36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 205
CONTENTS
Monday, April 12, 1999
1105
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
|
| Bill C-71. Second reading
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1110
1115
1120
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| Mr. Jim Jones |
1125
1130
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1135
1140
1145
1150
1155
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1200
1205
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1210
| Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1215
1220
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1225
| Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. John Herron |
1245
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1250
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1255
1300
1305
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1310
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1315
| Mr. John Herron |
| Mr. Réal Ménard |
1320
1325
1330
1335
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
1340
| Mr. John Herron |
1345
| Mr. Paul DeVillers |
| Mr. Richard M. Harris |
1350
1355
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| THE LATE SENATOR PAUL DAVID
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. John Williams |
1400
| THE LATE OMER DESLAURIERS
|
| Mr. Réginald Bélair |
| OC TRANSPO
|
| Mr. Ian Murray |
| OC TRANSPO
|
| Mr. Werner Schmidt |
| THE LATE JACQUES GIRARD
|
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
| GRAND RIVER
|
| Mr. Janko Peric |
1405
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| WESTERN PROVINCES
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
| NOUVELLE SCÈNE
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| THE LATE JACQUES GIRARD
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| YUGOSLAVIA
|
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1410
| MONTFORT HOSPITAL
|
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| MEMBER FOR WHITBY—AJAX
|
| Mrs. Judi Longfield |
| NATIONAL POST
|
| Mr. Jim Jones |
| TORONTO LODGE 1600
|
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1420
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1425
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. André Bachand |
1430
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1435
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1440
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
| NUNAVUT
|
| Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
| Mr. Gerry Byrne |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Chuck Strahl |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1445
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. David Price |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. David Price |
1450
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| HEALTH
|
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. Art Hanger |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1455
| DISASTERS
|
| Mr. Claude Drouin |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| KOSOVO
|
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1500
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| REFUGEES
|
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
| GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NO. 23
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| KOSOVO
|
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| Motion
|
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1510
1515
1520
1525
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1530
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1535
| Mr. André Bachand |
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1540
| Mr. Preston Manning |
1545
1550
| Amendment
|
1555
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1600
| Mr. John Herron |
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| Mr. Michel Gauthier |
| The Speaker |
1605
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1610
1615
1620
| Mr. Bill Graham |
| Mr. André Bachand |
1625
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1630
1635
1640
| Mr. Bill Graham |
1645
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1650
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
1655
1700
1705
| Amendment to Amendment
|
1710
| Hon. Fred Mifflin |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1715
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. John Nunziata |
1720
| The Deputy Speaker |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1725
1730
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1735
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. André Harvey |
1740
| Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1745
1750
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Mr. John Herron |
1755
| Mr. Art Hanger |
1800
1805
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1810
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1815
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1820
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
1825
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
1830
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1835
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1840
1845
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Mr. André Harvey |
1850
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
1855
1900
| Mr. Jacques Saada |
1905
| Mr. André Harvey |
1910
1915
| Mr. George Proud |
1920
1925
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1930
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1935
1940
| Mr. Jim Abbott |
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
1945
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
1950
1955
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
2000
| Mr. Ted McWhinney |
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
2005
2010
| Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
2015
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
2020
2025
| Ms. Louise Hardy |
| Mr. John Nunziata |
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
2030
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
2035
| Mr. Svend J. Robinson |
2040
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
| Mr. John Nunziata |
2045
| Mr. David Price |
2050
2055
2100
| Ms. Jean Augustine |
| Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
2105
| Mr. John Cannis |
| Mrs. Sue Barnes |
2110
| Mr. Jim Karygiannis |
2115
2120
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Mr. John Bryden |
2125
| Mr. John Cannis |
2130
2135
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
2140
| Mr. Bob Mills |
2145
2150
2155
| Mr. Bill Graham |
2200
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Mr. Gérard Asselin |
2205
| Mr. Bill Graham |
2210
2215
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
2220
| Mr. Bob Mills |
| Ms. Raymonde Folco |
2225
2230
| Mr. Jay Hill |
2235
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Mr. René Laurin |
2240
2245
2250
2255
2300
| Hon. Charles Caccia |
2305
| Mr. Charlie Power |
2310
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Ms. Beth Phinney |
2315
2320
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Mr. Peter Adams |
2325
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
2330
2335
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
2340
| Mr. Keith Martin |
2345
2350
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
2355
| Mr. John McKay |
| Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
2400
2405
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
2410
| Mr. Jay Hill |
2415
| Mr. Peter Adams |
2420
| Mr. Jay Hill |
2425
2430
| Mr. John Bryden |
2435
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
| Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
2440
2445
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
2450
| Mr. John Bryden |
| Mr. John McKay |
2455
2500
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
2505
| Mr. John Bryden |
2510
2515
2520
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
2525
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
2530
2535
| Mr. John Bryden |
2540
| Mr. Daniel Turp |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
2545
2550
| Mr. Joe Comuzzi |
2555
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
2600
2605
| Mr. René Canuel |
2610
| Mr. Bob Speller |
2615
2620
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
2625
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
2630
2635
2640
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
2645
| Mr. Pat Martin |
2650
2655
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
2700
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
2705
2710
| Mr. Grant McNally |
2715
| Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
2720
| Mr. Pat Martin |
2725
| Mr. Norman Doyle |
2730
2735
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
2740
| Mr. Scott Brison |
2745
2750
| Mr. Paul Szabo |
2755
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
2800
2805
2810
2815
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
2820
2825
| Mr. John Williams |
2830
| Mr. Reed Elley |
2835
2840
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
| Mr. Grant McNally |
2845
2850
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
2855
| Mr. Odina Desrochers |
2900
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
2905
| Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
2910
2915
2920
2925
| Mr. Brent St. Denis |
2930
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
2935
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
2940
2945
| Ms. Libby Davies |
2950
2955
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
3000
| Hon. Andy Scott |
3005
3010
| Mr. John Williams |
3015
3020
| Mr. Paul Forseth |
3025
3030
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
3035
3040
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
3045
3050
| Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
3055
3100
| Mr. Ken Epp |
3105
3110
| Mr. Paul Mercier |
3115
3120
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
3125
3130
| Mr. Ken Epp |
3135
| Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
3140
3145
3150
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
3155
| Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
3200
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 205
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 12, 1999
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
1105
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): On Wednesday, April
7, 1999, I received written notice from the hon. member for
Vaudreuil—Soulanges that he was unable to move his motion during
Private Members' Business today.
[Translation]
As it was not possible to change positions on the list of
priorities, I ask the clerk to drop this motion to the bottom of
the list.
[English]
Private members' hour will thus be cancelled and the House will
now proceed to the consideration of Government Orders.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1999
The House resumed from March 17 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in parliament on February 16, 1999, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, it is
with pleasure today that I rise to speak to Bill C-71, second
reading of the Budget Implementation Act.
The recent budget failed to address many of the fundamental
issues facing Canadians. The government says that the
fundamentals are strong. Those fundamentals include an
unemployment rate that is twice that of the U.S., personal
disposal income that has dropped 7% in recent years during the
same period that the U.S. has enjoyed an 11% growth in personal
disposable income, and a productivity growth rate that the OECD
warns Canada that if we do not improve our productivity growth
rate there will be a substantial decline in our standard of
living in the next 20 years. Personal debt rates are at an
unprecedented high in Canada. The rate of personal bankruptcies
is at an unprecedented high and there is a negative savings rate.
These are the fundamentals of the Canadian economy.
When the government says the fundamentals are strong Canadians
should be suspicious of the government's confidence in its
policies. It reminds me of what John Kenneth Galbraith, the
expatriate Canadian economist, once said. He said that one
should be suspicious of governments that claim the fundamentals
are strong.
I will speak specifically to some of the issues addressed in
Bill C-71 relative to the CHST, the Canada health and social
transfer. The government will increase funding, much of which
will go to health care, by $11.5 billion over the next five
years. This will mean that by the year 2005 we will have reached
the same level of federal health care investment that we had in
1995. Although the government promotes that it is reinvesting in
health care, the fact is that it will take until 2005 to reach
the same level which health care investment by the federal
government reached in 1995.
1110
The federal government increased spending on health care and
increased transfers to the provinces for that but has not
provided a comprehensive and coherent long term strategy for
health care despite the fact that health care costs in Canada
will continue to grow by about $3 billion per year due to
changing demographics. Again this is an indication of a
government that by most accounts has a budget surplus but
continues to have a bit of a leadership deficit.
Many Canadians were appalled when the government spent $3
million of Canadian taxpayers money promoting that it was
reinvesting in health care. Many Canadians are wondering why
they did not hear ads at the time when the government was taking
up to $19 billion out of health care since 1993.
The fact is there were no such ads and the government is
engaging in a propaganda machine to try to gloss over the fact
that the same government which slashed health care and decimated
the Canadian health care system, is now putting a band-aid on the
health care system and has yet to deal with the systemic issues
of the Canadian health care system.
The Budget Implementation Act addresses the issue of the
reinvestment in social transfers. Money is being paid into a
trust fund. Some $3.5 billion of this money is being paid into a
trust fund. This is more part of the government's Mother Hubbard
approach to fiscal policy. Instead of investing the money now
into Canadian health care when Canadians need it, when the lines
to receive health care have never been longer, the government is
putting it into a trust fund from which the provinces will draw
over the next three years.
The reason the government set up this trust fund was to skirt
around the issues that the auditor general raised over the past
several budgets relative to the government's taking money out of
one year's budget to spend in the future.
While this may address in some circuitous way the auditor
general's concerns, the auditor general is not the only Canadian
who is concerned about the government's bookkeeping practices.
Not only does the government's fiscal policies offend good
bookkeeping practices. It also offends good economics. Canadians
need economic stimulus now. Canadians need a better health care
system now. This is when we need the money to be invested, not
in two years or three years.
Last year the government had a vague whiff of a surplus. What
did it do? It took $2.5 billion from that surplus and spent it
on a millennium scholarship fund. It put the money into a pot
that will not be drawn from for about three years. Not one
Canadian in the year following that budget benefited from that
$2.5 billion. Not one Canadian will benefit for another three
years, until those funds start to go out into the Canadian
public. Even at that point about 5% of students seeking higher
education will be receiving any benefit from that.
While the government claims to be trying to behave fiscally
responsibly, in fact due to its short term partisan goals and in
particular the leadership goals of the current Minister of
Finance, the government is actually betraying its trust to the
Canadian people by taking money from Canadians today when they
need it and not spending it until the future, not providing the
type of wide broad based tax relief that Canadians need, for
instance the type of investment Canadians need in health care.
The fact is the government continues to tinker with the Canadian
economy. This was referred to over the weekend at the Canadian
Tax Foundation conference, a non-partisan gathering of tax
experts from across the country. At that conference Robin
MacKnight, director of the Canadian Tax Foundation, said that in
his view there had been too much tinkering of late and that the
tinkering had introduced far too much complexity into the tax
code.
Of course the government tinkers with everything. The
government does not have any broad based long term strategy
relative to any issue, whether we look at its policies or
non-policies on the environment or at the government's strategies
on the economy.
1115
This is not the type of government that would have the courage
and vision to introduce a free trade agreement. This is not the
type of government that would recognize the importance of
eliminating a manufacturers' sales tax that punished Canadian
exporters, replacing it with a consumption tax. This is a
government that ducks the hard issues. It continues to tinker
around the margins of the real issues, as opposed to dealing with
the important problems facing the Canadian economy or any of the
wide range of issues.
Bill C-71 also addresses issues of human resource management.
It suspends the use of binding arbitration for another two years,
to the year 2001.
Recently we had an all night debate on the back to work
legislation for PSAC. During that debate I was as disillusioned
as most Canadians when I saw the government withhold information
from members of the House until after the vote on closure.
Government members as well as opposition members, including
members of the Reform Party, were successfully manipulated by the
government to support closure when a tentative agreement had been
reached with PSAC. It did not tell members of the House about
the agreement because it wanted to force back to work
legislation, to rub the noses of PSAC employees and its members a
little farther into the ground.
This is not good human resource management. At a time when the
Government of Canada has the responsibility to play a leadership
role in human resource management we are finding that the
government again is not managing the issue appropriately. The
morale in our public service has never been lower than it is now
under this government and that is because of the government's
continued disrespect for the public service and its continued
efforts to emasculate the public service.
Binding arbitration has a role to play in labour management. It
is time for the government to return to using binding arbitration
prior to using back to work legislation. Binding arbitration is
meant to be an ameliorative step to deal with problems before
using the incredibly powerful tool of back to work legislation.
The government continues to try to circumvent legitimate labour
management practices. It will not use binding arbitration. In
fact it will be another two years before it even addresses
binding arbitration.
This bill does not address effectively the issue of single
income families that are punished by the government and face a
discriminatory tax policy.
The Canadian Tax Foundation had its annual meeting this weekend.
Bob Brown, who is currently on contract with the Department of
Finance, is a leading tax expert and a member of that foundation.
He spoke to the conference and presented a paper. He said that
Canada at this moment has a tax system which provides less
recognition for the children of middle and upper income taxpayers
than any of the G-7 countries.
We are not keeping up with our G-7 partners, not only in taxes,
and Canadians face the highest income taxes of the G-7, but in
terms of social policy. Canadian single income families are
treated worse in this country than in any other G-7 country.
That is clearly inappropriate.
Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the hon. member for
Markham.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that the
hon. member's time has expired. I was not aware that he was
splitting his time.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I ask for the consent of
the House to split my time with the hon. member for Markham, and
I apologize for not having asked at the outset.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the consent of the House to split his time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
1120
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.]): Madam Speaker, I would
ask my friend if he really believes that it is irresponsible to
only spend what one has. Does he honestly believe that it is
irresponsible government to use money which is available and
spend it over time? Does he feel it is irresponsible to put in
place, for instance, a millennium scholarship fund when it can be
afforded by the country and bring Canada into the 21st century,
hopefully with the most highly educated Canadian citizens we have
ever had? Does he feel that putting money that is available now
into a trust to be spent in future years is irresponsible?
A few years back the member's predecessors speculated on whether
there would be a surplus or a shortfall in the year to come.
When there was a shortfall of perhaps $10 billion, which was the
average shortfall, some excuse would be given to explain why
targets had not been met. We were told that it was external
influences over which we had no control.
This government is simply doing its accounting in a different
way. It is not spending what it does not have. I ask him, in
all sincerity, if he considers that to be irresponsible.
Mr. Scott Brison: Madam Speaker, I think there is some
confusion on that side of the House.
The money in the fiscal surplus belongs to Canadians, who have
borne the brunt of deficit reduction. It was an effort that
began as early as 1984. In fact the Leader of Her Majesty's
Loyal Opposition has said in the House that it was the structural
changes made in the Canadian economy which allowed the current
government to pay down its deficit. Those structural changes
included free trade, the GST and the deregulation of financial
services and transportation which began under the previous
government.
The money belongs to Canadians. Canadians need that money to be
invested immediately or it should be given back to them through
tax reduction. Canadians need tax relief now, not in the future,
not 10 years down the road. They need it now and they need
significant tax relief now. While Canadians are pleased that the
government is in the black, they have never been in the red to a
greater extent than they are right now.
The government took $2.5 billion out of last year's budget to
spend down the road. If a small business person were to practise
that kind of accounting Revenue Canada would be breathing down
their neck. Action would be taken against them. They would have
to hire an accountant to defend them against the government.
It is not good bookkeeping and it is certainly not good
economics. The money that is taken out of this year's surplus
should benefit Canadians who need a break now and tax relief now,
and who need better investment in health care now.
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Madam Speaker, as industry
critic for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada I am
pleased to speak today to Bill C-71, the budget implementation
act, a Liberal budget that completely fails to address the root
causes of Canada's low productivity.
In a speech delivered in Toronto on February 18 the Minister of
Industry cited Canada's need for more business investment, the
importance of more foreign investment to develop new technology
and the significance of higher innovation. The minister also
said that Canada's productivity growth over the past 25 years was
the worst in the G-7. I was pleased that last month the Leader
of the Reform Party and the member for Medicine Hat followed my
lead in question period in highlighting the industry minister's
lack of confidence in the Canadian economy.
The Minister of Industry is not alone in his assessment of
Canada's weak productivity. At a conference last month, just a
few minute's walk from Parliament Hill at the Chateau Laurier,
Nesbitt Burns economist Sherry Cooper called Canada's
productivity the worst in the industrial world.
1125
The Liberal Party's own pollster, Michael Marzolini, added that
Canada has the worst rate of productivity among our G-7
competitors.
The Liberals have attempted to portray anybody who questions
Canada's weak productivity as an enemy of Canada who does not
want Canada to succeed.
Although I can understand some of the rhetoric, I challenge the
Liberals. Is Sherry Cooper an enemy of Canada? Does the Liberal
Party pollster not want Canada to succeed? Was the Minister of
Industry wrong when he spoke to the Empire Club in February in
Toronto about Canada's weak productivity, low foreign investment,
high tax burden and declining standard of living?
The PC party believes that the priority to improve Canada's
productivity should be on tax relief and less red tape. Let me
be clear. I do not criticize the government for increased
funding for organizations such as the National Research Council
or the Canadian Space Agency.
The fundamental problem with the government is that it ignores
the best approach to increase the business investment needed to
improve productivity: low business taxes, a lower regulatory
burden and less debt.
There is an ancient Chinese proverb which says that it is not
the heavily taxed realm that executes great deeds, it is the
moderately taxed one. Canada needs to follow these wise words.
High taxes hurt our economy and threaten future economic growth.
They discourage investment by businesses and individuals. This
in turn limits employment opportunities and lowers tax revenues
used to fund social programs.
Although our country is often cited by the United Nations and
the Prime Minister as the best country in the world, we received
a clear warning at January's world economic forum in Davos,
Switzerland. Meeting participants, comprised of many of the
world's business leaders, said that future economic prospects did
not look bright and that heavily taxed and heavily indebted
countries are particularly at risk.
Despite the rhetoric from the government, Canada qualifies as
being both overtaxed and deeply indebted. In particular, we need
to address the heavy tax burden of businesses.
Corporations are often the target of people frustrated with the
economy. We will no doubt hear from some, especially the NDP,
the Bloc, and to some extent the Liberals, that if only big, bad
corporations paid their full share average working people would
be better off. Of course this fair share concept implies that
large corporations do not pay a heavy amount of taxes. It also
suggests that Canada can raise taxes on corporations without any
negative impact on the economy and our social programs.
In fact there are some who believe that our economy and social
programs would actually improve if corporations paid more tax.
Indeed it was the confused Minister of Industry who said last
December that high taxes should increase productivity.
Let us take a look at the facts about business taxation. The
first myth is that corporations are getting off scot-free. The
reality is that since the Liberals took office in 1993 corporate
income tax revenue has more than doubled.
Canada's combined federal-provincial general corporate income
tax rate averages 43%, four percentage points higher than
comparable rates in the United States, our number one competitor.
Moreover, Canada's corporate taxes are 9% higher than the
average G-7 country, some of the most important economic
countries in the world, including the U.S., Great Britain,
France, Germany and Japan. Over the past 30 years the total tax
contributions made by Canadian corporations, including payroll,
sales, property and income taxes, has jumped 144%.
Many of those taxes are not even dependent on whether a
corporation is profitable. The federal Department of Finance
estimates that 70% of the taxes which businesses pay are not
related to any profit whatsoever. Meanwhile, according to the
Conference Board of Canada, for every single dollar in extra
profit made by corporations in the past 30 years a full 62 cents
was clawed back in taxes.
Corporations have not been untouched by the tax collector. In
fact one could make a strong argument in favour of lowering the
tax burden of businesses.
Our G-7 partners, on average, have lower corporate rates than
Canada.
1130
Meanwhile, other developing countries such as Ireland, Mexico,
Hungary and Singapore are positioning themselves through low or
non-existent corporate taxes as attractive locations for business
investment, business investment which, according to the Minister
of Industry, is needed for higher productivity.
Companies are mobile. They can choose where to invest their
dollars, where to create jobs and where to pay taxes which in
turn fund social programs. Companies can also decide where to
conduct research and development and where to commercialize
innovation. In short, companies are free to choose where to
contribute to a productive economy. They are not choosing
Canada.
Let us look at the result of Canada's high corporate tax
policies. While we became the place to pick the pockets of
business, foreign investment dried up. According to the United
Nations' report on world investment, Canada's share of direct
foreign investment fell by 50% from 1985 to 1995. More recent
figures put the drop closer to 60% over a 15 year period. The
United States, with a more favourable business tax climate, saw
its share increase by 4%. That is very significant. The
government knows that our corporate tax structure is a problem.
There are other factors to consider beside the corporate income
tax rate.
The federal Department of Industry commissioned an independent
study in conjunction with the Alliance of Manufacturers and
Exporters Canada to determine whether changes in the corporate
tax structure would benefit the economy. The study was conducted
by Dr. Jeffrey Bernstein of Carleton University in Ottawa and the
National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dr. Bernstein's analysis examined five different taxes and
investment elements, including corporate income and payroll tax
rates, capital cost allowance of plant and equipment, research
and development, and investment tax credits.
Dr. Bernstein's report concluded that the existing corporate tax
structure is an inefficient means of raising government revenue
and that the reduction of corporate income taxes for
manufacturers through the provision of an enhanced manufacturing
and processing tax credit would provide the most significant
benefits to the Canadian economy.
The report also inferred that a corporate tax increase of $100
million, relatively small in a $150 billion budget, would kill up
to 627 jobs, the equivalent of six average manufacturing plants.
Furthermore, a $100 million reduction in R and D credits would
kill up to 3,000 jobs.
Each of these lost jobs have an impact. The person working at
the job pays more taxes than they would if they were unemployed.
The person is also not dependent on income security programs. It
is a simple economic formula. More jobs equals less social and
economic problems, equals a higher standard of living.
The viability and profitability of private enterprises are
essential to the Canadian economy. We cannot have a strong
economy that benefits socially as a whole without a strong
private sector.
This budget does nothing to address one of the main causes of
Canada's low productivity nor does it deal with the problem of
government regulation. In particular, the government did not
make a single change to the cost recovery program the Liberals
introduced in 1994. There is nothing wrong with a cost recovery
program that is based on reasonable fees, increased efficiency
and smarter performance. Credible evidence suggests that the
present program has no such grounding.
A recent report prepared by the Business Coalition of Cost
Recovery, representing small, medium and large firms that employ
2.2 million Canadians and contribute $330 billion to the national
economy, detailed the devastating impact of the federal cost
recovery program since 1994.
Canada's manufacturers have been subject to a massive 153%
increase in regulatory fees. User fees through cost recovery are
among the fastest growing costs of doing business in Canada—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order, please. I am
afraid I must interrupt the hon. member. His time has run out.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-71.
Bill C-71 is an act to implement certain provisions of the
budget tabled in parliament on February 16 and other measures
announced in previous budgets.
1135
This bill is about spending money. Budgets are all about
spending money and where the money will come from. Today we need
to make it clear where the money is coming from. Sometimes when
I hear people talk, in particular politicians, it is as if the
government has a stash of money that in its wisdom it doles out.
This money really comes from Canadians and from the work of
Canadians. It comes from taxi drivers who spend 12 or more hours
a day sitting in vehicles and driving around their cities. It
comes from hairdressers and barbers who stand on their feet all
day cutting hair. It comes from nurses and teachers. It comes
from people in sales who pound the pavement or drive all over the
country to promote the goods and services that Canadians produce.
It comes from all kinds of workers. It even comes from our pages
who still do pay some tax on their huge earnings from this House.
I see them smiling so I am not sure how huge that is. We are
talking about Canadians' money, money earned from long hours,
dedication and a commitment to production by Canadians. We need
to keep that in mind.
This bill, as most budgets are, in particular budgets running
into the billions, is very complex. It is difficult for
Canadians to unravel the ins and outs of how their money is going
to be spent. It is our job in this House and in a democracy to
give Canadians that information so they will be able to judge
whether their government is doing a good job and whether their
money is being wisely spent. They have a right to that
information and it is our responsibility, because we get paid to
do so, to provide them with that information. They can then make
the judgment as to whether they want to continue with that kind
of spending.
This bill is divided into nine parts each dealing with some
different aspects of spending. As one might expect, members of
my party, members of the opposition, members of the government
and I agree with some elements of the budget and disagree with
others. Unfortunately the process does not allow
parliamentarians to be specific in their vote on what they
support or on what they oppose. The vote is on implementation as
a whole, all nine parts and their elements.
The vote on the budget is about the whole budget. Even though
there are things we will want to support and things we will not
want support, we do not get to pick and choose. In my view the
government plays on this dishonestly by sometimes saying “Reform
does not support the national child benefit”. What it is really
saying is that Reform, by not voting for the budget, does not
support the national child benefit which was in the budget. We
are now unjustly accused by the government of failing to support
some things because we had to vote against the budget as a whole.
There were too many bad things in it. Parliamentarians now find
themselves in a quandary.
The opportunity today to speak on the specifics of implementing
the budget is very welcome. We are able to talk about things we
support, the things we think the government did right and to hold
the government to account for things we think it did wrong.
What does this budget say to the average taxpayer? Liberal
governments are very expensive today, as they have been for the
past 30 years. That is number one. The Liberals plan on
spending $156.7 billion in this next fiscal year.
1140
From March 31, 1999 to March 31, 2000 the government will spend
$156.7 billion. That is $5,200 for each man, woman and child in
Canada. It is about $21,000 on average from each family of four.
For those out in the real world who are earning money today,
$21,000 from the average family of four will be taken and spent
by the government. That is a lot of work. It is a lot of hours
sitting on that chair, Madam Speaker. We need to take this
seriously and be good stewards of that hard-earned money.
This is not only a lot of money but we have to measure it
against the fact that $21,000 from the average family of four may
be coming from a wage of less than twice that amount. The
average wage in 1998 was $37,400. The government spends over
half of what an average single income family of four earns. I
guess the government is so brilliant it can spend our money
better than we can. We are going to examine that premise because
clearly that is the premise the government operates on.
Are Canadians getting value from the Liberal government for
their money? Are Canadians getting a fair return from this
really punishing tax rate that is necessary to maintain the
government's lifestyle?
When we look closer at the numbers we see that the government
will spend $156.7 billion. However, over $42 billion or 27% of
that amount will be spent to pay for the overspending of the
past. In other words, 27% of what the government spends is
deferred taxes. We are making up for the fact that governments
did not manage their money wisely in the past. For every dollar
of spending the government delivers only 73 cents in the form of
programs. Even that is often wastefully managed. This is hardly
value for money for today's taxpayer.
If this Liberal government and previous Liberal governments, and
Mr. Clark and Mr. Mulroney at the time of the free spending
Tories, had been more sensible about spending Canadians would
have had that $42.5 billion today for programs or tax cuts rather
than paying this enormous amount of interest on the debt. Each
budget we see from the government is a continued testimony to its
incompetence as trustees of the taxpayers' dollars throughout
most of the last 30 years. The enormous sum of $42.5 billion is
not available to us to spend on the things we think are important
today. Most of us would struggle to put $42.5 billion into any
kind of an understandable framework. I would like to help us do
that.
Forty-two and a half billion dollars is about twice the amount
of all income tax paid by all businesses in Canada in a year. The
interest of $42.5 billion represents about twice the GST
collected in Canada in a year. In other words, if we had that
money, if we had not overspent and if we did not have to pay
interest we could eliminate the GST, something government members
said they would do. We could eliminate the GST completely and
still have another $20 billion left over to spend on things that
are important to us.
Here is another way to look at it. Let us go to the farthest
eastern point in Canada, Cape Spear, Newfoundland and start
laying $20 bills right across Canada to the farthest western
point, the Yukon-Alaska border. By that time we would have
walked 5,514 kilometres. Each $20 bill is 15.3 centimetres long
or about about six inches. One kilometre equals 6,536 $20 bills
so every kilometre we walk we lay over 6,000 $20 bills.
Just over 36 million, 36,039,504 to be exact, $20 bills would be
needed to cover the distance from Cape Spear to the Alaska
border. The total value of those bills would be about $720
million.
1145
Seven hundred and twenty million dollars will pay 1.7% of the
annual interest on our debt. In other words, if we laid $20
bills right across Canada, from its furthest point east to its
furthest point west, we would have laid down enough money to pay
only 1.7% of our total interest that we cough up every year on
our debt. We would need 59 times those bills in order to pay the
entire interest. There would be stacks 59 bills high all the way
across Canada. That is how much our interest is.
Now visualize this. We would have to have 59 $20 bills in each
stack, but if the bills were around the equator, which is about
40,000 kilometres, $5.2 billion would be required, about
one-eighth of the taxes required in this budget to finance our
national debt for the next year, to put $20 bills around the
equator. The stacks would be eight high around the middle of the
world to pay the entire interest.
What if we were going to the moon? The moon is on average
382,000 kilometres from the earth. That would take a lot of
years to drive, but if we laid $20 bills to the moon we would
need 2.5 billion bills. That is about $50 billion, which is about
14 months worth of the interest we pay on the national debt to
continue our trip all the way to the moon. That $50 billion is
only about one-twelfth of our national debt.
I go through these things because it is important to remind
ourselves of how our overspending and our fiscal mismanagement in
the past hangs over us today. It limits our choices both
collectively and individually.
I do not often take editorial writers and columnists as
unimpeachable sources but I was particularly struck by a piece
that Jeffrey Simpson wrote in the Globe and Mail on March
10. I would like to quote a couple of the observations he made.
They were very penetrating analyses of our situation.
Jeffrey Simpson said “Debt is the past's dead hand lying on the
future”. It is the future of our children and grandchildren and
the future of the pages here. We have mortgaged their future
with this debt. He went on to say “The future is all about
flexibility, human skills, innovation, investment, adaptability,
yet only a fraction of total government spending points in that
direction. Far more is spent on yesterday's obligations than
tomorrow's opportunities”.
That is a sad, sad message with this debt, with this interest
and with this Liberal budget. Far more is spent on yesterday's
obligations than on tomorrow's opportunities. That is something
we cannot be proud of and which we must rectify.
I am going to make government members happy by talking for a
period of time about what we like in this budget and what we
support.
We like the fact that the Liberals have been forced to put back
some of the billions they slashed from their support for health
care. Their support for health care was already pretty meagre.
When the Liberals brought health care in, they promised to
support it 50% with the provinces. Today their support is just
over 20%. That is what Liberal promises are worth. But they did
have to put some of that money back, about half of it.
For every dollar they slashed, over the next five years they will
put about half of that back in, which is good. We support that.
1150
As far as our party position is concerned, we have consistently
been committed to protecting support for health care. We were
calling for urgent and significant cuts in government spending in
1990. Even at that time when overspending was rampant, there
were deficits and overspending by billions and billions of
dollars every year, we still spoke out strongly on the need to
protect spending in the two critical areas of education and
health care.
In 1993 we put out a zero in three budget. We made some
adjustments to government spending so that the books would be
balanced, but none of those cuts came from health care or
education.
In 1995 we did something unprecedented in the House. We put out
an alternative budget to the government budget. The
understanding was that the overspending every year was just about
$40 billion, nearly as much as we are spending on interest today.
In spite of that enormous overspending, we took virtually
nothing from health care and education in order to balance the
books.
With the books being closer to being balanced leading up to the
next election, our campaign was to restore some of the billions
the Liberals had slashed from health care and education. Our
support for these programs has been consistent in our documents.
This is unlike the Liberals. I grieve to say this because
government members got up in this House and with their hands over
their hearts and talked about fighting to the death, going to the
barricades for health care and the Canada Health Act. What were
the Liberals doing in the back rooms? They were slashing $7
billion from transfers for that program. That is what they were
doing.
We are glad to see that the Liberals have finally come to their
senses and due to pressure from Canadians are putting some of
that money back. We will continue to support the return of funds
that were taken away from health care and support health care
being given a high priority.
The Reform Party has always advocated increased government
recognition of the importance of the family unit. We have called
for several tax relief measures to ensure that families keep a
larger share of their earnings to meet the needs of their
children. We recognize the contribution that parents make to
society and the future of all of us through the birth and
nurturing of children.
Canada's birth rate is dropping. Many of our programs are
premised on workers, a strong workforce with secure jobs and
secure incomes contributing to the kind of social programs, the
safety net which many Canadians say, and certainly the government
has said, defines Canada. It is one of the defining features of
our country. But with our birth rate dropping and, contrary to
popular belief, not being compensated for by immigration, we are
in jeopardy. We all have a stake, if our pensions and other
programs are to continue, in having a strong workforce of younger
Canadians. We believe that we have a responsibility to assist
children.
I have spoken often in support of the national child benefit
system as a good example of the co-operation needed among
federal, provincial and territorial governments to improve the
quality of our social programs. It is a good program, but more
can be done.
There is a lot we do not like in this budget. I have left it to
my colleagues, many of whom have already spoken and many of whom
will speak, to outline some of our very serious concerns. I have
confined my remarks to the interest, the mortgage on our
children's future, on the social safety net and on our programs.
In conclusion, I ask the government to lift the heavy hand of
debt on our future and to move ahead to something better for our
children and grandchildren.
1155
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
my colleague very eloquently put forward the views of my party in
reference to the budget. I would like to ask her a question.
Recently, that brave lady, Beverly Smith, met with the Secretary
of State for the Status of Women. Beverly Smith is a single
parent who has been fighting the unfair taxation burden on single
parents. She came out of that meeting very disappointed with the
impression that the minister is giving lip service to the burden
on single parents.
I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks about that
meeting. How can we help Beverly Smith bring forward her
concerns?
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, as you know, on this
issue of single income families we have had a lively debate and a
number of questions in this House. I thank my colleague for this
question because we simply cannot let this issue die. It is far
too important to our country's families.
There have been so many quotes over the years that families are
the cradle of civilization, the birthplace of our leaders of
tomorrow. Families are so important and so critical. Simply, the
resources have to be in the families' hands to do their job and
the work we have given them to do.
As my colleague from Calgary East has rightly pointed out,
people in this country are fighting vigorously for tax fairness
for single income families, whether they be one or two parent
families trying to do a difficult job. In meeting with ministers
and the minister my colleague referred to, they come away
discouraged with the feeling there is not a recognition, there is
not the vigorous support and affirmation for parents that there
should be, that the parents' role is not honoured in the way it
should be, that their resources are expendable even though the
job they are doing is critical.
I can pledge to Canadians and to this House that the Reform
Party, and I believe many members of this House, will not rest
until there is tax fairness, until tax discrimination is removed,
until the stealth taxes and the creeping deindexation of our
basic exemptions are fought and conquered so that families and
parents have the proper resources.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon.
member for Jonquière.
I am pleased to take the floor today to discuss Bill C-71, the
Budget Implementation Act, 1999. This is a kind of omnibus bill
in order to implement the budget. Among other things, it
contains some items relating to tax arrangements between the
federal government and the provinces, and to the Canadian Forces
superannuation plan, some changes to the Financial
Administration Act and an increase to the National Child
Benefit, and it broadens GST credit eligibility for single
individuals.
I would like to go into more detail on the reasons the Bloc
Quebecois is opposed to this bill. There are three key elements
of particular concern to us.
