Debates of Feb. 17th, 1999

Peacekeeping

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. Unfortunately your time is up. We were trying to give you a couple of minutes to wrap up. If the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead wants 15 seconds to put a lid on it, fair enough, but that is it.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, lastly, we do not even know who will pay for this venture. Will there be a supplementary increase in the defence budget or are we facing even greater troop cuts than the

Globe and Mail

reported? After yesterday's budget, I think it is a big question mark.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and his concerns about our military and about the possible engagement in Kosovo. It is obvious that we are not getting a clear message from the government side of the House.

I know that the member for Compton—Stanstead sits on the defence committee. He has been over to Bosnia. He has talked to troops from across this country who have served over there. He has an idea of the record of the Canadian military. Those men and women served in the Bosnia theatre under a peacekeeping mission when war was raging all around them. It was the most foolish thing that probably ever happened to Canadian soldiers who put their lives in that kind of jeopardy.

Since the member has had some experience in his travels as a parliamentarian, how does he analyse the situation in Kosovo? Looking at the equipment that our Canadian military has right now, would our troops be safe there in any kind of a peacemaking role? If not, what should they or could they possibly do?

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to continue on a little bit.

We have been talking all along about the fact that we really do not have the troops to send into Kosovo to start off with. Our troops are being rotated so often that they do not have a chance to get proper training. It is obvious they do not have the equipment. We keep harping on that but nothing is happening. This budget ended up giving zilch for equipment.

People watching the debate on TV might think that $175 million is a lot of dollars, but it is not really. It is $175 million for this year. We need $700 million just to come up even with our quality of life study without even talking about what is needed for equipment. There is no equipment upgrade in that.

The government is going to upgrade the CF-18s by selling off some planes in order to grab a little cash. The way we understand it, that is not quite by the book. It is not the way the government is supposed to operate. If the government is selling off planes, the money is supposed to come back to the general fund. Then it is supposed to apply for more budget if it wants more money for those planes.

[An hon. member]

The Liberal government works that way.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Well, that is what happens. I think the auditor general is looking very carefully at what is going on.

Our main problem is that our troops are starting to lack a lot of training because they are being rotated too often. There is also a sad lack of equipment. Equipment is going downhill all the time. Rust out is on its way.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with the member for Halton and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Last October, in Kosovo, tens of thousands of displaced people were living homeless as an armed conflict was raging between separatist Albanian Kosovars and security forces of the federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In spite of the protests from the international community and of the attention by the United Nations security council, the conflict continued and innocent civilians suffered. It is only when NATO made a credible threat to use force against President Milosevic that a humanitarian disaster was prevented.

In spite of the positive effects of the events of last October and of the agreements with NATO and OSCE, which the Yugoslav government accepted, no real progress has been achieved toward a durable peace in Kosovo. Diplomatic efforts have not succeeded in getting both sides to the table and the ceasefire in the area remains tense and fragile.

Moreover, I was reading today, in one of the Montreal dailies, that Robin Cook, the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, said in the Commons, and I quote “Two weeks ago, I warned the House of Commons that I could not guarantee that the talks would necessarily lead to an agreement. Today I am sorry to say that this is still the case”.

Finally, after weeks of provocation from both sides and the killing of dozens of innocent people, it became clear that, once again, we had to force President Milosevic and the Kosovar leaders to choose between serious negotiations or the use of force by NATO.

NATO support for the diplomatic endeavours of the international community did produce results in Kosovo. On February 6, both parties met in Rambouillet, France, to work out a peace agreement. It is no secret that, to this day, the Rambouillet talks have not been easy.

We know there is still much to be done and that the eventual conclusion of a final agreement would be a significant achievement. Although the outcome of the talks is still uncertain, the involvement of the international community in Kosovo is just beginning.

The conflict in Kosovo has ramifications that extend well beyond the borders of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We should not ignore the fact that this war-torn region has been devastated because of leaders who shamelessly play on people's fears in order to fuel the conflict. Once again, the Yugoslav government's actions in Kosovo hurt the most vulnerable and make the peace process and the integration of the various ethnic groups in the Balkans all the more difficult.

The displacement of Albanian Kosovar civilians and the polarization of communities resulting from the conflict have had a direct impact not only on Serbia and Montenegro, but also on neighbouring countries. Hundreds if not thousands of Albanians have tried to flee their country because they feared for their lives. In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and in Bosnia, refugees have also tried to escape from the country. The conflict is having repercussions on all of southern Europe and the international community cannot ignore them.

The Rambouillet talks provide an historic opportunity for the leaders of both parties. For peace is now in sight, if the parties gathered in Rambouillet negotiate in good faith and agree to the fair solution being offered. It is up to them to fulfil their obligations to the UN, to the international community and, let us not forget, to the local populations they claim to represent. This unique opportunity must not be allowed to go by.

If the antagonists shoulder their responsibilities and take this opportunity to reach a peace agreement, the international community should support their efforts. Implementation of a peace accord in Kosovo will certainly be no easy matter. Rebuilding the civil institutions destroyed during months of fighting, introducing a democratic political system and creating a representative police force are daunting tasks.

The OSCE and other organizations will face quite a challenge implementing the civilian aspects of a peace accord. Without a safe environment, however, none of these undertakings will even be possible. It is impossible to envisage a positive outcome.

But NATO is in a position to make a tremendous contribution to peace in Kosovo, having already played a crucial role in ending the hostilities and getting the parties to the negotiating table. Once an accord has been signed, as was the case in Bosnia, NATO's presence will be essential to implementing the military aspects of the accord, separating the forces and supervising troop withdrawal.

NATO will be just as important in establishing a safe and stable environment for the civilian reconstruction of the country and the establishment of peace, and that is what we are talking about. This is a vital contribution that NATO, with its incomparable experience, can readily handle.

As regards the United Kingdom, London would like to help by sending troops to establish peace in the Serb province, but only as part of an international force ensuring stability.

To respond to the member for Compton—Stanstead, I read in the same paper that the some 8,000 British soldiers are on standby and that according to the Pentagon spokesperson, the rapid dispatch of marines is an obvious option.

We can see therefore that other countries are preparing to intervene under the NATO umbrella. As concerns Canada, we have been playing an important role in the Balkans for a number of years.

After years of peacekeeping with the blue berets serving as part of the United Nations' forces in Bosnia, we will continue as a member of NATO and its stabilization force to make a significant contribution to peace in the region.

The international community recognizes that NATO has played a vital role, not only to establish peace in Bosnia, but to help preserve this peace and to bring the country closer to stability and normality. Once again, NATO is called on to establish peace in the Balkans and, once again, Canada must be prepared to play its role.

The international community is contemplating deploying 30,000 men under NATO command in Kosovo to oversee the application of a future peace accord.

At this crucial time, in this crucial place, we must protect the investments we and our allies have made in the Balkans over the past ten years. Recent history has shown NATO can play a positive role in supporting the international community's determination to restore peace and promote stability.

Clearly NATO's presence in Kosovo is critical if one wants to give peace a real chance. It is a well known fact that for a long time now President Milosevic has been making commitments, only to break them as soon as he no longer is the focus of international attention. It thus follows that a peace agreement without teeth would be easy to ignore and would most likely fail.

