FAIT Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 20, 1999

• 1519

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): I understand this briefing can only last for half an hour, so let's get going. I don't know whether Mr. Wright, General Henault, or Madame Corneau are able to stay a little bit longer than that.

[Translation]

We have set aside half an hour for this meeting, which will be more like a briefing than a question and answer session.

[English]

We would like to have twenty minutes of briefing and keep even ten minutes for response.

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Why is it thirty minutes, to begin with?

The Chairman: It's because that's what I was told the department had available for us.

Mr. Wright, maybe if you can stay longer....

• 1520

Mr. Jim Wright (Director General for Central, East, and South Europe, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): For the first briefing, I can stay a little bit longer. I don't know about the general or Hélène, but I think the assumption was that if we were doing this twice a week, you wouldn't want us taking up an enormous amount of your time. In the first one, though, we might need a little bit more time for us to pass on messages to you.

The Chairman: I think it would be helpful if you could stay a bit longer. Certainly if you could entertain some questions, it would be very helpful, I think.

Maybe, Mr. Wright and General Henault, you and Madame Corneau could start off with a few minutes of introductions and then we'll see what time we have left.

Thank you very much for coming. Please go ahead.

Mr. Jim Wright: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Perhaps what I could go through very quickly is a report card on where we are in terms of the Kosovo crisis right now.

To remind us all of what the NATO objective is, it is a multi-ethnic Kosovo where all citizens of Kosovo feel safe and secure, and NATO has established five conditions. These conditions are the same as those of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the European Union: one, end ethnic cleansing and the killing; two, withdraw forces; three, allow refugees to return; four, allow an international military peacekeeping presence; and five, a political solution based on the principles in Rambouillet.

Russia has agreed to four of the five principles. The issue where there continue to be some differences is on the question of the peacekeeping presence. Milosevic thus far has refused to seriously respond to the conditions that have been set out by the UN Secretary General, by NATO, and by the European Union. Diplomacy of course remains our preferred approach, but any diplomatic initiative must offer a reasonable prospect of a lasting solution.

[Translation]

NATO and the UN are now dealing with two key issues, namely the mandate and composition of international forces.

[English]

The Kosovars, the neighbouring countries to Kosovo, NATO, and we all favour—and that's what was in the Rambouillet text—a NATO-led force along the lines of what exists in Bosnia. And just to remind committee members, there are approximately 40 countries that participate in the stabilization force in Bosnia. It is NATO-led, but it includes countries like Russia, Ukraine, and others.

What we don't want to repeat are some of the mistakes that were made in Bosnia with UNPROFOR. This was the UN force at the outset of the Bosnia crisis that went in essentially unarmed. We don't want to repeat the mistake of the Kosovo verification mission that the OSCE led in Kosovo, again an unarmed civilian force that went in to try to verify the peace while the Rambouillet accords were being negotiated.

The second key issue

[Translation]

is the future of Kosovo. The Rambouillet text mentioned autonomy,

[English]

self-government for the Kosovars, and after three years there would be an international conference to decide what next. Kosovars wanted independence. The international community said no. No one right now is talking about changing borders. Countries in the region don't want this. It would be destabilizing. There is some talk at this juncture about the possibility of an international protectorate as an interim step, under United Nations, OSCE, and European Union auspices. This has not been sorted out.

The end game cannot involve partition on ethnic grounds. We don't want to be seen to be rewarding ethnic cleansing. We recognize, the international community recognizes, that Kosovo is multi-ethnic, as are all Balkan countries, and we want to maintain that.

On the diplomatic front, NATO, the G-8, the United Nations, the European Union, we are all engaged.

[Translation]

We are currently weighing all of our options.

[English]

We are also looking at the economic and institutional rebuilding of Kosovo and Yugoslavia, and as a priority how to build a better civil society. We also want to see that whole region of Europe better integrated within European institutions, including the European Union, down the road. While we are absorbed by the current crisis, we must also look to the future.

• 1525

What are the responses we've had to date from President Milosevic? More killings, more atrocities, and more ethnic cleansing. He says stop the bombing, then we can talk. In other words, he wants to do it on his terms. To the five conditions that have been set out by the Secretary General of the United Nations, NATO, and the European Union, he has responded thus far by saying he would consider a UN presence, no NATO members, and only a civilian force unarmed.

[Translation]

Our response was that this was totally unacceptable and unrealistic.

[English]

He wants a force that will not be robust, that will not have clear command and control, and that he can ignore and work around, as was the case with the Kosovo verification mission in Kosovo leading up to the current crisis. The refugees will not return under these circumstances, nor will the KLA disarm.

Now a word about Russia. We are engaging constructively President Yeltsin, Prime Minister Primakov, Foreign Minister Ivanov, and special envoy Chernomyrdin. Last week there was a good meeting in Oslo between U.S. Secretary of State Albright and Foreign Minister Ivanov. It showed unity of purpose on four of the five key principles that are under discussion right now. Using the G-8 and UN to engage Russia as well as bilateral contacts, we are trying to see whether we can work this issue through on the diplomatic front.

There are domestic political pressures in Russia as well. There are Duma elections, parliamentary elections, in Russia this fall, and presidential elections next year. So you must bear that in mind in terms of some of the messages that are coming out of Moscow these days. Despite these pressures, the Russian government is constructively engaged; they are trying to help.

Again on the diplomatic front, I think it's fair to say at this stage that there are no quick-fix solutions. What we are engaged in right now is quiet diplomacy, consensus-building in NATO, the G-8, and the UN. We have been concerned in the past that if you go ahead and launch unilateral peace initiatives that are not properly prepared, the more you play into Milosevic's hand. Every time a new initiative is put on the table and made public, Mr. Milosevic interprets these as concessions to him. He pockets them, giving nothing in return.

The UN Security Council is engaged, as is Kofi Annan. They are looking very carefully and strategically as to how to move. I know Kofi Annan is considering travel in the next little while, but no decisions there have been finalized. We want to be careful about building expectations on the diplomatic front. This is going to take time, but it doesn't mean that work isn't happening behind the scenes; there is a lot going on. Meanwhile, the NATO air campaign will continue to degrade Milosevic's military power and his capacity to oppress Kosovars. If this causes the Serbian people to reflect more on the wisdom of where their leaders are taking them, so much the better.

