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]

Thursday, May 13, 1999

• 1520

[English]

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)): I call to order the joint meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Welcome, General Henault and Mr. Wright, and again Mr. LeBane and Mr. Bassett. Welcome to all of you.

We're approaching the end of this particular work time. I know you must be extremely busy gentlemen, so we appreciate your continuing to come twice a week and meet with us. Of course we announced that next week there are no briefings. I'm sure the general and Mr. Wright and the other staff can use whatever little break that means for them, though I know they're busy otherwise as well. So we won't be meeting next week, unless there is some extremely important development, at which time we'll convene a special meeting.

With that reminder, I'll go to the witnesses.

General, are you going to lead off today?

Lieutenant-General Raymond R. Henault (Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Yes, if you permit, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'll lead off, to be followed by Mr. Wright and then Mr. LeBane with a short update on the refugee situation as well.

[Translation]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

[English]

As we're well aware, NATO's military action continues against the Yugoslav Republic, with around-the-clock air attacks against bridges, major road and rail routes, Yugoslavia's oil refining capability, fuel storage sites, ammunition storage sites, radio relay sites, and finally fielded forces in Kosovo. This is the standard list of targets that I have reported to you previously.

[Translation]

NATO strikes are continuing against select targets with the primary goal being to isolate, disrupt and destroy the forces engaged in ethnic cleansing operations in Kosovo.

[English]

Fifty days into the air campaign, NATO has now flown about 20,000 sorties, of which approximately 5,000 or 6,000—in the neighbourhood of one-third—have been strike sorties.

General Wesley Clark, the Supreme Allied Commander, provided an assessment of the air campaign to the North Atlantic Council on Tuesday. A number of things can be concluded from this assessment in general terms.

With respect to strategic targets, the strike sorties have inflicted moderate damage or higher to 75% of the electronic warfare, missile, anti-aircraft artillery, command and control, airfield, fielded forces, industry, POL, and leadership targets.

The air campaign is working on both strategic and tactical levels, with the greatest success in the air campaign having been achieved at the strategic level—that is, command and control systems, communications, and so on. As I know you understand from the discussions we've had previously, inflicting damage on ground forces and the related military equipment has proven to be more difficult. That difficulty is also raised by the continuing desire to minimize collateral damage.

[Translation]

Ground forces are more difficult targets to hit then strategic ones in view of their mobility, their use of various kinds of camouflage techniques and, in some cases, their use of human shields. Nevertheless, our relentless strikes have undoubtedly weakened ground forces and certainly affected their morale.

Let me point out that an estimated 15 to 20 per cent of the armored vehicles in Kosovo have been hit and that this figure could even be as high as 25 per cent.

[English]

Despite claims to the contrary by the Serbs, there is still no clear evidence of a significant withdrawal of Serb military and police forces. There has been some repositioning, I think we can conclude. There have been some bus movements of people and so on, but there have been no movements of heavy equipment or combat equipment that would indicate a withdrawal of any importance.

The air campaign itself has yet to peak in intensity and in its effect on President Milosevic and his forces. Better weather and more aircraft—and again, SACEUR has requested additional assets—will in the weeks ahead bring increasingly significant results, in our view. We are turning now to better weather conditions.

It is becoming more difficult by the day to balance the demands of the air campaign and facilitate humanitarian operations—and both of them are working very much in lockstep—as the number of NGO-sponsored convoys increases, with the commensurate risk of collateral damage. All the NATO allies are being very cautious in the knowledge that some land-based NGO movements are going on in Kosovo. The last thing we would want to do is engage a convoy of that nature.

• 1525

[Translation]

We review our target identification process frequently in order to prevent errors similar to the one involving the Chinese embassy.

[English]

SACEUR's mission will become increasingly more challenging as the relatively easy—I hate to call them easy, but easier—stationary infrastructure targets are eliminated or struck again if they have to be struck again in the context of the campaign, and as we go into greater operations and as greater emphasis is placed on the tactical targets we know in Kosovo.

In terms of the maritime dimension and turning to the visit-and-search regime—we've discussed it previously in this forum, and I know you're very aware of many of the implications of the regime—that is still under review by the North Atlantic Council. Assuming it does approve the visit-and-search regime, though, NATO authorities have endorsed the deployment of the Standing Naval Force Atlantic into the Mediterranean, under the command of Canadian Commodore David Morse, to transfer operational command to and operate under the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, as opposed to the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic.

[Translation]

NATO forces continue to lend substantial support to NGOs and government institutions in Macedonia and Albania.

