Debates of Jan. 25th, 1994

Foreign Affairs

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, since this is the first time I rise in the House as the member for Laval Centre, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to the Chair. I would also like to emphasize the efficiency, professionalism and exceptional work being done by the entire staff of the House of Commons.

I would also like to extend sincere greetings to my constituents in Laval Centre. On October 25 they proved that they understood the importance of respecting the individual by electing me as their representative.

I will now focus on the subject of my speech. For several hours, members of this House have applied the profound values of our North American society to an issue that is both painful and necessary: should we review the usefulness of the presence of Canadian peacekeepers in the world's hot spots, in light of past experience and of the new geopolitical context that has arisen as a result of recent disruptions, especially in Eastern Europe?

The answer, of course, is yes. From personal experience, we all learned long ago that situations and contexts constantly change and what yesterday seemed obvious is far less clear today. The Bosnian conflict is a case in point. We must not be afraid of analysing reality, even if we see some elements we did not even know existed. It is our duty as a responsible society.

The reality we are analysing today has two sides. I call them the reality of the heart and the reality of the mind. I do not know which takes precedence over the other, but I hope that the decisions we will be asked to make are made in light of values that are fundamental to Canadian and Quebec society, in other words, our democratic values, our collective responsabilities and respect for the individual.

Ever since the news brutally reminded us of the existence of the former Yugoslavia, there is a memory that often comes back to haunt me.

It was in the early sixties, at the end of January, and yes, I was on a ski slope. It was snowing. A friend introduced the man she was going to marry. He was a Yugoslav, but over the past few years, Stéphane has become a Croat, first and foremost. He predicted what is happening now in that part of the world when he said thirty years ago: "When Tito disappears, this artificial country will be a bloody battlefield." He was right, of course, and it did not take long for his apocalyptic vision to become a reality.

Slovenia was able to resist the Yugoslav army and managed to assert its independence at the end of 1991. Croatia, however, quickly became the scene of a civil war that significantly altered its borders. Without the presence of the UN peacekeepers, the conflict would have been far worse. During the past year, Bosnia-Hercegovina has monopolized the headlines in the international media. An area where Croatians, Serbs and Muslims had managed to live together in harmony, it has now become a genuine powder keg. Powerless, we watch a tragedy that can only compare with the vast displacement of the millions of men, women and children who suffered as victims of the atrocities committed during the Second World War.

When my friend Stéphane listens to the news and reads the papers, he thinks about the victims of this conflict which seems to go on and on. Who are they? Women and children, of course. In Sarajevo, 10,000 people have died in 21 months. More than 1,500 were children. But the others, those who manage to survive, what kind of reality do they face from day to day? For them, life is synonymous with fear. Hunger, cold, sickness, violence and death are everywhere.

In Bosnia-Hercegovina, as in any territory where armed conflict lashes out indiscriminately, the average citizen is separated from his environment. The population of this area is estimated at more than four million, two-thirds of whom have fled their homes or what is left of them in their search for elusive safety. This exodus is the most staggering facet of the entire conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Intimidation, torture, murder and rape perpetrated on minorities under military occupation have all contributed to the "ethnic cleansing" of zones controlled by the warring parties.

Can we decently question the usefulness of UN contingents? If they were not there, would food, medicine, and blankets have any chance of reaching those protected areas that receive a stream of destitute refugees?

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. In fact, inter-ethnic confrontations in the former Yugoslavia have caused the exodus of millions of people who are desperately seeking refuge. In Bosnia-Hercegovina, out of a total population of 4.5 million, the office of the High Commissioner for refugees calculates more than 2.7 million persons have been displaced.

This is roughly the population of Greater Montreal. These people are out on the roads, sometimes in bitter cold.

At the very beginning of this conflict, displaced families received help from relatives, friends, fellow countrymen. This is no longer the case. The situation has deteriorated considerably and it is hurting the majority of the people from the former Yugoslavia. The conflict is wreaking economic havoc throughout the area.

If any one still wondered about the importance of the UN military presence in critical areas, let us just think back to last fall, when the flow of relief was interrupted for nearly three weeks following attacks on UN convoys. Barely 40 per cent of the required supplies reached the civilians. I am convinced that no one in this House will dare call into question the relevance of the assistance provided to the civilian population by these men and women who, in the name of fundamental rights and freedoms and at the peril of their own lives, try to minimize for these people the disastrous and inhuman effects of insane conflicts.

The action of our peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia and in Bosnia-Hercegovina in particular is an integral part of the efforts by the High Commission for Refugees. They go hand in hand. Without the logistical support provided by the UN forces, especially the Canadian peacekeepers, there is no way humanitarian assistance could get where it is supposed to. These convoys bringing food, clothing and medical supplies to people who are increasingly dependent on them are often delayed, stopped or attacked. Nevertheless, the people of Canada and Quebec have every right to wonder what our peacekeepers are doing in the former Yugoslavia.

It should be pointed out however that the primary role of the UN peacekeeping forces, of which Canada is a member, is to provide assistance to populations in need, to try to reduce tension between warring factions and provide organizations such as the High Commission for Refugees with all the technical assistance required. This peacekeeping force currently includes over 2,000 Canadian soldiers, more than half of whom are stationed in Bosnia-Hercegovina. About 80 per cent of the Canadian contingent is made up of young men and women from Quebec, which goes to show the generosity of our people.

Canadian peacekeepers escort humanitarian relief convoys and secure areas under UN protection. Without their support, this goal would be difficult and perhaps even impossible to reach, in view of the fact that missions are often plagued with administrative obstacles laid by the military commands, whether Bosnian, Croat or Serb. It is obvious that without the help of the peacekeepers, the peace mission in Bosnia-Hercegovina would come to a standstill.

What are the cost to the people of Canada and Quebec? There is no denying that there are economic costs associated with the presence of Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia. Let us not at this stage overestimate, worse, underestimate these costs.

Economic costs are one thing, loss of life is quite another. Each life is important and invaluable. Two casualties among our peacekeepers are directly linked to these hostilities. This number is too high, but it is perhaps not too great a cost when we think of the countless lives that have been saved thanks to the presence of Canadian peacekeepers.

If we have succeeded in saving a single life, a single child, then we have already accomplished a great deal. Our peacekeepers know this and do not hesitate to say so. Quebecers and Canadians know this as well. Can we, for economic considerations, dismiss lightly all of the work and all of the humanitarian relief provided by thousands of civilians and UN peacekeepers? We have a duty to be responsible and to fully assume our role as citizens of the world.

The process of collective reflection that we have initiated in this House leads us to think that the debate must be comprehensive. The presence of the peacekeepers is a tangible symbol of the support Canada and Quebec have always extended to oppressed nations, because here in this country, we value people above all else.

Consequently, Canada must continue to fulfil its current mandate. It must give its moral and political backing to the UN peacekeeping effort. It must continue to escort humanitarian relief convoys which serve as the daily lifeline for approximately two million people, mainly women and children. We must work together toward world peace through concerted efforts to prevent conflicts from spilling over borders.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

First of all, Madam Speaker, I am pleased to offer my congratulations to my colleague, the member for Laval Centre, for her brilliant, clear presentation, full of the compassion for which she is known. I also want to congratulate you on the responsibilities entrusted to you and to participate, perhaps modestly, in the debate which has been going on since ten o'clock this morning by telling you that I represent a riding in eastern Montreal where the social and economic conditions are rather difficult.

On several occasions, I was able to discuss with my constituents what Canada's presence abroad means. This brings me to say that the debate we are having today as parliamentarians should lead us to answer two main questions. The first is what exactly does it mean in terms of resource allocation to participate in a peacekeeping or a peacemaking force abroad? The second basic question is what are the underlying values? To understand the present debate, I think that we must go back to the past. I believe that our colleague from Laval Centre has clearly shown that we have a responsibility.

I believe in something called international conscience. I believe that the reason we have to debate the conflict in the former Yugoslavia where three major communities have difficulty living together is that some decisions were made before. We as parliamentarians cannot ignore that the decisions were made, first, just after the First World War and, second, just after the Second World War.