As regards the situation in Kosovo, our best estimate right now is there are at least 400,000 internally displaced people who are on the move. The food stocks that had been left behind by the non-governmental organizations have been looted and burned by the Serbs. Kosovars face exposure, exhaustion, and atrocities. Increasing evidence of mass-grave sites have been in the news this week. There is virtually no humanitarian relief getting into Kosovo right now.

[Translation]

Regarding the situation in Albania, the country is currently sheltering 355,000 refugees, many of whom are living with Albanian families.

[English]

In the last 24 hours the exodus of refugees has slowed down after the Serbs closed the border and broke diplomatic relations with Albania. It's clear that there will be more refugees who will be on their way. Albania is one of the poorest European countries. It faced enormous political and economic troubles two years ago, but the crisis right now in fact is working to bring both the country and government together in a common cause. They have been enormously welcoming of the Kosovar refugees. Government is doing as well as can be expected under the circumstances, but they need strong international support, which they are getting from NATO, the OSCE, the UNHCR, and non-governmental organizations. It's very clear that Albania will need short-, medium-, and long-term financial support, including direct budgetary support and loan rescheduling with the IMF and the World Bank.

• 1530

Recently incursions from Yugoslavia have been a problem. This was ongoing before and it's continuing now. The KLA presence and incursions into Kosovo likewise are destabilizing. NATO's role in Albania is to help with humanitarian relief, protect refugees, and defend themselves. The force of NATO in Albania is in the process of building up to about 8,000 to help out with this humanitarian relief. There is also a second group of NATO forces, principally American, about 3,000 strong, that are in the process of arriving with 24 Apache helicopters.

Regarding the situation in Macedonia, there are approximately 127,000 refugees in the country right now. Serbs have closed the border again, but the expectation is that the tap will be turned on before too long. We did encounter some difficulties at the outset with the Macedonian government on refugees, but that situation has sorted itself out. The UNHCR and NATO have good relations with the Macedonian government.

Again, Macedonia is a small, poor country. They made very clear from the outset that they could look after only a certain number of refugees, and that number has been well surpassed in recent days. There are different demographics in Macedonia from those in Albania. About 23% of the population of Macedonia is ethnic Albanian.

In Macedonia there are about 80,000 refugees of that total of 127,000 that are believed to be living with Macedonian Albanian families. As more arrive in Macedonia, refugees are being moved to Albania or temporarily to European countries under the auspices of the UNHCR.

Macedonia is a young, democratic, western-oriented country with ambitions to join both NATO and the European Union as soon as possible. Like Albania, Macedonia will need short- and medium-term economic assistance.

Now a brief word on refugee policy. The UNHCR and the Canadian government favour a regional approach to the crisis until refugees can safely return home. Their preference and the policy of the UNHCR is not to reward ethnic cleansing. These people want to go home. There is a standing Canadian offer of safe haven for 5,000 refugees, which the UNHCR has put in reserve for the time being. As the situation develops, they have made it very clear to us, and we've been speaking to Mrs. Ogata in the past few days, that if the numbers increase dramatically, the UNHCR will revisit their current focus on a regional solution to this refugee crisis.

Finally, a word on the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. The Canadian government has given its full support to the chief prosecutor, Louise Arbour. We've given financial assistance. Canadians working in the field come across stories from refugees that relate to atrocities, and this information is being made available to the appropriate authorities in The Hague. We continue to try to impress upon Yugoslav authorities their obligations to cooperate with the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague under a number of UN Security Council resolutions. They have refused to do so up until now.

That concludes my opening remarks.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Wright.

General Henault.

Lieutenant-General Raymond R. Henault (Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen.

I would like to give you a brief statement based on the military aspects of this conflict. Hopefully it will give you a bit of a snapshot of where we are at the moment. I will not go over the entire ground of where we've come from and where we are currently at. Hopefully, we'll give you a flavour for the current state of affairs. Certainly if we brief you on a periodic basis—we would plan to give you periodic updates as well—we won't go over the ground every single time.

From the NATO military situation's point of view, the campaign itself is a very intense campaign at this stage of the game. It has intensified and the intensification has been in several different respects. It's been in respect of the number of aircraft, which I think everyone is aware has increased over the last little while and is continuing to increase. It's also in the context of the number of hours a day the NATO aircraft can operate, as well as the cruise missiles, of course, that are operating in support of the operation. So it has intensified. It's now a 24-hour-a-day operation. There really are no spots to hide, either under the night or under cloud, where there are weapons systems that can find their way through cloud using global positioning and other types of systems, radar designations and so on, which are used quite regularly now.

• 1535

The air campaign, as I know you're all aware, is designed to inflict damage on the Yugoslavs' military machine and strategic infrastructure and of course stop the catastrophe that we see unfolding before our eyes. In the NATO context there are now more than 600 aircraft in theatre, and those 600 aircraft represent those aircraft that are land-based. There are also additional aircraft that are carrier-based, so the aircraft numbers are mounting daily.

[Translation]

Thirteen NATO member countries are currently participating in the missions in the Balkans and the number of aircraft involved, which now stands at 800, continues to increase. Eventually, 1,000 aircraft will likely be assigned to this theatre of operations.

[English]

Typically there are somewhere between 400 and 600 sorties a day that are flown. To give you a benchmark, the initial sortie rate was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 250 sorties a day. It's now much closer to the 600 rate, and obviously it can increase from that as the numbers of aircraft increase in theatre.

I would note for you, though, that of those 600, approximately only 20% of those aircraft are dedicated to the actual strike mission. There is a very large support complement that goes along with that large number of aircraft. After talking to General Kinsman, who was over there just recently, I can give you an example of one day of operations where 500 sorties were flown in the theatre of operations. Approximately 100 of those sorties were humanitarian airlift sorties. Roughly 300 of the remaining 400 sorties were support sorties—air-to-air refuelling, what we call suppression of enemy air defence, combat air patrol, escort duties and other duties of that nature—with about 100 of those sorties being actual strike sorties. Canadian CF-18s, of course, have participated in all aspects of the conflict and all types of sorties.

The NATO targets are quite varied. They're coordinated at NATO headquarters by the supreme allied commander of Europe, and by all the nations, of course. All the NATO nations have an input into the overall targeting process. The phase one targets, as I think you're likely aware, but just to remind you, were.... Phase one was the outset of the operation. Phase zero actually was the first kick-off of this operation. Phase zero was really a move into theatre of additional aircraft and the establishment of the command-and-control mechanisms and so on needed to actually conduct operations.