NATO's credibility made these negotiations possible, and without it peace would not last in Kosovo. We believe Canada, as an important member of the alliance, has a crucial role to play in any NATO operation in Kosovo.

We have accomplished a lot, but there is still a lot to do. NATO's role in Kosovo is clear and crucial, and Canada has an important role to play to ensure the alliance's intervention is a success.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the evening during the debate, I inadvertently misled the member for Halifax West concerning a briefing tomorrow. Apparently what was news earlier today is not news now. I ask him to accept my apology and my withdrawal in the spirit in which it is given.

I could go on as well because my speech will focus on the Central African Republic. I want to point out to him that concerning briefings on that part, on February 9 at the regular House leaders meeting the leaders of all the official parties agreed that this matter could be dealt with in committee and due notice was given.

Few areas of national endeavour come close as peacekeeping to a source of national pride and international respect and influence. In this House we have a responsibility to examine current and possible peacekeeping operations. We owe it to the peacekeepers and to the mothers and brothers and sisters and fathers to make very good use of this time tonight. Anything less would be a disservice to those who wear the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces and who daily put their lives on the line for us.

This country strongly supports a continued primary role for the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security. Canada's pre-eminence in peacekeeping has resulted from our willingness to become involved and our ability to do so quickly and effectively. This has won us the acclaim and admiration of the entire international community.

This government is proud of Canada's peacekeeping tradition and respects the sacrifices of Canadian men and women who have worn the blue beret. We are asking them to take up the blue berets once again, travel thousand of kilometres away from Canada and help unfamiliar people to make sense of their own lives. The government believes Canada must continue to participate in the Mission des Nations unies en République centrafricaine, MINURCA. This is a concrete example of our support for the UN and our concern over continuing conflicts in Africa.

No area of policy has been more openly discussed than Canada's contribution to international security. Canadians of all walks of life continually express their views on Canada's participation in peacekeeping operations. They demand that parliament ensure our peacekeepers are properly supported, properly equipped and that they are sent on missions which make sense and where the Canadian contribution is used effectively.

The events being discussed here tonight serve to underscore the crucial role parliamentarians can and must play in examining matters of international peace and security. The situation in Kosovo has given rise to careful and meaningful debate tonight. The standing committees have kept a close watch on the UN peacekeeping operation in the Central African Republic. The government sincerely hopes that parliamentarians will continue to work on Kosovo and the Central African Republic and on other priority issues of foreign and defence policy.

Parliament is fully engaged as part of the overall Canadian effort to build a safer and more just global community. We are gratified by the contributions made by all members of the House so far and are taking careful note of the points raised by members of all parties here tonight.

As the ministers have noted, the United Nations peacekeeping operation in the Central African Republic has been in existence for almost a year. Canada has been involved since the beginning for several good reasons. Our troops have performed admirably and have made a clear contribution to the overall success of the mission so far. We fully anticipate that this success can be continued throughout 1999 until the current mandate and objectives have been completed.

The year 1993 was crucial in the democratic development of the Central African Republic. After years of struggle for democracy, the CAR held free and fair presidential elections for the first time in its history.

The people of the Central African Republic are among the poorest of the poor. The CAR is a land locked country with few marketable resources.

The 1998 United Nations human development index ranked the Central African Republic 154th out of 174 countries. Canada was marked first. Real per capita gross domestic product is approximately $1,092 in U.S. currency, less than one-twentieth of the gross domestic product enjoyed by Canadians. Life expectancy in the CAR is 48 years. The average Canadian can expect to live 31 years longer than the average person in the Central African Republic.

In addition to severe economic and developmental constraints and the growing pains that have come with a brand new multiparty political system, the CAR has to deal with internal and external conflicts. The government of President Ange Félex Patasse has for several years now faced unrest among some members of the country's military. Soldiers have mutinied on several occasions. French troops then stationed in the CAR were called on to quell the unrest.

Under the terms of a 1997 peace accord rebels and forces loyal to the president agreed to establish a multinational Mission Interafricaine de Surveillance de l'Application des Accords de Bangui. MISAB's job was to maintain peace and security in the capital city Bangui and to monitor the implementation of the peace agreement.

By early 1998 with MISAB's mandate winding down and long planned withdrawal of French military forces underway, it was clear that further international assistance was needed to keep the Central African Republic on a even keel. On March 27, 1998 the UN security council unanimously adopted resolution 1159 establishing MINURCA. This new UN mission has been deployed in the CAR since April 15, 1998 with some 1,350 troops from six African countries, France and Canada. A Canadian forces contingent of approximately 47 has been providing core communication services to MINURCA.

MINURCA was mandated first and foremost to assist the legitimate government of the Central African Republic to maintain security in and around the capital. Other key functions have included dealing with surrendered weapons and demobilised factions, ensuring the security and freedom of movement of UN personnel, training civilian police, and providing advice and technical support for legislative elections.

The activities of MINURCA in the Central African Republic have been absolutely essential to maintaining stability in that part of the world.

This government and the Canadian people are proud of Canada's role as world leader in the field of peacekeeping and as a reliable alliance partner and supporter of the United Nations. MINURCA is important for Canadians, for Africans and for the international community.

Let us tell our peacekeepers in the Central African Republic that the Parliament of Canada is thinking of them, that we support them and will welcome them home with honour when their work is complete.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to tonight and to this debate. I have to say that I was profoundly disappointed. The Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were here to brief the House and the Canadian people as to the situation is Kosovo, and to inform everyone of Canada's role, as best they could, up to this point.

I am confused over some of the information that came from both these ministers.

On one hand they talk about acceptable levels of risk that our military men and women would be placed in if sent to Kosovo. They talked about the rules of engagement and there was some indication that there would be combat troops sent over. On the other hand, the foreign affairs minister brought up the point that it would be a non-interventionist type force, a peacekeeping force.

The problem that exists right now in Kosovo is that there needs to be peace. I do not know how peace can be kept in the midst of war. That sounds like another Bosnia situation to me where our troops were chained to poles, a sight for the world to see. It raised all kinds of questions in the minds of the people in this country as to what our military was doing chained to poles.

It was embarrassing to say the least to know that our troops, fighting men and women who should have been engaged in battle protecting themselves and their equipment, were in that kind of horrible dilemma and needed a negotiator to get them out of trouble.

I do not want to see our Canadian men and women placed in that kind of a role again. I cannot imagine that happening. I do not think the Canadian public wants to see that and yet this is what seems to be the message coming from the minister of defence in part but definitely from the foreign affairs minister.

There is need for debate but not from this level because obviously the government side has to resort to newspapers to really find out what is happening in Kosovo as the previous speaker just alluded to in her statement.

There seems to be a real lack of information on the part of the government. One would have to ask why that information is not there. Why is the government side not able to information this House and the Canadian public about what on earth is going on over in Kosovo? I can only think of one reason, that Canada has been cut out of the negotiations at the international level, both in NATO and probably in the UN, because she is no longer a player, she is no longer able to contribute. That is what I believe.

