Debates of Dec. 4th, 1995

The Balkans

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Very briefly, the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the length of time. As we all know, NATO has said this is a one-year mission, 12 months.

Has the member given any consideration to how optimistic that timeframe is in this type of operation. One year seems very optimistic. We are moving some 60,000 troops in there.

During the briefing we received from the government-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, I did ask the member to be very brief.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, it would be a good thing if, following a one year commitment, the government came back to the House and asked if we agree to extend Canada's participation.

Again, it is important to have the figures. People must know the cost of that participation. This is what is important.

[Philippe Paré, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are today debating the recent Dayton peace accord and Canada's contribution to the peace effort in the Balkans.

For over three years, discussions have gone on between the Bosnians, the Serbs and the Croats in the hope of reaching an agreement on establishing a real peace process. On November 21, an accord, albeit an imperfect one, but an accord nonetheless, was signed by the parties.

This peace accord, signed in Dayton, Ohio, provides, among other things, that refugees will be permitted to return home or will be compensated, if it is impossible for them to do so. The accord also provides for the unrestricted movement of the entire population within Bosnian territory.

To implement the accord, the international community is being invited to provide humanitarian aid or help in the reconstruction, with the objective of establishing an enduring peace in the former Yugoslavia.

Today, we are being asked to debate the form Canada's contribution to the peace process should take. We are, however, entitled to question the usefulness of this debate and whether the Government of Canada has not already made all the decisions, since, less than 48 hours after the Dayton accord was signed, the Prime Minister of Canada was saying publicly that Canada would send a number of soldiers, according to its capabilities and NATO's request.

The Bloc Quebecois questions the attitude of the Prime Minister, who is leaving no doubt that the decisions have already been made and that the opinions of the members of this House are of little import. His message is that Canada will send soldiers to Bosnia, regardless of today's parliamentary debate. However, the debate is relevant, and, in this regard the Minister of Foreign Affairs should have informed the Prime Minister that Canada could get involved in three ways, apart from simply sending soldiers.

Participation in the implementation force is one kind of intervention, of course, but taking part in the reconstruction and welcoming refugees unable to go back home are other kinds of assistance that Canada should consider.

I would like to elaborate on the latter, on Canada's opportunity to help Bosnian refugees. Canada can help out in two ways. The High Commissioner for Refugees made an appeal to welcome refugees from the former Yugoslavia. In this regard, a few weeks ago, the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration reached an agreement with NGOs and other organizations to implement an action plan to welcome these victims of war. The Quebec government is also involved in this special operation. The Bloc Quebecois supports this initiative and urges the Canadian government to pursue its efforts in this regard.

Canada could also help refugees on the field in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The best estimates suggest that there are more than 1.3 million displaced people in Bosnia itself and 800,000 refugees in neighbouring republics and other European countries. Canada must facilitate the implementation of the Dayton agreement and help those who want to return to their homes.

The time has come to recognize that Canada's previous interventions in the former Yugoslavia have been less than successful. So far, Canada's participation in UNPROFOR has cost taxpayers over half a billion dollars. Despite the enormous resources invested by Canada, the results have been on the whole rather disappointing.

Canada has been excluded from major decisions, as demonstrated by its April 1995 exclusion from the contact group composed of the U.S., Russia, France, Great Britain, and Germany. Canada has maintained a large UNPROFOR contingent, even though our troops had little guidance and no clear, original, well-defined policy regarding the outcome of the conflict and how to resolve it.

The Canadian government did not show any international leadership or take any major policy initiative that would have allowed it to exert some influence. Before making a further commitment to participating in the implementation of the Bosnian peace and

reconstruction plan, the official opposition believes that several questions ought to be answered. Canadian taxpayers have a right to know whether or not Canada will have a say in operations involving Canadian troops.

Also, given that Bosnia is faced with severe economic problems, we must ask ourselves if the Canadian government intends to provide financial assistance as well or if, given our own debt problem, we could not find a more responsible and practical form of assistance. For instance, Canada could very well provide technical assistance for future elections in Bosnia, given its expertise in that area.

