NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 11, 1999

• 1521

[English]

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I call to order the joint meeting of the foreign affairs committee and the committee on national defence and veterans affairs for our briefing today. We were just waiting for a copy of a document. We can begin now.

I'd like to inform the members that because the House is recessed next week, we will not be holding briefings. I suppose if there were a major development, we certainly could call a special meeting, but we don't anticipate that. We hope that won't be necessary.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): We wouldn't like to disappoint Mr. Wright.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): I'm sure General Henault and Mr. Wright won't mind a little break from these twice-weekly briefings. They've been very good about meeting with us regularly.

If I might, I'd like to tell the members of the defence committee there's been a change in the earlier information you had. You should have been notified of the change. We will stay in this room, following the briefing, for our defence committee meeting. Earlier, we were going to have to move, but now we'll stay right here.

So with those remarks, let's begin.

Mr. Wright, are you going to lead off?

Mr. Jim Wright (Director General for Central, East, and South Europe, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Since the weekend, there's been a good deal of discussion about China's role in the search for peace in Kosovo.

[Translation]

NATO would like nothing more than to work with China, within the UN forum, to codify the peace process by way of a Security Council resolution.

[English]

To reach this goal, however, the Yugoslav government has to indicate its agreement with the road map set out by the G-8, centred on the international community's five conditions. The signal we need now from Belgrade is the declaration of an immediate ceasefire in Kosovo, an end to the operations of Serb forces, and a collaborative effort to work with the international community on an agreed on and verifiable withdrawal of these forces by a certain date. Half-measures by Belgrade are not enough.

I can confirm to the committees today that overnight, NATO was trying to verify whether or not indeed a partial withdrawal of Serb forces was under way, and it was not.

[Translation]

We are now waiting for Belgrade to announce an immediate cease-fire in Kosovo, to order a halt to the attacks by Serb forces and to signal its willingness to try and cooperate with the international community to bring about a verifiable withdrawal of its forces by a given date. Clearly, half measures by Belgrade won't do.

[English]

We hope the Serb leadership will do what is necessary to provide the fundamental preconditions to allow diplomatic initiatives to take root and ultimately succeed. Once they accept the five conditions and move to implement them in a convincing way, NATO can end its air campaign, and the Security Council, including China, can play its role in cementing the peace process.

• 1525

Specifically within the Security Council, China has not linked the bombing of their embassy to the eventual resolution of the Kosovo crisis, nor have they made council discussion of a Kosovo resolution conditional on a bombing pause.

Moreover, claims being made by some that the Chinese will not engage on the Kosovo issue until there is a bombing pause are inaccurate. The Chinese are talking to people. Russian envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin has just completed a visit to Beijing. German Chancellor Schroeder is on his way to Beijing for a working visit to discuss progress made at the G-8 foreign ministers' meeting in Bonn last week. And the Chinese themselves are directly engaging in New York with their Security Council counterparts, including Canada, on the issue of Kosovo.

That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you, Mr. Wright.

General Henault.

Lieutenant-General Raymond R. Henault (Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Good afternoon. I have just a few brief comments, and then with your permission, sir, I'll pass the floor to Mr. LeBane for a few comments on the refugee status.

Again, good afternoon. This will form a military update on the Kosovo crisis, leading from our meeting last Thursday.

In terms of the NATO military situation, the air campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia does continue. It is now into its eighth week, with over 18,000 sorties flown to date, which include approximately 6,000 strike sorties—that is, air-to-ground sorties.

The recent announcement by the U.S. in particular to send an additional 176 aircraft will ultimately bring the NATO totals of aircraft to approximately 1,000 in theatre. That will happen over the next couple of weeks.

[Translation]

NATO strikes are continuing, with the goal still being to isolate, disrupt and destroy Serb military and police forces engaged in, among other things, ethnic cleansing operations in Kosovo.

[English]

In doing so, NATO continues to strike at a number of targets, including bridges, road and rail routes into Kosovo, Yugoslavia's oil refining capability and capacity, its fuel storage sites, ammunition storage sites, air fields, radio relay, and so on.

