Debates of April 27th, 1999

Kosovo

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat surprising that the minister would not be aware of this.

It seems to me that it is rather important to be kept current, since adoption of such a strategy of bombing the Yugoslav refineries would place our soldiers in danger, if the Yugoslav forces have fuel to fight back.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be going to Moscow. Can he assure us that no Canadian company, or foreign company with subsidiaries in Canada, is delivering petroleum products to Yugoslavia in violation of the embargo and of the entire strategy upon which there should be total NATO solidarity? Otherwise, this becomes ridiculous; we are just shooting ourselves in the foot.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, according to the information we have, no petroleum products have been exported from Canada since January 1998.

In this case Canada is clearly on line with what the embargo is presenting. We will make sure that if countries sign on to the embargo they will adhere to its requirements.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hope for a diplomatic solution through Russia appears to be fading.

This morning, in Moscow, Mr. Chernomyrdin repeated that NATO's air campaign had to stop to allow negotiations with Belgrade to get under way. As for Mr. Draskovic, he seems to have backed down from the comments he made yesterday.

In that context, I ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs if the deployment of additional forces in Macedonia, as announced by the Prime Minister, and the call up of 33,000 reservists by the United States are signs of the imminent sending of ground troops into Kosovo?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think the leader of the New Democratic Party put it properly this morning. The commitment made today to fulfil our commitment to ensure there is a peace implementation force is one of the best signs and indications that we want a peaceful resolution to the dispute.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we also believe that a diplomatic solution is best. However, the number of troops now gathering outside Kosovo's border is very large.

Did the Prime Minister make a slip of the tongue this morning when he said that helicopters may be used in Kosovo? In making that comment, did he not give another indication that the sending of ground troops into Kosovo is now imminent?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

No, Mr. Speaker. We are sending them there for peacekeeping purposes. The helicopters are part of the reconnaissance purpose of the Canadian forces that will be there. There are some 800 of them. They will be in neighbouring Macedonia. They will be there working with the British. They will take some training time when they get over there so they are ready to move into Kosovo when a peace agreement is reached.

Meanwhile, they will also be able to help out in the humanitarian effort with respect to the refugees that are there, help to protect those refugees.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the foreign affairs minister.

Canada has announced that it is sending 800 ground troops to enforce a peace settlement in Kosovo. However there is no peace settlement. What we have instead is a NATO embargo in the face of Russian objections.

Does the government believe this interference with Russian ships, this military escalation, enhances prospects for a peaceful settlement?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister answered that question very succinctly this morning when he said the whole purpose of the embargo is to continue to apply the pressure that is necessary to bring the Milosevic regime to the table to begin to negotiate .

We will not go out of our way to provide any provocation. It will be done within sort of the legal rules. We have asked the planners at NATO to come up with the proposals that would incorporate those kinds of elements.

What we are doing is what I said yesterday, trying to get a balanced approach. We will continue the negotiation but continue the pressure at the same time.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he supports his foreign affairs minister's diplomatic mission to Moscow. However, again today he made it clear that he also supports the NATO embargo.

This sets us on a collision course since Russia has made it clear that it will not respect a NATO embargo. How can the Prime Minister pretend that this provocation will help secure Russian co-operation for a peace settlement?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see it that way. I really want to suggest to the hon. member that what is being applied, coming out of the NATO summit meetings, is the important unified position of keeping pressure applied to the Milosevic regime through the air campaign, through cutting off supplies to his military activities. At the same time it is important, as a clear connection to that, that we undertake negotiations and have the Russians become involved in seeking the solution.

I certainly can report to the hon. member discussions I have had this morning with some of the people who have already been there. It does not appear to be as big a problem for the Russians as it appears to be for the leader of the New Democratic Party.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the Prime Minister's announcement this morning. We all hope in the House that the Prime Minister will make a full report to parliament on the NATO Washington meeting, as Prime Minister Blair did in his parliament yesterday.

