipment. We owe it to our troops to be fair in our decisions where to send them and to make sure that we do not overcommit our forces. They are the Canadian forces, not the Canadian foreign legion.
Fifth, Canada's economic ties are an important factor in determining how willing Canadians should be to commit their resources.
In conclusion, the time has come for us to take a step back to reorganize ourselves. The first thing we have to do is withdraw from the former Yugoslavia. Canadians have been looking for a negotiated peace there for three years but none is on the horizon.
If the UN sees value in continuing the peacekeeping mission, then it is time for some other UN country to hold the fort that Canada has so admirably defended for so many years. Our troops should be congratulated and brought home to their families.
Once we withdraw from Bosnia and Croatia and before we send our troops on yet another indefinite mission with uncertain dangers and at an unknown cost, let us establish a credible set of criteria upon which we can depend to make sure that we pick our spots wisely. Canada can still be an innovator and a leader in the area of peacekeeping, but we have to make some difficult choices and we have to make them now.