Each day, a variety of fielded forces are also being engaged, making it progressively more difficult for Serb forces to conduct their repressive tactics in Kosovo itself. NATO planes do engage regularly and pounce on exposed tanks, artillery, aircraft, field command posts, and other locations within the Kosovo province.

[Translation]

With respect to an oil embargo, the North Atlantic Council is reviewing as we speak an operational plan for a voluntary visit and search mission. This review will continue this week. We believe this initiative could be operational within the next two weeks. Of course, everything will depend on the outcome of the North Atlantic Council talks.

[English]

All allies have agreed that the visit-and-search regime will be non-confrontational to non-compliant ships, as previously briefed.

Also, a Canadian commodore, as we've already mentioned to you, is commanding the Standing Naval Force Atlantic on board the HMCS Athabaskan. Again, we have no confirmation as yet of the actual makeup of the standing naval force itself or the visit-and-search regime force, but we do expect that will be forthcoming in the very near future.

Turning to Canada's contribution, since I last appeared before you, our CF-18s in Aviano flew a total of 48 out of 72 planned combat sorties, with successful strikes conducted against a number of targets, including airfields, bridges, and fielded forces in Kosovo. Of that total, those that were cancelled were cancelled primarily due to weather.

[Translation]

Our CF-18s have now flown over 350 sorties during the course of 100 plus missions. We now anticipate a current rate of approximately 20 sorties per day, the highest number planned to date.

[English]

The 20 sorties are expected to be flown today, and if in fact they are, that will form the largest number of sorties we've flown since the beginning of the operation. The previous highest total has been 16. Therefore it is a reasonable increase in our operations.

In terms of Op Kinetic, which is the deployment of our land force component, including helicopters, to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the mission preparations do continue as scheduled. Things are going in well. In fact in some cases they're ahead of schedule.

• 1530

The rail movement of equipment from the west to Montreal is planned for the end of this week. Loading should take place between 13 and 15 May, followed by chartered sealift to Europe. This is a chartered commercial vessel. It's a roll-on, roll-off ship, so it's very appropriate to the type of equipment we're taking over. It has an estimated date of departure from the port of Montreal of 25 May.

The first of our eight Griffon helicopters also departed Edmonton yesterday, and they will be flying to Montreal over the course of the next few days to be loaded on board the ship in conjunction with the land force equipment that's being loaded on that same container ship for the trip overseas.

In terms of Op Parasol, the refugee reception here in Canada—and this is my last point—this has been a very smooth operation, as you may have seen on the media as presented so far. It's conducted of course by a number of agencies, including the Canadian Forces, but in support primarily of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Health Canada, other governmental and non-governmental organizations, as well as a number of volunteer organizations. The refugees have been very appreciative of the treatment they've received, and we've had some very good feedback, good compliments. It is a very heartwarming experience for all who are involved, in particular the military members, who are doing this with a heartfelt desire to get on with the job as well as possible.

Our forces at 8 Wing in Trenton and 14 Wing in Greenwood continue to be the primary locations for reception of refugees—that is, the airports of disembarkation. In assisting Citizenship and Immigration Canada in the reception, processing, and transportation of the refugees, we have achieved very good success so far. In fact to date over 2,000 refugees have been processed through the two airports of disembarkation, with daily arrivals of about 250 passengers on board. The flights will continue to alternate between Trenton and Greenwood until the airlift is complete, and that is going very well on schedule. We've had no weather delays and no technical problems so far.

If you permit, Mr. President, I'll turn it over to Mr. LeBane to give you a little bit more detail on the refugee movements.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Please do. Thank you, General.

Mr. LeBane.

Mr. Jeff LeBane (Director General, International Relations, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Mr. Chair and honourable members, on April 30, in response to an urgent appeal from Madam Ogata of the UNHCR, Canada agreed to provide safe haven to 5,000 refugees from Kosovo. This was an appeal in Macedonia. Since April 30 we have brought to Canada 1,700 refugees and provided them with temporary safe haven. It has gone very well.

In addition to that, Madam Ogata made an earlier appeal that we assist the UNHCR, both in Macedonia and in Albania, in assisting family reunification cases and special needs cases. Since mid-April we have brought to Canada 300 persons.

