David Collenette

[Bosnia, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, without getting too much involved, the answer to the specific question is no.

We have a forum that has worked well in the last few months and is expanding and will meet again on Saturday. It is the troop contributing nations.

I have been at other meetings of this group in the past number of months. It will be a decision making body; it is a decision making body.

The hon. member quibbles about having a say not meaning consultation. We will be having a say, we are having a say. He obviously does not remember that when it came to the question of application of NATO air power Canada was very much in the forefront not just in consultation but as part of the decision making process and withheld approval until many of our key concerns were met. Those concerns were valid then, they are valid now and they will be valid in the weeks to come.

[Bosnia, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the contact group is not a UN sponsored organization. It is a group of nations largely European-it includes Russia and the United States-that have come together and have tried to effect a solution. We have made our position clear that we would have preferred to have been part of that group.

As I said the other night, we have to look forward and not look back. As a result of some of the comments that have been made by our Prime Minister with respect to the specific issue, it has been agreed over the last number of months to expand the consultative process among troop contributors, of which Canada is a significant player. That will mean we will have even more

consultations, including the meeting I have just described that will take place in Paris on Saturday.

[Bosnia, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a question of semantics. Peacekeeping in the traditional sense has rarely been followed in both Croatia and Bosnia. It was not followed in Somalia. These are not traditional peacekeeping situations, but we all refer to them in the generic sense as peacekeeping because that terminology developed by former Prime Minister Pearson is an accepted role for the international forces.

The Government of Canada does not accept the notion that the mandate of the United Nations in Bosnia is invalid. We feel it can still work and we feel it can work with a modification of the mandate in a number of areas. I outlined them in a speech the other night and the leader of the Reform Party heard them.

We feel that the United Nations, the world community, has so much at stake that we should do all possible to ensure that a reformulated, redirected mandate can be discharged.

[Bosnia, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the charges about equipment are simply charges that no longer bear reality. Whether it is helmets, reinforced flak jackets for the very difficult situations, reinforced turrets of our M-113 armoured personnel carriers and other equipment including very modern machine guns, we believe the troops in the last number of months have been given additional resources that give them better protection for more dangerous situations.

That does not mean to say that we cannot improve that equipment. However, with respect to sending heavy armour, artillery and all of the rest of the paraphernalia of a greater entwining in a conflict over there, that is something that is not part of the government's agenda at this time. It may very well be part of the government's agenda should there be an eventual withdrawal, but that withdrawal would have to be all-encompassing, requested by the UN and discharged by NATO. At that time we will be prepared to add additional resources to effect the evacuation of Bosnia.

[Bosnia, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the secretary-general flatly rejected a withdrawal from Bosnia, as has been advocated by some. He flatly rejected the status quo. He is talking about a redefinition of the UNPROFOR mandate in that country, and that is the position of Canada.

As to how we do it, that will become evident in the next few days. As the House will know, my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is meeting today with his counterparts. A meeting has been called by the Prime Minister of France for defence ministers on Saturday. I shall represent Canada there with the chief of defence staff. We will try to see how we can adapt our positions into a common front to deal with what I think is the emerging consensus, one that we enunciated in the House in the last few days, that the UNPROFOR mandate is still valid. It can still work, but there has to be some reshaping or redefining of the mandate to lessen the exposure for the troops that are concerned.

[Bosnia, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first on the question of Captain Lapalm, it is true that we have had no

direct contact with him for the last number of days. We have heard indirectly from our sources in Sarajevo that he is okay. We are trying to confirm this and we are trying to work through third parties such as the Red Cross to ascertain his true condition.

With respect to Captain Rechner, I dealt with that yesterday. There has been no change. There has been no change with the other people who have been detained and held hostage in Ilijas.

With respect to the question of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I think we have made our position quite clear. There is no requirement at this time to send additional Canadian forces. None have been sought by the United Nations.

I should point out that the secretary-general of the UN a few moments ago called for the gradual reduction or scaling down of the UNPROFOR mandate so that it could be reprofiled in a way to carry out those tasks that it could best be suited to carry out. This mirrors the position that has been taken not only by Canada but by many of our allies.

[Bosnia, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a pattern of questions in the House today that is very unfortunate.

The lives of Canadian men and women are in danger. Despite our partisan differences on other matters, all of our questions and all of our thoughts should be on how to improve the situation, not to make petty criticisms on the floor of the House of Commons.

The hon. member speaks of a vacuum, but when we hear the comments of his defence critic, who a few moments ago said "retreat is not withdrawal and withdrawal doesn't mean you leave", one wonders where the vacuum is and who is actually setting policy on that side of the House.

[Bosnia, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there has been no change with respect to Canada's policy on the use of NATO air power.

We had a number of discussions a year ago. The Prime Minister was in those discussions. As a result, we agreed to the use of NATO air power when requested by the UN forces on the ground for close air support, for protection of UN personnel and in certain situations relating to the safety of people in the various enclaves in Croatia and Bosnia. However, we did agree in certain circumstances that they could be used for other less defensive needs.

In the last couple of days we have said that if such air attacks as were deployed last week were to be used again, we would prefer some modification to the approval process so that Canada would certainly be part of that decision in a more formal sense.

With respect to the general application of the policy with close air support, as I have earlier described, we are quite happy with the way that process has been working in the past.

[Bosnia, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I perhaps would not want to get into a convoluted answer to a convoluted question.

I will take this opportunity to say that one of the people who has been detained, hostage Captain Rechner, was contacted a few hours ago through a Serbian interpreter. He is in good shape and is well fed. He has been able to bring supplies from his own quarters but he is still being detained. He is no longer being chained to a pole.

I thought the House would want to know this. We remain concerned about Captain Lapalm. Of course the other people who are detained in Ilijas are in relatively good shape, as we have previously described.

[Bosnia, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just asked the question was a participant and a member of the special joint committee. That committee made certain recommendations about the availability of Canadian forces and those recommendations were followed in the white paper. That means that in certain circumstances for conflicts of this nature we should have ready additional personnel if required. The white paper calls for that and those people are there. We are taking steps to address the fact that we have been engaged quite frequently in peacekeeping missions by putting 3,000 more ground troops into the sharp end.

Before the hon. member makes these outrageous assertions in the House of Commons, perhaps he should read his own committee's report, which he signed, and the defence white paper.