Art Hanger

[National Defence, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong about Macedonia and he is wrong about Kosovo. The minister relies on the French to hand out axe handles to our troops for protection. He also tells them not to worry, the French will protect them. Again, if the minister is to send our troops into harm's way, into a war zone, why will he not give them the equipment they need to protect themselves?

[National Defence, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the defence minister admitted he did not know anything about the condition of our troops in Kosovo or in Macedonia. For the information of the minister, Macedonia is only 10 kilometres away from the war zone in Kosovo. He laughed and said he did not believe what he heard.

We all want to protect the lives of innocent Kosovars but we also want to protect the lives of our troops. Why would the minister want to send our troops into harm's way and not give them the tools they need to protect themselves?

[National Defence, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is there are 62 members of the Canadian forces in Macedonia. They are ill equipped. They cannot do their jobs adequately. This government and this minister have the responsibility to look after them.

I am asking the defence minister again why he is sending our troops into harm's way and not giving them the proper tools with which to protect themselves.

[National Defence, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we all want to protect the lives of innocent Kosovars but we also have the responsibility to protect our own troops. Let us talk about our troops in Macedonia. They have just received their flak jackets, they have been forced to eat raw meat, they have to beg for their food from the French and they were recently assigned axe handles to beat off the wild dogs.

Why is the defence minister sending our troops into a war zone with only axe handles for protection?

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question.

I was in Washington with the member and several other parliamentarians and there was someone from the Liberal side at the briefing. There was a tour of various places, the State Department, the Pentagon, the war college in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. It was a real eye-opener, I must say. They talked about risks. They talked about protection of the homeland. They talked about Kosovo and the fact that they should be in and they should be out.

It would be nice to say that Canada should do the same thing—I would agree with that wholeheartedly—and to say then that Europe could move back in with its peacekeeping role or its peace maintenance role and look after things afterward.

I shudder when I look at Canada's military and the backup to it. Where is the backup? The Americans have all kinds of fire power behind them. If their boys get into trouble they are in there with their helicopters and they will take them out of there. We do not have that kind of capability. We should have because we have had our members in these hot spots. Bosnia was one such place. Kosovo is very similar to what happened in Bosnia.

I would not want to see our men and women trapped somewhere and we could not get them out. I find that unacceptable. I think most Canadians would find that very unacceptable if they knew the plight our military was in and the expectations across the floor.

It is not coming from a military standpoint at all. The foreign affairs minister is driving our military. Unfortunately we could never participate in a role like the Americans can, even though we could if we had the equipment. We could never do it because we just do not have the equipment.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a little more time here. It is important to go back to the points I mentioned.

The government is very much unaware of the implications when it comes to sending troops. Actually it seems that the foreign affairs minister is running the military. The minister has come up with a policy of soft power. I still do not know what that means but it sure as blazes scares me. If we are going to depend on our troops and soft power is the motivating factor, I think we are in trouble. It sounds like flower power to me and people who were raised in the sixties would understand what flower power is all about.

The defence minister has already implied that the troop selection number will be around 500 to 800. The Canadian army is already stretched to the limit despite the claim made in the government's white paper on defence. We cannot send a combat capable brigade overseas. All we can send is a smaller battalion group force and that would put a severe strain our capabilities.

Time and time again it comes back to the issue of equipment. I was over in Bosnia, as was with the member for Compton—Stanstead. We both have had the opportunity to examine various equipment that the military is using. I was not aware that Coyotes were rolling off the assembly line. The minister of defence mentioned that tonight. It was a remarkable revelation. There has been no announcement of it. Certainly they are on line but I would suggest that if troops were going over there, they would need those vehicles and some pretty good fire power too.

To my knowledge that has not been considered nor is it part of the completed plan of the military to mount guns on those new APCs. That is a deficiency right there. That would concern me if I were a soldier. What kind of equipment is there? Apart from that, all we have is 20-year old tanks, 30-year old self-propelled artillery, 40-year old towed artillery and tactical helicopters.