[English]

Briefly I'll go through Canada's contribution. Our CF-18s in Aviano—I remind you there are 18, and they're still in theatre—continue to fly a combination of battlefield air interdiction missions, combat air support, and combat air patrol missions, with an average sortie rate of about 16 per day.

[Translation]

The number of daily sorties was increased several days ago to 20, up from the normal rate of about 16 sorties per day.

[English]

To give you an indication or a benchmark, especially since we won't be here next week, to date Task Force Aviano has flown approximately 400 sorties. It's in excess of that now actually. That represents about 1,500 flying hours for the CF-18s. Approximately 400 weapons, both precision-guided and non-precision-guided, have been dropped on targets on about 100 of those particular sorties.

[Translation]

Generally speaking, we are extremely satisfied and proud of the highly professional manner in which our CF-18 pilots and maintenance crew have handled their duties in the theatre of operations and during their missions. We are also very proud of the Canadians who have been called upon to serve in all areas, including the manning of AWACs aircraft which continue to back operations by flying several sorties per day.

[English]

I would also like you to note that the command of Task Force Aviano changed this week, from Colonel Dwight Davies, who you may have heard on the radio or seen on television over the last several weeks, to a new commander, Colonel André Viens, who is now in the seat. He relieved Colonel Davies just yesterday.

Colonel Viens, I would add, is a very experienced F-18 pilot. He has been a squadron commander. He's gone over to theatre with the full knowledge of what his responsibilities are. He's highly respected, and we have every faith he will do an excellent job, just as Colonel Davies has done.

In fact we have congratulated Colonel Davies very emphatically on the outstanding job he's done since he's been in theatre. He has been there since the outset of the operation. Colonel Davies will be in Ottawa tomorrow, briefing the senior leadership of National Defence, and is expected to also appear on the normal media briefing at lunchtime tomorrow.

Finally, our mission preparations continue for the deployment of our land peacekeeping element. The helicopters are en route; they are going through Ottawa today on their way to Montreal. As we've reported previously, they will load onto the ship with the other equipment for a sailing out of the port of Montreal hopefully around 25 May.

• 1530

The final thing I would mention to you is a costing update. I'd just note that the total incremental cost as of 7 May, so just a few days ago, was $40.3 million, of which $19.8 million, or roughly $20 million, has been spent since the start of the air campaign on 24 March. We keep a rolling total of course, and we will report to you periodically on the amounts that have been expended.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. Wright.

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

The diplomatic process continues. Minister Axworthy had a constructive dialogue yesterday with both Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov and U.S. Secretary of State Albright.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.)): Ex-foreign minister, right?

Mr. Jim Wright: No, he's still the foreign minister. He's the caretaker foreign minister.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): Okay.

Mr. Jim Wright: We hope he can stay on. In fact that was one of the first items we asked him to clarify: whether or not he was still the foreign minister. He reassured Mr. Axworthy that indeed he was.

This will be a decision up to the Prime Minister, when the Prime Minister is confirmed by the Russian Parliament. The Russian Parliament in fact has to vote on the nomination by President Yeltsin. The nomination is Mr. Stepashin. They have to vote on Mr. Stepashin by next Wednesday.

The voting is complicated a little bit by virtue of the fact that five articles of impeachment are being voted on, I think by Saturday, in the Duma. So as the people in the media say, watch this space to see what happens. But for the time being, Mr. Ivanov is there and is doing his best to stay constructively engaged on the Kosovo crisis with his fellow G-8 foreign ministers.

[Translation]

Discussions have taken place further to last week's meeting of the G-8 foreign affairs ministers. Mr. Axworthy has also obtained further details about the visit to Moscow of U.S. Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. The ministers have agreed to carefully analyze the outcome of the talks now underway to decide what their next move will be.

[English]

French President Chirac is in Moscow today meeting with President Yeltsin. The German Chancellor, Mr. Schroeder, was in Beijing. NATO and the G-8 remain firmly engaged with both Russia and China, each of which must play an important role in the settlement of the Kosovo crisis.

After meeting with German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer yesterday, moderate Kosovar leader Dr. Ibrahim Rugova announced his support for the G-8 peace plan. He also reiterated that Serb forces need to withdraw and that a strong international force, including NATO troops, must be deployed in Kosovo in order for refugees to return home in safety.

Minister Axworthy will be travelling to Norway next week for a meeting of foreign ministers of the Partnership on Human Security. The focus of these discussions is the whole range of issues on the human security agenda. We know, however, that Mr. Axworthy will be using a considerable amount of his time there to discuss the Kosovo crisis.

