Debates of March 29th, 1995

Peacekeeping

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for me to participate in this debate today on the participation of Canada in peacekeeping operations, and the one under way in the former Yugoslavia in particular.

However, before I go any further, allow me to share a few thoughts, as the Leader of the Opposition did, on how this emergency debate was called by the government.

First of all, what does the motion before us say? It says: "That this House, in the light of the UN Security Council consideration"-which, by the way, has not been done yet-"of renewed mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia, take note of the rotation of Canadian Forces serving with UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia".

Mr. Speaker, the deadline is March 31, two days from now. With a deadline days away, the government decides to call an emergency debate, with 24 hours notice, on this issue.

We do not have the slightest idea of what the terms and conditions of this mandate will be that the UN Security Council will review. As I said, while the current mandate regarding Croatia is due to expire on March 31, the Security Council has yet to make a decision on a new mandate. We do not have the slightest idea what is involved here, if, for instance, there will be a reduction in forces, as the Croatian government has given to understand. We do not know whether troop rotation will take place. We do not know. What we do know, however, is that the necessary logistic arrangements have already been made for Canadian troops to be rotated on Monday. That much we know.

In order to be able to prepare for this debate for which the government gave us very little time, with only a few hours notice, we managed to meet briefly, less than an hour actually, just two hours ago, with officials from the departments of National Defence and Foreign Affairs. And that was only possible because we had requested to meet with them; otherwise, I wonder if any information would have been made available to us. We were fortunate to receive, minutes ago, a number of backgrounders from DND.

How do you expect us to be able to make any significant contribution to a fundamental debate like this one under the circumstances?

This debate aimed at renewing-even if the motion talks of "taking note" of-Canada's peacekeeping mandate in the former Yugoslavia is somewhat inconsistent with the conclusions of the Special Standing Committee Reviewing Canada's Defence Policy and especially the dissenting report drafted at that time by the Bloc, which defines a number of criteria to be met for our participation in peacekeeping operations instead of making decisions on a piecemeal basis, as the Leader of the Opposition said. Again, we are acting on a case-by-case basis and that is disgraceful, given the recommendations in the report.

This shows the arrogance of this government, which took for granted that the opposition would give the motion its benevolent support. Why did it take this support for granted? Because, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we have no choice. How can we, at this stage, withdraw from the former Yugoslavia?

The government, riding the wave, decided to call a debate at the last minute, just before the end of the mandate, and force parliamentarians to settle this matter, thinking that it would obtain the benevolent and unanimous consent of this House.

This debate is all the more surprising in that, on March 14, as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs rightly pointed out, the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. As the parliamentary secretary rightly pointed out, the minister asked Reform and Bloc representatives to state their positions on the renewal of the mandate of Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia.

The minister said the purpose of his initiative was to avoid having to hold a debate in the House. We very spontaneously stated our position to the minister, without having had time to prepare. In spite of that co-operation, we find ourselves in a debate on this issue. I fail to understand the logic of this government.

We of course supported the renewal of the mandate of Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia, but with some reservations. We have to make sure that our presence is still required, and we must also ensure that our peacekeepers are safe in the theatres of operations.

We also want to raise the issue of suicides. There is some extremely disturbing information to the effect that a number of soldiers committed suicide either after participating in peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia, or because they did not want to take part in these operations. This is most disturbing. Some facts will have to be thoroughly reviewed.

Given these considerations, I am somewhat surprised to find myself debating the presence of our troops in the former Yugoslavia, less than two days before the expiry of the UN forces mandate in that region, and particularly in Croatia.

In any case, the previous debates on this issue provided us with an opportunity to express our views and to hear the views of others.

I do not think that we should go back, today, and repeat everything that was already said on the issue. Instead, we should try to see why Canadian troops should withdraw from that region, or remain there.

A primary concern, to which I briefly referred earlier, is the danger faced by our troops stationed in the former Yugoslavia. This issue, which was also raised in previous debates, must once again be considered now.

Indeed, given the numerous violations of the cease-fire, our troops, on any day, could be dealing with a bloody war, as opposed to a conventional peacekeeping mission. Let us not forget that ten peacekeepers lost their lives and many others have been injured since the first Canadian peacekeepers arrived in the former Yugoslavia.

Similarly, a truce signed by the Bosnian government with the various warning factions in Bosnia was violated repeatedly during the past few weeks. Furthermore, the Bosnian Serbs recently threatened the international community with retaliatory action against the peacekeepers if the Bosnian Serb forces were hit by NATO air strikes.

In a way, and we see this in the media, since the beginning of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the situation has hardly improved, on the contrary. Today, battles are raging throughout the territories coveted by the various belligerents. Today, people are suffering from a lack of food and fuel, lack of medical drugs and health care, lack of adequate housing, peace and safety.

On the other hand, we should also consider the excellent job being done by our troops within the UN theatres of operations. Our troops continue to provide the peoples of the former Yugoslavia with shelter, food, clothing, protection and moral support. Since the fall of 1991, nearly $60 million has been spent on the purchase and delivery of food, medicine and clothing, on shelter for the homeless and on assistance to refugees, displaced persons and victims of violence.

I feel that as long as the presence of Canadian troops is required and useful, there is no doubt that its presence must be maintained. By sending troops to the former Yugoslavia, Canada has made an important choice. It cannot afford to ignore a situation where human beings are experiencing an unspeakable tragedy. Granted, the help provided by our soldiers is not a panacea but at least it can alleviate the suffering.

To bring back our peacekeepers in these circumstances would not only mean abdicating our responsibilities and moral obligations as human beings, it would also extinguish that flicker of hope these people still have, people who for the most part are innocent victims of man's inhumanity to man. It would also mean leaving them to face a tragic escalation in the current conflict. No, we cannot go backward today, we have no choice, in the words of the Leader of the Opposition.

However, we need some answers about the safety of our troops should the embargo be lifted and in the event of air strikes. We need to know about the willingness of local authorities to have our troops remain there. We need answers about the cases of suicide in current peacekeeping operations. We need to look deeper into this troubling situation. Of course, we are in favour of keeping Canadian troops in the former Yugoslavia, but, unlike last year, I do not think the government can assume each year that it has the opposition's support.

The government must provide an assessment of the situation and explain to us how it has changed. We have had no assessment and no explanation of changes in the situation. We have no idea, apart from the bits of information we gleaned this afternoon. We have not had an opportunity to find out details of what is happening in the field, and I think that, if we are to have a serious debate in this House, the government must give us this information.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate this evening. I want to put into perspective what Canadian troops are doing.

Right now we have in the former Yugoslavia, and I refer mostly to Croatia and Bosnia, roughly 40,000 United Nations troops from 35 countries participating in a variety of operations. We in Canada have the fifth largest operation and we have deployed roughly 2,100 troops. They are engaged in four main operations. There is the operation in Bosnia in which we have approximately 820 troops. They are mostly engaged in relief convoys and the protection of human beings, humanitarian protection.

In Croatia we have 770 peacekeepers; combat troops engaged in traditional peacekeeping, looking at the ceasefire areas and preventing skirmishes.

We have another operation in the southwest part of Croatia, on the coast, in Primosten, just north of the larger city of Split, where we have roughly 265 troops. They are logistics troops and represent the logistics battalion.

We also have a separate operation, which is actually a fifth operation. It is an air operation that has Hercules flights from Italy to Sarajevo to keep the airport open. There have been 1,600 flights. Roughly 11,500 people have been transported to and from the airport and 26,000 metric tonnes. That is an achievement in my mind.

Last but not least we have in the Adriatic coast a Canadian destroyer with 265 Canadians as part of the 15 nation, 21 ship force enforcing the arms embargo. This operation is one of which, despite what the opposition parties say, we are very proud and will continue to be.

We have been involved in this operation, if we include its beginning, from September 21, 1991 as we have in most UN operations that have ever happened in the world. That we have a reputation that is enviable is an understatement. We have heard all of it before in the House.

The question for debate tonight is whether we continue the mandate. Before I address the question I want to comment on something the hon. Leader of the Opposition said and something the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands said.

The Leader of the Opposition said that he deplored the fact that we were speaking so late, that it essentially gave no choice to Parliament. The hon. member for Verchères said that he would like some comment from this side of the House on why we are having the debate so late.

I remind the House that the Leader of the Opposition was a member of a government that deployed troops and committed Canada to the gulf war without as much as a word of discussion in the House of Commons. That was absolutely despicable. All Canadians thought it was outrageous.

To have the Leader of the Opposition criticize the government for having the fourth debate on peacekeeping in 18 months plus other debates, one of which took place last week on defence, is absolutely disgraceful, outrageous, misleading and intolerable.