To have to go through this situation tonight with the foreign affairs minister unable to inform this House and all members in it and the Canadian public about the situation in Kosovo and Canada's role is a sham. It is disgraceful. I expected a lot more.

My colleague from Red Deer spoke about the Central African Republic. I will base most of my comments with reference to the Kosovo question. It certainly is more complicated than the Central African Republic but it needs to be addressed in some terms that we can all think about and questions that should be answered before decisions of any kind are taken.

I want to take the opportunity first to argue in favour of lending morale support to international action to end the suffering in Kosovo. Canada has an undeniable obligation to its NATO allies. We also have a proud history of international engagement and involvement and we should not let that lapse.

If the alliance decides to take military action Canada must support that. We have an obligation to support that. That is a moral obligation. No one should accept any form of ethnic cleansing. There is our moral obligation. And we have a moral obligation to take action against the systemic murder and torture of innocent civilians. That has been going on for some time.

There is no doubt that the international community must not stand idly by while Serbian forces commit flagrant human rights atrocities against Kosovars. Ultimately we must support our allies. Canada cannot shirk from its responsibility in this regard.

Nevertheless, there are some serious questions concerning possible military action which give us cause for concern. We have a duty to ask these questions. There is an obligation to the Canadian troops whose lives we may put on the line. A series of questions must be asked and no answers have been supplied by the government thus far. Granted, there may be some questions that cannot be answered at this point in time but the government does not seem to be moving in that direction.

These are the questions: One, have all diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis failed? Two, what are the dangers and possible implications of military action? Three, is there true multinational support for this mission into Kosovo? Four, is there a workable plan for military action?

Five, what precisely is Canada's role to be? This is a major point. There are almost conflicting points of view between the foreign affairs minister and the defence minister. Six, is that role realistic in terms of Canada's military capability?

Seven, who will command Canadian troops? I think that is a very important role which will concern a lot of soldiers. There are so many different countries participating in peacekeeping missions in that region. The troops could fall under the jurisdiction of some other commander and they may not be very comfortable with that. I certainly would not be after having seen some of the things that have happened in other peacekeeping missions Canada has been involved in.

Let us go back to the first question. Have diplomatic efforts failed? We have yet to see. The Serbs continue to drag their feet. They have been negotiating hard for their own position to maintain control of that area. They do not want NATO forces in there. That was pretty clear right from the very beginning. That question has yet to be answered.

With regard to the second question, there is obviously a deep concern about the fighting in Kosovo and whether it may escalate into other countries. We have troops right now in Bosnia. Could they be affected if things go sour in Kosovo? Who is going to protect our Canadian troops? Is there some sort of an extraction force?

The next question concerns a workable plan for military action. We have not seen anything like that and there have been no assurances tonight that there will be limitations and what those limitations will be. It is very unfortunate because there is an equipment problem in our military and to go into any hot spot, a high intensity conflict or even a low intensity conflict with those problems, the lives of our troops will be in danger. There is no question about that.

All of the questions including the ones I raised tonight have yet to be answered. It is incumbent upon the government to keep everyone informed. I do not believe at this stage of the game that the government is doing that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Calgary Northeast would clarify this for the chair. Is it the intention of the hon. member to split his time with the member for Calgary West?

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has advised me that he would give me some more time if I needed it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Then it is up to you. If you keep going then you are taking a 30-minute slot.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a little more time here. It is important to go back to the points I mentioned.

The government is very much unaware of the implications when it comes to sending troops. Actually it seems that the foreign affairs minister is running the military. The minister has come up with a policy of soft power. I still do not know what that means but it sure as blazes scares me. If we are going to depend on our troops and soft power is the motivating factor, I think we are in trouble. It sounds like flower power to me and people who were raised in the sixties would understand what flower power is all about.

The defence minister has already implied that the troop selection number will be around 500 to 800. The Canadian army is already stretched to the limit despite the claim made in the government's white paper on defence. We cannot send a combat capable brigade overseas. All we can send is a smaller battalion group force and that would put a severe strain our capabilities.

Time and time again it comes back to the issue of equipment. I was over in Bosnia, as was with the member for Compton—Stanstead. We both have had the opportunity to examine various equipment that the military is using. I was not aware that Coyotes were rolling off the assembly line. The minister of defence mentioned that tonight. It was a remarkable revelation. There has been no announcement of it. Certainly they are on line but I would suggest that if troops were going over there, they would need those vehicles and some pretty good fire power too.

To my knowledge that has not been considered nor is it part of the completed plan of the military to mount guns on those new APCs. That is a deficiency right there. That would concern me if I were a soldier. What kind of equipment is there? Apart from that, all we have is 20-year old tanks, 30-year old self-propelled artillery, 40-year old towed artillery and tactical helicopters.

The minister mentioned something about tactical helicopters for lift. Obviously the minister has not read the auditor general's report nor rode around in one of these helicopters. I suggest that the minister be the first man off the helicopter just before it lands on the ground. He would have a new hairdo. There is a static electricity and shock problem. Those helicopters cannot be used for what they were intended. Not only do they have that problem but their lift capacity is far lower than what it was intended to be.

If the military were to use that helicopter as an extraction machine to pull troops out of a troubled area, a gun cannot be mounted because it would be too heavy. We have 100 brand new helicopters that just came off the line last year at a cost of $1.2 billion, and they cannot be used for what they were intended. The minister talks about using those tactical helicopters, and I use the word tactical loosely because they cannot do the job. They are junk. One hundred new helicopters and they are junk. They cannot be used as tactical helicopters.

We have the armoured personnel carriers, certainly some good equipment, yet there are not in full use. They are not coming off the assembly line fast enough nor from what I understand, are they armed properly.

Our troops are going to have to live by their wits because there is no one to take them out if they get into trouble.

Under the circumstances, troops sent into a low intensity conflict area like that would be sitting ducks. If we consider the mountainous terrain in Kosovo, it would be a grave mistake if we were to again send troops into ground like that if we did not have good support. So we have to turn to our allies again. That is troubling, because we do not have the capability to survive on our own, not even to protect our own men and women if they get into trouble in a place like that.

We have good cause to be concerned about the poor position Canada is regarding the decision making process in this NATO area. Because our contribution is so limited now, we do not sit at the negotiating table any more. The minister ought to know what the negotiating table is. He has been weak in delivering funds to support our military. He is also very weak when dealing with a good plan to keep our troops safe and give them the support they need overseas.

It all comes down to this. The Liberal government has cut $7.8 billion from the defence department since it took office. It has effectively removed the combat readiness of our forces. Our allies know it and it has seriously damaged our international credibility.

In conclusion, we must ultimately support the alliance and we must support our troops if committed. We must however, be clear and realistic about Canada's role. The Canadian forces must not be committed to a mission which is beyond the operational capability of the military. We must not send our troops anywhere without reflecting on the practical implications of the mission. We must support our allies, but we must also support our troops.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member for Calgary Northeast was just starting to roll.

