Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in this very important debate today.
Canada has a long and impressive history of peacekeeping around the world. As I am sure all members are aware, peacekeeping as it is known today was invented by a Canadian, former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. During the Suez crisis of 1956, Mr. Pearson proposed the formation of an emergency UN force to supervise the cessation of hostilities.
Since 1947 Canada has participated in every United Nations peacekeeping operation. We are one of the few countries that has done so. We are also one of the few countries that has paid all of its United Nations' dues, including our share of peacekeeping costs.
Canada has played a major role in the ongoing peacekeeping efforts in the former Yugoslavia. It has been involved in four separate but related operations in the region. It has been participating in the Sarajevo humanitarian airlift. The navy has one frigate operating with NATO's standing naval force Atlantic, in the Adriatic, monitoring and enforcing sanctions.
Canada has also provided two crew members for AWACS aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone over Bosnia. Canada has also provided a battalion to support the United Nations operation in Bosnia. That unit was based in Visoko, northwest of Sarajevo. About three-quarters of that unit's personnel were withdrawn in October of this year, with the remainder returning to Canada in late November.
Canadian troops have played a valuable role in Bosnia. They have delivered relief supplies, protected civilians and monitored ceasefires.
Over the past three years we have all become far too familiar with the scenes of violence and suffering on the nightly news reports from Bosnia. The war in Bosnia has been extremely brutal and vicious, despite the best efforts of the United Nations and Canadian troops to relieve the suffering of innocent civilians.
The previous United Nations' efforts were at best a band-aid solution. Therefore I welcome the agreement signed recently in Dayton, Ohio, ending the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. After
more than three years of fighting, 250,000 dead and the creation of two million refugees, it is high time that the fighting end in Bosnia.
Although I hope that the Dayton agreement will bring peace to the region, I must admit that I share the doubts expressed by many. We have become familiar in the past few years with the short lifespan of Balkan truces and agreements. After several years of fighting, it will be extremely difficult for all sides to live together.
The peace agreement is extremely complex and will be very difficult to implement. For this reason I welcome the participation of NATO. As I am sure members are aware, NATO is planning to deploy 60,000 troops, including 20,000 American troops, to enforce the agreement.
Besides the United States, 11 other NATO countries have indicated that they will provide troops. As well, Russia and 19 other non-NATO countries have indicated that they will provide troops. Russia and many of the non-NATO countries are former members of the Warsaw pact and current members of the Partnership for Peace. This will be the first co-operative operation between NATO and the Partnership for Peace countries.
NATO has made clear that the implementation force will not be a traditional peacekeeping mission, but rather a NATO led enforcement mission. It will operate under chapter VII of the UN charter, which permits the use of all necessary means to fulfil a mission.
The implementation force will be required to monitor and enforce the withdrawal of each side's troops to their respective territories, establish and man lines of separation, enforce the ceasefire provisions of the agreement, defend protected areas and and assist United Nations and civilian aid agencies.
It is quite likely that the implementation force will be involved in some fighting as it seeks to enforce the peace agreement. For this reason, NATO troops will be heavily armed and authorized to use force.
Despite their large numbers and heavy armaments, NATO troops are likely to have casualties. The terrain will make operations difficult. Snipers and land mines can be very difficult to deal with.
Despite all the difficulties, I am in favour of NATO participation and Canadian participation in this operation. We have been trying since the war began to find a solution. Canada should not abandon Bosnia just when a real solution is becoming a possibility.
This agreement is the only means to end the war and we have a duty to support it. Although I feel we must support the Dayton agreement and the NATO implementation force, there are limits to what Canada can do. We must set clear limits on what role Canadian troops will fulfil.
I have the greatest respect for the professionalism and skill of Canadian soldiers. However, I am very concerned about the preparedness of the Canadian army to play a frontline role in a peace enforcement mission. I am concerned that the Canadian forces will not be properly equipped for the combat role they might be required to fulfil in Bosnia.
The defence review undertaken by the joint committee on Canada's defence policy clearly indicated the shortcomings in equipment of the Canadian military. Although the government has taken steps to correct many of the shortcomings, it will take time to fully modernize Canada's equipment.
I had a long talk recently with a constituent of mine who served in Bosnia and was gravely wounded. Although seriously wounded, he is very proud of the Canadian military and the job it has been doing in Bosnia. It is very satisfying to hear him talk about what he has personally gained through his military service. He feels the military is a great training ground for Canadian youth. He feels that the Canadian troops are the best trained troops in the world.
Despite this, he feels that Canada should maintain its role as peacekeepers and not become peacemakers. He is of this opinion as he is personally aware of some of the more glaring deficiencies in Canada's military equipment. For instance, the Cougar armed vehicles that Canada was using in Bosnia were purchased in 1980 as training vehicles. In his opinion, they do not provide adequate armour and the targeting system on the gun is not very effective. In his opinion also, the flak vests do not provide adequate protection and are inferior to modern vests.
Personally, Canada can best contribute by providing support troops and humanitarian relief. Canada should provide the support it is best equipped to provide and leave the provision of combat troops to countries best equipped for that role.
In previous peacekeeping missions, such as in Namibia, Canada provided logistics and support personnel.
In peacekeeping operations in the Middle East Canada provided communication troops and logistics support to United Nations peacekeeping operations. Another option would be to provide engineers and assistance in demining operations as Canada did in Cambodia. Another option would be to provide medical support to the implementation force in the form of field hospitals.
The resettlement of a large number of refugees will place an enormous strain on United Nations humanitarian agencies. Canada could provide support to resettlement and reconstruction efforts in Bosnia.
I emphasize that the most valuable contribution Canada could make to the implementation force would be to provide support troops in the areas of communication, logistics and medicine. I also emphasize that I am in favour of supporting the implementation force. We have a moral duty to support the peace efforts in Bosnia, and our troops will be up to any job they may be asked to perform.