The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands complains that we are not having a debate on this matter. When it was put forward at the meeting last night I understand there was some question in the Reform Party whether it wanted to debate it. Whether or not the Reformers are being childish because it was at this point in time I do not know. It was not until late in the evening that they decided they would have the debate. I do not accept these complaints.

I want to make another point with respect to the opposition. The hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands spoke about renewing the mandate. He did nothing but moan about the Canadian forces and talk about morale.

If members of the opposition parties, particularly the third party, would refrain from taking brown envelopes from disgruntled people and using them on the government to reduce the credibility of the very credible actions that are taking place from day to day, I would suggest the morale of the Canadian forces, whatever state it is in now, would be a hell of a lot better.

I do not mean for the hon. member from Saanich-Gulf Islands to be a target; in fact we are quite good friends. He debated and complained about the state of equipment in the Canadian forces. We just finished a 10-month discussion on defence where all these matters were brought out. They were part of the white paper. They were addressed in a report to Parliament and are being addressed in the white paper.

I know he wants to be on record as to his knowledge of defence. He has made his point. I will make my point that we are aware of these deficiencies and the government is addressing them, including 3,000 more peacekeepers to make sure that the rotation is better than it was.

The mandate is a hard judgment to make. The support for peacekeeping in my constituency and in those parts of Canada to which I travel, including 10 months on the standing committee's defence policy review, was very strong. I sense that today it is not as strong as it was six months ago. I suggest the reason for that is the perception that we are not making any headway.

How can we expect significant progress to be made in a country where conflict has been ongoing for almost a thousand years? I do not pretend to understand all the politics. I doubt if all of us in the House, if we were put together, could understand what is happening there.

Where does that leave us? Should we not renew our mandate as 1 of 35 countries because we feel progress has not been made in peace?

There is more to it than that. We are supplying humanitarian aid. We are supplying hope to a country where hope is hard to come by.

I remind everybody in the House, particularly the members who were with me 10 months ago as we spent some time in Bosnia and Croatia, of a mental institution in a town called Bakovici where many inmates were murdered, raped, tortured and mutilated. The remaining inmates, the poor souls, we saw them. They were being protected by members of the Canadian

forces. It would rend one's heart to see this place in operation. There are many other examples.

The humanitarian aspect would be sorely missed. I fear, because of the Canadian reputation in peacekeeping, that our decision to exit would give a signal that perhaps would not be conducive to world stability, particularly world stability in the Balkans.

I agree with my hon. friend from Saanich-Gulf Islands who says that ideally we should have a clear mandate. We should have a clear set of operating instructions. Ideally we should have acceptance from the countries we are participating in and a clear set of rules of engagement. These points and principles were included in the white paper. I fear they are not being totally regarded in our participation in the ex-Yugoslavia.

We do not live in an ideal world. Is the contact group, the five countries that were formed last year to negotiate a settlement, making progress? I think it is but it is very slow. If we accept this mandate for another six months how much longer are we prepared to go? I cannot answer that. I would say, as the minister of defence said, that I do not believe it is the intention of anyone in Parliament to have a commitment in ex-Yugoslavia that would last for 29 years.

We are a long way from 29 years. Yes, there are risks. Yes, there are many land mines. Yes, there are snipers. Yes, there are flareups. However the situation in ex-Yugoslavia now, despite the 14 ceasefire violations in the recent past, I am told by the operators is not much different from what it was three years ago.

Let us stay the course for this round. Let us help in the humanitarian aspect. Let us contribute as much as we can to the peace negotiation. Let us go forward with hope that we will see an amelioration of the situation if not an end to the conflict.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to speak this evening on peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia.

I emphasize a few of our concerns regarding the lateness of the debate and how it is just two days away from the mandate ending. I discussed this point with the minister a month ago. It was felt that we could be part of briefings much earlier and that then we would look at whether we needed to have this debate. We felt that before a decision was made there could be all-party involvement. We would agree. We would work toward that. We would co-operate in every way possible.

This last minute type of thing certainly makes us wonder how serious the government is and what is the real purpose of our being here. Let us take that it is for honest reasons and that the government really wants to hear what we have to say.

To move to the issue itself, as the foreign affairs critic for the Reform Party I state very strongly and clearly, as did the last speaker, that Canada should not renew its peacekeeping commitment to Bosnia or Croatia.

Canadians have served honourably for almost three years now but enough is enough. Canada has performed above and beyond the call of duty in all its commitments to the UN. No country can say that we did not try our utmost to re-establish peace and facilitate a long term negotiated settlement to the disputes.

The facts are sad but obvious. The warring parties have shown no serious commitment to peace negotiations. Over the winter many have rearmed and resupplied their soldiers so they can start fresh fighting in the spring. The mid to long term prospects for peace are bleak and no amount of Canadian peacekeepers can change that fact. If we could just see light at the end of the tunnel, possibly this speech could be quite different.

The Reform Party believes the time to leave is now. If predictions about an increase in the level of fighting over the late spring and summer are true, we must act quickly to pull out our troops now. It may not be easy but now is our best chance to get them home without incident. If we wait and things get tougher, our troops will face an even greater unnecessary risk.

Last fall we saw how increased levels of fighting led to a corresponding increase in hostage taking of UN soldiers. This could happen again if we fail to act decisively now. The conditions in Bosnia during high levels of fighting remind me of the Eagles song "Hotel California". I will not sing it because it would certainly clear the House. Basically the words are: "You can check out any time you like but you can never leave".

If Parliament dithers we may find some time down the road that we want to check out but will not be allowed to leave without fighting our way out through militias and possibly even through civilians. If we are to act responsibly we must leave now.

As far as Croatia is concerned its president does not want UN peacekeepers any more. Although he is no longer forcing the UN out, he has demanded that it scale down its operations dramatically. As the process is going on Canadian troops would have a perfect opportunity to end their tour there without disrupting the ability of the UN to fulfil its new and more modest mandate.

Speaking in more general terms about Canada's role in peacekeeping around the world, it is high time that Parliament rethink how we can be most effective in our UN commitments and set clear criteria for our participation in future missions. We are not saying to get out of peacekeeping; we are saying to set the criteria.

Canadians are not prepared to give up on their proud traditions of caring and intervention for the sake of peace. However these times cannot be seen from a purely international perspec-

tive. Our foreign commitments must be in harmony with our domestic needs. Therefore we must be sure when we support peacekeeping that we are operating in Canada's best interests and within the very real financial constraint that must be the primary concern of any good government.

We must pick our spots and we must choose wisely. Today's debate should be a step in that direction. One thing is clear. Canada can no longer be the 911 phone number for the world or for the UN. As much as we want to help others, this desire is tempered by the fact that we cannot be all things to all people. Therefore it is better that we help effectively in a few cases rather than spread ourselves too thin. In this way Canada can protect its own vital interests and provide the most effective help for the international community.

As we examine the issue of peacekeeping it is worthy of note that since the end of the cold war the demand for peacekeepers around the world has sky-rocketed. If the past few years have taught us any lesson it is that instability will continue. New hot spots will continue to crop up and Canada must be ready.

If more requests come from Africa, Southeast Asia or the former Soviet republics, how will Canada respond? Clearly Canada must establish criteria to test the importance of each request for our help. While this is a sensitive issue and I do not claim to have all the answers, I would argue the following could be considered by Parliament when deciding whether to approve of peacekeeping missions.

First, the conflict's impact on the state of international stability is an obvious test of whether Canada should get involved. If the conflict has a serious potential to escalate or destabilize a whole region, we should consider it seriously when making our decision.

Second, geographical ties are very important. For reasons of regional stability, the world would be a better place if countries co-operated to make sure that their own part of the world remained stable. Where peace does break down, regional organizations should co-operate to make things right. After all, it will be the member nations of such regional groups that have the greatest interest in restoring stability. For logistical reasons as well, proximity is an important factor in determining whether a country can respond to a crisis in a timely and effective manner.

Third, humanitarian considerations must also be taken into account. While Canadians want bang for the buck they also want Canada to maintain its tradition for compassion.

Fourth, our prior commitments must be given more weight than is the current practice when determining what else we are going to do. We only have so many troops and a limited amount of high quality equipment. We owe it to our troops to be fair in our decisions where to send them and to make sure that we do not overcommit our forces. They are the Canadian forces, not the Canadian foreign legion.

Fifth, Canada's economic ties are an important factor in determining how willing Canadians should be to commit their resources.

In conclusion, the time has come for us to take a step back to reorganize ourselves. The first thing we have to do is withdraw from the former Yugoslavia. Canadians have been looking for a negotiated peace there for three years but none is on the horizon.