The first is that it contains the famous change to the method of
calculating the Canada social transfer. The government is using
this bill to legalize the fact that it has unilaterally decided
to change the rules that determine the social transfer, going to
a system that is solely demographics based, and setting a per
capita amount for each of the provinces.
The consequences of this amendment alone will be to deprive
Quebec of $350 million, or 8.3% of the $11.3 billion increase
contained in this budget.
Such a decision is somewhat out of line with the very principle
of the Canada social transfer, since the purpose of the CHST is
to help decrease the inequalities between provinces,
particularly where poverty is concerned.
1200
This unilateral decision indicates once again the fact that the
federal system is not always a good thing for the provinces. It
will compel them to rethink their forecasting methods. A
province may have decided to follow one course of action
expecting a certain sum from the federal government. This change
obliges Quebec and others to completely review the allocation of
the money the federal government transfers to them. That sort
of runs contrary to the objective of the program. Quebeckers
will have to learn from this.
This fact is particularly true in a period of surplus. The
federal government and the provincial governments are enjoying a
surplus.
Canadians share one major concern—how we will fight poverty.
It is not enough in our societies to have the highest gross
national product. We must also assess our governments'
efficiency at distributing this wealth.
We saw no original proposal in the budget for fighting the very
negative effects of child poverty, among other things. The
measure before us will not enable us to fight this situation
either. Under it money will be allocated only according to the
demographics of a given province and not according to its
economic situation and social problems.
This is the first reason the Bloc Quebecois will be voting
against the bill, unless it is amended.
The second reason is the increase in the child tax benefit. We
are delighted that the federal government has finally listened
to reason and added funds to the amount initially provided, to
total the $2 billion the Bloc Quebecois identified a few years
back as the minimum required to ensure worthwhile results.
The sad part is that the money will be available, but over
several years. The fight against poverty will not have the same
effect as if there were a massive investment. Still, the
measure is a step in the right direction.
I think the federal government could have made more of an
effort, as far as spreading out its spending is concerned.
It could have arranged to have the moneys available more
quickly, particularly since we are in a period of budget
surplus. Instead, the funding for the child tax benefit is
spread over several years.
By contrast, the accumulation of surpluses in the employment
insurance fund was not spread over several years. Year in year
out for the past four or five years, the government has
systematically taken very significant amounts from the EI
surpluses. This is money that is not being used to fund the
employment insurance fund, but any other type of federal
spending, including payments on the debt. There is a lack of
logic with this approach. On the one hand, the government is
putting money back for the child tax benefit, while on the other
hand it is generating poverty by having an inadequate employment
insurance fund that does not allow the unemployed to have a
decent income when they find themselves between jobs.
The federal government should have done more in that regard. It
should have included, in the measures to implement the budget,
something to correct the unfairness in the current employment
insurance program. But there are no such measures in this
legislation.
The non-indexing of tax tables is also a reflection of the
inadequate effort made by the federal government to correct the
flaws in our tax system. For example, between 1986 and 1996,
Quebec residents have suffered a cumulative loss of income which
was caused exclusively by the federal government's decision not
to fully index tax tables based on the CPI increase.
This has resulted in a shortfall of $7,047 for people who would
have made good use of that money and who actually needed it.
This money would not have been used for luxury items, but for
daily expenses such as buying groceries or paying rent, thus
allowing these people to contribute to the national economy
while also providing for their families' basic needs. In that
regard, the federal government did not meet the objectives that
we had in mind.
1205
Of course, a bill such as this one to implement provisions of
the budget cannot add to what was announced in the budget
speech. Many oversights were identified. The federal
government focussed on health issues, but strong anti-poverty
action was needed as well.
When assessing our society's achievements, we must look not only
at our capacity to produce consumer goods, but also at whether
the resulting wealth is being distributed fairly throughout the
community, providing people with enough money.
Last week, I attended a presentation made in my region by Vivian
Labrie, who is advocating anti-poverty legislation and who made
it very clear that most of what people receive they need for
their survival, for vital expenses such as food and lodging.
There are also functional expenditures, such as those for travel
and moving, and some which could be described as luxuries for
high income earners.
Nowadays, we should be more aware that each additional dollar
freed up for those who earn just enough to get by has a much
greater impact than an equivalent reduction in the taxes of
someone with an annual income of $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000.
It means much more to those receiving social assistance or EI,
or earning minimum wage. An additional $1, $10 or $20 tax break
for such a person has a far greater impact on their daily life,
and this is something I think we should be aware of.
In conclusion, we feel that this bill to implement certain
provisions of the budget is unacceptable because the change in
the CHST formula hits Quebec hard.
The bill also fails to provide for a sufficient increase in the
child tax benefit—we would have liked to see a higher increase—and
it does not address the problem created by the fact that the tax
tables are not indexed.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Quebecois will be voting against
the bill.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened carefully to what the member had to say. He mentioned
the child tax benefit. I think his comment was that it was a
step in the right direction.
I was a great supporter of the initiative by the government, the
attempt at the federal level to reach down to children all over
the country to try to alleviate child poverty, which is such a
serious problem.
It is not a problem but it is a fact of life that the federal
government has to deal with each province separately in these
matters. In the case of the province of Ontario, the agreement
we effectively had was that if the federal government were to
allocate large funds to the children of poor families, the
Ontario government made the rule that it would take away an
equivalent amount of money from people on social assistance. It
would apply the money it had saved to the children of poor
families but the children of poor working families. It seems
this is a serious mistake and a serious fault in logic. Surely
we want to help all children in poverty. In some ways we
particularly want to help those on social assistance.
My question for the member is from my own information. How does
the province of Quebec handle this same matter? Did the province
of Quebec have the same condition of taking money away from
families on social assistance and applying those moneys to the
families of the working poor, or did the province of Quebec
proceed to allocate the child tax benefit to all poor children no
matter what the source of income of their families?
1210
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
intervention.
I will remind him why the Bloc Quebecois finds the measure
unsatisfactory. In 1997, we called for this fund to contain $2
billion, and with the present government measures, that $2
billion will be reached, but in the year 2000.
The impact needed to be far greater than that. According to the
Canadian Council on Social Development:
In other words, compared with nine similar countries, Canada
ranks second highest in child poverty according to market
income, and third for total income, after the United States and
Australia. We have some catching up to do, and in our opinion
we should have caught up faster.
The second part of my colleague's question addressed how the
Government of Quebec had handled this.
Negotiations were held between the provinces and the federal
government.
The agreement was that the additional amounts put in by the
federal government could be used by the provinces for other
expenses. That led, among other things, to the $5 daycare
policy, which gave 70% of parents with young children the
opportunity to significantly reduce the money paid to daycare
centres. I think that was a worthwhile measure.
However, in connection with the child tax benefit, I think
people everywhere in Canada would agree child poverty should be
attacked directly and more aggressively. It is in this sense
that the Bloc Quebecois hoped that the money allocated would be
available more quickly and that the fact there is a surplus this
year would mean it would be allocated quickly.
July 1999 and not July 2000 could have been set as the time
limit for the $2 billion.
The people affected by these measures do not eat over the long
term, but every day, and they need money quickly. As we can
afford this measure as a society, we could act now.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to address Bill C-71, an act to implement certain
provisions of the budget, and to say from the outset that I will
vote against this legislation.
My speech will deal with four specific points, which I will
develop.
This sixth Martin budget, the first so-called deficit free
Liberal budget, is a crying shame.
First, it formalizes the misappropriation of funds by the
federal government, at the expense of thousands of Canadian
workers who cannot get employment insurance benefits.
Second, this budget does not reflect any will to help older
workers who lose their jobs following plant closures.
Third, as regards the environment, where are the necessary
moneys to fulfil the commitments made in Kyoto?
Fourth, this budget gives legal status to the federal
government's will to encroach freely on provincial
jurisdictions, by getting fully involved in areas of
jurisdiction in which it has simply no business.
However, no matter how shocking and outrageous the Liberal
government's attitude may be, it does not surprise anyone. About
this time last year, when it tabled its previous budget, this
government showed its true colours.
We then saw a Prime Minister of Canada who wanted to go down in
history by creating a monument to his own glory. I am referring
to the millennium scholarships.
Members opposite are getting all worked up. If the government
really wants to help young people, why does it not transfer the
moneys to the provinces, which are responsible for the loans and
scholarships programs?
Quebec has the best loans and scholarships system. Our program
adequately meets the needs of young people. Why not recognize
excellence and give to the Quebec government additional funding
to ensure a sound management of that initiative, instead of
duplicating an efficient system?
1215
That was a year ago. Now, the Minister of Finance, our master
magician, our sleight of hand specialist, is getting into the
act and unveiling his own monument. He did not want to be
outdone. For weeks, he laid the groundwork. Day after day, he
told us to wait for the budget.
Now we are considering the budget and what do we see? We see a
Minister of Finance completely lacking in long term vision, a
Minister of Finance whose concerns are all short term and
motivated by political gain. What a bitter disappointment this
is for all these workers and middle income earners.
In his new budget, the Minister of Finance is determined to
conceal his surpluses rather than turn them over to unemployed
workers and middle income earners.
Having contributed to the acknowledged $4.5 billion surplus in
the EI fund, six out of ten Quebeckers and Canadians who lose
their jobs will still not qualify for benefits. Many of my
colleagues have spoken at length in the House about the
unfortunate and very harmful impact of EI reform on women,
pregnant women and young people. What the minister is doing is
no small matter. Workers and employers contribute to this fund.
The federal government has not put in one red cent in over ten
years.
In this budget, where are the proactive measures, particularly
those for older workers over the age of 50? Thousands of people
in the various regions of the country will be affected by plant
closures or massive layoffs. Where are the concrete measures in
this budget to help them?
This government has abolished the program especially designed
for them, POWA. Did these workers not contribute to the
employment insurance fund for years? Many of them have never
drawn benefits. This is an essential measure for them. The
billions of surplus dollars that have accumulated must be used
for this purpose, among other things.
Why has this minister not been listening to the thousands of
workers by introducing such an active and positive measure in
this budget? Perhaps the answer is obvious.
Where are the concrete messages to the middle-class taxpayer?
Are these not the people who have made it possible for the
Minister of Finance to do away with his deficit? Why has he not
used part of his hidden surpluses to adjust the tax tables to
the cost of living, thus putting $2 billion back into the
economy?
To give an example from my riding, one of my constituents wrote
me on January 22 to express his outrage at the unjust treatment
of couples with a family income of $50,000 a year, when the wife
does not work outside the home. Such a couple pays $4,000 more
taxes yearly than a couple with both spouses working. He
describes this as “unfair”, and is waiting for a response and a
correction of the situation.
As my party's critic on the environment, I was greatly
disappointed that the budget did not show any willingness, on
the part of the government, to act in this area.
Yet there is extreme urgency. This government is already behind
on the formal commitments it made at Kyoto on eliminating
greenhouse gases. And what about the elimination of 5,000
contaminated sites? Where is the money to get started on
decontamination?
What about highway rehabilitation? Where is the funding for
this? When is there going to be any follow-up on the $16 billion
proposal made last spring by all provincial ministers of
transport to the Government of Canada, with the agreement of
their ministers of finance?
Once again, I see that this is just a lot of fancy talk by the
Liberals, with no willingness to do anything.
A few days ago, on March 29, the Minister of Transport told us
he was trying to convince his cabinet colleagues to give him
$3.5 billion for this, whereas the provincial ministers of
transport are talking about $16 billion. It is always tomorrow,
tomorrow, later, later. We see no willingness to act in this
budget.
1220
Where is the money for this year? When are they going to bring
back programs such as the strategic highway improvement program,
which all the provincial ministers of transports are calling
for?
Quebeckers, particularly the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean
region, are not fooled by the fancy words repeated by petty
politicians. The Conservatives did the same when they were in
government between 1984 and 1992. They did nothing to improve
roads, especially highway 175.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are here to tell them the real truth,
to defend them against these petty politicians, because Ottawa
is not so far removed and we are well informed.
Another matter dear to my heart is regional development. From
every podium, we hear this government saying that its first
priority is regional development. Is there a bit of “Do as I
say not as I do” here? I think this can be said of the
Liberals. If there is one thing I am sure of, it is that in
this budget, in black and white, spending on regional
development was cut by $100 million cut this year and $200
million next year. Find the discrepancies between the words and
the figures.
Our national Minister of Finance also treated himself to a
monument in this budget, the find of the century, the health
care budget.
Canadians are not fooled. They know very well that the Liberal
government is responsible for the deterioration in this
country's health care system.
They know the real story, not what the government would have
them believe.
Since 1994, the government has slashed provincial transfer
payments for health, education and social assistance by over
$6.5 billion. The Liberal government is to blame for the
terrible repercussions on the entire health system from coast to
coast.
Underlying the Minister of Finance's new health budget is a dark
history of billions of dollars in cuts that have hit the public
very hard, and we must never forget it.
With the support of his colleague, the Minister of Health, the
Minister of Finance is now charging into the health sector, a
provincial jurisdiction, and imposing his views, new structures,
statistics, monitoring, and additional paperwork. The final
cost will be $1.4 billion over three years. This money will not
benefit the sick; no, this government prefers to spend $400
million on administration alone just for the visibility.
What is the word for this? Irresponsible. But I say to the
Minister of Finance that it is not too late. The minister
should show some compassion and hand over these millions of
dollars to the provinces with no strings attached so that the
public can finally get the care to which it is entitled.
In conclusion, for all these reasons, and for all the other
reasons my Bloc Quebecois colleagues have mentioned in their
speeches, I will be voting against Bill C-71.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Jonquière
for her good speech. I want to ask her a question concerning a
very important point she raised, namely the issue of older
workers.
The Minister of Human Resources Development keeps telling us
that active measures are in place for these people. Could the
member for Jonquière elaborate on the fact that, in the case of
older workers—those aged 55 and over—active measures are often not
enough, and passive measures are also necessary?
The word “passive” may sound derogatory, but we are referring to
support measures to help these workers make it to retirement.
Would it not have been appropriate to include such initiatives
in the budget?
Furthermore, is the hon. member pleased that the proposal made
by the Bloc Quebecois, for which she is the critic, resulted in
this issue being submitted to the human resources development
committee, which will look at it over the next two months and
which will hear witnesses? Would the hon. member like to send an
invitation to those who made representations to us and who would
like to take part in the committee's work regarding this issue?
1225
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my
Bloc Quebecois colleague.
The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques is a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development. He succeeded in having the committee approve the
proposal that we will review over the coming weeks regarding
this very sensitive issue, and I thank him for that.
In the riding of Jonquière, between 200 and 300 workers will
lose their jobs in the weeks to come. It is all fine and well to
tell a worker between 50 and 55 years of age that he or she will
get training, that he or she will be sent back to school, but
these people need other things.
I thank the Bloc Quebecois for having given me responsibility
for this issue. I am asking all those interested in testifying
before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to
contact us. We will be very pleased to hear all their
suggestions.
It is not true that this issue is really a priority for the
government. The government is not providing proactive measures
for this group of citizens. We will not let it get away with
this. We will, along with all Canadians and Quebeckers, propose
concrete measures.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House for what might
be one of my last times to talk about the budget.
The budget sets out a road map for the government. It gives an
indication of its priorities and hopefully it gives an indication
of the priorities of the population at large. The extent to
which a budget is successful is the extent to which it represents
the priorities of Canadians.
The government has made much of arguing the budget to be a
health care budget, with which I will deal in a moment. If we
look at that issue we see a government which has over the last
five years cut over $21 billion out of health care and is about
to put $2 billion back. This is not the kind of health care
commitment that would qualify most budgets in the minds of most
people as a health care budget.
The budget did many things and omitted many things. I will
focus for a moment on the things it omitted and could have done
in order to meet the priorities of Canadians. Canadians, as we
know, face a number of crises at the present time. Canadians
face a health care crisis which the budget addresses in a small
way.
The population at large faces significant challenges with regard
to job opportunities for both parents and younger people. The
country also faces challenges with regard to the accessibility of
students to education and a whole range of other questions
including homelessness, our infrastructure problems and a tax
system which remains extremely unfair.
The budget could have but did not address the priorities of
Canadians with regard to their challenges in looking for work.
The budget did nothing to increase the chances of any unemployed
person finding work or of a person in a job feeling any greater
security in terms of keeping that work.
The budget did nothing to improve the benefits for those most
vulnerable in society, the unemployed, a group for which the
federal government has responsibility in terms of its legislative
jurisdictional powers over employment insurance and as a result
of its control over fiscal and monetary tools which leads to
certain levels of unemployment in the economy.
Over the last 10 or 11 years I have been in the House
unemployment has been used as an economic tool for various other
purposes dealing with interest rates, the value of the dollar and
so on.
1230
Nothing was done in the budget to combat the homelessness crisis
with which we are all familiar. The Prime Minister has taken
some steps since, but there is nothing in the budget or in the
finance minister's set of priorities to ensure that those who are
facing life's most severe problems, the unemployed and the
homeless, have those matters addressed by the government. That
is a priority which is askew.
There is nothing to address the unfair tax system. There is
nothing to reduce the GST. As we all know, the government has
given a tax break of $8,000 to millionaires and a handful of
dollars to those at the lowest income levels. This hardly
addresses the problem. It seems to make the problem worse.
There are other things too. There is nothing in the budget to
tackle what are environmental concerns across the country, even
the simple issue like a transit pass being available to employees
in the same way as parking passes are. This modest and easy to
administer environmental change did not find its way into the
budget. As we probably all know, there is no adequate or proper
funding for our cultural institutions.
Major Canadian priorities are not being addressed in the budget
even though some tax changes were made. A person who makes
$10,000 a year in income will receive from the budget tax savings
of $51, a dollar a week. A person who receives $25,000 a year in
income will receive a tax break of $115. A person who receives a
$50,000 income will receive $160. A person who receives a
$75,000 income will receive $595. A person who receives a
$105,000 income will receive $813.
The more we make the better off we will be. That is not the
priority of those who are fighting to survive in what is an ever
increasingly challenging world. If one is making $1 million a
year one will get a $8,000 tax break from the budget.
Let us remember all the fuss about whether or not hockey players
should get tax breaks to stay in Canada. They did because those
millionaire hockey players will get $8,000 extra a year to play
in Canada while a family trying to get by on $10,000 will make
$51 a year more, probably not enough to buy one ticket to go to a
hockey game to watch that millionaire hockey player who gets an
$8,000 tax break play in Canada.
Even where changes are made we see them made in the interest of
those who are better off rather than in the interest of those who
are less well off. We know our tax system is one of the most
unfair in the developed world. Yet there is nothing here to make
it more fair. Indeed we see a strategy of making it increasingly
unfair.
Let me raise a few comments about health care spending. The
government made much of the budget being a health care budget.
Over the years of the Liberal government and over the years of
the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard as the Minister of Finance, we
have seen $21.5 billion taken out of the health care system. Only
a couple of provinces have been able to fill that gap.
In my province of Saskatchewan each year the NDP government has
consistently put more money into health care than what the
Liberals took out, at a great burden to a province with a small
tax base and significant financial problems left over from nine
years of provincial Conservative government mismanagement. The
Saskatchewan NDP government saw health care as a priority, as did
the residents of that province and Canadians as a whole, and
thereby committed more money than was cut by the Liberal
government in Ottawa.
1235
What is the response of the Liberal government? As a result of
the budget it will put back $2 billion, one dollar for every ten
that was taken out of health care. We know the angst across the
country over the state of our health care system. That angst is
exacerbated when billions of dollars are cut from the health care
system.
This is a modest prescription for the health care crisis caused
by the federal government over its years of belt tightening. This
modest prescription will not satisfy the needs of Canadians or do
anything very significant to improve our health care system.
I would add in terms of the priorities of the most recent
budgets of the Liberal government that it is plain the brunt of
deficit reduction was borne by the most vulnerable in society.
That deficit reduction was called for and was necessary. The
minister is to be credited for having steered Canada through this
difficult time.
However, the way in which he did it meant that he attacked the
most vulnerable in society. That is in sharp contrast with the
way in which Saskatchewan balanced its budget, the first province
to do so. There were increased commitments to the things that
are most important to Canadians, not the Liberal model of
increased cuts to the things that are most important to
Canadians.
In that strategy, in that model of Saskatchewan NDP government's
deficit reduction, we saw continued increases in funding for
health care, education and social programs, not cuts. That is a
distinct contrast with the way in which the deficits were
addressed in the two jurisdictions.
We remain with some serious problems that could have been
addressed by the government but were not. For example, as
students have indicated the budget does nothing to solve student
debt and the base funding crisis facing post-secondary education.
Tuition fees will continue to rise while the quality of education
continues to erode according to the students. Those of us who
spend any time on university campuses can ensure that is the
case. Without increasing accessibility, without increasing the
numbers of Canadians who have access to post-secondary education,
it is difficult to see how we can solve the economic difficulties
we face.
On a personal note, as someone who is the only person from my
extended family to attend university, and it was 30 years ago at
least when I was at university, the question of accessibility is
a critical one that we cannot leave in the state in which it is
at present. It takes a lot of support for those who come from
families who do not traditionally see university education or
post-secondary education as a tool for their children to find a
way to break through and to have access to post-secondary
education.
It is an obligation of the country as a whole and of the
government which represents the country to ensure that
accessibility is there. It is the only way we will individually
ensure that we can make the greatest contribution to our economy
and to our society. Education is critical in this regard and yet
nothing in the budget addresses this matter.
Children in poverty is surely the most serious problem we face.
Not only Catholic bishops but practically everybody in the
country has called this issue a national disgrace. There is
nothing in the budget for Canada's poorest children, even though
there is much rhetoric on this point in a number of committee
reports and so on from the Liberal caucus.
There is nothing for homelessness, nothing for those who do not
even have a place to live in what is one of the richest countries
in the world. As the Minister of Finance indicated in the past,
only the national government has the financial resources to
address the full dimensions of this problem.
There is nothing for child care. We have the problem of
parents, single parents in particular, wanting to access the job
market, wanting to make a contribution and wanting to ensure
their own independence, being denied that opportunity simply
because child care is out of their grasp. Either there is not
enough accessible quality child care available to them or the
cost is simply prohibitive.
Again this is holding people back rather than enabling them to
move forward.
1240
I mentioned the problems of our tax system and how unfair it is.
Even a reduction in GST of 1% would have meant a lot to everyday
people. The Minister of Finance could have taken a lesson from
the Saskatchewan NDP government's book and in fact given
everybody a break, particularly those on low income who spend all
their money on the most basic items. There is no commitment to
assisting those at the lowest end of the economic scale with a
tax break.
Perhaps the most glaring omission is with regard to those who
are unable to find work in Canada and are forced to rely on what
is becoming an ever more meagre unemployment insurance system.
There is nothing to address this concern. Indeed everyone has to
be reminded that it is the employment insurance surplus which has
made the deficit reduction record of the government as credible
as it is. In other words the taking of money from those who are
working and those who are unemployed in order to balance the
country's books. This is not something many people would be
proud of.
We face significant problems across the country both in highways
and in other infrastructure elements. There is nothing in the
budget for them.
While budgets set out a course of action and a set of priorities
which should represent the priorities of Canadians, it is clear
that the budget has not done that. More important, it has left
the most vulnerable, the most in need, out of the picture almost
entirely. That is to be regretted.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC)]: Mr. Speaker, I take
this opportunity to state to my hon. colleague, the member from
the province of Saskatchewan, since he mentioned that this may be
one of the last speeches he makes in the House, that I consider
him to be a very thoughtful contributor to the House of Commons.
We wish him the best in his future endeavours as he moves into
another venue.
Although his approach in terms of social democracy may be
different from my fiscal conservative approach, he did highlight
some priorities in terms of what the economy has to do. The best
way to actually grow an economy in which we can make
interventions with respect to education and our health care
system is to lower taxes and lower our debt level. Then we could
have a more vibrant private sector that would increase revenues.
We have seen this in the province of Ontario where the Harris
government has been able to lower taxes and therefore increase
government revenues.
My comment to the hon. member is simple. I concur with his
initiatives in terms of making post-secondary education more
accessible, but government intervention is not necessarily and
always the easy way out.
Mr. Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
member's earlier comments. Of course I regard him as a friend as
well.
The point the member makes is an interesting one. If it were
the case that tax cuts were the answer to problems faced by
countries at the turn of the century, we would see countries with
very high tax burdens being totally unsuccessful in the economic
ventures we see ourselves facing. Countries with high taxes like
Germany have very successful economies. There is no panacea to
tax cuts as an instrument of ensuring economic success.
We would all favour lower taxes rather higher taxes, but in the
context of ensuring that we provide the kinds of services
Canadians demand, not just want, we need to ensure the level of
taxation is adequate to meet those demands.
I would not necessarily put the member who spoke in this
category, but the unfortunate aspect of those who argue for tax
cuts is that it is a smoke screen for eliminating social
services, social programs and government initiatives that those
people find undesirable but the population at large finds quite
desirable, continues to vote for and continues to see as
important.
1245
Health care is perhaps the greatest example of this. It seems
that people will always take health care over tax cuts. There is
no clamour across the country for the kind of tax cuts which the
Reform Party and to some extent the Conservative Party argue for.
People know they have to pay taxes for the services they need
and they know there is a balance. The appropriate question is
how to find that balance.
Plainly we do not have that balance with the present unfair tax
system. I recognize that we cannot have a tax system that is far
out of whack with our competitors' tax systems if we expect to be
able to compete with them in terms of ensuring that our young
people stay in this country to work, in terms of ensuring that
employers invest in Canada and in terms of ensuring that we are
competitive.
Canadians deserve tax cuts. I do not believe they should be the
millionaires who received an $8,000 tax cut; they should be the
people making $10,000 who only got a $51 tax cut. I would rather
have given them something more meaningful than giving something
to the millionaires. We need a more fair tax system which also
reflects our international competitive situation.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about tax cuts. The
member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is a little off track when
he talks about who should get tax cuts. It is middle income
working Canadians who have continuously borne the brunt of the
tax burden. They pay far higher personal income taxes than those
in any of the G-7 countries. We pay the highest.
Although there is ample evidence, the member does not recognize
that there is a direct correlation between a buoyant economy and
a liveable tax regime. We do not have that in this country. The
governments of Alberta and Ontario have taken some bold steps to
lower the personal income tax levels of provincial workers.
Those are the two leading economies in the entire country.
Despite the tax cuts, their overall revenues have dramatically
increased because their economies were given that stimulant.
In order to make this country attractive for investors, in order
to restore consumer confidence and in order to give Canadian
families a break in this country, in particular middle income
families, this government has to recognize that it has an
obligation. Considering that it has raised taxes to the tune of
$39 billion or $40 billion since 1993, considering that the
average Canadian worker's net income has decreased about $2,100,
considering that the average family's disposable income in this
country has decreased by $4,500 since this tax-mad Liberal
government took over, I think the member would agree that this
government is morally obligated to give Canadians a break in the
income taxes they are paying. That is what will get the economy
going again and that is what will provide money for social
programs.
Mr. Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the member will know
that the primary beneficiaries of the tax cuts he mentioned in
Ontario and Alberta are the wealthy, not middle income Canadians.
I share his view that it is the middle income Canadians who face
the brunt of our tax system. In the 10 years I have been here we
have seen middle income Canadians face an ever increasing tax
burden. As a result of the important and necessary attack on the
deficit they have seen themselves receive less and less in
return.
They are not getting good value for their money. They know that.
That is the reason they are so disgruntled.
1250
However, it is still the case across the country, no matter what
the Reform Party says, that Canadians recognize the importance of
the kinds of services that define the country—health care,
education and social programs—and the need for those services to
be paid for by tax revenues. That support, no matter what the
Reform Party says, is there. It is there solidly and it will not
go away.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I wish to seek consent
for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice,
during consideration of Government Order, Government Business
number 23, any speech by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the
Opposition may be followed by a ten minute period for questions
and comments and the House shall continue to sit after 6.30 p.m.
this day for the purpose of considering the said Government
Order, provided that after 6.30 p.m. the Chair shall not receive
any quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous
consent to propose any motion and provided that when no member
rises the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House to proceed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I appreciate the hon. House leader's point; however, we
in the Reform Party would wish to be consulted just a bit more on
this motion before we give concurrence.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is not consent
at this time, so the House will resume debate.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to speak to the budget implementation act.
I will start by quoting from today's morning smile in The
Globe and Mail. There is a sign at the dry cleaner's which
reads “We charge GST, PST, EHT, UIC, WCB and a small fee for
cleaning”. A small fee for cleaning. That is the livelihood of
that small businessman. That sign talks about the economic
conditions in this country.
We are in the middle of the tax season, the time when Canadians
realize how much they pay to the government. It is not a pretty
picture.
Canadians have been complaining for years, but the government
has not listened to them. Now we have economists and tax
specialists joining the debate and calling for a reduction of the
huge tax burden. There is a fine article today in The Globe
and Mail which makes reference to this.
We have to know what is this burden. The burden consists of
federal income tax, payroll taxes, provincial taxes, municipal
taxes, GST, PST, and the recent phenomenon of user fees, which I
call hidden taxes.
Let me dwell on some real examples of what hard working
Canadians are facing. Dan Ticcapaugh, a constituent of mine,
is a hard working father. He is raising two children. He earned
$17,000 last year to feed his family. He paid $2,000 in taxes
when he completed his income tax form.
His refund came to $97 and his wife's refund came to $150.
1255
He asked me a very simple question. How can the government
justify taking taxes from a low income family? I asked the same
question. How does the government expect a family of four to
survive when such a large portion of their disposable income is
taken away? It is no wonder we are hearing of rising child
hunger and poverty among our fellow citizens.
I would like also to turn my attention to the plight of small
businesses in our country. During the last month I have heard
from the owners of three small businesses who have approached me
about recent rulings by Revenue Canada. These small business
owners put in long hours and try hard to put food on the table
for their families. Let me say at the outset that they are also
willing to pay their fair share of taxes and have been doing so
for years. What is happening to them now?
These individuals run small trucking and cleaning firms. They
work hard to get contracts and to sell their services to
prospective clients. They also hire people to provide services
on a subcontractual basis. It is a fine arrangement that helps
both parties to put food on the table. It is not easy for them.
They work long, hard hours. They make a small income, enough to
provide the basics for their families.
Lo and behold, Revenue Canada enters the picture and says that
this arrangement is not right. They say “Sorry, but you have to
pay EI. We do not accept these people as being subcontractors”.
To make matters, worse it is backdated. Suddenly a successful
business is facing a crisis. It is threatened with bankruptcy,
which will put people out of work and send them back to welfare.
They have said that this arrangement is the most economical and
viable option they have to keep them employed and to put food on
the table. They have been forced into this kind of arrangement
because of high payroll taxes and taxes that keep going higher
and higher.
Instead of helping these people, instead of letting them use
their entrepreneurial skills to earn income for their families,
the government is forcing them into the hands of creditors.
The government has a huge EI surplus because it has squeezed
money out of hard-working Canadians. It is a surplus that has
accumulated on the backs of workers and small business owners.
Therefore I say to the Minister of Finance, please listen.
Listen to what is happening to small businesses and to people.
It is ridiculous to tax people so much that they are forced to
go to food banks and welfare. In the end it costs us more. To
make matters worse, how do these people feel when they see that
while the government is reducing their meagre incomes through
taxes it is spending their tax dollars on projects like a tunnel
for senators so they are able to go to their offices in comfort
and avoid a two minute bus ride? What about the millennium
project; spending $140 million on what basically is a party?
Something needs to be done. The time has come for a real tax
break, not just cosmetic changes. For years Canadians have been
held accountable to pay taxes and they have complied. Now it is
the government's turn to show accountability in the way it uses
that hard earned tax money. Unfortunately this year's budget
contains precious little for Canadians to smile about.
Let me quote what some economists and tax experts are saying.
“Our taxes are snuffing out innovation, investment and
entrepreneurial spirit”. That is from Sherry Cooper, senior VP
and chief economist of Nesbitt Burns. The Canadian Chamber of
Commerce said “The government has chosen to spend far beyond
what it had budgeted for just one year ago. Spending for 1998-99
will come in at a stunning $7.6 billion higher. In 1999-2000
program spending has been set at $111.2 billion, a $4.2 billion
increase over the $107 billion projection in last year's
budget”.
1300
It seems to me that we cannot get the Liberal government off our
backs.
Jeff Rubin, chief economist with Wood Gundy, said “From a tax
competitiveness standpoint, Canada ranks dead last in the G-7.
While virtually every other G-7 economy lowered its personal
income tax burden over the last 15 years, Canada's rose sharply,
both as a percentage of GDP and of household income”.
This year's federal budget does not address many issues. It
does not address reducing our federal debt. The federal debt
today sits at $579.7 billion, which translates into $18,800 per
person. The interest payment on the debt is $42.5 billion. It
is the largest single government expenditure and translates into
$1,400 per person.
My colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill this morning said what she
liked about the federal budget. I would like to dwell on the
issues we do not think the government has addressed.
It was the usual pay more and receive less budget. The
government continues to waste money. From $107 billion it is
going to $111 billion. I do not understand why the government
cannot get off our backs and allow Canadians to bring prosperity
to the country.
There are examples. There is the Ontario government. The
Alberta government has decided to uncouple its taxation system
that is tied to the federal government. It is the first
provincial government to do that. That trend will carry on
because they do not see the federal government addressing what
Canadians are looking for.
Personal income tax continues to make up the largest share of
household spending. In 1997 an average of 21 cents of every
dollar of household spending went toward personal income tax, as
opposed to 20 cents for shelter, 12 cents for transportation and
11 cents for food. These figures are from Statistics Canada.
The top federal marginal tax rate is reached at less than
$60,000 in Canada. In the United States the top rate kicks in at
over $200,000. No wonder many of our brightest and best are
moving south of the border.
After tax family incomes declined by over 5% in real terms from
1989 to 1996. Personal savings per taxpayer have fallen to an
all-time low. Canadian families continue to work harder and
harder and find they have less at the end of the month.
The government continues to ignore the critical issue of
lowering the debt rapidly. The costs of social programs will
rise dramatically early in the 21st century. We will not have
the financial means to handle the increase because of the massive
debt hanging over us.
1305
Where has this budget failed on social programs? People work
harder and pay more income tax. Canadians have heard about tax
relief from this minister in past budgets but have seen little
happen. Most will find that the basic personal amount remains at
$6,456, a pitifully low amount as a basic deduction. Two years
from now when we do our taxes for 2000 we will see that the basic
deduction has increased by $675 to $7,131. That is probably
because it will be election time and the Liberals are starting to
hand out small goodies off the table.
Because the basic deduction is not indexed, its value decreases
each year by the rate of inflation. Let us assume an inflation
rate of 1.5% per year for a total of 3% over the next two years.
The value of our deduction declines by $214 and our tax breaks by
$36. Suddenly our $115 tax break is worth only $79. Already
almost one-third of our promised tax break will have been lost.
What have we gained? The government talks about tax relief but
grabs it back through deindexing or stealth taxes.
The government has promised that over 200,000 low income
Canadians will be removed from the tax rolls this year. Can we
trust that promise? As it stands right now, unemployment
insurance premiums are too high and with benefits declining, this
gives a surplus which basically belongs to Canadian workers and
business people. To make matters worse, the finance minister
wanted to use this fund to balance the budget.
