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.