If the UN sees value in continuing the peacekeeping mission, then it is time for some other UN country to hold the fort that Canada has so admirably defended for so many years. Our troops should be congratulated and brought home to their families.

Once we withdraw from Bosnia and Croatia and before we send our troops on yet another indefinite mission with uncertain dangers and at an unknown cost, let us establish a credible set of criteria upon which we can depend to make sure that we pick our spots wisely. Canada can still be an innovator and a leader in the area of peacekeeping, but we have to make some difficult choices and we have to make them now.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great sense of privilege and responsibility that I rise in the House to debate this extraordinarily important subject this evening.

I feel particularly responsible, given the incredible role our troops are playing in the former Yugoslavia. I sense like every other member of Parliament the responsibility we have toward those marvellous men and women for what they are achieving in that difficult part of the world.

In trying to understand this matter, I have asked myself four questions. I think we should consider them when we discuss whether it would be appropriate to withdraw our troops at this time or to continue the mandate until a more orderly type of withdrawal can be achieved with either the whole of the United Nations forces or of our own troops.

The four questions are these: Are our troops performing an important role where they are? Is their contribution special? What would be the consequences of their withdrawal? How are our overall interests served by their presence there? Let me take the time to examine those issues.

Is the role of our troops in the former Yugoslavia an important one? To that I think every member of this House would have to reply an unqualified yes. Looking at the area of peacekeeping, our troops have performed an exemplary service I would say at the core of the United Nations operation in the former Yugoslavia. They have had a great deal of success. Of course there have

been problems, but overall we should look at the achievements on the peacekeeping side.

Our troops are very close to Sarajevo. Our troops are in one part of the former Yugoslavia which covers all three belligerent areas. Our troops are the only ones covering that delicate and sensitive area. Our troops are playing a primordial and important role in terms of peacekeeping. They are performing a role of humanitarian aid which was so effectively described by the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception that I need not repeat it. However, we must bear that in mind.

The second question I asked myself was is our contribution significant? We are but one of 35 countries in the former Yugoslavia and have contributed 2,000 soldiers to the 43,000 troops stationed there.

The Leader of the Opposition said that he was not proud of the contribution our troops have made. Like the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, I personally am proud of our troops' accomplishments in the former Yugoslavia. I am proud of their humanity and proud of their professionalism.

The other night I saw on television a young sergeant who had an enormous responsibility. Day in, day out, with unparalleled devotion, intelligence and professionalism, this peerless soldier resolved issues and extremely difficult problems.

I am convinced that the regiments who will replace the troops there now, such as the 22nd Royal Regiment from Quebec, will serve in the tradition that it has maintained for the duration of its long and glorious history.

Therefore, I reject the Leader of the Opposition's statements. I reject the statements of the hon. member for Verchères. I believe that this is not a partisan issue and that this debate should rise above any inappropriate partisanship. We should be examining these serious issues from the viewpoint of the well-being of our troops and our country.

Let me ask the question: What would the consequences be of a withdrawal at this time? We know this is a tense situation. We have read what Lord Owen has said about the difficult situation that prevails there at the moment. What would the effect be of our withdrawing our troops at this time? What would the effect be on the other UN troops there? Think of the demoralizing effect that would have on them. Think of the effect on the belligerents.

We, along with our allies, took extreme umbrage at the suggestion by the leader of Croatia that UN troops should be removed from Croatia. We told him that UN troops must be kept there because it is a tinderbox which is likely to explode into uncontrolled war if UN troops are withdrawn.

Having exercised that influence on the leader of Croatia, are we to withdraw those troops? Are we to create the very situation of ethnic cleansing and problems that we have seen in the past? I ask myself what the effect of withdrawal would be. I suggest that it would be a precipitating event in creating a crisis.

The member for Red Deer does not seem to be taking that into account. He is suggesting that we can steal away in the night like a Turk with bag and baggage, that no one will miss us and there will be no consequence of that. There will be a consequence. If we try to steal away we may create the very situation of war which will make it impossible for us to withdraw in an orderly way. On top of that, we will leave exposed in the former Yugoslavia the magnificent Mounties who are serving there in a civilian way which is truly an extraordinary example of Canadian devotion.

Last, is it in our global and general interests to be in the former Yugoslavia until a more orderly withdrawal may be organized? It is true, as the member for Red Deer may say, we have done our share. There is no one in the House who would say that we have not done our share. I dare to say there is nobody among our allies who would say we have not done our share. I am sure there is no one in the civilian population of the ex-Yugoslavia who would not say that the Canadian troops have done their share.

The question is not that. The question is whether or not our general interests are served by our staying there and continuing to do our share, continuing to help the people of ex-Yugoslavia and continuing to help the cause of peace as it is to be developed. I would suggest that the effect on our allies would be extremely devastating if we were to leave at this time. Our European allies are counting on our being there.

When we consider issues of global security and foreign policy we must never divorce one issue from another. Does anyone in this House not doubt the fact that one of the reasons we have been so successful in dealing with the Europeans over the issues on the Grand Banks is precisely because we are in Yugoslavia and because we are a force in Europe? Our European friends cannot turn to us and say: "We can treat you the way we want to".

We are making a contribution in Europe. We are helping the Europeans solve their problems. We are helping solve world peace in our own interests but in their interests as well. That makes us a force in world affairs. It gives us a force in dealing with them in every other sector. We must never forget that. That

is what strategy is about. That is what foreign policy is about. We cannot ignore these larger issues.

Furthermore, what about the Americans? If we withdraw on the ground, the United States at this moment is taking the attitude that it can stand above these frays. It can fly over at 30,000 feet and not put troops on the ground. We have a moral superiority in dealing with our American colleagues at this time because of the tremendous contribution our forces are making. It establishes a credibility in dealing with the United States that we must never forget.

We owe it to our forces on the ground. We owe it to those magnificent troops.

Finally, we owe it to ourselves in terms of the United Nations. The House has often spoken about the need for the United Nations to be revitalized. This House has often spoken about the need for a more effective United Nations if Canada's interests and values are to be protected in the world. Those interests and those values will be protected by our continuing to be a reliable member of the United Nations forces and enabling the United Nations to improve its situation.

I leave by suggesting that our interests require us to stay at this time. Furthermore, our troops there are enforcing Canadian values by performing a humanitarian and difficult task in terrible circumstances with a devotion and superb professionalism of which all of us may be very proud.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before starting my speech, I would like to respond to my colleague from Rosedale. According to him, the Leader of the Opposition said that he was not proud of Canadian troops. I am sorry but the hon. member for Rosedale is distorting the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition.

My colleagues and I heard the speech delivered by the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. He is a responsible man. He is more concerned about the living conditions of Canadian troops on peacekeeping missions. He is also concerned about the measures taken after they return home. He is concerned about the problem of suicide among Canadian troops. I wish to set the record straight: he is an honest and responsible man whom we all hold in high esteem.

It is with great sadness and emotion that I will, in this debate, try to paint a rather grim picture of the situation in the former Yugoslavia. Zvornik, Srebrenica, Bratunac and Grobnica were the sites of massacres in which up to 3,000 civilians were killed. The Omarska camp was the site of mass executions and torture. At the Celebici camp, at least 15 Serbs were beaten to death last August. An individual called Borislav Herak killed 230 anonymous civilians. Last August, 50 Serbian women and children were killed by two Croatian members of paramilitary forces.

In Varjanta, more than 200 Muslims were massacred by the Serbian police. In May and June, between 2,000 and 3,000 Muslims were murdered by Serbian irregulars in a pig farm and factory near Brcko. Countless Muslim women were raped by Croatians.

That is the other side of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. That is the reality sometimes obscured by the rhetoric. That is, however, why our troops are serving with the UN.

How did it come to that? How did the situation deteriorate to this extent, as is often the case in armed conflicts, with innocent civilians being massacred, women raped, ethnic cleansing? I have no desire to set myself as a strategy expert nor do I claim to be. My main concern this evening and the most serious aspect of this conflict, in my view, is the impact on civilians and on our troops.

Coming back to the loss of human rights issue, here is some background information. It should be pointed out that all protagonists in the conflict have violated the rights of their minorities from the beginning. I would like to read from a document produced by the Canadian government. It reads:

"When the federal republic crumbled, the Serbs wanted to make sure that their people would remain together within the same territory. That is why they tried to spread their domination to regions where large ethnic minorities live as well as to new States run by non-Serbs. Other groups, such as the Croatians and the Muslims, wanted to consolidate their position in the new States by depriving other ethnic minorities, including the Serbs, of their rights".

