Debates of Dec. 4th, 1995

The Balkans

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Babblelogue, yes, that is a good comment.

The opposition parties have a deep concern for what the government will do. It is very clear, and let us not pull any punches on this. What NATO has been asking for and what the U.S. has been asking for are combat troops to participate in IFOR.

This is not the same kind of mission Canada has participated in before, in peacekeeping missions. Let us look at the problems. The cornerstone of a peacekeeping mission depends on the fact that our troops are trained in compromise and negotiation, two cornerstones of peacekeeping operations. Canadians have done that job very well, but now we are moving to a new level. We are moving to the level of combat troops, peace enforcement. Get it out of your head that this is the same somehow as a peacekeeper, because it is not. There are no blue helmets any more. We are talking about a demilitarized zone that has been partitioned through the country of Bosnia. That partition is going through towns, cities, villages, farmlands, and there will be some action there. There will be some firing. Anybody on that side of the House who says there will not be is not being honest with the Canadian public. There will be. The U.S. President has stated that there will be and casualties are expected.

Canadians have to look at what we have been doing in peacekeeping operations since 1956, since the Suez crisis. We have let the equipment and the numbers of our Canadian Armed Forces decline.

I served in the Canadian Armed Forces twice in my adult time. I know the results of what a Liberal government can do to the Canadian Armed Forces when it is in charge. I have lived through it. I am surprised by the hon. parliamentary secretary's attitude. He knows that the hands of a Liberal government ran our equipment and our armed forces into severe decline. We do not have the equipment to get involved in this peace enforcement mission. There are also serious problems in the land forces command which simply have to be addressed.

Members opposite continually blame the Reform Party for the terrible morale in the Canadian Armed Forces. Members of the Reform Party support the armed forces and many in this caucus

have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. No, we are not to blame for the morale problem. It is the decline in numbers, the decline in support. On the other side of the coin there is the increase in demands being placed on our military while the resources are shrinking.

The white paper says very clearly that Canada does not have finite resources. We have to pick and choose which missions to participate in. Canadians have participated honourably and valiantly for three and a half years in the former Yugoslavia. No, we are not turning our backs. But for God's sake, we will not send our troops ill equipped and with a serious morale problem into a combat situation. It is a recipe for disaster and this government will pay the price for it if it decides to take that decision.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, do I understand from the hon. member that the druthers of the third party is not to send any troops to participate in this operation?

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been very clear in my comments. I am saying if it is the intention of the government to send combat troops, and the indication is that NATO is asking for combat ground force troops according to information made available to me as a parliamentarian, received through Access to Information and conversations with senior officers.

Many frustrated people in Canada are banging down my door saying to do something about this. I do not think I can make it much more clear to the hon. parliamentary secretary. I am representing the constituents of my riding and other people across the country who have phoned my office saying: "Do not send combat troops". Can I make it any more plain?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is banging on the member's door. The member spoke of the HMCS Calgary and the brave actions of an outfit that he claims has difficulty with morale. Has he considered the awards that have been made, and I hope he attended some of the presentations by the Right Hon. Roméo LeBlanc at Rideau Hall, for some outstanding acts of heroism? Has he considered this action of an outfit that is plagued by bad morale?

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary is pointing out and I have acknowledged in the House today the courageous activities of the crew of the HMCS Calgary and the courageous activities of those people on the Sea King helicopter who literally plucked survivors out of a very dangerous situation. We are not talking about the activities of our naval forces; we are talking about land force command. We are talking about soldiers on the ground with boots and rifles and they do not have the equipment. I say again that if the government is talking about those types of troops, absolutely no.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to our Standing Orders, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Social Programs.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion concerning Canada's participation in the peace implementation force to be deployed within Bosnia-Hercegovina.

The Dayton peace agreement has given the world a great deal of hope; hope that the situation in the former Yugoslavia will once and for all improve, and hope that innocent people will no longer have to suffer the violence of war.

Having come from that region of the world, this peace agreement touches me more personally than it does most other Canadians. I would like nothing more than to see a lasting peace which would ensure safety and security for all people in the former Yugoslavia.