So in fact, over a two-week period, we've provided safe haven or permanent resettlement to 2,000 people. We expect to meet our commitment of 5,000 in two weeks from this date.

The family reunification movement—which is more difficult, because we're also dealing with persons with family members who are not in refugee camps, but are in various parts of Albania and Macedonia—is open-ended. There is neither a limit to the number of people we will settle nor a timeframe.

These flights are on a daily basis, and as the General has said, we will alternate between Trenton and Greenwood. These persons are processed very quickly and then sent to secondary bases, such as Borden. Our hope is that after four to six weeks, they will be moved to the provinces. Yesterday our minister, Madam Robillard, made an appeal to the Canadian public to come forward as sponsors to assist these people in either temporary safe haven or permanent resettlement in designated communities.

I've provided handouts as well.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you very much for the opening comments.

We'll go to members.

Mr. Assadourian.

• 1535

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

I have two questions. One of them is general; maybe Mr. Wright will answer.

Since 1945 we have had so many wars. In 1948 there was a Middle East war, in 1952 a Middle East war, in 1956 a war, India, Pakistan, Cyprus, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and now it's Kosovo. One common denominator, one point they all share, is they were not complete, so we still have these wars going on. For example, the Middle East war has been going on since 1948.

At the end of the day, maybe we should sit back and say, “Why are we not doing the job?” Iraq and Kuwait are similar, and we've been bombing Iraq. I read in the paper two days ago that four or five civilians died.

Why is it we can't make up our minds to finish a war or not start a war, or if we are in a war, to finish it? That puzzles me. We have a whole bunch of them in Africa too. Still they are not complete. Either let's get in and finish the job, or let's not get in. That's my first point.

The other one is for Mr. LeBane. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last week there was a newspaper article, I think in the National Post, that said some of the refugees may be KLA members—not only members, but active members—and they may have committed crimes or engaged in violent acts. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I read in the paper that because they were engaged in a “good cause”, they will not be prosecuted here, even if they were known to be terrorists. I could count maybe two dozen good causes. Why is it that we have a double standard here?

Mr. Jim Wright: I'll try to answer the first question.

Fortunately, I don't have experience with too many wars. I certainly am very experienced with respect to the civil war that was in Bosnia. What we tried to do there, and what we certainly will try to do in Kosovo, is ensure that there is a clear peace implementation process and that there is a peace agreement, which we will get all parties to sign and which we'll get the international community to sign up to. We will ensure we have both the security and the civilian presence on the ground to ensure these agreements are actually implemented.

It's a good point you make, Mr. Assadourian, in the sense that one of the worries of President Milosevic and his leadership is that the international community has a very clear idea of what it needs on the ground in Kosovo in order to ensure the safety and protection of the Kosovar people.

NATO, the UN Secretary-General, and the international community are committed to ensuring that those principles we have set out, those five conditions, are met; that there is a clear implementation process; and that there is a peace agreement. That's what Rambouillet was all about. Unfortunately we only got one party to sign up to it.

Our intention here is to do the very best we can to ensure there is closure—to ensure that when the fighting is over, we bring the parties to the table, there are negotiations, the negotiations are concluded, it's supported by the UN Security Council, and it is actually implemented.

I'm not sure that gives you the answer you want. I can't give you the full historical perspective, but I can tell you that's what we're trying to do in Bosnia and that's what we intend to do in Kosovo.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: The Iraq situation hasn't been completed yet. We're still bombing Iraq, and still we cannot go there and verify whether or not they have bombs. It keeps dragging. It's like job creation basically. I hate to use the phrase, but...

Mr. Jim Wright: Well, I'm not an expert on Iraq. I know there have been lots of efforts to engage the international community and the Security Council to try to bring that issue to a close.

I am directly involved in the conflict in Yugoslavia, and I have been very directly involved in Bosnia. The intention here is to have a clear peace process, to have an actual agreement, to get all the parties to sign up to it, and then to implement it, and to do it with the blessing of the UN Security Council.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thanks, Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): I hope I'm not about to ask any questions about China that you may already have answered during my absence.

