Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
I want to speak today on the participation of the Canadian Armed Forces in the implementation force in the former Yugoslavia. I agree with the principle but not with the way the government, particularly the Prime Minister and the defence minister, made commitments to our NATO allies.
First, on November 23, in a speech he gave following a meeting with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Prime Minister had already committed in principle Canadian funds and human resources, without first seeking the approval of this House.
Indeed, even before Parliament was asked to debate the issue, the decision had already been made. As far as I know, the
government should be at the service of Parliament and not the other way around. What is the use of having a democratic institution like Parliament where parliamentarians give advice to the government and pass legislation, if this government ignores procedure and only asks Parliament to rubber stamp its decisions?
Indeed, on November 23, the Prime Minister said, and I quote: "Of course, we will send some troops, but the size of our contribution will depend on what we are able to do and what we are asked to do". The Prime Minister was referring to our NATO allies and particularly to our neighbours, the Americans. Therefore, the decision on Canada's contribution will depend on the decision of our neighbours to the South and not on what our Parliament would have decided first. That is how decisions are made in Canada.
While I support in principle the Canadian government's peace plan to participate in NATO's operations in the former Yugoslavia, I am still puzzled by the way the federal Liberals are proceeding. It is a question of attitude.
Even President Clinton did not formally make a commitment until the American Congress ratified the United States' contribution to the ceasefire monitoring group. In my opinion, the Prime Minister's statement is further proof that he attaches very little importance to parliamentarians' opinions, since he announced, even before today's debate, that he would send troops to Bosnia.
Undoubtedly, the Prime Minister has a double standard. Even last week, he proclaimed that the House was sovereign on the matter of his famous distinct society clause and that this clause had priority over everything else. Today, in the case of the Canadian Armed Forces's involvement in the multinational military implementation force under NATO command, the decision has already been made and the only thing the House can do is ratify it. That is what we are being asked to do today.
I would like to raise several other points which strike me as irreconcilable differences between what the Government is saying publicly and what is being said here in this House.
At an information session this past Thursday, an Armed Forces spokesperson indicated that Ottawa's contribution to date to the United Nations Protection Force in the former Yugoslavia has been more than half a billion dollars over three years, or approximately $517 million, for a force ranging from 1,600 to 2,000 in size. That half billion, or some $172 million yearly, represents the additional cost for National Defence to commit Canadian troops to UN peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia. In other words, this figure represents what it cost over and above the normal costs of keeping our troops here in Canada.
Keeping those figures in mind, we are now told that the present NATO commitment ought not to cost more than an additional $75 million for a 12 month period involving some 2,000 to 3,000 Canadian soldiers-$75 million for a mission that differs greatly from a peacekeeping mission. This is inconceivable, half as much money, yet twice as much will be demanded of our troops.
In an article in Le Devoir on November 24, headed ``Canada to participate in intervention force'', the Minister of Defence is quoted as referring to far greater costs for this type of intervention, much more than $75 million.
I will read part of this article, and I quote: "Mr. Collenette also said that the logistics involved in combat operations of the kind organized by NATO are far more costly than in the case of UN peacekeeping missions. We will have to look at the financial aspects", concluded the Minister of National Defence.
There is a problem here. The Minister of National Defence tells us these combat operations may cost us a lot more than we are being told by the military, this in addition to the opinions of certain experts and officials who are saying that the cost of participating in a NATO mission is usually twice that of UN peacekeeping missions.
I am rather sceptical when people tell me it will cost only $75 million for 12 months, which is $75 million more than it normally costs, and people should realize that. Could the Minister of National Defence let the House know the real cost involved in these combat operations?
In another article published in Le Devoir on August 19, 1995, the Minister of Foreign Affairs responded to a report in Le Soleil in which it was estimated that the cost of Ottawa's commitment within UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia was $710 million over three years.
I have a very simple question: Who in this House could tell us the exact cost of such operations? Between departments there is a difference of about $193 million. Who is right? I find it hard to believe that the House is being asked to give its consent without knowing the real cost of these combat operations, especially when they are supposed to cost half as much as previous commitments to peacekeeping operations.
Considering the current federal deficit, how can we afford to ignore these facts? This is very disturbing. And I am sure the vast majority of taxpayers in Quebec and Canada would like to know the real cost of these combat operations.
The principle involved in peacekeeping operations is a noble one, but I doubt we can afford to get involved without knowing the
real cost of this gesture of human solidarity. When shown these figures, not a single banker in Quebec or in the rest of Canada would be willing to endorse such operations without at least knowing what he was getting into.
I support Canada's involvement in principle. The Bloc Quebecois supports Canada's participation in NATO's implementation force. I cannot, however, give this government a blank cheque without knowing where and how this money will be spent. It is taxpayers' money we are spending. And given the cuts imposed by the federal government on the most vulnerable in our society, it would be unthinkable not to know how much money will be spent and how it will really be spent.
Finally, as far as the implementation force's mission is concerned, no one knows, of course, how long it will last or what the implications will be in the medium term. The Prime Minister told the Secretary-General of the UN that participating forces would have to stay until peace is really restored, whether it takes six months or three years.
Notwithstanding the Prime Minister's commitment, should the mandate extend beyond the expected 12 months, I think the government should be required to submit its decision to the approval of this House. I also think that the 12 month mandate should be clearly stated and that Canada should commit no more than 2,000 troops to the NATO forces, which is approximately the maximum level of Canada's participation in UNPROFOR.
In conclusion, given our current financial situation, I have major reservations about the defence department's threat assessment.