I have had the honour to debate the issue of Canadian involvement in the former Yugoslavia many times in the House. Each time I have stated very clearly that I support Canadian involvement as long as the lives of our men and women are not placed in danger.

There were many times when I felt that Canadian peacekeepers were not being given adequate tools to do the job which they had been sent to do or adequate tools to protect themselves. When I speak of adequate tools I am not only referring to weapons, I am also referring to the mandate of UNPROFOR which often tied their hands. In spite of these obstacles, Canadian peacekeepers managed to make a valuable contribution to the fragile peace in Croatia and to perform a valuable humanitarian role in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Although not always evident, Canadian peacekeepers are well respected in the region. They have established a rapport with locals in the areas to which they were assigned. That is fundamental to the success of any peace mission.

The mission in which Canada is now being asked to participate is different from that of UNPROFOR. The peace implementation force will consist of approximately 60,000 military personnel. It will be responsible for overseeing the military aspects of the peace agreement recently reached in Dayton, Ohio. The force will be organized into three divisions: one American, one British and one French. Britain, France and the United States are collectively contributing the bulk of the forces necessary for this mission. They will send a combined total of 49,500 troops.

NATO will assume command of the mission once IFOR is deployed. However, it will operate under the authority of the United Nations Security Council resolution which permits the use of all necessary means to fulfil the mission.

Given that the formal peace agreement will not be signed until December 14 of this year in Paris, it is unlikely that any deployment of forces would take place prior to that date.

IFOR will not be a peacekeeping mission but rather a NATO led enforcement mission. Where UNPROFOR was mandated only to monitor the implementation of United Nations resolutions and to provide an escort for humanitarian operations, IFOR will be there to enforce the peace agreement.

Canadians and their allies have a great deal of work ahead of them. They will be required to co-ordinate arrangements to ensure freedom of movement and self-defence for IFOR troops within a given sector. They will be required to monitor and if necessary, enforce the withdrawal of parties to their respective territories. They will also co-ordinate and mark boundaries and lines of separation between parties and will establish, monitor and if necessary man lines of separation.

In addition to those responsibilities, IFOR troops will enforce the ceasefire provision of the peace agreement, defend persons, properties and areas designated as protected, monitor the clearing of minefields by parties to the agreement and provide a combat capability to reinforce IFOR troops as required.

In addition to this already lengthy list of responsibilities, IFOR will help to establish a joint military commission with civilians, military and non-governmental agencies in the area and will assist both the UNHCR and other civilian aid agencies in the conduct of their humanitarian missions. As well, IFOR will observe, secure and if necessary prevent interference in the movement of populations, refugees, displaced persons and their property.

Needless to say, what I have just outlined will be a challenge for all those participating in the IFOR mission. Canada has expertise in all of these areas simply because of our historic role in difficult peace missions around the globe.

As I stated earlier, our forces did an excellent job during the UNPROFOR mission and often without necessary means. Canada has already dedicated a great deal of time and effort to finding a peaceful resolution to the situation in the former Yugoslavia. To quit now when true peace is within reach would be a shame.

IFOR's mandate will give Canadian troops the tools needed to succeed in the implementation of the Dayton peace agreement. It will also give them the tools they need to protect themselves. To pull out now after we have done so much already would be like throwing in the towel in the third period of the Stanley Cup final.

We cannot let our allies down at this stage of the game. It would be wrong to let down the hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons who are counting on our help and who have trusted us for so long.

Not only would I encourage my government to contribute a modest force to IFOR so that we can finish what we started back in 1991, I would also encourage it to take a stronger leadership role in this region.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I share the sentiments the hon. member just gave about the refugees and how we are going to deal with them. However, we have not talked about what sort of a mandate we have, what sort of numbers. We have not talked about any of the details.

We are told to come up with all of these figures, that it is the opposition's job to come up with all of this. I thought the government would come forward with a proposal which we would then debate and discuss. The government does not have any ideas and it expects us to supply them.

