Debates of Feb. 17th, 1999

Peacekeeping

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that when this government took office back in 1993 a number of very difficult decisions had to be made. There were cuts to transfer payments. There were across the board cuts in many government departments. And yes, there were cuts to the military.

We saw in the budget an increase in funds for health care, a rejuvenation of many programs of departments of the government, including national defence. We are going to see in the years to come continued reinvestment in Canadian programs and services.

In terms of the ability of the military to do the job in both Bosnia and Kosovo, I have the greatest of respect for our commanders in the field both in Canada and overseas. I had the opportunity to see them in action during the ice storm and with my colleagues on the national defence committee when we visited Bosnia last May.

I say to the hon. member across the way that they are well equipped in Bosnia. They are fully able to do the job and they are doing a tremendous job over there. If Canadians had the opportunity to see what our troops face from day to day they would be extremely proud as I was to see that maple leaf flag flying over the camp at Velika Kladusa, in Zgon and in other camps where the Canadians soldiers are based. They are doing a tremendous job. They have the equipment and they are getting better equipment.

Over the years I think the Canadian forces can look forward to even greater triumphs in terms of peacekeeping and contributing to world peace and security.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the folks back home I am going to give them a thumbnail sketch of why this is going on.

This evening we are debating whether or not Canada should be sending troops to Kosovo and the Central African Republic. That is the basic gist of why we are here.

Our servicemen should be commended for their loyalty and dedication to Canada. Even though their morale is at an all-time low they should be commended for their continued commitment to the armed forces. Despite everything else, it is nothing short of outstanding when we consider what they are making do with under the circumstances. My hat tips to the Canadian armed forces and I appreciate what they do.

To give a little background on the issue, the ethnic Albanian majority in Kosovo is mounting an ongoing campaign to liberate Kosovo from Serbian control. The Serbs meanwhile are mounting an offensive against the ethnic Albanians in what appears to be an attempt at ethnic cleansing. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, has served notice that unless Serbian aggression toward ethnic Albanians in Kosovo ceases, NATO will use military force against Serbian military positions until the Serbs back down. Canada has been asked to participate in any NATO action in Kosovo.

Further to the issue of Kosovo, the population of Kosovo is some 90% Albanian and 10% Serb. Kosovo had political autonomy within Yugoslavia until 1989 when that autonomy was abolished. The region is of great historic and symbolic significance to the Serbs who lost their national independence to the Turks in the battle of Kosovo in 1389. I will say that date again, 1389. That is a long time ago, over 600 years. I guess some are beginning to wonder whether a few even though passionate but poorly equipped Canadians are going to be able to rectify a situation that has been more than 600 years to the boiling point.

I would like to quote someone who I think has relevance with regard to this debate, General Lewis MacKenzie. He stated that a full parliamentary debate had to be held on this issue. In his words, “I would like mothers and fathers of soldiers and spouses of soldiers if and when they are killed to feel that it was a justifiable cause that only can be determined after a public debate”.

I would also like to touch on the fact that one of the Reform caucus members, the member of parliament for Calgary Northeast and the Reform Party defence critic, has been quoted recently that if the number of our forces drops below 60,000, as some people are saying, it is unrealistic to participate in activities such as Kosovo. I am going to talk about that during my speech.

Despite how badly some of our forces would like to see time in the field, and I can certainly understand that, nonetheless they know and I know, and I am going to talk about it this evening, how they are suffering because of the lack of proper equipment which they need to be able to get the job done.

Let us run down a top 10 list, a thumbnail sketch of why there are problems and then I will put flesh on the bones of that.

First, sending our troops to Kosovo is going to put them at risk. That is always the case with military operations. Furthermore the current chief of the defence staff and his predecessor both have said that Canada is not combat ready. I repeat that, the chief of the defence staff and his predecessor have both said that Canada is not combat ready.

Why is that? I am going on to my next point. It is because this Liberal government is starving our military. That is why this is going on. How has the government been starving the military? The Liberals have siphoned off over $7 billion from the military budget since they have come to office. That is why there is a problem.

The government has cut a third of our military, over 30,000 personnel. I guess we could say it all started with Pierre Elliot Trudeau and not having a love or appreciation of the armed forces, but the song goes on with the Liberals.