The minister mentioned something about tactical helicopters for lift. Obviously the minister has not read the auditor general's report nor rode around in one of these helicopters. I suggest that the minister be the first man off the helicopter just before it lands on the ground. He would have a new hairdo. There is a static electricity and shock problem. Those helicopters cannot be used for what they were intended. Not only do they have that problem but their lift capacity is far lower than what it was intended to be.

If the military were to use that helicopter as an extraction machine to pull troops out of a troubled area, a gun cannot be mounted because it would be too heavy. We have 100 brand new helicopters that just came off the line last year at a cost of $1.2 billion, and they cannot be used for what they were intended. The minister talks about using those tactical helicopters, and I use the word tactical loosely because they cannot do the job. They are junk. One hundred new helicopters and they are junk. They cannot be used as tactical helicopters.

We have the armoured personnel carriers, certainly some good equipment, yet there are not in full use. They are not coming off the assembly line fast enough nor from what I understand, are they armed properly.

Our troops are going to have to live by their wits because there is no one to take them out if they get into trouble.

Under the circumstances, troops sent into a low intensity conflict area like that would be sitting ducks. If we consider the mountainous terrain in Kosovo, it would be a grave mistake if we were to again send troops into ground like that if we did not have good support. So we have to turn to our allies again. That is troubling, because we do not have the capability to survive on our own, not even to protect our own men and women if they get into trouble in a place like that.

We have good cause to be concerned about the poor position Canada is regarding the decision making process in this NATO area. Because our contribution is so limited now, we do not sit at the negotiating table any more. The minister ought to know what the negotiating table is. He has been weak in delivering funds to support our military. He is also very weak when dealing with a good plan to keep our troops safe and give them the support they need overseas.

It all comes down to this. The Liberal government has cut $7.8 billion from the defence department since it took office. It has effectively removed the combat readiness of our forces. Our allies know it and it has seriously damaged our international credibility.

In conclusion, we must ultimately support the alliance and we must support our troops if committed. We must however, be clear and realistic about Canada's role. The Canadian forces must not be committed to a mission which is beyond the operational capability of the military. We must not send our troops anywhere without reflecting on the practical implications of the mission. We must support our allies, but we must also support our troops.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has advised me that he would give me some more time if I needed it.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to tonight and to this debate. I have to say that I was profoundly disappointed. The Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were here to brief the House and the Canadian people as to the situation is Kosovo, and to inform everyone of Canada's role, as best they could, up to this point.

I am confused over some of the information that came from both these ministers.

On one hand they talk about acceptable levels of risk that our military men and women would be placed in if sent to Kosovo. They talked about the rules of engagement and there was some indication that there would be combat troops sent over. On the other hand, the foreign affairs minister brought up the point that it would be a non-interventionist type force, a peacekeeping force.

The problem that exists right now in Kosovo is that there needs to be peace. I do not know how peace can be kept in the midst of war. That sounds like another Bosnia situation to me where our troops were chained to poles, a sight for the world to see. It raised all kinds of questions in the minds of the people in this country as to what our military was doing chained to poles.

It was embarrassing to say the least to know that our troops, fighting men and women who should have been engaged in battle protecting themselves and their equipment, were in that kind of horrible dilemma and needed a negotiator to get them out of trouble.

I do not want to see our Canadian men and women placed in that kind of a role again. I cannot imagine that happening. I do not think the Canadian public wants to see that and yet this is what seems to be the message coming from the minister of defence in part but definitely from the foreign affairs minister.

There is need for debate but not from this level because obviously the government side has to resort to newspapers to really find out what is happening in Kosovo as the previous speaker just alluded to in her statement.

There seems to be a real lack of information on the part of the government. One would have to ask why that information is not there. Why is the government side not able to information this House and the Canadian public about what on earth is going on over in Kosovo? I can only think of one reason, that Canada has been cut out of the negotiations at the international level, both in NATO and probably in the UN, because she is no longer a player, she is no longer able to contribute. That is what I believe.

