Madam Speaker, it would be a good idea if we refreshed our memories about the motion being debated this afternoon and now into the wee hours of the morning. I would like to read it again for those who are following this debate. I know many Canadians are following the debate. The motion that the government has put forward for this debate is this:
That this House take note of the continuing human tragedy in Kosovo and the government's determination to work with the international community in order to resolve the conflict and promote a just political settlement for Kosovo that leads to the safe return of the refugees.
This motion is long on rhetoric but terribly short on specifics. I do not want to be unkind to government members, some of whom I know have spoken from the heart, but they have been long on rhetoric, long on compassion, long on “we can never let this happen again”, but very short on practicalities.
The simple fact is that this is happening. This has been happening around the world for the last number of years, in the killing fields of Cambodia, in Somalia, in the Sudan, in Rwanda, in Ethiopia, in Central America, and the list goes on.
To simply say that it will make the world safe and happy for everyone is nonsense. The government has put forward no plan at all. There are no specifics. There is no goal in mind that the government has articulated in a meaningful and practical way or an action plan as to how it can be achieved. The government is simply saying it will do something.
If the government is to have a determination to work with the international community, there should be some specifics. That is why the Leader of the Opposition put forward an amendment to the motion which says that the government must specify the moral, political and military objectives of Canada's involvement with NATO in the region.
What are the moral, political and military objectives? Although our leader outlined what we think they are, the government needs to be up front with Canadians about what these objectives truly are. If it wants to accept the proposals, the definition and the specifics we have put forward, that is well and good. If the government does not like those, what is its moral objective? What is the wrong that we intend to right?
The government motion says to take note of the continuing human tragedy and work to resolve the conflict. What wrong are we trying to right? As other members have pointed out, although genocide has been committed against Albanians by Serbians, in the past it has been the other way around. The Kosovo Liberation Army has been labelled by many international observers as a terrorist organization.
Exactly what wrong are we trying to right? Let us be specific. What justice are we seeking to establish? We need to know these things. We need to be specific about them. How can we achieve objectives that have not yet been identified or defined? It is nonsense. We cannot just get up and put our hands over our hearts and say that this is terrible, that the pictures we see are terrible and not specify our objectives. The atrocities which are happening are terrible, cruel, horrible and unthinkable in Canada. Unless we specify exactly what our objectives are, we are never going to meet them. Unless we know where we are going, we are not going to get there.
Let us talk about the political objectives. I suggest that is the administrative framework to support the moral results that we have identified. What administrative framework is going to be put into place?
My colleague talked about the Rambouillet plan and the fact that it may need some adjustment. We are speculating. We are not in the NATO councils and the international discussions that the government representatives are. At best the government has been vague about what things are being talked about.
What are we trying to achieve as far as a political framework and an administrative framework in order to make sure that the justice we are seeking, and which we should specify, is actually going to be enforced and administered? We have to talk about the military objective. We have to have an action plan.
We have to specify the resources that are going to be necessary to carry out the action plan. As many members of the opposition have pointed out, we do not have the resources. It is ludicrous for us to parade around pretending that we are going to achieve something when we have divested ourselves of many of the resources that we will need to achieve those objectives.
Our military capacity has been depleted over the last two years by deliberate policies of the government. Our defence critic, the member for Calgary Northeast, made a number of observations about our forces and their unreadiness and lack of equipment. Those questions have to be answered. The government did not even address them.
The government says that we are going to get in there and we are going to fight to protect people. With what? With how many troops? With what equipment? The French were giving our troops axe handles earlier on to beat off the wild dogs. They did not have equipment to protect themselves, never mind innocent Kosovars and Albanians. Governments have reduced the size and capabilities of our military by 50% during the last decade. On what basis are we to come forward and protect people in other countries? This is a sorry tale.
Over and over the issues of old equipment, unsafe equipment and increasingly stressed out soldiers are raised in the House. While our helicopters fall from the sky or cannot get off the ground, our defence minister says we would never have unsafe equipment for our troops. That is nonsense. It flies in the face of facts and the things that happen every day. We have to talk about these things.
What does the government do? It puts forward a soft, mushy motion and says that it will promote a just settlement and safety. Let us be specific. We have to tell Canadians about this because we are asking them to support these measures. Huge tax dollars go into these kinds of missions. In spite of the Prime Minister's assurances that no ground troops are being considered, we know they are. The government's own defence minister has said it was under consideration.
If we are to ask our fathers and mothers, our sons and daughters, our husbands and wives, our brothers and sisters to go into another part of the world to carry out unspecified objectives with a lack of equipment, we have to get some information to the Canadian people to reassure them that there is some focus, that there is some objective that can be carried out.
A number of my constituents have contacted me with concerns. The official opposition, as is the case with all parties in the House, has supported what has gone on in trying to rectify the situation in Kosovo. Many of my constituents have tremendous concerns. I would like to read one of them:
I would like to express my opposition to Canada's continued involvement in Kosovo. Why are we there? I am very concerned with human suffering, but I am baffled that people don't remember the history of this place and the fact that there is a dismal human rights record that hasn't been addressed in the past.
We owe Canadians a real debate and an expression of their will through a vote in the House by their elected representatives. The government is dropping the ball. It is simply saying that we had a debate. However it has not been a meaningful debate. It has not been on specifics. Canadians have not been well served by the government. I urge the government to get specific, to get real, to have a real mandate from Canadian people, and to mean business in Kosovo.