The member talked about the famous helicopters and about our working with our allies. Unfortunately we cannot even work with our allies because we cannot talk to them. The radios in the helicopters do not work. They only work to talk to each other. It is a strange situation.

The hon. member, one of the Liberal members and I were in Washington a little over a week ago. We had some briefings from our American friends. What they had to say was very interesting.

First of all they did not even mention Canada. They were talking about Kosovo and what would probably happen going in there. They were looking at probably 2,000 to 4,000 troops. It was quite clear that those 2,000 to 4,000 troops would probably be marines and would probably be in and out very quickly. They were only talking about showing a presence on the ground.

That is probably what our Canadian troops should really be looking at too. We do not want another long term stay like there was in Bosnia. We do not have the troops to do it. The turnover is just not working out.

I would like to hear the member's comments on that particular scenario and how we could go into the area for a while to establish our presence and show that we are supporting our NATO allies. By the way, most of our NATO allies who were with us in Washington agreed that it should be European troops on the ground in Europe.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question.

I was in Washington with the member and several other parliamentarians and there was someone from the Liberal side at the briefing. There was a tour of various places, the State Department, the Pentagon, the war college in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. It was a real eye-opener, I must say. They talked about risks. They talked about protection of the homeland. They talked about Kosovo and the fact that they should be in and they should be out.

It would be nice to say that Canada should do the same thing—I would agree with that wholeheartedly—and to say then that Europe could move back in with its peacekeeping role or its peace maintenance role and look after things afterward.

I shudder when I look at Canada's military and the backup to it. Where is the backup? The Americans have all kinds of fire power behind them. If their boys get into trouble they are in there with their helicopters and they will take them out of there. We do not have that kind of capability. We should have because we have had our members in these hot spots. Bosnia was one such place. Kosovo is very similar to what happened in Bosnia.

I would not want to see our men and women trapped somewhere and we could not get them out. I find that unacceptable. I think most Canadians would find that very unacceptable if they knew the plight our military was in and the expectations across the floor.

It is not coming from a military standpoint at all. The foreign affairs minister is driving our military. Unfortunately we could never participate in a role like the Americans can, even though we could if we had the equipment. We could never do it because we just do not have the equipment.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga South.

This debate is in many respects a reprise of the debate we had in the House on October 7, 1998 on the peacekeeping issue. It enables us to reiterate some points in the evolving constitutional law of parliament.

This government is not the Government of the United States. We are not bound by the United States constitution. The power to make war, to declare war, is within the prerogative power of the executive alone here. Even in the United States undeclared wars, which are the phenomena of our times, are a different constitutional system.

What our government has done is to engage, to submit to the House of Commons any question of the involvement of Canadian Armed Forces in service outside Canada. That is to say, when parliament is in session, we will allow a House debate. When parliament is not in session, a practice which I in fact was the instrument of in the last parliament when I was parliamentary secretary, we will inform the leaders or the porte-parole of the opposition parties of our intention. That is the constitutional law of parliament today. It is part of our conventions and I welcome its reiteration in this case.

The issue that I am addressing myself to is really the issue of international law, the technical base of our involvement, because many of the high policy aspects, the political foreign policy aspects have been already covered.

There are others like Dean Acheson, President Truman's secretary of state, who said that survival of the state is not a matter of law; it is a matter of power. I think most of us would prefer President Kennedy's point that a great state wishes its actions to be in conformity with international law, not merely in terms of the substantive principles but also in terms of the manner of exercise, that the more moderate controls less than force are controlling when they are available.

Our approach to involvement in military operations abroad has without exception been with the United Nations under the United Nations charter. It is our great foreign minister and later Prime Minister Lester Pearson who developed the concept of UN peacekeeping. It was a notion implicit in chapter 6 of the charter as drafted, but until the Suez war it was not an actuality. As has been said in this debate, it involves the interposition of unarmed forces between combatants who normally have already agreed to cease hostilities and want a face-saving way out of that.

The gap between peacekeeping in chapters 6 and 7 of the charter is a very large one. Chapter 7, the imposition of force, gets into the areas that are under interdiction in the United Nations charter itself. The principle of the non-use of force, which is one of the imperative principles of the United Nations enshrined in one of the opening sections, article 2(4) of the charter, is also the key to chapter 7 of the charter. The use of force is outlawed except in the limited situation of self-defence which is strictly defined and in accordance with United Nations practice must be authorized by UN Security Council resolutions.

It is a fact that even in operations that have been strictly chapter 7 operations, for example the original gulf war in 1990-91 where the authority was security council umbrella resolutions, some very general and very many of them under which the United Nations command force operated, there was no direct involvement of Canadian forces in armed military offensive action. Ours was an ancillary role.

This was true again in the activities in 1996 in which we committed ourselves but in which we were not directly engaged. Ours was an ancillary, supporting role. We ourselves have been aware of the difficulty of legal definition and of establishing a legal base when we get into offensive armed military operations.

The issue of regional organizations has been raised. It is true that the legal justification or raison d'être of regional military organizations today comes from the United Nations today and only from the United Nations charter. They cannot exceed the mandate of the United Nations charter. They cannot exceed or transgress the stipulations limiting the use of force which are established in the charter.

In a discussion with a European diplomat in recent days I talked about the issue of whether NATO itself, as a regional security organization, could not give a contractual style legal justification within its region. The problem with that would be within Europe itself. This would exclude the strangers to Europe, and I use that in the geographical sense, Canada and the United States. For our purposes the security council is our source of power.

We are aware of the limitations in article 27(3), the veto power given to the big powers. We are aware of the possibility of a wilful or intemperate use of the veto power to obstruct the primary peacekeeping role of the United Nations. As the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry reminded himself, that was overcome by the uniting for peace resolution in which it was established quite clearly that the UN general assembly could fill the gap.

The case of Nicaragua and the United States establishes that the United Nations does not cover the whole field of international law. There remains the area of customary international law. This is perhaps the most interesting area of international law because it is in the new concept of international humanitarian law. Humanitarian intervention is given a role more noble and more altruistic than its 19th century essentially colonialist application by European and other powers.

It is in this area in which there is not much doctrine—there is certainly no jurisprudence constante in the sense of court decisions—that I think the future lies. It is perhaps best there. If we have reached a situation where common humanity cries out for intervention, that is where the direction for support should be placed.

My advice is to rely on the security council resolution and a recent one where possible, but the new norms of the new international law are there and they have a habit, the new customary law, of galloping along to meet new realities.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion calling on the House to take note of possible Canadian peacekeeping activities in Kosovo and possible changes to our peacekeeping activities in the Central African Republic.

First I would like to address some comments to the issues relating to the situation in the Central African Republic beginning with the background to the current situation that we are facing.

The past several years have been enormously difficult ones in that country. In November and December of last year, free and fair legislative elections were held. These were the first tentative steps toward the restoration of national institutions since dire political and economic conditions swept the country in 1993.

In recent years, unpaid soldiers mutinied on three separate occasions and French troops were brought in to quash the uprisings. In January 1997 the rebel soldiers and those forces still loyal to President Patassé signed the Bangui accords which addressed measures necessary to bring peace back to that country. This agreement also established the Mission Interafricaine de Surveillance de l'Application des Accords de Bangui, or commonly referred to as MISAB.