We also want to be apprised of the risks to our troops. We know that the ceasefire monitoring force will consist of combat troops as opposed to peacekeepers. This new task will therefore be conducted under Chapter VII of the UN charter instead of Chapter VI. And we know that Chapter VII allows the use of a broader range of means, including the use of force, to fulfil these missions. In other words, every means available will be used to implement the agreement.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois has three more concerns in relation to the timing, nature and cost of this operation. As far as duration is concerned, the UN secretary general and the Prime Minister jointly stated that this mandate could be for up to three years. If that were the case, the Bloc Quebecois demands that the government seek the House of Commons' approval of its decision to extend the mission beyond the currently planned 12 month term.

As for the mandate of Canadian troops deployed in Bosnia, we hope that the Canadian government has learned from its mistake and that, this time, it will develop a clear mandate. While troops may have to perform a variety of tasks, Canadian troops could specialize in communications and more traditional aspects of peacekeeping. Out of concern for Canada's image as a peace-minded country, we Bloc members think that only a very small percentage of the troops we assign to NATO should take part in combat missions, and only if necessary.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois feels that Canada's participation must be more or less the same as in UNPROFOR, that is about 2,000 soldiers. That seems to compare with the level of participation of our European allies, except for France, Great Britain and Germany. The cost of such an operation is high. The defence department estimates that, over a 12 month period, it could be anywhere from 2 to 75 million dollars, depending on the number of soldiers involved. The various scenarios provide for sending from 50 to 3,500 soldiers.

We have our doubts about these figures, considering that Canada's participation in UNPROFOR cost about $172 million annually. The defence department has admitted that a NATO operation would cost about twice as much as a UN peacekeeping mission. The Canadian government must show more rigour and give the real costs of that operation, before getting more involved.

In short, the Bloc Quebecois is asking the Canadian government to show greater discretion, rigour and, particularly, transparency. There is no doubt that Canada must contribute to the peace process in Bosnia. The way to do it must be thoroughly debated in this House.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, today we are having a very serious debate in the House on the Dayton peace agreement. A number of nations got together to hammer out a peace agreement for the combatants in the former Yugoslavia. This conflict has been ongoing for a number of years and Canada has made a tremendous contribution during the past four years to the humanitarian needs in that area.

There has been a wide sweeping debate in the House this afternoon and therefore I would like to read the motion before the House:

That this House take note and welcome the recent Dayton peace agreement and the international community's continued efforts to bring enduring peace and security to the Balkans, and Canadian support of these efforts by participation in a multinational military implementation force (IFOR) under NATO command.

The implementation force will not be a peacekeeping mission in the traditional sense but rather a NATO led enforcement mission which will operate under the authority of the United Nations security council resolution pursuant to chapter VII of the United Nations charter which permits the use of all necessary means to fulfil a mission.

Since this would be an operation not in the traditional sense of peacekeeping and because NATO and many other countries are involved, it should not be surprising that we have been requested to send combat troops.

Given the nature of the world today, there are many hot spots. Some can become hotter. This is one big issue which we have today. What will it be six months, a year or five years from now? No one can predict. The world is a very unpredictable place in this era of our history.

The implementation force is the only way to handle this matter. There is a peace agreement which must be implemented. The basic way of life must be restored to the area. The people in that region must live without fear of what will happen to them.

This is not the time for Canada or for any other responsible country to fold up its tents and walk away. This is a time when the international community must come together, shoulder to shoulder, in the best interests of mankind.

The winners of such operations are those who will suddenly find themselves living in security and peace. The winners are the free countries of the world accepting their responsibility in what is otherwise a cruel world.

The winners are people like the Russians and those in the eastern European countries who a short time ago belonged to the communist bloc and who today are moving with their friends in the western world to implement this peace agreement in the former Yugoslavia.