One of our main concerns, and I would imagine it is yours is well, is China and its position.

• 1540

As I understand it, today at the Security Council, China is basically pushing for a resolution or a statement condemning the bombing of its embassy as an illegal act. Could you tell us what has transpired today at the Security Council?

Speaking about the Security Council, earlier, the minister told me where he thought China stood. What concrete measures are being taken to ensure that China is not isolated from the political process and that the Security Council has a say in the peace process?

I would also like to comment on a statement made today by Mr. Gorbachev about this matter. I will read it for the benefit of all committee members. Mr. Gorbachev stated the following:

[English]

that as the Cold War was winding down 10 years ago, he and western leaders discussed a new global security order that would be founded on law and supervised by the UN Security Council.

[Translation]

What you care to comment on Mr. Gorbachev's statement? How might it affect the process?

Lastly, I have a more difficult question for you. This morning, I tallied up the number of Allied accidents, at least the ones we're aware of. There have been 208 civilian deaths in total. NATO reports nearly 200 civilian deaths, whereas the Yugoslavs claim that there have been many more civilians killed. What is NATO intending to do to deal with this situation, beyond admitting that it has made some errors?

[English]

Mr. Jim Wright: Let me deal with the last first. In terms of allied accidents, I would only comment that of over 6,000 bombs that have been dropped on Kosovo, we are probably talking about in the order of seven or eight errors, mistakes, that have been acknowledged by NATO. That's not to diminish the significance of these errors and the civilian casualties. We acknowledge that in a conflict such as this, there are going to be some civilian casualties, regardless of how hard we try to minimize those casualties.

I would add though that we are talking about loss of lives for Kosovar citizens in the order of the thousands. We won't know how many people have been killed by Serb military and paramilitary forces until the international community arrives on the ground to investigate the situation. We are talking about hundreds and hundreds of villages that have been destroyed, and we are talking about tens of thousands of Kosovar men who have disappeared, who have been separated from their families, and we're not entirely sure as to where they are right now. So in terms of moral equivalency, the burden of responsibility falls very squarely on the shoulders of the Serbian leadership.

Having said that, NATO has acknowledged right from the outset that despite its very best efforts to target very carefully, there are going to be accidents, and there have been. We have acknowledged those accidents; we have acknowledged those errors. I would only add that NATO makes a very particular point of not targeting civilians. President Milosevic does target civilians. That's the premeditated nature of his campaign.

With respect to China, engagement is under way right now. We know Mr. Chernomyrdin was in Beijing. We know Chancellor Schroeder is going to Beijing.

Active discussions are under way at the UN Security Council on a variety of different aspects of the Kosovo issue. There have been discussions over the last few days on the issue of the bombing of the Chinese embassy. NATO leaders—and that includes Canadian leaders, our Prime Minister and our Minister of Foreign Affairs—have acknowledged responsibility, have expressed regret, and have apologized for the tragic accident over the weekend that resulted in loss of civilian lives. We are working with the Chinese to see if a resolution is possible from the UN Security Council on this accident.

• 1545

I'm not aware of the latest developments as of this afternoon, but I can tell you we are also working with the Chinese on the possibility of a UN Security Council resolution dealing with the humanitarian crisis in and around Kosovo. And we are looking forward to the work of the G-8 progressing to the point that we will be able to take the seven principles that Mr. Axworthy and his colleagues agreed to a week ago in Bonn and translate them into a plan of action and a UN Security Council resolution that we hope and expect will find favour with China.

Finally, with respect to Mr. Gorbachev, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with his recent pronouncements on either Kosovo or the Cold War. Certainly we hold him in very high regard. We don't think some of the fundamental changes that took place in Russian society would have taken place unless Mr. Gorbachev had started that process of reform in the then Soviet Union and then Russia.

As I understood from your comments, Mr. Turp, Mr. Gorbachev made reference to the importance of the UN Security Council in the process. We would endorse that fully. One of our great regrets in the current set of circumstances is that because the Security Council was stymied on the Kosovo conflict, we were not able to get the full support of the Security Council for NATO action. We would have preferred that, and Mr. Axworthy has made that point repeatedly, as has Prime Minister Chrétien.

