Debates of Dec. 4th, 1995

Constitutional Amendments Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Balkans

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to an order made earlier today, the House will now resume consideration of government business, Motion No. 27.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to address the House on this very important issue.

I would like to reiterate some of the important issues that I raised earlier on. This debate is about two major things: first, the recent Dayton peace agreement in light of the international community's continued efforts to bring enduring peace and security to the Balkans; and second, to consider Canadian support for these efforts by participation in a multinational military implementation force under NATO command.

The residents of York North, like Canadians everywhere, want to see this crisis resolved. They have watched civilians on both sides of the conflict suffer unnecessarily. They have seen fellow Canadians risk their lives participating in humanitarian missions. They view the Dayton peace agreement as a ray of hope. They support Canadian participation in the implementation force.

Canada has a long tradition on the world stage in relation to peacekeeping. We know that under the leadership of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, who presented the concept of peacekeeping to the world in response to the 1956 Suez crisis, we are indeed world leaders.

Canada has taken part in almost every United Nations peacekeeping operation since 1956 and many other missions outside the organization. As of November 1, 1995 more than 1,600 personnel are deployed in 13 missions making Canada the sixth largest troop contributor.

Since the end of the cold war, the nature of conflict has changed. It has become more regional and complex. The need for peacekeeping forces is increasing rather than decreasing. Peacekeeping forces, whose original missions were to monitor ceasefires, are now working on the maintenance and re-establishment of peace, delivering humanitarian aid, supervising elections and monitoring human rights abuses.

The parties to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia want peace. They have fought and suffered for several years. They are tired of the carnage and are prepared to pursue their goals through negotiations and political means. They have signed a complex agreement setting out the compromises and frameworks they are prepared to live with.

After more than four years of bitter fighting, peace may finally be at hand in the former Yugoslavia. The people of the region have endured terrible hardships. There could be no accurate measure of their suffering or loss. The effects of this conflict will be seen for years to come. Citizens will bear the emotional scars of being witnesses to the atrocities of war, of having had loved ones die in their arms from causes so simple and so possible to prevent: starvation, hypothermia, dehydration.

The land is scarred from years of battle. Bombs, chemical spills, mines and neglect have taken their toll. The infrastructure has been eradicated. It was only recently that electricity was restored to Sarajevo. Roads, buildings, sewer systems, the fundamentals that we as Canadians take for granted must be rebuilt.

What is critical to any peace process involving the use of peacekeeping troops is that the military component must be accompanied by a strong, viable political process. In the former Yugoslavia we now have a strong peace process. The Dayton peace agreement points the way clearly to a new political reality designed to end the fighting and conflict in that region.

What is required militarily is a brief period of stability to allow the implementation of the political steps agreed upon. The international community has laid the foundation for a strong peace process. The Dayton peace agreement points the way clearly to a new political reality designed to end the fighting in that region.

The Dayton peace agreement calls for, among other things, country-wide elections to be held within nine months. Free elections would be a tremendous step forward in the former Yugoslavia. A truly democratic election process that produces a government and a leader supported and chosen by the population would go a long way to ensuring the cohesiveness of the country.

Free elections require stability, freedom of movement and freedom of information. We must counteract nearly four years of war and hate. The groundwork must be laid to ensure that elections are feasible. One way of ensuring a successful election is to provide residents with a commitment to personal security.

Canada's efforts to re-establish peace in the former Yugoslavia are extensive. Over the last four years Canada has played a significant role in the international community's efforts to deal with the war in the former Yugoslavia. These efforts have been carried out primarily through the United Nations and NATO. Not only have Canadian military personnel helped prevent the conflict from spreading to other parts of the region and from becoming more brutal, they have also saved countless lives by assisting and delivering humanitarian relief supplies and preventing more massive assaults on civilian populations.

In September 1991, Canada led the call for the United Nations Security Council to deal with this situation. Since then Canada has contributed one of the largest contingents to UN forces in the former Yugoslavia. As the mandate of the UN forces evolved over the course of the conflict, so did the tasks performed by Canadian troops. Their duties have ranged from traditional peacekeeping functions such as monitoring ceasefires to more challenging roles such as establishing humanitarian airlifts, repairing schools and supporting hospital workers.

With the peace process now moving into a new phase, the Canadian forces are ready if necessary to serve with an implementation force. The peace implementation force plan calls for roughly 60,000 personnel. This plan covers the military aspects of the peace agreement negotiated in Dayton. It will be implemented after a UN Security Council resolution is passed authorizing the mission. The objectives of the implementation force are as follows:

First, to ensure compliance with the military aspects of the peace agreement. This would include, in particular, the withdrawal of forces to their respective territories as set out in the agreement, and the establishment of agreed lines of separation of those forces.

Second, to create secure conditions for the withdrawal of UN forces currently in place.

Third, to create secure conditions for the conduct of other non-military tasks associated with the peace agreement. The UN, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe will be among the organizations carrying out civilian duties. All our NATO allies will be participating, with the exception of Iceland which has no armed forces. Among non-NATO nations, 19 including Russia, have indicated a willingness to contribute.

Finally, the plan calls for the replacement of the implementation force with non-NATO forces after 12 months. This transfer would occur regardless of whether the peace agreement has been fully implemented. Citizens of the former Yugoslavia view the Dayton peace agreement as a ray of hope. Canadian involvement in the implementation force would allow this ray of hope to shine.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased the debate has been extended because if it had not been, I would not have been able to put my views on the record.

A lot of members are very interested in what is going on in Bosnia and Croatia and the other states of the former Yugoslavia. In my constituency there are many individuals whose families have served in a number of different support functions with the United Nations since this conflict started. In the Dartmouth-Halifax area because the east coast Canadian navy is there, there are many individuals who have served onboard the ships which offered logistical support in the Adriatic. Many individuals from Atlantic Canada have served on a number of the missions in Bosnia.

The hon. member for Athabasca indicated earlier that perhaps he was in a unique situation because his son might be one of those called upon to serve. He may be unique in that regard, but there are many of us, myself included, who have family members in the Canadian Armed Forces.

My brother Paul has served in peacekeeping missions under the UN as a blue beret in Cambodia. Cambodia was a very difficult mission. There were no warring factions at that point in time, but it was a highly unstable political situation. It was difficult on family members. It was difficult on Paul's fiancée at the time, but he served proudly wearing the blue beret of the United Nations. He served there proudly as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

My nephew, Neil Bernard MacKinnon, served two or three tours of duty in Bosnia. He was a young man in his early twenties. When he would visit, my dad, who served in the second world war, would say: "I think Neil Bernard has seen more slick trenches by his stories from Bosnia than I did in the Italian campaign during the second world war". That young man dedicated himself and his life to serve the Canadian Armed Forces. He served very proudly under very difficult circumstances in Bosnia. It is unfortunate because he lost his life in the spring of this year, not in Bosnia but here in Canada in a training exercise in Suffield. This is currently the subject of an inquiry.

Some of the best remembrances I and my family have of Neil Bernard are his stories about the service he gave in Bosnia, about the humanitarian tragedy that was unfolding in that particular state and about the important role played by Canadian peacekeepers serving under the UN banner in that little part of hell. That is how he described it to me one day.

Today it is important that as parliamentarians we not debate in isolation. I have heard a lot of isolated debate today. I have heard a little bit too much partisanship in the debate as well. We are talking about the soldiers, the men and women who have chosen to serve this country, Canada, through the Canadian Armed Forces. We sent these people over there in a time of war and conflict when there was no peace to keep. They provided humanitarian aid. Some were injured and some were killed. Some were scarred by what they saw, but nevertheless they did it because they believed in the Pearson commitment to humanitarian aid and peacekeeping through the United Nations.