If that is not a fantastic happening in this era of our history, I do not know what is. Who would have thought eight or ten years ago that we would see this happening on this date in history or that we would see it unfold in the days ahead?

The other winners of this of course will be those still alive in that country, the children and the women, who will finally have some peace. They will remember as they walk through their cemeteries young children from infants up, women, grandparents, old and young, whose names are on that flood of tombstones in cemeteries throughout the former Yugoslavia. It is a slaughter which neither this country nor any other responsible country could turn a blind eye to and walk away from. Without proper supervision it could happen again. Graveyards will be the reminders of this horrible period in the history of the former Yugoslavia.

The winners will be the NATO countries and the eastern bloc countries that have bridged the gap over recent times and are now putting their total efforts toward this humanitarian cause in a truly wonderful display of international unity for peace.

There is monitoring to be done and there are mines to be disassembled. If they are not, the country will live a further hell in days ahead.

Humanitarian aid has been provided very responsibly and generously by Canadians over the last four years. You bet our Canadian soldiers are well trained. They can build schools, hospitals, roads and bridges. They can do it well.

I do not appreciate the logic put forward in the House today when members of the Reform Party say our forces are becoming ineffective. I do not buy that for one minute. It is a terrible thing to say about our Canadian forces whom we expect to go on missions around the world. Are they capable of doing anything? You bet they are capable of doing anything and they will do their work over there along with the best in the world.

It is time Parliament and all members stood together united and thanked those people because regardless of a few problems they have carried the Canadian flag with dignity and with pride around the world. We owe them a great debt.

People in the former Yugoslavia want peace and security. Sure, some rebels are not happy and nothing will ever satisfy them, except when they get everything their own way. Hence the reason for the supervision and the necessity for it.

There are some in this world who lock their minds and throw away the key and do not want anyone questioning the mean streak they have in them. All the good things in life, the everyday necessities of life, must be brought back into action and rebuilt.

Government institutions are needed in the former Yugoslavia. Infrastructure faces a mass improvement because of the destructiveness that has gone on there for a number of years. Canada's participation has been a responsible one over a period of time.

Our forces have done a great job for us in the international community. We must look after them while they are on these missions, and that means more than good equipment. It means a commitment in money and a commitment in giving them the equipment to go forward in the days ahead. We have done a lot of that already.

However, it means another thing quite often forgotten in a debate such as this. It means making certain their families back home are well looked after. I talk about the story of a young person involved in a conversation with me in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia. He said: "I do not mind being over here serving at all because I feel I am doing a job that has to be done. I do not mind it as long as I know my family is all right back home".

We cannot keep peacekeeping alive and do things the same way we did with the blue berets when circumstances require a different scenario.

From an historical point of view we can ask how much money it will cost. We can ask how many troops are needed. However, we do not get the answers to all these solutions in the future. The danger of doing nothing is far worse than the danger in the implementation of this peace arrangement.

We belong to the UN as a responsible partner. We have been a member of NATO for years. Today we hear about the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson who brought about the first peacekeeping mission in Egypt. Let us remember one thing: Canada has done more than its share in comparison with any nation in the world in keeping up that policy.

Now as we try to take the steam out of heated debates and difficult situations in the world it becomes very important for Canada to be part of the solution and not part of an isolationist attitude.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my distinguished colleague, known for his lifetime of study of military affairs, Canada's role in them and the constructive contributions he has made, whether in his discussions with the minister concerned he might find it useful to remind people that NATO, as a regional security organization, is subject under chapter VIII of the United Nations' charter to the charter and specifically by reference back to articles 34 and 35 in section 52 of the charter that the security council's role in peacekeeping arrangements under chapter VI extends to operations of NATO and other regional military organizations.

Would it be appropriate perhaps in his discussions with the minister to remind the minister of that fact and perhaps bring forward any adhesion by Canada to the new Bosnian force that it would remain subject to the United Nations' charter, subject to international law as established under the charter whatever the nature of the military command, whether it be direct UN command, as in the past, or a particular general from one of the member countries of NATO?

