Madam Speaker, I looked forward to this debate for some weeks, having heard the Prime Minister say that he promised a full debate in the House of Commons before any decision was made in regard to this matter. I can only say that I was extremely disappointed to find out in the last couple of days that the whole debate was to be a fraud, a sham, that the decisions have already been made, not only to commit soldiers but how many soldiers would be committed.
I suppose five years from now the auditor general will be able to tell us what the operation cost, because the Minister of National Defence, the finance department and the government have no idea what will cost, or at least they are not willing to share it with us.
The government knows what the command structure will be for the Russian forces there and who will be in charge of those forces, but they do not know yet who will be in command of the Canadian Armed Forces and what the command structure will be. That does not give one great confidence. In addition, there is the unmitigated arrogance of members across the way to taunt us on this very serious matter, this insult to democracy we have witnessed all day.
I can say that the Reform Party has every bit as much concern as anybody on that side of the House for the suffering and the atrocities that are taking place in the former Yugoslavia. However, our primary concern must be for our Canadian sons and daughters. My concern is that the government would send my son and his colleagues into the theatre of war without properly equipping them and without proper command. I think that is truly atrocious.
We have simply asked from the beginning of this whole debate that the government and the ministers lay before Parliament a proposal that would clearly lay out the Canadian criteria, the mandate for the mission. We have also asked that the government lay out the command structure and how our Canadian soldiers and commanders would fit into that structure.
As we have heard before in previous debates on this issue, there were great concerns that we were one of the major forces in the peacekeeping effort in the former Yugoslavia and that we had
absolutely no input into the decisions made concerning those forces. We really do not want to be in that situation again. We want to be able to make decisions and be part of that command structure.
We also asked that the government lay before Parliament for debate the rules of engagement. What happens when some of these war criminals are arrested and taken into custody? What happens when our Canadian soldiers are face to face with those individuals and perhaps need to shoot somebody to enforce the mandate they have been given?
I do not think we have heard anything on any of these issues. We have questioned the business of the length of the commitment. We have heard 12 months and yet we hear that at the end of 12 months this mandate is to be handed over to some fictitious organization and that our soldiers will be withdrawn and the authority transferred to others.
It is unbelievable that they can go into the situation that exists there now and in 12 months they can have democratic elections and that we can have some kind of a government structure in there to turn this whole situation over to.
We have heard again from our members the problems our peacekeepers have already faced in the former Yugoslavia such as our soldiers not having enough combat helmets. They certainly do know which way to wear them, front or back, but if they do not have them it is difficult to put them on either way.
We have also heard about the armoured personnel carriers that were rolling coffins our soldiers were riding around in and the efforts to armour them to provide safe transport for our soldiers. After that they were so heavy they did not have enough power to get to the top of a hill. There are all kinds of horror stories, and that was a peacekeeping role. Clearly the members opposite do not seem to understand the difference. This is not a peacekeeping role. This is a combat role.
I believe we have asked a lot of reasonable questions that the government would bring forward on this debate and that we could debate and we could have discussion. We had hoped Parliament might have a chance to have a free vote on the issues debated and that members could make a democratic decision on behalf of their constituents based on that vote.