This mission, made up of military and civilian personnel from France and six African countries, was created in order to maintain peace and security and to monitor the implementation of the Bangui accords. In June 1997, MISAB was forced to put down another mutiny against the government. Meanwhile, conditions in the country continued to deteriorate.

By early 1998 MISAB's mandate was coming to an end and French troops had begun their withdrawal. It was apparent, however, that further international assistance was required if the Central African Republic was to remain free of violence. In March of last year the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1159 establishing a UN peacekeeping operation to replace MISAB. The initial three month mandate of this new mission, the Mission des Nations unies en Republique centrafricaine, or MINURCA, began with 1,350 troops from six African countries, France and Canada.

As was previously outlined in the debate, MINURCA was given a variety of roles including maintaining security in and around the capital of Bangui, training civilian police and ensuring the security and freedom of movement of UN personnel. This mandate was extended in July 1998 and again the following October.

The UN Secretary General recognized the progress that had been made in his December 1998 report to the security council suggesting that MINURCA was a success story so far. UN involvement has allowed the Central African Republic to become as he said “an island of relative stability in an otherwise wartorn region”. He reported that the mission had played an important role in the legislative elections just a couple of months ago and had been instrumental in helping the government prepare plans for restructuring the army and civilian police force. As we also know, the UN presence launched a human rights awareness campaign and provided medical and humanitarian assistance in and around Bangui. In addition, the stabilization of the country has led to some economic recovery.

Nevertheless the secretary general also noted that peace remains fragile and that the political climate is still permeated by division and distrust. He concluded that continued MINURCA presence is required at least until the fall of 1999 when there will be presidential elections. The UN Secretary General, Mr. Annan, is recommending that MINURCA's mandate should be extended and that the force structure should remain essentially the same.

The current mandate will expire at the end of this month. MINURCA still has a very important role to play in a slow but steady recovery of the Central African Republic. It is important to seize that opportunity to build on our success to date. Canadian participation is vital in this regard as our forces are providing the communications framework for the multinational force.

At the joint defence and foreign affairs committee meeting last April, members of parliament recognized the importance of this contribution and unanimously resolved that Canada should participate in MINURCA. Today there are compelling reasons to support both the extension of MINURCA as well as our continued participation.

The extension would allow MINURCA forces to continue to foster a secure and stable environment so that the presidential elections scheduled for later this year can take place in a free and fair way. It would also continue to foster the process of reconciliation and reconstruction in the Central African Republic.

The key considerations in this matter are clear. First, given our past involvement in the region and our record of leadership in peacekeeping and peace support operations, it is only natural that the UN would look on us to stay the course. We are in a position to share our valuable experience and to work with the Africans to help them to find lasting solutions to complex the challenges they face. Through MINURCA and other operations, through our memberships in La Francophonie and through our membership in an ad hoc UN group known as the friends of the Central African Republic, Canada has already made meaningful contributions to international efforts to maintain stability in Africa. The UN is looking to us for help by continuing in this effort.

Second, we are in privileged during our two year membership on the UN security council, and during our presidency of the body this month, to make an especially meaningful difference efforts to improve the situation in the Central African Republic. Our continued participation in MINURCA is a natural way of making most of our opportunities in this sphere.

Finally, the skills and professionalism of our troops would clearly of enormous benefit to our colleagues in MINURCA. As is well known, Canada has contributed to almost all UN peacekeeping missions and along the way has developed a wealth of experience. This experience and our ability to work in English and in French make Canadian soldiers perfectly suited to work alongside other military contingents of MINURCA.

In the Central African Republic we have a chance to continue to help foster stability in a troubled and fragile place. We have the opportunity to demonstrate once again our continued ability and willingness to promote international peace and security. Finally, we have another chance to reflect the wishes of Canadians who have told us that they want Canada to continue to work toward a stable global order. In my view if the right security and other assurances can be provided these alone are compelling reasons for us to continue our efforts to make a difference in the Central African Republic.

In the final moments I have I would like to briefly comment with regard to our position in Kosovo. Earlier this day I listened carefully to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the Minister of National Defence. All parliamentarians appreciated their words of praise for our troops and about the need for Canada's continued participation, particularly in Kosovo.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs said something that I thought was very relevant, very simple but straightforward. He referred to our participation not just as a peacekeeping contingent but for civil peace building. This aspect of peace building is extremely important. Canada has developed an international reputation as peacekeepers as well as peace builders. It is that reputation, that skill and that ability that we can bring to the situation in Kosovo.

The minister also referred to the human rights situation, the fact that young children are being drawn into military conflict and that Canada as an internationally recognized champion of human rights around the world is well suited. It is important for us to play a role there. I wanted to highlight that.

As the minister concluded his speech he finally asked parliamentarians to put on record their views on this matter. I am pleased to have participated in this debate and I am pleased to support the minister's call for parliamentarians to support our participation in Kosovo as well as in the Central African Republic.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to participate in this special debate on sending Canadian troops to Kosovo and to the Central African Republic to conduct peacekeeping operations. I will not speak as an expert, I do not claim to be an expert in external affairs or defence, but rather as the member representing a riding in Quebec.

I have had the opportunity to participate in this kind of debate in the past, the debate on Bosnia for instance, because soldiers from Quebec and Canada were to be deployed. People from my riding were among those who eventually participated in those missions.

This gives a different perspective to such situations, and I think it is important to take the attitude we are taking. I believe it is important to have debates like the one we are having this evening.

Basically, what holding a debate like this one means is that we believe in discussion rather than force. We believe that people can often be convinced to settle difficult situations peacefully.

If the Government of Canada wants not only to enjoy the privileges but also to assume the obligations associated with its election to the security council and its present position as chair, it is important that government decisions be supported by the House, unless the situation is extremely urgent. It allows us to see, especially with regard to these kinds of international issues, if there is a consensus, if a common position can be arrived at to contribute to the quality of the international debate.

Let us not kid ourselves. What is going on right now in Rambouillet is a negotiating game in which the various parties involved will be influenced by the strength of those who favour a particular way of solving the problem over others.

When the U.S. Secretary of State went to Rambouillet, she told the parties they had to choose between working hard to find a compromise that would allow them to live in normal political states, or to be caught up once again in the vicious circle of permanent conflict. In this debate on Kosovo, it is important to be well aware of the role of parliament.

We must also be aware of the fact that Canada must show leadership, as I said earlier. The time has come for the international community to take action. We have had signs, over the last few weeks, that efforts to solve this conflict would intensify. Members who spoke before me talked about, among other things, the similar debate that took place in this House on October 7, 1998. At that time, we talked about the situation in Kosovo, about the need to adopt a humanitarian approach and to seek a political solution.

Now, a few months later, there is still no solution on the table. Proposals have been made. There is a will to come to an satisfactory solution, and our interventions must be made in that context. We have to ask ourselves what more we can bring to the table, what contribution we can make to help both sides find a peaceful solution.