The ethnic cleansing sought by both sides led to murders, rapes, torture and other forms of intimidation aimed at making the members of particular ethnic groups flee their homes and villages and take refuge in the zones claimed by other ethnic groups. Such attempts to achieve ethnic cleansing have had tragic consequences: over 100,000 people killed and hundreds of thousands injured; thousands of Muslim women raped; and three million people displaced or forced to take refuge in neighbouring countries, without mentionning the acts of torture, the illegal arrests and the arbitrary detentions.

Let me discuss for a moment the impact of those rapes, particularly in the context of Muslim society. It has been reported in the media that women who are raped by men from other ethnic origins must often face reprisals from their own families. Almost a whole generation of women was sacrificed. Indeed, in addition to the physical and psychological trauma with which these women have to deal, their whole families and

social lives were shattered. The scope of this tragedy leaves us at a loss for words.

It is to help the civilian population that the UN forces were deployed in that region. Peace is the most precious thing for any nation. The right to life and to one's physical integrity is the most treasured one. The international community, through the UN, felt an obligation to maintain peace, in spite of the enormous financial and military costs involved. Canada made a contribution from the very beginning and decided to pursue its commitment, although with some reservations and doubts. We agree and we have no choice. Indeed, the consequences of a withdrawal of the UN forces would be tragic for the population. The attacks would start all over again. We know that as recently as last week, there were 14 outbreaks of armed conflict in Bosnia.

Genocide would resume, and help would no longer reach the various communities, with consequences one can well imagine. However, we must also consider the impact of these operations on each individual member of our peacekeeping forces. It seems that in some cases, the impact is considerable. Some problems have already been identified. There is of course the conditions in the field which may have an impact on physical health. And there are also conditions we could qualify as environmental, like bombings, hostage takings, the hostility of part of the population and armed attacks intended to threaten and humiliate the soldiers.

What is most traumatic is being powerless to intervene pro-actively in the face of so much horror. There is also the daily confrontation with human misery, with the very visible impact of war on the civilian population. There is fear and boredom. That was also the point my leader, the leader of the opposition was trying to make.

All these factors contribute, to a greater or lesser degree, to the deterioration of the physical, psychological and mental health of our peacekeepers. A number of questions come to mind. First of all, were they given adequate preparation and training before they left? Second, was there a proper evaluation of the tasks they would be given so they would have a better idea of what they could expect? When they return, do they have access to the support and services they need to resume a "normal" life as members of their community? Apparently not, since it was found that among peacekeepers and their friends, the suicide rate was higher than average.

These are all issues that must be addressed if we want our involvement in peacekeeping missions to be humanitarian for those who are on the receiving end and for those who go on these missions. I deplore the fact that this government failed to table a statement describing the conditions under which our soldiers have exercised their peacekeeping mandate so far. We are faced with a fait accompli. Our answer to the government's request to renew the peacekeeping mandate of the Canadian forces is yes, but.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this has been not merely a valuable debate but an innovatory debate in Constitutional law of Parliament terms.

It was intended by the United Stated Constitution, to which some of the members of opposition parties referred, that questions of peace and war and commitment of armed forces be always submitted to Congress for decision.

We know that historically American presidents evaded that in invoking presidential power. What is fascinating here today is that we have come to Parliament. We are consulting Parliament on the renewal of the mandate and we have established a parliamentary practice that will not likely be changed in the future.

It will now be part of our constitutional law that where there is a commitment to be made of Canadian forces, it will be more than a telephone call at 5 a.m. from a foreign head of government and a Canadian Prime Minister replying yes sir, without any thought of the roles and missions of the forces to which he is committing Canada.

There are mistakes here and we can identify them readily if we survey the history of peacekeeping in its classical form as developed by our then foreign minister, Lester Pearson, for which he won the Nobel prize for the interposition of unarmed UN forces between armed combatants who had decided to cease operations and were looking for a face saving way out of it.

The classic situation was in Suez in 1956. It was muddied in the Congo in 1960-61 when the secretary-general of the United Nations in moves that ultimately brought his own destruction and death interjected political motives that had not been cleared in advance. Many of us would believe they were the correct political decisions but the political motive intervenes.

If we look at the two operations in recent years in which we have been most involved, Croatia and Somalia, we find operations in which the political commitment was made to engage Canadian peacekeeping forces but without a prior adequate definition of goals and missions.

This is the tragedy in Somalia. A classic peacekeeping operation was converted into a mission with political objectives, arguable and even questionable because they ignored the existing power structure there which was necessary to the effective operation of the UN forces.

In Croatia conflicting political agendas had been set by European powers that were in some respects reviving their old quarrels of pre-1914. I would not wish to censor the government that made these decisions without prior discussion in Parliament, without prior examination of the roles and missions in which we are engaged, but it is clear there was a fault there.

Our real issue today is that Canada entered into operations, engaged our forces, engaged our word as a nation and we are bound by that commitment in terms of consequences. We cannot lightly walk away. In other words, a new political situation is created by our act however much the present government and opposition parties might wish to question the original political premises on which the predecessor government engaged Canada.

I have some suggestions to make in terms of the continued operation of the Canadian peace forces in Croatia. It is clear if we ought to be there it is to be in a classic peacekeeping sense. We are not there as a chapter seven of the charter, a peacemaking operation in which we have a defined political goal that involves the application of military force for its achievement.

This was never our role. It is not our role today. It may well be the objective of some of the people presently engaged in the same operation. One of the problems here is the problem of state succession to the former communist republic of Yugoslavia. It was about to break up, as Turkey was in the 19th century. It created the predecessor of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro. It was a situation of state succession in which European powers met together and realized that one cannot have recognition of new states without a precise and equitable definition of frontiers.

That was not done here and in a very real sense it is a mistake to attempt it under the guise of a peacekeeping operation. Therefore our message to the government should be that the predecessor government engaged Canada in the operation. We cannot in good faith walk away. We are responsible in measure for what has happened since. We should limit our responsibility to the UN mandate, the maintenance of a political military situation created by the parties, agreed on by the parties as a cease fire and no more.

If there is to be an issue of political goals to be established, we should call for another congress of Berlin. The treaty of Versailles to which we are signatory, our first international act, establishes just such a machinery.

If it is to be a matter of defining frontiers, let us have a larger European conference of which we are part. Let us get those frontiers defined. Do not try to do this under cover of a military peacekeeping operation. Do not charge our soldiers with the responsibility of making political decisions. It is beyond their special competence. It is beyond their mandate. It is manifestly unfair to them.

I say congratulations to the government for establishing what I hope will become a precedent that before Canadian forces are committed we will bring the matter to Parliament. Second, we will insist on maintaining respect for the UN charter and respect for UN peacekeeping operations as defined in chapter six.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by reiterating the motion:

That this House, in light of the UN Security Council consideration of renewed mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia, take note of the rotation of Canadian forces serving with UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia.

We are taking note and Canadians are taking note. Canadians are generally proud of the role of the Canadian forces in peacekeeping. They very much respect the humanitarian role that can be played. I do not think they are totally aware of both sides of the equation from a military point of view.

On a very basic level if the troops are told, as they have been recently in Valcartier, they are next in the slot, the morale of the troops increases and they say: "Good. We have a job to do, let us do it". If they have been trained for it, as most of them have, they can do a very creditable job.

The problem is that this has gone on for too long. While there is a momentary surge in morale, the piper must be paid after that. If the troops get rotated with too great a frequency, we have a problem. If the troops do not have the wherewithal in equipment to carry things out, there is a problem. If defects are perceived in leadership in the Department of National Defence or within the Canadian forces, there is a problem. If the terms of reference in the first place are inadequate, there is another problem.

While it is good for the Canadian public to support its peacekeepers, as I do, I nevertheless have to sound a note of caution that all is not that well. There are many impediments, many problems to overcome. The longer we are in this business the more those problems are evident. I would like to agree to some extent with my colleague from Vancouver Quadra who was extolling the virtues of the government by saying that it was doing the right thing by consulting Parliament. I agree, it is a good thing to do.

The government made a start on this a year or more ago when this Parliament began. However, I have to question its sincerity when looking at the events of today. Although the mandate for our troops expires in two days' time, the government only yesterday announced the special debate of today. That is totally inadequate. However the intent may be correct. To put it in general terms, as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra did, it is a good thing to consult Parliament. I wholeheartedly agree with that. It is a good thing to consult Parliament, but let us do it effectively, not in a cursory way.