The government is not giving our troops the tools they need to do the job. What type of tools are we looking at? Artillery that is 25 years old, helicopters 35 years old, tanks 35 years old. They barely have the funds to train properly never mind an insufficient budget for live firing. They cannot even do live firing. I have been on some of these ranges. It is absurd that we are training troops without the ability to do live firing with live ammunition.

To be a player in international politics we have to pay the price. If we want to have power and influence to make peace in places like Kosovo, we have to pay that price. The price is combat capable armed forces.

The Liberals have failed our hardworking military. They are starving our military the funds they need to do their excellent work. This Liberal irresponsibility, inadequate training and old equipment are putting our troops in jeopardy and the blood of our troops will be in their hands.

That is a brief thumbnail sketch. I am going to put some meat on the bones of this.

What type of Canadian contribution to a NATO force is envisaged? What size of force is envisaged? What equipment will it have? How can parliamentarians discuss in an informed way what Canada's role should be when they do not know these facts? We are being asked to send troops but because of all the problems with the funding, the equipment and everything else we are going into this blind. And it is not as if that has not been done before by this government, has it?

Political decisions are being made by the leading western powers at negotiations in France, at which Canada has almost no voice. Why do we have no voice? Because our influence in NATO has eroded so badly.

When I was in Esquimalt last year I was told that we were going to be removed from the grid for undersea mapping because we were no longer in the submarine club. The United States would love to have an ally to share that information with and to participate in games with so they could test their capability. But when we no longer have any ability to provide information for that, they can no longer justify keeping us on the grid. Because of that pressure, the government went ahead and purchased the bare minimum needed to stay part of the grid.

That is the reason Canada is a joke when it comes to things like NATO. That is a travesty.

We want to participate in a NATO military force but the forces we have are seriously deficient. We have no combat helicopters. We have no heavy lift helicopters. We have mostly light armoured vehicles, not heavy armoured vehicles. We have no ability to withdraw or reinforce our troops in a crisis due to the lack of any strategic lift. Those are serious problems with this mission. The equipment of the forces is a real disgrace. It is rusting out.

One example is the Griffon helicopters. The auditor general reported that they have inadequate lift capability. They have poor reconnaissance capability. They can lift army artillery only for very short distances. They have a buildup of static electricity. Yet these are the helicopters we are planning to deploy in Kosovo. They cannot mount guns. They are unable to be used for the purposes for which they were bought.

I list off all these things and the government is still considering going ahead and doing these things when it is not properly equipping the forces.

We have already one battalion group, 1,300 troops in Bosnia. On February 9 the deputy chief of defence staff stated before the House of Commons foreign affairs and defence committee that he could have no definitive answer to the question of how many troops could be sustained overseas. Yet we are increasing our contingent. I know the people in the armed forces would like to see time in the field. They know and I know and the Canadian public now knows that they are being sent into these operations without having what they need to do the job.

That all being considered, Canada because of all these considerations is going to be reliant on our allies for logistics in helicopter support. What other option is there? We are playing Russian roulette with the lives of Canadian troops because we do not have the proper things to give them in this particular situation.

A ground invasion of Kosovo has already been ruled out. If a ground invasion has been ruled out, what is left is an air only campaign. There is a question of whether or not that is likely to achieve the desired results. With an air only campaign, we are sending in helicopters that are ill fitted for the mission. It has already been ruled out that there cannot be a ground campaign. It will have to be an air only campaign. Yet we are sending troops into the area without having appropriate air support. I do not know how that makes any sense. But I guess that is Liberal logic when it comes to the armed forces.

I am going to talk about Canada's national interest. We do have national interests in the Balkans. We certainly have a strong interest in regional stability. We have an interest in ensuring that the instability in the Balkans does not spill over into neighbouring countries. But the question is are these vital national interests? Whether these are vital national interests has never been adequately addressed by our government.

Should Canadians die to ensure the stability of the Balkans? This is a sobering question. But we have to reflect on the fact that 17 Canadians have already died in Bosnia and more than 100 have been wounded. How big a sacrifice can Canada be expected to make if our vital interests are not at stake and especially if this government is not willing to give them the supplies, material and equipment they need to be able to make sure they are not putting their lives at any more risk than they absolutely need to?

The national interest considerations need to be at the forefront when troop deployment decisions are taken by any Canadian government. We owe that to our troops and we owe it to the Canadian people.

