Madam Speaker, I am very pleased the debate has been extended because if it had not been, I would not have been able to put my views on the record.
A lot of members are very interested in what is going on in Bosnia and Croatia and the other states of the former Yugoslavia. In my constituency there are many individuals whose families have served in a number of different support functions with the United Nations since this conflict started. In the Dartmouth-Halifax area because the east coast Canadian navy is there, there are many individuals who have served onboard the ships which offered logistical support in the Adriatic. Many individuals from Atlantic Canada have served on a number of the missions in Bosnia.
The hon. member for Athabasca indicated earlier that perhaps he was in a unique situation because his son might be one of those called upon to serve. He may be unique in that regard, but there are many of us, myself included, who have family members in the Canadian Armed Forces.
My brother Paul has served in peacekeeping missions under the UN as a blue beret in Cambodia. Cambodia was a very difficult mission. There were no warring factions at that point in time, but it was a highly unstable political situation. It was difficult on family members. It was difficult on Paul's fiancée at the time, but he served proudly wearing the blue beret of the United Nations. He served there proudly as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces.
My nephew, Neil Bernard MacKinnon, served two or three tours of duty in Bosnia. He was a young man in his early twenties. When he would visit, my dad, who served in the second world war, would say: "I think Neil Bernard has seen more slick trenches by his stories from Bosnia than I did in the Italian campaign during the second world war". That young man dedicated himself and his life to serve the Canadian Armed Forces. He served very proudly under very difficult circumstances in Bosnia. It is unfortunate because he lost his life in the spring of this year, not in Bosnia but here in Canada in a training exercise in Suffield. This is currently the subject of an inquiry.
Some of the best remembrances I and my family have of Neil Bernard are his stories about the service he gave in Bosnia, about the humanitarian tragedy that was unfolding in that particular state and about the important role played by Canadian peacekeepers serving under the UN banner in that little part of hell. That is how he described it to me one day.
Today it is important that as parliamentarians we not debate in isolation. I have heard a lot of isolated debate today. I have heard a little bit too much partisanship in the debate as well. We are talking about the soldiers, the men and women who have chosen to serve this country, Canada, through the Canadian Armed Forces. We sent these people over there in a time of war and conflict when there was no peace to keep. They provided humanitarian aid. Some were injured and some were killed. Some were scarred by what they saw, but nevertheless they did it because they believed in the Pearson commitment to humanitarian aid and peacekeeping through the United Nations.
I remember in the last Parliament we had another debate on the UN and UN resolutions with respect to the Persian Gulf crisis. I remember quite well having to speak in that debate. It was certainly not as focused as this debate is. The government at the time did not want us to speak specifically about whether or not our troops would be committed if a war did break out. It was a
resolution on whether or not we supported UN resolutions. I remember I was waiting to speak on that bill. There was a long list at the time. It was a motion. My interest in speaking was that I knew if a war did break out and the Canadian government committed troops there would be men and women who lived in my riding, some of whom lived in my neighbourhood and some of whom had children who went to school with my children, who would be committed.
As members of Parliament, I wanted everybody to be quite aware of the dangers of such a commitment of forces in the Persian Gulf. I supported at that time the government of the day doing what it did. I supported that Parliament and the Canadian government had to support members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
It is a little different this time around. We are being asked to debate the principle of whether we should continue, now that we have the Dayton peace accord, to provide troops for a one-year period as peace is implemented in Bosnia.
Clearly, the members of the Canadian Armed Forces have been truly tested over the years from budget cuts and lack of equipment they believe they need. But not once have I talked to a member of the Canadian Armed Forces who was not prepared to go and do the job they joined the armed forces to do. If that is in protection of the sovereignty of our country, they are there to do it. If it is to go and protect or preserve a peace or to try to bring about a peace in a foreign state, they are prepared to serve.
I am rising today to say that I support the Canadian government participating in the IFOR in Bosnia. I do not do it lightly. I do it knowing full well, as the member for Athabasca said, that when you get involved with an action like this there are inherent dangers. Members of this place have to understand that when they speak in support or not in support of motions such as this.
I also believe very strongly that we can no longer continue to ask the members of our Canadian Armed Forces to do more with less. During the Persian Gulf situation and since 1991 in the Bosnian situation, there is no question that what we have done is ask our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces to stretch the resources further than the resources many times could be stretched.
I am one of those who believe that if we want the Canadian Armed Forces to continue to hold up the very credible reputation that Canada has worldwide for its peacekeeping and peacemaking efforts as well, then we must provide the resources to the armed forces to make sure they are the best equipped forces in the world.
I get worried about talk of continued budgetary cutbacks. I get worried when I know that perhaps some of the equipment our armed forces has is not what it should be. But I get equally worried when I hear members opposite of the third party, the Reform Party, who want to have it both ways. This is two or three times in debate that they have criticized the government for allowing a debate to happen, which is outrageous, and said we cannot send troops over because they are not properly equipped.
I do not care what the Minister of National Defence says and I really do not care what the Minister of Finance says with respect to having to get the deficit down when I know there are members of the Canadian Armed Forces who do not have the resources they require to do the job we ask of them.
I will say it in this place. I said it publicly and I will continue to say it, even though some in my party may not like me saying it. At least I am not hypocritical. I am consistent. I have been for the seven years I have been here.
What I would like to find out from the members opposite, from somebody in the Reform Party, is whether they are in favour of sending troops over. Please say so. If it is with the condition that there is more money allocated through the budgetary process to provide them with better helicopters to replace the Sea Kings, I will be the first one to jump up and say I agree with you. If it is with the assurance that the armoured personnel vehicle program that has been announced be accelerated, which would cost a little more money, I will agree with them. If it is conditional on the purchase of new submarines to retire the aging class that we have most of the time that do not work because they are so bloody old, I will agree with them.
I would like for them to be clear and intellectually honest in a debate like this. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces deserve better than political rhetoric on the floor of the House of Commons when there are motions put forward debating whether or not they participate in international obligations, particularly when there is the threat of injury or even death.
I support the government's initiative, but I will also put it on the record that I want the government to ensure that the troops we send have the resources they need to do the job we ask of them.