The reason I refer to these historical facts is that I think there is a lesson to be learned from this century: every time the international community was tempted to withdraw from a problem or to minimize its extent, this had the contrary effect of prolonging the problem.

Remember the first time an attempt was made to lay the basis for real international solidarity with the League of Nations. They let Ethiopia be invaded and look at what that led to!

Remember the Munich Conference where the heads of state let Hitler invade Poland. Look at what that led to!

My way of understanding today's debate is to say: what would it mean for the international community if Canada withdrew, if Canada took out its 2,000 soldiers, who represent about 8 per cent of the international force? I think that it would send a message of resignation, of cowardice and of lack of solidarity.

Of course, I do not contend that Canada alone bears the whole responsibility for the forces to be used in those efforts, but I think that Canada must take pride in an activist tradition, a tradition of peacemaking which is very honourable. What we must ask the international community to do is to give the outlines for a political decision.

With the Leader of the Opposition, I had the pleasure to meet two generals in the field who told us about the conclusions we should draw.

We should be particularly proud of two things: first, that international action has managed to keep the conflict within limits, a conflict which could have been explosive and spread beyond the borders of the former Yugoslavia. Secondly, and I think that several members have referred to it, concerning the humanitarian shipments, we do not claim that there have been no mistakes, but we say that some pretty good work is going on and that the situation would be much worse if food supplies could not be sent through.

So I think that these two reasons alone should convince us as parliamentarians that it is worthwhile for Canada to continue what it is doing.

There is a third point, and I think that is where our actions will have the greatest effect. Some people in the international community have a great deal of experience which gives them a lot of credibility. I am thinking of former President Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon and more could be named. I think that we must tell our fellow citizens that if we want Canada to keep up its effort and continue to allocate resources to it, we also want a decision made and some guidelines laid out. For this, I think that we should mandate people who know the international community well, who have credibility in trying to bring the parties together, because we must not be mistaken. Basically, ultimately, our guiding purpose must be to try to lead three communities to live together. For historical and immediate reasons, they have difficulty doing so.

In that regard, if a vote were taken today, I would say that Canada should maintain its participation. Thank you.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I wish to congratulate my colleague from Laval Centre for her excellent speech before making a short comment.

She started out by telling us that we should look at the situation and at the matter we are dealing with today not only with our minds but also with our hearts. And I think that in her speech she emphasized the need to listen to our hearts.

I often listen to the speeches of my colleagues. We hear a lot about strategy and international policy considerations but not much about what Pascal called "the reason of the heart", as my colleague was pointing out. She showed us that, in such a situation, our first duty as human beings is to be present. Under certain circumstances, on a personal level or even in international politics, we often feel powerless, we do not know how to react or what to do but we know instinctively that we have to be there. It is our duty as human beings.

She also reminded us that we had an obligation to feed, clothe and heal others. Canada and Quebec should be proud that, throughout their history, they have been committed to these duties that are incumbent upon us all as human beings. When we see others suffer, our impulse is to go help them, to do our part.

As my colleague showed us, I think that we have a duty to intervene. When we feel that we can do something, even if it is not much, to help someone, to save lives, to alleviate pain and suffering, I think that our duty is to intervene. I want to thank my colleague for pointing out this whole aspect in her speech. We can talk about strategy, statistics, costs and interventions in Bosnia or in other similar situations, but we must remember that, as human beings, we should also listen to our hearts.

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Madam Speaker, I want to join with the rest of my colleagues in congratulating you on your appointment to the role of assistant Speaker. I know that you look forward to this as do we in the House of a Parliament that is different, more progressive and more open than that which we have probably come to live with over the last number of years.

I want to congratulate all of the people today involved in this very important and very timely debate about our role as peacekeepers throughout the world and what the future role of the Canadian military should and will be.

As I rise to participate in this I say that I am a member of Parliament who has taken great interest in the last number of years in Canada's military and in our foreign policy. I had the opportunity on two occasions to travel with the defence committee. Once we went to eastern Europe as a part of our delegation. There was that trip along with the other times I spent as a

member of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

I believe this has given me somewhat of an insight into the problems and the questions which are facing our military and which we must address if we are to continue to build on a foreign policy which is coherent in the light of today's world situation.

This is consistent with our historical record as one of the world's leading peacekeepers. As we all know, Canada has long been a world leader in the field of peacekeeping and our contribution has been appreciated around the world.

After World War II Canada was a major military and industrial power and one of the leaders of the free world. We gave our unconditional support to the United Nations from the beginning and we were leaders in the movement to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the North American Air Defence Command.

We were ready to participate as a full partner with the world community in collective action. While the United Nations involvement in Korea was not peacekeeping as such it was a collective action to deter aggression and was a prime example of the ability which that organization had to react around the world.

The pre-eminent Canadian contribution to peacekeeping came at the time of the Suez crisis in 1956 when Canada, under the Right Hon. Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent and external affairs minister Lester B. Pearson, played a leading role in the world community. They were instrumental in the establishment of the UN peacekeeping force in the Middle East.

The eminent historian J. L. Granatstein says that the high water mark of Canadian prestige in the world was reached during the Suez crisis of 1956. As most hon. members well know Mr. Pearson won the Nobel peace prize. At that time Canada stood at the forefront of world security and peace efforts and we were a very proud nation.

Our commitment to international peacekeeping has continued and a roll call of the places Canada has served would take one around the world. Today there are over 2,300 Canadians on duty in places as diverse as Rwanda, Iraq and El Salvador and the others that we are talking about today. Our peacekeeping efforts have been a badge of honour worn proudly by the men and women of our forces who have served this world and this country with dignity and with purpose.

We cannot however rest on the laurels of the past. The world today is a vastly different place than it was in the 1950s or in the subsequent decades. All the implications of our role must be examined. We as parliamentarians must lay out a clear and concise plan of action for our government and for our military which is consistent with the role as citizens in the world.

It must be said that the last two major peacekeeping operations have been fraught with frustration. Every speech made in this Chamber today said that. The horrible savagery which has been talked about in Bosnia comes to us instantly every day on television. It was mentioned here earlier today that on the past weekend six young children out playing in the snow were killed by shells. The daily butchery based on longstanding ethnic hatred causes each of us to grieve when we see it in our homes on television.

Our troops have also served in Somalia in a harsh and hostile climate and environment for which probably they may not have been fully prepared. The people we send on these missions of course are soldiers. They are not social workers. Their training, as good as it is, and it is the best there is around, does not always equip them for the degradation and inequities they see. They are placed in areas where the game is played by different rules which are not consistent with the values that they know and we know.

We must always remember when we send our young men and women abroad that they are going in may cases into a no win situation. It is like the tale of the three young boy scouts who helped the lady across the street. It is an awful lot more difficult if she does not want to go.

Sometimes our troops and others are in a situation where they are trying to make peace between groups and peoples who really want to continue their animosities which go back into the mists of time. When we put our people into these situations we must remember that frustration follows.

The world has undergone dramatic and fundamental change over these past few years since Canada stood at the zenith of its international prestige as a world leader in the peacekeeping process.

The fundamental cornerstones of Canada's foreign policy have not changed substantially over the years, however. We are still committed to defence and collective security with our allies. We remain committed to arms control and disarmament.

We are committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. We must ask ourselves whether we are now entering a phase where we become world police. Is this the role we are to play?

Even over such a short time span as the last five years, the face of the world has changed dramatically. Maps five years old are out of date. Few could have seen following the dramatic days when the Berlin wall came down how fundamentally the world would change in such a short time.

The collapse of the communist party and the dismemberment of the Soviet Union would have been unthinkable a decade ago. We would have thought then that if the old order in eastern Europe were to collapse then all would be well. Peace would break out all over the world.