When we got into phase one, which was the actual strike phase, the first premise was to destroy or degrade as much as possible the integrated air defence system, the command-and-control structure of the Milosevic regime or the military regime, and to also destroy as much as possible the related support infrastructure for those air defence systems and command-and-control elements I've talked about.

We're now into phase two of operations, and that phase two is focused more on concentrations of armour, artillery, and fielded forces in Kosovo. It's also been expanded to include lines of communication, bridges, roads—those types of things that you've seen targeted in the last little while—and fuel supplies and other elements of support that are required for the conduct of military operations.

They have also been expanded in most recent times to what are called Kosovo engagement zones, which are actual zones that are targeted by individual aircraft usually using precision-guided munitions, but in some cases using a combination of precision and non-precision munitions in engaging fielded forces in Kosovo.

[Translation]

While bombing missions are systematically weakening Yugoslavia's military forces and infrastructure, the Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley Clark, and official NATO representatives anticipate that the air offensive will continue for some time yet. It is difficult to say for exactly how long, but we believe we should be thinking in terms of weeks, if not months.

• 1540

[English]

The air campaign is certainly a deliberate one. Its length is determined by what Mr. Wright mentioned previously; i.e., it is based on the conditions that have been established by the international community for the cessation of bombing and therefore could extend for quite some time yet—if not weeks, perhaps even months.

I would note that even after some weeks now of activity—we're into the fourth week of the bombing campaign—aircraft are still encountering air defences from the Yugoslav forces. Those air defences have obviously diminished, and their accuracy is very questionable when you consider that no NATO aircraft have been lost, at least knowingly, to surface-to-air missiles. There was one F-117 that went down. We still haven't received confirmation whether or not the loss of that aircraft was actually from engagement by surface-to-air missiles or anti-aircraft artillery, or indeed whether it was a mechanical problem. So to date, despite that one aircraft going down overshadowing all of that, with over 6,000 missions having been flown now and those aircraft being engaged virtually daily by surface-to-air systems, none that we can confirm have actually been shot down.

The Yugoslav military, paramilitary, and police forces, which form the backbone of the problem in Kosovo, continue their counter-insurgency operations in Kosovo against primarily the Kosovo Liberation Army, but also obviously, as we've all seen over the last several weeks, against the Kosovar Albanians. They continue to clear villages of ethnic Albanians and continue with the ethnic cleansing campaign that has been going on for some time, long before the bombing campaign started. It would now appear, from intelligence reports we have, that they are establishing greater and better defences along the Kosovo-Albania border, as well as the Kosovo-Macedonia border.

In military terms we call that digging in. We see that from overhead imagery that shows tanks being buried, if you like, up to the turrets and other defensive positions being established along the border itself.

[Translation]

Regarding ground forces, as you are well aware of, NATO believes that peacekeeping forces can only be sent once an accord has been ratified between NATO and the Milosevic government.

[English]

Certainly in terms of land forces, our only land force plan at the moment continues to be the one dedicated to the peacekeeping mission, which will undoubtedly come after the cessation of hostilities.

In the short term, and perhaps even in the long term, depending on how long the campaign goes, NATO will continue with the air campaign. As General Clark and the secretary general have indicated, and with the support of all nations, it will continue to intensify to the degree it can.

A new dimension of that capability will be added in the next day or so, with the arrival of the Apache helicopters, which will again provide an added bit of firepower to the operation from the air. Those helicopters have been en route for a couple of weeks now. There is a very large support structure that goes along with those particular helicopters, and of course they have had to fly themselves from Germany into the theatre of operations and have been impeded—as air operations have been over the last several weeks, in some cases—by bad weather and other factors like that.

Turning to Canada's contribution specifically, we currently have 12 CF-18 fighters in Aviano, as you're well aware. They continue to participate in air operations on a daily basis. Their number of missions has intensified and increased over time. They went from roughly four to eight missions a day at the outset of the operation—and they started operations on day one, so they were involved at the very beginning of this operation—to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 12 to 16 missions. Today's mission total was 16.

They have been flying a variety of missions, including the delivery of precision-guided munitions, which I know you're well aware of, and the delivery of non-precision munitions. I would say, by the way, the delivery of non-precision munitions is not quite as accurate as precision-guided munitions, but nonetheless is very accurate in terms of the errors that occur in actual delivery parameters.

The CF-18, until only a couple of years ago, used radar designation and visual bombing designation procedures to do its bombing, with circular error probable, as we call it, or a bomb aim point deviation of only metres, quite frankly. So it continues to do that very well with the systems it has on board, which only add to its precision-guided capability. It also has, of course, a capability for air-to-air combat. It is a very capable, multi-role aircraft, and for that reason it is very valued by NATO commanders. It is now engaged in the full range of missions, which includes the delivery of non-precision and precision munitions as well as combat air patrol, escort duties, and so on.

• 1545

As I know you're well aware, the government offered an additional six fighters to SACEUR over the weekend. They are destined to deploy sometime over the next 10 to 14 days or so, in the next two weeks at the very outside.

As we increase the number of fighters, the number of people in Aviano will go up slightly, to somewhere in the neighbourhood of 275 Canadian Forces members, airmen and airwomen and support staff from all the environments, the navy and the land force, which are elements that are very much integrated into our air force operations over in Aviano.

I can assure you that the pilots and supporting ground crew and support personnel are very focused on their mission. They're doing their job to the best of their ability. There is no glory in what they're doing, obviously, but they are doing what they were trained to do and they're doing it as well as we had hoped. From our point of view, they're also doing their duties in a very dedicated and committed fashion and in a very professional manner, right from our contingent commander, Colonel Dwight Davies, on through to all of the rank levels that are involved in Aviano specifically and Vicenza.

I'd also like to remind everyone that there are a number of other Canadian Forces personnel supporting this operation. That includes our NATO airborne EW force, which is flying out of Geilenkirchen, where we have 95 Canadian Forces members who have been involved in that mission for several years now, since 1991 or 1992. They fly every day. They've flown on average three missions a day, and we have anywhere from two to eight Canadian Forces members on every one of those missions flying the NATO airborne warning-and-control-system aircraft, which is a 707 aircraft with a radar on the back end of the airplane.