The government's budget has been totally silent on homelessness.
It is a growing problem which the federal government should look
at and decide what measures it should take.
What do we have in this budget that is going to take us into the
next century? Unfortunately Canadians have nothing to smile
about.
The productivity gap is growing. The government's own minister
talked about it. As a matter of fact the ministers are fighting
over the issue. The standard of living for Canadians is lagging
further and further behind the U.S. and other countries. The
brain drain continues with an increase in loss of international
competitiveness. The government has reduced opportunities for
many.
I have indicated in my examples what Canadians are facing and
what this government has failed to address. I hope the
government will listen to what Canadians and economists are
saying.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with some interest to what the member had to say.
One of the major budgetary items of the government in recent
years has been the child tax benefit. This is an allocation of
upwards of $2 billion to the children of the poorest families in
Canada. In my riding poor families looked forward to this with
great anticipation. Here at last was a substantial allocation
per child to the income of the poorest families in the land.
The federal government has to make particular arrangements with
each province when it is flowing money of this type. Even though
I suspect the vast majority of people in Canada support the idea
of combating child poverty, the arrangements were different in
every province.
In my own riding there was great disappointment when it was
discovered that because of the arrangement we had to make with
the Government of Ontario, the province took away from those low
income families which were on social assistance the amount the
federal government had added to their incomes.
As a result there was no change in their income.
1310
It is true that because of the agreement the federal government
made, the moneys the provincial government took away were flowed
to programs for low income working families. Nevertheless, there
was no change in the income of the impoverished families and
children. In Ontario more than 40% of the people on social
assistance are children.
The member represents a riding in Alberta. Would he explain to
the House what the Government of Alberta's policy was and what
his position was with respect to the flowing of the money to low
income children through the child tax benefit which this
government introduced?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to
answer the hon. member's question.
I will dwell on the first point, the child tax benefit. It is
amazing that he says the federal government is giving child tax
benefits. I tell him it is not in this budget. The government's
child tax relief is going to come in 2000 and 2001. Why not now?
The member talked about his constituency and what it was looking
for. That did not address the issue. It moved it back.
The member in his second question talked about Alberta. I
mentioned in my speech that the new tax the Alberta government
came up with is uncoupled from the federal government. Why did
it decide to uncouple in the year 2000? Alberta is the first
province to do it. Other provinces will follow because they do
not agree with what the federal government is doing in giving tax
relief. Alberta has decided to uncouple from the Liberal
government so it can give tax relief to its citizens. That was
one of the best things the Government of Alberta did. It has come
up with one of the most innovative ideas in this country, a
single flat tax rate. This government could learn from Alberta.
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, to echo the words of my colleague from
Calgary, the Liberal government since 1993 has stood in the House
and told us how important the child care tax credit is to it and
how it places this as a high priority. The finance minister
stands up and crows about his so-called balanced budget and the
surplus and the very people the Liberal government has supposedly
placed such a priority on, the children of this country who are
living in homes where money is of greatest need, yet there is not
one red cent in a child tax credit. That could almost be called
somewhat hypocritical. The government says it is a high priority
yet it fails to act.
I wanted to make that comment so that the member opposite is
clear on what his finance minister has done. Perhaps he did not
know that it was not in the budget. It is very important and the
finance minister, despite his balanced budget and the so-called
surplus, has failed to address it.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague
for bringing that point up.
Again I would like to take this opportunity to advise my
colleagues on the other side of the House to look at what the
Government of Alberta has come up with, to listen to the voices
of Canadians and get off our backs with high taxes.
I have given members examples in my speech. They should look at
those examples. They are real Canadians who are suffering. The
government is sending them into bankruptcy. They must be allowed
to work and put food on the table. The government must get off
the backs of Canadians.
1315
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, the
hon. member opposite was commenting on the child tax credit,
which is a positive initiative and heads in the right direction.
However, if he really wanted to ensure that we actually have
fairer taxes, he should read the initiative that we proposed in
Winnipeg in 1996 as part of our policy document. The Reform
Party dedicated an opposition day in the House with respect to
ensuring that we have fairer tax treatment for families with one
parent who chooses to work in the home and one parent who
actually—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
member. The intent of my recognizing you was to ask a question
to the member for Calgary East.
Mr. John Herron: In lieu of the comments I just made,
would the hon. Reform Party member concur that if we want to
ensure that all children are treated equally we should tax
families that have one parent working inside the home and one
parent working outside the home in the same way as we do dual
income parents?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank
the member for his very important question. I agree with him.
Only four days ago there was a headline in the Calgary
Herald that 6,000 children in Calgary face hunger.
The member is absolutely right when he says the government has
failed to address the fundamental issue that is facing Canadian
society, which is to give tax breaks to parents who like to stay
at home. This has totally been ignored. When Beverly Smith met
the minister, the impression she got was that the government was
not interested in stay at home parents.
I concur with the hon. member that this is an absolutely
important issue. I thank him for bringing it up. We know that
the government has yet to do something about that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam Speaker, this
is an important moment in parliament when we debate the budget,
and we cannot debate the budget without discussing the
government.
When the Prime Minister shuffled the cards and selected cabinet,
he said “I need a cabinet with a lot of jacks, not too many
queens and definitely a lot of jokers”. This is essentially the
distribution that has inspired the government in implementing
its policies.
This budget is disappointing, for two reasons. First, the
government failed to deal with the right priorities. What would
they have been? The fight against poverty, naturally.
There have never been so many poor in Canada. A look at the
1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s or the 1990s reveals that there are
more poor people now than ever before. What is the government
doing about this problem? Nothing.
The people in the Bloc Quebecois are very committed to the fight
against poverty. There is myself, naturally, but there is also
the member for Québec and my colleague from Rivière-du-Loup, who
has led and continues to lead a fight for an independent
employment insurance fund. The government must realize that the
poverty we are talking about is the poverty created by
government measures, and we will come back to this.
1320
The other disappointment we had with this budget is that it
confirmed and perpetuated the hallmark of Canadian
federalism—government intervention in provincial jurisdictions.
Historians will understand, on analyzing the years 1994 to 2002,
that this government was one of those that had the least respect
for provincial jurisdictions. It was one of the most
interfering governments.
I see the Liberals smiling. As they say, the fool laughs and
the sage smiles.
There is no lack of smiles on the other side of the House. This
is a bit disconcerting, because they did not react to federal
government interference in the health field.
If one asked any of the government party members, whether from
Ontario, British Columbia, Nova Scotia or Saskatchewan, to point
out the place where the constitution, which is supposed to
strike a balance between the power of the provinces and of the
federal government, states that the federal government is
allowed to get involved in the health field, I am willing to bet
that no one over there could find such a thing, because it is
not there.
They just waded in to do their dirty work, with no hesitation
whatsoever.
I will give some examples of this. There is the creation of the
Canadian institute of health research, an expenditure of $65
million by the year 2001 and another $175 million in 2001-2002.
The federal government wants to get into the health research and
development field.
Would it not have been more respectful of the provinces' powers
to say “We are going to transfer the available funding”. There
is no denying that the federal government has plenty of money at
this time. Of course, these funds can be considered ill gotten
gains, because the government passed its deficit on to the
provinces.
At present, the federal government has a lot of money. If it had
wanted to put it to good use, it could easily have transferred
to the provinces funds that would have enabled them to fund
research in the health sector, because we all agree that it is
important to do research in that area.
Our population is aging, and seniors are living longer. We all
have a pretty good chance of living until the age of 85, 90 or
95. I do not want to exaggerate, but the fact is that people are
living longer.
Another example of federal intrusion is the research and
evaluation fund for nursing staff. The government will spend $25
million on this over a 10 year period.
Then there is the Canadian institute of health research, which
will get $328 million to improve health information systems by
applying modern technology. In short, the government's attitude
is brazen, impolite, disrespectful and shocking, and all those
who have some backbone in this House should be outraged. Of
course, this excludes a good half of the membership here.
Be that as it may, if the government had wanted to do something
useful, it could easily have accepted a number of the Quebec
government's legitimate demands. This is a democratically
elected government, one of the best we have had in a long time
in the National Assembly.
I will give the example of the Montreal convention centre.
Montreal is an international city, and a hub for the tourist
industry.
Montreal, and Quebec City of course—and I see my colleague from
the Quebec City region nodding in approval—are both very
important tourist destinations.
1325
The Government of Quebec is going ahead and enlarging the
Montreal congress centre, because it realizes that additional
space is required for a number of important congresses that are
planned years in advance. Reservations have already been taken
for 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Organizers of a congress—not a
simple convention, but an international congress—must obviously
begin their preparations a few years in advance.
In the past, the federal government has always contributed one
third of the money required to expand congress centres, whether
in Toronto, Vancouver, Halifax, London or Ottawa.
Ottawa gives every impression of being a patronage, with the
Minister of Industry giving Ottawa's congress centre priority
over Montreal's.
The Government of Quebec decided to go ahead and expand the
Montreal congress centre on its own. Now we must pay for this
expansion. The Government of Canada owes Quebec exactly $58
billion. We would appreciate payment in the next few weeks.
Here is an area where the government had some leeway, but did
nothing. When it comes to Quebec's interests, there will always
be people on the government side ready to steamroller over them.
If the Bloc Quebecois were not here in Ottawa, who would
represent Quebec's interests? Certainly not the Liberal members
from Quebec, who epitomize the “silence of the lambs”.
Like all his colleagues from Ontario, the member from Ontario is
very vocal, but only when it comes to defending his province's
interests, and certainly not those of Quebec. I could give many
other examples, such as the harmonization of the QST and the
GST, where the Government of Quebec, which was the first
province to harmonize, lost out. We are still waiting for our
$1 billion. The same goes for the ice storm; the federal
government owes us $435 million.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member—
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I had 20 minutes, not 10.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I was given to understand
the hon. member would be sharing his time. Continue.
Mr. Réal Ménard: The House will be pleased to know that it is
20 minutes, Madam Speaker. I would take a round of applause by
the government members as a sign of encouragement. We all need a
little encouragement in this House.
The budget provided the federal government with a golden
opportunity to settle its debt with the Government of Quebec,
but it chose not to do so.
During the ice storm, the people in Quebec came together in a
show of solidarity and everyone gave a helping hand. Although in
a tight situation, the Government of Quebec agreed to loosen the
purse strings. There are overdue payments with regard to the ice
storm: Quebeckers are being denied $435 million, because the
federal government argues that the expenditures incurred by
Hydro-Québec to undertake emergency measures and rebuild its
infrastructure are not covered by the federal disaster relief
program.
When will the Liberals play fair with the Quebec government?
That is the question.
We could talk about Oka. The Government of Quebec is still
waiting for a $38 million cheque to cover expenditures the
province considers eligible under the federal disaster relief
program.
1330
We are dealing with a petty government, a low, mean, and
heartless government, except maybe for the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development who stands out a bit, though
not enough to deserve an award.
There is also the whole issue of systemic inequities that have
continued for several generations now. Let us start with
research and development. Is there anything more important in a
modern society that R&D;?
I am glad to see that the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development is showing some concern.
I have some consideration for the minister of course because she
is a charming lady, but also because she had the courage to
apologize, on behalf of the Government of Canada, and that she
is working now on a plan of reconciliation with the aboriginal
people.
I hope the minister will not forget that, if there ever was a
government on this earth that has worked, that has recognized
aboriginal governments, and that has paid tribute to, made
things easier for and given space to aboriginal communities, to
the first nations, because they are nations, it is the
Government of Quebec that did it, as early as 1985.
In a sovereign Quebec, within a matter of months, the Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development knows that we will
treat all the aboriginal communities on Quebec territory on an
equal footing.
The Erasmus commission urged the government to do the same. I
hope that this call will be heard, but I still think that the
minister stands apart from the rest of the government, which is
quite unimpressive. She is like a breath of fresh air in an all
too dreary situation.
I also want to raise the whole issue of social housing.
Eighty-nine per cent of my constituents are tenants, not
owner-occupants. In the 1996 speech from the throne, the
government had committed to decentralizing certain powers. Among
the commitments that the government had made at that time, $1.9
billion was to be redistributed to the provinces for social
housing. What has happened since that speech from the throne?
Nothing happened in the case of the Government of Quebec.
Nothing happened. Why? It is not because the Quebec government
was not ready to negotiate or refused to take over that
responsibility. Since Quebec is already responsible for the
Civil Code and for land use management, it would only be normal
for it to also take over responsibility for social housing.
You will not believe what I am about to say. The Government of
Canada does not want to give Quebec its fair share of the social
housing budget. Despite the fact that Quebec has 29% of all
Canadians who are in dire need of housing, the Canadian
government, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation,
invests only 17% of its available funds in Quebec.
Whether we look at the percentage of the total Canadian
population Quebeckers represent or at the percentage of
Canadians in need of housing living in Quebec, Quebec is clearly
being short-changed.
The federal government wants to transfer $300 million, which is
ridiculous, when Quebec can rightfully claim more than $500
million. Who is protecting Quebec's interests in this
government? Who is interested in these much needed negotiations?
No one.
1335
I ask the minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation to initiate negotiations, to negotiate in
good faith and to give Quebec its due share.
I could give many more examples, but I want to take a few
minutes to say that tomorrow will be a sad day in the House of
Commons. I want to prepare you in advance because I know how
sensitive you are.
I would like to address my comments to all Liberal members.
Tomorrow there will be an important vote on a motion to add
social condition as a prohibited ground of discrimination in the
Canadian Human Rights Act.
In fact, this is a private member's bill introduced by the hon.
member for Shefford, whom we wish to commend. Government members
could seize this opportunity to create an additional tool to
fight poverty.
Quebec, which is without any doubt the most progressive province
in Canada, added to its Charter of rights in 1975 a provision
prohibiting discrimination based on social condition. The
Canadian Human Rights Act still lacks a similar provision.
This explains why some Canadians are still victims of
discrimination in terms of access to financial services, housing
and, indeed, under the employment insurance legislation. Our bet
is that taking action to put an end to discrimination, by adding
social condition to the list of prohibited grounds of
discrimination for instance, would contribute in a significant
and realistic way to improve the condition of the less
fortunate.
I am ready to bet that, tomorrow, all government members will
rise and vote against the bill introduced by the member for
Shefford. Canadian citizens will not forget that this government
was not concerned about poverty and would not take concrete
action to fight poverty.
I would ask the government members who will sleep tonight to
think about the benefit that would accrue to their communities
if they agreed to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. I remind
them that eight provinces have already prohibited discrimination
based on social condition. It is high time we, as
parliamentarians, enabled those who are discriminated against,
at least those who do in federal jurisdictions, to put an end to
it.
If government members were to vote against the bill, I predict
that a standoff, an all out war would result, because we in the
Bloc Quebecois will never tolerate so much insensitivity on
their part with respect to the fight against poverty.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased the member included in his remarks comments with
regard to poverty in Canada. I think all members will agree that
the best way to approach a problem is first to understand it.
The member will know of some current research, for instance the
research study of the Golden task force on the homelessness
situation. It identified that 35% of the homeless in Toronto
were mentally ill, which I expect is reflective of other urban
communities across the country; 28% were youth who had been
alienated from their families, and of those 70% had experienced
physical or sexual abuse; 10% were abused women; and 18% were
aboriginals off reserve. That accounts for a very significant
proportion, over 80% of the homeless in Toronto.
The member well knows this is a symptom of poverty but is not
the sole cause.
The social housing issue the member raises certainly is
important. He will also know that one parent families, which
account for about 12% of all families in Canada, also account for
over 50% of all children living in poverty.
1340
There is not a simple solution to poverty and homelessness in
Canada. There is certainly an economic poverty that has to be
addressed. We have to be vigilant on that. I think the member
would agree, and I would be interested in his comments, that
there is a social poverty in Canada that also has to be
addressed.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I agree with a number of the
comments made by our colleague.
I would, however, invite him to understand that, when it comes
to analyzing the phenomenon of poverty, it must be realized that
there is a kind of fault line that dates back to the early
1990s.
A link must be made to poverty—and the hon. member is right to
point out that this is a phenomenon in the major cities for the
most part—and particularly the poverty created by certain
measures.
If he hon. member wants to raise this issue, he might make an
extremely useful contribution to the debate, first of all by
asking his government to amend not only the Canadian Human
Rights Act, but the Employment Insurance Act as well.
The hon. member must be aware that, because of his government's
employment insurance legislation, 200,000 people across Canada
have had to make use of last resort solutions. This might be
termed social poverty, the last resort solutions provided by
income security programs, because his government has raised the
qualification criteria so high for those who pay into the
employment insurance program, that they end up on social
security, and this keeps them poor.
There are, of course, many causes of poverty.
There is the matter of housing, the matter of outdated skills.
People who have been skilled workers in the clothing, the
textile or the petrochemical industries, which have been in
decline internationally since the early 1980s and the 1990s,
find themselves out of the workforce, and it is hard to get
back in.
I would remind our colleague that it was his government that
abolished the older workers adjustment program, known as POWA.
I invite him therefore to give some more thought to the poverty
created by governments, the one he belongs to in particular.
[English]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Madam Speaker, I
have a couple of brief comments with respect to my hon.
colleague's remarks. He spoke to the issue of Bill S-11 which
was introduced by the member for Shefford and sponsored
originally by Senator Cohen in the Senate.
Establishing social condition in the Canadian bill of human
rights was something a number of provinces across the country
have done. Given that the Minister of Justice just the other
week made comments indicating that social condition should at
least be considered or studied to be added to the charter of
human rights, would the member not think that by not supporting
Bill S-11 on this occasion and perhaps doing it down the road is
an indication that the government prefers a bit of partisanship
as opposed to doing the right thing and voting for Bill S-11
right away?
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, our colleague is right to remind
us that there are times in parliament when we must rise above
partisanship.
One of those very important times is, of course, when we talk
about human rights. Had it been a government bill, I believe we
would still have supported it unconditionally.
What is social condition? The way the courts have defined social
condition refers to three elements: one's position in society
based on one's income; one's position in society based on one's
education; and the prejudice one suffers as a result of those
positions.
1345
Based on the rulings handed down by the courts, it is clear that
welfare recipients have a particular social condition. In some
cases, these court rulings have condemned discrimination against
the poor because welfare recipients very often, if not almost
always, live below the poverty line.
It must be noted that the debate on social condition is not an
academic debate.
It has a very concrete meaning for those people who would be
able to challenge not only a number of discriminatory practices
related to the services they receive, but also discriminatory
measures taken by governments as the case may be.
Again, I urge all members—and I am sure my colleague, the member
for Shefford, would do the same if she were here today—to vote
tomorrow in favour of this bill that would improve the Canadian
Human Rights Act and that would send a clear message to all
Canadians that we do not accept discrimination, no matter which
forms it takes.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we can
always count on the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve for a lively
speech. Unfortunately, we heard nothing new, just the usual
sovereignist claims.
He cited all sorts of information and figures in his speech, but
I heard no mention of the figures in this budget for the
equalization payments. I wonder whether the member could speak
to us about that a bit.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Speaker, I would not like the member to
pop his last remaining neuron, so I will speak very quietly. I
cannot quite agree that there is nothing new.
I think he will understand that the issue is not whether it is
new or old. It is about telling the truth. I think our
colleague will agree that each of the matters we have raised is
based on an enlightened understanding of the interests of
Quebec.
The member may find it old hat to talk about poverty. I hope,
like him, that a day will come when we do not have to debate it
in the House because it will have been eliminated.
However, to get to that point, there will need to be a lot more
courage and lucidity in his caucus and a good dollop of
co-operation among the opposition parties. The member is right.
We are not there, even in our boldest fantasies about the
Government of Canada.
[English]
Mr. Richard M. Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, we have been listening to the Liberal
spin on the budget since February. The fact is there are two
stories. There is the story the Liberals would like Canadians to
believe. Their spin doctors are trying to convince Canadians
that they should feel good about the February budget. And there
is the real story, and the facts that back up the real story. I
will go through a few of the spin stories of the Liberals and
then the other story and the facts.
The Liberals claim they are giving Canadians $1.5 billion in tax
relief this year, $2.8 billion next year and $3.4 billion by
2001-02 for a total of about $7.7 billion. That is their story.
The fact is that Canadians today are paying $2,000 more in taxes
than they did in 1993. The average Canadian is paying $2,020
more in taxes than he or she did in 1993.
At the same time Canadians are getting less health care. Since
coming to power, the Liberals have cut $1,500 per taxpayer out of
health care transfers, $1,500 out of health care transfers for
every single Canadian.
Since the Liberals took power, federal taxes per taxpayer are up
by 24%. That is the $2,000.
1350
An hon member: His nose is growing.
Mr. Richard M. Harris: The truth hurts. I can hear them
squealing over there. The truth really hurts.
According to the latest figures, personal savings per taxpayer
are down by $3,700 since 1993. That is a 99% decrease in
personal savings for Canadians because of the Liberal government
and its tax crazy finance minister.
According to the latest figures, take home pay has dropped
$2,100 for every taxpayer. Since 1993 disposable household
income for hardworking Canadian families has dropped by over
$4,200.
That is what this Liberal government wants Canadians to feel
good about.
In the Liberal spin story on health care the Liberals claim they
will invest $1.4 billion over three years for federal health care
initiatives. They claim they will invest $11.5 billion over the
next five years in payments to the provinces in CHST transfers.
That is the Liberal story.
Here is the real story. The Liberals have cut $21.4 billion out
of health and social spending since 1993. They have cut $21.4
billion and they are going to give back $11.5 billion over the
next five years. There has been a 31% drop in taxpayer health
and social spending by the federal government. The Liberals have
cut health and social spending by 34% per taxpayer since 1993.
Here is another one the Liberals will not tell us about. There
is 188,000 Canadians on waiting lists for serious operations and
health care services. Waiting times for Canadians to see a health
specialist are up 38% since 1993. Waiting times from a GP
referral to a specialist to treatment are up 28%. Should I
mention the hep C victims, those the Liberal government simply
excluded at the stroke of a pen?
Is this the real story? Yes, it is. It is not the story the
Liberal spin doctors would like Canadians to believe.
Liberals claim they expect to retire $20 billion in market debt
this year. That is the Liberal story. Here are the facts. This
country's net debt is still a staggering $580 billion, or $18,800
for every single Canadian. Every time a baby is born in this
country, he or she automatically owes $18,800.
Why have we seen our health care cut? Why have we seen these
high taxes? Because the previous Liberal governments since 1965
or so and the short term Tory government of Brian Mulroney have
run up such a debt to the extent that every single year the
government has to pay out $42.5 billion in interest payments on
that debt.
What could we do with that kind of money, $42.5 billion? We
could probably fund the entire health care system for about three
years. We could probably pay the tuition fees for every student
in post-secondary education in Canada today for their entire
education period.
The spin doctors and the Liberals have been busy, but Canadians
simply are not buying that story.
Here is another one. Using their 1998-99 base of spending of
$104.5 billion, the Liberals say they will increase spending by
$7.6 billion this year alone. Sorry, the Liberals did not tell
Canadians that. I would like to tell them once again.
The Liberals will increase spending by $7.6 billion.
1355
This is the government that said it was important to get
spending under control. Every year since 1993 the government has
increased spending and over the last year by over $7.5 billion in
increased spending, or $23 billion over the next three years.
This is a government that told Canadians it was crucial to get
spending under control, yet it has increased spending. At the
same time it has increased taxes since 1993. We know the tax
increases this government has brought in, over $2,000 per working
Canadian since 1993.
Let me say those numbers again. Disposable income for the
average Canadian family household has dropped over $4,400 since
1993. That is because of the Liberal government's fiscal policies
which simply do not work.
We cannot get our financial house in order unless we stop
spending the money, and spending the money in some very foolish
ways I might add. Instead of spending it on health care, the
Liberals are content to spend a couple of billion dollars on a
millennium monument to the prime minister. I could go on. The
member for St. Albert who does the waste report knows all about
Liberal spending.
Let us look at this one. The Liberals claim they are investing
$1.8 billion in research and development over the next four
years. The fact is we want our brightest and our best to stay in
this country. The best thing they can do for research and
development is to give Canadians tax breaks so the brightest and
the best do not go south of the line where they have a much more
enjoyable tax regime.
The Liberals claim they are investing $400 million to address
compensation and benefits issues in the Department of National
Defence. They are going to spend $400 million. Here is the real
story. Since 1993, the Liberals have cut $7 billion out of
funding for our armed forces. They have continuously been asking
our troops to do more with less. They are going to give them
back $400 million, but they have taken away $7 billion since
1993.
This budget is not what the Liberals would like Canadians to
believe it is.
The Speaker: The member has time left. I understand there
will be questions and comments. He will have the floor when we
resume debate, but right now we will go to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Translation]
THE LATE SENATOR PAUL DAVID
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with sadness that we learned, on April 5, that senator
Paul David, who founded the Montreal Heart Institute in the
fifties, had passed away.
Dr. David was a world renowned cardiologist, who was also firmly
committed to social action. He was the founder of the heart and
stroke foundations of Canada and Quebec, of which he was also a
president.
Dr. David received an impressive number of honours and awards
throughout his brilliant career, both here and abroad.
A true pioneer in his field, he was only 35 when he founded, in
1954, in Montreal's east end, the famous heart institute that he
ran in various capacities until his retirement, in 1984. It was
under his direction that the first heart transplant ever
performed in Canada was carried out at the institute, in 1968.
We offer our sincere condolences to his wife, Dr. Yvette Lemire,
and his children, François, Pierre, Charles-Philippe, Thérèse,
Anne-Marie and Hélène.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
humanitarian situation in Kosovo is a catastrophe. Hundreds of
thousands of people are being forced from their homes. Many are
being slaughtered in the name of someone's perception of purity.
Men, women and children are fleeing in every direction to escape
the misery.
We as Canadians have a tradition of supporting human rights and
the plight of refugees. We have opened our doors to them in the
past and stand ready to do it again today.
The issue of military intervention in Kosovo affects my riding.
St. Albert is home to many of the several thousand troops who are
stationed in the Edmonton garrison. We know that if the soldiers
are called upon, they will serve with pride and honour. They are
trained, they are prepared, they are ready to serve.
Our hearts go out to our service men and women and their
families who are preparing in case they may be separated to force
a peace on warring factions in a faraway land. I want them to
know that the thoughts and prayers of Canadians are with them at
this most stressful time.
* * *
1400
[Translation]
THE LATE OMER DESLAURIERS
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Ontario Francophonie lost one of its greatest
champions.
Omer Deslauriers, the former president of the Association
canadienne-française de l'Ontario, former president of the
Regroupement des intervenants professionnels franco-ontariens de
la santé et des services sociaux, and the first president of the
Council for Franco-Ontarian Affairs, worked tirelessly throughout
his career to promote the cause of French Ontario.
Through his passion and perseverance, Omer Deslauriers, who
became a Member of the Order of Canada in 1996 and was named
Person of the year by the Richelieu International club in 1997,
helped Franco-Ontarians play a more prominent role at the
provincial level, particularly in the areas of education and
health.
French Ontario has lost a remarkable spokesperson. It goes
without saying that he will be missed.
I want to extend my most sincere condolences to his family.
* * *
[English]
OC TRANSPO
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Government of Canada, I want to convey our
heartfelt sympathies to the families, friends and colleagues of
the victims of Tuesday's horrible outburst of violence in Ottawa.
Canadians have been shocked and numbed by this awful event. Our
sadness and grief, in particular the sadness and grief of the
victims' loved ones, are made more acute and painful by the
senselessness of it all. It defies human understanding and
explanation.
To the families and friends of Clare Davidson, Brian Guay,
Dave Lemay and Harry Schoenmakers, I want to say we in this House
share your sorrow and pain. One brief eruption of madness has
caused your lives to be changed forever. If it is any
consolation, your community is with you and is ready to help in
whatever way it can.
I also want to commend the bus drivers and the other employees
of OC Transpo who are endeavouring under very trying
circumstances to deliver a service to the residents of
Ottawa-Carleton. They are demonstrating tremendous courage and
selflessness.
* * *
OC TRANSPO
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
keeping with the tribute just read, the deaths of those five OC
Transpo employees last week were senseless and heartbreaking.
Four innocent citizens of this community were killed by a lone
gunman, leaving behind families, friends and co-workers who face
the near impossible task of moving forward without them. To
those closest to Harry Schoenmakers, Dave Lemay, Clare Davidson
and Brian Guay, we offer our sincere and heartfelt support during
this difficult healing process.
Pierre Lebrun, the gunman, took his own life that day and leaves
behind a grieving mother. For the Lebrun family, the burden of
this tragic event rests heavily and we must offer our support to
them as well.
No law or social system could have predicted or prevented what
took place and there are no guarantees that such an incident will
not occur again.
However, we can be certain of one thing. If every day we do the
right thing by the people with whom we live and work and are
positive and supportive individuals then we will have done what
we can to avert another tragedy such as this.
* * *
[Translation]
THE LATE JACQUES GIRARD
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we
were saddened to hear of the death of Quebec's chief electoral
officer, Jacques Girard, at the age of 41, following a long
illness.
Mr. Girard succeeded Pierre-F. Côté as director general and
chairman of the Commission de la représentation électorale du
Québec. He was a talented individual known for his
conscientious and rigorous performance of his duties, whether in
the legal services of Quebec's chief electoral officer, or in
Quebec's Department of Revenue.
Mr. Girard was devoted to the democratic process.
He knew that our electoral process guarantees the legitimacy of
our political system and he ensured the full integrity of that
process. In person, and through his position, he therefore
epitomized the most noble instincts of every Quebecker and
Canadian.
We extend our deepest condolences to the members of his family.
* * *
[English]
GRAND RIVER
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this year
marks the fifth anniversary that the Grand River was named a
Canadian heritage river.
Community efforts under the guidance of the Grand River
Conservation Authority have improved the health of the Grand
River watershed, increased heritage awareness and fostered a
greater understanding of ecotourism.
The GRCA provides technical assistance to landowners, community
groups, schools and municipalities through workshops, volunteer
events, information products and logistics.
Since 1990 visits to the Grand River have increased 30% with 1.1
million visitors in 1998 alone. This has led to new jobs and
economic benefits to communities all along the Grand River,
including my riding of Cambridge.
I congratulate the GRCA on its ongoing success.
* * *
1405
KOSOVO
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, very
few people want war and most would avoid it at at almost any
cost.
In the case of Kosovo, most Canadians agree that our involvement
with NATO is a better option than allowing killing and
persecution of Kosovar Albanians to continue and accelerate.
Most of us take our position more as observers than as
participants, but the men and women of the Canadian forces are
involved in a very direct and real way. As of yesterday we have
close to 200 pilots and support personnel from 4 Wing, Cold Lake,
which is in my riding, serving out of Italy. This means that
families are separated for long periods of time, leaving spouses
and children of pilots and ground crew wondering if their
husbands, fathers, wives and mothers will return safely.
At the same time as we take pride that our personnel are among
the world's best, we are also very concerned for their safety. I
know that my heart and my prayers are with our members and their
families as they serve this noble cause.
I have a special message to the personnel serving out of Cold
Lake: “serve well and come home safely”.
* * *
WESTERN PROVINCES
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House that
the Prime Minister's task force on the four western provinces,
which I chair, spent the Easter break meeting and consulting with
Manitobans.
The response to this initiative was overwhelming. Over three
days, task force members met with over 60 individuals and
organizations across the province. Manitobans spoke to us about
issues as diverse as the plight of our aboriginal peoples, the
need for another infrastructure program, immigration issues and
social programs.
This initiative was announced to complement the work of our
western caucus and give western Canadians another opportunity to
shape the national agenda as the government nears the middle of
our second mandate.
The response we had throughout Manitoba proves one thing,
western Canadians welcome opportunities to have input into the
government's decision making process. I look forward to our
future visits to Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C.
On behalf of the task force members, I would like to thank all
those Manitobans who took the time to come and speak to us.
* * *
[Translation]
NOUVELLE SCÈNE
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, after ten
years of hard work and a lengthy fundraising campaign, a great
dream has been realized today.
Today, a theatre for Ottawa's French speaking community is
opening up on King Edward Avenue. The Nouvelle Scène will now
house, under one roof, the Théâtre du Trillium, the Compagnie
Vox Théâtre, the Théâtre de la Vieille 17, and the Théâtre de la
Catapulte.
The Nouvelle Scène will also host francophone theatre companies
from the region, Canada and French speaking countries throughout
the world.
I wish the Nouvelle Scène every success and I urge my colleagues
to pay it a visit and enjoy some great theatre. Break a leg, as
they say.
* * *
THE LATE JACQUES GIRARD
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec and Canada lost a great shaper of democracy.
On April 10, at the early age of 41, Jacques Girard, the
directeur général des élections du Québec and head of the
Commission de la représentation électorale, died of cancer.
Appointed to these duties by the National Assembly last July 13,
Mr. Girard earned the respect and admiration of all the members
of his team, and all political parties, with the high degree of
competency and enthusiasm he put into this work, and his big
heart.
Not only was Jacques Girard appreciated in Quebec, of course,
but he was also greatly appreciated in Canada, where he occupied
the position of Director of Legal Services at Elections Canada
from 1992 to 1998. He also made a name abroad with his
participation in technical assistance and observation missions
in elections in many countries such as Russia, Haiti and Mexico.
I have warm memories of this likeable, warm, competent, always
approachable man, with whom I had the pleasure and privilege of
working. May I extend my sincere condolences to Mr. Girard's
family and friends on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois.
* * *
[English]
YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today we will have what is called a take note debate in the House
of Commons about what is happening in Yugoslavia.
The details of the procedure have yet to be finalized, but what
is absolutely clear is that many Canadians feel that parliament
has not adequately dealt with this issue, that somehow our way of
dealing with such issues is not commensurate with their
importance.
Indeed, when we think of the fact that we have votes on all
kinds of less important things in this place and debate matters
longer, it is clear that such take note debates on general
motions with no votes do not create a parliamentary mandate.
Instead they run the risk of being treated like a blank cheque
and being held up as parliamentary approval for future actions
when no such thing took place.
This government's record on meaningfully consulting the House of
Commons when it comes to NATO matters is not a good one.
For example, we were the only NATO country whose parliament did
not formally debate the expansion of NATO.
1410
The NDP calls on the government to be open to more meaningful
debate and urges that at the very least the Minister of Foreign
Affairs make a ministerial statement in the House tomorrow after
he comes back from Brussels.
* * *
[Translation]
MONTFORT HOSPITAL
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in this Année canadienne de la francophonie, Gisèle Lalonde and
SOS Montfort are in court today to achieve recognition of the
rights of Ontario francophones to their health institutions, and
to the maintenance of the only francophone hospital west of the
Ottawa River.
The Bloc Quebecois has been pleased to provide its support to
the efforts of Ontario francophones on behalf of the survival of
this health care facility, which is also a French language
teaching hospital.
It is unacceptable that francophones in the rest of Canada must
go to court in order to gain recognition of their most essential
rights, to receive an education and health care in their
language, at a time when the French speaking community in Canada
is more fragile than ever, as the latest census data prove.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to assure Gisèle Lalonde, the Montfort
Hospital board, and the franco-Ontarian community, of Quebeckers'
support in their efforts to gain respect for their fundamental
rights.
