Mr. Speaker, it certainly is my pleasure to address the question of Canada's involvement in the crisis in and around Kosovo.
We have heard from the leader of the Reform Party that the official opposition is strongly supportive of Canada playing a role in bringing this humanitarian crisis to an end. Reform wants to see a rapid end to Milosevic's campaign of ethnic cleansing. We want to bring stability to this troubled region as quickly as possible and as peacefully as possible.
This is why we support the NATO air strikes against Serbian military positions. This is why, if NATO deems it necessary, we will support the use of ground troops to enforce the resettlement of Kosovar Albanian refugees. Let me be clear. We stand united with NATO. We will not tolerate Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of ethnic cleansing and we are prepared to crush his military until he stops.
Canada has several responsibilities in this crisis. We have responsibility to the innocent Kosovar Albanians who are being driven from their homes, forced out of their country, stripped of their identity and in many cases killed simply because of their ethnicity. Canadians will not tolerate that.
In the past couple of days two polls have shown that a majority of Canadians want NATO and Canada to take decisive military action against Milosevic. Canada also has a responsibility to our NATO allies. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies to demonstrate to Milosevic our resolve to end his hostilities against Kosovar Albanians. Canada also has an historic responsibility to restore peace through diplomatic means. We stress that attempts to bring a diplomatic end to this crisis should continue in spite of the ongoing military action.
We also have a responsibility to our troops and their families. We must ensure that any decision to engage Canadian forces has been carefully thought through as a clear definition of Canada's role and has a well defined goal.
I do not believe the motion we are debating has a clear defined goal when it comes to any involvement of the military. As the defence critic, however, I focus on the question of Canada's current military commitment to the NATO effort in Kosovo and the possibility of future ground force commitments in coming days or weeks.
I disagree with the government's unwillingness to address the issue head on. The use of ground forces is a very real possibility and Canadians deserve to know that parliament has had a full debate on this question. I understand the strategic imperative of not officially committing to ground troops yet, but that does not preclude a theoretical discussion of the issue.
The government has a responsibility to put all the facts on the table. The official opposition will continue to press the government on this point, as it will on the need for a vote should the issue become more paramount in the very near future.
Canadians should be proud of their troops. They have been carrying out a very difficult mission in Yugoslavia, far more in the last two weeks than previously. They have shown a tremendous degree of professionalism and confidence. On behalf of the official opposition I congratulate them on a job well done.
Since the first hints of NATO military action surfaced I have been in favour of Canada lending its support to the efforts to bring Milosevic's military to its knees.
Now, after several months of continued atrocities against ethnic Albanians, the need for more military action is even more clear. However, the massive refugee problem has likely changed the measures we need to take to ensure stability in the region. NATO military planners originally thought air strikes would be sufficient to bring Milosevic to heel. Ground troops would then have gone in only after a peace agreement was reached.
While it is too early to tell, it looks as though ground forces may be necessary before a peace agreement is reached in order to ensure the resettlement of over 500,000 ethnic Albanians who have been driven out of Kosovo. I stress that I think it is still too early to tell whether such action will be necessary. I also want to point out that it is up to NATO to determine what the military action would be at that point. That being said, we as members of parliament have a duty to discuss the possibility of a Canadian military contingent being sent to Yugoslavia as part of a NATO ground force.
As I said earlier, our position is clear on this. We will support NATO's decision to send in ground troops if they determine that is what is necessary to achieve our common objectives, that is, the resettlement of Kosovar refugees and an end to ethnic cleansing.
We called for this debate for two reasons. First, we believe parliament should be consulted before Canada participates in any escalation of NATO military action in Yugoslavia. Second, we know what our position is. We now want to hear what the government's outline is on its position.
There are a number of obvious questions raised by this crisis that need answers. Given the refugee problem has increased exponentially, the military mission may have changed or may be about to change and the objectives of this government may be changing to a degree. We want to know that.
We would like to know if this has changed the government's goals. Has the government changed its objectives since the beginning of the campaign? Furthermore, how far is the government willing to go to achieve its objective, that is the resettlement of Kosovar Albanians?
Are there projected timelines for Canadian participation? Are there anticipated roles for our troops? Will they fulfil reconnaissance, engineering, supply, medical, or combat roles? What specific preparations are our troops undergoing in anticipation of joining a possible NATO ground force both before and after a peace agreement is reached?
These questions beg to be answered. In spite of the fact that there is no commitment, it is incumbent upon government to be able to deal with questions such as those being presented here.
Are our troops outfitted with the equipment they need to do the job? I know there is always a role for Canadian troops in any theatre, but the more dangerous the situation is, the more high intensity of the combat area, the greater the needs of any military troops entering that field. What kind of equipment will our troops have when they walk right into that conflict, if they ever do walk into that conflict on the ground?
The auditor general has expressed concerns about Griffon helicopters, Coyote reconnaissance vehicles and other Canadian military equipment. Have these concerns been addressed?
Sending equipment and troops into this conflict also raises important questions about the new role of NATO and its role in protecting international stability but I feel these would be more appropriately raised at another time. Some of these questions would include an examination of the causes of Canada's diminishing role in international military decision making, an examination of NATO's changing role as an international police force and an examination of the command and control structure of NATO and how Canada fits into this framework. In the meantime, I want to stress that as a demonstration of our support for Canada's commitment to NATO allies, Reform remains committed to the present NATO course of action.
Let me elaborate on some of my earlier questions for the government. Has the government changed its objective in pursuing military action in Kosovo? Ending ethnic cleansing and resettling refugees are my main reasons for supporting NATO action. Has the government's role changed? I need to know from the government that we are on the same wavelength on this issue. Does the government have other plans? Does the foreign affairs minister have another agenda? Does he want to take military action a step further and try to establish a new independent Kosovar state?
We should know these things before more Canadian troops are committed. What are the expected time lines? Does the government have any idea how long Canadians will be committed? Does it expect that it will be a short engagement, say a few months, or is this something that could escalate into a timeframe of a decade?
All of this depends on the government's goals. Does the government have a particular role in mind for our troops? Will our troops be forming front line combat roles, or will they fulfil other important functions, for example in communications, supply, engineering or medicine? These are all roles which Canadian forces members have experience in. Canadians want to know if the government already has an idea how our troops will fit into the overall NATO plan.
I previously put a question to the minister after his presentation. We do know that around 700 Canadian troops in the west are preparing for engagement in Kosovo. We would like to have the government tell us how they are preparing. What sorts of circumstances are they planning for? Are they readying themselves for peacemaking, peacekeeping or both? There are obviously huge differences between the two roles.
We need to know about the equipment the Canadians will be taking with them. I understand there are some Griffon helicopters. I do not know how many. Are they being deployed and for what purpose? Do they have what they need to get the job done? Will they be protected to the greatest extent possible?
The men and women of the Canadian forces are well trained. They are brave beyond words. I have talked to many international soldiers in that regard about some of the circumstances under which they have served and which those of even greater military might may not have even ventured into. They are very professional. I want to be assured that the government knows what it is doing.
My sense is that for the time being at least we are all pretty much on the same wavelength. I would be surprised if there is a great gulf between the government and the opposition so far on this issue.
I ask these questions because it is crucial that we all spell out precisely what we have in mind before we get into the crisis any further. It is only fair not only for the opposition but for the Canadian public as well as the military. We owe that to Canadians in general. Most of all we owe it to the members of the Canadian forces who will put their lives on the line to carry out the government's orders.
History has shown that the threat of massive military action has frequently been the very thing that brings aggressors to the bargaining table. I think we all hope that this will be a similar case.