I would only note that a number of his G-8, NATO, and Security Council colleagues will be there, and that includes the foreign ministers from the Netherlands, Norway, and Slovenia. Slovenia of course is on the UN Security Council right now. Foreign Minister Vollebaek of Norway is also the chairman in office for the OSCE, so he plays an important role in the ongoing diplomatic process regarding Kosovo.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Madam Sadako Ogata, will be addressing the Norway meeting, and Mr. Axworthy will meet with her separately at that time to discuss the refugee crisis and the humanitarian crisis in and around Kosovo.

En route to Norway, Mr. Axworthy will stop in Paris to meet with Foreign Minister Védrine. Kosovo will be the major subject of discussion. Mr. Védrine of course was in Moscow in advance of Mr. Chirac's visit, so there will be a lot of comparing notes on the mood in Moscow, the engagement of Mr. Chernomyrdin, and the engagement of Mr. Ivanov.

[Translation]

Our common goal remains to use the G-8 plan as a starting point for the adoption of a Security Council resolution to advance the peace process. However, in order to achieve this goal, we need a signal of some kind from Belgrade.

• 1535

[English]

As the general has indicated, there have been reports of modest Serb troop withdrawals from Kosovo. These are in very small numbers. NATO needs very clear verification to ensure the validity of these reports and also to determine just how significant a withdrawal we are talking about. To date it looks very modest indeed.

[Translation]

There is no indication yet that Serb leaders are prepared to accept the five conditions put forward by the international community. Half measures won't do.

[English]

We would also note that while Belgrade claims a troop withdrawal is taking place, we also witnessed, yesterday and today, fairly major incursions by Serb forces into Albania. That's not exactly the type of withdrawal we were looking for.

We spoke earlier this week about the case before the International Court of Justice in The Hague. I can report to the committee now that the pleadings by Yugoslavia and the 10 NATO allies named in the case are now completed.

[Translation]

Our position is that this action does not do justice to the court, to the peace process or to the rule of law.

As for the provisional measures sought by Yugoslavia, calling an end to NATO air strikes would cause irreparable harm and only delay the end of the conflict in Kosovo. The actions of the Yugoslav regime are the true cause of this conflict. A lasting resolution to the crisis in Kosovo is possible only if the ethnic cleansing campaign ends and the deliberate attacks on civilians cease.

[English]

The court is expected to rule on the provisional measures as early as next week, but we don't have any more precision as to when that will actually take place.

Finally, with respect to the UN Security Council, the council will be briefed today by the UN Secretariat, the office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs, on the situation in Kosovo and surrounding countries.

One final note: the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, is in Belgrade today. Her requested meeting with President Milosevic was denied. This is further evidence, from our perspective, of his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his campaign of ethnic cleansing.

That concludes my opening remarks.

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

Mr. LeBane.

Mr. Jeff LeBane (Director General, International Relations, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Mr. Chair, members, I'd like to give you an update on how we are doing with the humanitarian evacuation.

As you will recall, on April 30 Madam Ogata requested countries outside Europe to provide safe haven to the best of their ability, and Canada agreed to take 5,000 of these refugees and provide safe haven for them. To date we have flown to Canada and provided with temporary safe haven 2,252 of them. We have daily flights arriving and alternating between our military bases at Trenton and Greenwood. On each flight are approximately 260 refugees.

Yesterday Madam Robillard visited the military camp at Greenwood to review reception facilities and to meet with some of the refugees. Many indicated to her how thankful they were to Canada, but that their intent was to go back at some point in time, when they could go back.

Tonight we will have another planeload of refugees arriving at Greenwood—approximately 260—and with their arrival tonight, we will be at mid-point in our 5,000 commitment. We now rank fifth in the world in responding to Madam Ogata's appeal of April 30; we follow Germany, Turkey, France, and Norway.

We have a secondary program as well, the family reunification program, where Canadians have indicated that they have relatives in Albania and Macedonia. Approximately 1,700 family members have been identified to us in those two countries.

• 1540

We have now brought to Canada, as refugees for permanent resettlement, 295 persons, 75% coming from Macedonia and 25% from Albania. I have provided for you a statistical handout.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Bassett, did you have some comments as well?

Mr. Charles Bassett (Vice-President, Central and Eastern Europe Branch, Canadian International Development Agency): I have just one brief update that may be helpful, on the funding situation of UNHCR.

Well, it's a deficit funding situation. They're out of money.

[Translation]

In terms of funding UNHCR activities, Canada's normal level of funding would place it tenth overall.

[English]

We're already in certainly fifth, maybe fourth, position in terms of contributions.

The problem Mrs. Ogata has is in fact the European countries, who are pledging and have pledged considerable amounts but have not in fact transferred any money. So the Canadian position vis-à-vis UNHCR puts us well ahead of where we would normally be, and in fact well ahead of others who should be contributing far more than us.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): We're writing the cheques, and they're not.