We also have a large number of people who are still committed to Bosnia, close to 1,400 all told, including those in Sarajevo and those who are part of the battle group in the Canadian sector, as well as a number of other people who are supporting operations in Macedonia and Albania. Most recently we deployed five Canadian Forces members as part of the Allied Command Europe mobile force land headquarters, which is part of the humanitarian operation that is operating primarily in Albania. They will continue to do that mission for an extended period. We also have staff officers who are involved in the planning element of the Kosovo force brigade, the British brigade, which is located in Skopje, Macedonia, as well as roughly nine Canadian military and civilian members who are part of the re-roled Kosovo verification mission, part of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. They are all under the command of General Maisonneuve in the Albania portion and Colonel Caron in Macedonia.

There are others, ones and twos, that I won't mention. There is, obviously, a very large contribution, roughly 1,700 people at the moment, not to mention the two Hercules that were transporting humanitarian aid from Denmark and Norway into Albania and the former Republic of Macedonia over the last ten days or so.

I would also add, as I come to the end here, that the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of Defence Staff, and the chief of the air staff recently visited a combination of Brussels, Aviano, and Vicenza over the last several days, and they were very impressed by what they saw.

As I know everyone here is well aware, the CF is also prepared to contribute to the land force peacekeeping option that's destined for the aftermath of hostilities. That operation, as I've said to you before, is called Op Kinetic. That's the roughly 600 to 800 Canadian Forces members from land force western area, which make up the reconnaissance squadron, helicopter squadron, and the national support and command elements that go along with that and which are preparing to deploy on order.

• 1550

[Translation]

Two of our CC-130 Hercules which had been dispatched to transport humanitarian aid have now completed their missions and are returning to base in Canada. We fulfilled our mission expeditiously and with great pride, after CIDA requested our help in transporting 250,000 lbs of supplies to the region.

[English]

Those two Hercules actually transported almost a quarter of a million pounds of humanitarian aid into Albania and the former Macedonia in the period they were employed.

Finally, we remain at 72 hours notice to move, as we call it, or notice to react to any request from Immigration Canada and UNHCR to take refugees into Canada, as mentioned by Mr. Wright. We are ready to harbour and provide comfort and accommodation to as many as 5,000 refugees in a variety of locations in Canada. The indications are that we're not going to see that number in the immediate term. However, we stand ready to do that if we have to.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my presentation. I will now turn the floor over to Ms. Corneau.

The Chairman: Thank you, General Henault.

[English]

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): I have a point of order. I wonder if we could get some clarification on what the timing is. This meeting was scheduled from 3.15 p.m. to 3.45 p.m. We don't want it to be just a one-way briefing. We obviously have questions. Could the chair provide some clarification as to what the schedule is for the meeting?

The Chairman: Perhaps you weren't here when that was raised at the beginning. The purpose of these meetings is to provide a briefing in order to keep members up to date. We want to have time for questions as well. I'm going to propose that we have a one-minute question and a one-minute answer rule so that we don't get into long questions, or it's not going to be worth it. We're going to try to stay for another 10 or 15 minutes. That's for today. But the next briefing, which will take place next Thursday, will be for a strict half hour. There was a longer introduction because this is the first one.

LGen Raymond Henault: This was just to get it going.

Mr. Svend Robinson: How much time will there be for questions, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: I think we can probably stay another 10 to 15 minutes.

Madam Corneau, my understanding is that you were not going to make an introductory comment, you're just here to answer questions. Is that correct?

Ms. Hélène Corneau (Program Manager, Central and Eastern Europe Program, Canadian International Development Agency): Yes.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Jim Wright: We'll stay for as long as the chairman wants us to stay.

Mr. Svend Robinson: There are very serious questions that have to be addressed, and this is the first opportunity we've had, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: No, that's not true. You can't say that it's the first opportunity.

A voice: Get with it.

The Chairman: Let's not lose our time wrangling about questions, gentlemen. We're here to be briefed on what is taking place.

Mr. Mills.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I don't understand why you are in such a rush, Mr. Chairman, since Jim Wright has offered to stay longer.

The Chairman: I'm not in any kind of rush.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Jim is willing to stay and answer our questions, whereas you have implied that our time is limited and that we have to wrap things up in ten minutes. I can't understand your attitude.

The Chairman: We have other business to attend to. We had set aside 30 minutes for this meeting and if we extend it by a further 20 minutes, we're still going to be here at 4:15 p.m. We organized this meeting so that as many parliamentarians as possible could attend. Members of our committee and of the Defence committee, along with a number of senators, are in attendance and that's why I would like to limit questions and answers to one minute.

[English]

Mr. Mills, do you want to go first?

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for the briefing. My only question at this point would be on the nature of the KLA in terms of what role they are playing now, what role they might be playing in the foreseeable future, and NATO's relationship with that force.

Mr. Jim Wright: NATO does not have a relationship with the KLA. The KLA was one of the members of the Kosovar negotiating team, but not the only one. They continue to play a role, as you see on the news every day. They are still recruiting. They are training in Albania.

The presence of refugees and KLA in Albania is sometimes a destabilizing situation. It results in incursions into Albania from time to time by the Serbs. The KLA are going into Kosovo to continue their campaign, so they remain very active on the ground in Kosovo right now.

The international community has made very clear that it will not rearm the KLA. They've asked for this, and we have said no. We don't favour this because there is a UN arms embargo that has been in place, I think, since 1992, and the intention in any peace deal that emerges down the road is that the KLA will be disarmed. So there is no relationship between NATO and the KLA. They are there. They sometimes are destabilizing, but NATO's role on the ground in Albania is to provide protection for the refugees and to assist with the humanitarian relief effort.

• 1555

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Will the conflict in Kosovo be on NATO's agenda Friday? Who will be representing Canada at this meeting?

Mr. Jim Wright: Which meeting is that?

Mr. Daniel Turp: The summit meeting in Washington?

Some argue that we should seize Yugoslavia's assets as a retaliatory measure. Does Yugoslavia have any assets in Canada?

Lastly, what's the situation as far as Yugoslavia's oil supplies are concerned?

Mr. Jim Wright: Regarding your last question, Canada has adopted the following position. NATO pilots are currently bombing Yugoslavia's oil refineries. Oil is one of the country's strategic resources. Canada is discussing the possibility of an embargo on oil imports to Yugoslavia or sanctions of some kind. These discussions are taking place. Our position is very clear. In our view, oil is a resource of strategic importance to the Serbian forces.

As for the NATO summit in Washington, the Canadian delegation will be comprised of Prime Minister Chrétien, National Defence Minister Eggleton and Foreign Affairs Minister Axworthy. Also accompanying them will be the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Will Canada's ambassador to NATO be there as well?

