Mr. Speaker, I hate to start on a complaining note, but I feel I must. The timing of this debate is the one I would like to address. I would much rather have risen to my feet to discuss our commitment to Bosnia and Croatia in December or I suppose we could have accepted January.
To be rising two days before the commitment is to come to an end seems to me to be very late in the game. Moreover, until very late this afternoon there has been no consultation whatsoever or briefings presented by the government. This seems to be a very dramatic oversight on the part of the government.
I think that the opposition parties, while we represent different philosophies, are certainly also trying to represent Canadians and present their views in this House.
It strikes me that we have two committees, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and on foreign affairs, both of which would be appropriate forums to have discussed the possibilities of extension, the difficulties and the ramifications of extending the mandate in Bosnia.
We have heard overtures that this might happen, but as yet it has not. I think it is a dramatic oversight on the part of the government. I request very strongly it reconsider this and in future involve the opposition parties more deeply in this type of negotiation.
To move into the situation, the background on Croatia is that it is a true peacekeeping operation as the definition goes. It is basically a separation zone which keeps antagonists apart. Once again I would like to pay tribute to our troops not only in Croatia but in Bosnia. They have done superb work and unquestionably are, if not the most professional, among the most professional who are performing the duty in the UN mandate.
Bosnia is a totally different mandate because, to use the official term, it is humanitarian assistance. It is to try to separate three different groups of people who are rather antagonistic toward each other. They are again doing very good work under extremely difficult conditions that have really constrained their activities to a tremendous degree.
By virtue of their flexibility, their professionalism, they have managed to create homogeneous or friendly situations-friendly is probably going too far-but acceptable situations in areas by interceding on a personal level with the local leaders. By showing without any question they are totally unbiased, that they have no favouritism, they have performed very well.
It could be fairly safely said that Canada and perhaps one or two other nations are the only ones that can make the claim of being completely and totally unbiased.
The problem is there have been many violations of agreements. We have seen rapes, we have seen murders, we have seen atrocities that are unspeakable. These are conducted by people who are committed to hate each other. It seems such a shame. It is such a beautiful country and there is so much prospect for it to prosper. Unhappily, it is caught up in what is truly a war.
We have seen hostages taken. This comes about as a result normally of NATO exerting influence to try to coerce or force people to abide by agreements that they have made but choose not to abide by.
Canadians I think are in a particularly vulnerable position in this case because we are the only ones, to my knowledge, who are actually occupying positions in Serb held territory. The other UN forces are not so deployed.
As a result, if the UN calls on NATO air support to achieve a change of heart on the part of Serb aggression, the Serbs will in all likelihood do as they have done before and they will take Canadian hostages. This has happened twice now and I think it is pipe smoking opium if we do not think that it will happen again if the situation arises.
UN patrols have been fired on in both Bosnia and Croatia. In Croatia at New Year's two of our Canadian UN peacekeepers were wounded and it was only by some extraordinary effort on the part of one of them and good hospital facilities that resulted in no Canadian fatalities in this instance.
There were a total of nine soldiers killed in the UN commitment in the former Yugoslavia. I think it is likely that if the situation continues, and it does appear to be heating up, we could very well be in danger of having even more casualties.
We have seen the lifeline of Bosnia put in extreme danger or even cut off completely. The Sarajevo airport was closed for an extensive time. As recently as a couple of days ago UN aeroplanes were being shot up as they went in and out of the airport. This impacts of course on the ability of the UN and UNPROFOR to perform the duties they are there for which is to provide humanitarian assistance by delivering supplies to the people concerned.
The problem is that there does not seem to be any particular desire on the part of the antagonists there to abide by agreements that they have made. We have seen aggression in the form of UN declared safe zones which are totally ignored and in fact attacked in dramatic fashion by the opposing forces, particularly the Serbs in this case.
It appears that the UN really is a toothless monster. It makes agreements, gets concurrence in those and then the antagonists decide which one they are going to adhere to. As I mentioned before, we have seen atrocities committed and even now we are seeing more battles between the ethnic groups in the area.
As far as any cease fire agreement, and we are now in an realm where a cease fire was declared some time ago, there is no cease fire because as the hon. leader of the official opposition has said, in the past four days I believe there have been 14 different violations recorded. As I understand from the briefing we were given an hour ago, these are relatively major incidents that are recorded because the sniper who shoots at an individual in Sarajevo is not considered to be a reportable incident. I am told that on average there are between 80 and 200 incidents reported daily. That adds up to a pretty hot war situation.
All this came about because of mandate deficiencies. First, we did not have agreement from all parties concerned to involve ourselves or the UN in the area. We decided to impose ourselves there and they said: "You are here but we did not agree to you being here". There is no indication that they have changed their mind on that at all. They will go along with things they agree with, but the instant that it does not suit their purpose they go back to doing what they want to do. There is without question a lack of desire to achieve a peaceful resolution.
I must say that if there were any sort of a light at the end of the tunnel, a view on the horizon, that there could be an accommodation which would last it would be a very different solution than we are facing.
We have seen that UN agreements are unenforceable. The UN makes an agreement, people come forward and sign off on them and then sometimes within hours or a few days the thing is violated and it is gone.
It is patently obvious that despite the embargo arms are getting through. Word has it that the Bosnians are now armed to the extent that they feel relatively capable of operating on an even footing against the Serb forces. There is a lot of question as to the capability of the various forces, but it seems without any question that there is every likelihood that there will be what is referred to as a spring offensive. I sincerely hope this is not the case, but certainly every indication is that the war or the fighting in the area is becoming worse rather than tailing off.