We smugly watched and claimed victory at the end of the cold war not realizing the pent up ethnic nationalistic tensions that were just below the surface. The thin veneer of civilized behaviour was quickly stripped away. Now we see a world situation more fraught with danger than at most times during the past 50 years. During the peaceful years that followed World War II we developed the attitude that reasoned and rational behaviour would rule the nations of the world.

What we forgot is that only 80 years have passed since the beginning of World War I which was a horrible, wasteful war that was finally touched off by a spark in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia.

Only 55 years have passed since the beginning of World War II which was the most destructive conflict in human history. We may feel we are past the stage of generalized conflict but I fear that that smugness may be false optimism. We pray that we will never be faced with the other way but we must realize that many of the tensions, conflicts and hatreds that led to war in the past are still with us today.

As I mentioned earlier, almost daily on the TV and other news media we are reminded of the mindless, terrible slaughter that continues around the world. Our greatest challenge as people is to prevent further conflict, to show world leadership and to cause others to follow our example of nationhood based on reason. This is where disputes and conflicts are settled by dialogue and not by bullets.

There is a great challenge facing this government as we approach the 21st century. We must assess the role of our armed forces and we must provide them with the direction that is necessary in a troubled world.

It must be a multilevel approach. Our military role must be defined and priorities must be established. Canada must continue to be the honest broker who works tirelessly on diplomatic fronts to halt conflict around the world and to eliminate the root causes of these conflicts.

We live in difficult times. The economy of Canada demands that we restrain our spending but a troubled world looks to us for leadership. As I said earlier, as the citizens of the world we must be involved in the affairs of the world partly out of self-interest and partly because morally we must be involved in trying to make the world a better place.

We must however perform our duties only after the most careful examination of all the implications that our future involvement holds. This challenge faces us all. If we do not create a world free of conflict then the price we pay as Canadians may be too horrible to contemplate.

We have been a world leader in peacekeeping over the years. That tradition is now more important than ever.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased with what I am hearing today. I think that what is being said in this debate could contribute to enhance the perception that the Canadian and the Quebec people have of the House of Commons and of Canadian parliamentarians.

I believe that something else will be achieved tonight. This deeply thought out and dispassionate debate will reinforce for Canadians and Quebecers the values of generosity and compassion they hold most dear. What we are really talking about in this debate is respect for life. Canada cannot stand still when there is suffering, and I think that Canadians and Quebecers had to witness with their own ears and eyes this demonstration of human solidarity among Canadian parliamentarians.

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to thank the hon. member for his comments. I totally believe in what he said regarding the debate that is taking place here today in this place.

I know, as I travelled around my riding of Hillsborough, the same as every other member did in their ridings, that people in this country were telling us that we had better change the image of this place now.

I just wanted to say that it is not always going to be this congenial in here. However, when it is this way we really can produce a good product. I am sure that out of this debate will come a policy based on other hearings that are held throughout the land and a military and foreign policy that once again we in this country can be very, very proud of.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I noticed that everybody has been congratulating you that you are now in the chair. I would like to say that it is nice to see a woman in the chair and I say kudos to you.

I have not been on House duty today but this is one debate I have been watching on my TV monitor in my office all day with a great deal of interest because the variety of the discussion and the difference in thoughts have been very interesting to me.

All of us who have spoken on this issue today are representative of all Canadians. We have represented all different points of view which will certainly give our government at lot to think about, in particular the role of our peacekeepers in Bosnia-Hercegovina and the former Yugoslavia and should we bring our troops home.

However, I believe the issue is much broader than just simply bringing our troops home. I believe other issues are at play here. We need to look at redefining the role of the United Nations and we need to address Canada's foreign policy relative to our defence policy.

Canada and its soldiers have participated in UN peacekeeping missions in many areas around the world since shortly after World War II. In fact, Canada was the founding member of both the United Nations and NATO and in both cases has worked to develop these institutions into effective bodies that could prevent and manage crises and provide a forum where countries could work together and collectively solve the crises.

As I stated at the outset, the issue at hand is much greater than simply bringing our troops home. For example, what would be the cause in effect or the risk if Canada did that? Would we be sending the wrong message to the other world participants? Would it cause other nations to pull out thereby abandoning the UN role and our support of the Secretary General's agenda for peace developed in 1992? Would it cause a spillover of hostilities into other regions of the Balkans?

I wish I had the time to request a broad range of opinions from my Nepean constituency. I have been fortunate because quite a few have phoned and quite a few have written me. I would like to quote from only four of them.

One World War II veteran said: "There is no peace to keep. There is no need for them to be there to defend Canada. Our forces should be withdrawn".

Another said: "In the spirit of Lester Pearson's vision, the UN should get out and return only when the combatants arrive at a peaceful settlement amongst themselves.

Of the opposite point of view was the comment from another Nepean constituent who said: "As my MP, this message is to inform you that I strongly support Canada's contribution to the United Nations protection forces in Bosnia. We should continue our efforts in the international arena by trying to convince other nations to accept their responsibilities in resolving the unfortunate situation in Bosnia. A withdrawal at this time of our support to the UN sends a negative message to other nations when we should be demonstrating positive leadership at the international level".

A fourth is a retired colonel who wrote a paper entitled "The Perils of Peacekeeping". The article suggests that a reasonably sufficient defence establishment is an important block in Canada's national foundation. Moreover, peacekeeping is but one component of that block, which is what I said initially.

The key point is that Canadians need to accept that a coherent defence policy and an effective armed forces to implement it are essential for advancing their national interest. Needless to say, sufficient resources have to be made available for the policy to succeed and to protect the soldiers, sailors and aviators who carry it out.

In a briefing available to us all yesterday by the Canadian military and external affairs, we were advised that Canada has 2,400 troops in the former Yugoslavia. At one point during this mission Canada was contributing 10 per cent of the troops in the mission. He said that by April of this year it could be as low as 2.4 per cent.

The UN mission has two objectives. The first is to contain the conflict from spreading beyond its current borders. The second is the protection of people through humanitarian aid to the people of Bosnia-Hercegovina. This could be through food or through medical supplies. In this respect at least 2.5 million civilians have been assisted directly by UN intervention.

The military advisers at yesterday's briefing believe the merits of the UN forces in the former Yugoslavia are:

They have been able to contain the fighting. An agreement of sorts has been reached between the Serbs and the Croats over borders in Croatia and in Srebrenica, and the fighting has been contained.

They also have been reasonably successful in delivering humanitarian aid which is their prime mandate, including medical evacuations and the protection of hospitals.

I questioned the general. I asked him if in his opinion more civilian lives would have been lost had we not been there. He responded that many more surely would have died, especially the elderly and the children who cannot fend for themselves.

The military advisers went on to say that the solution to the problem in the former Yugoslavia must come from within the country by the heads of the warring factions, probably brought on by international pressure. A UN military solution would simply be too costly, both in terms of equipment and manpower. It would require over 100,000 troops to enact a peace enforcement mandate. There are not enough countries willing to offer the number of troops required. While our Canadians are adequately equipped to carry out their role as peacekeepers, they do not have the offensive equipment necessary to carry out a peace enforcement mandate.

In speaking with my constituency, I have not spoken to anyone who would want to send their son or daughter into a full conflict situation in the former Yugoslavia.

As the former Minister of External Affairs said in a recent commentary: "Canadians must search their hearts to see whether they will accept the wholly different risks of withdrawal. The cynics view is that the killing, the atrocities, the ethnic cleansing can get no worse, but that is not so. Vengeance killing and localized thuggery are just as likely to soar beyond contemplation as they are to end. Canadians would be here at home, safe, but at the cost of shattered lives, ideals and values and bearing

that uneasy burden of having abandoned a vulnerable civilian population.

Considering the unsatisfactory alternatives, Canada's best bet," said the former external affairs minister, "is the unsatisfactory status quo". To further quote Ms. McDougall: "It was Canada, and we were the only country, that called for early UN intervention in 1991, when it could have limited the devastation that followed.

Today, western leaders have decided that the defence of our values is not worth the casualties that would result from the tougher actions. Canada initiated the process that led to the war crimes tribunal. We have a responsibility to ensure our presence, that war crimes are prevented and that criminals if necessary are punished".