I remember in the last Parliament we had another debate on the UN and UN resolutions with respect to the Persian Gulf crisis. I remember quite well having to speak in that debate. It was certainly not as focused as this debate is. The government at the time did not want us to speak specifically about whether or not our troops would be committed if a war did break out. It was a

resolution on whether or not we supported UN resolutions. I remember I was waiting to speak on that bill. There was a long list at the time. It was a motion. My interest in speaking was that I knew if a war did break out and the Canadian government committed troops there would be men and women who lived in my riding, some of whom lived in my neighbourhood and some of whom had children who went to school with my children, who would be committed.

As members of Parliament, I wanted everybody to be quite aware of the dangers of such a commitment of forces in the Persian Gulf. I supported at that time the government of the day doing what it did. I supported that Parliament and the Canadian government had to support members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

It is a little different this time around. We are being asked to debate the principle of whether we should continue, now that we have the Dayton peace accord, to provide troops for a one-year period as peace is implemented in Bosnia.

Clearly, the members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been truly tested over the years from budget cuts and lack of equipment they believe they need. But not once have I talked to a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who was not prepared to go and do the job they joined the armed forces to do. If that is in protection of the sovereignty of our country, they are there to do it. If it is to go and protect or preserve a peace or to try to bring about a peace in a foreign state, they are prepared to serve.

I am rising today to say that I support the Canadian government participating in the IFOR in Bosnia. I do not do it lightly. I do it knowing full well, as the member for Athabasca said, that when you get involved with an action like this there are inherent dangers. Members of this place have to understand that when they speak in support or not in support of motions such as this.

I also believe very strongly that we can no longer continue to ask the members of our Canadian Armed Forces to do more with less. During the Persian Gulf situation and since 1991 in the Bosnian situation, there is no question that what we have done is ask our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces to stretch the resources further than the resources many times could be stretched.

I am one of those who believe that if we want the Canadian Armed Forces to continue to hold up the very credible reputation that Canada has worldwide for its peacekeeping and peacemaking efforts as well, then we must provide the resources to the armed forces to make sure they are the best equipped forces in the world.

I get worried about talk of continued budgetary cutbacks. I get worried when I know that perhaps some of the equipment our armed forces has is not what it should be. But I get equally worried when I hear members opposite of the third party, the Reform Party, who want to have it both ways. This is two or three times in debate that they have criticized the government for allowing a debate to happen, which is outrageous, and said we cannot send troops over because they are not properly equipped.

I do not care what the Minister of National Defence says and I really do not care what the Minister of Finance says with respect to having to get the deficit down when I know there are members of the Canadian Armed Forces who do not have the resources they require to do the job we ask of them.

I will say it in this place. I said it publicly and I will continue to say it, even though some in my party may not like me saying it. At least I am not hypocritical. I am consistent. I have been for the seven years I have been here.

What I would like to find out from the members opposite, from somebody in the Reform Party, is whether they are in favour of sending troops over. Please say so. If it is with the condition that there is more money allocated through the budgetary process to provide them with better helicopters to replace the Sea Kings, I will be the first one to jump up and say I agree with you. If it is with the assurance that the armoured personnel vehicle program that has been announced be accelerated, which would cost a little more money, I will agree with them. If it is conditional on the purchase of new submarines to retire the aging class that we have most of the time that do not work because they are so bloody old, I will agree with them.

I would like for them to be clear and intellectually honest in a debate like this. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve better than political rhetoric on the floor of the House of Commons when there are motions put forward debating whether or not they participate in international obligations, particularly when there is the threat of injury or even death.

I support the government's initiative, but I will also put it on the record that I want the government to ensure that the troops we send have the resources they need to do the job we ask of them.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in the debate on Bosnia and Canada's role in this important geopolitical problem.

There have been four years of brutal war. Two million people have been displaced. Over 200,000 people have been killed. Now, thankfully, there is the Dayton peace plan. It is a welcome initiative. However, there is something we must understand: it is a fragile peace plan and it is only the beginning. The international community must realize that the Dayton peace plan gives the world

an opportunity to provide long lasting peace in Bosnia; however, it is not the end of the situation.

In the long term, history tells us that peace cannot be enforced at the end of an assault rifle. It has to come from peace building initiatives from people on the ground. Any time there is a civil war that tears apart a country, as the conflict in Bosnia has done, the seeds of ethnic discontent, hatred, and future wars will be there. The only way to combat that is for us to contribute to peace building initiatives for the disparate ethnic groups in that land.

Let us look at the scenario that now faces us. The 12-month timeline that has been set up by the supreme allied command is a fantasy. The people of that region will be there for a longer period. We have to ensure that we will not be engaged in a Cyprus in the middle of Europe. We have to understand that the Bosnian Serb population is very tenuous, with Radovan Karadzic and General Mladic saying they will make certain parts of the former Yugoslavia bleed, namely Sarajevo. They are an element that has to be neutralized.

The Muslim-Croat alliance that exists now is tenuous at best. Many people tend to forget that two years ago these two groups were fighting a bloody war within Bosnia. Much has to be done to mend fences there. The Bosnian federation, as it now exists, with two federations under the umbrella of one country, is also tenuous. It will fracture. Whether it fractures into two areas or three, with a Croat-Bosnian-Muslim and a Bosnian Serbian group or with the Croats and Muslims divided into two groups, is yet to be seen. In my estimation, Bosnia will fracture into at least two or three groups. It is important for us to ensure that the fracturing is accomplished through diplomacy and not at the end of an assault rifle.

There is much that has to be done, and IFOR gives us the opportunity. Troops need to be deployed, but they do not have to be Canadian troops. I believe there is a way around this situation. The European Union has a force of 50,000 troops that has never been tried. That force is well armed and well equipped. The European force can use Bosnia as a teething ground under the existing NATO command structures. A lot could be learned from this, which could be used in future peace building initiatives.

Canada has done its part. Our armed forces have done an admirable job in the former Yugoslavia. Our troops need a rest. They need to re-equip and take a bit of a break.

Bosnia will secede. As I said before, we want to ensure that it secedes peacefully.

I believe the effective contribution Canada can make, rather than sending over troops, is to ensure that the peace building initiatives that take place on the ground continue. We can contribute engineers for the rebuilding of infrastructure: hospitals, roads, bridges and the like. We can also utilize NGOs and civilian groups to contribute to the peace building and peace bridging that must happen with the civilian population in that region. This is something we are good at and something we can contribute in the peace building process in the former Yugoslavia without contributing troops.

Economic prosperity in any war situation is absolutely fundamental for the peace building process. Just because we are enforcing a peace with an international protection force now does not mean to say there will be peace in the future. Contributing to the infrastructure development and developing economies so the people in the area can stand on their own two feet is absolutely fundamental for peace building.

One of the things we can do to neutralize Radovan Karadzic and General Mladic is to take away their power base. The people in Sarajevo are scared, the Bosnian Serbs in particular. If we can contribute to making sure they will be secure in their environment, they will not provide a fertile ground for General Mladic and Mr. Karadzic to put a flame into the very volatile situation that is Bosnia as we know it.

I would also suggest that we continue with the arms embargo, and I would continue with the demilitarization process that has to occur in the former Yugoslavia, a very difficult situation to pursue.

I would say that the involvement of the European force is something that is long overdue, for the European community abrogated their responsibility in the first place in the former Yugoslavia. When they were given the mandate to try to defuse the situation, defuse the precursors to conflict that were there, they turned their back and stuck their head in the sand. It is high time they contributed to this initiative, contributed to IFOR through using the European force that is there.

Our contribution as a country to ensure that our commitment to European security is there and ensure our allies in NATO realize we are also committed to security in Europe can be the involvement of our military through engineers, not combat troops, and can be the involvement of our civilian population NGOs through peace building initiatives on the ground. All we need to do is look at the Middle East to show that peace building must be done along economic lines as well.

On a broader scale, I would ask our Minister of Foreign Affairs to work with our Minister of National Defence at developing a long lasting, far-reaching Canadian foreign policy on how to prevent these conflicts from occurring in the first place. That involves identifying the precursors to conflict, listing those, and working

with international organizations to ensure there will be a predictable, identifiable and concrete response to the precursors to conflict.