Our hope is that the G-8 in Bonn have pointed the international community back to the UN Security Council and that we will be there sooner rather than later—as soon as we have been able to work through the seven principles and turn them into Security Council language.

I hope that answers most of your questions.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): I'm going to go back. I think I interrupted the answer to Mr. Assadourian earlier.

Mr. LeBane, please.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: I know there has been discussion in the press about these refugees and the potential for possible involvement in and support of the KLA.

In terms of immigration legislation, when we screen these people, we look at them on an individual basis—the nature of their support or involvement, the timing of that, and the overall intentions of the KLA at the time. The KLA is a relatively new organization. If their acts were terrorist per se, it could render them inadmissible. If they were providing financial support or shelter in the field, you could argue that they would not be inadmissible.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Can I just make another point?

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Sarkis, I'm sorry. I have four other members, so I have to give them a chance. I'll try to come back to you, but we're getting multiple questions from members, and I want to try to get all members in.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Last night on News 1 we heard a reporter saying he had had an interview with Supreme Command. This was after they had done their statement on their units moving out. They were saying that in the possibility of a peace force moving in, they would accept a NATO core, but it would be Canada. They put aside totally the U.S. and the Brits.

Let's say it was Canada. If something like that happened, what would we do about command and control of that? Would we be able to handle that?

LGen Raymond Henault: I'm not familiar with that particular interview, Mr. Price, so I can't comment on the validity of it. If Canada were to be the lead nation in this case, we would have to take that under consideration, but that would be a difficult one for us to take on, I would think.

We have already indicated that the peacekeeping force we are in the process of deploying now is about 800 strong. We are looking at other options in case there are calls for additional resources for the operation. But to take on a lead nation status in the peacekeeping mission would be stretching us considerably.

• 1550

Mr. David Price: By lead nation status, though, I think what they were referring to was that yes, Canada could be the core, but they were talking about the command and control part of it. Naturally we're not talking about on-the-ground people; we're talking about overall. Would we be in any position at all to take that on?

LGen Raymond Henault: Yes, hypothetically. Again, I would have to preface it with that. Canada does have some very good command and control capability of course within the Canadian Forces. We have supported operations such as that in the past, with brigade headquarters-type command and control functions.

In fact in the Bosnian support we provided previously—and this was before we got into SFOR; this was in the UNPROFOR days—we had a battle group involved. We also had brigade headquarters actually commanding multinational troops. So that type of capability is resident within the Canadian Forces.

If we were asked to provide that, we would have to seriously consider how we would do it. I think we could do it, given the right priority. Of course we would have to reconsider the sustainment requirements, but it is something we are quite capable of doing, with the command and control facilities and expertise we have resident in the Canadian Forces.

Mr. David Price: In order to do it, would there be the possibility we might have to pull out of the Bosnian part?

LGen Raymond Henault: There is no supposition at the moment that we would dilute or change our Bosnian commitment. We have been relatively consistent in saying we continue to support Bosnia at the current levels in force in Bosnia. We are planning for a number of rotations through the next couple of years or so, depending on how long the Bosnian requirement remains.

We have been very careful to separate the Bosnian requirement from the Kosovo requirement. In all of the deliberations we do in terms of force structuring and looking at options, venues, capabilities, and so on, we do consider Bosnia a long-term requirement that we would try to preserve, given our commitment to that theatre of operation.

Mr. David Price: That was the nice thing about the comment last night. The Yugoslavians had said that even though we were bombing, Canada was looked at as probably the most viable of the peacekeeping groups, the ones they could trust the most. I think “trust” was the word they used.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you, Mr. Price.

Mr. Hart, then Monsieur Lebel.

Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Thank you.

General Henault, you mentioned that our operational tempo is increasing. My question goes to operational fatigue. When will that rotation of pilots and ground crew be changed out of Aviano and fresh people be put in?