Mr. Charles Bassett: That's right.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Thank you very much for those remarks.

I'm going to start with Mr. Graham, who has another commitment in a few minutes.

Mr. Graham.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): Mr. Wright, could you take us back to your analysis of the Russian situation? In particular, to what extent is the specific mission conferred upon the former Prime Minister, Mr. Chernomyrdin, affected by the crisis over the cabinet formation? Does that mean all his activities must wait in abeyance until the unlikely approval by the Duma of the new Prime Minister, or does he have full authority to carry on, on behalf of the Russian government, his work in engaging Russia in this process? And if he does, do you see that this is going to seriously impact on or interfere with that process or not?

Mr. Jim Wright: I would give a couple of answers. Number one, Mr. Chernomyrdin was appointed by the President, so his activities as special envoy to Kosovo continue. They are not directly affected by Mr. Yeltsin's decision to dismiss the Primakov government.

Having said that, I think it's also fair to say the constitutional developments over the past few days do add an additional wrinkle to the Russian engagement in the Kosovo process. I would say simply that a lot is happening in the area of domestic politics in Russia right now.

As I indicated at the outset, a number of very important votes will be taking place over the course of the next few days in the Russian Parliament, the Duma, on articles of impeachment. Some press reports suggest there is a distinct possibility that one of those articles could be passed, and that article in particular relates to the President's engagement in the crisis in Chechnya. Obviously we'll have to wait and see.

The proposed appointment of Mr. Stepashin I suspect sends a pretty clear signal to the Duma, since Mr. Stepashin was one of the real hard-liners in dealing with the Chechnya crisis a number of years ago. So we'll have to see how the Duma deals with this.

In the event that one of the articles of impeachment is passed, the matter is then referred to the Constitutional Court in Russia. In theory, under the new Russian Constitution, Mr. Yeltsin is not in a position to dismiss the Duma once an article of impeachment has been passed by the Russian Parliament. So we're breaking new ground in terms of testing the new Russian Constitution of 1991.

• 1545

As I said, the Duma has up until next Wednesday to vote on Mr. Stepashin. Mr. Yeltsin has the opportunity, under the Russian Constitution, to submit a candidate up to three times to the Duma. If the Duma three times rejects whichever candidate or succession of candidates Mr. Yeltsin puts forward, then the President in theory is entitled to dismiss the Duma, except if articles of impeachment have been passed, and then constitutionally he's not allowed to do so. So we'll have to see how all of this plays out.

We will also have parliamentary elections in Russia in December, so the Duma may be inclined to be a bit more aggressive in addressing this issue with the President. We also face presidential elections in Russia in June 2000.

So it would only be fair to point out to the committee that a lot of what we're seeing right now, including some of the statements about Kosovo, I would say, has to be seen through the prism of Russian domestic politics.

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Bill Graham): Thank you.

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

Mr. Clouthier.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Jim, Bill asked one of my questions on developments in Russia. What about the update on the Chinese situation with the UN Security Council?

Mr. Jim Wright: I can report that a number of discussions are taking place in the UN Security Council now. The Chinese are trying to see whether or not it is possible to have what's referred to as a presidential statement issued by the Security Council on the bombing of their embassy in Belgrade. Canada is working very closely with the Chinese, as are other members of NATO, to try to come up with a formula that's acceptable to the Chinese.

The second level of activity with the Chinese relates to a resolution that a number of countries have been trying to promote for some time now on humanitarian relief in and around Kosovo. Regardless of how people feel about the diplomatic process, the end game, many countries recognize that there is an urgent humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and neighbouring countries. We're trying to see whether or not the Security Council can come to a consensus on this issue.

Again, I would have to comment that the attitude of China certainly has been affected by the events of the past few days—the bombing of their embassy. The leadership of NATO countries has gone out of its way to apologize and explain the circumstances. The Supreme Allied Commander in NATO met with the North Atlantic Council last night to explain in detail what happened and to demonstrate some of the changes that have been put in place with respect to targeting to ensure to the best of everyone's ability that this type of mistake will never happen again.

All of this has been explained very carefully to the Chinese, including, as recently as today, by the German Chancellor, Mr. Schroeder. We're doing our best to try to stay on the diplomatic track. We are attaching the highest priority to the diplomatic track at the same time as NATO is pursuing the military track.

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

Mr. Turp and then Mrs. Finestone.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three questions.

General Henault, we've heard that the Serbian army was resorting to the tactical redeployment of its troops in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. With you care to comment on this and could you tell us if the this is also NATO's assessment of the situation?