Reform has laid out six criteria that should be met with regard to committing and deploying Canadian troops. One, there is a serious threat to international stability and that diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. Two, that so far as possible there is multinational support for military action. Three, that there is a workable plan and strategy for military action to resolve the issue. Four, that the plan includes a well defined mission and a clear definition of Canada's role. Five, that the role expected of Canada is within our fiscal and military capability. Six, that there is a command and control arrangement satisfactory to Canada.

I have run through six questions and we do not have satisfactory fulfilment of these six criteria for the deployment of Canadian forces, all this considering that we have a crippled armed forces.

I am going to talk about some of the problems we have. This is a question that was posed a few days ago to the defence minister in the House of Commons. I quote part of it: “Since the Liberal government has come into power it has cut over $7 billion from the defence budget. The Sea Kings were grounded again and unable to fly. Pilots are taking risks, undue risks, flying old equipment”.

When that question was posed, and we all know the problems that have happened with the Sea Kings, what did the Minister of National Defence say when he was questioned on this important subject? The minister said: “We are developing a procurement strategy”. Men are dying in the field. I am happy to know that our defence minister is developing a procurement strategy. Good for him.

During the election of 1993 the Prime Minister promised he would cancel the Conservative government's EH-101 contract valued at $5.8 billion for 50 helicopters. Those are 1992 estimates. The cost of the promise was approximately $530 million due to cancellation costs and penalties.

It is ironic that the new helicopters are similar in design to the cancelled EH-101s. As a matter of fact, the similarities between the models are so prevalent that it forces us to question what the real motives behind the Liberal's 1993 election promise were. This is an important issue and it will not go away. It will only get worse.

There was a news conference in Shearwater regarding ignition problems with our 35 year old Sea Kings. There have been seven engine failures in a month, six on start-up and one on taxi. This is the same engine of the ill fated Labrador. We all remember the complications when we actually had troops die.

Now we have unreliable aging aircraft and the government is putting lives before budget dollars with this. This is a question that was posed to the Minister of National Defence. What did he say when he was asked about our 35 year old helicopters that have had seven engine failures? He said: “In this case there have been starter problems with the engines when they start them on the ground”. Bravo. Where else do you start helicopter engines but on the ground? Are we supposed to start them in mid-air? Do helicopters just start a thousand feet in the air and then plummet to the earth killing the people on board? I do not think so but our good old Minister of National Defence seems to think that just might be the case.

My conservative estimate of what Somalia cost us is $30 million although it could have been higher.

I will talk to the issue of tanks because we have terribly old tanks. The United States was willing to give us Abrams tanks. I was told this by people in the U.S. embassy and by our own Canadian soldiers. Rather than mothball them in the desert in Arizona, the American government was willing to give us these its and willing to pay for maintenance costs because we are their ally. This government turned down those tanks. It would rather have them sit in mothballs in Arizona than use this equipment, and it bellyaches about funding. Shame on the government.

In my riding CFB Calgary was closed. There were a thousand acres of land. The troops were moved up to Edmonton where there were only 640 acres of land. It does not sound like a very wise move in terms of the land space but nonetheless that was done. I have it written down that there was a $65 million price tag but there are speculations it cost a lot more than that. All this was going on yet our government continued to cut troops and put them into commitments it knows it will not be able to properly fund.

The government wants to go ahead and send our troops to Kosovo. I know some troops want to see time in the field, and I appreciate that. I could feel that when I was on the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

I wish I had more time. I could go on about other UN involvements we have had. For example, they have not solved the problems in Angola even though the UN tries to play international cop and does not seem to have what it takes to do it.

I could go on about who will have to pay for this. The

Globe and Mail

has talked about the fact that paying for these types of operations with a shrinking military budget means there will have to be more troop cuts, that we will have to rotate more of our troops and they will be more tired and more prone to accidents and fatalities on the job.

I could talk about the search and rescue problems we have in Esquimalt. We cannot do our own search and rescue. We have to rely on Americans because of budget cuts and because we do not have helicopters. I could go on and on but I have wrapped up my time. I wish the best of luck to our men and women in the armed forces. I only wish the government appreciated them more and funded them properly.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the debate this evening, however late the hour, to share with members of the House some thoughts on this important issue. I do not believe the last member who spoke bothered to address the second aspect of this question, whether we should continue our troop presence in the Central African Republic.

This debate is to deal with two things, whether we should retain our troops in the Central African Republic and whether we should make our troops available in the event, and only in the event, they are needed for an operation in Kosovo. I would like to address those two items.