* * *
[English]
MEMBER FOR WHITBY—AJAX
Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
fellow members of parliament, I am back.
I want to thank the hundreds of you who sent get well wishes to
me in Germany during my 27 day stay at the Johanniter Krachenhaus
hospital in Bonn, and then upon my return to Canada in
mid-February.
I am pleased to report that I am well on the way to a full
recovery.
I return to parliament with a renewed appreciation for our
health care system without which an episode such as I have
recently experienced may well have bankrupt both me and my
family.
I also want to express my deepest appreciation to Professor
Moebius and his medical team, to the staff of the Canadian
embassy in Bonn, and most particularly Ambassador Gaetan Lavertu
and Dennis Lance who made daily visits to my bedside with news
from home.
I want to send a very special thank you to the residents of
Whitby—Ajax who kept both florists and card companies
flourishing.
I also take this opportunity to publicly thank my staff here and
in the riding for their tremendous efforts on behalf of my
constituents during my time of illness.
The Speaker: Welcome home, Judi.
* * *
NATIONAL POST
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, fine whine was
the highlight of the commentary section in Saturday's National
Post.
Readers were subjected to the same tired excuses from the Prime
Minister as to why a convicted criminal and an admitted embezzler
under investigation got $2.3 million in federal grants and loans
for hotel projects in his riding.
Pathetic protests from the Prime Minister do nothing to restore
public confidence, especially when Liberal cabinet ministers and
backbenchers do much to prevent Parliament from uncovering the
truth.
Instead of writing a four page missive to the National
Post, why will the Prime Minister not prove his integrity by
tabling all documents in the possession of his office on his
involvement in the Duhaime and Thibault projects? Better yet,
why will he not invoke section 11 of the Auditor General Act to
direct that office to conduct an independent audit of both deals?
Anything less makes the Prime Minister's whine of integrity taste
very sour.
* * *
TORONTO LODGE 1600
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Friday, March 19, I had the honour of attending the
grand opening of Toronto Lodge No. 1600 of the Loyal Order of
Moose. Toronto Lodge 1600 has been in existence for 84 years but
this occasion marked the first time that the lodge has owned its
own building.
During the evening's festivities, certificates were presented to
those members of the community who helped make this grand opening
possible. The following people and organizations were honoured
for their contributions: Torbram Electric, Lawrence Cohen, Tom
Campagnolo Construction, Trevor Gabb, Canada Cartage, Mike
Mastrotucci, Al McWhirter, Larry Huard, Ken McCalla, Innovative
Securities, Vera-Ann Kalbol and Dennis Packer of Unistar
Communications.
Organizations such as the Toronto lodge have made community
service a cornerstore of their every day life. They are hard at
work giving their time and effort to make our community a better
place to live by supporting both local and international
charitable organizations and programs.
I offer my congratulations to all members of the Toronto Lodge
No. 1600 of the Loyal Order of Moose. I welcome them to the
riding of Parkdale—High Park.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians across the country generally support Canada's
involvement in the NATO campaign to stop Serb aggression in
Kosovo. They want to see ethnic Albanians resettled to live in
peace and democracy in Kosovo.
Today in Brussels, NATO foreign ministers are gathered to assess
the best means of obtaining that peace. I wonder whether the
Prime Minister would tell the House what message our foreign
minister took to that meeting in Brussels on behalf of Canadians.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to say thanks for the support that
all the parties have given to activities of the Canadian Armed
Forces in NATO.
This morning when the minister was in Brussels he took the
message that has been the same since the beginning. We want to
make sure that it is possible for the Kosovars to go home safely,
that the ethnic cleansing Mr. Milosevic started more than a year
ago is terminated as quickly as possible, and that we maintain
the plan which was agreed to by all members of NATO some weeks
ago.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen and other
senior American officials called Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic a
war criminal. The American president's chief of staff called for
his removal from office as a necessary precondition of Serbia's
regaining its status as a democratic nation.
Does the government support these statements? If so, how do we
negotiate for peace with a leader who has been labelled a war
criminal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the position of the Canadian government is that we want
all criminals who have caused the genocide in Serbia and in the
neighbouring nations to face the trial that is called by the
international community. There was a resolution to that effect.
This is one of the problems we are having with Milosevic and his
government. They do not want to return the criminals to face
justice and we insist that they do that.
In the meantime the government in Belgrade is run by Milosevic.
That is the government which exists at this moment in that
country. If it wants to sign a peace agreement, even if it is
Milosevic, we should take it. If he is a war criminal he should
face the consequences of his actions in the international court.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today in Brussels some officials conceded that most of
the original Rambouillet peace framework had been overtaken by
events and would not rule out partitioning Kosovo as part of any
settlement.
Is the government considering supporting the partitioning of
Kosovo as part of any negotiated settlement to resolve the crisis
in the Balkans?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we want all Kosovars anywhere and everywhere to be able
to go back home to Kosovo. They have been there a long time.
There is no discussion at this time about partitioning Kosovo as
part of the deal.
We want all Kosovars to be able to go back to their homes where
they have been for a long time and to have their lives and
freedom protected.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the majority of Canadians appear to possibly support the use of
ground forces in Kosovo, but they want to be kept informed about
just what the government is doing.
Last week the defence minister said that Canada was considering
sending ground forces to Kosovo in advance of the peace
agreement, but the Prime Minister denied that there were any such
plans.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Is the government
considering sending Canadian ground forces into Kosovo?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is absolutely no discussion at this time at the
ministerial level of any possibility of sending troops in a
combat position into Kosovo. This is not something that is on
the table and it is not being considered by the government.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is certainly being considered by other governments in the NATO
allies and it is certainly the topic of conversation in military
circles.
It is the number one concern of the military. It is the number
one concern of the official opposition.
1420
Again my question is for the Prime Minister. Is the government
considering sending Canadian ground forces to Kosovo in advance
of a peace agreement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have replied to that question. We are not considering
such a move at all at this moment.
Our goal is to make sure that the Kosovars can go back home
under secure circumstances, and under all the conditions that we
are waiting to have an agreement on, to make sure they can go
there under secure conditions. Of course it was provided for in
Rambouillet that an international force be there so they can
enjoy the freedom they deserve.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister says he is not planning to send ground troops to
Kosovo.
However, in the present state of affairs, with the air strikes
dragging on longer than expected, is it not completely
reasonable to consider what will happen if ground troops become
necessary?
Will the Prime Minister tell us whether his cabinet and chief of
defence staff are considering sending ground troops, if
warranted, or if this scenario is excluded a priori?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
are acting in concert with other countries.
As I said earlier, there is no question at this time of sending
ground troops to Kosovo. None at all. We do not need to make a
decision about this as long as the problem does not arise.
Our plan is to continue with the bombing. We were not under any
illusions. We knew that it would take some time to achieve the
anticipated results. We must stick with this course of action.
I am in agreement with the stepped up bombing that began a few
days ago.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
note that the Prime Minister's response is to say that “there is
no question at this time of sending ground troops”, and I agree.
However, it is not on the eve of sending them that we will be
called upon to evaluate whether or not troops are necessary. In
my view, the Prime Minister is suggesting that such an
evaluation is now under way.
I ask him, in this order: Will he agree not to send any ground
troops to Kosovo until this parliament has debated the issue and
given its approval for such a course of action?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is our third debate on the topic since October.
I can assure the hon. member that if, one day, we are obliged—I
hope it never comes to that—to send ground troops, I will be
happy to hold another debate in the House of Commons at that
time.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
National Defence said recently that it would be a few weeks, if
not several months, before the Canadian army was ready to
intervene in Kosovo.
Since many people are seriously raising the issue of land
operations, could the minister tell us about the army's
readiness at this point to intervene in Kosovo?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said, we have
one plan. We have an air campaign. We believe that the air
campaign will work. We believe that the conditions set down
again today in Brussels by NATO need to be met and we will
continue with that campaign.
Of course military planners always look at different
possibilities, but there is one plan and one plan only that is
being followed by NATO and being followed by Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I invite the
minister to listen carefully to my question. I have twice asked
him questions, and he does not always give me a direct answer.
I would ask him to tell us this. Between his statement of last
week that a number of weeks, if not months, of preparation were
required, and his statement of today, what has taken place so
that the Canadian army is now ready, or not, to intervene and to
act on a NATO decision?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on February 17 the House discussed the
matter of ground troops under a peace accord. On that basis I
indicated at that time that between 600 and 800 Canadian forces
troops would be made available for that purpose.
1425
Those troops are in training now and will be available to
participate in a peacekeeping mission in Kosovo once the
conditions laid down by NATO are adhered to by the Yugoslav
government.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal government has been counting on military actions alone to
stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Because of the military
focus, political solutions have been virtually ignored with 19
days of bombing but no real diplomatic leadership.
Will the government now agree to show the leadership Canadians
expect and push for a United Nations led negotiated solution?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, nothing would be more pleasant for the government than
to have an agreement with the United Nations on this problem. Our
ambassador in New York has been active. I think it is very
important to involve the Russians in a solution as much as
possible. I have written to Mr. Yeltsin to that effect. The
reality is that both Russia and China have a veto at the security
council and we cannot move.
I was very pleased with the statement of Secretary General Koffi
Annan yesterday when he confirmed that his personal position was
the same as that of NATO as stated this morning on the condition
to have a peaceful settlement in Kosovo.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada
is bombing Serbia with the objective of protecting the civilian
population of Kosovo, but the ethnic cleansing continues.
Is Canada prepared to advance the proposition that if Milosevic
will stop the atrocities, stop the killing and agree to come to
the table, NATO will suspend the bombing?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, one of the conditions mentioned in the five conditions
agreed upon is to make sure he stops this cleansing and withdraws
his soldiers so the Kosovars can go back home under secure
conditions.
He does not want to do that. He started the policy of cleansing
against the Kosovars months before we had the Rambouillet
negotiations. Despite the agreement of the Russians on the
Rambouillet conditions, he refused to sign and kept with his
policy of pushing the Kosovars out and killing probably hundreds
of thousands of them. That is why we have to maintain pressure
on him with intensification of the air strikes.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr.
Speaker, in 1991 when the international community under the UN
flag was about to strike against Iraq, the then opposition leader
and now Prime Minister who was personally briefed by the prime
minister accused him of rolling the dice with Canadian lives
during a real debate on a votable motion.
[Translation]
Is the Prime Minister prepared, in a real debate with a real
vote, to put the question of Canada's and NATO's intervention in
Kosovo?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week the government House leader negotiated the form of
today's debate, and all parties, including the Progressive
Conservative Party, agreed to a debate like the one we will be
having.
This is the practice we have followed since we first formed the
government. Every time there have been Canadian military
interventions somewhere, we have always come to the House of
Commons before going further and we are continuing to do so. We
have always had this sort of debate.
Today's debate was approved last week by the Progressive
Conservative Party, as by the other parties. I think a serious
debate is not the time for petty politics.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister should check his facts. There will be no petty
politics, but he should put real politics at the service of
Canadians and the Kosovar people and have a real debate in
parliament.
The Prime Minister is not up to date, but we turned down a
debate like the other two debates. What parliament needs is to
speak officially. What is going on in Kosovo is serious.
Might the Prime Minister be afraid to do this with parliament?
Might he be afraid to tell parliamentarians and Canadians what
is going on in Kosovo?
1430
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
far from being afraid, we organized briefings for all of the
parties.
Mr. André Bachand: That is not true.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: I understand the confusion among the
Conservatives. Their critic said he opposed interventions, and
their leader outside the House, Mr. Clark, said he favoured
them. They should resolve their problems and then come back to
the House.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the government is not
considering committing Canadian ground troops to NATO action in
the Balkans. Should that position change, will the Prime
Minister commit to submitting that issue to a vote—not a
discussion, not a debate, but a vote—in this Chamber?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have developed a system that is working very well.
We have consulted more departments. We have established this
route. The member is asking the question “Should there be a vote
if troops were to be sent to engage in combat?” That is the
question. We are not there. When that question comes I will
seriously consider the proposition of the Leader of the
Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a simple question that requires a yes or a no
from the Prime Minister.
In 1991 when the Conservative government committed troops to the
war in the gulf the Prime Minister was on his feet demanding that
there be a vote in this House and saying it was illegal when they
did not get the vote.
I ask the Prime Minister again: Will the government agree to a
vote in this House before committing Canadian ground troops to
any action in the Balkans?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a hypothetical question and I have replied as
favourably as possible. We are not faced with that situation. I
said, and I repeat, that if we are faced with that situation I
will consider it positively and I will give the answer when
confronted with the problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
following the meeting of NATO's foreign affairs ministers in
Brussels this morning, the French and Belgian ministers of
Foreign Affairs stated that the idea of creating some kind of
international protectorate for Kosovo was discussed among
allies.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether Canada intends to
promote this solution, or will it continue reacting to events as
it has been doing since the beginning of this conflict?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
the search for a solution to this problem, we are not ruling out
any option.
At this time, the priority is to get an agreement, to allow
Kosovars to return home. This is the top priority. Then, there
is the issue of Kosovo's political status. Kosovo enjoyed a high
degree of autonomy until President Milosevic took it away in
1989. What will the political solution be? We are prepared to
look at every option.
But the important thing is to ensure that Kosovars can safely go
back home and live a normal life.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, could
the Prime Minister tell us whether he plans to finally take
advantage of the fact that Canada sits at the UN security
council by suggesting to the other members of the security
council the creation of some kind of international protectorate
for Kosovo?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
our ambassador to the United Nations is very active on this
issue. However, we are well aware that the Russians and the
Chinese do not want to debate this issue at the security
council. Therefore, it would not be very useful at this time to
put forward a proposal that would go nowhere.
All the suggestions that will be made will be reviewed by the
minister and by the ambassador, and they will be discussed when
there is a chance for a positive solution at the security
council, which is something we all hope for.
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just
a minute ago we heard the Prime Minister refuse to commit to
sending this issue to a vote in the House of Commons. We are
talking about sending the sons and daughters of Canadian citizens
into a possible combat situation. I do not understand what the
problem is. This is the most democratic Chamber in the country.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to allow this issue to be
considered? Why is he refusing to commit today that we will have
a vote on this issue when it actually comes into being? Why is
the Prime Minister refusing?
1435
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said there would be a debate if we faced that
question. I said that at the beginning and there will be a
debate.
At this time I want to debate what is going on today because the
priority of the government is to make sure that we have a
peaceful situation there and that we will not need to send combat
troops there. That is the goal of the government.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is well and good, but the fact is that any responsible
government would look down the road. A responsible government
would show somehow that it is committed to democracy.
When we are talking about an issue that is this serious, I
submit that the Prime Minister has a responsibility to declare
right now that he will put this issue to a vote. Will he make
that commitment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have replied very clearly that we are faced with a
situation at this time that if we were to be in the position of
having to send troops there, it is not something I wish, or any
Canadian wishes, to have a debate.
We want at this time to make sure that the plan we have agreed
to with the countries of NATO will work and that Milosevic will
permit the people to go back to Kosovo and live in security. Of
course if there is a peace agreement Canada will want to
participate in a peacekeeping operation.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, right
at the beginning of his response to the first question, the
Prime Minister stated that he was proud to have the support of
all parties in this House. I think that, indeed, all parties
support the government's actions, with a few reservations of
course.
What we are quite simply asking him is this: in order to
conserve this necessary support, can he commit today to holding
a vote in this House, should we need to send troops to Kosovo,
before a decision is taken?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, we are having a debate today to discuss the
situation in Kosovo. That is where the crisis is at the present
time, and we must ensure that the Kosovars can return home under
the best possible conditions.
That is the debate we are having today. I can see the members
of the opposition do not want to debate that. What they want to
debate is a situation we do not wish to see occur. The last
thing we want to have to do is send land forces over.
Canada wishes to have a peaceable position, one which will
enable Canadians to take part in peacekeeping operations.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
are not refusing to allow such a debate and we do take it
seriously. However, history has shown us that there has been
significant division in Canada in the past when such decisions
had to be taken.
There is a greater unity than ever here on this question at this
time, a first, on the question of Kosovo. Could the Prime
Minister not commit to telling us in advance whether indeed he
would hold a vote to avoid a repetition of the ridiculous
situation that occurred in 1991, when we were debating in the
House whether we would go to Iraq, while the war was being shown
on television.
We do not want to be in that situation again—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
what I said earlier is that there will be a debate in the House
before we send any troops, but we hope not to have to send any.
This is the objective and the wish of the government and, I
hope, of all Canadians.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to remind the Prime Minister that it was
our defence minister who put on the table the possibility of
Canadian ground troops going into Kosovo.
We have a right in the House to know that Canadians' own
representatives will give the go ahead before the lives of men
and women are put on the line.
It is shameful to see the Prime Minister skating around this
issue and doing everything he can to deny a rightful vote in the
Parliament of Canada on this important issue. Will he not just
say right now that, yes, there will be a vote?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have to repeat that they are asking a hypothetical
question. I said that if I am confronted with that I will look
at the question as positively as possible, but we are not there.
I want members of the House of Commons to debate what the
operations of NATO are at this time and what can be done to
improve the situation to avoid sending ground troops into combat
in Kosovo.
1440
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what has been done so far is that we get a chance after
the fact to debate a fait accompli decision the government has
already taken.
We are demanding in the House that we have the right to have a
democratic debate and vote before the lives of Canadian men and
women are put further at risk. The defence minister has put that
possibility on the table.
On behalf of Canadians we want to be assured that the House will
rule as to whether this goes ahead or not.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have had more debate on the involvement of Canadian
troops around the world than ever before. We have taken every
issue to the House, every time we were confronted, since we
formed the government. This was the technique that was chosen at
this time to maintain the situation, where we consult the House
of Commons. But the determination is the responsibility of the
government.
If opposition members think the government is not doing its job,
they can have a vote of non-confidence in the government.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the
past week, the parliaments of Albania and the Republic of
Macedonia appealed to us for help in taking in, feeding and
housing Kosovar refugees.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Has the government
already made commitments in this regard and does it intend to
use the $100 million set aside to take the refugees in here to
add to the help provided the NGOs?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, immediately after we received
the call from the UN high commissioner for refugees asking us to
provide a safe shelter for the Kosovars, the Prime Minister made
a commitment to take in 5,000 Kosovars here in Canada, as we all
know.
The border situation has stabilized somewhat, and the high
commissioner has halted all requests to countries to take people
in temporarily. We have now been asked primarily to give
consideration to family reunification and to respond to people
with very special needs, which we are prepared to do.
As to financial aid, we will clearly continue to help Albania
and Macedonia.
* * *
[English]
NUNAVUT
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week all of Canada celebrated the creation of the new
territory of Nunavut.
Science and traditional knowledge are both essential to building
a solid base for the future of the people of Nunavut.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House what his
department is doing to help the people of Nunavut in the area of
research?
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat
Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me join with my fellow
colleagues in congratulating the people of Nunavut and the hon.
member, the great member for Nunavut, on the tremendous
celebration. It was very well done indeed.
The process of building Nunavut has only just begun. Natural
Resources Canada has just increased funding by $1 million this
fiscal year to the polar continental shelf project, which is
Canada's primary science logistical project in northern Canada.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
think Canadians are concerned with the Prime Minister's answers.
The Prime Minister keeps saying he will do this or he may do
that. Most Canadians believe that the House of Commons should
make decisions about sending our soldiers into harm's way.
The question that I think many people want answered, and I hope
the Prime Minister will take this seriously, is: Will he commit
to a vote here in the House of Commons before we send our
soldiers into a potential ground war in Kosovo? Will he commit
to that?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Saint-Maurice, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. members are all asking hypothetical questions.
I said that I hope we will never be confronted with that
situation. I want to make sure that the House is very united.
On this issue we have been very united. Any weakness or any
division in the position of Canada will be used by Mr. Milosevic.
We have made a commitment to our allies that this policy of ours
is sustained by the Parliament of Canada. If the opposition
wants to vote against it, it can have a motion tomorrow showing
that it has no confidence in the government. At the same time,
it will not be supporting—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
1445
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, is the Prime Minister saying that democracy and the
exercise of democracy are weaknesses of Canada? I thought the
primary reason we were in the Balkans was to try to restore
democracy there. Demonstrating democracy is a strength, not a
weakness.
Why does the Prime Minister not just back up and commit that if
we are going to involve Canadian forces in ground operations in
the future in the Balkans, that he will submit that to a vote in
the House prior to making that commitment?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has taken its position and we have agreed
with the opposition to have a debate. We are having the debate
today.
An hon. member: No vote.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: If the opposition wants to have
a vote of non-confidence in the government, it is very easy. The
opposition can have it.
The Government of Canada has made commitments of a certain
position to the allies. We have come to the House and all the
parties have supported our position. If they think they do not
want to support the position of the government, then it is very
easy. Tomorrow is an opposition day and they can have a vote
tomorrow saying that they do not agree with the position of the
government.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, tragically the only message coming out of NATO in
Brussels today was more air strikes and more bombing.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, will Canada finally show real
leadership on this issue? Will Canada call for an immediate
suspension of NATO bombing and Milosevic's ethnic cleansing, a
return to negotiations under UN auspices with a key role for
Russia and very importantly, an emergency session of the United
Nations General Assembly to seek a diplomatic solution to the
devastating tragedy in Kosovo?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, NATO has been very clear right from the
beginning about what it expects to bring about a cessation of the
hostilities and a cessation of the bombing: ensure a verifiable
stop to all military action; an immediate ending of violence and
repression; ensure the withdrawal of Yugoslav military police and
paramilitary forces; agree with the stationing of an
international military presence; agree to the unconditional safe
return of the refugees and displaced persons; and provide for a
political framework for the future government. That is the kind
of action plan that he has to agree to before the air campaign
can stop.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The Minister of National Defence just referred to an
international military presence to ensure the safety of refugees
returning to Kosovo. Last Friday this same minister said that
presence had to be a NATO peacekeeping force.
Does the minister not recognize that aspect of Rambouillet
calling for a NATO on the ground force was unacceptable then and
it is unacceptable now? Will Canada clearly call for a UN or
OSCE peacekeeping force and not a NATO force to ensure this
agreement can be kept?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is important here is that the people
of Kosovo are able to return to their homes and are able to live
in peace and security. That is what is important. We need a
military force there to ensure it. I believe we need a NATO led
military force. That is the position of NATO.
Can the United Nations help to resolve this problem? Can other
countries help to resolve this problem? Yes, and I hope they
would.
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, the former
U.S. secretary of defence, Caspar Weinberger, said, in a
personal capacity, that we had neither defined the victory nor
established the real objectives in Kosovo.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. What are
the immediate and long term goals for the NATO air strikes?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are there because we want the people
of Kosovo to be able to live in peace and security in their home
province. We want the ethnic cleansing to stop and the
atrocities to stop. That is why we are there with the air
campaign. The air campaign will continue until those conditions
I mentioned a few moments ago are in fact met.
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
on April 1, General Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander
directing the air campaign, stated “We can't stop paramilitary
actions from the air. We never thought air power alone can stop
this kind of paramilitary tragedy”.
The U.S. joint chief staffs reportedly agree with General Clark's
assessment that a bombing campaign will not work.
1450
What are the immediate long term goals of the NATO air campaign?
Has the minister already made a commitment of ground troops to
NATO?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe the air campaign will work, and
so does General Clark.
Additional resources are being put there. The Apache helicopter
for example can go in at a lower level and deal with the ground
forces of the Yugoslav government that are carrying out the
ethnic cleansing. Our air campaign's purpose is to weaken and
destroy the capability of the Yugoslav military to carry out
ethnic cleansing.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
last budget invested in the health of Canadians and in the health
care system.
We know that drugs are an increasingly important element of
health care and that drug policies should ensure the right drug
for the right patient at the right cost.
How is the federal government helping to ensure that Canadians
get access to drug therapies prescribed by their doctors?
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, the minister
is committed to doing everything he can to ensure that the people
of Canada have access to the drugs they need. That is why a
conference was held on pharmacare.
As a result of that conference, it is very clear that any access
to needed drug therapies must be done through the development of
an integrated health model to ensure that we do not make the
mistakes that have been made in the past which have often
resulted in people not getting optimal drug therapy from the
drugs they take.
I acknowledge the member's interest. I also say to him that the
minister is determined to work co-operatively with the provinces
to determine how they can provide better access for the people of
Canada.
* * *
KOSOVO
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the event that the crisis in Kosovo escalates and ground troops
are necessary, I would have to suggest that it is they who will
lay their lives on the line. It would be good for our troops to
know exactly where this parliament sits in support of any action
that may be on the ground.
Again, I ask the Prime Minister, why will he not commit to
having a vote on the issue of sending ground troops into Kosovo
should that need arise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is not the problem which is confronting the
government at this time.
We want to make sure that the policies that have been accepted
by NATO, and which are strongly supported by the Canadian
government and obviously by the Canadian people, stop the ethnic
cleansing that is going on and that Milosevic takes his troops
out of Kosovo so the Kosovars can go back home in security.
We do not want to start to debate the question on how we will
handle the problem of sending ground troops. We do not want to
send ground troops. We want Milosevic to accept and respect the
people of Kosovo who want to be at home in Kosovo.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said in Brussels that
we should set up a peacekeeping force in Kosovo, to ensure the
implementation of an eventual solution to the current crisis.
Can the Prime Minister tell us whether this peacekeeping force
will be under the command of the UN, the OSCE, or NATO?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
have not yet reached that point. When the Rambouillet accords
were accepted by moderate Kosovars, it was anticipated that
troops would be sent and we were prepared to take part in that
operation.
What will happen after we have obtained what we are seeking,
that is peace and the safe return of Kosovars to their homes?
Troops will be sent and Canada will want to participate. We hope
it will be under the aegis of the United Nations. It would be
ideal if everyone wanted to participate, including the Russians,
the Chinese, etc. However, we do know that if they do not want
to participate, we can still go with the support of NATO
countries.
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there
has been some indication that weapons involving depleted uranium
are being deployed by NATO forces in Kosovo presenting a danger
to the people and to the environment of the entire Balkans.
Will the minister advise this House as to whether depleted
uranium is being used, in what capacity and by whom?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of depleted uranium being
used. It certainly is not being used by Canadian forces.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
DISASTERS
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, could the
President of the Treasury Board clarify the financial assistance
received by Quebec from the Government of Canada, under the
disaster financial assistance arrangements?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week,
we sent Quebec a cheque of $175 million, for the damage incurred
and for the compensation paid out to the population by the
Government of Quebec.
As regards the ice storm, we have so far made advance payments
of $250 million to the Government of Quebec and these payments
could reach $400 million in the months to come.
* * *
[English]
KOSOVO
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
What is not hypothetical is the fact that Canada is at war
without the consent of parliament. As a leading editorial stated
today “When it comes to authorizing war, the Liberals don't
represent the Canadian people, the entire parliament does”.
I would like to remind the Prime Minister that we still live in
a democracy and not a dictatorship. Will the Prime Minister give
his consent before dispatching combat ground troops to Kosovo? It
is the democratic thing to do. He knows it is the democratic
thing to do. Will the Prime Minister give us this undertaking
today?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it abundantly
clear numerous times that such a matter, if it happens to come
about, would be discussed fully in this House.
Right now we need to remain focused. We need to remain focused
on the air campaign to weaken the Yugoslav capability of carrying
out ethnic cleansing so that the Kosovar people can return to
their homes in peace and security. That is what we should be
continuing to indicate and that is what we are determined to do.
We will focus on that.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear that the official opposition supports
the NATO action in Kosovo. That is not open to question.
We are not talking about a vote of non-confidence in the
government. We are talking about a vote of confidence in
democracy. What is this government so afraid of? What is the
Prime Minister so afraid of that he will not commit here today to
a vote on whether we are going to send ground troops to Kosovo?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have had more debate in the House of Commons on
foreign affairs and the deployment of troops. We made an
agreement with the opposition to have more debates on that. Now
the opposition wants to change the agreement that we agreed on
again last week.
Let us deal with the problem we are confronted with today. We
want the air strike to work. We want Milosevic to stop the
ethnic cleansing and permit the Kosovars to go back home. This
is the position of the government and it is the debate we are
having at this time.
I hope that the opposition, and I am very happy to see that they
are back—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Canada was to contribute between 600 and 800 troops to a
peacekeeping force in Kosovo, the total number required being
estimated at 45,000. For land operations like the ones being
contemplated, far more ground troops would be needed.
My question is for the Prime Minister. If Canada takes part in
a land engagement, does it intend to increase its participation
accordingly?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the Rambouillet accord, which was accepted by the Kosovars and
could have been accepted by Milosevic, called for a Canadian
contribution of 600 to 800 troops to a 45,000-member peacekeeping
force. That was the government's position at that time.
If another proposal is made to us later, we shall see whether we
need to step up our participation. However, the question is a
purely hypothetical one at this point.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
No one is asking for a premature debate on ground forces. No
one is asking to debate hypothetical situations. We are asking
for our right as a parliament should such decisions be made in
the future. All we are asking is to have a vote, not a debate,
not a discussion, not a take note debate, not an opposition day,
not a vote of confidence, but a vote on a specific proposal by
the government should it come to that.
I ask the Prime Minister, what part of the word vote does he not
understand? We are just asking for a vote. We vote on all kinds
of things in this place. We just want a vote on that, should it
come to it.
1500
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are having a debate. They want me to tell them today
what we will do in years, months or days to come. I do not know.
I said that I would seriously consider a vote at that time. I
do not want to create an impression that we have divisions in
Canada. We are debating the position of Canada in the Balkans
today and I want the support of the House of Commons.
If members want to vote they can do it tomorrow morning if they
want. I thought the leaders of the parties were speaking for
their parties. That is the way the government and parliament
operate. It was agreed by all leaders that it was the way to
debate these affairs. If they want to change the rules we will
sit down with them but not before we are confronted with the
problem of ground troops—
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's East.
* * *
REFUGEES
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, last
week the minister of immigration stated that the federal
government would cover all the costs of airlifting the 5,000
Kosovo refugees who were supposed to come to Canada. That cost
was put at roughly $100 million.
Would the minister be a little more clear? Now that the airlift
has been cancelled, would the minister of immigration commit that
$100 million to the various relief agencies so they can assist
people living in very desperate conditions in these refugee
camps?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have already responded. We have committed $22
million. We will continue to respond and work at the
multilateral and bilateral levels. It is too soon to say how
much it will cost us, but we know that much more needs to be
done.
The Speaker: That would bring to a close our question
period for today.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would seek unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice,
during consideration of Government Order, Government Business No.
23, any speech by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the
Opposition may be followed by a ten minute period for questions
and comments and the House shall continue to sit after 6.30 p.m.
this day for the purpose of considering the said Government
Order, provided that after 6.30 p.m. the Chair shall not receive
any quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous
consent to propose any motion and provided that, when no member
rises to speak or at 8 a.m., whichever is earlier, the House
shall adjourn until the next sitting day.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It seems to me that any debate with regard to Kosovo is
meaningless and undemocratic unless there is a vote at the end of
the debate.
The Speaker: That is a statement and not a point of
order. Does the hon. government House leader have permission to
put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS NO. 23
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing
Order 56(1) I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice,
during consideration of Government Order, Government Business No.
23, any speech by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the
Opposition may be followed by a ten minute period for questions
and comments and the House shall continue to sit after 6.30 p.m.
this day for the purpose of considering the said Government
Order, provided that, after 6.30 p.m. the Chair shall not receive
any quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous
consent to propose any motion and provided that, when no member
rises to speak or at 8 a.m., whichever is earlier, the House
shall adjourn to the next sitting day.
This is done in an effort to get as many members of parliament
as possible to speak to this important issue.
And fewer than 25 members having risen:
The Speaker: Fewer than 25 members having risen, the
motion is adopted.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
KOSOVO
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That this House take note of the continuing human tragedy in
Kosovo and the government's determination to work with the
international community in order to resolve the conflict and
promote a just political settlement for Kosovo that leads to the
safe return of the refugees.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in rising to begin this important debate I first want to
pay tribute to members on all sides of the House who have shown
resolve and leadership on this very difficult issue: the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, whose tireless commitment to
resolving this crisis has taken him today to Brussels where he is
representing our country at the NATO foreign ministers meeting;
the Minister of National Defence who has led an impressive
response on the part of our armed forces; the Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration who moved her department the instant
we received a request from the UNHCR to take in refugees driven
from their homes in Kosovo; and the Minister for International
Cooperation who has effectively directed her agency to take an
international lead in delivering aid and support to the Kosovo
refugees.
1510
I wish also to salute the opposition parties in the House. Their
constructive approach and their non-partisan attitude have been
important examples to Canadians.
I look forward today to hearing the views and concerns of
members on all sides of the House because whatever our individual
views are about our involvement in Kosovo, we are each guided by
our desire to do the right thing for Canada and for the
international community.
Indeed, like every other member of the House, like every other
speaker who will participate in this debate, this occasion to
address the House today fills me with absolutely no joy. Pride,
yes, at the courage of the brave Canadian men and women in our
armed forces who have entered into action with their comrades
from the other NATO nations and who have put their own lives at
risk so that thousands can be saved.
Great warmth and deep, deep satisfaction too at the outpouring
of generosity and community, of basic decency and humanity from
the thousands and thousands of Canadians in every part of this
great land who stepped forward to respond to the initial UNHCR
appeal for help and haven for the refugees from Kosovo who have
been so brutally driven from their land.
Finally, anger and profound rage at the actions of President
Milosevic and his regime who have caused this entire crisis, who
are still leading a campaign of terror and destruction on
innocent men, women and children in Kosovo and who care nothing
about the costs or consequences to their own nation.
These are the emotions we all feel, not just in the House but
across Canada and around the world. This is a reflection of our
values, the values that have built this country, the values that
have made this a land of peace and opportunity, a land where we
have made diversity not a tool for conflict but a means for a
stronger, healthier way of life. These values must always guide
our decisions at home and abroad.
As elected officials, as those vested with great responsibility
by the men and women of our country, we must always act in a
manner that protects and promotes our interest as a nation. We
must live up to our obligations as a world citizen, our
obligations to the international commitments we make and our
obligations to our allies.
It is these three elements, our values as Canadians, our
national interest in a stable and secure Europe and our
obligations as a founding member of NATO, that led Canada to take
arms with its NATO partners. It is because of our values, our
national interest and our obligations that we must see the job
concluded.
[Translation]
By this time there can only be a very few people who still
harbour any illusions about the regime of President Milosevic.
For ten years now, he has presided over an unfolding tragedy in
the very heart of Europe. For ten years now he has fomented
conflicts that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives, displaced
millions and unleashed toxic hatreds that will poison that corner
of the world for a long time to come. In Croatia. Then in Bosnia.
1515
It was in these conflicts that President Milosevic introduced the
obscene new term of “ethnic cleansing” into the modern lexicon.
In the last year, the same sickening pattern of violence against
a targeted ethnic group has reached another crescendo in Kosovo.
It was President Milosevic and his regime who tripped Kosovo of
its autonomy in 1989. Who broke the agreements with moderate
Kosovar leaders. Who violated their own commitments of last
October to NATO and the OSCE.
Who still ignore United Nations Security Council resolutions,
including the obligation to bring indicted war criminals to
justice before the international criminal court in the Hague.