I think there are some unique Canadian problems which should be discussed. I will start with equipment. The government and the chief of defence staff have said-the chief of course is required to say that-that the equipment in fact is functional and is adequate. I would call it obsolescent, if not obsolete. Certainly when we were on the ground in Bosnia and in Croatia, particularly in Croatia with the M-113 armoured personnel carriers, there was no question in the minds of the people who were using them that this was not a piece of kit that they really enjoyed. They are unreliable. The tracks broke regularly and they were not sufficiently armoured to do the job they were intended to do.
The solution to this of course was to add additional armour to them. The problem with adding additional armour is that it adds to the weight. Adding to the weight means that the drive train will be in trouble, the suspension will give up and the fuel consumption will rise tremendously. That is not an adequate solution.
The radios are vitally important in that situation, with observation posts and troops deployed in various areas; to be able to talk to the guy you want to talk to when you want to talk to him. We heard time and again from people that their radios were broken down. Everyone has become a fixer of communications equipment. That is unacceptable.
The flack jackets that our personnel wear there are cumbersome and uncomfortable. We saw in Croatia a new design which was being tried out, but the ones which were issued to our troops, in their opinion, are unacceptable.
We have a very poor night vision device available. That is absolutely unacceptable again because a lot of our observation posts are involved in night observations and if they cannot see or use them properly this is not good.
I think the business of helmets has been discussed a couple of times and I understand if it were not so tragic it would be humorous. When we got the Kevlar helmets they were not blue. We decided to paint them, so we went out and bought some paint. The only problem was that the paint reacted with the Kevlar and they became soft and basically useless. The other UN forces I think who use those helmets have put canvas covers on them. Again, I do not think we did our homework.
We also have a problem, in my estimation, with our people. First of all, I want to pay tribute to the co-operation, the professionalism, the dedication and the sincere interest that our people have shown and the way they have conducted themselves. However, I think we are rotating them through the operational zone too often. We have people who have been there three times. Soon if we keep up the rate we are doing, if we renew the commitment, we will have people on their fourth tours of operation.
Many of these people are volunteers, and I understand that. However, I still think that from a man management point of view, this is not the way we should go. It is fine for the troops who are in the zone, but their families are tremendously impacted by the fact that they are away. Dad is out of the picture or, in some cases, mom. The children suffer, the family suffers and therefore it has to impact to an extent on morale.
There is an increase in the incidence of alcoholism in the units that have been deployed. There have been increased disciplinary problems. This is natural because people are under an awful lot of tension and it will unquestionably affect them.
The whole thing boils down to a morale problem which I think would be difficult to deal with at the best of times. Added on to other problems that the Canadian force are now experiencing I think it is somewhat devastating. Basically we are asking our troops to be burned out. I do not think we can afford to do that.
With regard to the mandate in Bosnia and Croatia, Reform in December last year laid down what we thought were four reasonable conditions which Canada should demand or we should withdraw. First, peacekeepers should be left alone. They should not be taken hostage. They should not be interfered with. Second, we asked that the Sarajevo airport be opened and left open in order that humanitarian assistance could be brought in. Third, we asked that all aid convoys be able to proceed unimpeded. Finally, we asked that a ceasefire be in place and be holding and be seen to be holding.
The only one of these four proposals that has been met, and that is only recently, is the one to leave the peacekeepers alone. The Sarajevo airport has been closed many times. Aircraft have been shot at. Aid convoys have been held up or refused passage. Of course it is obvious there is no ceasefire and it is not holding.
The Reform Party believes the solution to this is that Canada should accept the situation is not now resolved, nor is it likely to be in the near future. This is a situation where there are no white hats. Every one of the ethnic people in that area are to some extent responsible for atrocities: the Croats, Muslims and the Serbs. Some may be more prone to it than others but everyone is guilty to an extent.
As I said just a few moments ago, Canadian resources are stretched to the limit. We should be aware of this and we have to accept it. It can be safely said that Canada has done her share. We have now committed our troops there for three years. We have done exemplary work. I do not think that anyone can point at Canada and say that we are not pulling our weight.
There are other UN forces committed there that are much less efficient. Some of them are not doing their job at all. One particular unit, which I will not mention by name, has brand new armoured personnel carriers bought by the UN, purchased in Korea, and it refuses to use them. It wants to keep the mileage low because the UN depreciates them and it is then going to take them home in almost brand new condition.
Other contingents will not go to the front lines. They will support only one side or the other in the conflict. It is only Canada and a few other nations that are truly perceived by the antagonists to be unbiased and impartial.
The Reform Party proposes that Canada should say: "We have done our share. It is time to withdraw our forces from Bosnia and Croatia". We should say to the United Nations that we understand that it will take them some time to find replacements. I suggest that an initial timeframe of three months' grace be given, after which time Canada would withdraw from the region.
I believe this is possible in Croatia. It might be more difficult in Bosnia. I do not think that Canada would be unreasonable if the time has to be extended. It could be but I think it should be extended by very short increments.
Finally, we should have learned a very dramatic lesson from our involvement in Bosnia and Croatia. All of us have at some time understood that we got in there with the thought that we were going there to do good. We have done well. The problem is that there was no agreement.
Canada should insist for instance that there be a time limit on our involvement. There should be an insistence that the people who are there want us there and that they want to come to a peaceful solution, that they want to solve the thing.
The matter of rules of engagement must be very clearly specified and they must be acceptable to Canada before we say yes we will go in. The financial aspect should be discussed and approved.
Unless we do this, Canada may once again wind up in a commitment such as we have here where our withdrawal, without question, will result in an accelerated conflict. I see no way of avoiding this. By Canadians staying there we are just extending it.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, we were 29 years in Cyprus and we certainly cannot stand 29 years in Bosnia and Croatia.
Therefore, the Reform Party advocates that Canada tell the UN that we would like our commitment to come to an end. We will give it a three-month period of grace after which time we will effectively withdraw.