There is an urgent need to take action, if only on a strictly humanitarian level. Many Kosovars are already in exile. Many people are in danger of being killed, raped or tortured. These people are facing very difficult situations.

We must send a clear message to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We must not forget the civilian populations which have already suffered too much. It is above all for this reason that the international community must take action.

All the geopolitical considerations are but one aspect of the problem. However, the fundamental problem is a human one. The fact is that we cannot treat human beings as they are being treated right now. The international community as a whole must be made aware of the urgent need to address the situation. Today's debate is a way to help ensure that a consistent and effective solution is found.

As for us, it is urgent that we take concerted action. The minister's concern must be above all a humanitarian one. We should not be afraid to consider every solution which could lead to a compromise, any solution which stakeholders might accept in order to pull out of the conflict and try to resolve this difficult international situation. The further you are from a problem, the more you tend to believe that solutions are easy. But when you get closer, you can see all the implications. There is certainly no easy solution, but there is a will to act, so let us build on the momentum so that peace is restored as soon as possible.

So far Canada has remained firm with Mr. Milosevic. We have shown our position very clearly. The presence of Canada and our providing a sizeable military contingent, mainly in Bosnia, sent a clear message about the role and the solutions we wanted to put forward.

The Bloc Quebecois has often showed how concerned it was about the situation in Kosovo by condemning the repressiveness, brutality and inhuman behaviour of the Serb security forces. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of sending Canadian troops as part of interposition or peacekeeping operations. The Bloc hopes that this peacekeeping mission is the result of a negotiated agreement.

I read in

Le Monde

that this is currently one of the major problems which have not yet been settled by negotiation. The article says that on Tuesday, three days before the deadline, Mr. Milosevic reiterated Belgrade's opposition to the deployment of a multinational force in Kosovo.

Saying today that we support Canadian involvement in a peacekeeping mission, provided this mission is the result of negotiations and helps to achieve peace, is our way of contributing to the search for a solution.

In the meantime, NATO continues to plan for an operation. This pressure is part of the negotiating process. If there are no clear signals that we really intend to intervene if necessary and to help restore sustainable peace or to at least eliminate violence, the people who are not really interested in this type of solution will just sit and wait.

If the international community truly supports this type of position, and I think that tonight's debate will help Canada make its position clearer, then I believe we can play an interesting role.

It was clearly established that the deployment of troops is the main issue to be resolved during the current negotiations. So, let us send a clear message that Canada believes a peacekeeping mission might be one of the key elements to a solution, an approach to the future that would finally restore peace in this part of the world.

Under these circumstances, the Rambouillet negotiations must be the last chance negotiations, not in the sense that negotiations will come to a stop tomorrow, but in the sense that we have to give these people every possibility to succeed and reach an agreement before the deadline.

As a parliament, however, the mandate we would like the government to give our troops must be subject to some conditions. First, the security of civilians must be our main concern in any intervention. On this issue, I would like to qualify the position we have heard from some members in this House tonight. We hear a lot about the Canadian soldiers who will take part in these activities and we seem to focus only on their security.

I think the lives of all the people taking part in this operation have to be protected. Obviously, we are responsible for the lives of Canadian citizens, but we must take a humanitarian approach so that our first concern is the safety of individuals.

Canada's interventions must be under the aegis of recognized international organizations, ideally the UN or, failing that, NATO. With mandates Canada has accepted from the UN, to do otherwise would not be acceptable in the present situation.

Specific requirements must be imposed on the parties to the conflict and stated publicly, and armed force must be used until the parties formally agree to meet these requirements.

We must give thought to the possibility of recognizing the independence of Kosovo rather than writing off the idea, because it could be one of the solutions to be explored in order to restore peace to the region, including at the expiry of the three-year transitional period when the Kosovar people will have to decide on their political status.

The solution may lie here. What compromise may be found at the end of the current debate, following the exchanges and negotiations being carried out at the moment? All we are saying is that we must not eliminate an option at the outset. We must look at all the possibilities and let the negotiations take their course.

I would like to mention too that this is a time for modesty in international diplomacy. In this conflict, which began in 1989, the international community, of which Canada is a part, failed to recognize the Bosnian tragedy and the cost in human, financial and political terms of the failure to intervene forcefully when it was time to do so. The time may have come to draw lessons from that experience.

It is high time Canada, which sits on the UN Security Council and has been chairing its sessions since February 1, assumed the necessary leadership to resolve this crisis. This country could play a greater role in Rambouillet. Following this evening's debate and the position adopted by this House, Canada's representations will be more visible, more present and will help find a solution.

We must also be aware of the stubbornness of certain states that refuse to consider the declaration of independence of a wide majority of people over a defined territory, when these people are being oppressed. As I said earlier, no peaceful solution should be dismissed out of hand. We must consider all the options.

Such an attitude did not stop the inescapable independence of Slovenia, Bosnia and Croatia, but it did not prevent a terrible war. The international community must take note of the very recent past and be innovative and open so that potential conflicts can be resolved.

In Kosovo, it is important that the ongoing negotiations be supported by the international community. It is important that Canada fully assume its leadership role in that respect. It is to be hoped that, following this evening's debate, the Canadian government will be on solid ground and will feel it has the support of all members of Parliament.

I would like to say a few words about the issue of the Central African Republic, which is the second part of this evening's debate. At the invitation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I took part last fall in the meeting of African leaders in Burkina Faso and one thing that struck me was the fragility of the political situation in Africa. Situations can change from one day to the next and from one country to the next.

Great care must be taken as to the form of intervention. When a peacekeeping mission has been set up and it is felt that this type of safeguard might be needed for a while longer, peace must be maintained so as to avoid the situation where a decision taken in haste or in the interests of short-term savings leads to the outbreak of another crisis.

Let us put all the chances on our side. The relations Canada has built up with a number of African countries merit this attention. This is important, because this is one continent where all the rich nations can be judged by their international actions. Thought must be given to how Africa can be helped to build strong governments, improve governance, and acquire independence and the democratic tools needed for further progress.

This evening's debate on these two issues shows us that discussion is valuable. As parliamentarians, we have an opportunity to bring matters to the public arena. It is important that we make these positions known to Quebeckers and to Canadians.

This is the kind of action international peace is built on. Let us continue to clearly show that solutions can be found by discussing instead of fighting and making a show of strength.

In that sense, our debate tonight is of the kind that will eventually contribute to a solution. We must recognize that the international community ought to intensify its effort and put extra energy into finding a solution, so that next week, next month or two months from now, we are not faced with a tragic situation in both of these countries.

Canada is already involved in one of them and it would be desirable for it to intervene in the other, especially if there is an agreement calling for this kind of peace force.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member very carefully but I would like to ask him one thing.

Given the present situation of calling this debate on such short notice and without any briefing to government members on this issue, perhaps a decision has already been made and this take note debate is merely a formality. On the other hand, we are committing our brave men and women of the defence forces to go to a country without the proper equipment to help them fight a war or maintain peace in that country.

We do not know what the long terms plans are. We do not know how much it will cost. We do not know a lot of things and so many questions have been unanswered.