This brings me to the issue of the United Nations reform. I managed to take a few weeks of holidays at the beginning of January and took along the book "Peacekeeper: The Road to Sarajevo" written by retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie. It was a pretty heavy book to read on the beach but I managed to get through it all.

He states that "the international community gets a good deal when it borrows a nation's soldiers. Peacekeepers carry out the job they are trained to do without questioning. UN soldiers risk their lives every day in an attempt to create conditions whereby political discussions can take place, leading to peace in areas of armed conflict or tension". He was very critical of the UN's role.

This is where I commented again at the outset. Reform of the UN must be one of the parameters. The UN is apparently incapable of providing adequate logistics to support the many missions around the world. No one is on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Heaven help you if somebody in Sarajevo or in Somalia wanted some help from the United Nations on a weekend. There is no one there. They go home at five o'clock on a weekday and there is no one there on the weekend.

The third point in my equation is Canada's defence policy and how it ties in with foreign affairs. The centre of Canada's foreign relations must be an effective United Nations. This is still the best way to protect our nation's ties in with defence. We spend $2.5 billion on foreign aid. Is it being well spent? Should we be concentrating on the basic needs of third world nations? Do we have a responsibility to spread prosperity and can this be done without pushing our country further into debt? I think we can with an equitable defence policy.

In summary, I applaud our peacekeepers. Their dedication and commitment to their job is unsurpassed. To an extent, we have let them down. Our government must move quickly to work with the member nations of the UN to reform the institution.

The Canadian government must define our foreign policy objectives in relation to a defence policy. Canada is in a position to lead if we knew where we were going. Our peacekeepers are the professionals, they deserve nothing less from us.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to join in congratulating you on your appointment to the chair. I know that you will bring the dignity and wisdom to the chair that you have brought to the other deliberations of this House.

I also want to thank the Prime Minister.

I would like to thank the Prime Minister for giving all members of this House a chance to discuss this very important issue, and I hope this will create a precedent for future important decisions. I also hope the government will take members' recommendations seriously.

I believe the previous speaker suggested that the former Secretary of State for External Affairs in a recent article stated that we must accept the status quo in the former Yugoslavia.

If there has been one cry, if there has been one consensus that I have been able to determine in the debate today it is surely that the status quo is not acceptable. Where we differ, as members of Parliament and even within parties, is how we respond to this tragedy and what the most appropriate response is as Canadians and as citizens of the world through the United Nations.

I returned earlier this month from a visit to that troubled region of Croatia. While there I met with a number of people. I met with the foreign minister of Croatia, with senior members of parliament, including the chair of the foreign affairs committee and the human rights committee. I have met as well in my own community with representatives of the Serbian community.

I also had the privilege of meeting with General John MacInnis, the deputy force commander of UN forces in the former Yugoslavia and the commander of Canadian forces. I met with General Jack Vance, the colonel commandant of the infantry, a very highly respected soldier who was there to provide support to the men and women on the ground in Croatia.

I flew down to sector south on an UNPROFOR helicopter.

There I met Colonel Marc Lessard, commanding officer of our troops in the Royal 22nd Regiment.

I received an excellent comprehensive briefing on the fine work that is being done by our Canadian men and women in sector south and indeed elsewhere.

I was taken to a number of observation posts, met many of the soldiers that have been working on the ground and saw the tremendous work and dedication that they have brought to their commitment in that region.

I am sure all members of the House would agree with me that we are tremendously proud of the men and women that are serving not just Canada but that are serving the United Nations in that troubled part of the world. These men and women often serve at great personal risk. While two Canadians have died in the field we know of many others who have been fired at, who have been harassed and intimidated. Certainly this is unacceptable and it is happening in both Croatia and Bosnia.

We take this opportunity as well to recognize that our troops are also involved not only in Operation Harmony in Croatia but also in Operation Cavalier a second battle group that is assigned to UNPROFOR in Bosnia. At the present time it is the 12th regiment, le 12e Régiment blindé du Canada.

We participated in the European Community monitor mission which is a non-UN mission in the region. We are participating in the naval force as well that is enforcing sanctions, Operation Short Guard. We are involved in the NATO airborne warning and control system.

One of our most significant and important accomplishments is our involvement with the Hercules aircraft which are based in Ancona, Italy. They have transported over 1,000 mercy missions bringing in desperately needed food and medicines to the people of Bosnia.

This is tremendously important work and I would be deeply troubled at any suggestion that we would abandon that important work. I would note as well that we were some of the first people in to Sarajevo. In fact in June 1992 we opened the airport at Sarajevo. We were involved in a preventive mission in Macedonia and elsewhere.

In deciding on the fundamental question facing this House and facing the government as to whether or not to renew the United Nations mandate and to recommit our troops when that mandate expires on March 31, I think it is very important that we have a clear understanding of what exactly that mandate is.

In Croatia the mandate is to restore civil authority, to assist in the return of displaced persons to their homes and to assist in the demilitarization of the UN protected areas, the so-called UNPAs.

Our troops on the ground are doing that and are doing good work to the extent that they are allowed to do that. I know that many Croatians in Canada and indeed in Croatia feel a tremendous sense of frustration because they are living in occupied territory. One quarter of their country Croatia has been occupied. That is unacceptable and it is unacceptable that the people of Croatia who have been displaced, who have been cleansed from their homes, should not be in a position to return.

What are some of the concrete actions that we are taking on the ground in sector south in Croatia? Just as one example are the humanitarian programs that we are involved in. We are providing security and infrastructure during body personnel or prisoner exchange at the Miranje Crossing. We are distributing winter clothing to children in sector south. We are assisting in the protection of the Croatian minority in the bi-ethnic villages of Rodalice and D. Bruska. We are assisting other UN organizations like the UN High Commissioner for Refugees in the form of providing fuel within programs in that area. This mandate is tremendously important.

In Bosnia of course there is no peace to keep, but we have three fundamental objectives. We are providing military assistance to the UNHCR and to other accredited agencies responsible for providing humanitarian aid and restoring infrastructure in Bosnia-Hercegovina. We are assisting in the evacuation of the injured, the protection and security of the population and we are helping to maintain the status of some of the safe havens. In particular I would note Srebrenica. We are keeping the lifeline between Sarajevo and central Bosnia open.

In fact just this past week as an example of what we have done in Bosnia, look at our accomplishment, at what Canadian troops did last week. They escorted six humanitarian convoys carrying 540 tonnes of aid and 14,000 litres of fuel. They repaired an alternate route to move refugees to a Swedish shelter without exposing them to Bosnian-Serb fire. They acted and continue to act as human shields in Srebrenica where, if they were not there, 45,000 Muslims risk slaughter. They have continued to protect psychiatric hospitals in Fojnica and Dakovica. These are all tremendously important humanitarian efforts which would be destroyed if we were to pull out. There are many similar examples.

Our presence in Bosnia and Croatia has made a profound difference in humanitarian terms. The military people I spoke to on the ground there, whether they were our own Canadian troops or others, including the Belgians, were unanimous on the

tremendous importance of maintaining that presence. They pointed out that it would be a disaster if we pulled out and that it would result in an appalling bloodshed.

An example of the impact of our troops can, I think, be given by looking at an area in which Canadians and indeed the UN have been denied access. I am speaking of the area in the northwest part of Bosnia, known as Banja Luka.

I would commend to all members of this House an incredibly eloquent and moving letter which was sent to the editor of the New York Times about a week ago by a Canadian diplomat, Louis Gentile, who is on leave to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. He is working at great personal risk in Banja Luka. I want to just quote briefly from his letter. He states: I wonder how many of your readers have seen Steven Speilberg'sSchindler's List'' and how many have heard of Banja Luka-Bosnia in the heart of Europe''. I know there was a showing just last week for parliamentarians of ``Schindler's List''.