To have to go through this situation tonight with the foreign affairs minister unable to inform this House and all members in it and the Canadian public about the situation in Kosovo and Canada's role is a sham. It is disgraceful. I expected a lot more.

My colleague from Red Deer spoke about the Central African Republic. I will base most of my comments with reference to the Kosovo question. It certainly is more complicated than the Central African Republic but it needs to be addressed in some terms that we can all think about and questions that should be answered before decisions of any kind are taken.

I want to take the opportunity first to argue in favour of lending morale support to international action to end the suffering in Kosovo. Canada has an undeniable obligation to its NATO allies. We also have a proud history of international engagement and involvement and we should not let that lapse.

If the alliance decides to take military action Canada must support that. We have an obligation to support that. That is a moral obligation. No one should accept any form of ethnic cleansing. There is our moral obligation. And we have a moral obligation to take action against the systemic murder and torture of innocent civilians. That has been going on for some time.

There is no doubt that the international community must not stand idly by while Serbian forces commit flagrant human rights atrocities against Kosovars. Ultimately we must support our allies. Canada cannot shirk from its responsibility in this regard.

Nevertheless, there are some serious questions concerning possible military action which give us cause for concern. We have a duty to ask these questions. There is an obligation to the Canadian troops whose lives we may put on the line. A series of questions must be asked and no answers have been supplied by the government thus far. Granted, there may be some questions that cannot be answered at this point in time but the government does not seem to be moving in that direction.

These are the questions: One, have all diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis failed? Two, what are the dangers and possible implications of military action? Three, is there true multinational support for this mission into Kosovo? Four, is there a workable plan for military action?

Five, what precisely is Canada's role to be? This is a major point. There are almost conflicting points of view between the foreign affairs minister and the defence minister. Six, is that role realistic in terms of Canada's military capability?

Seven, who will command Canadian troops? I think that is a very important role which will concern a lot of soldiers. There are so many different countries participating in peacekeeping missions in that region. The troops could fall under the jurisdiction of some other commander and they may not be very comfortable with that. I certainly would not be after having seen some of the things that have happened in other peacekeeping missions Canada has been involved in.

Let us go back to the first question. Have diplomatic efforts failed? We have yet to see. The Serbs continue to drag their feet. They have been negotiating hard for their own position to maintain control of that area. They do not want NATO forces in there. That was pretty clear right from the very beginning. That question has yet to be answered.

With regard to the second question, there is obviously a deep concern about the fighting in Kosovo and whether it may escalate into other countries. We have troops right now in Bosnia. Could they be affected if things go sour in Kosovo? Who is going to protect our Canadian troops? Is there some sort of an extraction force?

The next question concerns a workable plan for military action. We have not seen anything like that and there have been no assurances tonight that there will be limitations and what those limitations will be. It is very unfortunate because there is an equipment problem in our military and to go into any hot spot, a high intensity conflict or even a low intensity conflict with those problems, the lives of our troops will be in danger. There is no question about that.

All of the questions including the ones I raised tonight have yet to be answered. It is incumbent upon the government to keep everyone informed. I do not believe at this stage of the game that the government is doing that.

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments and his concerns about our military and about the possible engagement in Kosovo. It is obvious that we are not getting a clear message from the government side of the House.

I know that the member for Compton—Stanstead sits on the defence committee. He has been over to Bosnia. He has talked to troops from across this country who have served over there. He has an idea of the record of the Canadian military. Those men and women served in the Bosnia theatre under a peacekeeping mission when war was raging all around them. It was the most foolish thing that probably ever happened to Canadian soldiers who put their lives in that kind of jeopardy.

Since the member has had some experience in his travels as a parliamentarian, how does he analyse the situation in Kosovo? Looking at the equipment that our Canadian military has right now, would our troops be safe there in any kind of a peacemaking role? If not, what should they or could they possibly do?

[Peacekeeping, February 17th, 1999]

With no information.