It was President Milosevic and his regime who began early last
year to force Kosovars out of their homes. By the time the
Rambouillet negotiations began, there were 260,000 internally
displaced persons in Kosovo and Montenegro and 100,000 abroad.
By the time the talks collapsed, there were 100,000 more. Now,
there are a million or more displaced or exiled Kosovars.
All this before NATO took action. All this part of an obvious
plan, and a clear, proven pattern.
The international community made every reasonable effort to find
a diplomatic solution. Scores of diplomatic missions were sent
to Belgrade. In October, an OSCE verification mission monitored
a ceasefire in Kosovo, and worked on the ground to build
confidence and solve local conflicts. The peace conference in
Rambouillet was held. The Kosovars demonstrated courage by
signing a compromise agreement. Only the Yugoslav President
remained intransigent. Finally, Ambassador Holbrooke made the
final appeals in Belgrade, face to face with Mr. Milosevic.
[English]
It was only after all this that NATO was forced to resort to
military action. Our goals now are what they were then. The
government in Belgrade must stop killing and expelling the
Kosovars, withdraw its army and security forces from Kosovo,
guarantee the refugees a safe return to their rightful homes,
permit an international presence to assure the security of the
returning Kosovars, and sign a binding, verifiable peace
settlement based on the principles of the Rambouillet
negotiations. This is our commitment. It is the commitment of
NATO and it is the commitment of Canada as a member of NATO.
It will not happen overnight. It will not happen without more
loss of life in the region, including perhaps loss of life for
NATO forces, but it must happen.
It is important to understand that Canada is not acting alone.
No one country can decide alone on operations or tactics. We are
members of a team. We are contributing to a collective effort.
And decisions are made collectively.
1520
Since its creation NATO has put into action the painful lesson
we learned in two world wars, that peace and stability can only
be assured through effective collective security. The continued
campaign of terror waged by Belgrade is a threat to peace and
security in the heart of Europe. It has already had serious
effects throughout the region and it also threatens the many
newly emerging democracies in the region.
We had a choice. We could take action now and deal decisively
with this threat, or do nothing, evade responsibility and deal in
a few months or a few years with the result of our inaction.
Europe has done this before, to its great cost and to ours. I do
not need to explain which choice would have been more costly and
more dangerous.
Last week I had the honour of welcoming our first air crews home
from Aviano. Their pride in what they are doing for Canada was
obvious. And their skill and courage in dangerous skies is doing
all of us proud. Military action is by definition an uncertain
endeavour, but I can assure Canadians that we will never enter
into reckless action that will put more Canadian lives on the
line without full consideration of the consequences.
Come what may, I know that every member of this House will join
me in saying that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces
who are delivering the force of our moral convictions deserve the
support of all Canadians 100%, and they have it.
[Translation]
I cannot close without talking about the one aspect of this
crisis that has lifted our hearts and raised our spirits. The
conflict in Kosovo is a depressing reminder of the past. But the
generosity and concern that Canadians are showing for the Kosovar
refugees is an uplifting reminder of what makes our contry so
great.
A week ago, the UNHCR asked Canada to help ease the growing
refugee crisis by agreeing to take in Kosovar refugees. The
minute the governement agreed to bring in 5,000 refugees, the
outpouring from Canadians was nothing short of a phenomenon. And
it is still going on.
Toll-free telephone lines and faxes are being flooded with
offers of help. Communities are opening their hearts and are
eager to open their homes, in that typical Canadian way. The need
is great. But our compassion is greater. And on behalf of this
House, I want to thank everyone who is pitching in.
If anyone ever wanted a description of what this country is all
about, il they ever wondered why we have accomplished so much as
a nation, they need only look at that tremendous, spontaneous
reaction of people in every corner of this great land.
1525
The UNHCR decided on Friday to change its request
and shelter the refugees in countries neighbouring Kosovo.
Canadians are helping there too. Providing relief and
desperately needed support in coping with this historic tragedy.
Brave men and women who are working for non-government
organizations and for organizations like the OSCE. They deserve
our deep gratitude and thanks too.
Should the UNHCR call on us again, we remain ready to help
here in Canada too. We are prepared to handle any request for
assistance. I know Canadians are ready, too.
Canada is a peaceful and peace loving nation. A nation that has
devoted itself to building a world in shich all people can live
in peace. Free from the threat of persecution or violent
conquest. A nation that first seeks peacefuls, diplomatic
resolutions to conflict. A nation that has shown the world, by
example, that people of terrific diversity, from every background
and every corner of the world can live together in peace and
harmony. That as humans we can learn from each other; and that
we can bury ancient hates and grievances and build a new kind of
society.
However we are also a just nation that knows that there comes a
time when skilful diplomacy and dialogue must be backed up by
firmness and resolve, that paralysis and inaction can cause more
harm than decisive action, that not to choose is also itself a
choice, and this kind of willful blindness is not an option.
To be a bystander on Kosovo today would be to betray our basic
values, our national interest and our international obligations.
That is not how Canadians do things. We live up to our
commitments and keep our word-all the way down the line.
[English]
What is going on there has to stop. If we are to be divided by
religion, colour, language and whatnot everywhere in the world,
the world will not survive.
We have an occasion to tell the government in Belgrade that this
will stop. The homes of the people of Kosovo are there. They
have the right to their freedom. They have the right to go to
their homes and the Canadian people are with them.
The Speaker: There will now be a 10 minute question and
answer period. I am going to limit the questions and the answers
to one minute each.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has talked eloquently about the
objective of ending the human tragedy in Kosovo and no one here
disagrees with that goal. However, he had an opportunity today
to ask for a mandate to pursue the military actions that are
required to achieve that humanitarian objective.
The way one asks for a mandate for military objectives is to
spell out what those objectives are, the resources and the
options available, any conditions that should be attached to the
use of those resources, and then to seek a mandate from
parliament through a vote.
1530
In 1991 the current Prime Minister attacked the government of
the day for failing to hold a vote in parliament on advancing a
decision to go war in the gulf. I am sure the Prime Minister
would not want to repeat that mistake.
Will the Prime Minister show some democratic leadership and
agree, not today but in the immediate future, to bring a motion
before the House seeking a specific mandate for the military
objectives necessary to achieve that humanitarian goal?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will consider
the request of the Leader of the Opposition, but I make the point
that the procedure selected for this type of debate was not to
get up from one's seat and vote. The procedure was to give
enough time for every member to speak.
We have until eight o'clock tomorrow morning to say if we are in
agreement or not. It is not just to vote yes or no but to
express our points of view. Everybody will be recorded. Somebody
could just get up and say I agree and sit back.
I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition wants to change
the rule that has worked very well so far. It gives everybody
the right to get up and speak. I am just sad that he wants to
formalize it in a different way. I am open to looking into that,
but I thought that giving the freedom to speak to everybody would
be much better than just standing up and sitting down.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
I have been sitting in the House, I have taken part in debates
on Iraq, Kosovo and the Central African Republic.
I have debated and I have spoken, but I have never voted on such
an important decision as that involving the sending of Canadian
troops, Canadian and Quebec soldiers, abroad.
As we sometimes say in Quebec, I ask the Prime Minister to give
me not one, not two, but three good reasons why Parliament
should not vote on this matter if we are sending ground troops?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are not sending ground
troops. I think we found a very practical formula, as I have
just explained to the Leader of the Opposition.
Rather than have a debate where only the leaders speak, followed
by a recorded division, we decided to allow every member to
speak. If the hon. member prefers to vote rather than speak, we
will consider that. However, I thought that giving each member
of Parliament the opportunity not only to vote but to say why
they agree or disagree with the government was much more
democratic than to hold a recorded division.
If you prefer this arrangement, we will consider it. However,
as a parliamentarian, I prefer that members have the opportunity
to speak without restriction until morning.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as one
of the conditions for suspending bombing the UN secretary general
and NATO spokesmen have outlined the requirement of an
international force that could secure the safety of Kosovars in
their own homeland. Yet the defence minister persists in
referring to a NATO led force to secure the safety of Kosovars.
The Prime Minister in his speech today very helpfully and wisely
referred to an international force. Would he clarify whether the
position of the government is as he has stated, that we are
talking about an international force, or whether it is the
position outlined by the defence minister, that is a NATO led
force?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not see a
disagreement. At this moment the official position is that it
should be a NATO force because there is a feeling that there is
no possibility of something else.
That is why I referred to an international group. I have
written to President Yeltsin about my own view that the Russians
should be involved. The Russians were involved in Rambouillet and
I think they can play a role here.
1535
I would not personally object if the solution at the end of the
day were something bigger than NATO, but so far as the position
of NATO is concerned we say that it will be at the minimum a NATO
force.
I would prefer to have the Russians and others there because
other countries might be interested in participating. Everybody
in that part of the world is afraid the conflict will extend to
neighbouring nations.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, we
often hear the Prime Minister talk about ethnic cleansing. It is
now official, what is going on in Kosovo is genocide. We should
no longer call it ethnic cleansing, but genocide.
Often, the solution to genocide is war. In the Prime Minister's
opinion, in view of the genocide taking place in Kosovo—his very
own words—is Canada at war?
My second question is this: by talking about genocide, is the
Prime minister not backing international diplomacy into a
corner? How can we sign a peace accord with a president and a
regime the Prime Minister of Canada is accusing of crimes
against humanity? Genocide is the worst crime against humanity.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are still talking
about ethnic cleansing even though I used the other expression
earlier. I should have said ethnic cleansing.
International law and the International War Crimes Tribunal in
The Hague want people involved in ethnic cleansing to be
considered as criminals and brought before the tribunal. We want
these people to stand trial before the tribunal in The Hague.
President Milosevic will not allow anybody accused of ethnic
cleansing or crimes against humanity to be put on trial before
an international court of justice.
Last January, we deplored the fact that Madam Justice Arbour was
refused entry to check allegations of ethnic cleansing. When
there is a lot of ethnic cleansing, it becomes genocide—it is all
a matter of terminology—and those responsible must face the
consequences of their crimes against humanity.
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what does
the Prime Minister think the mandate of NATO is becoming?
We went to Bosnia and became a police force. Now we are in
Kosovo as a police force. It seems the original purpose of NATO
was to be a defence mechanism. What does he see the future
holding in terms of this new role for NATO?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, NATO is
responsible for peace in member countries. The case of Kosovo,
as it was with Bosnia, is very dangerous to the maintenance of
peace in that part of the world.
What is happening in Kosovo is a little like what happened in
Bosnia. We went there as peacekeepers. At one time there was
some bombing to break the resolve of President Milosevic. That
led to the Dayton agreement. After that we sent some troops as
peacekeepers. Our goal is to stop the ethnic cleansing going on
today and to be in a position to send peacekeepers into that area
so the people can live their normal lives in Kosovo.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois supports the government regarding this evening's
debate. In fact, we even asked that the debate last until eight
o'clock tomorrow morning. This initiative is from the Bloc
Quebecois.
But what I want the Prime Minister to indicate is if he would be
prepared, should Canada send ground troops, to let the House
vote on the issue. This is what we want to know.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is a purely academic
issue at this point.
The suggestion that was made and supported by the Bloc Quebecois
is to allow everyone to speak. Now, the Bloc Quebecois wants
everyone to vote. As far as I am concerned, this represents a
change to the agreements we have had for five years regarding
such debates. We have agreed to give everyone a chance to speak,
and now the Bloc Quebecois only wants members to vote.
1540
I said I would be prepared to consider that possibility, but it
does not apply at this point, because we are not sending troops.
There is absolutely no question—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in preparing for this debate I asked myself what do
Canadians want from their parliament and from their government
with respect to the issue of Kosovo and the escalating violence
in the Balkans.
Of course they want parliament and they want the House, in the
words of the motion, to take note of the continuing human tragedy
in Kosovo. However Canadians want us to do much more than take
note of the obvious. They want us to put partisanship aside and
develop a united position on a situation involving issues of life
and death, war and peace, and national and international
security. They want clear answers to such questions as why we
are involved with NATO and Kosovo and the Balkans. What is it we
hope to achieve politically and militarily? How do we expect to
achieve it, in the air, on the ground and at the conference
table?
If we are agreed on the moral, political and military objectives
of our involvement in the Balkans, I believe Canadians would also
want parliament to give the government a clear mandate to pursue
those objectives subject to any conditions which parliament may
consider prudent.
The motion before us is very fuzzy with respect to objectives
and does not really seek guidance or a mandate from the House on
such crucial issues as Canadian support of NATO air strikes or
the commitment of Canadian ground troops to any expanded NATO
effort.
The Prime Minister's remarks have filled in a few of the gaps
but they have done very little to fill in the gaps on the
military objectives or how we will achieve them. It appears it
will be up to other members to help clarify what Canada's
objectives in the Balkans should be, what mandate we should give
the government, particularly militarily, to pursue those
objectives, and what conditions, if any, we should impose on that
mandate.
This I will now proceed to do on behalf of the official
opposition and with the aid of my colleagues who will be speaking
later.
First, what is the ultimate reason, the moral objective of
Canada's involvement in the Balkans? This is the one issue on
which there is universal agreement. We say and most members here
say that it is to halt the ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by
the Yugoslav government in Kosovo and to care for the victims of
Serb aggression. This is the moral objective. The importance
and urgency of pursuing it cannot be overemphasized.
Over the Easter break I had the opportunity to spend some
precious time with our two little grandchildren aged 18 months
and 9 months. These little lives, thank God, have not yet
experienced any real pain or privation or violence or hatred.
Those who love them will do everything in our power to make sure
that they never experience those things.
When we look at the Balkans and see the stream of refugees from
Kosovo, now numbering in excess of half a million people,
mothers, fathers, old people, children, babes in arms, victims or
potential victims of ethnic cleansing, violence from military and
paramilitary and police officials, children whose eyes have seen
things that no human eye should ever see, children whose ears
have heard things that no human ears should hear, I say that the
moral imperative of a NATO presence and a Canadian presence in
the Balkans becomes abundantly clear and it becomes imperative.
In stressing this moral imperative, I am not ignoring the very
real need to create a better legal framework for multinational
action against inhuman acts by the government of a sovereign
state. Nor am I denying the danger of developing and practising
double standards with multinational groups acting against ethnic
cleansing in one instance but declining to do so in others.
As we know in the Balkans there is scarcely any ethnic group
without blood on its hands. We acknowledge that the Serbs
themselves have been victims as well as perpetrators of violence
against ethnic minorities. At this point in time, with the
magnitude of the humanitarian tragedy in Kosovo reaching the
proportions that it has, I do not think we can allow these
unresolved issues to stand in the way of concrete, collective
action to halt the ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by the
Yugoslav regime.
1545
Second, this debate should clarify what is the political
objective of NATO's intervention in Kosovo and Canada's
involvement in that intervention. What is the political solution
that we would like to see achieved by negotiation rather than by
clash of arms?
Are NATO and the Canadian government still committed to the
Rambouillet agreement calling for an autonomous Kosovo within
Yugoslavia? Or is NATO and our government now inclining toward
supporting an independent Kosovo? If so, would Kosovo be
partitioned? Would a UN or NATO patrolled safe haven be
established? What would be the wider implications of an
independent Kosovo for stability and ethnic peace in the region?
I believe that most members of this House support the notion
that the answers to these questions are best provided not by our
speculating on them, but through internationally supervised
negotiations among the affected parties themselves. A clearer
statement of NATO's and Canada's political objectives with
respect to Kosovo, a clearer statement than that contained in the
take note motion, would be to say we are determined to create a
safe home for Kosovars in the region and to stabilize relations
between the republic of Yugoslavia and its neighbours through
internationally supervised negotiations.
Third, I turn to the area I felt the Prime Minister did not
discuss thoroughly enough. What is the military objective that
we are pursuing with our NATO allies through the current action
against the Yugoslav regime? The motion before us is completely
silent on this subject. Yet surely this is the issue on which
the public has the most questions and one where we would expect
the government to be seeking a more explicit mandate from this
House.
The Prime Minister has not elaborated on that subject today. In
fact he has tried to avoid it. From the statements made by other
NATO spokespersons, we conclude that the military objective of
our involvement—and I think we should be precise about this; if
we are misunderstanding it, let us get it corrected—is to damage
the military capability of the Yugoslav government to thereby
reduce its capacity to practise ethnic cleansing and to bring
that government to the negotiating table. That is the whole
purpose of the military operation in the Balkans.
The official opposition supports this objective and Canada's
participation with its NATO allies to achieve it. We support it
as the regrettable means to a desirable end, namely to halt the
ethnic cleansing and to force negotiations.
As we have said before, we are supportive of the NATO air
strikes and Canada's participation therein. We believe this
effort should be given time to have the desired effect. We
should not be stampeded into premature expectations by the video
game mindset that governs the TV media coverage of such
operations.
It is also our view, as I wrote the Prime Minister on March 31,
that once the decision was made to commit Canadian air forces to
the NATO effort in Yugoslavia, we in this parliament should not
engage in second guessing the mission when it has scarcely begun.
Rather, we should offer our steadfast support, our political
support, our moral support, our vocal support, to those brave
Canadian personnel who are involved.
I would hope that every member in this House would agree that
achieving the military objective of damaging the military
capability of the Yugoslav regime requires us to look ahead.
Surely the expectation of the public is not that we just discuss
the situation today—yes, we must discuss that—but to look
ahead. What if something more than the NATO air strikes is
required to achieve these objectives? Where does Canada stand?
Where does the government and parliament stand?
Speaking for the official opposition, we are prepared to support
the commitment of Canadian ground forces to the NATO effort in
Yugoslavia subject to two very important conditions. First, we
are prepared to support that commitment if NATO can demonstrate
that such a commitment is necessary to halt the ethnic cleansing
in Kosovo and provide a safe home for Kosovars in the region. In
other words, if that is necessary to achieve the ultimate moral
and political objective, we are prepared to consider it.
1550
If we are truly committed to the moral objective of halting
these atrocities, we must not give the Milosevic regime any
indication that our resolve is either limited or weak.
The official opposition is therefore prepared to support the
commitment of Canadian ground forces to the NATO effort in
Yugoslavia if this is necessary, but also subject to the
condition that the Canadian government demonstrate to the House
that the commitments requested are within Canada's capability.
The Minister of National Defence has repeatedly assured us that
Canadian armed forces are adequately equipped to do the dangerous
jobs they are called upon to do. But the government's foreign
policy repeatedly expands our commitment to peacekeeping and
peace making while its management of defence budgets has shrunk
our defence resources from $12 billion per year to $9.3 billion.
Our land forces have been especially neglected. Concerns with
regard to Canadian land forces equipment have been raised by the
auditor general as well as by many other experts. In some
categories of equipment, Canada is at least a generation behind
its NATO allies.
If our Canadian forces are called upon to do a job in Kosovo or
anywhere else, we must insist and do insist that they be given
the tools to do the job. Hence the second condition, the need
for hard questions about the adequacy of our resources and the
need for straight answers.
In conclusion, we are supportive of this take note motion before
the House, as far as it goes, but as hon. members will gather, we
believe that the House can and should do more than simply take
note and concur with generalities. We believe that parliament
should spell out clearly for the benefit of all Canadians the
moral, political and military objectives of our involvement with
NATO in Yugoslavia. Canadians will support these objectives if
they are clearly spelled out, but if the trumpet gives an
uncertain sound, who will rally to its call?
If we are agreed on objectives, I also believe the government
could then ask the House for an explicit mandate to pursue those
objectives. Speaking for the official opposition, we would be
prepared to give that mandate, provided that the military
objectives were subject to the two conditions which I have
outlined.
In other words I am urging the government to follow up this take
note debate with a more substantive motion along the lines of the
following:
That this House take note of the continuing human tragedy in
Kosovo and the government's determination to work with the
international community in order to: one, attain the moral
objective of halting the ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by
the Yugoslav government in Kosovo and caring for the victims of
Serb aggression; two, achieve the political objective of creating
a safe home for Kosovars in the region and stabilizing relations
between the republic of Yugoslavia and its neighbours through
negotiation; three, pursue the military objectives of damaging
the military capability of the Yugoslav government, to reduce its
capacity to practise ethnic cleansing and to bring the Yugoslav
government to the negotiating table;
And that this House mandate the government to pursue this
military objective through the commitment of Canadian forces to
participation in NATO operations subject to the following
conditions: (a) that NATO demonstrate that such commitments are
necessary to halt ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and to provide a
safe home for Kosovars on their own soil; and (b) that the
government demonstrate to this House that the commitment of
Canadian forces requested by NATO is within Canada's
capabilities.
That is the type of motion I would have liked to have seen and
would expect to be brought by a government seeking a mandate of
the House. To encourage the government to bring forward such a
motion and to seek such a mandate, I move that the take note
motion before the House be amended by simply adding the words:
And that this House take note that the government's determination
to resolve the conflict would have more credibility after the
adoption of a motion submitted to this House specifying the
moral, political and military objectives of Canada's involvement
with NATO in the region and a request for a mandate to continue
that involvement, subject to such conditions as this House may
impose.
I would expect that if that motion were put in the grand
democratic traditions of the House, it would be a votable motion.
1555
The Speaker: I will of course look over the amendment. In
the meantime we have 10 minutes of questions and comments. We
will limit the questions and the answers to one minute maximum.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member spoke of a motion that would involve a vote
in the House. During question period he proposed a vote that
pertained to the deployment of ground troops. The Prime
Minister, while not rejecting the possibility of a vote out of
hand, did evade a direct reply.
In my constituency office during the Croatian struggles and the
Bosnian struggles I had all kinds of representations and anger on
both sides. If the Prime Minister had said there would be a vote
on ground troops, is it not true that every one of us would be
subject to pressure and intimidation from both sides in our
ridings?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, on what important issue
are we not subject to those kinds of pressures? That is part of
the democratic process.
Members from all parties today were not even asking for the form
of the motion. They were just asking that if the commitment of
ground troops is part of the possible future action in the
Balkans that the Prime Minister would commit today to get a
mandate from parliament through a vote before that action was
taken.
I do not think that is unreasonable. I think any
representations on that issue by the public to ourselves would
certainly be welcome, at least on this side of the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in an
article published by the Ottawa Citizen, the Reform Party critic
for foreign affairs said, and I quote:
[English]
“The Rambouillet formula may no longer be viable but sooner or
later Mr. Milosevic will negotiate and negotiations are the only
means of resolving this dispute”.
[Translation]
My question is for the leader of the official opposition. Does
the Reform Party maintain that position, or does it believe that
ground troops should now be sent in, since Mr. Milosevic has
shown that he does not want to negotiate peace for Kosovo?
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
his question.
I suggest that the two options are not mutually exclusive. The
point of the military intervention is to try to force the
Yugoslav regime to that negotiating table which I think all
members would prefer to be the forum in which this issue is
resolved. The two issues fit together.
We all wish that these people would come to the negotiating
table without the persuasion of bombs and air attacks. That
would be the hope of every member in this House. But if that
will not happen, and it has not happened, then we say regretfully
that we endorse the military action required to bring about the
negotiations that members in the House would hope would bring a
solution.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question
with respect to the issue of the future and how the global
community responds to a crisis of this nature.
Obviously the current situation is critical. Many people are
expressing deep concern about the possibility that somehow NATO
is taking on to itself a new and very dangerous role of somehow
being the enforcer of international humanitarian law. In fact
this is a role that the United Nations, clearly needing some form
of change in terms of its ability to respond, should be taking on
and not NATO when we look at the tragedy in Turkey and the
situation of the Kurds in Turkey, when we look at East Timor,
Colombia, Sudan and elsewhere.
I want to ask the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he
agrees with the need for a new credible international mechanism
strengthening the United Nations, getting around some of the
paralysis that can result from the veto under the present
structure. Does he agree with that need and with the need to
look into what many see as the hypocrisy and the double standard
that currently exists—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I would agree that the
current international legal framework for dealing with these
crises is inadequate and that we should be working toward
creating a better framework.
I would not put all my eggs in the UN basket because, as the
member knows, in this case the veto of action by the UN on the
part of Russia and presumably China is enough to paralyze action.
1600
However, recognizing the need for this better international
legal framework, I would still say that the inadequacy of that
framework should not deter us from doing something in this
particular situation. I think we should make it clear that we
are not trying to generalize from this situation to every
situation in the world. I do not think we should say that what
is being done here is perfect. However, we should not let the
inadequacy of the international legal framework prevent us from
acting when we know there are laws being broken: thou shalt not
kill, thou shalt not rape, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not
hurt women and children.
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to comment on the remarks of the Leader of the
Opposition. Some of the concerns which he has are shared by all
members of the House.
I was quite concerned that the Minister of National Defence
evaded the question with respect to whether a commitment has
already been made to NATO, if there are to be ground troops, that
Canada is in.
My question is for the Leader of the Opposition who has been
calling for a vote in the House and who has proposed an amendment
to the House. Could he explain why he failed to stand in the
House to block the government's motion which prohibits a vote on
this amendment, as we did earlier?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, we want to have this
debate, but more important, we are not insisting that there be a
vote on this particular motion. It is a motherhood motion. We
know what the vote would be without taking it. What we are
asking for is a specific vote on a mandate for the government to
take military action in the Balkans, particularly if that action
involves the use of ground troops. We expect a motion to come
from the government and that it be debated with a vote at the end
of it. That is the debate and the vote that we are specifically
looking for.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the
Opposition for his comments.
Notwithstanding the tenor of question period which concerned
ground troops, it is my understanding that the hon. Leader of the
Opposition supports Canada's role in the air war, that he
supports the air war conducted by NATO and its possible
expansion. That is my understanding.
The prime minister mentioned that he had written to the
President of Russia. How important does the Leader of the
Opposition think it is that Russia be involved in this situation?
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, again I do not want to
presume to answer for other members, but I would expect that the
majority of members in the House feel that the more that can be
done to involve the Russian government and the Russian people in
the resolution of this issue the better. The historic ties
between the Serbs and the Russian government and the Russian
people are deep and long. In many respects these ties are deeper
and longer than their ties or connections with anyone in the
west.
Yes, the Russians should have an influence and anything that
could be done to bring that influence to bear in a positive way,
not simply through the supplying of arms, would be helpful.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the leader of
the Reform Party said that he absolutely wanted to have a vote
in the House at the end of the present debate.
He has a unique opportunity to decide what the House will do
tomorrow. Why has he not introduced a motion which would have
forced a vote on the government instead of just talking about
it? This would have been more effective.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that
question before.
Our principal point, and perhaps I have to make it again because
it did not sink in with some members, is that if the government
is considering the use of ground troops or an expanded role for
Canada in the Balkans it should come to the House with a votable
motion seeking a mandate on which we will have a debate and a
vote. This is not a vote of non-confidence in the government.
Hopefully it would be a vote of confidence in whatever mandate is
given the government and would be a help rather than a hindrance
to solving this serious problem.
The Speaker: I find the amendment moved by the hon.
member for Calgary Southwest to be in order.
1605
[Translation]
Before giving the floor to the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, I
would point out that, as of now, speeches will be 20 minutes
long and questions and comments, ten minutes.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. With respect to your ruling, you indicated that the
amendment put by the Leader of the Opposition is in order. Do we
then take it that there will be a vote at the end of the debate
on the amendment?
The Speaker: The direct answer to your question is no,
there will not be a vote because it does not alter the original
order which the House adopted today.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we
will support the motion and the amendment even if I believe that
neither truly addresses the need to find a short and long term
political solution, which would not only guarantee the return of
refugees to their homes but also respect for the rights of the
Kosovar people.
However, we deplore the lack of information provided to members,
contrary to what was done during the campaign against Iraq in
1991. In that case, party leaders were consulted and invited to
be part of the Canadian effort, in particular through regular
briefing sessions. In this case, we got better information from
RDI and CNN.
To compensate for the flaws of the resolution and what
appears to be an improvised government policy, I wish to make
specific proposals, on behalf of my party, which should allow
Canada to play a constructive role in ensuring peace and
stability, not only in Kosovo but in all the Balkans.
We are witnessing one of the most troubling human tragedies to
occur since the end of the second world war, troubling because
of the actions of the Serbian army and because the present
situation is the direct result of President Milosevic's
challenge to the international community.
We have seen, in recent history, obvious instances of pure and
simple aggression for the purpose of ethnic cleansing and
territorial expansion. This was the case during the aggressions
against the Kurdish and Tibetan people and during the tragedy
which occurred in Rwanda. We did not learn all the lessons those
tragedies and the first crisis in the Balkans should have
thought us.
In this case, we are witnessing not so much a classic case of
territorial expansion, since Yugoslavia already controlled
Kosovo, as a much more pernicious conflict, a much greater
threat to peace and security in Europe. Rather we are faced with
a situation where a national minority, namely the Serbs in
Kosovo, with the encouragement of the Serb majority in the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, are trying to forcibly expel
from Kosovo the Albanian majority, which represents 90% of the
population.
The Serb aggression is unacceptable. It is aimed at
dispossessing the Kosovars of their belongings, their homes and
their land. This aggression is all the more repugnant as it is
also aimed at dispossessing the Kosovars of their past by
erasing any sign of their historical presence in Kosovo. It is
simply an attempt to rewrite history.
At a time when human rights and territorial status quo have been
recognized by virtually every country concerned, especially
through the Helsinki accords, it is of paramount importance to
find a political solution to this conflict.
1610
We would have liked the present crisis to be dealt with under
the aegis of the United Nations as was the case when Iraq
attacked Koweit. Unfortunately, close historical ties between
Russia and Serbia and special political ties between Yugoslavia
and China made it impossible.
We were faced, therefore, with the choice of either standing by
helplessly as the Kosovars were slowly stripped of their nation
and territory by the Serbs or finding a way to counter Serbia's
expansionism.
Given the situation in Europe, following the failure of the
mediation carried out by the contact group and the refusal by
President Milosevic to ratify the Rambouillet agreements, NATO
provided us with the only option available to put an end to the
abuses committed by the Serbs in Kosovo.
This is why the Bloc Quebecois supported NATO's strategy to use
air operations to get the Yugoslav government to make
concessions and supported Canada's participation in these air
strikes.
Unfortunately, no one had foreseen how brutal, swift and
efficient the ethnic cleansing operation of the Serbian
government would be in Kosovo. We are now facing a whole new
situation that is forcing our allies to reassess their strategy
in the Balkans.
So, if need be, the Bloc Quebecois will support the dispatch of
NATO ground troops to Kosovo.
We will also support Canada's direct or indirect participation
in a logistics force, for instance, in order to get President
Milosevic to back down and to give up his policy for Kosovo that
has turned him into a war criminal and possibly the instigator
of genocide.
However, parliament must be kept better informed of the military
and diplomatic strategy of the government. The consent of
members of parliament must be sought before Canadian troops take
part in ground battles. Parliament must take position, members
must be able to express their viewpoints and to vote on this
issue. I have trouble understanding why the Prime Minister
refuses to consult the House since he knows he can count on the
support of all parties and that this support would reinforce
Canada's position and strengthen the unity needed in such hard
times.
But before considering sending ground troops to Kosovo, before
proceeding with this ultimate solution which would mean that
NATO forces would engage in ground combat with Serbian forces,
the Bloc Quebecois believes that a last effort should be made to
resolve this crisis through the United Nations, which would have
the advantage of involving Russia.
In the meantime, there are two things Canada can do to alleviate
the human misery created by this conflict and to prevent a
ground attack, the cost of which could be high in terms of human
lives, from becoming necessary.
First of all, we must deploy all available resources to
alleviate the suffering and improve living conditions of Kosovar
refugees in Bosnia, Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro. Therefore
it is important to provide appropriate humanitarian aid and
logistical support to the Office of the High Commissioner for
Refugees.
In this regard, I must indicate our support for the Office of
the High Commissioner's decision not to play President
Milosevic's game. Canada must certainly do everything it can in
terms of humanitarian aid, including accepting, on a temporary
basis, a certain number of refugees should it become
necessary—and I insist on that point—or to allow people to be
reunited with family members who already are in Canada.
I say on a temporary basis because the aggression by the Serbs
must stop and its effects must be reversed. This means that all
refugees, wherever they are, must ultimately be free to go home
safely, as soon as possible, to rebuild their life and their
country.
The contrary would be tantamount to supporting the policy of the
fait accompli which President Milosevic has been trying to
impose. We must not support that policy in any way, because it
would only add to the human tragedy experienced by each refugee
and would drive the Kosovar people to despair.
I must also congratulate NATO for refusing to contemplate any
partition of the territory of Kosovo, I must also congratulate
NATO for refusing to contemplate any partition of the territory
of Kosovo, for this would be tantamount to conceding victory to
Milosevic and to rewarding aggression.
Where territorial integrity is concerned, Kosovo must be treated
in the same way Slovenia, Bosnia and Croatia were. It must also
be understood that Kosovo cannot be reintegrated with Yugoslavia
as if nothing had happened.
Since certain aspects of the Rambouillet accords were rendered
obsolete by the obstinacy of President Milosevic, any solution
to the current crisis must be based on the Kosovar people's
right to self-determination.
1615
Given the variety of abuses and atrocities perpetrated by Serb
troops and militiamen in Kosovo, it is unthinkable to again put
the Albanian population at the mercy of the Serbian political
power in Belgrade.
In order to preserve some chance of avoiding a ground war,
Canada must take advantage of all available opportunities, all
international forums of which it is a member, to promote a
peaceful and political solution to this conflict.
To that end, the federal Yugoslav government must agree to bow
to international will and to the five conditions presented by
NATO if the air strikes are to come to an end.
This means that Canada, via the UN, NATO and the OSCE, must take
advantage of its diplomatic influence to encourage Yugoslavia to
respect the rights of the Kosovo people, to put an end to its
armed aggression, and to negotiate a definitive and political
solution for the future of the Kosovars.
If, despite the efforts of Canada as a member of the security
council, the UN proved unable to find a rapid solution to the
current conflict, it will have demonstrated that it is incapable
of settling regional conflicts the way it is presently
organized, and that a major reform of its institutions and its
operations is required.
Canada must become a proponent of such a reform, and use its
security council seat to make that point.
The conflicts in Rwanda, the Congo and Kosovo are just some of
the most recent sad examples of the United Nations' inability to
act.
Second, the UN has also shown that, in the absence of such a
reform, regional or interstate military organizations will
likely increasingly themselves take whatever measures they deem
necessary to ensure international security and to protect human
rights.
President Milosevic must be reminded that the world has changed
since his glorious days as a communist apparatchik. As we enter
the new era of international law, the despots, tyrants,
terrorists and dictators are being forced to understand that
they do not enjoy the immunity they thought they had.
Furthermore, those responsible for crimes against humanity,
torture or terrorism must understand that they will not escape
justice.
This is a new reality showing the change in international law,
which three recent examples will amply illustrate.
First, there is the creation of an international criminal
tribunal for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. This tribunal
has already handed down a number of decisions and is preparing
to lay new charges against others responsible for war crimes and
massacres.
Second, there are the charges and the extradition proceedings
against General Pinochet brought by Spain.
Third, there is the trial in Holland, under Scottish law, of the
Libyans charged in the terrorist destruction of the Pan Am jet
over Lockerbie, Scotland.
Finally, beyond the tragedy currently unfolding in Kosovo, I
would like to make a suggestion to put a stop to such drama in
Europe, Africa or anywhere else in the world.