Banja Luka is the second largest city in Bosnia. Canadian troops tried to get in there. They were at the border but the Bosnian-Serbs would not let them through. The mayor of Banja Luka took a bribe of about $49,000, but flatly refused to allow any UN troops in.

Well what has happened in the absence of a United Nations presence there? Massacre, rape and concentration camps; Omarska, Manjaca, Turnpolje, tens of thousands of Muslims and Croats who could not escape the region. They have been stripped of all of their civil rights. They have been forced out of their homes and dismissed from work.

The writer talks of the terror of attacks by armed men at night, rape and murder, children unable to sleep, huddling in fear behind boarded up doors and windows. Fifty per cent of all of the Roman Catholic churches and diocese have been destroyed. Two of the most magnificent mosques in all of Europe and elsewhere have been burned down or blown up, including the 16th century Ferhad Pasha mosque.

That is the reality in an area in which the United Nations has not been present. That is a reality elsewhere as well, but at least we have been able to save some lives and bring some peace, some food and some medication.

That is genocide. Of course there is a convention that was signed after World War II, a convention on genocide whereby the nations of the world committed themselves to never again allow these atrocities that we have seen before in this century.

We saw it in Armenia in 1915. We saw it in the holocaust in World War II and we said collectively: "Never again". Yet in the very heart of Europe it is recurring. We cannot say we do not know about it. We see the horrors every day on our television sets. We cannot deny the reality of mass rape, of torture, of execution, of concentration camps, of murder, of massive refugee movements, of ethnic cleansing.

I met with a representative of UNICEF, a Canadian. Canadians are doing such fine work in that region. This representative had prepared two reports for UNICEF on children and women in Bosnia-Hercegovina and children and women in the republic of Croatia. What is happening there is a horror story, an absolute horror story.

Other speakers have referred to the numbers from Sarajevo and we heard about the bombing of six Bosnian children by artillery shells. Such courage. Lobbing artillery from 30 kilometres away in the hills outside Sarajevo takes great courage, does it not? Killing innocent children there, innocent Croatian children in Mostar. The siege goes on.

I witnessed firsthand the horrors of this war in eastern Croatia. I travelled to Vukovar, a city which has been destroyed, a formerly beautiful city on the banks of the Danube reduced to rubble, almost everything destroyed, markets, homes. I visited a Catholic church and walked through the rubble. I saw the photographs of children. I saw the broken down statue of the Virgin Mary, the crosses, totally destroyed.

From there I went to a mass grave site in a little village just outside Vukovar. In a garbage dump over 200 bodies were buried. The United Nations War Crimes Tribunal has been trying to investigate but the Bosnian Serbs have told them they cannot do that. It is appalling.

The question we must address and that I will address in the few minutes remaining is in response to these horrors, to this human tragedy, what should Canada do and what should the United Nations do.

Clearly the most desirable solution is a diplomatic solution. God knows we have tried that so many times. We have gotten so close, gotten to the point where Karadzic, on behalf of the Bosnian Serbs has said that yes, they would accept the solution, that it would be taken back to the Bosnian-Serb parliament. What do they do? They say to forget it. "We have 70 per cent of the territory even though we are only about a third of the population and we want to keep that territory and we will use force if we have to".

I am not hopeful about the possibility of a diplomatic solution in the absence of stronger and more effective United Nations action. We have seen the ethnic cleansing. We have heard the many threats that have been made. There can be nothing worse than bluffing.

In fact when Karadzic went back to his parliament in May 1993 before they voted he said that either they accept this plan or they can expect fierce attacks by NATO forces. His information minister said no, that they were only bluffing and that they could continue. Too often that has been the history: to bluff.

Do we pull out our forces on March 31? I say no. I say that would not only be a profoundly tragic event because it would deny the humanitarian assistance that we are providing but as well I say that the status quo cannot continue. I say it is time that the United Nations listened to the voices of its commanders, whether it be General Cot, General Morillon and so many others who say that they have to be given the tools to do the job.

The mandate is there on paper. The mandate and resolution 836 of the United Nations is there on paper. They can take the action that is necessary but they do not have the resources. I suggest it is time that we clearly understood, that we have clearly sent a message to the Bosnian Serbs and to others engaged in atrocities that we are serious.

I do not have the time to quote the many statements that have been made by a series of generals but it is time that we said that air strikes in combination with ground troops will be used if the bloodshed, the carnage and the violence does not stop.

We cannot continue to be witnesses of this holocaust any longer. We cannot pull out. Air strikes alone, our military people tell us, will not achieve the objective we are seeking. If we are serious about safe havens in Tuzla, in Sarajevo and in the other four areas that were designated, we must get serious about giving the United Nations troops on the ground the opportunity and the ability to enforce those safe havens.

We must do more to assist the refugees who are fleeing from that area. We must do more to ensure that the war criminals who are responsible for these atrocities are brought to justice and that the resources are made available to that tribunal.

We must ensure that the United Nations' agenda for peace becomes a reality, preventive diplomacy, a United Nations standing army to help to prevent the recurrence of these atrocities in the future.

Finally in closing, I want to return to the words of this courageous Canadian in Banja Luka who said: "Our office has been evacuated three times for threats to our security. We can evacuate a few hundred members of minorities judged to be in the worst danger but cannot protect them all. Their families have lived here for centuries. The United Nations was unable to deploy troops here because Bosnian-Serb authorities refused to allow it. To those who said to themselves after seeing "Schindler's List", `never again', it is happening again".

Finally he says this and I echoed his call: "The so-called leaders of the western world have known what is happening here for the last year and a half. They received play by play reports. They talk of prosecuting war criminals but do nothing to stop the crimes. May God forgive them. May God forgive us all".

The genocide must stop. Canada must continue to play its role. The United Nations must be able to maintain their role. We must do everything we can to stop this genocide.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate the hon. member for his personal and poignant intervention today.

Having had that personal experience it adds clearly to the debate. I note he urges us to remain in Bosnia and in the war torn areas. I contrast that with other personal accounts made earlier today by members who may not have been there but who still have families there. Those members have indicated that their best view is that we should pull out. It is a very difficult decision we have before us.

I would like to note that the hon. member has indicated his recognition for the lack of clarity and strength in our current mandate. I too am concerned about that. I am greatly concerned that without a clear mandate we may be allowing ourselves, whether we mean to or not, should we stay, to move from peacekeeping to peacemaking. I would find that an unacceptable transition.

I would like to ask the hon. member how long he would have us stay in these troubled areas without a clear mandate, with risking identifying ourselves as being the enemy and not the peacekeeper.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we recognize that pursuant to the existing mandate-God knows there have been many UN resolutions-in June of last year, UN resolution 836 mandated United Nations peacekeepers in that area to participate in the delivery of humanitarian relief. It authorized UNPROFOR in carrying out the mandate defined in this resolution to take the necessary measures, including the use of force, in reply to bombardments against the safe areas by any of the parties or to armed incursion into them or in the event of any deliberate obstruction in humanitarian aid to take all necessary steps including the use of air power.

That is the mandate which now exists. I think what we are hearing from the generals on the ground is that the mandate has to be strengthened to clarify the ability of the United Nations to clearly respond. The shelling of safe havens means that, in fact, they are not safe. How can one talk of safe havens which are being shelled from the hills.

As General Briquemont said, there is a fantastic gap between all of these Security Council resolutions, the will to execute those resolutions and the means available to commanders in the field.

What we have to do, in response to the hon. member's question, is to listen to that plea and to strengthen the resources which are available on the ground. Air power and air strikes alone are not the answer, as we have heard very clearly from all of those in the field.

Certainly in the absence of a very clear ability to do that the humanitarian mission of the United Nations is jeopardized. In the longer term, particularly in Croatia, the United Nations must not be seen as a power which effectively freezes the status quo. We have to be very clear that internationally recognized borders of Croatia must be recognized and that Croatians who were ethnically cleansed from their homes must be permitted to return. The United Nations must be supportive of that.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway is to be commended for the quality of his report. The hon. member went over there and met the people in charge. I think it is very important that he should tell us what he saw. We often read about it in the newspapers, in accounts by officials and diplomats, but these do not have the same impact as a report by someone who shares our values, who went over there and observed and reflected on what he saw.