The first item is dealt with more simply. It is a smaller number of troops, some 65 or 75 troops, who are in a communications position in the Central African Republic.

It is important to speak to this because it shows the type of commitment that Canada and our armed services are making toward peacekeeping in the world. We need to keep our troops in the Central African Republic.

There is an election to be held there shortly. We have responsibilities as a member of the security council to ensure peace and security in the world. We have chosen to be on the security council. We must accept the responsibilities that go with that post.

It seems to me that Canadians and our armed services as well would be anxious to serve and to continue to serve in the Central African Republic to ensure that an election will be held there in a way that will guarantee establishment of a free and democratic country there. It is one of the best things we are doing in the world today where we are able to provide to the world some of the finest people in terms of peacekeeping.

They are some of the finest examples of men and women who are able to work in different communities and difficult situations in order to bring their expertise, particularly in that area which requires bilingual expertise which is the perfect example of what we have in our services, and make it work in a way which will ensure peace in that African country.

It would be a tragedy if the official opposition were to have its way and, for the reasons given by the last speaker in talking about the inability of us to survive and provide the services necessary to keep those troops there, we were to withdraw from that essential function.

Of far greater import is the debate over the issue of whether we should be prepared to stand and commit troops to Kosovo.

I will share with the Canadian public and members of the House an experience which I had in January this year which makes me believe it is not only our duty and obligation but it is common sense for us to make available our forces for that operation.

I will address at the end of my comments the observations of the hon. member who preceded me that we do not have the capacity to make the commitment I would ask our troops to make.

I happened to be in Vienna at the OSCE parliamentary assembly in January this year. A group of us came together. The chairman of the Russian Duma, a member of the U.S. Congress, a French member of parliament, I and other members of parliaments from around the world. We crafted a resolution on Kosovo in which we sought to bring both sides together. We criticized both sides for their excesses and asked that both sides come together to achieve a peaceful solution to the dispute there.

As we were leaving Vienna 45 innocent Kosovar civilians were taken out by the Serbian police in charge of that country and shot point blank, massacred. I realized then that all the talk, all the words in all the parliaments of the world in the end cannot change a situation if we are not willing to back up at some point our words with some force and some action.

That is where we are at tonight. That is what we have to determine in this House. Are we, as representatives of the Canadian people, willing to commit our troops, part of ourselves, to the process of trying to bring peace to Kosovo?

We would not be where we are in the process of trying to bring peace to that region if Mr. Milosevic had not been told that there will be an employment of force. We need the presence of troops. We need the threat of troops to kickstart the Rambouillet process. That is now working. We need the presence of troops ultimately to ensure that process will work.

We have seen before Mr. Milosevic and his lack of respect of international engagements. Nothing short of the presence of an enforceable mechanism to make sure that he will adhere to his responsibilities, if he enters into a political arrangement, will make any sense in that arena. We have learned that through bitter experience in the Bosnian theatre and we are learning that today in Kosovo.

Are Canadian troops needed for that? The Reform Party may well take the position that everything I have said is correct but that there should not be Canadian troops there. It is true that we need a larger presence of European troops. This is a European problem and Europeans should be in a position to deal with these issues themselves.

However, there are two features we must bear in mind. We as Canadians have a specific responsibility in peacekeeping because we have contributed to the United Nations role in peacekeeping and we have made a specific and an enormous worldwide contribution to that area. When we look at the contribution we have made in Bosnia we recognize that this is exactly where Canadians can make a difference.

I believe that a force in Kosovo will not be able to make the difference that it makes with Canadian troops there. I have had the opportunity and privilege to visit our troops in Bosnia. Our troops are serving there with great pride, with enormous professionalism and with great expertise. With all deference to the member who spoke before me, they are doing so knowing they are equipped to do their job, are able to do their job, are trained to do their job and are proud to do their job. The Canadian people are proud of the job they are doing there.

Canadian troops will make a difference in the event that troops are required in Kosovo. I urge our government to ensure, if and when the call is made under the UN mandate and through a NATO operation to provide troops to make sure that peace will come in Kosovo so normal men and women can survive and live decent lives without being threatened with arbitrary execution or being expelled from their homes, that we will be standing with our allies and with, I hope, as in Bosnia, not only NATO allies but Russian troops and troops from other parts of the world who will join us to try to bring peace to this troubled region.