A good part of the reason for the Reform members' position is that we established in discussion among ourselves what we consider should be the conditions for sending troops on peacekeeping operations. One was that peacekeepers should be left alone to do their job in the Bosnia area. The second was that the Sarajevo airport should remain open. The third was that convoys

should be able to operate unimpeded. The fourth was that there should be a ceasefire in place and holding.

All of those conditions have been violated. Atrocities are occurring, Canadian hostages have been taken, UN patrols have been fired on, so-called safe areas has been fired on, landings at Sarajevo have been stopped. We have ethnic quarrels going on all the while. In fact, the ethnic quarrels are at the very root of our objection to this whole situation. There will be no basis for peace in the former Yugoslavia until the residents decide they want peace. If it is going to be ethnic group against ethnic group, religion against religion. It is going to go on and on.

Canadians found themselves as peacekeepers in Cyprus for 29 years with no way out of it. We finally pulled out and the situation is no worse now than it was before. I am not trying to simplify this situation. It is fraught with danger.

Let me speak to the other side of the coin. How much danger is there? I ran into Major-General Lewis MacKenzie of Yugoslav fame a week or so ago. He sent me an article which he had had published in the New York Times . I would like to read part of what he wrote. He was talking, by the way, in favour of the UN leaving, certainly in Croatia. He wrote:

If President Tudjman gets his way and the UN withdraws from Croatia, war will follow and it won't be a short, local war between Croatia and the Krajina Serbs. The Krajina Serbs have been "assisting" the Bosnian Serbs in the battle for the Bihac pocket and they have recently signed a co-operation agreement for common defence which includes provisions for a joint defence council.

General MacKenzie's knowledge, having been on the ground there is far superior to me.

He concludes in favour of keeping troops there.

Surely this is the real litmus test for the UN in the new world order. It is up to the permanent five of the Security Council, led by the U.S.A., to make sure the UN is not found wanting on this issue. Failure to do so will sentence the Balkans to an even bloodier future.

This is a knowledgeable statement from a knowledgeable person. It says to me, why should Canada interpose itself to the degree we seem to be doing and saying we are responsible for the whole safekeeping of that area? It is a UN responsibility. I quite agree with General MacKenzie that pressure should be put on the UN, led by the U.S.A., to do something about the situation.

I would go beyond that and ask what is NATO's role in this. NATO surely has a role to play. It must exercise its influence in the area. Going beyond that, I would ask about the contiguous countries, about Greece, Turkey, Albania and all those that are affected. Where are they? They must take some responsibility in this whole thing.

We wind up with this problem. Unless the situation can be orchestrated by the UN, by NATO, by the countries in the area and by the ethnic groups in that troubled area saying "we want peace", Canadians cannot impose it on them.

Our military situation is well known. Our troop rotation is too frequent; the equipment is inadequate; the troops are carrying too big a load for the resources they are being given. We have the Jeffries report out of Petawawa. We have the Oehring report out of FMC saying there are problems within the Canadian forces. These problems are of morale and leadership. We had better straighten up that situation on our own home ground.

To conclude, if there is no chance for peace, if there is no desire for peace by the people who are there, we cannot impose it. It will do our country, NATO, the UN and the countries in that area a lot of good if we are seen to be stopping now. Blow the whistle and say: "Whoa, let's start over. Let's see what it is we are doing. Let's give notice now and take it from there".

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to discuss once again the issue of Canada's role in peacekeeping operations in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina.

In preparing to speak today I reviewed my notes from two previous speeches on the same matter. I came to the realization that not much has changed. The United Nations is no closer today to implementing its mandate than it was on January 25, 1994 when I first spoke in the House on the issue.

One-quarter of a million displaced persons in Croatia alone are no closer to returning to their homes. Croatia's international borders remain unsecured. One-third of the nation's territory is currently occupied. I have been advised that since January 1995 the army of Yugoslavia has moved in over 900 troops, 25 tanks and ground to ground missiles, all under the watchful eye of the United Nations.

While all-out war did subside with the original arrival of the United Nations protection force in 1992, little else had changed. We must ask ourselves, is it any wonder that the Government of Croatia wanted to terminate the United Nations mandate? We must ask ourselves, are we accomplishing enough in Croatia to warrant our continued presence there and our continued expenditure of Canadian taxpayers' money?

I am certain that most members can understand Croatia's frustration. I am not so sure that we can answer the second of my questions quite so easy.

Last month the members of the Canada-Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina parliamentary group hosted a visit by parliamentarians from the Republic of Croatia. During that visit it was made very clear to me and my colleagues that the Croatian government was adamant about not renewing the UN mandate. In fact, Mr. Ivica Racan, the leader of the opposition Social Democratic Party of Croatia indicated to me that the one thing all parliamentarians and citizens of Croatia were in agreement on was that it was time for UNPROFOR to leave.

After the meetings with Mr. Racan and Drs. Domljan and Greguric I truly believe that the Canadian peacekeepers would be coming home. I can honestly say that I have very mixed feelings about that. While I could understand the frustration of the Croatian government and the Croatian people, I was worried that an escalation in fighting might occur, thus once again placing the safety of many innocent civilians in jeopardy.

Then on March 12 came what appeared to be good news. The president of Croatia, Dr. Franjo Tudjman, held a joint press conference with U.S. Vice-President Al Gore where it was announced that Croatia would accept the further international presence on its territory if a new UN Security Council mandate could be agreed on and that certain conditions were met.

Those conditions included: one, control of international borders between the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina and at principal crossing points not now controlled by Croatian authorities; two, control access and communications for UNPROFOR and other international humanitarian operations to Bosnia-Hercegovina through territory not currently under the control of the Croatian authorities; three, facilitate and continue implementation of a ceasefire agreement on March 29, 1994 and an economic agreement on December 7, 1994; four, facilitate implementation of future agreements aimed at reintegration of Croatia and facilitate implementation of relevant UN Security Council and general assembly resolutions.

The Copenhagen agreement engineered by U.S. Vice-President Al Gore which showed so much promise is today in jeopardy. Last week UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali forwarded the proposed new UN mandate to the Government of Croatia. The problem is that this so-called new mandate is little more than a rehashing of the old Vance-Owen peace plan. This is not what the Republic of Croatia agreed to in Copenhagen.

In a letter to UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros Ghali dated March 27, 1995, a couple of days ago, Dr. Mate Granic, Croatia's foreign minister stated:

I have the duty to inform you and the Members of the Security Council that the Republic of Croatia shall not accept the new mandate of the new peacekeeping force on its territory after the present mandate of UNPROFOR in Croatia terminates unless the following conditions are met:

One: The name of the new operations contains the word Croatia; explicitly confirming the fact that the new operation is to be carried in its entirety on the sovereign territory of the Republic of Croatia; and,

Two: The mechanism of the active control of international borders of the Republic of Croatia in the parts that are not at this moment accessible to the Croatian authorities by the new force are negotiated in detail on the basis of relevant Security Council resolutions and have gained prior formal approval of the Government of Croatia; thus the mechanisms for active control of Croatia's international borders under the new mandate must be clearly established consistent with paragraph 12 of Resolution 820 (1993).

The words of the Croatian foreign minister make it very clear to me that Croatia means business. Either change the mandate to reflect the Copenhagen agreement or get out. If somehow, and I am hopeful, a new agreement can be reached, Canada must decide whether it is in our best interest to keep our peacekeepers in Croatia.

If we decide to remain in Croatia it is imperative we play a role in negotiating a new mandate. This is one thing I have found extremely disturbing throughout this entire mission in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina. Canada appears to have had very little influence in the overall decision making process. We have the fifth largest contingent of troops in Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina, 2,100, yet we have been completely shut out of the so-called contact group which has been making decisions on strategy in the region.

Our neighbours to the south with only 890 troops and Russia with 1,400 peacekeepers have been playing chess with our men and women in this lengthy international conflict and we cannot allow this to continue. The safety and integrity of our troops rest solely on our shoulders. If we stay we must demand a more active role in negotiations that will ultimately affect the well-being of our peacekeepers.

In addition to playing a more active role in the negotiating process, we should also be encouraging our southern neighbours to put their money where their mouth is by increasing their presence in the region.

Canada is a proud peacekeeping nation. Our troops have done a good job in Croatia given what they have to work with. I believe the Croatian government can confirm that.

However, if there is not a new mandate, if we will simply be helping to maintain the status quo and if the lives of our peacekeepers will be placed in greater jeopardy let us stop wasting the hard earned money of Canadian taxpayers and bring our troops home.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate on maintaining peacekeepers in Bosnia and Croatia more out of a sense of duty than of pleasure.