As quickly as possible following the restitution of the
individual and collective rights of the people of Kosovo, I
suggest that Canada, together with other members of the
Organization on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE,
promote an international conference on the status and rights of
national minorities in Europe and the Balkans in particular.
Based on the model of the conference in Helsinki in 1975, this
conference, to which all the countries of Europe, Canada and the
United States would be invited, would have specific objectives
on the recognition of minority rights. At the centre of these
objectives would be the issue of human rights, both individual
and collective.
These objectives could be formalized in a diplomatic agreement
between signatory states, like the 1975 agreement or, ideally,
through a treaty that would be more binding on the signatories.
These countries would therefore enter into international
obligations that would go beyond mere wishful thinking and
guarantee the individual and collective rights of national
minorities.
That formula could also be used by countries from other
continents, which could adjust their objectives and their means
to the prevailing political culture, or to the values that
produce a consensus.
How can we achieve that? This could be done in two stages.
First, in the short term, we must directly target the sources of
instability in the Balkans, namely the difficult economic
situation of the countries in that region, and the feeling of
exclusion from major European political institutions.
In this regard, we must recognize the wisdom of the position
adopted last week by the foreign ministers of the European
community. These countries have agreed to set up a fund of at
least 250 million Euros to establish a security pact for the
Balkans, similar to the Marshall plan.
This fund for Balkan countries would be tied to partnership
agreements with the European community, including on issues such
as economic assistance and trade privileges.
1620
So, this is a step in the right direction. Following that, we
will have to go further and to integrate interested Balkan
countries into the European community and NATO. This is
necessary to ensure Europe's stability, the region's prosperity
and the security of Europe's economic and military partners.
Second, we will have to convene the international conference on
the status and rights of national minorities in Europe to which
I alluded earlier.
Since this is a long term effort, the preparations for such a
conference must begin immediately after the end of the conflict
in Kosovo, to ensure its success as early as possible.
This is indeed an ambitious project, but the situation and the
evolution of international law require us to be creative while
pursuing lofty ideals.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member on the fact that his party has aligned
itself with the government position.
When you admit that the cause is just and that force is
necessary, when you are even prepared to go further than the
government and now call for the commitment of ground troops, why
do you put political conditions on your position today?
You say that we do not have enough information, when we had all
the necessary information in committee, when we are holding a
debate in the House today that gives each of us an opportunity
to discuss the issue. Why weaken our position, the position of
the Parliament of Canada, with a condition that strikes me as
completely political—
The Speaker: All questions must be put through the Chair. The
hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is only
natural that we discuss the politics of this issue, since it is
a highly political issue.
Second, there is a big difference between the information
provided to members of the House in 1991 and what we are seeing
now. I was critical of the fact that in 1991 we were in the
process of voting when troops had already been sent to Iraq and
we were watching the events on television. That was obviously
one drawback.
At this time, since we have already discussed air strikes in
previous debates in the House, I am not questioning today's
debate. However, the information provided in the briefing this
morning was completely inadequate. We were asked if we had any
questions.
We should be briefed each morning, like we were in 1991. Back
then, the Prime Minister invited all party leaders to become
members of the Privy Council. Mrs. McLaughlin, who was then
leader of the NDP, accepted the invitation. Right now, this
information is not available. We go after it—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. leader of the Bloc
Quebecois. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska for questions and
comments.
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
share the frustration felt by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
with regard to information and consultation.
It is an extremely important issue. There is a lack of
information. How can we be totally convinced of what is going on
in Kosovo, in terms of the involvement of Canada and NATO? We
cannot be convinced of anything because we do not have the
necessary information.
During the first week of the conflict, I received one phone call
a day. I was asked if I had watched the news on CNN. That is
where the information came from. During the second week, I
received one call every two or three days. During the third
week, I received one call every four days. It has now been six
days since I last received a call.
How can I keep my staff informed? How can my staff keep my
constituents informed?
If it was so important, why did the leader of the Bloc Quebecois
not support our request to recall the House during the Easter
break?
Mr. Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, our discussions called for an
emergency debate today, as was announced. Members of the Bloc
Quebecois who sit on the foreign affairs committee, particularly
the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, followed all the committee
meetings.
Let us get back to the information issue, which I think is a
major issue. We just came back here today, and so did our
counterparts in Washington.
1625
There could have been follow-up throughout the entire week, had
there been important information. I come back to my colleague,
who earlier said “You are weakening the position by asking
questions”. I say to him that he is weakening the position by
not providing information.
Those who are informed provide better support than those who are
not. There is a lesson in that. Canadian history is marked by
a division in important debates separating people in Quebec and
Canada on the issue of war.
The government should inform us, ensure that we are always aware
of what is going on and especially of military strategies—we
are not naïve—and hold a vote. This would strengthen Canada's
position. It is not those who are not doing anything that
weaken it, but rather those who should be doing something.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 50 years
ago in late March, Canadian poet Raymond Souster wrote about
another distant conflict. It is “almost impossible to think of,
to comprehend the words war, bombings and air raid shelters with
this afternoon sun glowing, spring-like”.
Today, as we participate in this important debate on Kosovo in
the safety of this House and in the security of this country, it
still seems almost impossible to think of.
Night after night Canadians and the world community watch in
horror as thousands upon thousands of desperate people flee for
their lives. They leave behind their homes, their work, their
communities and even members of their own family. They bring
with them those few possessions they can carry and their anguish.
Our television screens are lit as well by pictures of
destruction from air strikes and bombs. Here too, innocent
civilians are losing their homes, their neighbourhoods and their
lives.
Canadians who came to this country from both sides of the
conflict watch the news and search the Internet for signs that
their relatives are safe. In communities across Canada families
and friends of our men and women of the armed forces watch and
worry as the people they love risk their lives on dangerous
military missions.
Today our first and last thoughts must be with all of those
people whose lives are touched by the tragic events in Kosovo. We
are indebted to the service personnel who put their lives at risk
and to the aid workers who are helping the refugees in Albania
and Macedonia.
While thousands of ethic Albanians flee from Kosovo, Canada with
other NATO countries, is bombing Serbia. We are doing this to a
country that has not waged war on Canada all without a resolution
from the government, a debate on that resolution or a vote by the
House of Commons, and without the sanction of the United Nations
General Assembly.
How did we get here? How did we get to this terrible place?
For some years now, Yugoslav President Milosevic has been
ruthlessly suppressing the rights of former states within
Yugoslavia. By March of this year, as Mr. Milosevic spurned all
attempts at peace talks, he amassed 40,000 troops in and around
Kosovo and began a campaign of brutal ethnic cleansing. The
United Nations Security Council failed to act.
At this point all 19 NATO countries agreed to intervene with an
air campaign intended to stop the atrocities of Milosevic's
forces, push him to withdraw from Kosovo and accept the entry of
an international military presence to protect civilians.
1630
For New Democrats the maintenance of peace has always been and
remains our highest priority. Any decision to take military
action is particularly troubling for us as internationalists
seeking a peaceful world order based on respect for human rights.
However, the scale of the human disaster unfolding before the
world made it imperative in our view for the international
community to act. To sit by and do nothing was simply not an
option.
As Tommy Douglas said about World War II:
When a group of lawless men endeavour to destroy the fabric of
law and order by which alone human society is possible, then I
have a responsibility to discharge.
Our actions are directed against the lawless violations of human
rights on a massive scale in Kosovo, not against the people of
Serbia. In this conflict, as in all wars, there is a tendency to
demonize entire peoples and we must resist that. We must not
forget the tragedy suffered by the Serbian people down through
history and the threats which they face in the current
catastrophe. At the same time we are determined to pursue those
guilty of war crimes through the international criminal court.
Not all Canadians support armed intervention. Some activists in
the peace movement oppose Canadian intervention in the conflict
because of their pacifist convictions or because of different
interpretations of the nature of the crisis.
My caucus colleagues and I understand and respect such views.
We urge all members of the House to listen carefully and
thoughtfully to them as we all struggle to determine the
responsible course of action in line with our conscience and our
convictions.
Since NATO's air campaign began Canadians have watched events
with anguish and dismay. We must now face the reality that the
air campaign clearly did not stop the Milosevic atrocities in
Kosovo as the NATO leadership led us to believe. In fact the
brutal evacuation of Albanian Kosovars from their homeland has
increased during the NATO strikes.
Today's debate allows us all to take stock of this grave and
difficult situation and to ask ourselves: Where do we go from
here?
The government's response has been to ask for patience, to wait
and see if the military force alone will force Milosevic's hand.
[Translation]
The government decided to focus only on military action. It
decided to ignore political solutions and to forget Canada's
internationalist tradition.
[English]
Canadians do not want their government to be so mesmerized by
military developments that it fails to explore every possible
political or diplomatic opening that might end the bombing at the
earliest possible opportunity and allow the Kosovar refugees to
return home safely.
Today we call on the Canadian government to take the full
diplomatic action that Canadians expect of their government; to
end the bombing at the earliest possible opportunity that gives
the Kosovar refugees the chance to return safely home.
We call on the government to initiate a diplomatic offer to the
Milosevic government that if it will stop the ethnic cleansing,
if it will stop the atrocities and the killing and agree to come
to the negotiating table, then NATO will suspend its bombing.
Since this crisis began there has not been a meeting of the
General Assembly of the United Nations. We also call on the
Canadian government to call for a special meeting to address the
crisis in Kosovo. We need to make every effort to build the
capacity of the United Nations to act.
Our first priority must be to seek out every diplomatic and
political opportunity that could bring the bombing to an end at
the earliest opportunity.
1635
The Milosevic regime may refuse all diplomatic and political
overtures. The air campaign may fail to secure an agreement to
allow an international force to accompany the Kosovar refugees
back to their homes in safety.
Should that be the case, the Canadian government and other
members of the international community will no doubt explore what
other means can be used to stop the ethnic cleansing, including
the use of ground troops. In that instance, I and my New
Democratic Party caucus colleagues insist that any decision to
use ground troops must be made by members of this House only
after a full debate and only on an explicit resolution presented
by the government, with a vote to follow.
We say this not to prejudice that important decision, but it is
a democratic imperative that the House of Commons be allowed to
decide this question affecting the state of international
security and the safety of the men and women in our armed forces.
Last week the Minister of National Defence sent out confusing
and contradictory signals about the state of planning within NATO
for the use of ground troops.
[Translation]
If the government introduces a resolution on sending troops, the
mission must be clear. The objectives of the air campaign were
imprecise and not achieved. In fact, the humanitarian crisis was
worsened as the result of the air strikes.
[English]
Today we repeat our call for the government to seek
international agreement for the force of ground troops that will
accompany the Kosovar refugees back into Kosovo to be under some
authority other than NATO. A force organized under the authority
of the UN or of the OSCE might have some chance of gaining the
acceptance of the Milosevic regime and bring us closer to a
political settlement, especially if Russia were to be part of
that force. Indeed, securing Russian participation in diplomatic
efforts to resolve this crisis is essential.
I am pleased that in debate this afternoon the Prime Minister
indicated that he very much agreed with us in that regard. We
are asking that the government play a more proactive role in
advancing this position.
While the scale of the refugee crisis in Kosovo surprised NATO
planners, the generous response of the public to that crisis came
as no surprise to Canadians. We were pleased that our government
joined with other countries in offering to temporarily evacuate
thousands of Kosovars to Canada should that have been necessary
and desirable.
On Friday, as we know, that plan was suspended after
consultations with the United Nations High Commission for
Refugees. To remain steadfastly focused on the objective of
Kosovars returning safely to their own homeland, we urge the
government to continue working closely with the UNHCR. We hope
and trust that the government will be dedicating all of the
resources it was prepared to put into bringing refugees here to
providing relief and support to refugees in Albania and
Macedonia.
As we grapple with the Kosovo catastrophe we must learn from it
what needs to be accomplished internationally if we are to avoid
such crises in the future or handle them in a more effective way.
Some who have opposed Canada's military intervention have
rightly pointed out the hypocrisy of NATO's intervention in this
case of human rights violation and the very same countries' lack
of action in many other cases of gross human rights violations
taking place around the world.
One reaction to this hypocrisy is to argue for consistency. If
governments did nothing about East Timor or the Kurds, the
argument goes, if they stood by during the genocide in Rwanda,
then they should do the same in this crisis.
There is another reaction to this hypocrisy, a more hopeful one.
This could be a major turning point, where governments that have
in the past turned a blind eye to gross human rights violations
are now prepared to take bold action to face up to them.
1640
If we are to make the legacy of the Kosovo tragedy a lasting and
positive legacy, if we are to make this the beginning of a time
when governments take their responsibilities for human rights
seriously, then we have a lot of work to do. We must work to
improve the capacity of the United Nations to deal with such
situations.
Lack of consensus on the security council prevented the UN from
taking a lead role in this desperate crisis, but current
political differences on the security council were only a part of
the problem.
The United Nations, like all of our current international
organizations, is based on relations between sovereign states.
Even though the UN charter refers to world citizenship, it has
difficulties acting to protect the rights of world citizens where
conflicts take place within sovereign states. This problem is
one of the biggest challenges before the international community
and we must deal with it in coming years.
The absence of a role for the UN and OSCE in this crisis left
NATO as the only organization capable of taking action. We
cannot allow the particular events of this crisis to permit NATO
to become the self-appointed policeman of the world. Since the
end of the cold war NATO has been very much an alliance in search
of a role. That role cannot, in the long term, be as a free
agent operating outside of the authority of the United Nations.
The crisis in Kosovo provides the latest proof of the terrible
human cost of letting conflicts fester to the point where large
scale military action is required to counter a humanitarian
disaster.
We have to work at finding new ways of resolving conflicts in a
peaceful manner. I want to commend Project Ploughshares, Voices
of Women and other peace organizations for their excellent work
in this regard.
Many potential civil conflicts could be prevented with
progressive, enlightened policies of international economic
assistance and co-operation. In this regard, unfortunately, the
government has been heading precisely in the wrong direction. It
has steadily eroded budgets for overseas development assistance
and it continues to support an international economic order of
unrestrained markets that pushes the poorest nations further and
further to the economic margins. These policies will make civil
strife and conflict more rather than less likely in the coming
years.
We know there is no quick fix solution to the Kosovo
catastrophe. The road to peace will not be smooth. But as we
debate this issue let us remember that with every hour that
passes more families flee their homes for safety outside Kosovo,
more and more men and women sift through the rubble of their
homes accidentally destroyed by air strikes, and more Canadians
serving overseas experience trauma and risk their lives. For the
sake of all these world citizens it is imperative that we explore
every possible avenue to resolve the conflict quickly and
peaceably.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to explore with the hon. member what she
would precisely propose in terms of this diplomatic initiative
which she seems to feel we have failed to explore, given the
background of the Rambouillet accord.
The hon. member well knows, of course, that the OSCE operates on
a consensus minus one basis and therefore no operation to the
OSCE would have been possible without the agreement of Russia and
many other countries. The UN was blocked through a Russian and a
possible Chinese veto, as we know.
1645
What precisely does she say we should have done? Does she feel
we should have done nothing and allowed the situation to develop
recognizing the fact we needed troops? What has been said is we
failed to pursue every diplomatic initiative. What else could we
have concretely done? What would she have diplomatically pursued
if she were in our place? How can she help the House?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, I think the member
knows very well that I did not make the assertions that he
attributed to me. Rather the entire thrust of what I think every
member of this House needs to be concerned about, I want to
reassure the member that I was very concerned about and I put my
comments forward, is where we go from here.
It is very important that we not be stuck back at the point of
saying that the Rambouillet accord said thus and so and therefore
nothing else is a possibility. It is very important that we
recognize that we have been bombing for 19 straight days. The
objective that was set out at the beginning and thought to be
achievable within a few days has simply not come anywhere closer
to being achieved.
We absolutely have to redouble our efforts to seek every single
possible avenue for a peaceful and early solution. How? Very
specifically, propose to Milosevic, take a bold initiative that
if he will stop the atrocities, if he will stop the killing, if
he will agree to come to the table, then we will stop the NATO
bombing.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, for all intents and purposes, Canada is at war.
Canadian pilots are dropping bombs. People are being killed.
Yet we have not taken a vote in the House of Commons in terms of
a declaration of war. In any event as I understand it, the NDP
supports the actions of the government so in effect supports this
war that is taking place.
The Leader of the Official Opposition has indicated that under
certain conditions the official opposition would support the
sending of ground troops into Kosovo. I ask the leader of the
New Democratic Party, under what conditions would her party
support, if at all, the sending of ground troops into Kosovo?
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, first I want to
reiterate, because it is extremely important that we do so, that
we have not exhausted all possibilities. We simply cannot take
the position that only more military intervention is going to
bring us to a peaceful solution. I want to carefully restate
that.
This was a question that was addressed by my colleagues the
international affairs critic and defence critic on March 31. We
took the position then calling for us to redouble our efforts to
seek a diplomatic and political solution. Should the issue of
ground troops become one as an absolute last resort, then it is
absolutely incumbent upon the government to come before
parliament to set out clearly the military objectives, the terms
of engagement, what precisely it is the government is proposing
and after a full debate in parliament, that no such initiative be
launched without there being a full vote of parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since
the leader of the New Democratic Party still believes a
diplomatic solution is possible and desirable, can she indicate
to us whether she believes the solution of autonomy is still
possible within Yugoslavia, or whether what needs to be looked
at, as I have just asked the Prime Minister, is a totally
different status for Kosovo now, an international protectorate
or protected zone, in light of recent events which make it very
unlikely that Kosovars will want to co-exist with Serbs within
their territory at this time?
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, in response to the
question, we have to recognize that these are all options, that
these are all matters that need to be fully explored. They can
only be explored if we can get to the negotiating table.
These are not options that can be considered in the context of
relentless hostilities, aggression and bombing. We have to get
to the table.
1650
It is absolutely critical for us to recognize that we have to
move forward. If it is true that the bombings are achieving
their desired objective, which is what NATO keeps claiming, then
surely it is true that the situation is closer to one where the
Milosevic regime will be brought to the negotiating table. We
are simply saying that these and all options must be the subject
of negotiation or we are not going to find a solution to the
current Kosovo catastrophe.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, some people have said it was
impossible to negotiate with someone who had committed, or was
presumed to have committed, crimes against humanity.
What is the hon. member's response to those who think in this
way and believe that no negotiation with Slobodan Milosevic is
possible?
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in the
entire world community who is not horrified by the crimes against
humanity committed by President Milosevic. But let us not give
up on the notion that it is possible to come to the point of
being able to negotiate a peaceful solution. If we are going to
completely give up on the possibility that this can be achieved,
then does the NATO bombing not constitute a hoax?
The continuing stated purpose of the NATO initiatives has been
to bring Milosevic to the negotiating table. That has to remain
our objective, but it is quite clear through 19 days of bombing
that has not been achieved. We have to try every single possible
avenue to reach a negotiated and peaceful settlement. We will
only be able to do that if we can keep taking bold initiatives
that have some potential to put an end to the hostilities on both
sides and get down to negotiations.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the House and
to Canadians about the ongoing military conflict in Yugoslavia
and to offer my remarks on behalf of the Progressive Conservative
Party. This discussion is overdue and a substantive debate and
vote is what Canadians deserve.
Members of the Canadian armed forces are taking part in a
justified offensive action to end the slaughter and to return the
basic rights of innocents in Kosovo. It is ironic that the Prime
Minister and his government have had to be cajoled and shamed
into consulting the elected representatives of Canadians with
respect to Canada's participation in this conflict.
Before today, there have been two occasions when the government
has asked members of this House to take note of the situation in
Kosovo, on October 7, 1998 and on February 17, 1999. Both of
these discussions were held under extraordinary rules; no motion
was before the House for approval and a constitutional rule
requiring the attendance of members was not observed. Parliament
has never been asked to vote on this terrible matter in Kosovo.
War is not familiar to those of my generation. It is something
I wanted to exist only in old film reels, yellowed newspapers and
history books. Conflict in central Europe was something that was
meant to be restricted to the archives or the annals of time.
Sadly we find the atrocities of Kosovo dominating our mass media.
We cannot ignore the lessons of history or shirk the Canadian
tradition of service that we inherit.
[Translation]
I offer my support and that of my party to the women and men of
the Canadian armed forces. They are courageously putting their
lives on the line to restore peace and stability to the province
of Kosovo.
1655
[English]
Few of us here can properly appreciate or understand the
commitment that our forces are making to end the terror of ethnic
cleansing and racial murder in Yugoslavia. Our commitment to
peace and safety of Canadians, our allies, the people of Kosovo
demand that we cannot be neutral. Make no mistake about it, the
Conservative Party supports Canada's NATO efforts thus far.
We must continue all efforts to seek solutions that would ensure
that our soldiers and the people of Kosovo have a dignified way
out of this horror. However, we now confront the reality that
Canadians are facing the real possibility of battlefield
deployment. Now is the time to consult before more Canadians are
asked to put their lives at risk. Canadians have a proud record
of international military service. It is imperative that we
exercise proper judgment and discretion when sending our armed
forces abroad.
It was a former Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden,
the leader of the Canadian government during the first world war,
who said of a nation's military interventions “continuous
consultation leading to concerted action”. After all, it was
Borden who during the great war worked tirelessly to ensure that
Canada had significant military and diplomatic influence during
that most infamous period of instability. Borden's efforts
secured Canada a seat at the Versailles treaty table. His
leadership helped define Canada's place on the world stage.
This government could learn from Borden's actions and from the
efforts of our former government. Through this conflict we have
seen yet again the callous disregard this government has for
parliament and the people of Canada.
It appears Canadian forces were called to action without a
proper plan. While we as a party fully support Canada's military
actions thus far, it is the method and the means with which the
government made this commitment which is offensive to parliament
and to the Canadian democratic principles.
The choices at times like this are never simple. Innocent
people were being killed before the intervention, as they are
now. All avenues other than intervention were tried and failed.
The question then became whether the world was to stand back and
allow actions tantamount to mass murder of a people, the forced
expulsion of people from their ancient homes and a pattern of
aggression that threatened the stability of a region, a region
whose instability has plunged the world into war before. With
stakes this high, this real, it was incumbent upon NATO and
Canada to act.
[Translation]
Inaction can always be justified, and the world did justify it
in Rwanda, in Burundi and elsewhere. This is a precedent of
which we cannot be proud, either on humanitarian grounds or as
for regional stability.
[English]
Nor is this a precedent which should bind our hands in
circumstances where the prospects of successful intervention
might be stronger. There is a question of state sovereignty, but
as Mr. Milosevic has demonstrated, there are a multitude of ways
to violate the sovereignty of one's neighbours and one's people.
At the end of the day the question became whether the alliance
which had tried other means should simply stand back and let
events take their murderous course. We cannot turn a blind eye
when such inhumane suffering is inflicted on a people by their
own government.
History has demonstrated that it would have been preferable to
act under the broader mandate of the United Nations. Canadians
deserve to know in great detail how Canada used its unique
influence as a member of the security council and as a close
friend and ally of the United States of America to advance that
option.
In the early 1990s the previous government adopted a two track
policy with respect to the crisis in the Persian Gulf, working
for peace but preparing for hostilities if diplomacy failed. That
record clearly shows that from the day Iraq invaded Kuwait, the
former government engaged in extensive diplomatic efforts
designed to find a peaceful solution to that crisis. Those
efforts included wide consultation in that region and elsewhere,
promotion of the importance of the UN as the instrument of the
world's response, urging the prompt withdrawal by Iraq and
counselling prudence on the part of our allies.
Everything the previous government did, it did knowing that
international peace and order was its overriding objective. And
we did not fear consultation with parliament.
1700
The Prime Minister will recall that in 1990 and 1991 during the
crisis in the gulf, the Progressive Conservative government
placed before the House substantive motions for a vote. The
Prime Minister has said in his remarks that our soldiers deserve
the support and respect of Canadians and of parliament. Surely
the best way to achieve that unanimity is through a vote in the
House.
The Deputy Prime Minister has put forward an amendment to a
motion before the House seeking that the House of Commons give
approval to the government prior to any commitment of ground
troops. I ask rhetorically, will the Prime Minister seek such
approval if the need for ground troops arises in this conflict?
Our foreign policy should not shrink from the world around us.
The crisis also raises questions about Canada's role and
influence in international affairs. Sadly, under the Liberal
government we are paying a price for the gradual deterioration in
Canada's capacity to act internationally.
Unfortunately, Canada now has a government that is shirking its
responsibilities and leadership. This has led to an erosion in
Canada's stature abroad. This is what causes us to question the
nature of its multilateral efforts in the context of the Kosovo
conflict.
We cannot forget that. Despite our huge investment in
peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia, Canada was not invited to
be a member of the contact group negotiating with the various
sides of the conflict in 1995.
In May 1995, when NATO bombed Bosnian Serb ammunition dumps in
the vicinity of our peacekeepers, Canada was not advised of the
situation in advance. Scores of Canadian soldiers were taken
hostage in retaliation.
On the other hand, the policy of the former government was to
work with the United Nations from the beginning to take more
action both diplomatically and militarily. We firmly proclaimed
our belief in collective security and responsibility in our
commitment to help others. We did not follow the UN or NATO. We
led them.
It is a sad spectacle when the current Prime Minister admitted
in June 1995 in this House that Canada's international stature
was so diminished under his leadership that the UN and NATO gave
us no forewarning of air strikes in Bosnia.
A little over a year ago, the government was mounting the
argument for Canadian participation in the military action
against Iraq. The Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time
admitted that Canada had not made any serious effort to achieve a
consensus among the UN security council before such action
because we ran the risk of establishing and defining a rift
within the UN security council.
Pretending that problem did not exist was wrong and is
highlighted today because that rift exists within the security
council with respect to Kosovo.
This is further evidence that Canada has not maintained the
political and diplomatic capability which was until recently a
defining feature of Canada's role in the world.
It is still not clear, given the answers and the comments
offered today by the Prime Minister, what diplomatic efforts the
government undertook to resolve that rift.
[Translation]
When my party formed the government of Canada, we were
successful in bringing the unique influence of Canada to play in
order to carry out one of the mandates of the United Nations.
Has the present government really fulfilled its role in
persuading Washington, Moscow and Beijing to carry out one of
the mandates of the United Nations?
[English]
How hard did the government try to use our unique position to
persuade Washington, Moscow and then Beijing to achieve a UN
mandate? Canadians have a right to know whether we mobilized our
diplomatic and political influence with the same intensity in
this case as we did so successfully in the gulf conflict.
When military action is proposed certain standards of conduct
and criteria must be met. First, there should be clear political
agreement on objectives.
Second, the scope of military action would have to be defined
geographically and by capability. The government has
deliberately chosen not to maintain the capability of the
Canadian Armed Forces to live up to the roles we have
traditionally played on the world stage.
Third, military action would have to be appropriate to the
circumstances.
Fourth, the conditions that would precipitate a western military
response would have to be clearly defined for all concerned in
advance.
Finally, due regard must be given to the disengagement scenario
prior to deeper involvement.
1705
As for this last point, the Government of Canada must have
known, when it agreed to air strikes against Serb targets, that
ground troops could well be necessary if we are going to finish
what it started. The use of ground troops is never a first option,
yet perhaps a necessary one when the exercise of measured force
is required.
The Prime Minister and the government should have been more
frank and truthful with Canadians at this time.
Canadians and their elected representatives have been told that
the objectives of the NATO operation are to halt the ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo, force the Yugoslav military and paramilitary
forces returning to Kosovo to withdraw, enable the refugees to
return home in safety and force the Yugoslavian government to
accept the Rambouillet peace agreement along with the NATO
peacekeeping force.
Canadians are left with questions about NATO strategy: its
short term objectives, its long term objectives and how its
success will be measured. When will the NATO bombing campaign
end? What is the criteria for any potential decision to employ
ground troops? These are but a few of the many questions that
need to be answered by the Prime Minister and the government.
Recent reports from the BBC indicate that ground troops have
been contemplated. A spokesman for the American state
department suggested that NATO might put aside its reluctance to
use ground troops in a military role in Kosovo. A spokesman for
the minister of defence in London, General Sir Charles Guthrie,
acknowledged that NATO planners had discussed sending in ground
troops.
Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, defined
victory as the removal of Serb troops and the return of Kosovar
refugees with the protection of an international peacekeeping
force. As for the political status of Kosovo, he said that
partition was out of the question but that there still had to be
autonomy at the very least and the question of independence would
have to be determined at a later date. He also suggested that
even if Mr. Milosevic was ready to return to the negotiating
table, he was uncertain whether that was still an option given
the charges against him of crimes against humanity.
This is the American view. What is the Canadian government's
view on these important issues? Canadians deserve answers.
The government refused to recall parliament while major
decisions affecting the deployment of Canadian soldiers were
being made. Where have we come as a nation and a parliament if
we cannot set aside time to properly debate ideas for action to
stem this crisis in Yugoslavia, a crisis that grips the entire
world? We have taken this path before. Why can we not do it now
when the lives of so many may be at stake?
My final words and those of my party are for the Canadian and
NATO personnel and their families and the people of Kosovo who
are directly affected by this tragedy and this conflict. While
we in Canada cannot fathom the depth of the courage of our
military personnel or sufficiently comprehend the suffering of
the Kosovars, we will work in unity to ensure that this conflict
is brought to a just end. The efforts of our forces and the
suffering of the people of Kosovo must not be in vain.
It has been said that the history of the Balkans always repeats
itself. Thus far these repetitions have been nothing but bloody
and tragic. However, we must not assume that reconciliation in
this region is still impossible. It is incumbent upon all of us
in this parliament to make sure that Canada helps to end that
chilling cycle of catastrophic unrest. The people of Kosovo must
be free from tyranny and allowed to live in peace and freedom.
There is an honourable heritage to uphold Canada's intervention
and a moral obligation as a peace loving nation. The Conservative
Party will support all legitimate efforts to seek enforcement of
lasting peace in Kosovo.
I would like to move an amendment to the amendment moved by the
Reform Party that would read as follows:
And in the interim, this House supports the existing commitment
of Canada to the NATO action to resolve the continuing tragedy in
Kosovo and requires the government to regularly consult and
inform parliament respecting this commitment and any changes
thereto.
1710
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair will take the amendment to
the amendment under advisement for a few moments.
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and
Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the
hon. member.
He made reference to the fact that we have not consulted
parliament. We debated this in November or October. I certainly
remember being here on February 17, and we are debating it again
today.
I just want to set the hon. member's mind correct. I was a
defence critic when the gulf war began. One morning Canadians
woke up to hear that Canadian forces had been committed to the
gulf war while parliament was in summer recess. The House was
not recalled.
He talks about a vote. Yes, there was a vote but considerably
after the Canadian forces were committed. I remember that being
a very major point. If my memory serves me correctly, the vote
was on the UN resolution.
If we were to make public that we will quit bombing in say 5, 10
or 15 days, does the hon. member think this would really help
NATO or would it help Milosevic?
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I also recall that period
of time, although I certainly was not a member of this House.
The one thing I do know is that the government of the day did
not make a commitment to send troops and then return them home
when the fighting began. What it did do was consult with
parliament in a real way, in a debate that mattered and a debate
that led to a vote.
That is what members of this party and other members of the
opposition have been calling for, a significant motion before the
House that defines the action and allows parliamentarians to, at
the very least, have their say and input, to have it considered
by the government before it takes a position. I agree that the
timeliness of the vote is important.
Taking the hon. member's comments in their context, I hope this
is an indication that the government is prepared to have a
significant vote before any commitment is made to send ground
troops into Kosovo.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to take this opportunity, in the presence of the
Prime Minister, to state, as our Conservative colleagues found
out this morning, that there is a problem with consultations.
There is a real problem when it comes to consulting members of
this parliament. These past two weeks we were promised we would
be kept informed. The government promised it would keep us
informed, which it has not done properly, and should do better
and more often in the coming weeks.
I understand my Conservative colleague is a lawyer. He probably
knows how to read the acts that would apply to the present
situation.
The National Defence Act, for which the minister is responsible,
provides that the Governor in Council may place the Canadian
forces on active service in consequence of any action undertaken
by Canada under the United Nations Charter or the North Atlantic
Treaty and not requiring parliament's intervention.
Is his party of the opinion that this provision should be
amended so that every time we are considering sending troops—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but
the question is too long.
[English]
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank my learned friend
for the comment. I certainly do not hold myself out as an expert
in international affairs, but I do take his point. It is
certainly something that might be examined as to modifying the
existing act.
I want it to be very clear that we as opposition members are not
asking asking to micromanage this intervention, this military
action.
We are asking for meaningful consultation and information that
pertains to the serious questions that lead to the decisions the
government is making.
1715
The Prime Minister has indicated that he will do more to advise
the House and we take him at his word.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I certainly agree with the arguments the hon. member has
been making of late about the need for parliament to be able to
give the government a more specific mandate in the context of an
explicit motion and vote at some point in the future should
perhaps the government come to the view that it wants to deploy
ground troops, for instance. I would caution the hon. member not
to hang his hat too firmly when it comes to this on the behaviour
of the previous Conservative government.
If my memory serves me right, we were well into the gulf war
before we had the kind of thing the member is calling for. A lot
of procedures that have made it tough for the opposition in this
parliament and the last parliament, including the procedure used
by the government against the hon. member today, were procedures
brought in by that government. In terms of procedural contempt
for parliament, his party has few equals and I would caution
against self-righteousness in the matter.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his intervention. I have great respect for his knowledge of
the House, for his participation in debates and for his
longstanding commitment to improve parliamentary procedure. In
the context of setting up the parameters of this debate he
referred quite appropriately to this as an ideal debate where
there could be meaningful exchange.
Sadly that will end at 6.30 p.m. and there will be very few in
the House to hear the comments being put forward. There will be
very little in the way of meaningful exchange. There will be
very few ministers present. The Prime Minister will not be here.
That is the objective we have been trying to achieve with the
assistance of some members of the opposition.
I can think of very few issues of greater importance that would
lead the House not to have a debate, that would parallel the
decision that must put our armed forces in harm's way in Kosovo.
This is an instance where it should happen.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I know it is not appropriate to comment on when people
are in the House, but it is important to say that the Prime
Minister is here listening to the debate because he does care.
He is here right now in the Chamber.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, now that all five political parties have spoken, it
appears clear to me that there is a consensus to send ground
troops into Kosovo under certain conditions. I would rather the
debate be about whether or not Canadians are prepared to send
ground troops into Kosovo, period. Sending Canadian soldiers to
fight a war in Kosovo means that the Prime Minister and
parliament would be prepared to accept that Canadian soldiers
will be killed in action in Kosovo.
Before the Canadian government gets itself into a ground war, it
should at least know how it will get itself out of a ground war
in Kosovo. The Americans made the mistake in Vietnam of getting
into a war they did not know how to get out of.
Is the member from the Conservative Party not concerned that a
precedent has been set as a result of what is happening in
Kosovo, that in future whenever any internal conflict takes place
anywhere in the world wherein ethnic cleansing, murder and rape
are taking place NATO will be required under the precedent—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. I respect his opinion.
1720
It is not the position of the Conservative Party that we are at
that inevitable point where ground troops will be sent in.