Given these situations and these uncertainties, does the member feel we should send our forces or not?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to remind my colleague that we already had a debate on Kosovo in this House, on October 7, 1998.

We said then that what was needed was a political settlement on a humanitarian basis. Several months later, he proposes instead to wait for more information, to wait and see what happens and then to hold a debate.

Will this better serve the cause at issue here tonight? Would this help find a solution in Kosovo? Would this help the ongoing negotiations in Rambouillet lead to some kind of settlement? Personally, I do not believe this is the solution.

I do believe that tonight we must send the message that should a peacekeeping mission be organized, Canada will participate to the best of its abilities and limited financial resources. If the government ever spent too much money on this, it would be held accountable, and we in this House would let them know what we think.

This does not mean the member is wrong. It would be interesting to be better prepared.

Indeed we might want to have an annual debate on Canadian foreign policy as a whole. We could hold a one- or two-day debate during which members could speak on various aspects of a specific issue. The minister could answer questions, not from a partisan point of view as is done in question period, but in a more open debate where we would see in advance what the Canadian government's approach is with regard to the various problems encountered in international politics. It is an interesting avenue that I think is worth considering.

In conclusion, to answer my colleague's question, I think it is important that we have this debate tonight in the House of Commons, even though we do not have all the information required on the practical and technical impacts of the intervention, so we can send a clear and precise message to the international community.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton.

I am pleased to address the motion moved by the Minister of Foreign Affairs regarding Canada's possible role in Kosovo and the changes that could be made to our peacekeeping activities in the Central African Republic.

Canada has been a promoter of internationalism for a long time. We fought tyranny during the two world wars, and also in Korea and in the Persian gulf. We are a founding member of the League of Nations, the United Nations and NATO.

Over 100,000 Canadian men and women have served in peacekeeping operations all over the world. In fact, Canada has participated in almost every UN mission. We have made exceptional contributions to international peace and security during missions in various countries around the globe, including Cyprus, Afghanistan, Rwanda and Haiti.

The Canadian forces can really be proud of that tradition of commitment and courage. Today, we have once again an opportunity to publicly express our support for that tradition and our determination to maintain it.

Let me first discuss the fragile peace established by MINURCA, the UN mission in the Central African Republic.

Established in 1998, MINURCA started carrying out its initial three month mandate with 1,350 soldiers from Canada, France and six African countries after a series of military mutinies in 1996 and 1997.

At a meeting of the Standing Joint Committee on Defence and Foreign Affairs in April, committee members recognized the contribution Canadian forces could make in the context of this sort of mission. They unanimously passed a resolution recommending Canada's participation in MINURCA.

MINURCA's mandate consisted in helping the government of the Central African Republic maintain security in and around the capital, look after the arms given up by demobilized factions, ensure the safety and freedom of UN personnel, establish a civilian police force and provide limited advice and technical support for the legislative elections.

MINURCA made a lot of gains and in so doing paved the way to the political progress necessary to national reconciliation. Nevertheless, despite improvements, the UN secretary general indicated that a very fragile peace had been established. He considered that an extension of MINURCA's mandate would help consolidate the progress made to that point. The secretary general also pointed out that it would be vital to maintain an ongoing UN presence to ensure that the presidential elections, slated for the fall of 1999, are free and fair.

By deploying 47 members of the Canadian armed forces to MINURCA, our country has made a vital contribution since the start of this mission.

Provided that certain conditions are met, I think we should extend our participation in MINURCA. Because we are providing the signals component, we are pivotal to the mission. Our bilingual soldiers are getting along well with their counterparts from other countries also taking part in the mission.

We have a wide range of experience to share with African nations regarding all sorts of peacekeeping and peacemaking operations. Our tradition of and commitment to adopting multilateral solutions to peace and security challenges naturally inclines us to provide assistance to others when we can change something. And, in my view, we can still do this in the Central African Republic.

For these reasons, we feel that a response to the secretary general's request to extend the MINURCA mission is imperative.

We also recommend that Canada continue to supply a contingent to MINURCA, provided that security, logistical and sanitary support services are put in place.

As for possible participation by Canada in Kosovo, although the details are different, the broad principles are similar to those mentioned earlier.

Members will recall that, during the special debate on Kosovo last October, all parties agreed that the crisis had taken on a humanitarian dimension. Members also agreed that Canada should continue to support its allies in this struggle against aggression and human rights violations.

I for one had given many reasons in support of Canada's participation in the peace restoring effort in Kosovo. First, we have an obligation to support our allies and to respond to the acts of violence and human rights violations in Kosovo. Canada's commitment to freedom and respect for human rights would become meaningless if we failed to act.

Second, Canada should be part of any peacemaking force mobilized by NATO following the negotiations because of the alliance's proven expertise in carrying out this kind of mission. On the eve of NATO'S 50th anniversary, we must continue to co-operate with our NATO allies in maintaining peace and stability in Europe.

Third, our participation would be in line with our foreign and defence policies, which are based on promoting Canadian values abroad and contributing to international peace and security.

Finally, I had indicated that Canada's participation would constitute a logical extension of our prior and current contributions to UN and NATO peace operations in that region since 1991.

My position has not changed since our debate in October. Unfortunately, the situation has deteriorated in many regards. We cannot accept human rights violations like the ones in Racak, nor can we ignore the serious geopolitical problems associated with this crisis. I am more than ever convinced that the international community, of which Canada is a member, must be prepared to take action in favour of peace and stability.

During my first trip to Bosnia in 1994, I was able to see the damage caused by years of war to the people and the country. I witnessed the contribution of the NATO stabilisation force in Bosnia when I went back to Bosnia in November 1997 as part of a delegation of members from the defence and foreign affairs committees. At the time we met with members from the Canadian armed forces and we saw all their efforts to promote peace.

The international community has taken several steps to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict which has been going on in Kosovo since hostilities first escalated in early 1998. We are eagerly awaiting the outcome of the Rambouillet negotiations hoping the leaders of the Albanians in Kosovo and the representatives of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia will be able to settle their differences at the negotiating table.

I urge all my colleagues to recognize the seriousness of the situation both in Kosovo and the Central African Republic. Under these circumstances, we would be well advised to maintain our presence in MINURCA in the Central African Republic. Moreover, if it is determined that a NATO led implementation force should be part of the solution to the crisis in Kosovo, Canada would be well advised to be involved in such a force.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, renewed fighting in Kosovo has once again fixed the eyes of the world on the Balkans and as we debate this issue in the House tonight we do so with a real hope that a solution can be found.

I direct my remarks to this aspect of the motion we have before us. The contact group sponsored talks between the Serbs and the Kosovar Albanians in Rambouillet, France offer for the first time the possibility of a solution to this struggle. We earnestly hope the parties can come to an agreement and that the differences between them can be resolved.

Canada must be prepared to participate in any potential peace agreement emerging from the Rambouillet process.

Just as we were ready to participate in NATO's implementation force upon confirmation of success at the Dayton peace process, we must be prepared to react should these talks also succeed.

As a member of the international community, as a member of the NATO alliance and as a nation that values peace and democracy, we have a moral obligation to participate in a NATO led peace operation in Kosovo should such action be deemed necessary.