I appreciate the fact that he did this for us as well. I am also pleased to see him expand the scope of this debate, because since I have been following this debate, I notice there is a possibility that we will maintain our forces in Bosnia. I think the hon. member went a little further when he asked us to consider the means we will give our troops and the means the United Nations will give troops on a peacekeeping mission to Bosnia. There is the whole dimension of reinforcing the mandate and peacekeeping operations of the people over there.

I think that is an important dimension. It is not enough to stay. What we do over there has to be effective and in the interests of the people themselves, since it is for their sake that Canada and other western countries are making an effort to maintain peace in Bosnia.

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House of Commons today in thanksgiving to God for our great country Canada. Canada, the nation, welcomed approximately 70 years ago my Croatian grandfather Alex Skok and my Croatian grandmother Veronica Pushkar and their children who came to this country from Croatia in pursuit of a better life. They settled in Stellarton, Nova Scotia.

Therefore, today I feel compelled, in memory of my Croatian grandparents and in defence of my family still living in Croatia and in defence of our Canadian soldiers, to enter into this debate.

This is the most difficult foreign policy question of our time. Since the end of World War II Canada has proudly stood as a leader in world affairs, stepping forward whenever international peace and security were threatened. However, the cold war has passed and the world we face today is much more complex.

The anticipated peace has given way to a resurgence of deep-rooted and often brutal ethnic conflict. The situation in the former Yugoslavia is the most striking example of this problem.

Canada has a long and proud tradition of participating in United Nations peacekeeping operations. It was the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, truly the greatest Canadian diplomat and foreign policy thinker, who conceived and developed the very notion of peacekeeping. For this he was recognized with the Nobel peace prize.

When the call came to serve in the former Yugoslavia, Canada was among the first to step forward. However, after many months of engagement in countless incidents and disappointments, it is time that our nation review its peacekeeping policy and take a leadership role.

When undertaking this endeavour to review our policy, we must ask ourselves, what is the nature of peacekeeping when there is no peace to keep? This pertains especially to the conflict in Bosnia where the Muslim, Croat and Serb factions have been unable to sign a peace accord. The United Nations therefore is engaged in an attempt to deliver humanitarian aid when possible and under extremely dangerous conditions.

The mission in Croatia is slightly different in so far as the peace accord between the Croat authorities in Zagreb and the Serbs in Belgrade has tenuously held since the early part of 1992. However, the situation is no less hazardous there either where, for example, two Canadian peacekeepers almost lost their lives when they were shot at by members of the Serbia militia this past weekend.

There are many proposed options for Canadian policy. The first is to maintain the status quo that exists today. Clearly this option is unacceptable from the Canadian perspective for the reasons aforementioned. Canada has done more than its fair share and, frankly, I feel that our allies have taken us for granted.

Canada should be proud of its peacekeeping heritage but we cannot continue to support every mission for an indeterminate amount of time. Cyprus is the best example of a costly Canadian commitment that went on far too long.

A second option available to Canada is to demand that fundamental changes occur in regard to how the United Nations handles its peace operations. For instance, if the conflict on the ground is such that peacekeepers are constantly attacked and prevented from fulfilling their mandate, then the rules of engagement need to be changed. United Nations troops need to be able to use adequate force to repel attacks by various factions. This is not a call for active peacemaking but it is a call for the

right for Canadian troops to protect their own lives in a hostile environment.

It is time to reform and strengthen the mandate of the United Nations and to reform the rules of engagement for our Canadian peacekeepers.

The third option is that our future posture must be one of selective commitment rather than blanket support for United Nations operations. Canada has spent $490 million and sacrificed eight lives in this mission to date. While many countries have talked peace, few have actually stepped forward with real commitment. How much more must Canada be asked to do, and to what end?

NATO talks and talks of air strikes, yet when the forces on the ground perceive the hour to be drawing near, it is our soldiers who are attacked. The time has come to bring our soldiers home.

In Croatia our troops are merely a political trip-wire with no real ability to effect events on the ground, or even adequately defend themselves. It is wrong to deploy Canadian soldiers in a zone where they are at such unquestionable risk while possessing so little control.

In Bosnia there is truly no peace to keep and Canada should not base its military engagements simply on moral grounds, but on real interests. Canadians are engaged in a sporadic and often dangerous humanitarian relief operation. Beyond this there is no clear mandate or time frame for their operations.

The position our Canadian government will take on this very important issue will undoubtedly have profound implications for the shape of Canada's armed forces, for the practice of future peacekeeping, and for the evolution of the United Nations and its future mandate.

It is my position that Canada should withdraw all its military forces from both Croatia and Bosnia. I am asking that our Canadian military be withdrawn.

Bring our soldiers home. Make way for the families living in the former Yugoslavia to come to Canada to seek refuge and to live in the land of peace and freedom that we all enjoy.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am by no means an expert on international military operations or international air strikes. I listened closely to the last four or five members speak and I noted that some of them claim different origins. I also listened carefully to the statement by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway who went to Bosnia to meet with those on the front line. I know that many members such as the hon. member for Central Nova can trace their roots to this part of the world.

Judging from what the last four or five speakers have said, I do believe that in this part of the world, the potential for global conflict genuinely exists. The current situation is explosive. And I believe that Canadian troops stationed in Bosnia are preventing the conflict from escalating further.

I also believe that, regardless of the situation described to us today, the murders or other atrocities, the world is poised to become a global village. The possibility of this happening is very real. If we want to tip the scales in favour of the global village rather than global conflict, certain countries must assume some responsibility and get involved. Canada owes its very sound reputation to some degree to its level of involvement. That is why I would support a decision to have our troops remain in Bosnia.

[English]

[The Deputy Speaker]

Would the member for Central Nova like to make a reply to that or take it as a comment?

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I will take it as a comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Central Nova. I get the impression from her statement that she does not have a very high opinion of the reputation Canada has developed in the field of peacekeeping in the last forty years, since the end of World War II. What about the initiatives of Mr. Pearson and the Nobel Peace Prize he received? I am wondering if her suggestion that Canada withdraw its troops from Bosnia now-a suggestion which may seem totally justified given the prevailing climate of uncertainty about the mandate of our troops there-may be somewhat premature and whether it might lead to regrettable action which could tarnish Canada's image abroad. Did the hon. member for Central Nova take into account this aspect of the issue before calling for the withdrawal of Canadian troops?

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, most certainly in preparing my speech I have taken into consideration the various options. I think I indicated three in my speech, one being to retain the status quo. In so doing obviously we have to consider our position internationally and our credibility as far as Canada is concerned. The second option I presented was that of modification of a commitment, and the third option would be that of total withdrawal.

I repeat the same question I asked in my speech. We must ask ourselves what is the nature of peacekeeping when there is no peace to keep. I feel that is the issue here.

My final position or conclusion was that whatever position our Canadian government takes it will undoubtedly have profound implications because this very issue is begging us to answer many important questions. First, what will be the future shape and determination of Canada's armed forces in their mandate? Second, what is going to be the practice of future peacekeeping? Third, we will have to look at the evolution of the United Nations and its future mandate.

I reassure the hon. member that I have most certainly taken into consideration the various options. It is a very difficult question. Obviously we have heard controversial responses from various members. I want to reassure that I am not taking my position lightly, but the issue is: What is the nature of peacekeeping when there is no peace to keep?

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Central Nova and previously to one of the member for Cambridge. I think they made some rather good points.

Personally the three options presented seemed to be the three options that are available. I am sure Canada alone cannot decide on the second option. We can only decide on either the first or the third. Either we stay and be humanitarians or we get out and let the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims decide what kind of a country they want to live in if they can do that.

There is certainly no peace. To pretend that we are peacemaking is silly. To pretend that there is peacekeeping being done in Bosnia is likewise silly.