Mr. Bassett, yesterday in the House, I asked the minister if Canada had in fact awarded $5 million to the UNHCR. She responded in the affirmative, and I believe that that was the correct answer. However, I also asked her at the same time it Canada was prepared to contribute a further $20 million in aid, as pledged, to the UNHCR, in light of the serious problems the organization was having. It has run out of money and apparently, by the end of May, it will be registering a $41 million shortfall. Its operating deficit could grow even larger by June. The figure of $150 million was even mentioned, setting aside the contributions that have yet to be paid by the Europeans, if I understand correctly. Is Canada prepared to make an extra effort to help the UNHCR weather this financial crisis?

• 1550

Mr. Wright, I was surprised by Canada's pleading before the International Court. It confined itself to arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction and that the request should be thrown out because Yugoslavia's hands were not clean. This is perhaps a more convincing argument than the first one. I don't know if you're aware of this, but in the matter of Bosnia-Herzegovina vs Yugoslavia, the fact that Yugoslavia was not a member of the United Nations did not stop the court from ordering provisional measures. If the court were to order a halt to the strikes, what position would Canada take?

LGen Raymond Henault: Mr. Turp, according to the images we are receiving from our airborne sensors and to the reports coming in from several sources, including the UCK, it is our understanding that counter-insurrection operations are continuing inside Kosovo, even though the Serbs have indicated that a withdrawal of forces was underway. We have observed that operations are continuing and, as Mr. Wright mentioned, this is true in all regions. Minor skirmishes continue to erupt along the Albanian border, further evidence, in our view, that the Serbs have not withdrawn from the most disputed areas along the borders.

According to our airborne sensors and our sources, troop movements are relatively minor. Moreover, as television reports showed, the only kind of movements taking place were bus movements of troops and that sort of thing. This doesn't correspond to our definition of a significant withdrawal, one that implies an end to the use of such means as artillery, armored vehicles and so forth. According to our definition, a significant withdrawal would mean the withdrawal of troops from an area in which they are well entrenched, namely a line of hills or a fortified zone. However, that is not happening.

Therefore, for the time being, we view these as tactical withdrawals aimed at strengthening or renewing Serb troops. This has been an ongoing pattern inside Kosovo, although outside the disputed province, nothing like this has been occurring. The Serbs have always moved their troops around inside Kosovo to meet operational requirements. There is no indication whatsoever at this time that the Serbs have begun a significant withdrawal, at least according to NATO's definition.

• 1555

Mr. Charles Bassett: In answer to your second question, as you know, Canada has always been one of the most generous supporters of the UN and of organizations like the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. In making this second contribution, we have demonstrated that we were not locked into our normal contribution pattern when exceptional circumstances arise. Obviously, there are other factors to consider, notably that our resources are limited. Other funding options are available through the international Red Cross. Three or four Canadian NGOs are operating in the area, including CARE Canada, the CCCI and Doctors without Borders. We must endeavor to strike a balance while bearing in mind our budget constraints. We are in contact on a regular basis with Madam Ogata, and she knows that she can count on our support. Briefly, to answer your question, I would say that Canada would agree to contribute more if Madam. Ogata were to make such a request of it, because the UNHCR is in dire straits.

We are also trying to put some pressure on our European partners. We understand the procedural problems they are encountering, but under exceptional circumstances, it isn't wise to hide behind procedure. We have set some of our procedures aside in order to respond more rapidly and our partners can do likewise. Therefore, we are putting pressure on them to come through with some financial aid.

Mr. Daniel Turp: As I understand it, the Americans haven't yet contributed all the money pledged.

Mr. Charles Bassett: The United States, currently the second- largest donor country, came through with their second installment yesterday. Japan and the United States are the largest donors and they have already contributed the amounts pledged.

Mr. Jim Wright: That's a very good question. Fortunately, it's a hypothetical question.

Some members: Oh! Oh!

Mr. Daniel Turp: I realize that.

Mr. Jim Wright: My department's legal counsel has advised me not to comment because this matter is now before the World Court and a decision has not yet been handed down. I hope that once a ruling is made sometime in the next few days, I can give you a clearer answer. Our agent, Mr. Kirsch, has advised me not to speculate before the World Court makes a preliminary ruling. Although I have to admit that yours was a very good question.

Mr. Daniel Turp: The ruling is not going to be an easy one to make.

[English]

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Ms. Finestone.

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Thank you very much.

My first question goes to you, Mr. LeBane. Are the Americans not in receipt of any refugees? You listed Germany, Turkey, France, Norway, and then Canada. I wonder where the Americans are. I'd like to know.