LGen Raymond Henault: At the moment we have planned for a three-month contingent. The current contingent just rotated into Aviano not that long ago, only a short number of weeks ago. It was also augmented by the same wing—that is, 4 Wing in Cold Lake—with fresh crews that went in with the additional six aircraft that made up our complement of 18. We are now looking at rotation rates and rotation requirements to make sure we can sustain them in the longer term.

I would add that the normal rotation for the Aviano operation has been set at three months, and three months provides us with all of the flexibility we need for the air crew in particular to stay on the keen edge, but also at the same time to allow us to rotate them as required to do their own additional qualifications back here in Canada.

From the ground crew perspective, the intention is for three months, and we are certainly looking at a longer term for our ground crew, to see if that's more viable or more feasible.

I would say the fatigue level of our ground crews and our air crew in Aviano is not a factor at this point in time. The commander, Colonel Dwight Davies, and the squadron commander there have taken very careful consideration of fatigue. They have made absolutely sure that as pilots in particular are rotated through the operational cycle, as we call it—which is normally about a 24-hour cycle from the time the mission is assigned to the time it's flown and then debriefed—they get approximately 48 hours before they go into another operational cycle. That has worked very well.

In terms of the ground crew, they have sufficient ground crew and support personnel in place to conduct 24-7 operations very safely. History and experience have now shown us that the numbers we have there, the construct, and the operational rate we're employing them at are sound. We've been without accident and without any injury of course.

• 1555

Mr. Jim Hart: On the charter sealift that's coming in, can you tell us what kind of vessel this is, what kind of accommodation our troops will have en route? Also, shouldn't it be a goal of the Canadian Armed Forces and this government to have our own sealift capability and airlift capability, both for troops and also in the situation where we have refugees coming to this country?

LGen Raymond Henault: The ship is a chartered vessel. It's a commercial vessel. It's a roll-on, roll-off ship. It's a very long vessel; it's some 200 metres in length. It has four decks on it. It can take somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,500 sea containers, to my recollection. So it's a very capable ship that will take all of the equipment we have going over to the theatre, including the helicopters, quite effectively.

The troops themselves will be moved in a combination of Canadian Forces aircraft and chartered aircraft primarily. Some troops will accompany the containers and the equipment over to the destination. However, that's a small number, and it's really only to manage the security of the equipment as it goes over and to ensure that anything that has to be done in terms of routine maintenance and those types of things can be done en route.

In terms of sealift capability and strategic lift, those types of things are of course things we would certainly favour in the Canadian Forces. We do have projects that are looking at sealift capability as we look at replacing our vessels in the longer term.

Our strategic airlift is actually quite good at the moment, with our Airbus capability. Not only are the Airbuses capable of carrying passengers, but four of the five Airbuses that we hold in the inventory have been modified to what we call combi-aircraft, which will take both palletized containers and passengers. So strategic lift capability, particularly if it's augmented with the C-130, is quite reasonable.

By the way, Mr. Hart, we would normally transport troops using airborne movement as opposed to sealift.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thanks, Mr. Hart.

Monsieur Lebel and then Mr. Pratt.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Earlier, Mr. Assadourian mentioned something that I had no intention of bringing up. Someone once said that there were always two sides to every story.

I'm not an expert in your field, but it seems to me that we are getting more deeply involved in this conflict with every passing hour. Initially, it wasn't supposed to be anything more than a formality and now, it's beginning to be in major worry for us. After 30 days of bombings, we haven't seen much in the way of concrete results, aside from the mistakes that have been made.

Getting back to my side of the story, I'd like to know if what the Kosovars are saying is true. They claim that criminals in their midst have killed Serb civilians, and that they go unpunished because they are on the right side and are defending a noble cause. Have NATO forces adopted a similar attitude?

LGen Raymond Henault: I will comment first and then turn the floor over to Mr. Wright.

I would have to say that the bombings have nevertheless had a significant impact. I reported on their effects a week or ten days ago. Consider the targets that have been hit: bridges, communication lines, roadways, rail lines and so forth. Considerable damage has been inflicted, particularly in the northern region and specifically to bridges over the Danube River and the communication lines in and out of Kosovo.

Serb air defence systems have been damaged to the point where their capacity is now only moderate. The number of aircraft defending Yugoslav air space has decreased considerably following the destruction of over half of the country's fleet of MIG-29s.