Peace and security in the Balkans have been under threat for nearly a decade now and Canada has joined the international community from the beginning to respond to those threats.

As I conceive it there are four key reasons why we should favourably consider a role in any NATO led operation in Kosovo. First, let me remind members that Canada has a proud multilateral history. As a major trading nation, this country thrives in a stable, international system where we protect our interests by working with others. While Canada faces no immediate direct military threat, we are directly affected by instability elsewhere. Our security and prosperity depend on global peace and stability.

Our willingness to play a meaningful role in international relations is a Canadian tradition. We went to Europe to fight for peace in 1914 and returned to do so again in 1939. After the end of the second world war we fought for those same ideals in Korea. In addition, we have done so for many years through our commitments to peacekeeping. Over the last 50 years over 100,000 Canadian men and women have served in peacekeeping missions around the world. We must continue this tradition.

Canadians are internationalists and not isolationists by nature. We are proud of our heritage of service abroad. Our multilateralism is an expression of Canadian values at work in the world. We care about the course of events abroad and so we are willing to work with other countries to maintain peace and stability.

Second, our desire to contribute to international security has made us active partners in the North Atlantic treaty alliance. The North Atlantic community is one of Canada's most important and enduring international links. We are fully committed to collective defence and see the alliance as a force for stability, deterrence and rapid reaction to emergency.

Canadians have kept faith with NATO and these ideals for five decades now. We have always been ready to join our allies in opposing threats to stability and peace.

Today we face another such situation. If NATO becomes involved in a peace support mission in Kosovo then we should be there to play our part. Canadian participation in a NATO peace mission to Kosovo is in every way consistent with our commitment to peace and security in the transatlantic region and our commitment to the North Atlantic alliance.

Third, the Balkan region is highly volatile and represents a serious threat to international peace and security. Should the situation in Kosovo worsen, the risk of neighbouring states getting drawn into the conflict would also rise. Albania, the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria, as well as Greece, Turkey or even more distant powers such as Russia and Iran could conceivably become involved.

Twice in this century brush fires in the Balkans have resulted in war in Europe. Canadians are not blind to the lessons of history. While the chance of another major war seems remote, in the Balkans and elsewhere we must persevere with our efforts to maintain international peace and security through the reinforcement of regional stability.

This brings me to my fourth reason for continuing a Canadian presence in this troubled region. We have been an active player in the Balkans since war first broke out in 1991. So long as we can make a meaningful contribution to improving the situation there we should continue to do so.

When the warring factions agreed to a ceasefire in the former republic of Yugoslavia in September 1991 we were among the first participants in the European community monitoring mission that was set up to verify the settlement, contributing up to 15 of the mission's 350 civilian and military observers.

In 1992 the UN security council established the United Nations protection force in Yugoslavia, UNPROFOR, as an arrangement to facilitate a negotiated settlement in an atmosphere of peace and security. Canada contributed two major units, a logistics battalion and personnel for various headquarters positions.

UNPROFOR's mandate included the protection and demilitarization of the three UN protected areas, deimplementation of various ceasefire agreements in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina, the delivery of humanitarian aid and the protection and monitoring of the no fly zones and the UN safe areas.

NATO's implementation force or IFOR was the next significant step to establishing peace and stability in the Balkan region. The purpose of IFOR was to enforce compliance by the warring parties in the former Yugoslavia with the Dayton peace accord. Canada contributed more than 1,000 personnel, including a brigade headquarters, an infantry company, an armoured squadron, an engineer squadron, a military police platoon and support personnel.

Building on IFOR successes was NATO's stabilization force or SFOR. Responding to a UN security council resolution, the North Atlantic council authorized in late 1996 a NATO operation to support the further implementation of the Dayton peace agreement. SFOR's mission, still being carried out today, is to provide a continued military presence to deter renewed hostilities and to stabilize and consolidate peace in Bosnia-Hercegovina. There are currently about 1,300 Canadian troops deployed with SFOR. Our contingent, deployed throughout an area roughly the size of Prince Edward Island, includes a mechanized infantry battalion group, national support and command elements and an engineer design and works team. Canada also provides personnel to various multinational staff positions in SFOR headquarters.

Our other operations in the Balkans that Canadian forces personnel have or are participating in include a NATO led operation enforcing compliance of the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Hercegovina, the enforcement of a United Nations embargo of the former Yugoslavia, the United Nations mission of observers in Prevlaka and the UN preventive deployment force in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. We have also been contributing to a variety of multinational operations in Kosovo.

We currently have 23 troops deployed with the OSCE Kosovo verification mission, established to verify compliance by all parties to the October 1998 Holbrooke-Milosevic agreement.

Our contributions to current NATO operations in Kosovo include 60 personnel with the extraction force ready to remove OSCE verifiers and other designated persons from Kosovo should it prove necessary, eight Canadian forces personnel deployed as headquarters staff with the Kosovo air verification mission, and 130 personnel and 6 CF-18s with operation echo, ready to participate in any NATO operations.

The many operations and missions I have just outlined are illustrative of Canada's strong and continued commitment to maintaining peace in the Balkan region. More than 20,000 Canadian forces personnel have rotated in and out of that theatre. We clearly have invested significant personnel and resources in order to promote peace and security there and have made a genuine and meaningful difference.

We should maintain that investment because more remains to be done, as events of the past few weeks have clearly shown. Large refugee flows, political struggles between various ethnic groups, continued human rights abuses and the ever present danger of widespread war are all illustrative of just how much more work the international community needs to do. With the right kind of agreement out of the negotiations in Rambouillet, we can and should once again shoulder our share of the international efforts in the region.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, given the situation we are facing today, let us keep the question to one side that the brave men and women of the armed forces are not well equipped. They do not have enough facilities to go to those countries. Keeping aside the question of how much it is going to cost us, keeping aside what our long term plans are, I would like to find out from the member if he knows how much involvement we are asking from the European Community or the other affected or related countries to deal with this issue in their own backyard.

I would also like to find out from the member what strategy we have to deal with the regional security in that area?

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to respond to the hon. member's question. First of all, with respect to the issue of how many troops would be provided by other European countries, I think it is safe to say that still is part of the negotiating process within the NATO member countries. Unfortunately we have not yet got an agreement at Rambouillet although there are increasing signs that the Americans, the French and the British are putting significant pressure on the negotiating parties to come up with an agreement.

Clearly when there was discussion about the number of troops that would be involved, the numbers were somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 troops. It is obvious that the Europeans would be required to shoulder a significant amount of that burden.

A number of my colleagues and I on the defence committee had the opportunity to visit Germany recently to get briefings on what was happening with the German armed forces and their views along with the foreign ministry officials' views of what was going on in Kosovo. They understand fully the need for more European participation in a Kosovo operation. They understand as well as we do that if the situation in Kosovo is allowed to deteriorate, then the stability of the Balkans itself comes into question. That is something that no members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would want to have happen.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what the Liberal member across the way thinks about the in excess of $7 billion worth of cuts his government has made to the Canadian military and whether or not he thinks that assists them in their mission overseas.