This conflict in the former Yugoslavia and many others around the world were entirely preventable. The writing on the wall in the former Yugoslavia was there in 1987, yet the world community chose to ignore it. If we had addressed that conflict then, we would not have seen the hundreds of thousands of people killed, the millions of people displaced and the profound human tragedy that none of us in this room can possibly comprehend.

We as a country can take a leadership role as one of the few countries in the world that has the international suasive power in the international community to encourage our neighbours to develop the broad peace building, peacemaking and conflict prevention framework that needs to be done.

Apart from using the United Nations, we can also use the international financial institutions as cheap non-military economic levers in conflict prevention, both as a form to dissuade potential groups from engaging in conflict and also to encourage groups to enter a road of peace rather than go down the road of war.

With the debate we have had today-and I thank the hon. members in the House for extending the debate-I hope we can make an effective contribution, not necessarily through our combat troops but towards the peace building initiatives we in Canada are so good at doing.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I sit in the House and listen and it reminds me of someone trying to walk down a razor blade and they are afraid they will slip. I think that is what is happening with the party opposite. What does it understand by collective security? The person on the right is going to be there when they are called upon. There is a trust. There is a belief that one will deliver the goods. It is my belief the third party is really off its stick in this whole debate, trying to win friends on one side and trying to do something on the other side.

I want to know now, does the hon. member understand what the concept of collective security in NATO is?

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, we understand what collective security is. I made it very clear in my speech that peace in the former Yugoslavia must involve a number of routes. One is the use of combat troops.

As his colleague mentioned, our troops are having a difficult time because of a lack of equipment and the fact that they have been rotating quite frequently through the former Yugoslavia. They are very tired and they need a break.

Be that as as it may, Canada can make an effective contribution. One of the things I mentioned is the use of the military engineers that we can contribute to the infrastructure development in Bosnia. If there is no infrastructure development in Bosnia, no economy to provide people with the means to get on their feet and provide themselves with their basic needs, they have all the seeds, all the groundwork for future conflicts to occur.

IFOR is just a stop gap measure. There is a pool of soldiers not being utilized right now, a pool of soldiers in the sphere of influence that Bosnia is in, the European Union force.

As I mentioned before, there are 50,000 troops. They are not being used anywhere and they are well equipped. What better place to have them teethe their techniques and drills than in the former Yugoslavia, in Bosnia right now? They can do it under a controlled setting under the guise and leadership of proven soldiers who are there right now, the Americans, the French and the British. They could learn the techniques and the tools to be an effective peacemaking, peacebuilding and peacekeeping force.

In the future I hope the European Union force can take the leadership role in trying to ensure that IFOR maintains its mandate and that we can continue on toward ensuring that Bosnia has not a short term peace but enjoys a long term peace and that it does not descend into the caldron of brutality that it has for the last five years.

We need to contribute to this. We can involve civilian populations in the peacemaking process in the former Yugoslavia. There are number of options there as I mentioned in my speech.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Madam Speaker, I have engaged this member in debate in the past. He is usually rather unequivocal with his position.

I ask him to be unequivocal. The member heard me and I indicated my support and I could not make it any clearer. I am concerned about whether the Canadian Armed Forces generally has the resources given to it through the budgetary process to have the best equipment possible to do the job we ask of it.

I ask the member opposite a question concerning himself individually. Forget his party. He knows the comments I have made about his party and its position. Does he support the Canadian Armed Forces participating in IFOR? It is either yes or no.

Perhaps the member thinks this is the forum in which we debate exactly every detail the Canadian forces are to do over there. The member should know those details will be worked out with their colleagues who are putting together this collective force.

With or without qualifications, does he support it? Yes or no.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, if we had more details on Canadian troop requirements in the former Yugoslavia we would be able to make a more equivocal statement.

The contribution Canada can make toward the peace process in Bosnia is to use perhaps our military engineers toward infrastructure development but not use our combat troops in IFOR at the present time.

I hope that is very clear: do not use our combat troops under IFOR but contribute toward European security, contribute toward participating with our allies in building peace within Bosnia through non-military methods, through the use of our engineers, through peace building initiatives, through our non-combat troops in the military and also through non-military groups we have in Canada, NGOs, civilian groups and the like.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to share my thoughts about Canada's peacekeeping role in Bosnia this evening. I begin by giving a vote of thanks to our Canadian troops.

Despite the bad press they have received because of a few bad apples and a few incidents in the past few years with people who are not worthy to be called Canadian soldiers, despite the miserable state of the leadership at national defence and the wholly inadequate response to leadership deficiencies on the part of this government, and even though our forces have not always been properly backed up by this government, I commend the fortitude, the restraint and the professionalism shown by our military personnel in the field. The quality of our peacekeeping has never been more restrained or to be admired more than in Bosnia. We are recognized the world over for our contributions there to date.

Canadians have an unparalleled reputation for even handedness and compassion in other areas of the world as well. A Canadian working for World Vision in Rwanda and Somalia who had daily contact with our troops had nothing but praise for them. He told us that our personnel consistently went above and beyond the call of duty in service to other Canadians as well as to the people native to the area. That is a typical comment.

However, there are a number of defence reports circulating that show a serious morale problem in the forces because of the rapid and successive deployments in Croatia and Bosnia. Some soldiers have seen three or four tours of duty in a row and are becoming exhausted. Still, they are professionals and I expect they will return to the field once again without hesitation if they are asked to serve.

The question we address tonight is should they be asked in the first place? Nowhere is it more appropriate that the questions be asked than in the House. I remind the Canadian people that the Prime Minister and the minister of defence have already made the decision to send the troops, which renders the House of Commons almost irrelevant in this debate. All we as members can do is stand up here and voice our frustrations. It was obvious in that last exchange between members on government side and this side when they said "support us, we do not know if we have the troops or the supplies or the necessary equipment. Just support it". It is very frustrating.

Members of Parliament are denied any meaningful input which is contrary to the recommendation of the special joint committee's defence review last year which said: "The government should not commit our forces to service abroad without a full parliamentary debate and accounting for that decision. It is our expectation that, expect in extraordinary circumstances, such a debate would always take place prior to any such deployment".

In other words, before the decision is made we should be debating it in advance. So much for the recommendations of that special joint committee.

Earlier this year the House considered my private member's Bill C-295, the peacekeeping bill, which would have placed reasonable limits on Canada's peacekeeping role. The bill would have required Parliament to approve participation in the mission, a mission such as we are discussing tonight. It would have required the government to offer the House an estimate of the mission's cost, its duration and the role of the Canadian troops before committing to it. These are the exact questions Canadians are asking today, and the government is not offering adequate answers. I am not going to sign a blank cheque or approve a blank cheque because those questions have not been answered.

I point out a few important things, especially to the people back home at CFB Chilliwack in my riding. The first is obvious. This is not a UN mission. This is a NATO mission and NATO is not intended to be a peacekeeping body. It is a joint force originally designed and meant to defend Europe in the face of aggression. We are a part of that. We understand that concept of collective security.

However, the quality of this mission is not a normal peacekeeping mission. We need to know that up front. It is a NATO led enforcement mission, not the kind that Canada usually participates in under the authority of the United Nations. The Minister of National Defence has already said this mission would be a fully armed, sharp point combat role in which NATO forces would be able to fire first and to respond to any attack with overwhelming force. Previous American leadership has said this force would be meaner than a junkyard dog. This is not a peacekeeping force.

Given also the warlike tone of some of the Bosnian leaders who have already repudiated the Dayton treaty signed in Ohio, I think we can expect some difficult combat action. Canadians are understandably uncomfortable with this role when they are not defending their own soil.