I would like to ask a question of these people who know the area better than I do. I have done a little Balkan folk dancing but I have never been there. Are the historical enmities so deep that nothing short of separation or destruction is going to solve the problem?

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think I will defer to the hon. member for Cambridge sitting next to me because of his origin.

[The Deputy Speaker]

You cannot do that.

[Roseanne Skoke, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Oh, I cannot do that. He was born in Croatia. I think I am going to be dodging and not answering the question specifically. What we have here is a classic case of conflict among ethnic groups. To think that peacekeeping or intervention is going to terminate that conflict is unreasonable.

We can look at our own country and its ethnic groups, and perhaps even at the House of Commons if I can use an example of where there may be some threat of the Bloc Quebecois wanting to separate from Canada. At what point in time can we solve all the world's problems with respect to these different factions and special interest groups? Because of that and because an ethnic war is going on there, it is my position that we should offer refuge to any of those who wish to leave the country, anyone who wants to seek the freedom we offer in our great country of Canada.

I do not feel we have a responsibility or can effectively carry out a role to solve or resolve all the ethnic problems. We are going to do very well to handle the situation we have in Canada.

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Nipigon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker. It is the first time you have recognized me since I have been in the House and you have been in the chair. We on this side of the House are very pleased the Prime Minister saw fit to make the appointment. We are very hopeful and wish you good fortune in your future role. I am also thankful for your allowing me the opportunity to make some comments with respect to the former country of Yugoslavia.

Our involvement in Yugoslavia is on two fronts: a diplomatic front and a military front. The ongoing diplomatic initiatives undertaken by our minister and his parliamentary secretary who is with us this evening are commendable. I congratulate both of them on the very fine job they continue to do with respect to trying to solve this almost insurmountable and horrendous problem on the diplomatic level. The parliamentary secretary has visited with many of the people who originated from that country in my riding of Thunder Bay. I know their efforts both at the United Nations and at NATO were very well appreciated, not only by the people whom I represent but I am sure by all Canadians throughout the country.

The second area in which we are involved in this dispute is the military area and the participation of our military personnel who have been sent there to try to bring some order to the chaos. It is obvious they are there on humanitarian grounds by exclusion. They are not there as peacemakers because there is just no peace to make and that is really the role of our diplomats. They are not there as peacekeepers because there is no peace to keep. Obviously they are there on the very valid grounds of humanitarian reasons.

The main issues when one discusses the humanitarian aspects are those of providing the basic necessities of life such as food, medicine and some degree of shelter to the people who are always the innocent victims, those who are directly involved and those who are hurt in a conflict in which they have no part.

You had an office down the hall from me, Mr. Speaker, and I would see your children going back and forth. I am particularly grieved when I look at the atrocities perpetrated on children in this area and the sadness. From my perspective, whenever I see a program in the newscast referring to this troubled area and I see the children, my mind goes to my grandchildren as I am sure it does for other Canadians. The situation is horrible. One wonders

why it cannot be resolved, but that is beyond what we can do in the House.

When discussing why we are there, the military aspects of our involvement, naturally we on this side of the House rely very much on the competent minister we have in charge as Minister of National Defence. I am glad he is in the House this evening to listen to the debates on both sides in order to formulate some opinion on what we should do.

I thank the minister for insisting that this is a free and open debate for every member of Parliament to voice their own individual concerns. I am also very pleased to compliment his parliamentary secretary to whom we look for guidance in military matters because of his many years in the military. In his second career he chose to join us in the House of Commons, bringing his wealth of military experience with him. There are some very good resource people on whom we base our information.

The question really comes down to why we are there. Why are we in Somalia? Why are we in most other troubled areas in the world?

Yesterday we welcomed in the House the President of Haiti. He was a democratically elected president of a democratic country. The military of that country chose that he should not be allowed to exercise the democratic principles his country wanted him to exercise. As a result he is a president without a country because the military will not let him perform his duties.

When one thinks of that aspect one says how lucky we are in Canada. It could never happen in Canada. Because of the military in this country and because of the democratic process that we have, there are very distinct lines and the military always responds to the people of Canada through the Minister of National Defence and the cabinet.

Logically when decisions are made at this level I suspect that with any proposed action to assist our allies or to make a contribution to the United Nations or NATO, the Minister of National Defence would first meet with the chief of staff to discuss the proposed role in which our military would become involved.

The first issue to be ascertained naturally, as I spoke earlier, is whether it is for humanitarian grounds, peacekeeping or peacemaking.

Once the minister sets out very clear terms on what our objectives should be, the chief of staff I assume would then confer with his assistants and colleagues in the department of defence and the military on how best they could fulfil the mandate on the order of the defence minister and the cabinet and, through them, the people of this country.

I think the role of the military is to analyse the degree of success of their mandate and what commitments they will have to come back to before they accept that responsibility when they meet with the minister and talk about the necessities of fulfilling that mandate. What is the required manpower? What is the required equipment? How long will it take to fulfil the obligation and to bring whatever action there will be to a satisfactory conclusion?

I think at that time if one could imagine what the decision making process would be, the political arm swings in and makes that fundamental commitment to the military personnel to say that it will provide the manpower, the equipment and the funding necessary to do the job.

I think at that particular period of time the role of the political arm or the role of the politician and the cabinet and the minister, other than being reported to on a daily basis, really turns itself over and those in charge of the military operation take most of the responsibility once that fundamental decision, or what I call the first order of command, is made.

That preamble of getting into that position leads me to reflect on why we have our military people in this troubled land today.

Let us reflect on what has happened in this House over the past little while. In the last government we had a Minister of National Defence who was perhaps preoccupied with other things. We had another Minister of National Defence toward the end of the term. During that period of time we had the chief of staff appointed ambassador to Washington and another chief of staff was appointed. When we came to government what we saw there had been a little dysfunctioning or disorientation.

What I am suggesting today is with that logical background of events that have taken place at this time I would respectfully request that our minister consider removing our forces from that troubled area and reassess our position with respect to our future role in providing military assistance to the troubled area about which we talked today and many of the troubled areas which I am sure will arise in the future.

I suggest we should define our role as to whether we are peacekeepers and if we are peacekeepers let us train our military as best we can and equip them as best we can.

I would like to close with a comment on how proud we are in this country that our military people in the former country of Yugoslavia are performing so admirably and that every Canadian is very proud of the role they are playing. I hope that our minister and our Prime Minister and all of us in this House say that it is time for us to get out and reassess our position.

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to address the House

I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker and to all the members of this House on their election.

As the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley, I represent the constituency with the greatest number of voters in western Canada. Located on the west coast just southeast of the city of Vancouver, my constituency abuts the Canadian-American border. It contains the city of White Rock, the south portion of the city of Surrey and the southwest corner of the township of Langley. Although the riding is only 250,000 square kilometres, it contains a wide diversity of communities.

Part of my constituency is dedicated to agriculture. A number of large vegetable farms are located on some of the richest agricultural land in Canada. Dairy and poultry farms are located in the Cloverdale and South Langley areas. My constituency also has light industrial areas that provide a wide variety of commercial goods. These industries as well as other small businesses have raised a concern about Canada's national debt and the enormous federal deficit. These business people want their government to take control to reduce spending. They say that if the government wants to increase economic activity then it should work toward reducing taxes and the cost of doing business in Canada.

However, the greatest land use in my constituency is residential. The community of White Rock is located on the shores of Semiahmoo Bay and is well known as a retirement centre because of its mild climate. The area has also attracted a large number of families and as a result there is a growing element of the constituents who commute outside of the riding's boundaries.

My constituency is one of the fastest growing areas of this country, but unfortunately one of the aspects of rapid growth is an accompanying growth in criminal activity. During the election campaign my constituents considered this to be one of the major problems. My constituents have made it quite clear that they expect this government to bring greater protection to society.

My constituents elected me on a platform of fiscal responsibility, parliamentary accountability and criminal justice reform. I would like to thank the voters of Surrey-White Rock- South Langley for their confidence in me and to assure them that I am their servant and I will do everything in my power to accomplish these goals.