My second question goes to you, Jim. Maybe it's a hypothetical question too; I don't know. As Mr. Axworthy is going to the meeting of the Partnership on Human Security and they're looking at the peace plan, I'm anxious to know if on that agenda would be, as part of the peace plan, an obligation for enabling the removal of the landmines. If we're concerned about refugee and humanitarian relief, even to get there will be a serious problem. It would seem that if the Yugoslavs laid those mines, they should participate in the removal of same. I hope it will be included.

My third question goes to, I would think, Lieutenant-General Henault. I don't know how many of you happened to have had a report on or heard the special two-hour program on CBC last night, headed by Michael Enright in Toronto, where they had Michael Bliss, John Crispo, Anna Maria Tremonti, Mark Starowicz, and a whole gang. I must say that when I listened, I was quite discouraged.

First of all, for Anna Maria Tremonti to have to defend what she does under such difficult circumstances... It was enough to make you weep, frankly, that there was such a lack of appreciation, or ignorance, from the crowd.

Secondly, John Crispo was the only one who had the courage to say exactly what he thought about the undertaking by Canada and the rest of the NATO countries, and the only one who had the courage to also talk about the United Nations and the Security Council.

• 1600

Mark Starowicz defended, but the general sense I got was that the propaganda machine, sir—that's why I'm addressing it to you—has really taken over the presentation of the real facts. There is such skepticism as to the truth of what we're hearing in the managed press releases, along with the lack of credibility of both those who are making the press conferences and some of the reporters. I found that extremely discouraging.

If civil society is reacting in this way... I would hope that's not the true case in Canada, and I don't think it is, but on the other hand, it certainly is a warning about how your press conferences are taking place, the credibility of who's delivering the message, and the clarity of Canada's position as independent from that of both America and NATO countries. So I'd like to know what your sense was.

Mr. Jeff LeBane: On the first question, the United States agreed to provide safe haven to approximately 20,000 refugees from Kosovo. They have changed their thinking. They were thinking of providing safe haven outside the continental United States. They are now following our model. They are bringing them to the United States. They're having a military base receive them and then they're doing a similar distribution to ours. So they have followed our model.

We were on the ground in Macedonia and Albania much earlier and faster than the Americans. They have brought to the United States to date approximately 1,500 refugees. They are not working on a daily flight basis, as we are. They have three flights a week, and each flight has about 480 persons on it. So they're behind us, to date.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Thank you.

Mr. Jim Wright: On the question of the landmines, Mrs. Finestone, it is very much a priority for the Canadian government. We ensured in the Rambouillet process, and if you read—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Excuse me, Jim. I read that Rambouillet document, and I didn't see one word that would have included the obligation to include landmines in the peace plan and the obligation to participate in the removal of same. Did I misread it somewhere? I might well have.

Mr. Jim Wright: I'm under the impression—and I may be wrong here, but I don't think so—that in fact there is language in there that deals specifically with landmines and the necessity to remove them. There is not a reference to the Ottawa treaty. In fact—

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I don't care about the Ottawa treaty.

Mr. Jim Wright: Well, we do.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I care about the principle.

Mr. Jim Wright: We did get language in the Rambouillet text that talks about removing landmines. I don't have the text with me right now. Oh, in fact I may have it here. I'll take a look right afterwards.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: We could go to my office and get it.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: So it would be in a peace treaty?

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Could you finish up, please? I have other members waiting.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Okay; I'm sorry.

Mr. Jim Wright: In the case of Bosnia, the armies that were responsible for laying those landmines did have responsibility for picking them up afterwards. This was absolutely part of the Dayton peace process, and I know that's what the international community has in mind with respect to the Yugoslav community as well.

It's a good question. It's a question we've been asking right from the very beginning. I know when Mr. Axworthy was in Macedonia, he made a point of meeting with a number of the non-governmental organizations concerned about the issue of landmines. I think it's called Handicap International that's on the ground in Macedonia.

So we're mindful of this, and we will continue to ensure the international community respects this in the peace process that unfolds.

I'm afraid I didn't get a chance to listen to all of the CBC debate last night. I was working very late at the office. I did hear some elements of it. I was discouraged by some of what I heard. I was surprised at some of the reaction to Anna Maria Tremonti, who I know very well, and I know the work she has done, under extremely difficult circumstances.

• 1605

In terms of skepticism about managed press releases, I can't speak to that, other than to say we are trying, on a daily basis and on a weekly basis—and I don't just mean we officials, but ministers as well—to engage Parliament, parliamentary committees, and the Canadian media and get our messages across. We are trying to ensure that, to the best of our ability, we are explaining to the Canadian media exactly what our ministers are doing and exactly what the Canadian government is doing on a daily basis.