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, history would have taken quite a different turn without an organization such as NATO, which came to birth during the cold war years and served a very useful purpose during all those years.

Today as we come into an era in world history where we have some 80 hot spots around the world, we may well have more Yugoslavias to look after as the years go by. I suppose it is a case of managing them. It is very important that NATO and the UN be partners in these conflicts. NATO is needed because of its expertise and the UN needs NATO because it is a cohesive body of 16 countries.

I would also point out to my hon. friend that in no way inhibits all the other UN countries of the world from coming in to support them and to work with them. Some 40 countries may well be involved in this. We will find out whether Canada is directly involved by a formal decision of cabinet. That is the way things are done in a democratic country.

In the world today, it becomes absolutely necessary that organizations such as NATO, organizations that used to be the communist bloc, organizations such as the UN at large, all come together in a co-operative spirit to manage some of those meanspirited operations that are out there in the world and have to be managed as the days go by.

In answering my hon. friend, I look on it that all these are necessary. I am sure the minister is quite sure they are necessary, but we must always look toward putting them together as a massive international body for the good of mankind. If we do not we are wasting our energies.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that most civilized people would like to see an end put to all of the rivalries and tribal wars, and the genocide that accompanies them, not just in the Balkans, but everywhere in the world. Particularly fearsome is Africa.

Because there is a time limit and this NATO effort would go absolutely nowhere without the Americans, what will happen if the battle moves into Macedonia and the Americans are out of there in a year?

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to think we do things with the best of intentions and the greatest efficiency that we can, with the knowledge we have at hand at the moment.

We want all the answers in advance of what will happen. If Napoleon had had all the answers he needed in advance, he would never have gone to Waterloo. There are always questions that have to be answered, but only time will answer them.

If we are to sit back and do nothing at this time, then we are only adding to the problem. We know through world history that problems become bigger and bigger and eventually everybody is dragged into it.

As I said earlier today-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The hon. member's time has expired.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to lend my support to the motion we are debating today. It is the second time I have risen in the House on this issue. Although nearly two years have passed since that time, my position remains the same.

We must continue to lend our support to the international community's efforts to bring enduring peace and security to the Balkans. It was these efforts after all that brought about the Dayton peace agreement and we must do our part to show our continued commitment.

As the vice-president of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association, I have followed NATO's involvement in the Balkan crisis very closely. Through my participation I learned firsthand of the important role Canada plays in NATO.

For 45 years now Canada has been one of the key supporters of NATO because it was, and still is, in our national interest to do so. NATO membership has been beneficial for Canada in a number of ways: it has prevented world conflicts; it has helped us economically, by enabling us to maintain reduced armed forces, knowing that we could call for help if necessary; and, most important of all, perhaps, it has given us a voice in one of the key fora in the western world on issues of Euro-Atlantic and world security.

The greatest value of these benefits can only be achieved if Canada has credibility with its allies and continues to be an active member of NATO. It is therefore essential that Canada participate in IFOR.

We must not turn our backs on NATO, as if it were turning into a partner we could no longer trust to produce Euro-Atlantic and world security arrangements. It would not be in our interests to do so, particularly since the creation of IFOR is a key element in the changing structures and operations of NATO.

NATO's integrated command structure has always been one of its strong points. The Alliance is the only organization that has created an effective military force from the contributions of its various member states. During the cold war, however, this was a static structure spread out as widely as possible throughout its member states, with its eyes resolutely glued to the eastern bloc. This is not what we need now to ensure our security or that of our allies.

We need a NATO which is cheaper, which is flexible, which can act in any direction from which a threat can emerge and which can assemble forces organized, trained and tailored to a range of possible uses from classical peacekeeping to humanitarian intervention to collective defence.

As well, the NATO for the modern era must also be able to work with others, be they multilateral institutions like the UN or SCE which need organized military muscle or other countries, big and small, which see an interest in what concerns NATO.