However I take the hon. member's question as to whether a
precedent has been set and whether we are concerned about that.
Certainly we are concerned.
I am afraid that there are instances in the world where
conflicts are raging now and the UN or NATO has not intervened.
Perhaps they should have. What happens, and it should happen, is
that each individual conflict is examined and is given a great
deal of thought before any military intervention takes place. I
respectfully submit that is the way it should continue.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is prepared to rule on
the admissibility of the proposed amendment. The Chair finds the
amendment to the amendment to be in order and therefore the
question is on the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The Speaker earlier ruled that the amendment which was
put by the official opposition was in order. It seems somewhat
strange that a take note resolution before the House that will
not be voted on can be amended.
I would simply ask for the authority under which amendments can
be accepted to a matter before the House that will not be voted
on.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the hon. member is aware
that virtually any motion, except I believe an adjournment
motion, put to the House is amendable. There may be a few others
that are listed in the standing orders that are not but there are
not many.
A motion, even on a take note debate, it seems to me is an
amendable motion. It may be that the question is not put but
that is in accordance with the rule adopted by the House in
relation to this debate. Accordingly amendments are amendments.
As long as they are relevant to the main motion and do not
contradict the main motion and as long as they are not repugnant
to it generally they are ruled to be in order.
There is nothing offensive in the wording that has been proposed
by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough or by the
Leader of the Opposition in his amendment. There is nothing
contrary or repugnant to the main motion. They seek to amend it
and clarify its terms. Accordingly the Chair has held them to be
in order.
I will not cite an authority without looking for the hon.
member, but I am sure if he looks at his standing orders and at
Beauchesne's he will discover there is plenty of authority for
amendments to motions. Indeed it is common practice.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a further point
of order in light of your comments. Any member of the House who
speaks on this matter would be entitled to move an amendment as
long as it is consistent with the main motion. At the end of the
day we could have 150 amendments to this take note motion.
The Deputy Speaker: No. There can only be a main motion,
an amendment and a subamendment before the House at one time.
Before another member could move a further amendment the
subamendment would have to be disposed of.
Mr. John Nunziata: How do we dispose of it if we cannot
vote?
The Deputy Speaker: You cannot. That is the short answer
to your question.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon.
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The grave events taking place in Kosovo have concerned the House
for the last six months. The opposition has had every
opportunity in a real way to contribute to the discussion and to
the important decision making that has to be done. I find its
complaints today to be absolutely groundless.
For example, on four occasions since last October the committee
on foreign affairs and the committee on defence have met either
jointly or separately to discuss the Kosovo issue. In addition
there has been a series of detailed technical briefings by
military and other officials. Even during the break, even while
members were across the country in other locations, the
committees came together a few days into the air campaign. The
Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister for International
Cooperation and I came before the committee to talk about Kosovo.
1725
Moreover, the House has debated the situation on two occasions
prior to today in February. On last February 17 we considered
our participation with ground forces in terms of peacekeeping
operations. Once an agreement had been reached we discussed the
600 to 800 Canadian troops that would be involved in that
peacekeeping mission.
Furthermore it is important particularly to note today that last
October 7 we discussed the very kind of air action that is in
fact now ongoing. I can remember. I looked at the notes. There
was full participation and an understanding of what was at stake
was discussed at that time.
We still hoped for a diplomatic settlement, but everybody in the
House knew the consequences last October if we did not get one.
As a result of the threat of NATO air strikes, at that time Mr.
Milosevic agreed with Richard Holbrooke of the United States, the
special envoy, on a set of conditions by which we would then be
able to prevent any kind of air strikes. However Mr. Milosevic,
true to the form that we have seen in the past, did not live up
to his word. He continually broke his promises.
Over the months that followed an ever increasing level of
violence against the Kosovars and the steadfast refusal of the
Yugoslav delegation at Rambouillet to negotiate in good faith
left us with very little choice but to resort to military force.
Even then we took several months trying to bring about this
diplomatic resolution, but diplomacy had run its course. We were
in a race against time as the number of atrocities grew by the
hour.
I could quote a lot of the things that members of the House said
on that occasion, but the essential point is that members of the
House recognize the gravity of the humanitarian catastrophe
looming on the horizon and the need to resort to military means
if diplomacy fails. The debate last October demonstrated that
the policy of the government and the will of the House were one
and the same. Our current actions in Kosovo reflect that
consensus reached last October 7 in the House.
I assure all Canadians that our objectives are clear. We seek
the immediate end to violence in Kosovo; the complete withdrawal
of the Yugoslav forces; the unconditional and safe return of all
refugees, a million of them; the stationing in Kosovo of an
international military presence; and the establishment of a
political framework under which the Kosovars can be appropriately
governed. Those are the five conditions that were further
endorsed today in the foreign ministers meeting in Brussels.
The NATO air campaign is now in its 20th day. All hon. members
are aware that Canada has now doubled its initial contribution of
six CF-18s for a total of twelve. Some 220 personnel are
stationed in Aviano: pilots, technicians and people in many other
support roles, all doing excellent work for Canada. There are
100 people involved in the AWACS missions flying out of Germany.
The decision to do all this was taken following close
consultation with our NATO allies and careful consideration of
how the air operation would be conducted.
[Translation]
I can assure the House I have been in close contact with my NATO
colleagues since the beginning of the crisis. Very recently I
talked to my Italian and British counterparts, and on Saturday I
met with Secretary Cohen in Whashington.
[English]
Later this week I will be going to Brussels where I will meet
with senior NATO officials. NATO's intensified air operations
and Canada's additional commitment of aircraft are not signs that
the campaign is failing to deliver results.
NATO is engaged in a very deliberate and carefully planned air
operation. The first phase of that operation was designed to
degrade and neutralize Yugoslav's air defences. NATO has flown
thousands of sorties, with only one aircraft loss.
1730
The second phase of the operation began in the midst of the
current campaign and it, along with the continued pressure on air
defence, meant striking hard at the Yugoslav forces in Kosovo,
the very people and the equipment that were inflicting the
atrocities on the Kosovo population. Mr. Milosevic is doing
everything he can to hide his forces and allude NATO aircraft.
Two conclusions should be drawn from these actions. First, our
air campaign is having the intended effect. Second, we are
reducing and weakening the capability of the Yugoslav forces to
inflict their evil on the people of Kosovo.
Outside of Kosovo, NATO forces are striking at vital Yugoslav
military infrastructure and other assets that allow his army and
police forces to operate. In the space of these 20 days we have
destroyed 50% of Yugoslavia's fuel reserves and have reduced its
capacity to refine the remaining oil. As each day passes the
price that Mr. Milosevic is paying for his hideous actions in
Kosovo is rising and his military capability is diminishing.
This has always been our military objective and we are
succeeding, but everyone must understand that it will take time
to see this operation to its conclusion. A crisis of this
dimension, a human catastrophe of this magnitude, cannot be
solved in a few days or weeks. The important moments in human
affairs are not for the impatient or for those with feeble
convictions.
In addition to our military contribution to NATO, the Canadian
forces are taking an active part in addressing the humanitarian
tragedy that has resulted from the gruesome actions of the
Yugoslav government.
[Translation]
We deployed two Hercules aircraft in Europe to help officials
with the world food program to deliver much needed food
supplies.
[English]
This follows the delivery of blankets last week by CF aircraft.
Canadian forces bases are available for refugees if that should
prove necessary.
The Canadian forces are playing an important role in NATO's
military and humanitarian operations. The men and women who
proudly wear the Canadian uniform are once again putting the
moral convictions of Canadians into action. They are on the
front line. They are facing the dangers and the challenges of a
military operation.
Let there be no doubt where this government stands. It is not
only the Canadian forces' operation, it is the will of this
Canadian government. It is the will of our 18 NATO allies that
have committed to this cause. We stand by our allies. As a
nation Canada has always lived by certain international
principles regarding peace, security and human rights. We stand
by them as well.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister indicated to the House and to the Canadian public
that there are approximately 700 Canadian troops from the west
who are preparing, in some form, to be stationed in Kosovo.
These questions beg to be asked. First, we would like to know
what this government is actually doing. Can it tell us how it is
preparing? What sorts of circumstances is it planning for? Is
it readying itself for peacemaking, or is it just peacekeeping,
or is it both? There is a difference between those two roles.
1735
We need to know about the equipment that Canadians will be
taking with them. Do they have what they need to get the job
done? Will they be protected to the greatest extent possible by
the use of that equipment? What other plans would the military
enact to ensure that protection?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to extend the time period for questioning the Minister of
National Defence considering the important military component of
this issue.
The Deputy Speaker: I do not know what the hon. member is
proposing. How many minutes is he proposing to extend it by?
Perhaps he could clarify that.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: An extra 15 minutes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed to extend the time for
an extra 15 minutes?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, this should be of
no surprise to the hon. member because we discussed this in the
House on February 17.
This is relevant to the peacekeeping mission that was foreseen
in the Rambouillet talks. We indicated at that time that between
600 and 800 personnel, approximately 700 if you will, would be
deployed for that purpose. They would come from our base in
Edmonton. They would be equipped with Coyote reconnaissance, one
of the best, state of the art, armoured personnel carrier
vehicles that we have, Griffon helicopters and other necessary
equipment to carry out a peacekeeping mission.
They are, as our troops are expected to be, fully combat
capable. They are able to deal with a range of conditions. The
kinds of conditions we are talking about for their deployment are
the very ones we talked about in the House on February 17, and
that is as a part of a peacekeeping mission.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
a comment and a question for the Minister of National Defence.
I was present in October 1998, when we had a debate—as the
minister will remember—and there were very few members in the
House. Yet the government used that debate to claim it was
entitled to take part in air strikes without a vote in this
House.
What the opposition objects to when we are dealing with such
important issues is that the debate should be followed by a
vote. I would like to hear the minister's view on this.
My question, however, is this: Has Canadian military equipment
been damaged during the 19 days of air strikes, and have
Canadian or Quebec military personnel been injured or been
harmed in any way?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, we are grateful
that there have been no casualties and no injuries. The military
equipment being deployed is the CF-18 jet fighters, 12 of them.
They are used frequently in carrying out the air campaign. They
are well equipped. They have precision guided munitions that
have been used extensively when the weather has permitted.
I might add that that is an important factor. They do not want
to release the munitions against the target unless they can
verify the target visually because they want to ensure that they
minimize any possibility of civilian casualties.
They have been able to carry out their missions quite well. They
are well equipped, well trained and they have carried out a
stellar performance for Canada in this regard.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask the hon. minister if he could check and inform the
House if the U.S. or any NATO partner is using A-10 Warthog jets
with depleted uranium shells.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, I can only respond
as I did when the question was asked during Oral Question Period
today. I am not aware of any, but I would be pleased to inquire
and advise the hon. member.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, I simply want
to ask the minister if the House of Commons will be officially
convened to vote on a formal commitment of Canadian ground
troops, because I have the impression that our international
role has been neglected in this whole scenario.
I remember all the efforts made by the former Prime Minister—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sorry, but the hon.
member's time has expired.
1740
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton: Mr. Speaker, this has been
talked about extensively today and in question period. The Prime
Minister has appropriately answered the question with respect to
a vote.
However, let me say that if there were any substantive change in
terms of our involvement in this matter, as I think it has been
said time and time again, we would come back to the House for
discussion.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the situation in Kosovo has a
number of repercussions for Canada as a NATO member. One is the
human tragedy of thousands of individuals so brutally forced out
of their homes in Kosovo.
I remind members that the refugees did not leave their homes
voluntarily, and that most of them want to return. And we see
their despair daily.
As members know, Canada responded to UNHCR's appeal and set up
the necessary infrastructure to take in 5,000 Kosovar refugees.
This action was necessary because of the risks to which the
refugees were exposed. Hundreds of thousands of Kosovars were
forced to leave the region and all of them wanted to take refuge
in neighbouring countries.
This unprecedented wave of refugees massed at the borders
represented a risk bordering on the unacceptable. These people
had been forced out of their homes and had already endured great
suffering. That is why Canada joined with other countries and
undertook to offer these refugees a safe haven.
Last Friday, the high commissioner, Mrs. Ogata, thanked those
countries that had responded to UNHCR's appeal, but indicated to
the international community that the planned program would be
only an emergency solution to the problem of protection.
Mrs. Ogata stated clearly the position of the organization she
heads, and I quote:
[English]
The majority of people should remain in the region to permit
repatriation with security when the situation allows. Some
individuals' resettlement would be appropriate to deal with
special needs and family reunification.
[Translation]
There will therefore be situations where individuals needing
special protection in order to be reunited with their families
will have to be resettled in third countries, this time on a
permanent basis. Decisions will be taken with the co-operation
of international organizations specialized in this sort of
intervention.
Canada's legislation makes provision for such situations.
Already, our staff are in the region, ready to accept
applications. This aid is beginning in the former Yugoslavian
republic of Macedonia, with our international partners, and is
continuing in Canada, with our local partners.
[English]
The situation in Kosovo remains volatile, but it has now evolved
to the point where the refugees can remain in the area in
relative security. Many members heard our ambassador, Raphael
Girard, tell Canadians yesterday about the satisfactory
conditions in five of the six main refugee camps in the former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
Conditions in those camps are improving to the extent that
Canadian purchased toys have been distributed to some children.
Food, water and health supplies are arriving in part through the
efforts of the men and women of the Canadian forces and Canadian
NGOs. Shelters are being constructed and these refugees have the
level of protection that was fundamental to the decision of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
The situation, I repeat, is in constant evolution. Canada will
continue preparations and maintain a state of alert should the
situation change in the days and weeks to come. In the event the
UNHCR decides to proceed with an emergency evacuation we are
ready. Canada has a proud humanitarian tradition. Canadians are
compassionate people who have historically come to the aid of
those in need.
Should emergency measures become necessary the UNHCR will be a
key player in identifying persons who are in need of assistance,
in deciding to which countries they should go and in providing
the basic documents.
1745
In addition to the UNHCR, the International Organization for
Migration, the IOM, would play a key role in the registration and
transportation of the refugees to Canada. Canada's capacity to
respond to a major evacuation would be intimately tied to the
structures that the UNHCR and the IOM are putting in place on the
ground. I have every confidence that these organizations will
succeed in their task.
Our partners at the Red Cross would play a critical role in any
operation we might undertake. We must remember that many of
these people are travelling from camps in which the Red Cross
symbol appears on tents, trucks and food parcels. This
recognizable symbol would be highly visible in the reception
centres in Canada.
The Red Cross could also make its family messaging services
available shortly to refugees through its international network.
Red Cross officials assure me that they are ready to extend
humanitarian services and that their personnel are standing at
the ready. I am pleased to have the assistance of the Red Cross
with its expertise in helping refugees from affected countries in
Europe.
[Translation]
Our partnerships at various levels have been the key to success
in this initiative. While the operation is led essentially by
the Canadian government, the provinces have a crucial role to
play, as is the case with many aspects of our refugee protection
program.
We have daily contacts with provincial officials to solve issues
of mutual interest and co-operation. I want to thank our
provincial partners for their co-operation and for opening their
doors to refugees.
I also want to thank the people in the communities around the
military facilities that we are planning to use. They too have
worked together and prepared to welcome refugees.
We are also continuing to work closely with NGOs whose expertise
in the management of humanitarian crises is precious. Employees
from my department have worked closely with employees from other
federal departments who have shown dedication and flexibility in
meeting the particular needs of refugees, while striving to
improve the overall situation in Kosovo, and I want to thank
them for that today.
I would be remiss if I did not mention the extraordinary
generosity of Canadians, as our Prime Minister did earlier
today. The toll-free line that we set up last week was flooded
with calls.
The offers of assistance that have been coming in steadily
through this line since last Wednesday are simply extraordinary.
We have received more than 7,000 calls and 1,000 faxes. The
assistance offered ranges from the large bedroom that the eldest
daughter in a family is willing to make available to a family of
refugees so they can sleep together to the free English lessons
that a university student is willing to give.
This confirms my conviction that Canadians are compassionate
people who are always willing to help those in need. Therefore,
I want to thank all Canadians who have offered to help in so
many different ways the refugees from Kosovo. We are sure that
Canadians would open their arms and their hearts to make the
refugees from Kosovo feel welcome in our country.
[English]
Canada is a caring society. Compassion is a strong element of
our national character. The question of how best to respond to
this crisis is one that we are answering at times as we go along.
The situation is changing very quickly and could change again
over the next few days, but I know that whatever happens in the
coming days and weeks we have already witnessed a demonstration
of Canada's humanitarian tradition in action within our home
borders and in our homes.
I am satisfied that the Government of Canada and its many
partners are ready to move quickly and effectively should the
UNHCR renew its request to offer a safe haven to a large number
of refugees. Furthermore, the UNHCR knows we are also ready to
assist in individual cases of refugees who need protection in
Canada.
Our efforts are entirely consistent with the larger international
effort in responding to the needs of refugees. As a Canadian I
am proud that assistance has been offered to these people.
1750
Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. Perhaps we could get unanimous consent to question the
minister longer than just the five minutes allotted. Perhaps it
could be extended to 10 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend
the time for questions and comments by 10 minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister made an extremely important point in her speech that
Canadians truly are very generous. They have offered to open
their homes and their lives to refugees. That shows a generosity
that is quite amazing in fact. It has left a very positive
impression on me.
I have a couple of questions for the minister. In her speech
just now and before I have heard the minister say that she will
rely on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to make
the decision on whether or not Canada accepts refugees. Is the
minister allowing the United Nations to make that decision for
Canada?
What process will be put in place to ensure that any refugees we
choose will go through the proper security checks? There is some
concern in that regard.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the
fear the Reform Party has of criminals all the time. We are
speaking about people in need who were forced to leave their
homes and their country. We are here to speak about the help we
can give them.
It is clear that we will act in co-operation with the UNHCR. We
have always done so in the past. When there is an international
crisis we work with the UNHCR. It is the expert in the field.
UNHCR will refer these people to our immigration officers and of
course we will do some medical and security screening.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, here
is my question for the minister.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
there are over 655,000 refugees abroad, but within Kosovo itself
there are 800,000 displaced persons.
To your knowledge, are Canada and other countries able to help
displaced persons inside Kosovo and is it enough to help
refugees outside Kosovo?
When will we know whether the High Commissioner for Refugees
will ask Canada to take in some refugees and how exactly do you
intend to inform the population?
The Deputy Speaker: I ask the hon. member to address his
comments to the Chair.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly concerned
also by the situation of those inside Kosovo. The only way to
help these people is for international organizations, especially
the High Commissioner for Refugees, to be allowed into Kosovo,
which is not the case currently. This is why the international
community is extremely concerned.
As far as the time frame to bring people here is concerned, we
already have two immigration officials in the field. We even
have a Canadian doctor over there with them, and individual
references through the High Commissioner for Refugees have
started.
[English]
Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take this opportunity to speak about some of the comments
that were made earlier by the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. I know that he and the Prime
Minister are both students of history. He was referring to
Robert Borden's comments that we must ensure parliament always
has continuous and meaningful consultation.
As was asked by the member for Compton—Stanstead earlier in
question period, has the Government of Canada made a commitment
to NATO to send in ground troops?
That question was asked of the Minister of National Defence but
he did not answer it. Does she have any knowledge that
commitment has been made by any member of cabinet or by the
Minister of National Defence?
1755
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard: Mr. Speaker, I realize the question is
for either the Prime Minister or the national defense minister,
but I understand both my colleagues emphatically answered no to
the question.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
certainly is my pleasure to address the question of Canada's
involvement in the crisis in and around Kosovo.
We have heard from the leader of the Reform Party that the
official opposition is strongly supportive of Canada playing a
role in bringing this humanitarian crisis to an end. Reform
wants to see a rapid end to Milosevic's campaign of ethnic
cleansing. We want to bring stability to this troubled region as
quickly as possible and as peacefully as possible.
This is why we support the NATO air strikes against Serbian
military positions. This is why, if NATO deems it necessary, we
will support the use of ground troops to enforce the resettlement
of Kosovar Albanian refugees. Let me be clear. We stand united
with NATO. We will not tolerate Slobodan Milosevic's campaign of
ethnic cleansing and we are prepared to crush his military until
he stops.
Canada has several responsibilities in this crisis. We have
responsibility to the innocent Kosovar Albanians who are being
driven from their homes, forced out of their country, stripped of
their identity and in many cases killed simply because of their
ethnicity. Canadians will not tolerate that.
In the past couple of days two polls have shown that a majority
of Canadians want NATO and Canada to take decisive military
action against Milosevic. Canada also has a responsibility to
our NATO allies. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with our
allies to demonstrate to Milosevic our resolve to end his
hostilities against Kosovar Albanians. Canada also has an
historic responsibility to restore peace through diplomatic
means. We stress that attempts to bring a diplomatic end to this
crisis should continue in spite of the ongoing military action.
We also have a responsibility to our troops and their families.
We must ensure that any decision to engage Canadian forces has
been carefully thought through as a clear definition of Canada's
role and has a well defined goal.
I do not believe the motion we are debating has a clear defined
goal when it comes to any involvement of the military. As the
defence critic, however, I focus on the question of Canada's
current military commitment to the NATO effort in Kosovo and the
possibility of future ground force commitments in coming days or
weeks.
I disagree with the government's unwillingness to address the
issue head on. The use of ground forces is a very real
possibility and Canadians deserve to know that parliament has had
a full debate on this question. I understand the strategic
imperative of not officially committing to ground troops yet, but
that does not preclude a theoretical discussion of the issue.
The government has a responsibility to put all the facts on the
table. The official opposition will continue to press the
government on this point, as it will on the need for a vote
should the issue become more paramount in the very near future.
Canadians should be proud of their troops. They have been
carrying out a very difficult mission in Yugoslavia, far more in
the last two weeks than previously. They have shown a tremendous
degree of professionalism and confidence. On behalf of the
official opposition I congratulate them on a job well done.
Since the first hints of NATO military action surfaced I have
been in favour of Canada lending its support to the efforts to
bring Milosevic's military to its knees.
1800
Now, after several months of continued atrocities against ethnic
Albanians, the need for more military action is even more clear.
However, the massive refugee problem has likely changed the
measures we need to take to ensure stability in the region. NATO
military planners originally thought air strikes would be
sufficient to bring Milosevic to heel. Ground troops would then
have gone in only after a peace agreement was reached.
While it is too early to tell, it looks as though ground forces
may be necessary before a peace agreement is reached in order to
ensure the resettlement of over 500,000 ethnic Albanians who have
been driven out of Kosovo. I stress that I think it is still too
early to tell whether such action will be necessary. I also want
to point out that it is up to NATO to determine what the military
action would be at that point. That being said, we as members of
parliament have a duty to discuss the possibility of a Canadian
military contingent being sent to Yugoslavia as part of a NATO
ground force.
As I said earlier, our position is clear on this. We will
support NATO's decision to send in ground troops if they
determine that is what is necessary to achieve our common
objectives, that is, the resettlement of Kosovar refugees and an
end to ethnic cleansing.
We called for this debate for two reasons. First, we believe
parliament should be consulted before Canada participates in any
escalation of NATO military action in Yugoslavia. Second, we
know what our position is. We now want to hear what the
government's outline is on its position.
There are a number of obvious questions raised by this crisis
that need answers. Given the refugee problem has increased
exponentially, the military mission may have changed or may be
about to change and the objectives of this government may be
changing to a degree. We want to know that.
We would like to know if this has changed the government's
goals. Has the government changed its objectives since the
beginning of the campaign? Furthermore, how far is the
government willing to go to achieve its objective, that is the
resettlement of Kosovar Albanians?
Are there projected timelines for Canadian participation? Are
there anticipated roles for our troops? Will they fulfil
reconnaissance, engineering, supply, medical, or combat roles?
What specific preparations are our troops undergoing in
anticipation of joining a possible NATO ground force both before
and after a peace agreement is reached?
These questions beg to be answered. In spite of the fact that
there is no commitment, it is incumbent upon government to be
able to deal with questions such as those being presented here.
Are our troops outfitted with the equipment they need to do the
job? I know there is always a role for Canadian troops in any
theatre, but the more dangerous the situation is, the more high
intensity of the combat area, the greater the needs of any
military troops entering that field. What kind of equipment will
our troops have when they walk right into that conflict, if they
ever do walk into that conflict on the ground?
The auditor general has expressed concerns about Griffon
helicopters, Coyote reconnaissance vehicles and other Canadian
military equipment. Have these concerns been addressed?
Sending equipment and troops into this conflict also raises
important questions about the new role of NATO and its role in
protecting international stability but I feel these would be more
appropriately raised at another time. Some of these questions
would include an examination of the causes of Canada's
diminishing role in international military decision making, an
examination of NATO's changing role as an international police
force and an examination of the command and control structure of
NATO and how Canada fits into this framework.
In the meantime, I want to stress that as a demonstration of our
support for Canada's commitment to NATO allies, Reform remains
committed to the present NATO course of action.
1805
Let me elaborate on some of my earlier questions for the
government. Has the government changed its objective in pursuing
military action in Kosovo? Ending ethnic cleansing and
resettling refugees are my main reasons for supporting NATO
action. Has the government's role changed? I need to know from
the government that we are on the same wavelength on this issue.
Does the government have other plans? Does the foreign affairs
minister have another agenda? Does he want to take military
action a step further and try to establish a new independent
Kosovar state?
We should know these things before more Canadian troops are
committed. What are the expected time lines? Does the
government have any idea how long Canadians will be committed?
Does it expect that it will be a short engagement, say a few
months, or is this something that could escalate into a timeframe
of a decade?
All of this depends on the government's goals. Does the
government have a particular role in mind for our troops? Will
our troops be forming front line combat roles, or will they
fulfil other important functions, for example in communications,
supply, engineering or medicine? These are all roles which
Canadian forces members have experience in. Canadians want to
know if the government already has an idea how our troops will
fit into the overall NATO plan.
I previously put a question to the minister after his
presentation. We do know that around 700 Canadian troops in the
west are preparing for engagement in Kosovo. We would like to
have the government tell us how they are preparing. What sorts
of circumstances are they planning for? Are they readying
themselves for peacemaking, peacekeeping or both? There are
obviously huge differences between the two roles.
We need to know about the equipment the Canadians will be taking
with them. I understand there are some Griffon helicopters. I do
not know how many. Are they being deployed and for what purpose?
Do they have what they need to get the job done? Will they be
protected to the greatest extent possible?
The men and women of the Canadian forces are well trained. They
are brave beyond words. I have talked to many international
soldiers in that regard about some of the circumstances under
which they have served and which those of even greater military
might may not have even ventured into. They are very
professional. I want to be assured that the government knows
what it is doing.
My sense is that for the time being at least we are all pretty
much on the same wavelength. I would be surprised if there is a
great gulf between the government and the opposition so far on
this issue.
I ask these questions because it is crucial that we all spell
out precisely what we have in mind before we get into the crisis
any further. It is only fair not only for the opposition but for
the Canadian public as well as the military. We owe that to
Canadians in general. Most of all we owe it to the members of
the Canadian forces who will put their lives on the line to carry
out the government's orders.
History has shown that the threat of massive military action has
frequently been the very thing that brings aggressors to the
bargaining table. I think we all hope that this will be a
similar case.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): This is a unique experience, Mr. Speaker. I get to
ask the defence critic a question.
I first want to preface my remarks by saying that I do very much
appreciate the praise he gave to our troops, the support for the
NATO action and for the action of this government in support of
NATO.
I want to also assure him that there are no commitments. He was
concerned that there might be commitments beyond those that have
been publicly announced or those that have been discussed in the
House. I can assure him that is not the case.
1810
With respect to how long this might take, we are into a
situation where it is not a question of end date, it is a
question of end stage. It is a question of being able to achieve
the successful return of the Kosovars and a peaceful and secure
atmosphere in Kosovo.
I want to ask the member a question. He suggested that perhaps
we should have a discussion, I think he said a theoretical
discussion, in this House, on what if we did get into a situation
where ground troops might be deployed prior to a peace agreement.
Given the hon. member's comments with respect to NATO and
solidarity with NATO, would that not be the place to start? After
all, if our NATO allies do not think there should be any change,
then obviously Canada would not be out of step with its NATO
allies, would it?
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his
questions.
I certainly agree that is the place to start. If the minister
recalls throughout my entire presentation, I alluded to that
point time and time again.
The debate on this topic is an issue that involves more than
just a commitment of ground troops. It involves a commitment of
an entire parliament with the information reaching the entire
population of Canada. What we on this side of the House have
sought to do is to keep people informed and have the full support
of the House of Commons through a vote on that commitment, should
it ever arise. That was our point right from the beginning.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two quick questions.
It seems to be assumed that in the event that some type of peace
agreement is arrived at that Canada can take off its war hat and
put on its peacekeeping hat. Would the member not agree that
that would be somewhat difficult and one could possibly expect
the Yugoslav government of Slobodan Milosevic not to accept some
of those participants in the bombing to become peacekeepers?
The second question I have for the hon. member is assuming that
Canada does commit ground troops, which I think would be sheer
madness, what would the exit strategy be? Americans went into
southeast Asia, into Vietnam, thinking it would be of short
duration. Some 15 or 20 years later, they surrendered after
65,000 Americans were killed.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, the member speaks of an exit
strategy. That is a major concern for me.
If the member wants to compare it to Vietnam, he can of course
see that the height of political interference into a commitment
made by their country impacting directly on the military. The
military could not do the job it was assigned to do because of
the very political interference that we hope to avoid here. If
the military is assigned to do a job, it should be given a
certain amount of freedom to accomplish that particular job and
make sure that it is done effectively.
For Canadian troops to enter into some sort of a zone where
there is a threat to them, unfortunately we do not have the
capability of extraction. We have to rely very much on the
presence of our allies to do that. I would suggest that there
would be a need for a lot of support by our allies to put Canada
in a role that would be most suitable for them.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what the member had to say. We
know he has the interests of the armed forces very much at heart.
With regard to his emphasis on a vote on some or other fairly
hypothetical aspect of this exercise, I wonder if he would give
us some thoughts about that. It seems to me that we are engaged
in an exercise that has been going on now for some years in which
we are increasingly putting pressure on Mr. Milosevic with a view
to getting him to back down and to allow the people of Kosovo to
go home. That exercise is partly psychological, it is partly
political, it is partly economic sanctions and it is partly
military.
The military side is partly threats and partly some of the
reality which we are facing now.
1815
Does the member seriously think that to commit ourselves well in
advance on a hypothetical question affects the effectiveness of
the strategy that we are engaged in?
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing
hypothetical about the democratic process. We in the Reform
Party simply put it to the government that if the issue of
committing troops comes up a vote be taken in the House. What
will that do? It will substantiate in the minds of the Canadian
public and politicians, as well as of our troops, that parliament
is behind them. There is nothing hypothetical about that. We
are talking about the democratic process. It is an opportunity
to support the action, whatever it may be.
That was all that was put to the minister and the Prime Minister
in the form of questions today during question period. It was
nothing more, nothing less.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
colleague, the defence critic for the official opposition, said
that he would support the actions of NATO, and the minister also
suggested should it not be enough that NATO supports this action.
When the member says it is important for Canada to follow the
lead of NATO, is it not equally important that Canada be involved
in the process within NATO? We have no real indication that
Canada was intimately involved in making this decision in the
first place.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, Canada's commitment to NATO
goes back many decades and we have certainly had our periods of
greater influence in that organization.
The Minister of National Defence could probably answer this
question in a much more definitive way, but my concern is that
Canada's influence within that organization is not as great as it
used to be. Unfortunately we are not always at the military
negotiating table as we should be.
We have the opportunity, as a country, to be more influential,
but there have been philosophical changes in the way this
government looks at our military and its influence in the world.
In fact, it is an influential entity. There is much more that we
could offer and I would suggest that diminishes our influence
within the NATO circles.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, does
the Reform member believe NATO should play a humanitarian role,
as it is doing now, since in this conflict its role has
obviously been not only to deliver air strikes, but also
humanitarian aid to refugees in countries next to Kosovo?
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, the member asked whether I
think NATO should be involved in a humanitarian role. I believe
that whether it be military action or specific assistance, such
as aiding in the distribution of food and other humanitarian
actions, both should fit into the role of NATO. One cannot be
done without the other in many respects. If it means having to
move certain kinds of aid through a war torn area or to a war
torn area, NATO has the power to assist, to protect and even to
help distribute supplies. It certainly would have the power, as
far as the military entity is concerned, to protect refugees who
have no means of protecting themselves.
1820
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as Minister for International Cooperation I want to give
the House an update on the measures taken by Canada through the
Canadian International Development Agency to provide humanitarian
assistance to the desperate people fleeing Kosovo.
Two weeks ago on March 30 we approved $10 million in
humanitarian assistance for Kosovar refugees. We wasted no time
to put it to work. Within 24 hours a $2.5 million cash
contribution was on its way to the UNHCR. Three days after the
announcement the first shipment of relief supplies left Canada,
responding to requests by the UNHCR for blankets so that some
refugees would at least be safe from the cold.
Last week on April 7 I approved $5 million in food aid. This $5
million will cover both the purchase of Canadian and other food
supplies and the cost of shipping them in and around the region
on national defence and commercial flights. In a few days a
shipment of Canadian fish will be sent to the area. This is part
of our response to requests by the World Food Programme. We are
making the most of their expertise in delivering appropriate
relief to refugees in times of crisis.
These announcements were not the first demonstration of Canada's
support to the people of the region. Just over $3 million had
been provided in the past year for humanitarian assistance.
Another $3.85 million was provided for the Kosovo verification
mission carried out by the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe. Some members of the verification mission
are now supporting humanitarian efforts. For example, civilian
observers are helping to register refugees in the camps.
To date we have committed $22 million to the crisis in Kosovo.
We continue to monitor the situation to see how we can further
respond to the current crisis and how we can contribute to
reconstruction and peacebuilding efforts in the future.
I was remiss when I began my remarks. I meant to say that I
will be splitting my time with one of my colleagues.
[Translation]
As we all know, the refugees' situation has reached tragic
proportions. We are all horrified by the images we see on
television and in the papers. By the tired and desparate faces
tortured by hunger and by the cold. By the accounts of
executions and torture. And we think of the children who have
witnessed scenes of unbearable violence.
We are there to help with their immediate needs, but we do not
forget that they will need more services—such as psychological
counselling—to get over this ordeal in the long run.
We are already in touch with UNICEF, whose work we have supported
for the children of Bosnia.
Faced with a humanitarian disaster of such magnitude, Canada is
stepping in to give some hope to these people, who have been taken
away from their home, their job, their family and their whole
life. In all this show of solidarity, let us not forget the
compassion shown by the people of neighbouring countries, those
who are welcoming so many refugees into their homes no matter what
their situation is.
No one would have thought, not so long ago, that they would have
been drawn into such an abberation. These refugees can count on
our compassion and our humanitarian assistance. As we respond to
the alarming situation of the thousands streaming across the
borders, let us not forget those who have not made it across,
those who are still in Kosovo and in Serbia.
I am particularly concerned by the information we are getting
about their situation. It is impossible to obtain accurate
information, and the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) has not yet gained access.
1825
I call on all those involved directly or indirectly to help the
International Red Cross provide assistance to affected
communities.
Right now, information is sketchy and sometimes contradictory.