Mr. Jim Wright: Canada's ambassador to NATO, who happens to be my brother David, will be there, along with Canada's ambassador to Washington.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Do you have an answer to my third question?

LGen Raymond Henault: I can confirm that oil refinery and storage facilities are being targeted and struck on a regular, if not daily, basis.

As for your question about oil shipments, I believe they are still getting through. As Mr. Wright said, there is no embargo in place at the moment. NATO is presently discussing this option. The situation is being analysed to see if the time is right to put a halt to oil shipments for civilian as well as military purposes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Does Yugoslavia have any assets in Canada that could be seized?

The Chairman: I'm sorry, Mr. Turp, but your time is up.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Perhaps someone else should ask that question.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: On March 24, when the bombing began, the Minister of Defence told the House of Commons, and I quote: “The aim of NATO's military action is clear: to prevent further violence by the Yugoslav security forces in Kosovo and to avert a large-scale humanitarian disaster.” Neither of those objectives is anywhere close to being achieved. Instead, many would argue that the humanitarian disaster has in fact become even greater and that the military objectives are at least questionable at this point.

Mr. Wright referred to the importance of Russia being involved in a political solution. He stated that there was one fundamental objective that Russia had, and that is the composition of the international military peacekeeping force. I want to ask what Canada's position is on that.

When I questioned the Minister of Defence last week he said that this force must be a NATO-led force, that it could include other countries, but it must be a NATO-led force. They have said they wanted Russia and so on, but obviously that's not acceptable to Russia.

• 1600

Is that still Canada's position? Are we not prepared to recognize that this condition is not an acceptable condition, that there could very well be an international military peacekeeping force on the ground that is made up, for example, of non-combatants, including Russia, of course, that would be indeed acceptable and it would bring Russia on side?

The Chairman: Sorry, that's a minute and a half already, so—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Just a one-minute answer. I'll put the two others just briefly on the table—

The Chairman: Look, it's not fair to the other members. It's just not fair. We'll come back to you if you like after that question.

We got to have some rules for this. It's going to be a very complicated issue. You've just got to be willing to play by the rules. You can't shove in five questions in one minute and that way cheat to extend your time. We've got one-minute answers and one-minute questions.

Sorry, Mr. Wright.

Mr. Jim Wright: I think the preference of NATO—perhaps I can characterize it that way—is to see a NATO-led force. But the reason I raised the issue specifically was to point out the fact that there is not agreement on this and it's a key issue in this process. There are other proposals that are on the table.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I asked what Canada's position is.

Mr. Jim Wright: Canada's position is we want to ensure that the peacekeeping force that is on the ground has robust rules of engagement, has clear command and control, and enjoys the confidence of the Kosovar community.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Does it have to be NATO-led? I'm asking, is that our position?

Mr. Jim Wright: The position of the Canadian government is the position of NATO, but—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Does it have to be NATO-led?

Mr. Jim Wright: What I've said is that the preference of the Canadian government right now is clear rules of engagement, clear command and control, and something that can enjoy the confidence of the Kosovar community. I don't want to be drawn into speculating on elements that frankly are part of the quiet diplomacy that Canada and other countries are engaged in right now.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): I'd like to thank all of you for coming here. We appreciate it very much. I hope that more briefing sessions like this will be held if the hostilities continue.

Increasingly, we here talk of atrocities being committed...[Editor's note: technical difficulties]

[English]

The Chairman: Your time's up.

Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Mr. President.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Please try to keep your comments brief.

Mr. André Bachand: If the microphones are working, I will be very brief. I hope the hostilities will be brief as well.

Much has been said about the atrocities being committed in Kosovo. However, it is difficult to get a clear picture of the situation since there are no reporters or official spokespersons on the ground in Kosovo to update us on the situation.

Regarding the reports of atrocities, does anyone from the Canadian government - either the Defence Minister, the Prime Minister or the Foreign Affairs Minister - have any evidence, other than what we see on television, which might strengthen our support of your position to resolve the conflict in Kosovo? Do you have any evidence that you could share with us about the atrocities being committed in Kosovo? As parliamentarians, we want to be well informed.

The Chairman: Thank you. General Henault.

[English]

Mr. André Bachand: Well, it's not the first time we have a picture on TV, eh? I will remind you that in Romania there were supposed to be mass graves. They're still looking for them.

[Translation]

The Chairman: General Henault.

LGen Henault: The only evidence we have of atrocities in Kosovo comes primarily from our electronic air surveillance systems, that is satellites and unmanned aircraft that have flown over the area and found evidence, as CNN and other news agencies have reported, of what appears to be mass graves. All of the signs point to the existence of mass graves.

It's impossible to confirm this right now, but the indications are there and analysts are fairly confident that these are indeed mass graves. We won't be able to verify this until we have allied forces on the ground in Kosovo and they can provide explanations as to our sightings. For the moment, we have to rely on our air surveillance.

• 1605

Mr. André Bachand: What is the actual dimension of the small black square that we see here? Mass graves show up as large piles of earth. Someone asked me this question. We see a number of graves. How large are they? I realize that's difficult to answer.

LGen Henault: It's difficult to estimate, but perhaps 100 metres.

Mr. André Bachand: Each black square?

LGen Henault: No, the length of—

Mr. André Bachand: Can you estimate the size of each suspected mass grave?

LGen Henault: That's all I have for you in the way of information.

Mr. Jim Wright: Refugees are also providing eye-witness accounts of these atrocities. Experts are now working on the ground in Macedonia and Albania. Each day, they talk to the refugees and pass information along to the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. It's not up to us to judge whether or not atrocities have been committed. This will be up to the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. The Tribunal's chief prosecutor is Louise Arbour.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Can you comment on mobilization in Serbia? The people in my community are very concerned that children are being mobilized for this war in Serbia. And secondary to that, there are also concerns in my community that there may be Serbian Canadians in the Canadian Forces. Have you made provision for excusing those very good soldiers from this conflict should their turn come up in it?

LGen Raymond Henault: I'm not aware necessarily of Serbian mobilization philosophy because we of course don't have any direct information as to what types of individuals they're recruiting into their army. However, we do know that there are reports, again, as Mr. Wright has indicated, from refugees and so on that individuals anywhere from a very young age up to quite an elderly age are being recruited into service with the Serbian army. That's the only indication we have at this point that this is the case.