I have participated in many of these debates on similar subjects about whether we should commit our forces to the betterment of humanity and to the advancement of the Canadian goals of tolerance and of making a better world. In each one of these debates the Reform Party has taken the same position: “Oh, yes, we think this is a good idea but we are not equipped. We should not be there. Our men and women should not be exposed to this because they are not equipped”.

Do Reform Party members go and talk to our men and women? Have they been to Bosnia as we have and talked to them? Have they consulted our troops? The last member was honest enough to constantly say “I know that our troops would like to do this but we do not think they should do it”. He is a greater expert in the knowledge and understanding of what our troops are able to do and what they would like to do than themselves.

Let him consult our troops or, even better, let him and his colleagues come with me and my colleagues to meetings of the OSCE general assembly, for example, in which the Reform Party refuses to participate. They will not come and talk to colleagues from Albania, Kosovo, Russia and other countries. They do not believe in that. No, they do not deign to travel. It is not worthy of them to be involved in debates with the other members of the world community so that they could have a better understanding of what is taking place.

They were not there in Copenhagen where you and I were, Mr. Speaker, when we debated the Kosovo issue this year in the OSCE parliamentary assembly. There was no Reform Party member there because they chose not to come. They do not wish to be associated with discussions of these issues. They do not wish to taint their debate in this House with any sense of knowledge or understanding of these issues. They choose to sit here wrapped in a blanket of ignorance that enables them to take the position they are taking in the House tonight. I think that is most unfortunate.

Let them come out of that eggshell they are in. Let them come with us, meet the people, come to the OSCE this summer, come to St. Petersburg, meet colleagues from other parliaments around the world, get an understanding of the problems that other people have to deal with, and we will be able to deal with those together as we could as Canadians, as our troops will be dealing with when they are there on the ground with their Canadian values and their Canadian sense of how to make things work for a better world and for better conditions for people to live in.

I read with great interest an article which the member of parliament for Red Deer, who is the spokesperson for the Reform Party, wrote in the

National Post

recently in which he accused the government of a failure of being willing to take a strong stand on issues. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, he wrote, “is interested in soft power, will do nothing, is cowardly, cavilling, unwilling to take a stand”. The world in his view was a Manichaean one, one of darkness and of light, and we in the Liberal Party were unwilling to ever take a stand on these issues.

Where are we tonight in this debate when members of the Reform Party faced with a true, articulated and clear issue of darkness are unwilling to take a stand? They are the ones who are unwilling to deal with this. They are the ones that are of soft power because they are soft on understanding the nature of the way in which the world operates. They will not participate in it in a way which enables them to be a real player.

I would like to leave members of the House with this thought. If we as Canadians are to play the role in the security council, which we have just accepted this year for the next two years, the best thing we can do is contribute to the peacekeeping conditions in which the United Nations and in which other international institutions are able to keep the peace. If we do not contain situations such as Kosovo and situations such as prevail in the Central African Republic, conditions will prevail in the world which will in turn come and overwhelm us in this country.

It is for that reason we must go forward in this debate. It is that reason we must adopt the position of enabling our troops to be available in the sense of availing the world community of a chance to make peace for the sake of the people who live in Kosovo, all the people of Europe, and ultimately the people of the world if we are to have a better life for all of us.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listened to all the speeches made by members of the House. I particularly admired the speeches of two members of our party, the hon. member for Red Deer and the hon. member for Calgary Northeast. They have thrown light on this issue. They brought to the attention of the House very good issues and I really appreciated listening to those issues.

Just now I listened to the hon. member from the government side. He is the chairman of the foreign affairs and international trade committee and I had the opportunity to work with him. I highly appreciate his knowledge and his experience. He was bragging about the Liberal government's achievements and the direction it is giving us on this issue. He was almost name calling with regard to the official opposition's foreign critic.

Putting that aside, I would like to find out if the hon. member could throw some light on what diplomatic initiatives the Liberal government has taken since we had a take note debate in the House on October 7, 1998. What preventive measures has his government taken in Kosovo or the Central African Republic?

I would also like to know why his party has not given any briefing about the situation in Kosovo and the Central African Republic to members of parliament. We had no briefing and I would like to find out why not. If the hon. member is so proud of the government's record and if he is so proud of the $7.8 billion cuts made to the defence forces, why is he pleading that we should send them whenever we get a 911 call from any country in the world?