In January 1994 such a concept for the evolution of NATO was endorsed by the North Atlantic Council under the concept of combined joint task forces. However, since then, the concept has been stalled in spite of Canada's best efforts to move it along.

Necessity being the mother of invention, the need for NATO to get its act together to enforce the peace in Bosnia is resulting in the alliance's first combined joint task force, the IFOR. There must be no going back for NATO and Canada's voice will only be heard in making these lessons stick if it is part of this latest great step forward in the adaptation of NATO.

Now would be perhaps the worst of times to turn our back on NATO and our allies but the value of participating in IFOR to maintain allied solidarity is at most only half the story. For the past three years, Canada and Canadians have seen participation in multilateral military operations in the former Yugoslavia as being in our national interest.

It was in our national interest because we consider European security part and parcel of our own. We have trade, historical, military and emotional ties with Europe. We have learned from

experience that European conflicts can spread to our allies, and even to our own country. In the past, Balkan conflicts have had a particularly strong tendency to spread with a ripple effect, as far as Canada even.

If we wish to be able to continue to depend on the protection of an effective system of international security for ourselves, we must make a significant contribution to it when the system is being used to protect others.

Many Canadians originally come from these areas and an even larger number come from neighbouring countries whose stability is at risk.

Canadians cannot stand aside while others suffer. Many people in Bosnia today owe their lives to the presence of Canadians.

The signing of a peace agreement has not obscured this aspect of our national interest, and we will not be satisfied until Bosnia and the surrounding region once again enjoy stability, peace and security. This will require the full implementation of the Dayton peace agreement. This, after what has happened in the past, will require the presence on the ground of a multinational military force under the command of NATO.

We have struggled and bled through the worst of times in Bosnia. What do the effort, money and lives that have been spent to date mean if the job is not carried through to its conclusion? It is for these reasons that I support the motion and Canadian participation in IFOR.

My support and what I hope will be the support of this House does not give the government, the military planners or NATO carte blanche to send Canadian troops on the mission. Canadian participation in IFOR should conform with the principles for multilateral missions laid out in the 1994 white paper, including a clear and enforceable mandate, an effective consultation process among mission partners, a defined concept of operations and clear rules of engagement.

The Dayton agreement provides the foundation for a clear and binding mandate. NATO's participation guarantees the presence of a separate agency to monitor the situation. It also provides guarantees for an effective consultation process, until now often lacking in UN operations in Bosnia.

The membership of IFOR, which includes nearly all NATO member countries, Russia and up to 19 other countries, should be

sufficiently diverse to be acceptable to all parties. There is every indication that principles fairly similar to ours formed the basis for planning operations.

Clearly Canada's participation in implementing the peace plan cannot be open ended. The seemingly never ending peacekeeping mission in Cyprus must not be repeated. While the UN operation in Cyprus was an example of classical peacekeeping, different from the peace enforcement initiatives being put forward by IFOR, it is imperative that a definitive timetable be put forward.

The UN security council has repeatedly called for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cyprus, the voluntary return of refugees to their homes, the cessation of all interference in the internal affairs of Cyprus and respect for its sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity. Now more than 20 years later, the situation on the ground is no different with more than 30,000 heavily armed Turkish troops continuing to illegally occupy nearly 40 per cent of the territory of Cyprus. The UN mission in Cyprus has been hampered time and time again by the intransigence of Turkey.

The proposal for the complete demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus put forward by the president of Cyprus, Mr. Glafcos Clerides, is the concrete solution to this longstanding problem. Similar resolutions have been supported in the United States congress and most recently the Australian Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution in support of the demilitarization of Cyprus. Canada must also put forward a resolution in support of this to indicate that the status quo is no longer acceptable and negotiated settlements must be brought forward.

Time and time again it has been seen that only a united effort will bring about the resolution of the most complex disputes. Today's debate will lend Canada's voice to the united effort that is being put forward in helping to bring peace to the Balkans.