We do not discriminate against the Serbian-Canadian population in the Canadian Forces. Obviously we consider them to be Canadians—

Mr. John Bryden: Of course.

LGen Raymond Henault: —and we haven't done anything along the lines of what you've discussed here.

The Chairman: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Thank you again for coming today, all of you.

Is anybody exploring the notion of having a safe haven in southern Kosovo protected by NATO and Russian troops? This would facilitate the protection of civilians, enabling humanitarian aid to get to them to tend to their urgent needs. And if there's going to be repatriation of these refugees, it would facilitate that process, rather than having them removed to points far away, which would make the process very difficult. Could you comment on that please?

LGen Raymond Henault: I could only comment to you that the military committee is considering a number of options. It's one of the issues before both the military committee and the North Atlantic Council that has been a prominent subject of discussion for in fact some weeks now. They are exploring a wide range of options to assist those internally displaced people who we've seen or at least who we're aware of. A safe haven is one of the options that has been considered, I believe. It is a difficult option to exercise, though, as you can imagine, and it entails a land force or a ground force operation, something that no one is intending on pursuing at this point in time. So establishing a safe haven is not just as simple as establishing a safe haven inside Kosovo. You actually have to take the ground inside Kosovo.

The current method of receiving refugees across the border is considered to be the most reasonable one, but a number of options are being explored to try to get aid into the province itself, none of which has come to fruition.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you.

Mr. Jim Wright: For a safe haven you would need a permissive environment, and you don't have a permissive environment in Kosovo right now. So you would be sending ground forces into a non-permissive environment, and NATO is not talking about doing that right now.

Mr. Keith Martin: Even given the fact that he's interested in the northern part, the Field of Black Birds.

Mr. Jim Wright: No.

Mr. Keith Martin: Okay, thank you.

• 1610

The Chairman: Mr. Cannis.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): I have two quick questions.

With regard to the accidental bombing of the Kosovars by the NATO pilot, is that going to be looked into? And if so, how will it be looked into?

Also, I read that about 80,000 refugees were in some compound, and overnight they sort of disappeared. They said they were taken somewhere, but nobody really knows where they've gone. Perhaps you could just explain to me how you would move 80,000 people overnight. I kind of suspect that you would need about 800 buses with an average of 100 people. With the equipment you've mentioned to us, such as the satellites, we can almost pinpoint the mass graves. Why can't we pinpoint where the movement was, what occurred, etc.? Perhaps you could elaborate on that for us.

LGen Raymond Henault: I can take the first question, if you wish, and then pass the refugee question to Mr. Wright.

In terms of the bombing, there was a very extensive investigation done by NATO. We did not do an internal investigation, obviously. NATO has been giving a number of accounts of what happened. In fact there was one yesterday morning, I believe, where the wing commander at Aviano, Brigadier General Leaf, gave an account of what was assumed to have occurred. The issue is still very confused. NATO has admitted, I think, that there was a mistake made in some way, shape, or form, but the actual specifics of it and exactly what happened still require some investigation before all of the facts finally come out.

In the fog of war, if you like, and the confusion that goes along with multiple operations in the area there, it's going to be very difficult to establish the final facts on this particular one.

Mr. Jim Wright: On the refugee issue, I think the movement you're referring to is a movement that happened overnight by bus from Macedonia to Albania. This was at the very early stages of the crisis, when the Macedonian government was absolutely overwhelmed. They had initially said they would take only 20,000 refugees. The numbers they were facing were staggering, 100,000, and overnight they went ahead and organized all the transportation. They did it in the middle of the night, and they were severely criticized by the international community and by the UNHCR. They were told that the community was there to help them out, but they had to live up to their obligations under the international refugee convention.

Their performance in the initial days, frankly, suggested that some of the values they were showing were more from their neighbours to the north, and this was not something we wanted to see repeated. Since that time, we have had absolutely full cooperation from the Macedonian government. The UNHCR and NATO are working carefully with them to ensure that the refugee situation is managed very well.

Perhaps I could just add an observation on the question of the accidental bombing by NATO. When this accident happened, I think NATO was fairly quick to respond and to indicate that an error had been made, and they accepted responsibility. We do have to remember that in the case of Yugoslavia, when you're facing over a million refugees, thousands of people who have been killed, and mass graves, we need to remember that this isn't an error. It is premeditated and it is criminal intent, and there is no apology on the part of Mr. Milosevic.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): You stated earlier that Canada had offered to send six additional fighters to participate in the mission within the next two weeks. Is this in addition to the 18 aircraft already involved, or are we talking about a total of 18 aircraft, that is six additional ones, plus the original twelve?

LGen Raymond Henault: That's six, in addition to the original twelve, for a total of eighteen.

Mr. René Laurin: Eighteen in total.

LGen Henault: That's correct.

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Wright mentioned that humanitarian aid was not getting through very easily. Why is this aid not getting through to the refugees and what can we do to ensure that it does?

Mr. Jim Wright: When I said that, it was in reference to humanitarian aid to Kosovo. The present climate in Kosovo makes it difficult to provide humanitarian aid.

• 1615

Mr. René Laurin: This afternoon, the CBC reported that 70 per cent of the food aid was not getting through to the refugees because supplies were being commandeered by the mafia. Supplies from Canada and other countries were not getting through. Are you aware of this problem and what can be done to solve it?

LGen Raymond Henault: I'm not aware of that report. Perhaps Ms. Corneau can respond.

Ms. Hélène Corneau: I was in Albania last week and I spoke with World Food Program officials at the Tirana airport. They assured me that food supplies were being stored in secure UNHCR and World Food Program facilities.

Mr. René Laurin: According to today's report, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Mr. Jim Wright: We are well aware of the problems with the mafia, especially in Albania. The country's a little like the wild west, but the international community is working very hard with the UNHCR, NATO, NGOs and the Albanian government to ensure that supplies get through to those in need, namely refugees. However, this a very poor country, one in which democracy is still in its infancy. Like any country in transition, it has its share of problems.

Mr. René Laurin: Would it be possible to seize Yugoslavian assets in Canada?

[English]

LGen Raymond Henault: That's certainly not my purview, as a military man. I don't know.

[Translation]

I have no idea.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Assets either here in Canada or in Yugoslavia.

Mr. Jim Wright: No, it doesn't have any assets in this country, aside from the embassy, the official residence and the consulate in Toronto. Yugoslavia's only assets are property holdings.