I would like to find out why briefings were not given to members of parliament. Also I would like to know why this issue is not put for a vote in the House. If the member is so clear in his ideas, why is there a take note debate and why is there is no vote?

The hon. member bragged about peacekeeping initiatives. When we send forces to the Central African Republic and Kosovo what will they keep there? Will it be peace? Which peace? Is peace existing there? Did we make peace first?

I would like to find out from the member how can he keep something which does not exist there. It is common sense that one can keep something when something exists. First we have to make peace. Then we can keep peace. There is no peace. I would like to ask the hon. member for answers to these questions.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. He says we cannot keep peace where there is no peace, but in fact the presence of the forces in the Central African Republic is establishing at this particular point an important sense of stability in that country to enable democratic elections which if we withdraw at this time will make it impossible. The member will probably agree with me that it would be very foolish for us to withdraw at this crucial time when we can keep those troops there until such time as the elections can be held.

The Central African Republic is a special case. I appreciate that his comments are more directed toward the problem of Kosovo because that is the more difficult one and the one which will require the greater number of troops. It is precisely the threat of the use of force in Kosovo which is enabling us to get to the point where we may have peace in that region. We may establish a humanitarian regime for people in which to live.

I would suggest to the member that he would have to agree. Whether or not, as his party seems to be saying in the House tonight, Canadians should be involved, would he intellectually say nobody should be involved? Would he say the United States should not be involved or the Europeans should not be involved? In fact the view of his party is that it would be best if everybody stood back and let this whole thing just blow up. Should we let the Albanians and the Serbs go to war with one another, spilling over into other regions, spilling over into Bosnia where we have our own troops that would be at risk?

I took it from the position of his party in the House tonight that I do not think he would go that far. I think he would say some force is necessary but let it not be us that provides the force, which I do not think is an appropriate response in these circumstances.

As for votes in the House in take note debates, I cannot speak to that. That is an agreement the leaders of the House have taken over the years. It may well be that at some point a vote in the House would be appropriate for these debates. At the moment these are called take note debates. They give an opportunity for the members to share views as we are able to do tonight in a way that is helpful to the government to understand issues without necessarily requiring a vote.

As for our party, which he says should be giving a briefing to his party, I do not know whether his party would really want to have a briefing from our party. If that is what he would like, I am sure I would be willing to share with him the views of the minister if he had attended the foreign affairs committee meeting this afternoon where the minister came before the committee and was with us over two hours.

We discussed this issue and the government has always tried to make documents and information available to every member of the House. Every one of us would like to have more information. I share with him the desire to have more information, but I do not think we can say that the government side or the government as such is keeping information from members of the House. I wish that he had had an opportunity to be with us. His colleagues were there in the foreign affairs committee this afternoon where we had a discussion of this matter with the foreign minister. Finally, what are the diplomatic initiatives which Canada has taken? Canada takes an active role in the OSCE, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, an organization which has been directly involved in the Kosovo issue. It is perhaps the most significant organization involved in Kosovo. Canada has played an important role in the OSCE. I know from my own work there that there are many European and other governments which would like to see Canada play an even larger role. But we are not a European country.

We are a North American country. We have limited resources. But within those resources we play a very important role and we have provided observers in Kosovo. We have provided police in Kosovo. In the course of dealing with this situation we have provided an enormous amount of energy on behalf of the department and on behalf of the minister to try to bring the sides together, to persuade the KLA, the armed wing of the Kosovars, to moderate their demands and to persuade the Serbian government of Mr. Milosevic to behave in a civilized way in a part of a country where they are supposed to be managing their own citizens and not treat it as an occupying army.

We have been active in that and I am surprised to hear the member suggest that we have not, because what is curious is that when we do get active in these files we get criticized for spending our time and energy on them, and our money on them, from the party on the other side which does not wish to spend any money, but then when nothing is done it says to us we are doing nothing.

A great deal is being done by this government in working on this file. A great deal has been done by our ambassador at the OSCE. A great deal is being done by all our diplomatic corps in supporting our NATO allies and other in the Rambouillet process and I am surprised that the member would seek to use this partisan moment to criticize what we are trying to do in this very important matter.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in this take note debate concerning the situation in Kosovo and the situation in the Central African Republic.

This debate was arranged at very short notice and without any briefing to members of parliament.