They ask questions such as are we willing to accept an escalation of our role in Bosnia? Do we have the equipment to equip our forces properly? Are we willing to raise the stakes even further with the risk of having our Canadian soldiers shot or blown up by land mines or humiliated and held hostage by people intent on destroying the peace? I have already attended one funeral in my riding of a Canadian soldier who served in Bosnia. I can understand their concern about this escalation in the role.

We hear that NATO may also be involved in rearming Bosnia. People ask if Canada should be a part of this where it takes sides and helps to arm different factions in a war, where it helps pick the winners and losers. In some people's minds this provokes rather than reduces hostilities. Canada has invested too much in its international reputation for peace to jeopardize its neutrality now by enmeshing itself in conflicts as one of the antagonists.

We also have no idea what the goal of this mission is. We do in broad terms but NATO says it hopes to stabilize the situation within a year, then throw the hot potato to somebody else, an unknown, unnamed entity with the power to keep the antagonists apart. Who would that be? No one knows for sure but it seems to me if history is any teacher we are likely to see NATO forces there indefinitely.

Because this upcoming year is an election year in the U.S. there will be intense pressure for the Americans to pull up stakes and return home after that year is up. Then someone will have to stay behind and keep the peace. Who? I talked to a senior member of the armed forces on the weekend back home. He said that when he went to Cyprus 30 years ago it was supposed to be a one-year mission. We all know what happened there. We were there for 30 years and we do not want to see that happen again.

Not only that but as part of the bigger picture Canada is also on record saying we want to give some of our forces to a standing permanent rapid reaction force, virtually a standing army, to the United Nations. I realize this is a separate issue but if that were to come about it would surrender more of our troops outside of Canadian led combat forces.

I wonder sometimes where the leadership of our country is taking us. I am not sure it understands that we do not have an infinite amount of troops to give to either the UN or to NATO while trying to keep our other jobs properly equipped and manned.

The cost of this mission? In the last three years we spent $800 million in the former Yugoslavia. In the next year we would expect to spend another $200 million, but that is just speculation because the government will not give us the figures. We have asked it to give us the figures, the cost, the role and so on, but it will not give us any of that. It is interesting that if we commit more troops to NATO we will have fewer troops to commit to any UN led force in years to come, and there are bound to be more demands on that as well.

I reiterate the idea of a colleague from the Reform Party. We could arguably and persuasively say Canada has some obligation to serve with NATO but Canada need not take an active combat role. We could have a support role either with the engineers, as was mentioned earlier, with providing field services, supply services, an intelligence network and so on. There are things we could do outside the combat role.

To be heavily involved in combat, to be rearming some portions of the population and not others, to be acting outside our traditional UN mandate is a huge step when I do not see the end result the government is trying to work toward. Without an effective national debate we are about to launch an armed forces, exhausted and low in morale for the reasons I mentioned earlier, into a dangerous high risk combat mission without goals, without timetables, without cost estimates and perhaps even without the proper equipment. Is this wise?

It is said that discretion is the better part of valour, and our national leaders will show their discretion in this situation by declining combat participation in this venture.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, in a more cynical and uncaring age than our own, Bismark once quipped that the Balkan conflicts were not worth the bones of a single Prussian Grenadier.

In depositions I gave to the committee on foreign affairs of the United States house of representatives on August 12, 1992 and August 3, 1993-and these are entered and published in the congressional record of those two dates-I recommended that with the pending break-up of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which was first put together as part of the World War I victors' peace settlement, it would be wise to go back to the original Versailles treaties of 1919 and specifically the treaty of St. Germain-en-Laye which created Yugoslavia to achieve a peaceful, orderly succession and avoid loss of life and hardship to the civilian population of the region.

Now, three years and 250,000 civilian deaths later, we seem to be reaching the same result as might have been obtained under the

orderly international law processes envisaged by the Versailles treaties, including resort to the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court afforded by the treaty in case of impasses of territorial frontiers.

Our foreign minister and later Prime Minister, Lester Pearson, fathered the concept of United Nations peacekeeping. We have since come of age in our experience with UN problem solving in the former Yugoslavia with the mission in the Bosnia-Hercegovina region being quickly transformed from classical UN peacekeeping, which is simply physically keeping apart warring rivals who have already accepted a military ceasefire, and these involving chapter VI of the charter, pacific settlement of disputes, the transformation into the new concept of an activist peacekeeping role involving chapter VII of the charter.

Having gone so far, Canada has become part of the continuing post-communist succession problem in Yugoslavia and should stay the course.

There are however steps that can be taken to offset or reduce the dangers of our continuance in the new NATO based phase of the operation and to ensure that decisions taken are compatible with and protected by international law and also rational in the political and larger geopolitical sense.

First, it should be recognized that NATO as a regional security arrangement falling within chapter VIII of the United Nations charter, derives its international law authority from the United Nations charter and cannot go beyond that. Issues such as the right of self-defence and its present day practice can be updated or redefined in contemporary international law terms by the security council and also the general assembly as glosses on classical doctrine and jurisprudence as the 1992 decision of the International Court of Justice in the Lockerbie case confirmed.

NATO itself however has no power to dispense from existing international law norms and NATO commanders and their political governors would act at legal peril if they did not refer back to the security council and general assembly when new political facts challenging the political-military settlement now reached might emerge.

One such potential problem obviously concerns future relations of the two main constituent parts of the new Bosnian entity: the Croat-Muslim Bosnian Republic and the Serbian Bosnian Republic, their relations to their adjoining mother states, Croatia and rump Yugoslavia which is Serbia-Montenegro.

The current political military settlement has an element of historical transition inherent in it and irredentist pressures for ultimate junction with the adjoining mother states can be expected.

It would be an error for NATO to view such matters, if they should arise, as purely military in character and proper for a NATO military decision alone. Political common sense and prudence counsel following what international law in any case enjoins, namely referring the high political issues back to the security council and general assembly for definitive ruling.

Likewise whatever dispositions the NATO high command might wish to make, the military decisions of NATO are referable back to the United Nations for their ultimate sanction and justification under international law.

In adhering to the new NATO force for Bosnia, the Canadian government might perhaps attach appropriate reservations confirming the primacy, as to Canadian forces, of the United Nations as through regional security organizations authorized under chapter VIII of the United Nations charter.

This being understood, we can and should support Canada's continued participation in the Bosnian peace process that after four long winters seems at last to be opening up the prospect of the rule of law and peace and elemental security for the inhabitants of that historically troubled region.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House this evening to debate the issue of whether we should once again send troops into the Balkan theatre to aid that area in implementing the peace initiative which has recently been achieved at Dayton, Ohio.

The first question we have to ask ourselves is whether Canadian troops should go back. Should we be sending our troops back to this area where they have already performed with such skill, with such professionalism and have brought such pride to Canadians by the contribution they have made in the humanitarian rescue of unfortunate people in that region?

Our troops have made tremendous contributions in that area. Many members of the Reform Party have taken the position that they have done enough. Let us cease our contribution. Let us stop there.

As many other Canadians do, I might subscribe to that point of view myself if things had not changed. Things have changed enormously in the last couple of months. There has been a dramatic change in the conditions under which that whole region is presently evolving.

We have heard described in this House the conditions of the Dayton, Ohio peace agreement which has been achieved. There is no reason for me to go over the conditions and the parameters of that agreement.

It is not a perfect agreement, but the Serbian government of Mr. Milosevic is committed to it. There will be problems in Sarajevo. There will be problems in other areas but the Serbian government is committed to the agreement and various other governments in the area are committed to it. It is clear that without some form of active intervention from outside forces to make that peace treaty

work there will be no opportunity or no possibility of peace being established in the region.

We must ask ourselves the question, should we intervene at this time and give peace a chance? Should we listen to what Mr. Clinton said on television the other night when he laid out the reasons why for the first time he is prepared to commit United States' troops to this grand enterprise?

Should we recognize the tremendous contribution that the United States has made and is making to this and the difference that that will make? Should we then take these risks, for risks there will be? There are always risks in any enterprise worth the game.

