Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your recognizing me for the debate on this motion.
I want to read the motion because I think it is important to look at something in the wording. This is a government motion by the Minister of Foreign Affairs:
That this House take note of the intention of the Government of Canada to renew its participation in the NATO led stabilization force, SFOR, in Bosnia beyond June 20, 1998—.
Here we are almost in May. We are in a take note debate because the decision was made and announced some time ago. We are here debating whether Canada will carry on its commitment beyond June 20, 1998. Clearly this is a joke. Where is the planning horizon the government works on? It clearly is not there. It really does not plan things. I think that will explain some of the problems I will bring up in my presentation.
I will deal with three questions. First, can Canada deliver on the renewal of this commitment for six months and beyond?
Second, what will the price be if this becomes a very long term sustained commitment in Bosnia? What will the price be to the forces and to the men and women who serve?
Third, what must change so that Canada can deliver should Canadians choose to support it over the long term? That is what I will deal with in my presentation today.
I would like to comment on the debate itself and the fact that the debate is happening under these circumstances.
The first question is can Canada deliver. The answer is yes. Looking at a six month commitment, which is what this motion is about, and a force of 1,200 men and women then yes, Canada can deliver and it will deliver. We have men and women in Petawawa right now who have been training and preparing to leave in June. They will serve serve well and Canada will meet its commitment over the six month period.
If we are talking about a 10 to 20 year period which is probably what will be needed to stabilize the area then the answer is no, not with the lack of commitment the current government has shown to our forces and to the men and women who serve so well. It is no, not with the continued force of 1,200 or more which may well become what is needed if things escalate. That certainly could happen.
The answer is no, not with the current commitment Canada has in other parts of the world. The answer is no with the current lack of commitment to proper equipment that has been shown by this government. The answer is no, not with the ever reducing number of men and women in our forces.
The answer to whether Canada can deliver over the six month term, which we are debating today, is yes. It can and will. That is in spite of the level of commitment this government has to our forces, not because of it. It is because of the incredible men and women serving in our forces. That is something you learn as you travel from base to base in this country. The men and women in our forces are tremendously well equipped in terms of their personal abilities and are well trained and committed. There is no doubt about that. They will deliver because of what they are, not because of what they are given to work with.
What might the price be that our forces might pay if we end up indefinitely, six month term after six month term? Those of us who have travelled from base to base with the SCONDVA committee started to realize what the price might be.
The price is unacceptable in terms of what will happen to our forces and their ability to do what they should be doing, which is to defend the sovereignty of our nation, to be there in the case of natural disasters like the floods and the ice storms, and to be there to deal with civil unrest, which we have already seen in Oka and which we could well see in various parts of the country over the next years. I do not have the time to get into any detail on the price, but the price that we have seen manifests itself in several ways.
First, it manifests itself in terms of morale. Generally speaking, we have seen from base to base across the country that the morale of the men and women in our forces is not high. Further deterioration in morale could well be the price they pay. Families are being torn apart due to a lack of commitment, what has happened over the past years and what will happen if things do not change, if we maintain this kind of commitment overseas and here in Canada.
One thing was made clear. Men and women are happy to serve. When they are asked if they would like to go on a tour to Bosnia they say yes. They say yes for a couple of reasons. One, because they will get extra money which their families desperately need. Their pay levels are not sufficient. They say yes because they joined the forces to serve their country. This is an opportunity to do that. They say yes because they know the training they will receive in this area is second to none in making them ready to be a part of a combat-ready force which this country deserves and desperately needs to defend our sovereignty. They go for those reasons, in spite of the price that they and their families might and do pay. We have seen it.
The third concern I would like to raise is what must change so that Canada can deliver, if Canadians determine that is what should happen. Canadians have never been asked about this issue. I will talk about that when I wrap up, when I discuss this debate and the conditions under which it is taking place.
What is needed in very broad terms to change things so that Canada can deliver? Specifically, what must this government and future governments do to build a sustainable and top quality military?
First, they must show commitment to change in the structure of our forces and leadership. I am not saying that all the leadership in the Canadian forces is not good. Certainly, some of the men and women are top notch, as well as some of the leaders in our military. They must show this commitment to change, to change in leadership and to change in the structure of the forces, separating the military from the civil service branch.
Second, they must show commitment in terms of money. Spending on our forces has been reduced from about $12.5 billion, when I started looking at this in 1992, to $9.3 billion. It has been cut too much.
Third, the government must demonstrate two things. First, that it believes we need a strong combat-ready military. Second, that it believes the men and women who serve in our forces are doing a great job and that they are top quality. They must demonstrate that.
I would like to ask this question. When was the last time a prime minister in Canada said that our country, Canada, really needs our military and that the very existence of Canada depends on us having a good military?
When was the last time we heard a prime minister stand in this House or elsewhere to say that the men and women in our forces do a great job?