At this point I wish to refer to the continued response of Canada to the humanitarian issues in the former Yugoslavia. As chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration I applaud the initiatives of the government through the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Under the special measures program nearly 7,000 citizens of the former Yugoslavia have been landed in Canada since 1992. As well, the joint sponsorship program has seen more 270 persons in need of resettlement sponsored to date.

The government will continue these programs for as long as a need for humanitarian aid continues. It is part of our commitment to the United Nations and our responsibility to the international community to ease the suffering of citizens in the formerYugoslavia.

The people of Canada will not rest until peace and security have been restored in Bosnia. As parliamentarians we have a duty to support them and to oblige the government to report on the progress of this mission.

In conclusion, I believe that Canada should participate under NATO command first because it is in our national interest to take our three years of efforts to bring peace and succour to Bosnia to the logical and positive conclusion and second, because it is a demonstration of our commitment to NATO which is a vital component of our national security.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Athabasca.

Like my colleagues who preceded me, I am considerably disappointed in the fact that this is just a take note debate. There is no great honour in participating in a charade. We are here to give an aura of respectability to decisions made by cabinet and DND bureaucrats, life and death decisions affecting our Canadian forces.

This is a matter which should not have been about partisan politics, a family matter if you will, where we could put our ideological differences aside, sit down and reason together, make the best decisions possible and vote freely without the lash of the party whips. However, that will not happen.

The Prime Minister and I are about the same age. Neither of us will ever be asked to pick up an Armalite or step into a minefield. If, as usual, old men-and we are mostly men in this place-are to be asked to decide to send young people to die in a foreign land, they should be able to make informed decisions, which is a condition this government is denying those of us on this side of the House.

The briefing we received on November 30 was not very informative. That is putting it rather gently. The unfortunate officer who had to deliver it was not in a position to tell us even approximately how large a force cabinet has decided to commit. He did not know what sorts of troops Canada would be sending, what their function would be, or what the long term objectives would be. Under those circumstances, it hardly seemed worth while to ask him how they would be equipped or where our impoverished military would be able to scrounge effective weaponry on short notice.

In spite of my objections to giving a blank cheque to cabinet on this matter, I am not an isolationist. I believe that for the sake of international political stability as well as for the sake of common

humanity we must at times be our brothers' keepers. In fact for more than a year before the UN finally stopped temporizing and bluffing I strongly advocated tactical air strikes against the Bosnian Serbs to protect the so-called safe havens. The tiny under armed peacekeeping forces were incapable of serious intervention, but the use of superior air power was something that was doable. And it did work, albeit too late for thousands and thousands of civilians.

Now, with the hostilities more or less on hold and with most of the exhausted combatants ready to sign a peace agreement on December 14, I can see some merit in deploying significant well equipped ground forces to in effect keep reminding the three parties that the war is over. The two divisions proposed by NATO should be adequate to do the job, although that is by no means certain.

I believe Canada should participate in something, but what? Canada faces a moral and practical dilemma. We must never again send inadequately equipped troops into harm's way. Our peacekeepers performed magnificently in Bosnia with limited supplies and equipment, some of it obsolete. However, under the more severe rules of engagement proposed for the NATO force, Canadians could end up being cannon fodder. That is not an idle fear. Aside from the fact that Canada cannot properly equip a significant fighting force on short notice, there is no indication that Canada will be significantly involved in the military and political decision making process beyond helping to define the rules of engagement.

If the mission does turn out badly, neither the Minister of National Defence nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs can assure Canadians that our soldiers will not be put at undue risk because of decisions made by other nations. We are no longer a big kid on the block, and we are unlikely to be treated like one within NATO councils. With our deteriorating economy and feeble military capability, we cannot expect to be taken very seriously, notwithstanding our past contributions to UN endeavours.

NATO has indicated that this will be a quick and dirty operation that will only last about 12 months. That sounds reassuring, but what exactly is proposed if when the magic deadline approaches the troops are actively engaging one or more of the belligerent parties? If DND or the Department of Foreign Affairs have the slightest idea, they are not telling anyone. There is no such thing as a timetable for war. Even if DND could cobble together an adequately equipped and militarily significant force right now, we would not have the resources to sustain it for a prolonged and indefinite period.