It seems to me that this is an enterprise where we can balance the risks with the reasonable certainty of a better opportunity of ensuring peace than we could have before, if we take, for example, the position of the security of our troops, a matter referred to at great length by members from the third party.

It seems to me that the security of our troops in the present circumstances is far superior to what it was before. When we were debating this matter before, the members of the third party were constantly saying we should not be putting our troops in harm's way. They have no opportunity of defending themselves. They are in this awful position where they can be taken hostage, they cannot defend themselves, they have been put in an impossible position.

We are going to send them back equipped. We are sending them back with a force of the United States of America, 20,000 troops of the most important army in the world, with the most sophisticated weaponry in the world and with the authority to take defensive measures if they are attacked.

In my view, they are in a far better position than they ever were before. I am far more at ease as a parliamentarian to know that our troops will be going in those circumstances than where they were before.

If they were being asked to go back and produce in the conditions they were in before I would agree that they should not go back but these are not the same conditions. They are not so inconsistent.

Look at what the local countries around are dealing with, the determination of Croatia and Serbia. There is a contribution from all countries in the area. We can now be assured that the risk of this war spilling over can be eliminated.

It makes sense to send our troops back under these circumstance. This confirms our overall policy objectives in this area and all other areas, which is to provide effective humanitarian aid, to assure the evolution of multilateral peacekeeping which goes directly to fulfil the need for security and peace in the world. The joint foreign policy review by the Senate and House of Commons laid great emphasis on the need for Canada's participation in multilateral peacekeeping because that is the future of the world. That is where Canada can make a contribution and it is where its contribution is needed.

Finally, it corresponds to our commitment to the human rights of the people in these areas. There can be no human rights without peace, security and stability. Without that the talk about human rights is empty talk. This gives us an opportunity to contribute to the establishment of human rights in this area.

We have made these contributions before. We have not just contributed arms forces in this area before. We have contributed mounted police who on a day to day policing mission gave stability and proper peace and security to small neighbourhoods to ensure that individuals could get some opportunity for justice and fair treatment.

Our non-governmental organizations have provided food aid, resettled people, provided an opportunity for people to try and get their lives back together. This can only be accomplished in an area where peace has been established and where there is some form of security guaranteed by troops. It is our troops that will be doing that.

I feel we must support this initiative. We must urge the government to be part of any comprehensive scheme in which our NATO allies are participating and in which we can make an important contribution. It corresponds to our interests in establishing peace in the region. It creates credibility for the multilateral peacekeeping process which is an important contribution which Canada can make to the world today.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this initiative is in keeping with Canadian interests and values. It is in our interest, because we have an interest in peace and in humanitarian aid, and we can be proud of what we have already done and what we will be doing in this area. It is in keeping with our values, because our values are those of a society that is fair, equitable and peaceful.

We want to contribute to a world where these values prevail in place of those of war and aggression. It is, moreover, our duty to take part in this initiative. Chances are good this initiative will succeed and that we will make a significant contribution to its success. I am very proud to speak in favour of this government initiative.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his remarks. I know he is very well informed. As chair of the foreign affairs committee, he is in the loop. He knows all the inside stories.

I know that he thinks that the third party is somehow not in favour of sending troops overseas or some such thing. But if he could just grab the nub of the argument. He says the troops will be in much better shape this time when we send them over because they will be so much better equipped to defend themselves in the case of aggression. I hope that is true. I have been calling for that since the last time I saw one of our guys chained to chain link fence. I wanted them to be better equipped and have the ability to defend themselves.

Can the member not understand that is the problem? He says, and maybe he knows because he is part of the inside circle, that we are going to have better equipment, a better opportunity to defend ourselves and so on. What we are asking is that we merely be told what we are going to do when we get there. What are we going to send? Are we going to send 20 F-18s? Are we going to send tanks? We do not have tanks so I guess it is not tanks. Are we going to strap Eaton's catalogues around our guts to try to keep them from being blown up? What are we going to do?

We are just asking for a list of what it is we are sending over there so we know that our troops will be well looked after. That is all we are asking. If the member knows something more than what is in this motion and he can tell us, then maybe we would vote in favour of it. Saying that we hope the guys get over there and tying a Canadian flag to the end of a World War II musket in the hopes they do not get their guts blown out is not good enough. We need some more assurance before we start sending our guys over there.

If the government wants to assure us, just tell us what equipment we are going to send over. It is not going to be tanks because we do not have tanks. Is it going to be submarines?

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

We don't have any of them.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

We do not have submarines. What is it going to be? Why is the government so assured that we are going to be able to look after ourselves? If the government could just tell us what we are sending. We are sending an unknown number of people over there for an unknown duration at an unknown cost with unknown equipment to do an uncertain role with an unknown resolution at the end of it and we are supposed to say it sounds good to us? I think not.

If the government could just tell us what we are doing then maybe we could vote with it.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is easy to have a reductio ad absurdum on these sorts of arguments. Is the hon. member seriously suggesting that we are going to parachute our troops in unarmed, that we are going to drop them in with absolutely no equipment? This is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

It reminds me of exactly what the Bloc Quebecois members were saying this afternoon. They were saying: "We agree we should be participating. We accept that we have an obligation to do this. We accept that we should be there, but we do not like the fact that the Prime Minister has not talked to Mr. Clinton first", or something like that. Reasons can always be found.

What are we talking about here? We are talking about participating in a NATO enterprise. It is going to be absolutely secure by a great deal of superior American firepower, troops and armour and we will be able to play an important supporting role.

I do not think it is up to us in this House to try and second guess the generals, to second guess exactly what is going to be on the ground. Are there going to be three tanks, two troop carriers, four submachine guns? That is not the role of members of Parliament.

Members of Parliament know we have armed services that are equipped to do the job they will be asked to do. We know they are not being sent over there with a bunch of Eaton's catalogues strapped around them. We know they are going there in an enormous, complicated enterprise with NATO troops and with allies who, all pulling together, will be able to achieve this extraordinary enterprise.

To suggest that they are somehow being dropped in there without proper equipment and preparation is irresponsible. In my view it totally ignores what we have been able to achieve so far. It totally ignores the quality of our armed services.

As a member of this House, I do not expect the government to give me a shopping list of every platoon and every weapon that is going. What I expect is a principled decision based on a common sense approach and an understanding of the strategic and military necessities. My understanding from listening to the Minister of Defence this morning in opening this debate and from listening to what the Prime Minister has said to date, is that we have that understanding. Let us go with it. Let us not quibble and constantly raise these quibbling concerns which are really just an excuse to try and get out of what our duty calls us to do.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick rebuttal to the earlier speaker. I do not think these are quibbling concerns. These are life and death concerns. We have been raising questions here all day and getting absolute nonsense for answers, when we get any answers at all.

I would like to thank hon. members of the House for agreeing to the extension of the debate. It allows those of us who did not have the opportunity earlier to speak on this issue this evening.

As we debate a renewed commitment of troops to Bosnia, I find myself with many more questions than answers. My colleagues have already raised this concern. How can we have a meaningful debate if the government cannot decide or will not tell us how many troops it will send, what their job will be and under what conditions we will bring them home? But what is new? The government has not had any criteria for three years. Why should I be surprised and expect it to change?

Apparently NATO is expecting at least 1,200 to 1,500 Canadian troops. According to reports, this is more than Germany or Turkey are each committing. The former Yugoslavia is almost on their doorstep yet Canada is supposed to commit more human and financial resources to this effort than they are. Why?

It is far more expensive to maintain our troops across the Atlantic than it would be for a neighbouring NATO ally, I would submit. Has Canada or more important, our soldiers, not already demonstrated a commitment to the peace process in the former Yugoslavia? Canadians spent three years and 10 lives in Bosnia. Unlike what the earlier speaker said, I do not believe it means that Reformers are saying we have already done enough. That is not what we are saying. I have not heard that here at all today. It is time some of our other NATO allies bore their share of the burden, however. As history has shown, achieving sustainable peace in the Balkans is critical to European security.

