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 Canadian troops have a long tradition of improvising and making do with outdated and unsuitable equipment for the job that must be done.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-