However, this evening I am here to speak on Canada's role in Bosnia and I do so as an ordinary Canadian. Like most Canadians, I have read, listened and watched countless stories about the tragedy of Bosnia and Hercegovina. These stories have evoked a wide range of emotion. I have been horrified by the indiscriminate attacks on civilians, especially the children. I have been disturbed by reports of the political strategy of ethnic cleaning. I have been very proud of the role that Canadian peacekeepers have had in Bosnia.

I have also been very irritated at the unwillingness of the political and military leaders of the warring factions to reach a peaceful solution. I have expressed frustration with the UN's inability to take definitive action to resolve this issue and I was outraged when I heard reports of Canadian peacekeepers being subjected to mock executions.

When our troops are subjected to such treatment it is difficult to disagree with those individuals who call for the withdrawal of Canadian troops. At some point we may have to do so, but I believe that despite all the adversity it is critical that Canadians remain in Bosnia. No matter how bad the situation is now, without Canadian peacekeepers the situation would be much worse. Canadians are going to have to decide if they are prepared to live with the consequences of a unilateral withdrawal, a withdrawal that could result in a full fledged war and the genocide of ethnic groups.

If this were to occur, could Canadians sit back and wash their hands of the affair? Could we say that this is not our concern? Are we prepared to accept the fact that we might have been able to stop this, but that we got tired and frustrated?

I know that when we see television reports of children killed we wonder what good United Nations peacekeepers are doing. When we hear reports of entire families being wiped out we wonder what peace Canadian soldiers are supposed to keep. However, without the presence of Canadian and other United Nations personnel, Bosnia would probably be faced with the wholesale slaughter of children and civilians.

This is the choice that Canadians are facing. Do we withdraw our troops and accept the prospect of full fledged war and potential genocide or do we indefinitely commit our troops to a peacekeeping mission where there is no peace to keep?

I do not imagine that many Canadians are prepared to commit our troops indefinitely to an ill defined mission in a country where political and military leaders have shown little inclination to resolve the issue. Many of the difficulties appear to be caused more by the United Nations mandate than by the mission itself.

As the outgoing commander of United Nations peacekeepers in Bosnia stated, it is fine for the politicians and diplomats to pass these wonderful resolutions but they do not mean very much unless they are accompanied by the willpower to carry them out.

We have to give our peacekeepers the authority and resources to carry out their mandate and perhaps Canada and the United Nations need to redefine the rules of this mandate. However, is the mission itself worthwhile?

For those who believe that Canada should withdraw its peacekeepers I ask them whether they are prepared to abandon the people of Bosnia to the mercies of the factional leaders. A glance at history has shown that over the last 50 years we have

had too many instances of people's lives being left to the mercy of dictators and despots.

Today, people say that if we had intervened in many of these situations earlier, we might have saved millions of innocent victims. When one considers the events that have already occurred in Bosnia with the United Nations presence, imagine what a future without the United Nations intervention would mean for the people of Bosnia. One wonders if today's ethnic cleansing will become tomorrow's genocide.

I do not believe that Canadians are prepared to condemn the people of Bosnia to such a fate. Our intervention, no matter how troublesome or frustrating, certainly is preferable to permitting the genocide of one or more of the ethnic groups in Bosnia.

It is obvious that the only acceptable way to resolve this conflict is through negotiation. Unfortunately, it appears that the various factional leaders have little incentive to resolve the issue.

Some would even suggest that the presence of the United Nations peacekeepers has provided the leaders of the various factions with an excuse not to come to a quick resolution. They would suggest that all sides should experience the effects of a full scale war so they can fully appreciate the horrors of such warfare. This they argue would give the negotiators the incentive to reach a peace agreement. Perhaps it would, but what would be the cost in human lives?

Tens of thousands of Bosnians have already lost their lives in this conflict and thousands more will likely die. However, the toll would likely have been in the hundreds of thousands without our involvement. Unfortunately we must wait for the various leaders to reach a settlement on their own.

Canada and the rest of the international community must continue to pressure the warring factions to reach an acceptable peace. We have to impress upon these leaders that military victories resulting in territorial gains will not be internationally recognized. We have to impress upon them that the prize for their aggression will be a total isolation from the world community.

I think that Canadians recognize the fact that Canada cannot afford to be the peacekeeper to the world. It is a credit to our military that we are in such popular demand for the role. Our reputation as peacekeepers is unparalleled and it is a good reputation to have. Nevertheless Canada does not have the money to send its troops into every dispute.

Reality dictates that we have to pick and choose our assignments. The planned review of the Canadian Armed Forces is a good step in determining the extent to which Canada should be involved in these missions.

Canadians are going to have to decide just what resources we are prepared to commit to these endeavours. It is a noble role but such nobility does not come cheap. It is the Canadian taxpayer who will have to decide the extent to which they are prepared to underwrite these missions. However, this is for future roles.

The reality of today is that rightly or wrongly Canadian troops are in Bosnia. It is also reality that this is not a great situation to be in. We have asked our peacekeepers to attempt to keep a peace that does not exist. As our troops attempt to keep three warring ethnic groups from killing each other, we have found that we are ending up being hated by all three sides. We really have entered into a classic no win situation.

Critics of Canada's presence in Bosnia can probably list dozens of valid reasons why we should not be there. In return, I can offer only one good reason why we have to remain. It is for the simple reason that without us the situation would be a lot worse. These people are dependent upon the UN force to keep them alive.

It is an unfortunate reality but Canadians are showing a greater concern for the fate of the Bosnian people than their own leaders. This concern or compassion may force us to make an occasional impractical decision, but it is also a virtue that makes this country such a wonderful place to live.

Canadians have been fortunate to face precious little political violence in their history. We do not have to worry that when our children are outside playing in the snow some artillery shell is going to land in their midst and kill them. Perhaps it is for this reason that Canadians should be in Bosnia.

We need to do whatever we can to help the rest of the world achieve peace. We must keep a window open for negotiations to take place in the hope of a peaceful resolution. We have to show them that we care.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley on her intervention in this debate.

This is an important debate in the House of Commons. I am pleased that we are starting off in such a fashion. It allows members to rise without fear of retribution by party whips when they take the personal positions they feel on this very important issue. I commend her on her remarks. They were delivered very well and there was a lot of substance to them.

I have a concern that I want to share with my colleague who just made her remarks. As I said earlier, I support the peacekeeping mandate of the Canadian forces over and over again. Indeed I commend the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces for the excellent job they have done over the last number of decades. However the reality is that in this current situation the United Nations has found itself to be desperately wanting in

being able to use resolutions from the collective body of the United Nations in order to stop this aggression. There has been over a dozen resolutions by the United Nations.

The member just referred to some of the atrocities that are occurring. At the same point in time the shelling continues in Sarajevo, no matter how many times the United Nations has stood, spoken as a world body and said if they do not stop the aggression, if they do not allow the humanitarian aid through, if they continue in their aggression in the city of Sarajevo, they will do x , y and z . They have never done anything.

It is rather telling that in the latest attack we saw in the last few days young school children were murdered as they played outside. It was only 200 metres from the main Sarajevo headquarters of the United Nations military force. It is fairly clear the individuals who shelled the area where those children were simply did not believe the United Nations had any teeth or desire to escalate the situation by the use of armed intervention.

Does the member believe the United Nations has in effect let down Canadian peacekeepers and the peacekeepers from other nations who are there by issuing these hollow threats and the sabre rattling they have undertaken through these resolutions?

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment that I feel perhaps the United Nations got into the Bosnia situation prematurely. However I maintain that decision was made by the previous government of our country and by the United Nations. Now is not the time to resolve that issue.

The time is now to develop a foreign policy and a defence policy that will clearly address the role of the peacekeepers and our position as Canadian peacekeepers within that collective community.

The world community must take note of what is happening and send a clear message that this kind of aggression is not acceptable in the world and that it will not be rewarded by giving more land and more power to them. They have to be condemned for this kind of aggressive behaviour.