Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate tonight on the security situation in Mali and Canada's role in it. It is an important debate. It is important that we are having this debate as a Parliament and are talking about executive action in this important region of the world. It is important because we were involved in helping to create a thriving democracy in Mali for some two decades, which has been an independent country for only 50 years. It is also important that there has been some consultation between the leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Party to attempt to achieve a consensus as to what Canada should do and a commitment and a stipulation by our leader, the leader of the opposition, that this be brought to Parliament as quickly as possible.
This country has a spotty record of having interventions discussed by Parliament. We are not talking about committing to combat. We are talking about a commitment to military assets, so far, in the case of the use of the C-17.
We have had a developing practice, not yet a convention, although I hope we get there, of having parliamentary oversight in a stronger way over international interventions. Chuck Strahl, for example, when he was a Reform MP, actually brought a motion to the House asking for parliamentary approval before troops were put in any overseas operations. It failed. The Liberal government defeated it. Another Reform MP, Bob Mills, made a similar attempt in 1996, which also failed. However, I think at the time there was a recognition, even by the government of the day, that there was a growing sense that Parliament ought to be directly involved. We are keeping up with that tradition tonight in terms of talking about what potential role Canada might play, because we are seeing a changing situation.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs talked about the situation with al-Qaeda. As he mentioned, the situation in Mali has developed over the last year, starting with a coup last March. Some people are asking why we are helping a government that was founded on a military coup. There are two answers. The first is that we are actually attempting to help the people of Mali, as opposed to this particular government of Mali. The second point that needs to be underscored is that almost immediately upon this coup taking place, the international community, and, in particular, the regional community of the African Union and ECOWAS, the Economic Community of West African States, acted immediately to expel Mali from the African Union. They sent delegations there to seek to restore a constitutional government. They received a commitment, in fairly short order, that there would be a transitional government and eventually the development of a road map to the restoration of democracy under the constitution of 1992. That happened as a result of significant pressure at the regional level and the international level with the withdrawal of international support for the coup-led government, which almost immediately made it clear that the government would not be able to actually operate.
We were told by officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs that Mali was recognized by other people engaged in international aid and development as a country that did not use the money given to it by other countries to build up its army. Therefore, it actually had a weak army. It was weak in terms of its strength, but it may also have been weak in terms of its discipline, its record and its ability to properly carry out ethical and moral operations.
We have heard of the abuses and the allegations of abuses. However, the reality is that the army was not strong. Once the coup took place, Mali was a vulnerable state and was exposed to the events that took place. The rebellion in the north was assisted by the Islamist extremists, mainly al-Qaeda in the Maghreb and the other group of Islamist extremists that took part in that, which led quickly to a serious deterioration, which the United Nations Security Council took seriously.
In a series of resolutions, beginning last July, then in October and December, the UN Security Council took strong action to seek the support of the international community to aid the African-led International Support Mission to Mali using African troops, the support of the African Union, and the support of ECOWAS. The United Nations Security Council was acting on its mandate as the primary body for international peace and security in the world authorizing this action and was seeking the support of other nations.
The timing was interesting, because it was expected that this would take several months, up to next fall, to be ready to carry out the military mission. Events overtook the plans, which often happens. We saw the attempt by the Islamist extremists, seeing a weakness and seeing a delay, to take over the country.
We saw the response to that. France took action. We supported that action. We are now in a situation where a peacekeeping mission in Mali is being contemplated.
As my colleague from Ottawa Centre pointed out, this is something we ought to be monitoring carefully to see what kind of mandate may or may not come from this suggestion. It is obviously premature to be talking about that right now . There is no peace to keep. However, if it comes to the point where there is discussion about that, Canada should be ready to see whether we play a role and what role we might play. We need to consider what might be a substantial UN peacekeeping mission in Mali. We would anticipate this being, again, African-led. It is important to consider what role Canada might play in assisting.
That does not necessarily mean troops. I want to preclude the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs jumping to his feet right after I finish to accuse us of suggesting that. I would encourage him, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, to read resolution 2086, a new resolution of the Security Council, which was adopted on January 21, 2013. That resolution reiterates the role of the UN in peacekeeping. It spells out, in great detail, the kind of multi-dimensional peacekeeping missions that may be mandated by the Security Council. It is extremely important. All Canadians should have a look at that, because it defines the kinds of roles nations would be asked to play in nation-building and peace-building in nations around the world.
I say that because my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, was generous in saying that Canada was the 53rd nation in its contributions to international peacekeeping missions. We are actually the 55th nation, according to the United Nations organization on December 12. While there are some 80,000 troops engaged in peacekeeping around the world, Canada contributes 11 troops and 19 police officers. That is where we are after 35 years of being perhaps the lead nation in assisting in peacekeeping around the world. That is just on the troop side.
Ten enumerated actions may be mandated. They are spelled out in United Nations Security Council resolution 2086. It recognizes that each mandated peacekeeping mission would be specific to the needs and the situation of the country concerned. It is based on some very strong principles, including the consent of the nations involved. The mandate could include a mix of civilian police and military capabilities under a unified leadership. Those are the benefits of the United Nations involvement--