I commend the Canadian soldiers who already served in the former Yugoslavia. They performed professionally and beyond any reasonable expectation, given an unclear mandate and extremely adverse conditions. They were sent as peacekeepers before there was any peace to keep. They were sent into a war zone inadequately equipped and lightly armed. They protected civilian populations in so-called neutral zones when the parties to the conflict did not abide by the rules.

Despite questionable command structure, poor supplies, low morale and an indecisive government back home with no plan to get them out when the situation took a turn for the worse, despite all of this, they did their jobs. They delivered humanitarian supplies and kept thousands of women, children and non-combatants safe in the middle of a war.

The reason they were sent in the first place was not to keep the peace, for the belligerents were still at war. It was so the government of the day could tell the world that Canada is ready to participate anytime, anywhere, as long as it is called a peacekeeping mission.

There was good reason many NATO allies were not there before. There was no peace accord. But Canada was there. Sadly, it seems that political pride in our peacekeeping tradition takes precedence over the safety of our troops. If someone labels it a peacekeeping mission, they know we will come running. Our soldiers deserve more from us than this lapdog mentality. Let us make sure we are going back for the right reasons, for reasons that Canada defines.

We are justifiably proud of the Canadian men and women who have served as peacekeepers over the years. When they lay their lives on the line, they must know that political leadership has done everything in its power to ensure they are given the best chance for survival.

They have a right to expect some things from their government. We have a solemn responsibility to consider their safety above all else. If we make a political decision to participate, it is their duty to carry it out no matter what the military assessment. They cannot say no. They have to obey orders. Even the generals cannot object after a political decision has been made. It is our duty to ensure we have done everything politically possible to define the parameters and create the conditions for a safe peacekeeping mission before we commit Canadian lives to a war zone.

Make no mistake. Bosnia is still a war zone. Canadian blood should not be shed because our political leadership refuses to take reasonable precautions. Our soldiers are sworn to defend Canada, not to defend the vanity of politicians who want to preserve a reputation at the UN, no matter what the cost in Canadian lives.

I recognize there is a fine line here. The only way we could completely protect our troops is by never sending them anywhere. However, we have commitments to our NATO allies. We have international humanitarian commitments. We must balance these obligations against our troops' welfare. This decision is not about protecting Canada. It is an optional engagement.

The Prime Minister has committed us to the new NATO force before the peace accord is even signed. Will this time be different from the last time? There is not even a pretence that the implementation force is on a humanitarian mission. There are other roles to fill in the former Yugoslavia. We can hold our heads high if we engage solely in humanitarian activities, as some of my colleagues have indicated.

Why are we having this debate if the decision has already been made? How can we have a meaningful debate when we are told that we might be sending 20 troops or we might be sending 2,500? The Department of National Defence is not sure.

Members opposite have been chastising Reformers throughout the day for not supporting our peacekeepers. We are not talking about supporting peacekeepers. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke and we are not going to buy into it.

We may be there for 12 months. Maybe it will turn into another Cyprus. It looks like the government has written a blank cheque to

NATO. This is a political decision for prestige within NATO and to show solidarity. It is nothing more and nothing less.

What of the soldiers? Before I could advocate sending Canadian troops back to Bosnia I would want more assurances that we have done our job to ensure their safety. Yes, they are soldiers and they would willingly lay down their lives in defence of Canada, but they should not be asked to do it for a political whim.

I have a few questions which the Prime Minister and his defence staff have not answered.

Is there a well defined Canadian mandate? NATO wants to stabilize the situation within 12 months and then pull out. However, the Prime Minister said that we should be prepared to stay there longer. That is unacceptable. If we are going in, it should be for a set period, after which we can assess the situation with a full debate. All the facts should be revealed to the Canadian public, for the army belongs to them, not to the current political party. It is their sons and daughters we are talking about. If we do not have a time frame for withdrawal, how do we know if we have achieved our objectives? Canada must establish its own criteria for participation, not just use NATO's.

Will the Prime Minister make a commitment to hold a comprehensive military and political review after 10 months so our troops will know what to expect by the end of the year? Uncertainty will only exacerbate morale problems. Over the past three years the government has unilaterally extended our commitment without listening to Parliament or consulting the Canadian people. Let us not do it again.

Can the Prime Minister assure us that our soldiers will be better equipped than the last time they went to Bosnia? They are the best trained troops in the world, but there is a limit to improvisation. If we are going to send them back into a potential war zone they deserve the best equipment we can afford. With cuts at DND and outdated personnel carriers, is this realistic?

Can the Prime Minister assure us that Canadian soldiers will be under Canadian command? No one seems to know the answer to that question. We cannot afford another Gallipoli or Dieppe. It should be a precondition for our participation.

Canadian peacekeepers are trained to clear up misunderstandings before they escalate into open conflict. I have grave concerns that the same cannot be said for everyone else in the 60,000 strong occupation force. If civilians are antagonized by inexperienced peacekeepers, will this increase the risk to our Canadian soldiers?

The parliamentary secretary asked for some recommendations. I have one for him. He noted that assistance to refugees and humanitarian assistance is a secondary priority. I believe it should be Canada's top priority. I believe we should focus our involvement on technical, logistical and human support. Yes, we have commitments to our NATO allies, but we have an even greater moral obligation to our troops.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River for beginning his remarks by stating that we have to achieve a proper balance between the need for the security of our troops and what we are trying to achieve. I regret that he then promptly descended into political rhetoric which suggested that all of this was being done for the sake of political vanity and the whims of politicians. Does the member not agree that this is a changed situation? Will he not admit that this is an extraordinary opportunity?

Three months ago in that theatre we looked at the possibility of that war extending itself outside those borders, of hundreds of thousands of displaced people, thousands of men, women and children losing their lives, with a terrible winter coming on with no prospect of success. Suddenly we have a prospect of peace, which requires to make it work the contribution of the world community to get in there, pull the parties apart and make it work. Surely that is worth some risk. Surely that is worth our participating in. Why is that a whim? Why is that some irresponsible craziness on behalf of people to want to see that?

Is Mr. Clinton being whimsical and foolish to commit 20,000 United States troops to this enterprise? Are the British and the French a bunch of whimsical idiots to be doing this? Why are we suddenly portrayed as people who have just vanity instead of people who are recognizing we have a global responsibility to peacekeeping and humanitarian aid, which we have been doing in this country for generations now? This is an opportunity to make an important contribution. To be pulling up all these objections at this time and to be accusing people of engaging troops because of some form of whimsical vanity strikes me as not only irresponsible, it is absolute foolishness. It is wind and wind and wind.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will leave it up to the audience watching at home tonight on their televisions to decide who is full of wind and wind and wind after that outburst by the hon. member.

I would say that it is whimsical on the part of our government. Certainly Mr. Clinton is not. He is sending his troops over there with the best equipment in the world. What are we sending our troops with?

We have been raising these concerns on this side of the House for two years. The Reform Party has raised these issues time and time again about inadequately equipping our troops. We ask the same questions today. The hon. member was just asked that question and he evaded the answer again. We are asking because we are

concerned about the safety of our troops, and we get absolute nonsense. I for one am sick and tired of it.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating the merits of sending our troops back to Bosnia, not for another peacekeeping mission but for what can be called a peace enforcement mission. Should Canada send troops as part of a NATO mission in an attempt to stabilize the area referred to as the former Yugoslavia? That is the question.

Our first thought should be of the peacekeepers. All too often they become faceless, nameless individuals who are sent overseas to keep a fragile peace. Well they are not faceless and nameless people to me. I have met several of the peacekeepers and many of their families. I know the role of peacekeeper takes its toll on the individuals and their families. The amount of stress is something I can only imagine.