LGen Raymond Henault: I'd like to make one final observation.

[English]

The Chairman: If there were a declaration of war, the Enemy Alien Property Act would immediately come into effect. There must be lots of Canadians who have assets. Your answer might be all right for the moment, Mr. Wright, but there may be some legal subtleties there that—

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's the professor of international law talking.

Mr. René Laurin: General Henault has something further he'd like to say.

[English]

LGen Raymond Henault: Could I add something, Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes, by all means.

[Translation]

LGen Raymond Henault: As Mr. Wright remarked, conditions in Albania are very harsh. Roads are practically impassable, even under the best of conditions, and when it rains a lot, like it is doing now, you might as well forget about it. That may explain in part why supplies are not getting to the camps. A significant number of helicopters are supporting the relief effort, but the task of delivering humanitarian aid to the camps is hampered by poor road conditions.

The Chairman: Ms. Finestone.

[English]

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): There has been a question of the unaccountable or disappeared persons. There are supposedly huge numbers of refugees within the Kosovo region in the mountains in hiding, and others have disappeared along the way. If you have such finite visibility or such infinite visibility with the aircraft, why don't we know where those refugees are? That's my first question.

Second, I must say I was a bit perturbed by an observation—I don't recall which one of you made it—that the war will be prolonged, that it will be longer rather than shorter, and then there was something about intensifying because of bad weather. Was this not realized when they started? Did they put no time parameters on how long they were going to bomb and to what intensity they were going to bomb? Do we just keep adding and adding? Are you saying we didn't have a blooming clue what we were doing, besides the fact that we wanted to enable a saviour of these people, through ethnic cleansing...? I don't disagree with that, by the way.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's a very good question.

• 1620

The Chairman: General Henault.

LGen Raymond Henault: In answering the second question, I would say an air campaign is a very deliberate process and does take time. An air campaign cannot foresee the vagaries of weather, of course. That's something that could not be foreseen and has rendered somewhat difficult the actual prosecution of the air campaign because of a very strong desire to minimize collateral damage as we go along. The minimization of any casualties beyond military infrastructure, and so on, has been our primary objective.

The campaign has to progress, and it has to cater to all of those vagaries we have no control over. In addition, though, the air campaign has to go through a process I won't go through again, but it has to concentrate on the integrated air defence system, and so on and so forth. It takes time, and there is a buildup it has to go through before it becomes a successful air campaign.

So I personally believe the air campaign is progressing reasonably well, given all—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: What was foreseen? That is my question.

LGen Raymond Henault: Do you mean the weather problem?

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: No. Was the length and the depth of this campaign foreseen, given that they had some knowledge of the weather system and they had some knowledge of the terrain they were facing? It wasn't exactly news.

LGen Raymond Henault: The only thing I can say is there was no end date established when it started. The minister has said this before. It's an end state, and that end state is as described by Mr. Wright—all of the conditions the international community has placed on the cessation of hostilities. So it's impossible for us to actually predict what that date is going to be.

The Chairman: I guess the question is did you foresee what Mr. Milosevic was going to do or not going to do?

Mr. Jim Wright: I think anybody who knows anything about Balkan politics and Mr. Milosevic recognized full well that this was not going to be easy and it was going to take time. I think the general has given a very complete response.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Where the heck are all the refugees?

Mr. Jim Wright: On the question of the refugees, again the numbers vary dramatically, depending on whom you speak to. A lot of them have already left. About 700,000 are out of Kosovo. There are something in the order of 400,000 to 600,000 on the move within Kosovo. Some of those individuals are in the mountains; they're in the forests. Frankly, they're hiding for their lives, because they've been driven out of their homes by the Serb forces. Some of the movements are seen, in terms of the aerial photography NATO does, but not all of them.

We generally know when large movements of refugees are coming to the border points because the borders open up. But if you look at the geography, it just isn't that simple. These people have tried to go to the borders. One day they're open; the next day they're closed. Given what they have gone through, these people are going to make sure they are not found by Serb authorities.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: If you can see them, the Serbs can see them.

The Chairman: We have three other questioners. Our colleagues have been very generous with their time. We'll try to keep them for another five minutes.

We have Mr. Crête, Mr. Earle, and Mr. McKay. Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Thank you. Mr. Wright mentioned the behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts that are under way. Does this include work on some kind of proposal that could be presented to the UN General Assembly, for example, something along the lines of the German peace plan or a diplomatic solution of some sort? Could you give us a quick overview of these efforts?

Ms. Corneau, could you report on the situation and conditions in the refugee camps?

Mr. Jim Wright: Work is certainly continuing on a resolution that could eventually be tabled to the UN Security Council. The European Union issued a statement last week indicating that this was its objective. Talks are continuing with Mr. Annan, the other Security Council members and the Russians, but a consensus is needed before a resolution can be put to the Security Council.

• 1625

It was a fairly big problem a few months ago, particularly as far as Russia and China were concerned, but we are now trying to find solutions. We're not there yet, but work is continuing with a view to bringing a peace plan and humanitarian plan to the Security Council.

Mr. Paul Crête: [Editor's note: inaudible]...directly.

Mr. Jim Wright: Not at this time.

Mr. Paul Crête: The General Assembly?

Mr. Jim Wright: No.

The Chairman: Ms. Corneau.

Ms. Hélène Corneau: During our mission to Macedonia and Albania, we visited five refugee camps in Macedonia. Despite difficult circumstances, conditions in the camps were encouraging. Water supplies were adequate, health and food distribution services were good and sanitation was also under control. We spoke to a person in charge of one of the camp hospitals and he told us that under the circumstances, the refugees were in remarkably good health.

We did not visit any of the camps in Albania. However, we did stop at a transit centre located in the southern part of the capital and I have to admit that conditions weren't as good there. Refugees were being housed in a former hospital and were awaiting evacuation by government officials to the camps. Conditions were very harsh indeed.

Mr. Paul Crête: When did you observe these conditions?

Ms. Hélène Corneau: Within the last two weeks.

Mr. Paul Crête: Two weeks ago, or during the last two weeks?

Ms. Hélène Corneau: We were in Macedonia during the week of April 6, and in Albania the week after that.

Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. McKay.

[English]

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): As you can appreciate, there's a growing skepticism among members and among Canadians about the ability of air bombardment alone to do this job. Certainly you've had a free hand. Certainly you control the skies. Certainly, if reports are to be believed, we've done a great deal of damage. Is it reasonable on the part of Canadians to expect that bombardment will bring us to a point where we can safely return the Kosovars to their position?