Have orders in council been passed authorizing the sending of Canadian air force personnel and peacekeepers to Yugoslavia? If not, how are their veterans benefits being secured?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, for anybody who serves in the Canadian forces in an overseas mission in a hostile situation there are special allowances and special provisions with respect subsequently to pensions for any that are injured. All of these apply in this particular circumstance.

We are absolutely determined if we send any of our peacekeepers, any of our air force personnel into harm's way, to look after them as best we can. We will reduce the risk to them while they are there. If something does happen—we hope it will not—to any of them we will look after them as best we can.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, according to the defence minister's own staff and according to legal counsel from the House of Commons, the order in council that is in place is inadequate at the present time and the statutes are not sufficient. Our research indicates that the order in council the minister referred to last week is insufficient.

I am asking the Prime Minister today to pass a retroactive order in council to ensure that our troops, both in the air and on the ground, will receive the veterans benefits when they return. Or, will it turn a blind eye to these troops as it did to merchant navy veterans 54 years ago?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. lady that the Minister of National Defence will take all necessary steps to make certain that our valiant troops and air force and naval people in the area will get all those benefits to which they are fully entitled. All necessary steps will be taken. The hon. lady can be assured of that.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition offers its moral support to the 800 troops that the government has committed today. I think Canadians should all pray for a safe and speedy return. However, there are many questions that must be answered.

The 800 Canadian troops heading to the former Yugoslavia will be working in conjunction with the British Fourth Armoured Division. Canadians want to know precisely what the command and control structure will be. Will our troops be commanded by Canadian officers or will the British have complete command and control over our forces?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, of course the immediate command of our forces will be by the Canadians who are there, but they will be operating as part of a British brigade, so they will be working closely with the British in that connection.

All of the details of that will be worked out, as is required, and we will be happy to inform members of the details.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, these are urgent issues on which all Canadians want to have details.

One of the most important questions that must be answered today, however, is the matter of rules of engagement for this mission. Somalia and Bosnia have shown us that the rules of engagement must be established at home, in Canada, before the deployment of a mission.

Will Canada determine its own rules of engagement, or will they be determined by NATO? Will the defence minister tell us precisely today what those rules of engagement will entail?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, they will be NATO rules of engagement. We are part of NATO and we are part of working out those rules of engagement. I would be happy to provide the hon. member with that information.

Millennium Scholarships

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Minister of Human Resources Development has not answered the very specific questions about the millennium scholarships.

We know why: the foundation's administrative costs are estimated at 5% of the annual $300 million in scholarships, or $150 million over 10 years.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development realize that the federal government's stubborn insistence on this further duplication will deprive 50,000 students of $3,000 scholarships? Does the minister realize this, or is he waiting for the students to come and tell him?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am not waiting for the students to come and tell me. I will soon be meeting with the students, who asked to see me again. That will be next Thursday. I always enjoy meeting with the students.

However, I hope we will be able to talk the Government of Quebec out of its inflexibility. Last week, it was on again about the right to opt out with full compensation, when even the National Assembly's unanimous resolution does not mention this.

It was Minister Legault who brought this up again last week, but what I would like to see is an agreement between the foundation and the government to help Quebec's students.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how does the minister explain that, even though the money in the EI fund belongs to workers and employers, he refuses to create an autonomous fund, but when it comes to the millennium scholarships, he is handing over $2.5 billion of taxpayers' money to a private foundation so as not to be accountable? Is this not an out and out contradiction?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, I see that Bloc Quebecois members are again opposing the fact that Canada wants to celebrate the advent of the new millennium by providing assistance to students.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

It is absolutely incredible that the government is being criticized for wanting to help students with a ten year program to help them further their knowledge in a knowledge-based economy.

It is this inflexibility, this ideology, and this referendum campaign mindset that is harming Quebec's students.

Kosovo

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to an earlier question the foreign affairs minister said that he did not understand where “no compromise” had come from. Let me quote from the NATO communiqué of this weekend to which his government agreed: “There can be no compromise on these conditions”, referring to the five NATO conditions.

How can this minister go over to Moscow to negotiate when he is not prepared to have any compromise, which is what it says in black and white on this statement?