I admire the men and women who have represented Canada in peacekeeping missions and sometimes in peacemaking missions. We have some of the best peacekeepers in the world. They have done a superb job in the face of adversity. They have been forced to make do with less than adequate equipment. Canadian troops have a long tradition of improvising and making do with outdated and unsuitable equipment for the job that must be done. Our troops carry out this tradition with a considerable and justifiable pride. They successfully refit, modify and repair equipment others would abandon in despair. While our personnel take pride in making do with unsuitable equipment, it is also a source of stress and frustration for the peacekeepers and their families. Our troops should not be sent into tense situations like this without the best equipment available.

Our troops are also forced to endure less than adequate leadership at the top. The leadership crisis in DND negatively affects troops. The Somalia affair has clearly exposed this. I do not believe we should be deploying more troops until the leadership crisis is sorted out.

In addition, memos from DND tell us of a morale crisis. The memos explain that the burden of rapid and prolonged deployment is one of the primary causes. The succession of deployment of our military personnel has led to their exhaustion. Some soldiers have seen three or four tours of duty in Croatia or Bosnia. This contributes to low morale of forces and their families. Stress levels are at an all time high, resulting in family breakdowns, alcohol consumption, untimely depression, attempted suicide and even suicide.

Recommendations have been made to balance the tours with adequate time at home. Yet the government fails to take into account the well-being of Canadian troops when the international peacekeeping agreements are made. The troops deserve better treatment from this government and from the upper layers of leadership within the forces.

It is important to ask why this is merely a take note debate. This mission to Bosnia involves Canadian lives. Why has the government refused to bring this issue before the House for a free vote? I do not mean a free vote as the Prime Minister envisions a free vote. The Prime Minister's idea of a free vote is to instruct Liberal MPs to vote any way they wish as long as they vote exactly the way he tells them to vote. I do not see that as a free vote, not in my interpretation of a free vote. Why not have a free vote where members vote according to the majority view of their constituents?

This debate is a sham, because I am sure the decision of whether or not to deploy troops has already been made. Therefore, expressing my misgivings or support for this venture is of little importance to this government. In fact our comments will have little or no impact on this mission and whether it goes ahead. However, I hope we can influence future troop deployments for peacekeeping or peace enforcement missions.

Regarding this mission, the timeframe for the NATO involvement has been given as 12 months. Following the expiry of the 12 months, NATO intends to withdraw from the area and transfer authority to another body. There are some obvious questions from this vague description of what might or will happen. What happens after 12 months? If authority is to be transferred to another body after 12 months, what body? If that body is not capable of doing the job, are the NATO troops kept there indefinitely?

The Prime Minister has said that if we truly want peace we should be prepared to stay as long as necessary. Is he willing to keep troops in Bosnia after the 12-month mandate? The answer seems to be yes. Then for how long?

We also know very little about the mission itself. How much will the mission cost? How many troops will be deployed? What roles are Canadians expected to fill? We do not know the answers to these questions because the government will not give us the information. How are we supposed to debate this issue and vote on this issue without all the facts?

As far as the costs are concerned, the department has stated in a briefing that the incremental costs could be somewhere between $2 million and $75 million. That is unblievable. A normal estimate may allow 10 per cent or 15 per cent of a range in giving the estimate. This Liberal estimate has a range of 3,800 per cent. That is the Liberal range. This figure, in addition to being vague, only refers to the defence department costs. What about incremental costs incurred by the Department of Foreign Affairs? Is there a ceiling to the cost? If so, what is the ceiling?

The fact that we know very little about the details of this mission concerns me. Indeed, the media seem to know more than parliamentarians, as shown by the leaked document from the U.S. that indicates Canada's expected troop commitment lies between 1,200 and 1,500 troops. Why has the government chosen to keep information from parliamentarians and Canadians? Again this shows that this debate is a complete sham.

Many of the problems I have outlined in my speech could be alleviated if our military had a clear mandate. First we need to define Canada's military role, and it should be up to Canadians to decide what this role should be. After appropriate debate through public meetings and through the media, Canadians should decide what functions they want DND to carry out. Then the decisions on how these functions can be performed should be made by the appropriate people within the forces with as little political interference as possible. If the military is splintered by playing too many roles, this diminishes the effectiveness with which it can accomplish its tasks.

I believe Canadians, if given all the facts, could and should make the decision as to what the mandate of our military should be. For example, should the military play a defensive role; that is, should it defend Canada against invasion? Should the military play a peacekeeping role? Should the number of military reserves be increased? Should it include a search and rescue function? Should it be used in situations of civil unrest-for example, native standoffs, organized crime revolts, or unilateral declaration of independence from one part of the country and possible disruptions resulting from such a secession?

We know the first option is not the most practical because we do not have the troops or the money to perform that role. Canada has come to depend on the United States and perhaps NATO for protection against invasion.

Whatever role Canadians decide they want our forces to play, two things are clear: our troops deserve the best training they can get, and our troops deserve to be the best equipped for the job they are to do.

In conclusion, we cannot afford to make decisions affecting Canadians' lives by the seat of our pants. I cannot support this deployment, given all the questions, the lack of information and the lack of answers.

The government is playing fast and loose with the facts. These facts affect Canadian peacekeepers and their lives. Reform refuses to-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, your time has expired.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie, ON]

Madam Speaker, peacekeeping is one of the strongest and most enduring traditions of Canada's foreign and defence policy. Canada is justifiably proud of its distinctive record in preserving world peace and fostering global security. In fact we are the only country that can claim to have participated in almost every peacekeeping mission organized under auspices of the United Nations.

Canada's peacekeeping commitments command the respect and admiration of the world community, a commitment that we parliamentarians are examining once again under the issue of a renewed participation in the peacekeeping force in Bosnia, as we should and as is our responsibility.

Canada has taken a leading role in the efforts to bring about a peaceful end to the conflict in the Balkans. Canada was among the first countries to call for a concerted international action and Canadian forces have served with distinction since 1991. Let us not ignore that their participation was done at considerable cost to Canada. Indeed, 10 Canadians were killed on this assignment. Let us examine this request for a further commitment very carefully.

Incredibly, the warring factions in Bosnia made a peace agreement a few short weeks ago. Requests for assistance to provide a stable forum for this peace initiative to mature and grow have been made. Our values of peace, freedom and democracy and our aversion to intolerance, terrorism and destruction cry out for our participation. Canadians do not simply stand for these ideals; they act on them and sacrifice for them.

Fifty years have elapsed since the end of the second world war, the war to end all wars. What have we learned? I wonder.

Over the last four years unthinkable horrors we thought were banished forever have been seared into our minds once again: the degradation of skeletal prisoners caged behind barbed wire fences; senseless murders of defenceless women and children; cowardly killings of men and boys in mass graves; ethnic cleansing; sickening destruction and obliteration of homes, of neighbourhoods, of entire communities where playgrounds and marketplaces became war zones; endless lines of refugees stumbling in misery and despair. The picture is not pleasant.

Our veterans of two world wars fought and too many gave their lives to guard against such atrocities. Can we now do nothing less?

The Muslims, Croats and Serbs have miraculously hammered out a peace settlement to put down their arms, to seek out a prosecute war criminals, to protect human rights, to build for the future peace and democracy.

They have asked for assistance, for our confidence and support to implement the Dayton peace agreement. Should we participate

in peacekeeping forces that will facilitate their efforts? The only conceivable response is yes.

Canada was a founding member of and a continuing major contributor to NATO. When a situation becomes difficult Canadians do not renege on their responsibilities. Canadians do not turn their backs on their allies. Canadians stand up and are counted.

Canadian forces are familiar with the geographical terrain of Bosnia. They know the people, their culture and their differences. Canadian forces are well trained and competent. They are not only well suited, they are ideally suited for this deployment.

It is also interesting to note that to date 19 non-NATO countries including Russia have also indicated a willingness to participate. These countries share our goals. We must also share their burden. These countries realize that peace and stability in Europe are essential for world security.