Some of what we're involved with we're not able to talk about in an enormous amount of detail. It's called quiet diplomacy for good reasons. As soon as you put a UN Security Council resolution on the table and give it to the media, 200 people turn around and say, “This is wrong, this is wrong, and this is wrong, and it's not going to work.”

Here and by other means, we are doing the best we can to get the information out as best we can. All of us are hindered by the fact that in the case of Yugoslavia, they are refusing to allow many journalists to come into the country. That includes Anna Maria Tremonti.

I have discussed this issue on very many occasions with the Yugoslav ambassador, saying to him, “Why are you refusing to allow the Canadian journalists to come in? All they want to do is report on what is happening on the ground. They'll report it whether it favours Yugoslavia or whether it favours NATO.”

So as far as I'm concerned, one of the biggest problems we're running into is an absence of accurate news coming out of Yugoslavia right now. The organization that shoulders the responsibility for that is the Yugoslav government.

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

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: May I just recommend that Mr. Wright meet with Mr. Michael Bliss?

The Co-Chairman (Mr. Pat O'Brien): Okay. Recommendation noted.

Mr. Pratt, and then Monsieur Laurin.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

A little while back, Lieutenant-General, we heard about the issue of munitions supply. Has there been anything recent on whether or not NATO is in fact running out of munitions and whether or not it's going to hamper operations?

As well, I'd be interested in knowing if you have any recent figures on the daily refugee flow into Macedonia and Albania.

And I suppose this last question is directed at you, Mr. Wright. Are there any indications whatsoever of any cracks in the Milosevic regime at this point? We had the removal of Mr. Vuk Draskovic a few weeks ago, and I'm wondering if there's been any fallout from that. Is there any indication that support for the regime is faltering?

LGen Raymond Henault: I think I can take the first couple of those and then pass it to Jim after I've made my comments on the last one.

I would only add one more thing on the landmines. We are involved in landmine demining, if you like, in several parts of the world, including Cambodia, Bosnia, and others. It is our policy to train the removers as opposed to actually doing the removal ourselves. That goes for all of the warring factions that were involved. That's how we do business in Cambodia; that's how we do it in Bosnia. That is very much our policy, and we do it very effectively. We train them very well. The removals are going on, but it takes a long time to remove mines. It's a very tedious process and a very dangerous one of course.

In terms of munitions, we have been getting excellent support from the U.S. They have been updating our munitions supplies. We have acquired GBU-10s from them, which are the 2,000-pound bombs; they were provided to us in Aviano. We have sufficient stocks to last us for quite a while yet. We also have additional stocks of GBU-12s.

I have no indications at the moment that there are going to be any shortages of weapons in that respect. Certainly the stock levels I'm aware of are very adequate for what we're doing. We are using weapons appropriate to the targets that are being assigned to us. So for the time being, that's actually going very well.

• 1610

I can't speak for other nations. For example, I can't speak to how well the Americans are doing. Of course they are the source of our stocks, so if we're getting good stocks, then I'm assuming their weapons capability, especially in laser-guided or gravity bombs, is quite sufficient from their point of view as well.

The refugee flow has been up and down. I would hate to even predict what it is right now, because it changes quite dramatically and continually. Although we have seen days where the refugee flow across the border is in the small tens, if you like—60 or 70 total—the next day it's thousands. So it's very hard to predict.

But at the moment the refugee flows are very light. We do know there are several IDPs, internally displaced persons, still behind the border. Anything can happen in that respect, so it's a little unpredictable. But at the moment, the borders, unless Jeff has different information from mine, are not clogged with refugees waiting to come in. It's been relatively light in the last little while.

I don't think I can comment too much on whether there are cracks in the regime. As Mrs. Finestone was saying earlier, the propaganda machine coming out of Serbia is what it is, and we can't really put any faith in what we see in that respect. But there's nothing to indicate to us at the moment, from a military point of view anyway, that the regime is about to crack or do any coup type of operation or anything of that nature. President Milosevic appears to remain in firm control of his country.

Mr. Jim Wright: We are seeing some intelligence that there's discontent in the military. It's not a lot, but we're seeing some.

On the political front, it's difficult. Milosevic does not suffer opposition, so it's extremely difficult. When you're holding political office, either you're with him or you're against him, and if you're against him, you're in trouble.

That is especially true also with respect to the media. A number of very effective independent media outlets were going up to the start of the NATO bombardment. All of those have been shut down. Basically the people of Yugoslavia only hear what Milosevic wants them to hear. In a sense, they don't have very much of a feel right now for the extent of the damage to their military or to the civilian and military infrastructure in the country.