We have listened to a lot of things. Just about an hour ago a CP reporter said that he had been told by a NATO official that Canada has committed a battalion of combat troops. We heard the Prime Minister say that Canadians could be there for up to three years. What does he know that we do not know? Why would he say something like that? We have heard Mr. Ouellet say that we are committed-

[The Deputy Speaker]

When referring to ministers the hon. member will please address them by their titles rather than their names.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With all of this being commented on by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the defence minister and NATO officials, why do we not have the information so we can honestly debate it?

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern of our colleagues from the third party. We are at the doorstep of long lasting peace. I am confident that Canada is ready to contribute whatever is necessary.

I hope that this mission lasts only for six or twelve months. I would be very disappointed if it lasts for three years. I believe it will not last that long.

By pulling out right now we would betray not only our allies but the people who trusted us for so long in Bosnia-Hercegovina. We would betray the people in that area.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

It's a different mandate.

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

It might be a different mandate but I strongly believe that we are ready for that mandate, that our soldiers are highly qualified for that.

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Cambridge for his remarks.

Sometimes in this place, although we are all equals, some remarks from some members perhaps carry a little more weight. Certainly the member for Cambridge knows of which he speaks with his heritage and culture from that area, from the former Yugoslavia. Also he has been extremely active in forming an association within Parliament for the Canada-Croatia-Bosnia society.

I commend the member for his work in this area and for his fostering an understanding among parliamentarians like myself of the complexities of the situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina, as well as all of the other states in the former Yugoslavia.

I would ask for his comments about the positive aspects of the Canadian presence in Bosnia-Hercegovina as well as in Croatia. What has been the impact of the presence of Canadians while the war was still going on with respect to the people of Bosnia-Hercegovina? Can he tell me what the impact has been and perhaps that will help explain why he is so adamant that the presence should continue?

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, coming from that area and knowing the mentality over there I would like to answer my colleague as well as colleagues of the third party that the morale of Canadian peacekeepers is very high. They are highly respected. The morale on the other side is very low. I am not afraid that our soldiers will not do the proper job over there. I am very confident because all three sides highly respect Canadian soldiers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate since this morning and there is an issue that has not been mentioned a lot if at all, and that is the impunity of those who have committed crimes against the civilian population.

It is the same story in Rwanda where almost one million people have been killed and the murderers are going scot-free. In Haiti, the military regime left without being punished and we have the feeling that the same thing will happen in the former Yugoslavia.

Could the hon. member for Cambridge tell us whether the Canadian government is concerned about this issue, and whether it might not foster similar civil wars in other countries?

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, two things have to be separated, Somalia from Bosnia and Hercegovina. There was never civil war in Bosnia and Hercegovina or Croatia. As we know, there was occupation. There were attacks starting with Slovenia by the former Yugoslav army. It was the same thing with Croatia and Bosnia. The two situations cannot be combined as one. They cannot be compared.

As far as I know from talking to Canadian soldiers in Croatia, there were no scandals. They were doing their job, as much as they could do. They are highly respected by all three sides. Canadians should be proud of that. They have continued and are keeping a long history, a tradition. We have to support them in that endeavour.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the hon. member's comments. I appreciated the courage it took for her to make some of those statements obviously in contrast to the stated position of her party and the government.

Her comments are not all that far out of sync with the position of the Reform Party which has been very outspoken, as we know, against the commitment of Canadian combat troops when they are obviously ill prepared, ill led and poorly equipped, as the hon. member drew attention to.

It is not so much the troops who are the biggest problem. It is the people across the way making the decision involving their lives. It does not instil confidence or morale in our armed forces when the de facto commander in chief does not even know which way to put his helmet on.

If the hon. member feels the government is to commit combat troops when they are not prepared to take on that role, as she said, will she let her feelings be known to the Minister of National Defence and speak out as Reformers have been doing against the commitment of combat troops?

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have no necessity to speak to the minister because he already knows how I feel because our party is free and open. We can say how we feel at any time.

I am sure no troops from Canada will ever be allowed to go in ill prepared or ill led. I have stated an opinion and we may hear from other members more familiar than I am about how much improvement has gone on with the equipment since the committee made those comments.