More out of a sense of duty, because it is impossible to remain indifferent to the drama taking place in the former Yugoslavia. It is not for pleasure, because the government is putting us in a very awkward situation. It is claiming to consult us, but we know that the UN mandate ends in 24 hours.

Moreover, the government never really took steps to inform the House of the results of earlier peacekeeping missions. Finally, it probably made its decision to renew the mandate several weeks ago.

They better not try to say that the Minister of Foreign Affairs consulted us seriously on March 14, asking us our opinion on the fly. They also better not say that our criticism of the government is criticism of Canadian peacekeepers.

The Leader of the Opposition was very clear on this point. He paid hommage to Canadian peacekeepers for their courage, their devotion and their professionalism. I therefore ask the hon. Liberal member to distinguish between criticism of the government and criticism of the peacekeepers. In fact, there is no criticism of the peacekeepers.

We have just reviewed Canadian foreign policy. Throughout our meetings, the former Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, now a senator, made light of Canada's situation describing Canada as the UN's emergency service. We have just issued a statement of policy. In the fall, the government issued its defence policy. Is there anything really different in the process we are starting today? Not a thing. It is the same as before.

At the San Francisco conference, which led to the establishment of the UN on June 26, 1945, following the second world War, people wanted to ensure that history would not repeat itself. Unfortunately, we have to admit that history has repeated itself. The UN charter introduced a new idea of universal security, and it was a Canadian politician, Lester B. Pearson, who, in the end, created peace missions as we know them today.

The new face of war and the increasing number of areas of conflict around the world require action by the international community. Finding ways to regulate and ensure international peace and security is one of Canada's responsibilities as well. Canada, a country renowned the world over as a leader in peacekeeping missions, can hardly run for cover now.

This debate also allows us to reflect on a certain number of subjects more or less on the periphery of the issue at hand. I would like to begin by reflecting on the role that television plays on the international community's responsibility. As much as we denounce the gratuitous violence typical of today's television shows, we must recognize that the journalists covering international issues heighten awareness in the international community, and in Canada, of the situation reigning in countries in conflict.

On this issue, I think that MPs cannot simply follow public opinion. It would be too easy to conduct surveys and then to apply the decision corresponding exactly to what Canadians and Quebecers want to see. MPs have a role to play in shaping public opinion and they cannot hedge on this issue indefinitely.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of renewing the peacekeeping mandate in Bosnia and Croatia, but I am in full agreement with the reservations which my colleagues have already expressed. I think that we should react to this situation in the way that we would if we were to see a person in distress.

If I were at home in my apartment and heard gunshots in the next apartment, I could not just shrug it off. Why should we then close our eyes and refuse to act when it comes to the international scene?

The role of peacekeepers is extremely important. It is essential in Bosnia-Hercegovina. They bring food and medical supplies, among other things, to people who are undeniably the victims in the situation.

They also ensure that some lines of communication remain open, without which life would become unbearable. They also logistically support NGOs like the Red Cross and the High Commissioner's Office for Refugees, which play a crucial role which could not possibly be undertaken without the peacekeepers.

Finally, regarding the need for the mission, everybody recognizes that if we pulled out of Bosnia, we would leave behind a void which would be filled with massive fireworks, it would literally be hell on earth.

I said earlier that we had begun to review Canadian foreign policy. We must realize that borders are a thing of the past. There is no denying the interdependencies between peoples. When someone pollutes the environment elsewhere, we in Canada are affected. Poverty in developing countries is also our problem because we all are responsible for what happens in the world. We cannot remain passive when we see human rights being violated. Population migrations always end up affecting us.

Some 50 Bosnian refugees recently immigrated to my riding. We cannot close our eyes and say: "It is none of our business. If they want to fight, let them fight among themselves". No. We have a moral and ethical responsibility in these matters.

Humanitarian action is one of the responsibilities of the international community. I recently attended a forum in Sainte-Adèle, north of Montreal, in which experts tried to link state sovereignty with the responsibility to take action against gross violations of human rights. We are moving toward the right to interfere, and the international community will have to come to terms with this in the future.

Of course, we have a number of reservations about the presence of peacekeepers over there. My colleagues talked about the psychological trauma experienced by our soldiers after or before they return home. I suppose that the Canadian Forces could do a number of things, perhaps better choose the soldiers or prepare them better. However, I do not think we can base our refusal to get involved on this factor, as tragic as it may be.

We often hear Canadians say that we cannot afford to intervene. May I remind this House that Canada spends $10 billion on national defence. I think it is a false argument to say that we cannot afford it.

The Canadian Forces should look for a new orientation. In the report on the policy statement, we suggested that the government review the make-up of the Canadian Armed Forces. Since peacekeeping is really what we are best at and are involved in on a regular basis, the whole National Defence structure should focus on this new make-up.

Mr. Speaker, I am out of time. But I would just like to remind the House that, if people are able to fight and kill one another, it is because there are others out there who are manufacturing weapons. in that regard, I want to denounce the fact that four permanent members of the Security Council manufacture 80 per cent of all weapons produced in the world. We will never denounce enough this kind of hypocrisy.

I will conclude with a quote from the Leader of the Opposition who stated on January 25, 1994: "what matters for the moment is to bear in mind that we must continue, insofar as our capabilities allow it, to fulfil our fair part of the obligations that result from our allegiance to the values of democracy, peace and justice, values which, given their universality, deserve our efforts to further them abroad".

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to join in the debate tonight on a subject of utmost concern and importance, especially to the people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore and indeed to all Canada.

In light of the UN Security Council consideration of renewed mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia and of the coming rotation of Canadian forces serving with UNPROFOR in the region, it is important that we have the debate tonight.

We live in a global village and very often the events that occur in the international community have a direct or indirect effect on Canada. We have seen evidence of this in the economy, in our social policy and in issues of security. We have a responsibility to the global village, especially when human rights are being violated.

The importance of peacekeeping to Canadians is obvious from the three times since January 1994 that the government has called a special debate on Canada's role as a peacekeeper throughout the world. In the past year we have dealt specifically with our commitments to UN missions in Rwanda, in Haiti and in the former Yugoslavia.

In the debates that took place members consistently referred with pride to previous Canadian participation in UN peacekeeping missions in Korea, Egypt, Vietnam, the Middle East and Latin America, to name a few.

Numerous members of the Etobicoke-Lakeshore community have been involved in peacekeeping activities around the world since the inception of the UN peacekeeping force. Their contribution to the security of our country and to peace in the world is something that my constituents and I will always be grateful for.

Described as an imaginative worker for peace, Lester B. Pearson received the Nobel Peace Prize for his leadership in bringing about the creation of the UN peacekeeping force. Canada has a proud history of participation in peacekeeping operations both under UN and non-UN auspices. Few if any countries have a more impressive record of dedicated and professional contribution to this essential activity.

Nowhere have dedication and professionalism been more evident than with our Canadian peacekeepers currently providing relief to the victims of the war in the former Yugoslavia. Some 2,080 Canadian troops now monitor UN protected areas in Croatia, provide protection for relief convoys and refugees in Bosnia-Hercegovina, and monitor ceasefire agreements in both countries.

Canada has supported the participation of its forces in this UN mission to promote peaceful settlement and to provide relief to its many victims. As one of the largest contingents to the UN protection force Canadians have selflessly put themselves in danger by undertaking difficult assignments. Service women and men have participated in the European community monitor mission and non-UN mission overseeing the ceasefire throughout the former Yugoslavia and were instrumental in opening Sarajevo airport for the delivery of humanitarian relief supplies.

Canada has also provided a ship to sanction enforcement operations in the Adriatic Sea and has deployed a naval support ship and the Aurora maritime patrol aircraft to this effort. In

addition, the NATO AWACS aircraft enforcing the no fly zone over Bosnia includes Canadians.

One must always recognize the daily acts of courage of individual peacekeepers. The threat of danger the Canadian personnel might encounter during the course of a day is what many of us here at home can only imagine. Their presence in this war torn region presents a risk to their lives and is a constant worry to their families at home.

One must always ask whether we can continue to make a difference. We know our presence in the Balkans has made a difference to the children, the elderly, the women and all other innocent victims of this cruel war.

Is the UN presence continuing to make a difference to the peace process? If the answer is yes, it is our responsibility to remain in the area. If little progress is being made toward peace, the government must seriously consider our current commitment.

The service of Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia and Croatia has not been without its ordeals. In the last six months the danger to our Canadian peacekeepers has increased daily. Many Canadians have been shot at by snipers and non-UN soldiers. Several of them have been seriously injured.

In November, 55 Canadian soldiers were taken hostage and held against their will for over two weeks behind the confrontation lines of this war torn country. The time has now come to reconsider our commitment to the mission in Bosnia and Croatia. That is the purpose of the debate tonight.