I would also say I don't think they fully appreciate what has happened in Kosovo. I don't think they understand the extent of the ethnic cleansing. What is a little bit worrisome is that those who do understand what's going on have been complacent; they've been quite prepared just to stand by. All of the television footage we saw initially, of train cars filled with Kosovars and people being frog-marched out of country, was taken from Serbian television. It had a huge impact in Europe and in North America when we saw those images. It didn't have very much of an impact in Serbia. That's depressing.

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

We're over time now. A number of us have other commitments shortly. I'm going to go to the last questioner,

[Translation]

my friend, Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Wright, there's something I don't quite understand about NATO's strategy. I have to believe that Milosevic's actions prior to the commencement of the air strikes were far more serious than what NATO is now doing in Kosovo, because the actions of the former precipitated the actions on the part of the NATO alliance. And yet, Milosevic is now the one making charges and taking the matter to the International Court of Justice, putting us once again on the defensive in anticipation of an eventual ruling. We are the ones who will have to show if we are prepared to abide by the court's decision.

If Milosevic's past actions are more serious than NATO's current operations, why haven't we brought him up on charges before the International Court and compelled him to face up the consequences of failing to comply with the ruling? Given what we know about this individual, we have little reason to believe that he would comply with any decision made by this international tribunal. However, he's not going to find himself in this position. We're the ones faced with the prospect of having to defend our compliance or non-compliance with the court's ruling, whereas in my view, I think we had valid reasons for bringing the man up on charges first. We could have proven that because he failed to comply with the court's ruling, we were justified in pursuing him. Why wasn't this strategy explored further?

• 1615

Mr. Daniel Turp: I believe we suggested that you follow this course of action.

[English]

Mr. Jim Wright: It's a very good question indeed. I would answer that first of all, we are well familiar with the extent to which Mr. Milosevic respects international law. Repeated resolutions have been passed by the UN Security Council obliging the Yugoslav government to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in The Hague and obliging Yugoslavia to live up to its obligations under international law. All of those have been ignored.

Secondly, Yugoslavia, up until only very recently, had absolutely no standing with that particular court. But I'm not a lawyer. Mr. Turp I'm sure would have wiser counsel in this respect than would I.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Under the genocide convention there was standing.

Mr. Jim Wright: To answer your question, this process may have been started by Mr. Milosevic, but I don't think it's going to be ended by Mr. Milosevic. Once you open that door, you should expect that the international community, the 10 countries that are appearing before the court, will use this as an opportunity to aggressively pursue the practices of the Yugoslav government.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so you would probably be better speaking directly to Philippe Kirsch, our agent acting in this case. But my sense is that even though it was Milosevic and his government who initiated this process—and yes, we do have to defend what we have done, and that's fine; that's what international law is there for—I think the 10 countries in question will also call the practices of Mr. Milosevic to account, and the Yugoslav government will have to answer to that.

So I don't think we feel particularly on the defensive in this process at all. It may appear that way simply because the process was initiated by Yugoslavia, but I don't think the process will end with Yugoslavia.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Wright, would you not agree that it would be a terrible thing if, because of the ruling by the international court, we came out on the losing end of this conflict?

Mr. Jim Wright: I am still confident.

Mr. René Laurin: I understand your position, but when a case is brought before a court, there is no way of knowing in advance what the ruling will be. If the court were to order us to halt the strikes, either Milosevic wins his case on all counts, or we are forced to bear the consequences of failing to comply with a ruling by an international court, a court that we have looked favorably upon.

Mr. Jim Wright: You are right to be concerned about this important question. That's why Canada has asked the best lawyer for the Department of Foreign Affairs to plead Canada's case in The Hague. All I can say is that your question is a valid one. Unfortunately, I don't have all the answers, but I do believe that Canada's argument and those of the nine other NATO countries will convince the World Court justices who will be handing down their provisional ruling in this matter next week. I hope that once the court has made its ruling, we will be at liberty to discuss this at greater length and that we will know how things will unfold over the next few months. This could be rather lengthy process, as is true of all cases brought before the World Court.

Mr. René Laurin: Are the nine countries presenting a joint defence or must each country argue its case separately?

Mr. Jim Wright: I believe each country will plead its own case because each country's standing before the World Court is different.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's not quite correct. You should check your facts with my parliamentary intern who has read all of the arguments presented in recent days.

• 1620

Mr. Jim Wright: Nevertheless, the 10 NATO countries have decided to plead their cases separately.

[English]

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

Gentlemen, thank you very much again for being here on this regular basis.

Unless there's some major development to make the committees reconvene next week, I expect we will reconvene the briefings on Tuesday, May 25.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.