In summary, Canada's participation in whatever cabinet is proposing to do might save lives and help to maintain world political stability. However, with our military gutted by this and preceding governments, with our top heavy military bureaucracy and our thinly stretched and overused cadre of combat troops, we simply lack the capability to make an effective effort. In military parlance, the tail of the Canadian forces is overdeveloped and the teeth have been neglected. Our plethora of generals and colonels cannot throw their desks at the Serbs.

To suggest that we can continue to be the world's 911 number is false and misleading puffery. My advice to the government is that it be guided by its white paper of December 1994. Sit this one out. Do not get us in over our heads. Do not start something we cannot finish.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, first let me say that I believe we have to be involved in the peacekeeping effort. As the hon. member mentioned, political stability is very important. In spite of the misgivings of the hon. member, if Canada were not involved, seeing as it has been an architect of peacekeeping, then there would be many other countries that would not get involved.

The hon. member mentioned that we lack the capability of making a credible effort in this regard. I wonder if he and his party would like to come forward to give us numbers in terms of the numbers of soldiers that should be sent and what kind of equipment they should have, instead of undermining the efforts of the government in fulfilling a very useful role, a role we have been instrumental in pioneering.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, as I said, it appears the government wants to give an aura of respectability to the decisions it has already made.

The hon. member asked how many soldiers we would send and how we would equip them. I would rather the hon. member tell us how many soldiers the government has decided to send and how it hopes to equip them when we simply do not have the equipment. We did not even have adequate equipment for our poor little peacekeeping forces with their light armour and obsolete personnel carriers. How on earth will we equip a genuine fighting force?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I was confused earlier this morning, I am even more confused now.

Earlier the Reform member stated that he supported air strikes. When our peacekeepers were in the region last year the Prime Minister had to put a halt to it. We had ground troops in there. The United States of America did not have ground troops and of course the U.S. was advocating air strikes. The hon. member says we do not want our soldiers to be injured; we do not want to bring them back in bags. I am really confused. They are saying send in the planes and bombard these people. Can they clarify their position?

If they wanted more information, they could have come to the briefing. They could have provided input. But they did not bother to show up. All they do is sit there and criticize. To me this is a blatant flip-flop: one day one way, the next day the other.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do not believe I saw the hon. member at the non-briefing we attended.

With respect to the question of air strikes, I would remind the hon. member that when air strikes were first mentioned we had almost unanimous agreement in the House on that particular matter. This is nothing new. At that time it was clearly stated by members from all parties that this did bring in the possibility that our forces would suffer casualties.

Nobody over here is saying that our soldiers are not capable of fighting and that they cannot take casualties. What we are saying is they have nothing to fight with. The Liberals want to send them over there to fight the Serbs with their teeth, and they cannot do it.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member just said. I think he said the Reform Party's position was not that we not send troops to fight. That certainly was not the position the third party defence critic concluded. After 30 minutes I finally got it out of him.

I want to ask the third party members if they believe we should have Canadian forces that are not able to participate in armed conflict. What do we have an armed forces for, to sit at home and stick their tongues out at people?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

What I would like to know is what do we have a Minister of National Defence for? These are the forces who have had no decent support from the politicians and the bureaucrats behind them. They do not have the equipment. The Liberals want to sent them over there to take their lumps. I would suggest that some hon. members opposite, if they are so bloody brave, should pick up their Armalites and head for Bosnia.

[Some hon. members]

Right on.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to participate in the debate because I have somewhat of a unique position in the whole issue, having a son in the Canadian Armed Forces who could end up as part of this mission and possibly be one of those who could come back in a body bag if this thing turns into a disaster.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Great optimism. A great thing to say.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Well, the minister does not give one great cause for optimism. I will put it that way.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I am glad I am not your son, hearing that from his father.