In light of the increase in risk to the lives of Canadians we must come to a decision on whether to send neutrals to the UN peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia and we must consider our role.

We have not stopped the fighting but we have prevented the war from spreading to other regions. We have made accomplishments in the region and have made a difference to the lives of many families living in the midst of a horrifying war.

Canada's involvement is said to create the breathing space within which diplomats and political leaders can negotiate a peaceful solution to a bloody war. New developments have taken place since we last debated the subject in the House.

As the defence minister recently mentioned, Croatian President Tudjman stated that he wanted all UNPROFOR to leave Croatia. An agreement was worked out, however, and the details of these terms and conditions are presently being negotiated.

The dynamics are now changing and the UN forces are undergoing a restructuring process that will affect all participants in the UN mission. Under the new agreement Canada's role should be to continue to help implement a ceasefire agreement worked out with the maintenance of borders and the maintenance of the all important humanitarian measures.

At the moment we have about 2,100 soldiers preparing to replace the personnel who have been in Bosnia and Croatia since their tour of duty began six months ago. We know they will continue the excellent work being accomplished in the region but it is dangerous work.

We have also had excellent leadership on the issue from the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I commend their efforts. A good number of my constituents' comments on Canada's peacekeeping strength and their determination to ensure the promotion of international human rights and our humanitarian contribution in the Balkan region are on the record of the ministers.

In closing, Canadians continue to see peacekeepers as an important contribution to the maintenance of international order and stability. The people of Etobicoke-Lakeshore will after careful consideration continue to support the involvement of the Canadian forces in this peacekeeping effort. After all, we are helping to ease the suffering of millions of innocent people.

I am confident we will continue to fulfil our international obligations through negotiations and peacekeeping to bring about peace in the Balkan region.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents in Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to participate in the debate this evening.

We on this side of the House realize that the final decision is the responsibility of the government. We appreciate that the government gave us the opportunity to be heard tonight on this very important issue.

The government said it would like to hear what we had to say in order to help it make the decision whether or not we should continue to maintain our present commitment in the former Yugoslavia.

Interestingly this is a take note debate regarding the rotation of Canadian forces. The hon. member for Red Deer earlier used the words of an Eagles song, one of my favourite musical groups. I am not sure which group sang this song: "Leaving on a Jet Plane". In actual fact the troops' bags are packed. They are set to go. On Monday they leave for Bosnia and Croatia in this troop rotation.

According to my calendar today's date is March 29. The commitment to the former Yugoslavia ends on April 1. Yet the government wants to consult Canadians by holding an emergency debate tonight at the 11th hour. We all know nothing can be done to stop that rotation from taking place.

Members of the Reform Party have made very clear their position on the issue. We should announce and make very clear that Canada intends to withdraw from the former Yugoslavia. We should give the UN a three-month notice of that decision. The reason we are taking this position is that we know it would be very difficult for us to pull out immediately and leave a vacuum until another nation is able to step in and take over where we left off.

I feel, therefore, that we should be debating whether Canada should commit continued peacekeepers to the former Yugoslavia in the long run. If we do not debate the issue now, when will the issue be debated?

Recognizing the fact that the debate should have occurred weeks ago, I state unequivocally that we should pull out and give the UN three months notice. Many people on the other side of the House may be asking why we should pull out of the former Yugoslavia. There are numbers of reasons why we should leave.

Despite our past history as peacekeepers to all the world's troubled regions, I feel strongly that in this new world order of regional, ethnic and tribal conflict running rampant and with Canada's own defence resources shrinking at an alarming rate the government must develop a commitment criterion to give us a guide for future deployments of our peacekeeping troops.

On December 1, 1994 the Reform caucus issued a statement which outlined the four conditions that should be met to keep Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia. We developed these criteria because of the numerous violations and because Canadian troops were being held hostage.

At that time we said, first, that all UN detainees should be released immediately; second, that the warring factions should agree to cease all aggressive actions toward the UNPROFOR troops; third, that the Sarajevo airport should be immediately reopened and all humanitarian aid should be allowed to proceed without interference by any of the warring factions; and, fourth, that a ceasefire should be put in place and honoured by all sides.

Let us look at each one of the points individually. Even though all UN detainees have been released there is still no guarantee that the warring factions would not undertake such activity again. As a matter of fact with the situation in Bosnia we are in close contact with Serbian troops on a daily basis. It is a very volatile situation. It is something that could possibly happen.

There have been less aggressive acts toward UNPROFOR over the past couple of months but incidents do occur. There is no guarantee in place by the warring factions to prevent any future aggressive acts. All humanitarian aid is not getting through. Anyone who says it is, is simply not stating the truth.

Two weeks ago the Montreal Gazette reported that there was a desperate food shortage in the Bihac pocket because of the heavy fighting between government troops and the alliance of Bosnia Serbs, Croatian Serbs and the renegade Bosnian Muslims. I would like to quote from the Associated Press report:

The Serbs generally refuse to give the United Nations permission to move convoys into the region through Serb-held territory. The United Nations does not have a mandate to use force to get its humanitarian aid through.

The UN World Food Program, based in Rome, said only 5,000 people in the enclave get regular meals from public kitchens. Patients in hospitals eat only one meal a day.

Only an estimated 20 per cent of the people trapped in the region have received any donated food during the past six months, the agency said.

The reason for the failure of the first three criteria is due to the failure of the fourth criterion which the Reform Party laid down. There is no ceasefire in place in Bosnia that is being honoured by all sides. Do the warring factions even actually want peace? Are they willing to make a lasting truce upon which a negotiated peaceful settlement will be found?

In the case of Bosnia it appears the answer is a resounding no. The combatants do not want peace. Short-lived truces are only holding long enough for the combatants to reform and refit. As we can see, the latest truce between the Bosnian government and the rebel Serbs is crumbling. It is crumbling as we debate this issue tonight. As UN spokesman Alexander Ivanko said yesterday: "It is our understanding both parties continue to opt for a military option".

We must consider the facts. Without a meaningful negotiation between the combatants, peace is only wishful thinking. The role of a peacekeeper is to keep the combatants apart while they negotiate peace. There is no peace and there is no negotiation. Canadian troops are more like pawns in a game of chess between the differing parties. The threat of interference by both Serbs and Bosnians has not been reduced.

It is dangerous to train and equip our troops for traditional peacekeeping missions when we are putting them into a situation which cannot succeed, where there is no peace or a will for peace between the parties.

Many in the House will defend our humanitarian role on grounds that the civilians would be worse off without the peacekeepers. I can sympathize with that because I travelled there. We should be very proud of our troops. They have done a good job.

In the short term it may be true that the presence of UN peacekeepers in Bosnia may have prevented widespread starvation. However, at the same time the UN presence may have actually perpetuated division, squalor and low-level fighting for longer than would otherwise have been the case. We must

ask: Is the present morass a success or has the United Nations become part of the problem despite its best intentions?

The fact remains that the UN's involvement in Bosnia is in limbo, with the very strong possibility that Canadians will be forced into a situation of peacemaking. If the international community is serious about making peace, then maybe the military role ought to be handed over to NATO with a mandate to end the fighting through military means. Yes, I know that solution is also problematic. It is again possible that nothing will be solved. The warring parties will not have settled their differences and fighting would resume once NATO withdrew.

This House must recognize that we should only be sending troops on peacekeeping missions where the warring parties have fought their battles and are ready to negotiate and to sit down at the negotiating table to come to terms with a lasting peace.

What we are doing is committing our soldiers and our nation to a moral dilemma. We must stay forever or else by leaving, become responsible for the resumption of hostilities. Canada cannot afford and has no moral authority to become not only the world's policeman but a permanent benevolent occupier in troubled areas.

Is this commitment going to turn into one of 29 years or more in the former Yugoslavia as we ended up committing ourselves to in Cyprus? Remember this is just another chapter in a centuries old conflict that appears to be without an end.

As we debate this issue in the House tonight we can clearly see that none of the four criteria outlined by the Reform caucus has been met. Support for our continued presence in Bosnia is waning at home as well.

I heard one of the members on the other side of the House ask: What are your constituents saying? In my riding we conducted a telephone poll and 68 per cent of the constituents told me they would like us to leave as quickly as possible.

For just 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, I would quickly like to turn to Croatia where President Tudjman would like to see UN peacekeepers, at least he did say he would like them out of-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry, the member's time is up unless there is unanimous consent. There are at least six other members who were hoping to speak in this debate, as I understand it. Is there unanimous consent to give the member additional time beyond his 10 minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Very well, the member has unanimous consent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the House.

