Mr. Speaker, we are today debating the recent Dayton peace accord and Canada's contribution to the peace effort in the Balkans.
For over three years, discussions have gone on between the Bosnians, the Serbs and the Croats in the hope of reaching an agreement on establishing a real peace process. On November 21, an accord, albeit an imperfect one, but an accord nonetheless, was signed by the parties.
This peace accord, signed in Dayton, Ohio, provides, among other things, that refugees will be permitted to return home or will be compensated, if it is impossible for them to do so. The accord also provides for the unrestricted movement of the entire population within Bosnian territory.
To implement the accord, the international community is being invited to provide humanitarian aid or help in the reconstruction, with the objective of establishing an enduring peace in the former Yugoslavia.
Today, we are being asked to debate the form Canada's contribution to the peace process should take. We are, however, entitled to question the usefulness of this debate and whether the Government of Canada has not already made all the decisions, since, less than 48 hours after the Dayton accord was signed, the Prime Minister of Canada was saying publicly that Canada would send a number of soldiers, according to its capabilities and NATO's request.
The Bloc Quebecois questions the attitude of the Prime Minister, who is leaving no doubt that the decisions have already been made and that the opinions of the members of this House are of little import. His message is that Canada will send soldiers to Bosnia, regardless of today's parliamentary debate. However, the debate is relevant, and, in this regard the Minister of Foreign Affairs should have informed the Prime Minister that Canada could get involved in three ways, apart from simply sending soldiers.
Participation in the implementation force is one kind of intervention, of course, but taking part in the reconstruction and welcoming refugees unable to go back home are other kinds of assistance that Canada should consider.
I would like to elaborate on the latter, on Canada's opportunity to help Bosnian refugees. Canada can help out in two ways. The High Commissioner for Refugees made an appeal to welcome refugees from the former Yugoslavia. In this regard, a few weeks ago, the Canadian Minister of Citizenship and Immigration reached an agreement with NGOs and other organizations to implement an action plan to welcome these victims of war. The Quebec government is also involved in this special operation. The Bloc Quebecois supports this initiative and urges the Canadian government to pursue its efforts in this regard.
Canada could also help refugees on the field in Bosnia-Hercegovina. The best estimates suggest that there are more than 1.3 million displaced people in Bosnia itself and 800,000 refugees in neighbouring republics and other European countries. Canada must facilitate the implementation of the Dayton agreement and help those who want to return to their homes.
The time has come to recognize that Canada's previous interventions in the former Yugoslavia have been less than successful. So far, Canada's participation in UNPROFOR has cost taxpayers over half a billion dollars. Despite the enormous resources invested by Canada, the results have been on the whole rather disappointing.
Canada has been excluded from major decisions, as demonstrated by its April 1995 exclusion from the contact group composed of the U.S., Russia, France, Great Britain, and Germany. Canada has maintained a large UNPROFOR contingent, even though our troops had little guidance and no clear, original, well-defined policy regarding the outcome of the conflict and how to resolve it.
The Canadian government did not show any international leadership or take any major policy initiative that would have allowed it to exert some influence. Before making a further commitment to participating in the implementation of the Bosnian peace and
reconstruction plan, the official opposition believes that several questions ought to be answered. Canadian taxpayers have a right to know whether or not Canada will have a say in operations involving Canadian troops.
Also, given that Bosnia is faced with severe economic problems, we must ask ourselves if the Canadian government intends to provide financial assistance as well or if, given our own debt problem, we could not find a more responsible and practical form of assistance. For instance, Canada could very well provide technical assistance for future elections in Bosnia, given its expertise in that area.
We also want to be apprised of the risks to our troops. We know that the ceasefire monitoring force will consist of combat troops as opposed to peacekeepers. This new task will therefore be conducted under Chapter VII of the UN charter instead of Chapter VI. And we know that Chapter VII allows the use of a broader range of means, including the use of force, to fulfil these missions. In other words, every means available will be used to implement the agreement.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois has three more concerns in relation to the timing, nature and cost of this operation. As far as duration is concerned, the UN secretary general and the Prime Minister jointly stated that this mandate could be for up to three years. If that were the case, the Bloc Quebecois demands that the government seek the House of Commons' approval of its decision to extend the mission beyond the currently planned 12 month term.
As for the mandate of Canadian troops deployed in Bosnia, we hope that the Canadian government has learned from its mistake and that, this time, it will develop a clear mandate. While troops may have to perform a variety of tasks, Canadian troops could specialize in communications and more traditional aspects of peacekeeping. Out of concern for Canada's image as a peace-minded country, we Bloc members think that only a very small percentage of the troops we assign to NATO should take part in combat missions, and only if necessary.
Finally, the Bloc Quebecois feels that Canada's participation must be more or less the same as in UNPROFOR, that is about 2,000 soldiers. That seems to compare with the level of participation of our European allies, except for France, Great Britain and Germany. The cost of such an operation is high. The defence department estimates that, over a 12 month period, it could be anywhere from 2 to 75 million dollars, depending on the number of soldiers involved. The various scenarios provide for sending from 50 to 3,500 soldiers.
We have our doubts about these figures, considering that Canada's participation in UNPROFOR cost about $172 million annually. The defence department has admitted that a NATO operation would cost about twice as much as a UN peacekeeping mission. The Canadian government must show more rigour and give the real costs of that operation, before getting more involved.
In short, the Bloc Quebecois is asking the Canadian government to show greater discretion, rigour and, particularly, transparency. There is no doubt that Canada must contribute to the peace process in Bosnia. The way to do it must be thoroughly debated in this House.