Secondly, and this is essentially a military question, if you can basically see the nose hairs of the Yugoslavs, why in heavens' name can't you bomb their tanks? Their tanks are the backbone of their military presumption.

LGen Raymond Henault: To answer your second question first, we are bombing their tanks. I won't give you the numbers at the moment, because I don't have them at the tip of my fingers. We've destroyed scores of tanks, artillery pieces, military vehicles of all kinds, headquarters, complexes and so on.

Mr. John McKay: Is that public knowledge?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Tony Blair gave all the figures this morning. Why can't you give us that data?

Mr. John McKay: I know. They've destroyed 300 tanks; that's the bottom line.

Mr. Daniel Turp: This morning Tony Blair, at his press conference with Solana, gave all the figures on how many tanks and other military objectives had been destroyed in the night, everything. It was incredible. He just gave all the data himself.

Mr. John McKay: So why couldn't that be tabled here?

The Chairman: Perhaps we can get some up-to-date numbers if it's possible next time. We have another meeting on Thursday.

LGen Raymond Henault: There are nations that are getting information a lot more quickly than we are, of course, because there's a time zone difference. There's all sorts of information going across the system. We will give you only what we can.

The Chairman: Okay, in terms of air bombardment....

LGen Raymond Henault: The North Atlantic Council and the international community are committed to the bombardment and we're doing what we're told. We are committed. We expect it to have the results desired, obviously, in this campaign. Yes, I think we will achieve the result, ultimately.

Mr. John McKay: We just don't know when ultimately will come.

LGen Raymond Henault: That's right.

The Chairman: We'll have Mr. Earle, and then we're going to wrap it up.

• 1630

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): I think achieving the result is a good lead-in for my question.

We've been told there have been around 6,000 sorties since this mission began, currently up to over 600 per day. It's also been mentioned that storage facilities and refineries are being targeted, and also tanks.

Would someone care to comment on the reports I heard just recently that toxic fumes are being released into the air and poisonous substances are going into the water and polluting the waterways and that we might in fact be creating an environmental disaster? In our effort to prevent a humanitarian disaster, which was the goal of this mission, can we be sure that we're not creating a much more serious long-term disaster with all of this bombing?

I would also like to ask whether there is the use of any depleted uranium weapons in this warfare.

LGen Raymond Henault: In terms of toxic substances being released into the waterways and so on, we have no way of verifying that, because we're not in Kosovo. Nor are we in Serbia or Yugoslavia proper. So I can't comment on that. If that is occurring, then that's a by-product of what's happening now, and that's quite regrettable, obviously, but I have no information in that respect.

In terms of depleted uranium, we have no depleted uranium stocks in the Canadian Forces. We don't use that type of ammunition.

There are depleted uranium stocks used by the allies, though. The depleted uranium is used in 30-millimetre cannon shells. The reason it's used is because it's a very highly dense substance that penetrates armour...as well as the normal penetrating qualities of those types of ammunition.

Depleted uranium has been used in aircraft like the A-10 Warthog or the Apache helicopter, in some naval ships—not Canadian ships, I might add, because of different weaponry—for quite some time now. We have indications that there is no environmental hazard from the depleted uranium part of it. There may be some environmental impact from the actual propellants and those types of things, but that occurs in any weapon you use. So there are no impacts on that side of the fence that I can qualify.

There are no known hazards. In fact, some Americans who had been injured by depleted uranium shrapnel or bits and pieces that had struck them in another conflict have been tracked for quite some time now, and there have been no after-effects other than the obvious injury that occurred with the penetration. It is not a radioactive material and therefore not an active material.

The Chairman: I wonder if I might ask a follow-up question of Mr. Wright, following on Mr. Earle's question.

I attended an event last night in Toronto, which was broadcast on radio today, in which there was a lot of suggestion of huge environmental damage. Just common sense tells you that the longer a large bombardment goes on there's going to be a lot of environmental degradation. There's even the suggestion that the use of the Danube River, which is very important for the economics of that whole region, is totally eliminated as a waterway.

Are the NATO allies sitting down now and saying that when they've achieved their objective there's going to be some effort made to rebuild the damage caused? Or are we all going to just walk away from this and say that's too bad, and countries that are already desperately poor are going to have to climb out of a deeper hole they've been bombed into?

Mr. Jim Wright: In my opening remarks I in fact referred specifically to this. I said that even though we were consumed right now with the immediate crisis, we were looking to the longer term. There would have to be a rebuilding program. We saw that in Bosnia. It will be a factor in Kosovo, in Yugoslavia. The European Union knows that. There have already been statements by the leaders of the European Union to the effect that they would want to take the lead in terms of a rebuilding program.

We also need, quite frankly, to see whether or not we can't change some of the values that have caused this particular crisis in Kosovo by trying to engage in peace-building activities, in civil society activities in Yugoslavia. Environment degradation, unfortunately, goes with this kind of war. There will have to be a focus of international attention on that aspect as well as rebuilding the society as soon as the conflict is finished.

• 1635

The Chairman: We've gone from a half-hour briefing to an hour and twenty minute briefing. I really appreciate your staying the extra time, all three of you. We intend to do this as a regular practice. We'll have another opportunity to ask questions on Thursday at 3.15 p.m. We look forward to seeing you again.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I'd just like to comment about something. I was telling Mr. Reed this morning how productive I find briefings like this. I appreciate our guests, in particular Mr. Wright, taking the time to appear before our committee. No doubt they give similar briefings to others every day. Perhaps these briefings will help silence the critics who maintain - and with good reason, in my view - that parliamentarians are not kept adequately informed. Mr. Wright and his associates seem concerned about adequately informing us.

I want you to know that we will be vigilant. Clearly, 30 minutes just wasn't long enough today. We've been here for 90 minutes and that seems reasonable to me. I hope that we will have more than 30 minutes for Thursday' meeting. This subject is obviously one that cuts across party lines. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will schedule the meeting from at least 3:15 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. or 4:30 p.m., not from 3:15 p.m. to 3:45 p.m.

The Chairman: We'll do our best. I realize that other MPs will be in attendance, and not only committee members. We have to try and accommodate as many of them as possible, but we also have to consider our guests' schedule. Thank you very much for coming.

The meeting is adjourned.