President Tudjman in Croatia has had a change of heart and said he would like to keep some peacekeepers in Croatia. The problem is that the only peacekeepers he would like to remain would be unarmed monitors. That is not satisfactory in this volatile situation. We should get our troops out before any further fighting begins. We should give the United Nations three months warning that we are planning to do that so it can fill the vacuum when we leave.

Finally, all Canadians can be proud of the Canadian troops who have served their country valiantly and well in the former Yugoslavia.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very good debate tonight. I congratulate all those who have spoken for their candour and openness and for putting their points forward.

We have to remind ourselves that Canada was one of the key founders of the United Nations, one of the key partners in that formation.

Today's problems are many and great, as has been pointed out. However they pale significantly when one recalls the world wars and catastrophes that have occurred over the history of mankind. The United Nations was founded to try to prevent that from happening again. It requires every responsible nation that belongs to the UN to pull its weight and to work toward the aim of peace, regardless of how frustrating and how crooked that road may seem.

Many Canadian peacekeepers have served in the former Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia. Today some 2,080 are over there performing their role on behalf of Canada and the international community.

It behoves each and every one of us in the House tonight to thank the people who have served there in the past and in other peacekeeping duties around the world. They have served Canada well and will continue to do so. It also behoves us tonight to thank the Canadian people at large for the support they have given our Canadian soldiers as they go about doing their great mission on behalf of international peace.

Recently we heard that the Bosnian Serbs have called for a general mobilization. That is bad news. It almost seems as if when summertime comes the weather is better for fighting. It is a sad commentary on mankind.

Hatred is older than the hills, but it is there and it must be dealt with. It must be dealt with by responsible nations, those that maintain their calmness in duty and have very specific responsible aims in place as they look to the future.

This has not only been a great challenge for the United Nations. It has created frustration for many as well. This is the largest UN operation to date. Therefore, it undoubtedly demands the greatest cohesion and togetherness we are going to see in a UN operation probably since the Korean war.

We have had many fires to put out along the road of international history over the last half century since the founding of the United Nations, but this is not a time to let go of the traces. It is not a time to stop pulling for peace in the world for which we all strive.

There is a Chinese proverb which says that fury is nothing but the energy of weakness. Nothing exemplifies this statement any better than the ongoing circumstances in the former Yugoslavia. There is another saying that ignorance never settles a question. It simply keeps the argument all stirred up.

I love reading history. J. M. S. Careless wrote the book Canada-A Story of Challenge . The 19th chapter deals with a maturing nation. We must remember tonight that many people came from countries across Europe in the early days to settle in Canada. They came here to find peace, a place where they could make a life for their families. As we stand here tonight in the House we certainly can understand very well how many people in disturbed parts of the world must be looking forward to the days when they can see some peace.

Canada has worked on behalf of refugees, the children's fund, humanitarian supplies. We have put troops into very difficult situations. We have had an international airlift from Italy in Sarajevo since July 1992. The Canadian forces Hercules 130 transport planes have been busy with 1,600 flights, 11,300 passengers and 26,600 tonnes of food and medical supplies into Sarajevo. That is a small part of what our Canadian forces have done.

Tonight it behoves all of us to take into consideration the work that has been done to date. We must stand firm and work with our partners in the United Nations toward the goal of the UN for which it was founded half a century ago: to try to bring peace to mankind and some sanity to the world.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time has expired for the three hours set aside for the debate.

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent of the House to extend the debate for myself and the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We also have two members who sat here all evening, participating and listening very carefully. I am wondering whether you could seek agreement to extend the debate to allow the remaining speakers time but limit the debate to maybe five minutes each, which would not go beyond 9.50 p.m. or 10 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Certain members have indicated they wish to speak. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Simon de Jong, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is not with pleasure that I join the debate. I am certain all members present do not find much joy in debating this subject. We have debated the topic several times. Parliament has sat late to debate our role in the former Yugoslavia.

This time as I listened to members from all political parties I sensed a sense of weariness with what our role has been. There is more weariness now than I heard in previous debates.

The Reform Party is calling for our troops to be brought home. The minister of defence made it abundantly clear in his remarks that even if he recommits our troops it would only be for a limited period of time.

The Leader of the Opposition talked in terms of renewing our mandate because there is not much choice. The views expressed by the members of the House really reflect the mood in the country from coast to coast.

The lack of progress in ending hostilities, the ongoing flagrant denial of basic human rights while our troops under the UN command stand helplessly by, the incidents in which our troops were detained and humiliated as well as our budgetary problems have all added to the sense of weariness.

What are we doing there is the basic fundamental question that gets asked. It is important for us and for Canadians to realize the tremendous job Canadian troops have done. There would have been a lot more death, destruction, carnage, rape and denial of basic civilized human rights had there not been the United Nations and the Canadian troops present.

It is hard to quantify that but let there be no doubt Canadian troops have saved innocent lives. It is important that all Canadians tip their hats to the men and women both in the RCMP and in our military who have done a very professional job. Canada can be proud of them.

The frustration we feel is also the frustration the Croatian people feel. I and two other members of the House visited Croatia in June 1994. We talked to its foreign minister as well as members of its Parliament. Overwhelmingly they talked in terms of ending the Vance peace agreement of 1994, the mandate by which UNPROFOR forces are in Croatia.

The Croatians have the same fear the minister of defence expressed, that this becomes a permanent situation. Under the original agreement the local Serb groups were to be disarmed. There was to be UN monitoring and taking over heavy armaments. Non-Serbs were to be allowed back home. None of this has happened. The concern is this present occupation of almost

one-third of Croatia by Serb forces will become a permanent situation.

When one looks at a map for the areas controlled by the Serbs, one sees how it prevents north-south and east-west communications and transportation in Croatia. Croatia cannot economically develop as long as this situation continues. There is a tremendous sense of frustration.

When President Tudjman called for an end to the mandate, he was not speaking for himself. It was a unanimous decision passed by the Parliament of Croatia. Because of international pressure the Croatian government has agreed to back down.

An agreement was reached with Mr. Tudjman and the Vice- President of the United States, Al Gore, in Copenhagen. That agreement has not been implemented in a mandate. There is no agreement as things stand now for a new mandate. That is why the government a bit amiss when it asks the House for advice to renew that mandate. Right now no mandate exists.

The agreement reached in Copenhagen has not been finalized in an agreement that would allow a new mandate to be implemented in Croatia. In part what we are discussing here could very well be beside the point. The Croatian government has given until the end of May to reach this agreement. I understand the condition will continue as it is now until the end of May.

No agreement exists right now that would allow Canadian troops to stay in Croatia. Hopefully something can be achieved by the end of May. If it can be achieved, I urge the Canadian government to allow our Canadian troops to remain there for humanitarian purposes in the hope and prayer we all share, that peace can be achieved in that part of the world. Our prayers are with them.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I trust colleagues will agree to let the pages leave.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I can safely say every member of the House respects and honours our peacekeepers serving around the world. We all know the story of Lester B. Pearson inventing the concept we now call peacekeeping. Not all of us know Canada has participated in every United Nations military effort since Korea.

All this brings us to the debate at hand about the future of Canadian peacekeepers in the former Yugoslavia. Since the beginning of the conflict Canada has been an active participant helping end conflicts there. Through our partnerships in NATO, the organization for security and co-operation in Europe, and the international contact group in Yugoslavia we have sought ways to bring safety to that troubled land.

Canada has contributed almost $60 million in humanitarian aid through various international and non-governmental organizations. Our presence in Bosnia and Croatia has helped save the lives of countless thousands of people. Our aid programs have helped to alleviate the sufferings of those trapped in these conflicts.

Many Canadians are questioning our role in the former Yugoslavia, whether we are even needed there. I believe we are needed there. We must stay there.

As has been said, 2,100 Canadians are serving as peacekeepers and monitors today in the former Yugoslavia. As part of our commitment to NATO, Canada is obligated to help protect the western European security. In keeping that commitment we are at the forefront of NATO expansion and we are helping prevent the Yugoslavian crisis from spilling over into other parts of Europe.

There is always a potential for peace. There is still a potential for peace in the former Yugoslavia. However, for that peace to exist there must be an end to the continual fighting among the various factions. Our humanitarian efforts are helping people realize they can get along in the spirit of co-operation and mutual understanding.

Our peacekeepers are there to prevent acts that might be destructive to any sense of understanding. After all, it was an assassin's bullets on the streets of Sarajevo that sparked the first world war.

If our peacekeepers can prevent such a pivotal action from taking place, they must remain there to make sure this peace comes eventually. Our presence is necessary.