• 1600

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: if we continue to bomb Serb territory to the point where it becomes easy prey for neighboring countries because it no longer has the means to defend itself, then the situational becomes extremely explosive. Quite apart from the Kosovo situation, other people are also eying Serb territory. I traveled to the region with the defence committee. Is it right for us to push Serbia to the brink of humiliation and then turn away? What is our ultimate objective? That's what I would like to know. Perhaps Mr. Wright is in a better position to answer that question.

LGen. Raymond Henault: By all means, go ahead Jim.

Mr. Jim Wright: Thank you. That's a very easy question. Thank you very much.

You asked if there were any criminals among the Kosovars. No doubt there are. Is NATO working with the KLA? No. Are we favoring one side over the other? No. What we are promoting is the peace process. We have lent our support to the Rambouillet accords and encouraged both sides to sign the text. Unfortunately, only one party has shown any willingness to do so.

Is the war lasting too long? Anyone who was familiar with Balkan politics knew very well that the conflict would likely drag on for some time. The Serbs have dug in their heels and there was no guarantee whatsoever that Mr. Milosevic would immediately accept the representations of the international community. Certainly we would prefer a speedy diplomatic solution, but the reality is that this wasn't scripted by Hollywood. We have to deal with reality and unfortunately, Mr. Milosevic knows very well what needs to be done to bring about an international settlement.

NATO, along with the UN General Secretary, is pressing Mr. Milosevic to accept the five conditions put forward by the international community, and we're working hard to achieve a diplomatic solution. Mr. Axworthy was in Bonn last week for meetings and prior to that, he was in Moscow for talks with Mr. Ivanov. Today, he spoke with Mr. Carl Bildt, Kofi Annan's special representative for Kosovo, who is working with Mr. Eduard Kukan, the Slovakian minister of foreign affairs and assisting the UN Secretary General in the peace process. Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Bildt discussed the peace process and ways of bringing about a UN resolution.

As I have said to G-8 members, to NATO and to the UN, we continue to try and give Mr. Milosevic and his government every opportunity to agree to a reasonable peace. In no way are we trying to humiliate the Serbs, but it has now become very clear that the Serbian leader and his government want to accuse all Kosovars of violating human and international rights. NATO has therefore decided to undertake this process to protect the citizens of Yugoslavia.

• 1605

There are now close to two million refugees in Kosovo and the neighboring countries of Macedonia and Albania. In the order to achieve the hoped-for diplomatic solution, Mr. Milosevic needs to start sending out much clearer, concrete signals then the ones we have received thus far.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you, Mr. Lebel.

[English]

Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, I wonder if you could give us the overall success rate for the total number of missions the CF-18s have flown. In that respect, how are we doing, compared to other NATO allies, with the accuracy and the number of missions?

My second question is to Mr. LeBane or Mr. Wright. How is Canada doing vis-à-vis our acceptance of refugees compared to other NATO countries?

Thank you.

LGen Raymond Henault: Thank you for that.

Our success rate with the weapons we've been employing so far, which have included a variety of both precision-guided and non-precision weapons, has been very good. I don't have the exact percentages at the moment, but I do know that for the targets we've been able to engage with our precision-guided munitions, the accuracy of those weapons is in excess of 60%, which is very consistent with the accuracy and success rates our allies have achieved with the same types of precision-guided munitions. Therefore we're right in what we call the ballpark with the weapons, and we're very happy with how they're performing, both the GBU-12s and GBU-10s and the other weapons we have employed there now.

The success rate of the aircraft has also been very good. So far we've been managing to keep, on an average and consistent basis, in excess of 70% of our aircraft airborne, or operational, as we call it. Therefore the additional aircraft that were put into theatre have been very effective in providing us with that continuous capability to accelerate our mission progress and go from the four we started with to 12, then 16, and now up to 20 missions per day.

So overall success rates have been very reasonable, and we're very satisfied both with the weapons procedures and of course with the value and the calibre of training our pilots have gotten.