Minutes ago I asked a question. I did not get the answer. I wanted to ask the question to any other member in the House to find out if anyone can explain or highlight the diplomatic initiative or the preventive measures this government has taken to address the situation in Kosovo or in the Central African Republic, particularly in Kosovo since we had a debate in the House on October 7. From then until now what initiatives have they taken? I did not get an answer to that question.

The government should have been pursuing initiatives long ago, at least when we saw the signs of the problem occurring. But it failed to take any initiative.

Now we know that plan A has failed. Plan A is the diplomatic initiative or preventive measures. Even though the government did not pursue it aggressively, we are asked to go to plan B. Plan B is military action. I call it the bitter medicine for peacekeeping.

I ask the foreign affairs minister to look into the possibilities of peacemaking missions rather than peacekeeping missions in the long run.

The Central African Republic is the poorest of the poor countries. I lived in west Africa. I was a university professor in Liberia, west Africa. I have visited many countries in west Africa. What I saw in the bloody civil wars were 10-year old, 12-year old children with AK-47s. I am talking the real guns which can kill, not toys.

The point is those guns are not made in those countries. Some countries in the weapons trade have manufactured those guns and then sold them to the poor people in those countries. That is how they get the guns. I wonder what action the United Nations, the international community and, for that matter, Canada have taken to prevent infiltration of those war causing weapons, particularly in poverty ridden countries.

People have problems putting food on the table in the evening. Their families are starving but they get guns to fight. How can they afford to buy those weapons? What have we done to stop the weapons trade? Absolutely nothing.

Some countries sell weapons to those countries and then they send in peacekeeping missions. How appalling this situation is. We need to find sustainable, long term and real solutions to these civil and tribal wars. We should help promote democracy and education in those countries. A democratic power in any country should lead to justice. Justice should lead to love. People should love each other when they get justice because they are satisfied. No one has worked on these things. When power leads to justice and justice leads to love that is how we get rid of hatred, poverty, ignorance and bloody civil wars which we face every now and then. It is a sad story.

Let me give the House an analogy. When a pressure cooker is heated steam is produced. To contain that steam we put weight on the pressure cooker. Here we try to put military pressure to contain that steam. People of these countries are already deeply divided based on their ethnic backgrounds or on their tribal origins. If we do not want that steam have we ever taken any action to remove the heat from under the pressure cooker? No, I do not think so. Have we ever resolved an issue by solving the problem before it explodes? No, we have not.

In most African countries, including central Africa, ethnic and tribal problems lead to these bloody civil wars. Did any member of the international community do anything to stop the branding of the people based on their ethnic origin, based on the tribes they belong to? That is a root cause of the civil war and tribal wars in those countries.

In African countries when people meet and greet each other either they recognize what tribes they belong to or they ask them what their tribe is, whether it is Loma or Mandingo or whatever. What education has been given to them to recognize the similarity among them rather than dwelling on the differences among them? No one has done anything. These people have similarities. No one has made them recognize the similarities.

What can we expect from the Canadian government? There are no efforts to do that even in our country. This government encourages the concept of hyphenated Canadians. With the hyphenation concept we divide people, not unite them. Unfortunately this government has done absolutely nothing on that.

Our government, I am sorry to say, lacks a proactive role. It reacts to a situation but does not take a proactive role. This government does very little to prevent conflicts in the world. But it is always on the front line making decisions to send our troops without worrying about what situation they are in or whether they have enough equipment and facilities, whether they have consulted elected officials of the House of Commons. The decision is made before that.

We try to resolve political problems by providing foreign aid or by sending military personnel. These are the two solutions we have to resolve these problems anywhere in the world. We either send foreign aid dollars or we send the military. That is not appropriate.

The government needs a broader agenda for peacekeeping and peacemaking issues. Repeatedly there have been serious situations in countries like Rwanda, Nigeria, Bosnia, Haiti, Iraq, Sierra Leone, Liberia and the list goes on. Unfortunately this situation will happen again.

I am sorry the United Nations has the inability to respond in a timely fashion. I recognize there is a vacuum and we have to show leadership. Britain, France, Russia and the United States, which was kept busy for one year by Monica, cannot do that.

We are in a strong position as a nation to be mediators in the world. We belong to NATO. We belong to the security council. We are a member of the G-8 countries. We have sent many peacekeeping missions around the world. We are in a perfect position to lead. But this government does not have leading capabilities.

This government is in a better position to lead if it wanted to. We can take peacemaking initiatives in the world. But unfortunately this government lacks those initiatives. There is no leadership. Here is another vacuum.