That is how I feel right now. I am quite willing to be proven wrong. I also know the Americans will be going in with plenty of equipment and our troops will be using their equipment if we do not have adequate equipment ourselves.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for a good presentation. This is the kind of debate we were hoping to get, not just the usual political rhetoric even if it has to be within our own party. There are some different ideas about the kind of troops, the numbers and that kind of thing.

I want to comment on a very important statement the hon. member made. I have to agree with her. When we were in ex-Yugoslavia, in Croatia and particularly Bosnia, we did receive from the troops a justified concern that equipment was not the best for what they had to do.

In military operations one is seldom equipped 100 per cent for what one has to do. Even then measures had been taken with respect to the armour of the APCs and the other vehicles. Corrections were being made. Every member in the House is aware we have gone forward with priority, as indicated and agreed in the special joint committee, that we would rectify the deficiencies in APCs. That is under way.

Another aspect was quite glaring to us. We were concerned as a committee with the number of rotations individual soldiers had. The recommendation was made by the joint committee and it was agreed, certainly by the third party if not by the official opposition, that we would increase the army size by 3,000 troops. We recommended 2,500 in the report but I believe it worked out to 3,000 ground troops instead of headquarters personnel. That adjustment has been made. It should greatly improve the rotation of combat soldiers and should also make it better for logistic soldiers. I wanted to set the record straight on that.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is no question the government has made a commitment to the UN initiative. However, I would feel much more comfortable about the decision if the concerns raised by my hon. colleague and by the hon. member who has just finished speaking, the questions of moral, leadership and, most important, equipment were put to rest. I would feel much more comfortable with our troops going into that situation if they were well equipped and had excellent leadership.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find the hon. member's remarks ambiguous. I would like him to clarify this for us. His leader has always been in favour of a Canadian military presence in Europe for humanitarian reasons, as he so eloquently explained in our last debate on the matter. And he himself agrees in principle with this policy for the same reasons that I and other members of this House believe it is crucial that Canada participate in humanitarian and large-scale efforts to restore peace in that part of the world.

I myself support this government initiative. I think that the hon. member also supports this government initiative. I think that his party supports this initiative. Even so, he is looking for an excuse to criticize the Prime Minister, to criticize the government, to find small things to complain about here and there, claiming that our Prime Minister is wrong when he says that our level of participation depends on the American level of participation. This goes without saying, but at the same time it does not mean that the Americans are deciding for us, as the hon. member is suggesting. What it means is that we will make our own decision based on what our allies are doing. It is perfectly logical, rational and appropriate.

I personally find that holding this debate in the House of Commons gives us, Canadian parliamentarians, the chance to have a say in this decision. This is undoubtedly a complex decision that depends on many other factors, but that is always how it is on the international scene, and to claim otherwise is, in my view, to distort the debate and only to look for excuses to criticize the government.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, where we disagree with the government is the way it is going about this. We are always told that the House is its own master, that Parliament is a sovereign institution. In fact, that is not the case. The Prime Minister has already made a commitment. He now puts the issue before the House, in order to have his decision endorsed by the different parties, and this is what we object to.

We do agree with the decision. We know that Canada has commitments to NATO. We know that it has always fulfilled its commitments. We have no problems with that. What we are saying is: fine, let us go, but according to our means.

As you know, we may be one of the most indebted countries in the world, per capita. Sure, we must continue to help others, but we should also take our situation into consideration when making that decision. The Bloc Quebecois agrees that we should send troops to Bosnia-Hercegovina, along with our partners. However, the government should not always surprise us at the last minute. If the House is its own master, if it is sovereign, then it should be the one to decide. The government should come back and tell the House how many troops should be sent, and so on, because these are important issues.

In my speech, I mentioned that President Clinton waited for the approval of both Houses before taking action. That was not done here, in spite of the Prime Minister's promise.

In conclusion, it is important to fulfil our commitments, but we must also not lose sight of what is going on. This operation is very different from a peacekeeping mission. Some lives may be lost. Our troops risk their lives, but the risk could or will be greater this time. If we send armed forces personnel over there, it does not have to be combat troops. We could send auxiliary forces, engineers, nurses, etc. We have all this expertise available in Canada. We would still be taking part. But I think we must be careful. We do not have to do more than others. We must do our share, but we do not have to do more than others.