I would add that in virtually all of those cases where we have not released weapons, it's been because of a very strong desire on the part of the pilots to minimize the collateral damage they could cause by releasing inadvertently or releasing without proper identification of the target. So in all cases it's been a very professional show on the part of all the aircrew and the ground crew who have been supporting the operation.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: As for how we are doing compared to other countries in providing safe haven, presently we're in seventh position in terms of the number of people we've assisted, and that's approximately 2,000.

Countries that have done more than us include Germany, Norway, and Turkey, as examples. But you have to understand that Madam Ogata made an earlier appeal for safe haven in the European region, so they started moving out these refugees some two weeks earlier than the appeal we responded to. I suspect that as we draw closer to the end of the evacuation, our position, our ranking, will be higher.

We are taking out approximately 260 refugees per day. Some countries are matching that. Some countries are doing it irregularly. The Americans have three flights a week out. Other countries have responded in different ways. Norway, for example, has been very generous, and they've responded by taking medical evacuation cases only. So we're talking about different timeframes and different responses.

Some of the countries, such as Austria, which has taken out approximately the same number as we have, have also established and funded refugee camps in Albania. That's another type of response.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): We're over time, and SCONDVA meets here in five minutes, but there are two more colleagues with questions. I want a very brief question and a very brief answer, please, from Mr. Turp and then Mr. Earle.

• 1610

Mr. Daniel Turp: Jim, you told us before that you are not a very knowledgeable international lawyer, but I think you're more knowledgeable than you say you are.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Daniel Turp: Could you brief the committee on what's happening in The Hague at the International Court of Justice?

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Try to be very brief, Mr. Wright, or we'll have to wait until Thursday.

Mr. Jim Wright: In fact I will leave with the committee documentation on the court case that is proceeding there.

As you may know, the Yugoslavian government has made a number of allegations against 10 NATO countries, including Canada. These range from illegal use of force to genocide. It is a very important proceeding, and I would encourage you to read the documentation we're going to leave with the committee. It summarizes exactly the nature of the provisional hearing that's under way right now, as well as the Canadian position in the case.

Simply put, while the matter is before the court and we can't get into it in an enormous amount of detail, we can indicate that the Canadian government rejects very categorically the allegations made by Yugoslavia. We frankly find it curious that Yugoslavia only submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this court a few weeks ago, in preparation for this proceeding. For months and months it has been ignoring repeated resolutions passed by the UN Security Council demanding that Yugoslavia meet its obligation under international law to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the other court in The Hague.

Frankly, if their standard of behaviour were as pure as they are presenting themselves at the international court in The Hague, they would have been cooperating with the other court, at which Madame Louise Arbour is the chief prosecutor, and they would have turned over indicted war criminals such as Radovan Karadzic, General Mladic, Arkan, and the Vukovar three, all of whom we know are resident in Yugoslavia.

So I'll leave the documentation with the committee, and if you have questions next time, I'd be happy to answer them.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thanks very much. We'll be brief. We have another briefing of course on Thursday.

Do you have a very brief last question, Mr. Earle?

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Yes.

To Mr. Wright, I raised at a previous briefing the question of the alleged request for a meeting by Milosevic with President Clinton. You didn't have any information at that time. Do you have any further information on that?

Mr. Jim Wright: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Earle, the Americans have not made that letter public. They've made reference to it.

You're absolutely right in reminding us that you had put this question to us before. Again, as I answered last time, I think I know what the answer to the question is: that there would be no intention on the part of the President of the United States... I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I would be extremely surprised if the President of the United States would be prepared to meet with Slobodan Milosevic at the present time.

What the President of the United States is looking for and what the Prime Minister of Canada and the foreign minister of Canada are looking for is a very clear signal from President Milosevic and from his government that they are prepared to work constructively with the international community. We're not looking for a half-response. We're not looking for gestures such as release of soldiers who never should have been picked up in the first place. We're looking for a substantive response to the questions that have been sitting in front of President Milosevic for eight or nine weeks.

He has failed to engage seriously the international community. We hope he does so shortly.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Earle.

General, Mr. Wright, and staff, thank you very much once again. We'll see you again on Thursday.

The meeting is adjourned.