This is a very important issue but there is also another important issue. If we are planning to take any military action and if we are committing our military support to NATO that means we are committing men and women of the Canadian forces. Many questions deserve answers before we should commit anyone or anything anywhere.

The main question arises here as to whether we are well equipped. Obviously the answer is no. Based on what we have been hearing in the last few months, the answer is no. The defence minister asked for $700 million but he received only $325 million in the 1999 budget. Yesterday the minister received less than half the money he wanted.

I also learned that the Canadian forces have 35 year old Sea King helicopters, decades old tanks, 100 useless tactical helicopters, 20 to 45 year old jets and we are expecting to participate in the air attacks with the equipment we have.

This government has cut $7.8 billion in the defence budget since taking office in 1993. Our defence forces are starving. The minister allowed our troops to be inoculated with expired vaccine. Here is the funny part. He allowed our troops to be inoculated with expired vaccine and he is so irresponsible and so uncaring that he inoculated himself with the expired vaccine.

My constituents and all Canadians need answers to many questions. Canadians are asking why we are choosing a military situation over a diplomatic situation. I do not have any answers. What other possible solutions could we pursue? What are the possibilities of finding a long term solution to this bloody civil war? How are we dealing with the hatred in the minds of those ethic people?

We can send our troops on a peacekeeping mission. They can keep discipline, they can scare people or they can kill people. But how can they kill the hatred in the minds of the people which is the root cause of these bloody civil wars? That is most important. That is the root cause of the problem. Since I have been here the Liberals have never addressed the root cause.

How much involvement are we asking from the European Community or other affected and related countries in dealing with this issue which is in their backyard? What strategy do we have to deal with the security situation in that region? What participation do we have from the neighbouring countries? Canadians want to know whether we will be creating more victims by bombing in that area. What about those victims we will be creating? Are we creating more victims of the war by bombing?

What is the game plan? We on this side of the House do not know what the game plan is. We do not know what equipment we will be using, how many people are going, for how long, what will be the cost and how much will be our share. We do not know those things. Canadians would like to know how much it will cost, who is paying, what is our share, and whether the government assessed the degree of risk before it committed the men and women of the Canadian defence forces. What is the degree of risk? Do they have enough equipment and facilities? They have old equipment and absolutely no facilities. They were exchanging helmets on previous missions.

I am looking forward to those answers but I doubt we will get them from this government. We will only get answers after our tax dollars have been spent and our troops have had to take the great risks.

For how long are we going to commit our military forces? We had a bad experience in Cyprus. We were stuck there for 29 years.

Can the government members throw some light on that? No they cannot because the Liberal backbenchers and even the cabinet ministers are insignificant under the tyranny and dictatorship of the current Prime Minister. The very few Liberal backbenchers who are here tonight are pretending to debate in this House. They only know what they are told to say by the foreign minister, the defence minister or the Prime Minister. Even the minister feels like the last one to know. The Prime Minister takes orders from President Bill Clinton or others. They tell him when and where they need our troops. Do we simply have a take note emergency debate and then decide that because it is a humanitarian issue we have to show support for our allies?

We need answers to all these questions before we decide what we should do. This government is the root cause. It is causing our armed forces personnel to jump without knowing where they are jumping to. An eleventh hour take note debate is not an appropriate way to deal with the important and sad situations in Kosovo and the Central African Republic but it is the only option given by the Liberal government to the members of this House.

We will unfortunately be dealing with these peace initiatives in the future. We expect the government will come up with some strategy to educate Canadians, to let them know what we are doing, why we are doing it and where we are going from here. We can go to plan B because plan A has not succeeded. We did not take the aggressive initiatives for plan A so we are going to plan B which is military action. That is bitter medicine and we have to use it.

I could understand doing that in order to put pressure on the conflicting parties so they would come together in an agreement. But if we really want our forces to go there, I would be skeptical. Like other members of the opposition, I do not have full information.

We intend to support our allies and the brave men and women of our armed forces but we need answers to those questions. We need a good briefing and then a good logical debate in this House. Otherwise, whatever we decide has no effect because the decision has already been made by this government. The Liberals do not have the courage to put this issue to a vote in the House. They do not have the courage to educate Canadians on this issue.

In conclusion, let me wish good luck to our brave men and women of the armed forces.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no further members rising to speak, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, February 16, 1999 this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11.36 p.m.)