Bosnia lies nestled in the middle of a diverse European continent, in close proximity to some of the fragile democracies of the former iron curtain countries. Stability must come to this region to ensure the flames of war and all the devastation they bring do not lick beyond the Bosnian border. Let us not forget the spark from the Balkans that ignited the first world war. Let us not forget this lesson from history. We have seen Europe in flames. Never again.

The stability provided by the NATO presence will allow civilian agencies from around the world to commence programs of humanitarian relief and reconstruction, to provide food, shelter, clothing and medicine, to reconstruct roads, schools and hospitals, to reunite families, to heal the wounds of war, to allow the people of Bosnia to pull themselves from the past and to build for a future in peace.

There will be considerable cost and expenses associated with this military exercise; this in an era of necessary fiscal restraint and deficit reduction. Responsible Canadians are prepared to pay this price. They are aware of the quarter of a million men, women and children who have been shelled, shot and tortured to death and the campaigns of rape and ethnic cleansing. They are well aware of the price of failure of this peace accord.

Let there be no mistake, deployment of Canadian troops is not without risk and may very well involve casualties. Every effort will be made to minimize such risks but we must be prepared nonetheless.

One of the most difficult decisions the government has been called on to make is to place the volunteer men and women of our armed forces in situations of potential danger in far off lands when the values of our nation require it.

I urge the government to join this partnership of peace. Let us stand and be counted in this period of crisis once again. Let us stand for peace and freedom. Very simply, it is the right thing to do.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, given the nature and the make-up of Canada, there are people living in Canada who come from all over the world. Any time there is strife somebody in Canada has ties to that locale. When there is strife and war there are Canadians who feel it very deeply. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why we have evolved to such an extent into a peacekeeping nation.

If we look at it in an historical context, over the last 50 years peacekeeping has emerged as one of the most important activities of the international community in promoting peace and stability. Peacekeepers have served in regions throughout the world laying the basis for peace and saving countless lives.

The classic peacekeeping role has been to help maintain a ceasefire or to prevent the outbreak or spread of hostilities so underlying disputes can be settled through negotiations. In this sense peacekeeping has been a practical device to assist peacemaking.

Since the end of the cold war, however, the face of peacekeeping has undergone a remarkable transformation.

As the international environment has evolved over the last six or seven years, so too has peacekeeping. Witness, for example, the recent operations in Bosnia, Rwanda or Somalia. The dramatic changes are far from over and peacekeeping must continue to adopt to meet new challenges.

In tracking the evolution of peacekeeping over the last half century, it is critical that members of the House understand the full context of peacekeeping as they debate the possible deployment of Canadian forces personnel as part of a new mission to the former Yugoslavia.

I will briefly discuss some of the ways the international community and in particular Canada is responding to meet the new challenges of peacekeeping.

When international statesmen sat down to frame the charter of the United Nations in 1945, the harsh experiences of the second world war were still fresh in their minds. Peacekeeping began modestly. In the late 1940s the UN began deploying unarmed but clearly identified military personnel to observe peace agreements in some of the world's trouble spots.

Two of these early missions, the UN truce supervision organization in the Middle East and the UN military observer group in India and Pakistan, continue to this day.

With the Suez crisis of 1956 peacekeeping moved beyond simple observing and took on a more ambitious role. Suez was the most serious crisis faced by the United Nations since the Korean war and called for an imaginative response.

Lester B. Pearson, Canada's secretary of state for external affairs at the time, argued the UN should not only establish ceasefire between the warring parties but it should also police it with military personnel and make arrangements for a political settlement.

UN members were initially unimpressed by Pearson's scheme, but his determination and skill ultimately paid off and the United Nations emergency force was born. For his efforts Pearson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957.

UNEF set the tone for most peacekeeping operations over the next 30 years. Peacekeeping forces, made up primarily of military personnel, supervised ceasefires, monitored troop withdrawals and provided a buffer between opposing local forces.

Some of the key peacekeeping principles, such as the force be lightly armed, impartial and enjoy the consent of the warring parties, were also established in 1956.

Over the next three decades a select number of countries, including Canada, took the lead in peacekeeping. The great powers, because of ideological differences and colonial entanglements, kept a low profile.

Canadian peacekeepers served in many areas throughout the world, including the Congo, West New Guinea, Cyprus and the Golan Heights. Since 1947 more than 100,000 Canadians have participated in over 30 peacekeeping and related operations, a contribution which remains unmatched. Over 100 Canadians have lost their lives in the line of duty and many more have been wounded.

Looking at contemporary peacekeeping with the end of the cold war and the super power rivalry, we have seen a more active United Nations in the peacekeeping field. Between 1947 and 1988 the UN carried out 13 peacekeeping operations. In the last seven years alone there have been more than twenty.

The UN has also become more interventionist. The humanitarian impulse has on occasion challenged traditional notions of sovereignty. As a result the UN has become more involved in intra-state disputes and has grappled with human rights and humanitarian issues on a far greater scale than ever before. In short, modern peacekeeping operations demand a full range of military capabilities on the ground, in the air and at sea. Canada's own experience in the Balkans, Central America, the Middle East and Asia underscores this point.

In the former Yugoslavia Canadian ground troops have performed a wide range of humanitarian tasks. In Cambodia we currently have personnel on the ground serving with the Cambodian mine action centre, responsible for mine clearance operations.

At sea Canadian naval forces have participated in operations off the coast of Haiti and the former Yugoslavia, enforcing economic sanctions and arms embargoes. We have also had Canadian personnel involved in naval peacekeeping operations in Cambodia and Central America.

Modern operations sometimes take place in the absence of a viable agreement and without the consent of the warring parties. In some cases the warring parties to disputes have turned on UN forces. The result, as we have seen in Bosnia, is that our personnel have been exposed to considerable danger and have suffered casualties.

These experiences have reminded the Canadian government that fully trained soldiers are the best peacekeepers. They are equipped with the complete range of skills and level of professionalism needed to meet these new challenges.

At the same time, the government is aware that our personnel require specialized training. That is why they receive instruction in such areas as cultural sensitivity, international humanitarian law and dispute resolution. The government intends to enhance this type of training in the future.

In meeting the new challenges of peacekeeping, clearly peacekeeping in the 1990s has taken on a new look. If we are to meet the new security challenges of the next century we desperately need the UN and other international organizations to play a more effective role in resolving conflict.

Because of the scope and complexity of modern peacekeeping operations, the UN has had to call on regional organizations to play a greater role in conflict resolution. NATO's role in the proposed peace implementation force for Bosnia is an excellent example of how international organizations can work together.

The UN is the right instrument to confer legitimacy on an international peace operation, while the alliance is the organization best equipped to carry out a mission in Europe, especially one that may have an enforcement dimension to it.

As for the UN itself, reform can no longer be put off. Created in the 1940s, the organization must be equipped to handle the security challenges of the 1990s and beyond. The organization's record since the end of the cold war has been for the most part impressive. Missions in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Mozambique and Haiti have produced solid results.

However, setbacks in Africa and the Balkans, where many new concepts have been introduced, have raised concerns. Unfortunately many member states criticize the UN for all the world's current problems, which is hardly fair. Member states must stop shifting the blame and step forward to do their part.

Canada knows the UN has its share of problems but the government is determined to find solutions. Canada is in a unique position to help the UN. With our extensive experience and expertise in virtually all areas of peacekeeping, including many of the new concepts, we have much to offer.

Canada is helping strengthen UN peacekeeping in a variety of ways, from providing expert advice at headquarters in New York, to establishing the Lester B. Pearson International Peacekeeping Training Centre in Cornwallis, Nova Scotia.

In true Canadian fashion, we are putting forth practical and achievable proposals to help prepare the UN for the future. With the international environment becoming ever more complex, it is no surprise that peacekeeping has followed suit.

As new security threats continue to emerge, Canada and other members of the international community must not let up in their efforts to discover new and innovative approaches to peacekeeping.

Whatever the challenges, Canada's commitment to this useful conflict resolution tool should remain steadfast.