We are hearing about thousands of people trapped in the
mountains. We are also hearing about Serbs fleeing Kosovo and
going into Serbia and Montenegro. We are even hearing about
massacres, although we are unable to verify this. Part of the
funds I announced will serve to answer the appeal by the
International Red Cross.
To date, Canada has provided $22 million. We are obviously
following developments closely and are prepared to do more.
Eventually, we will also contribute to peacebuilding and
reconstruction efforts in the region.
And let us not forget the generosity shown by Canadians. Calls
are pouring in from Canadians responding to requests to help
these refugees going through an unbearable ordeal. I want to
extend my warmest thanks to them, here, today.
[English]
We are proud to do our part in what must be an international
effort. Canada is one player. Let me point out that our
approach is true to our commitment to working not only one on one
in bilateral settings, but also as a team player in multilateral
settings.
In this case we are making sure that our contribution has the
maximum impact by working closely with the people and
organizations already in the field. These organizations, such as
the UNHCR and the World Food Programme, are closest to the needs
of the refugees. They have been monitoring the situation and
providing assistance in difficult circumstances; not just in the
last few weeks, but for months, from the onset of Milosevic's
ethnic cleansing campaign. These organizations have our full
support and admiration for the work they have done in appalling
conditions.
Team work is also crucial within Canada. Immediately after
announcing our humanitarian assistance package I met with
Canadian NGOs to ensure that Canada's efforts made the best
possible use of their readiness and experience.
We are fortunate to count on such partners as the Canadian Red
Cross, CARE Canada, World Vision, CECI and many other Canadian
relief organizations. They are coming forward as we speak with
proposals to provide humanitarian assistance in their area of
expertise. We are assessing these proposals and will soon
announce how they will complement ongoing efforts.
We will continue to adapt our assistance to the situation.
Members can be certain that Canada, through CIDA, will still be
there when the time comes to help the region pick up the pieces
and build the foundation for a lasting peace. Even now we are in
contact with other donor countries and multilateral
organizations. Let us not forget that when the military
intervention has concluded, when the security situation is
stabilized, our work with the international community will
continue.
As we work to rebuild peace and stability in the region the role
of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
will be of critical importance. Canada has been a lead supporter
of the tribunal. To date CIDA has provided over $2 million to
this tribunal. We are committed to ensuring that the tribunal
will be fully effective in the aftermath of the Kosovo crisis.
We were there with humanitarian assistance and observers before.
We are responding to the basic needs of refugees now. We stand
ready to consider reconstruction and peacebuilding in the future.
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
official opposition is very happy to see that the minister has
responded with immediate aid to alleviate the suffering that has
taken place, which, as we have seen on our television screens, is
horrific.
I also thank the minister for having contact with the NGOs.
1830
We have already spent $22 million in trying to alleviate
suffering. When the minister of immigration announced that 5,000
refugees would be coming in, the estimated cost was over $100
million. It is understandable that the High Commission for
Refugees has said that the Kosovar refugees should stay within
the region.
What does the hon. minister anticipate? Is she satisfied with
the way things are going and, if not, how much more does she
think Canada can commit to aid and ensuring that the refugees
have at least a reasonable standard of living in those regions?
Hon. Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, the commitment that was
made by the minister of immigration was the cost to receive these
refugees for a certain period of time. It was just an estimate.
To date we have responded to requests from UNHCR and from the
World Food Program and will continue to do that.
I cannot say how much more it will cost. It all depends on how
long the conflict lasts, what the conditions are, and how soon
the refugees can go back. We are prepared to respond to all
requests that come to us and to do our fair share as a member of
NATO, as a country that cares and wants to help these people.
Over the next few months as the situation progresses members
will hear more and more announcements. I know we will be doing
more than we have done so far.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
this debate. It gives us a chance to reassess the situation
since what we are facing is political failure, humanitarian
failure and now military failure in the area. Bringing refugees
over as they are undocumented would be a nightmare. They live in
a terrible purgatory.
Is the minister willing to put as much money and effort into
humanitarian success as has been put into bombs being dropped on
innocent civilians both in Yugoslavia and Kosovo? Both of those
peoples should know that we support them in every way we can, but
we cannot allow a humanitarian failure when our objective was to
prevent it.
Hon. Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to do
everything possible to work with the other countries involved to
ensure that the people, those refugees, have some care, have some
security and have some chance of having a decent life.
It is not an easy task but together we are making a difference.
My reports indicate that for the most part the camps are now
better organized. Food is getting to the people. Freshwater is
getting to the people. It is always a challenge to continue to
meet the demands of these refugees. It will be an even bigger
challenge when the day comes and we have to help them return to
their land. We are prepared to help them at that point with
reconstruction, as we were prepared to help when Hurricane Mitch
struck in Central America. Canada will definitely do its share
as a caring nation.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of
International Co-operation about the co-ordination of these
efforts.
We have heard from the minister of immigration and the minister
of defence today. I have had calls to my office from
constituents offering to help, to volunteer. I am wondering if
the minister could spend a couple of minutes answering my
question. I know there is a 1-800 number, but what advice would
she give to Canadians who want to open their hearts and help?
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the Minister of
International Co-operation will have to take less than a couple
of minutes.
Hon. Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, my suggestion to these
people is that they contact the many organizations listed on our
website. They are the people we work with who are present in the
area. Also, as much as possible, if there are donations, that
they be in cash rather than in kind.
It is better for us because it is extremely costly to transport
things to the region. We only transport those things that are
asked for. We try to get the best price for everything.
1835
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the weight of the words spoken today in the Chamber must
not be diminished in any way by the participants in this debate.
As politicians we might at times engage in rhetoric that
resonates with lofty ideals or would be aspirations, but when we
debate the committing of Canadian lives to an action as grave as
the conflict in the Balkans it is incumbent on each of us to
weigh heavily the views we express, the words we employ, the
actions we promote, for we are inputting a decision making
process with grave implications for the present and future of the
international community and for the jurisprudence which
encompasses the actions of sovereign states.
That is so irrespective of whether we endorse or question the
continued involvement of this country in the battle to alleviate
the suffering of the people of Kosovo.
We are witnessing intense images of horrendous suffering by the
Kosovar people. The information available and the intelligence
gathered indicate that President Milosevic is engaged in
wholesale efforts to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of the large
majority of Albanian muslims. He is doing so in the most vile
manner, utilizing barbaric methods that defy imagination and
contravene the conventions of war. The result of these
atrocities has led the member states of NATO to do all possible
to protect the Kosovars and prevent this tyrant from attaining
his goals.
The discussion in the media and elsewhere has queried the role
of NATO in this action instead of the United Nations. While the
response has openly acknowledged that Russia and China would have
vetoed and therefore forestalled unacceptably a UN military
action, we must consider the ramifications of the alternate route
we have employed.
As a collective security organization NATO should respond
defensively and not offensively, but events in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia have twice provoked the intervention of
NATO to protect its citizens from their unscrupulous leaders.
The argument that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a
sovereign state is not to be taken lightly but compels us to
consider, as I stated at the outset, whether a state's claim to
sovereignty is sufficient to allow that state to engage in
actions against its people which contravene the rule of law and
deny the very basics of human security.
At what point does Canada and the countries with which we have
formed alliances decide that sovereignty is no shield from
responsibility, that the very raison d'être for a sovereign state
is its obligation to provide for the well-being of its citizens.
Sovereignty cannot be used as an excuse to permit an atrocity or
to engage in ethnic cleansing that borders on genocide. When a
country engages in such activities the analogies of history
intrude. We are compelled to risk acting outside the precepts of
international law as it has to date been applied and take the
action we have engaged in thus far, and actions that may be
proposed, to stop the possible destruction of a people.
We cannot continue to be baffled by the definitions of the past.
Nor can we fail to heed the past and like Chamberlain in 1938
believe that monsters like Hitler and Milosevic can be appeased
and peace in our time purchased. It cannot because they will
break every value we hold basic and every human norm we hold as
minimal.
We are by the very definition of our democratic societies
compelled to do all that is possible and effective to assist the
people over whom they hold power.
1840
Let us recognize the turn in the road we have taken. The cold
war is no more and the relative security that a two bloc world
and a nuclear umbrella provided is likewise no more. We have
entered a considerably more destabilized international landscape.
We are today debating the Baltics, a region of Europe that has
rarely enjoyed any long term stability and has frequently been
the centre of racial foment and hostilities.
We must look very seriously at the consequences of this military
action. Are we redefining our foreign policy strategies? Are we
motivated, as Henry Kissinger might contend, by the compelling
need to be partners with our allies to preserve equilibrium? Are
we moving toward an unqualified support for ethnic
self-determination as promoted by Woodrow Wilson? The
implications of supporting these principles either alone or
within coalitions such as NATO are far reaching and of
considerable consequence.
We move into an uncharted legal landscape on the international
plane, a landscape of foreboding future entanglements with no
clear exit strategies. While the humanitarian dimension of the
Kosovo quagmire is paramount, the legal precedent of this
engagement will survive after the conflict and our remedy are
concluded.
The Canadian government's intention to further the goal of human
security at the security council and within our bilateral and
multilateral alliances is legitimate from every perspective. It
is the essential component that African leaders like President
Konnare of Mali have defined as vital to the economic and social
development of the wartorn countries of that continent.
The violation of human security in Kosovo is unacceptable. The
total lack of regard for the rule of law is unacceptable. One
had merely to watch in astonishment last week on Canadian
television as Milosevic's henchman Arkan Raznatovic told viewers
that he had no concern over Louise Arbour's charges against him
of horrendous war crimes as he refused to accept the legitimacy
of the international court and the War Crimes Tribunal. These
are leaders for whom power is the arbiter, not the law. As
Hitler demonstrated, in the world of diplomacy a loaded gun is
often more potent than a legal brief.
Milosevic's reign of terror in Kosovo did not just precede the
peacemaking efforts at Rambouillet by a matter of months. I was
in Belgrade and Sarajevo nine years ago with the Canadian Bar
Association. We were hosted by Yugoslavian lawyers. In Belgrade
I met a woman lawyer who through great personal courage, I
learned, acted for the Albanian Kosovars and did so often through
the vehicles of the international jurists and Amnesty
International.
She related incidents of chronic discrimination and denial of
human rights. She described a visit there as a visit to the 15th
century and despaired of anything but a steady worsening of their
plight. We have witnessed such a decline culminating in the
horrors we are now debating. There comes a time when we too take
some risks in coming to the Kosovo defence.
The decisions before us cannot be relished and seem almost
contrary to every precept I hold integral. Thirty years ago many
of us fought not to engage an enemy but to halt a war that could
not meet the bar for a bellum justum by any acceptable
definition. As a young graduate student in 1966 in Halifax I
carried a placard in Joe Howe Park, a little uncomfortable with
this new role but convinced as we all were that the war in
Vietnam, predicated as it was on a theory of containment and
dominoes and as flawed strategically as it was bankrupted
morally, had to end and such jingoistic ventures never embarked
on again. As Dylan maintained, God was on no warrior's side.
The times were to have changed but the horrendous suffering we
are seeing in Kosovo is witness to the fact that much has not
changed. The people of the international community must accept
and promote the application of force in containing a demagogue
like Melosevic who knows no bounds and knows no morality.
1845
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to what my colleague said. I was quite
moved by many of the comments she made. I know her personally
and I think she put her point of view forward very well.
When she started her comments, she said that we have to be very
careful as to what we say and to make the right decision here.
Would she not think it is right for parliament to debate and for
parliamentarians to be held responsible by their constituents if
in the future, not now but in the future, Canada is going to
commit ground forces, its soldiers, in the war? Does she not
think it is the right of parliament and parliamentarians to
debate and vote on that issue?
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
opposite for his question. While I value his point of view, I
believe we must contain ourselves to the question at hand, which
is to engage in a debate on the action that is before us, on that
action that is being taken.
Indeed the war, like other wars, could lead to new steps and at
that time it must come back to parliament for debate. However
whether or not Canada and NATO allies will indeed send in ground
forces is not the issue today, but rather the bombing that has
been explained and brought forward to the House is to be debated
and considered by all of us.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
obvious how very moved my colleague across the floor is.
Recent opinion polls indicate that women are less prepared than
men to accept war, even as a means of settling differences, as
is the case at present.
Under what circumstances would my colleague consider a war to be
just?
[English]
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.
It is indeed a question I considered as I looked up into the
galleries today and saw the young people who were here to observe
their representatives debate a critical issue.
One could spend a long time as my learned colleague knows in a
discussion of what constitutes a just war. From my remarks I
have not only brought forward the amount of thinking that was
necessary for me in preparing to speak today, but also the
analysis I believed necessary before I could stand in the House
and say that the evil we are observing and the terror being
imposed upon a people is at such a level that we are justified in
responding with force and with military might.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, this debate is
definitely not a theoretical one, because a number of members of
this House have relatives in the Canadian armed forces. That is
why this matter must be addressed most seriously.
This reminds me of all the negotiations in which the former
Prime Minister was involved at the time of the Gulf War, in
which the United Nations was finally led to a more concerted
action.
It is our opinion that, with what is going on in Kosovo
at the present time, Canada's international role is not an
optimum one. It is our impression that we are somewhat at the
beck and call of other NATO members when it comes to decision
making, and I find that a pity.
In order to reassure us before there is any direct ground force
involvement—since it is the children of all of us who will be
called upon to go over there—I would like to ask my colleague how
she perceives the decision making process. Does she see a
debate in the House of Commons with a specific vote on a very
specific question? Are we going to commit our young people to a
ground intervention in Kosovo?
1850
[English]
Ms. Aileen Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
We are members of NATO. NATO is a collective security. A
collective security is an association of states. This one in
particular works through discussion and works through
participation by all members in the decisions taken.
Article 5 of NATO makes clear and puts forward that if any one
of the 19 members is attacked, such action will result in all 19
members coming to that member's defence. This is not a defensive
action, but still the logistics and the role that Canada plays as
one of those 19 members is such that we too are very much a part
of the decision making process. We are equal with the other
states in bringing our views to the decisions.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address this House once again, on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois, during the debate on the government's motion asking
that this House take note, and I quote:
So far in this debate, we have had few answers to our questions.
Yet, Canadians and Quebeckers expect the government to provide
answers to our questions, because they feel concerned by the
crisis in Kosovo and because the Liberal government has only
provided them with very limited and fragmented information.
Incidentally, during a speech delivered at McGill University's
law faculty on Thursday, April 8, Canada's former ambassador and
permanent representative to the United Nations, Yves Fortier,
did not hesitate to criticize the Prime Minister for his lack of
transparency regarding Canada's position and action in the
Kosovo conflict. We endorse that criticism, and the government
must listen and change its attitude.
Like all the other governments of the Atlantic alliance, the
Government of Canada is probably uncomfortable admitting that it
underestimated the crisis in Kosovo and particularly Slobodan
Milosevic's genocidal intentions. These governments do not seem
to have learned history's lessons, otherwise they would know
that the attitude of the Serb leader and of his security forces
toward Kosovars is quite similar to their attitude toward
Croatians and Bosnians, and to that of other political leaders—do
we have to name them?—toward populations whose presence on their
territory was deemed undesirable.
Like its allies, this government did not accurately assess
Milosevic's strategy.
It allowed itself to be dragged along by events, essentially
reacting by resorting to air strikes, while pretending not to be
considering a ground military option to end the exodus of the
Kosovar people, to check the ethnic cleansing and to prevent a
new genocide.
The about-face of the Minister of National Defence on the need to
sent troops is the most deplorable example of the improvisation
and lack of leadership of the Government of Canada in this
conflict.
Today, after 19 days of air strikes and a massive exodus of
Kosovars, the government has still not answered the most basic
question. Must it consider sending in ground troops to put an
end to such an exodus, to the resultant ethnic cleansing and,
especially even more, to prevent the genocide of the Kosovar
people?
We put this question when ministers Eggleton and Axworthy
appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
throughout our interventions of the past 10 days. We have once
again called the government on this question today.
1855
Will the Prime Minister and his ministers be continuing for long
their silence on this basic issue or will they consider that
public opinion, both Canadian and Quebec, which, we learn, is
prepared to support intervention by ground troops, is now
entitled to an answer on this issue?
Intensifying bombing did nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing in
Kosovo. Furthermore, if Milosevic persists, he will be able to
keep Kosovo, having emptied it of its Albanian inhabitants.
Even in the case of a campaign of air strikes in which all
Serbian vehicles and the entire Serbian war machine were
destroyed, Milosevic would still be the one occupying Kosovo, on
his own.
Therefore air strikes have their limits. A plane cannot
differentiate a Serb soldier from a Kosovar passer-by. Moreover,
the closer to the ground our planes are flying, the more
dangerous it becomes for them. But again Milosevic believes NATO
will not send in ground troops to ferret him out, and he is
playing a game of attrition.
But this is not the only issue the Bloc Quebecois is interested
in. My party believes Canada has not used all the means at its
disposal to find a solution to the conflict in Kosovo. Beside
taking part in the air strikes, Canada should have diversified
and still can diversify its actions to put as quick an end as
possible to ethnic cleansing and, I will say it again and I
cannot overemphasize it, to prevent the genocide of the Kosovar
people.
Until now, the minister of Foreign Affairs has not seen fit to
use Canada's seat on the UN Security Council to have the UN play
a role in this conflict. Even though his participation today in
Brussels in the meeting of the foreign affairs ministers of the
Atlantic alliance is aimed at evaluating the present and future
action of NATO, should he not now sponsor, within this forum and
the United Nations, a new formula to deal with the political
problem created by the conflict in Kosovo, called “a war without
images” by some.
If the Rambouillet accords are no longer relevant, should Canada
not bring to the security council a proposal aimed at putting
Kosovo under the protection of the United Nations pending a
negotiated settlement of the crisis?
If it is as concerned with the rule of law as it purports to be,
Canada should also ask the International Criminal Tribunal's
chief prosecutor, Mrs. Louise Arbour, to lay charges of crime
against humanity against Slobodan Milosevic, or to make them
public if such charges have already been laid, as well as
against all the other people responsible for the ethnic
cleansing campaign in Kosovo.
As a promoter of the rule of law, Canada could also initiate an
international public action and ask the International Court of
Justice, as Bosnia-Herzegovina has already done with regard to
the other conflict caused by Milosevic, to rule on the violation
of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide by Yugoslavia.
The improvisation that has characterised the planning of the
humanitarian aid efforts so far must now be replaced by a more
effective type of coordination. In light of the decisions made
by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, Canada must now concentrate its efforts on providing
assistance to Kosovar refugees in camps set up in neighbouring
countries so that they can live and survive, in minimally decent
conditions, until they can return home.
It must also facilitate the work of Canadian and Quebec NGOs
that have mobilized a lot more effectively to come to the rescue
of Kosovars and prevent them from having to disperse against
their will, adding to the Armenian and Jewish Diasporas, just to
name these two, a new Diaspora that will bemoan the homeland it
lost for generations and generations.
The humanitarian crisis in Kosovo also demonstrates the need for
genuine reform of the mechanisms related to maintaining and
imposing international peace and security. It is not appropriate
for NATO to dominate events to the point of becoming the
military arm of the international community, while the UN is
left out of operations that are of great concern to the
community of the world.
1900
More than ever before, the United Nations' military and
financial capacity must be examined in depth, and the vetoes of
its permanent members seriously challenged.
As an applicant for membership on the security council, Canada
made a commitment to advocating a genuine reform of that forum.
Now it needs to convince others on the security council and in
the UN family of the urgency for such a reform, and show that
its election to the security council counts has not been without
effect.
In concluding, I cannot help but express my frustration—and I do
not believe I am the only one in this House—about the Prime
Minister's refusal to clearly commit to a debate, followed by a
vote, in the event that consideration ought to be given to
sending ground forces to Kosovo.
In fact, our participation in this evening's exercise must not
in any way be interpreted as a green light for the government to
continue to act without further debate in Parliament. It must
seek parliamentary authorization, particularly if it comes to
putting the Canadian Forces on active service in Kosovo.
It is, moreover, high time that the National Defence Act was
amended in order to require the government to obtain such
authorization from Parliament. Sections 31 and 32 should
formally and explicitly provide that the government is required
to seek parliamentary approval, thus democratizing the process
by which our armed forces are deployed to ensure international
peace and security.
There has been a Crown prerogative in this area for long enough.
This must be done away with, and the elected representatives of
the people must be given a deciding voice when it comes to
sending troops abroad to impose, build or maintain peace.
If the international community had taken action against Hitler
in 1936, 50 million lives could have been spared, and the
genocide of the Jewish people avoided.
Canada can assume a lead role within the Atlantic Alliance and
the international community.
It must stop cowering before a man who has committed and has
others commit with each passing day crimes that outrage humanity
and that must stop.
Just as the lovers in Sarajevo were victims of crimes that have
gone largely unpunished, the lovers of Pristina must not be
allowed to become the victims of the dark machinations and
trickery thought up by men to justify their cowardice, to
paraphrase Euripides.
These men should ask themselves why war is necessary, as
sixth-grader Élyse Caron-Beaudoin did when she wrote:
Why go to war
and cause such pain?
Why break people's hearts
Again and again?
Why let our hate
Destroy our souls?
Why strike down love
While the drumbeat rolls?
Why orphan children
Who have done no wrong?
Why terrify those
With nowhere to belong?
Why is there always
A country at war?
Why can there not be
Peace ever more?
Why do you fight
Young soldier, so brave?
Why all these bombs
And these thousands of graves?
Why is war necessary? Sometimes, too often in fact, because of
cowardice. Why is war necessary? Sometimes for freedom.
Mr. Jacques Saada (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I understand from my colleague's
intervention that he supports NATO's involvement in the Yugoslav
republic, on the one hand. I understand that, on the other, he
supports our country's humanitarian mission, but there is a bit
of a paradox I would like him to explain.
1905
He is proposing that Canada head a UN initiative to make Kosovo
a protectorate. We know very well that the UN has proven
totally incapable of staunching the hemorrhage that started in
Kosovo long before NATO initiated its air strikes.
How is it possible to acknowledge that the UN has been unable to
fulfil the role now played by NATO and at the same time ask the
UN to provide a solution to the problems it could not initially
solve?
The two are incompatible.
My colleague mentioned quite rightly and simply cowardice.
To count on the impossibility of acting in order to assuage
one's conscience would be cowardice. Seeing that the UN was
unable to intervene to resolve the basic humanitarian problem in
Kosovo, NATO intervened, and we supported this initiative. It
would have been cowardice to say “Since we cannot resolve the
problem with the UN, let us do nothing”.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that my party or
any opposition party could be accused of cowardice. Indeed, we
have supported actions taken by Canada and NATO and will
continue to do so because we believe that by supporting those
actions we send not only to Slobodan Milosevic but also to all
proponents of ethnic cleansing and even genocide a clear message
that we will not quietly stand by; we intend to make it very
clear to them that such actions are unacceptable to the
international community and its member states.
However, it seems obvious that bombing will not be enough to
deal with the situation and prevent ethnic cleansing. This is
why we are constantly questioning the government about the
commitment of ground troops, which it refuses to consider and
talk about, even if this issue is the most important and, in my
opinion, deserves an answer.
Regarding the international protectorate, I point out to my
colleague that we must consider another solution besides
autonomy, as provided for in the Rambouillet agreement.
Coexistence between Serbian and Kosovar peoples seems impossible
and another solution must therefore be found.
I believe that, as a member of the security council, Canada
should at least make an effort, while pursuing military efforts
and interventions, to bring the UN to seek a political solution.
Marginalizing the UN as we are doing now is not the way to
resolve the serious crisis it may be facing and the difficulty
it will have to deal with a crisis of which it has been kept
out.
There are many ways to ensure UN participation—the security
council, the general assembly—and this is the least we should
expect from a country that has always acted as a supporter and
strong advocate of the United Nations.
We can favour air raids for the time being and consider ground
military action, while at the same time, and most importantly,
be giving the UN a mandate to consider a political solution to
the present crisis.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, allow me to
salute my colleague who, when it comes to international issues,
always has a great deal of common sense and knows how to take
into account all the human aspects. Our colleague is quite aware
that the decision to involve our young soldiers, our sons and
daughters, cannot be taken lightly.
I would like to know what he thinks of the present NATO
strategy, which relies exclusively on air to ground strikes.
1910
I would like to ask if he can explain this choice of strategy
which, if I may say so, has precipitated the exile of Kosovars.
It has also resulted in the destruction of all their physical
property and the death of thousands of Kosovars.
We are still not in a position to put a price on the material
and human damages caused by this necessary intervention which
has not been accompanied by a strategy to counter the invasion
by Serb troops.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that NATO'>s
strategy was to favour air strikes, so that the President of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would quickly, very quickly agree
to sit down at the negotiation table.
It was NATO's hope that the destruction of his military
capability would prompt Slobodan Milosevic to seek a peaceful
settlement and go back to the negotiation table. However, NATO
obviously underestimated his ability not only to protect his
military arsenal, but also to resist pressure, including
international pressure, and thus refuse to go back to the
negotiation table.
I think we underestimated that. Even if NATO's foreign ministers
maintain that their strategy might work, it has not worked so
far.
Ethnic cleansing is continuing and my great fear, which is
shared by others, is that ethnic cleansing will lead to
genocide. It may be that, technically speaking, we cannot talk
about a genocide at this point, but even the closing of the
border a few days ago should be cause for concern, because it is
the prelude to a possible genocide. Under these circumstances,
we must anticipate, or at least consider, ground military
action.
We must not let this century end the way it began, with another
genocide. Armenians were the victims of genocide at the
beginning of the century. Jews were the victims of genocide half
way through this century and now, at the end of the century, in
addition to Cambodians and Rwandans, we may have the Kosovars.
It is true that military personnel from Quebec and Canada, your
sons and daughters, will put their lives on the line if ground
troops are sent in, but sometimes the lives of others must be
put on the line to ensure the survival of a people.
We must not let a people, the Kosovars, who contribute to the
world's cultural heritage, disappear by being dispersed all over
the planet, as the Serb leader is hoping to do.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the
Solicitor General for a brief question.
Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
You were in the chair, and this member already had the
opportunity to ask a question of my colleague. I would ask that
you give me the chance to do so too.
The Deputy Speaker: I gave the floor to the hon. member for
Brossard—La Prairie even though I saw the hon. member for
Charlevoix rise. I gave a lot of time for the answers to the
hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. It was well over a minute,
something like three or four minutes. I did that because other
members wanted to ask questions.
We have another question now, and that is why I have decided to
give the parliamentary secretary the opportunity to ask a
question. It will be a 30-second question, and the answer will be
just as short.
1915
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say I can feel
all the sincerity in my colleague's remarks, but I have a hard
time understanding his premise.
He is taking the stand that NATO's air strikes have been
unproductive. Maybe he is in the know and I am not, but nothing
indicates that they have been unproductive.
He contends that the presence of ground forces will make it
easier to put an end to ethnic cleansing and to genocide. This
kind of operation is not a matter of hours. I have a hard time
understanding the logic of it all.
We should make a clear distinction between what we wish and what
the facts really are. Since I have only 30 seconds, I will ask
my question later on if I am given another chance.
Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to downplay the
success of NATO's military operation and the fact that it has
indeed managed to destroy a good part of the arsenal of the
Yugoslav army.
Having said that, the outflow of Kosovars was not slowed down
during the air strikes. As I said earlier, we still have today
80,000 displaced persons within Kosovo who could fall victim of
Serbian authorities. That would justify the dispatch of ground
troops.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Vancouver
Quadra.
It is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate this
evening. I want to speak on our role in Kosovo, where we are and
where I believe we should be heading.
Today, as NATO has just celebrated its 50th anniversary, it is
clear that it has become history's most successful alliance.
Recently NATO's role in Yugoslavia is the most visible
confirmation of the enduring value of a transatlantic alliance
for strong security in Europe.
Kosovo is a region that demands our attention. It has
historically been subjected to many different types of conflict.
I would like to look at the historical context in which Kosovo is
placed today while shedding some light on the brutal nature of
Mr. Milosevic's regime.
Conflict has plagued Kosovo for hundreds of years. The
humanitarian crisis in Kosovo is the most recent manifestation of
a long history of conflict for Kosovars. Time does not allow me
to chronicle the history.
If we look to the period in the mid-20th century following the
breakup of Yugoslavia by the axis powers in April 1941, most of
Kosovo was incorporated into an Italian controlled greater
Albania. At this time the Kosovars collaborated with the fascist
state. Kosovo saw little stability in this period. It was not
until another oppressive regime took power in 1944 that Kosovars
began to see some sort of consistency in their lives, the
communists.
Under the communists, Kosovars were still oppressed. In July
1945 the communist-dominated assembly voted for the voluntary
union of Kosovo with the republic of Serbia within a Yugoslav
federation. Yugoslavia's Albanians were treated as a national
minority with no right to a republic of their own. Clearly the
voices of Kosovars were not heard.
Oppression of individual liberties is the hallmark of the
communist regime. The state security police, through extensive
surveillance and harassment, oppressed Albanians. This
harassment was so severe that between 1945 and 1966 over 200,000
moved to Turkey.
The treatment of Kosovar Albanians has consistently been
terrible, but it pales in comparison to the depths of depravity
that Mr. Milosevic has reached. The difference between Mr.
Milosevic's reign of terror and what we saw at the period after
the war is that Mr. Milosevic wants to murder, rape and squeeze
every bit of humanity out of these people.
I have chosen to look at this time period because it took place
in the 20th century context. It was only 55 years ago that
Kosovo was under the control of a fascist regime. It was only 50
years ago that NATO was formed to provide for the collective
security of the North Atlantic. It was only 24 hours ago when
women and children were raped and murdered. It was only 24 hours
ago when the fathers of these children were lined up against a
wall and shot in the back.
What we are dealing with in this debate is not history. It is
the present.
As we speak, atrocities are taking place that cannot be left
unnoticed. As we sit here this evening, people are being shot
like sitting ducks for the entire world to see.
1920
Canada as a member of NATO must act promptly, decisively and
without hesitation to restore peace. NATO was designed to do
this and to do anything else would be a waste of our time and
money. NATO acted quickly in Bosnia. NATO actions in Bosnia
illustrate how it was called upon to ensure peace in a military
role.
In 1992 a terrible conflict exploded in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
During the next three years, hundreds of thousands of people were
killed and over two million were forced from their homes. The
missions assumed by NATO in the former Yugoslavia played a
critical role in bringing peace to Bosnia, while at the same time
affirming that NATO was doing its job quickly and effectively.
NATO first became involved in the former Yugoslavia in 1992 by
deploying ships and aircraft to monitor UN sanctions on the
Adriatic and the no fly zone over Bosnia. In 1993 this
monitoring shifted to enforcement. Following the UN security
council's adoption of resolution 836 in June, NATO offered close
air support to the United Nations protection force, UNPROFOR,
that was on the ground in Bosnia. Shortly thereafter, NATO began
to develop air strike options to help lift the siege of Sarajevo
and undertook its first combat action in February 1994 when
allied aircraft shot down four aircraft violating the UN no fly
zone.
NATO continued to take a more active role in promoting stability
when it bombed a Bosnian Serb arms depot in May 1995. The
Bosnian Serbs responded by taking UN peacekeepers as hostages.
Bosnian Serb forces overran Srebrenica and Zepa, safe areas, in
July. It became clear that diplomacy, humanitarian peacekeeping
and humanitarian air strikes had reached their limits, much like
the failed Rambouillet agreement.
Under the authority of UN resolution 836, NATO responded by
initiating a three week campaign of air strikes against Bosnian
Serb military targets. This operation, named Deliberate Force,
delivered over 1,000 munitions, including 700 smart bombs and
cruise missiles. The operation was a success. It reached its
objective of reducing the threat to Sarajevo and deterring future
attacks on the safe areas.
I cannot stress how important NATO's role was in
Bosnia-Hercegovina. NATO had an objective in Bosnia and it
reached it. We have an objective in Kosovo and we must reach it
too. This common objective was the prevention of loss of life
and the escalation of violence.
Many people do not realize how repressive this man is. In
January of this year observers from the Kosovar Verification
Mission discovered the bodies of 45 Albanians in the village of
Racak. According to the observers the victims, including one
child and three women, were killed by Serb security forces. The
international community was quick to unanimously condemn this act
of mass murder. But what good does universal condemnation do
when people continue to die? Our number one priority is to stop
the brutal killing and the destruction of human lives and
property in Kosovo. We need action, not words. Acting is what
we are doing.
Following this massacre, Serb forces entered the village of
Racak. This led to fighting between Serb forces and the
separatists in the whole area around the villages. The United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that over 5,000
people were driven out of this village by the fighting. Just
today we read in the newspaper reports from Albania of how ethnic
Albanian women and girls were publicly stripped and then raped by
Serb militia as they tried to leave Kosovo.
Yesterday masked gunmen shot and killed one of Yugoslavia's most
prominent journalists outside his home. This happened after a
pro Milosevic newspaper accused him of supporting the NATO
bombing campaign. This is absolute madness. NATO has taken an
active role in the past and should continue to pursue peace and
stability.
As members of this transatlantic alliance, we as Canadians
cannot sit idly by and watch Milosevic's reign of terror beat
people to the ground. We have fought for what we believe in and
we should continue to press forward in our fight to relieve the
people of Kosovo of their pain. How can we not support NATO air
strikes? Can we sit and watch as women are raped in front of
their children, as fathers are shot in front of their children?
No, I think not.
It is for people like Milosevic that we have security
organizations like NATO. As I illustrated earlier, NATO acted in
Bosnia-Hercegovina to neutralize the Bosnian Serbs. We have
spent years ensuring that someone like Milosevic cannot bully
people, cannot do as the fascists did in the second world war.
Billions of dollars and years of planning and policy discussion,
all for the collective security of NATO member countries. All of
this designed to use the tool of last resort to ensure that peace
is maintained. We should use it when all of our other options
are no longer viable.
1925
It was made clear a long time ago that Mr. Milosevic did not see
the United Nations and NATO as serious, capable organizations.
The failure of the Rambouillet meetings illustrated that Mr.
Milosevic does not want peace and does not want to stop the
killing. When one tyrant can cause so much death and
destruction, it is apparent that we as Canadians must act. It
makes me proud that we have done so. It makes me proud that we
will continue to support our NATO initiative in whatever way we
must.
Our actions must diminish the capabilities of the Yugoslav army
and the special forces who have committed atrocities against
civilians in Kosovo. Our air campaign will allow us to meet this
objective. It may take some time, but our NATO allies knew from
the start that degrading Yugoslavia's military capabilities would
take time. I think we must remain committed to our present
policy of full support of NATO in this air campaign.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Hillsborough for
his very articulate remarks. He makes a very compelling case for
the actions taken thus far in this horrific crisis emerging in
Kosovo. My question that I would direct to the hon. member is
along these lines.
I know the hon. member was present for the remarks made by the
Prime Minister. He will recall the Prime Minister's quite
accurate statement that there is a need for unity not only in the
House but in this country as we support the NATO action or the
actions of our troops.
To that end, I ask the question, is there not an opportunity,
and should there not be an opportunity in the House for the
parliamentary expression of the will of this support and this
unconditional feeling that we want to put forward to encourage
our troops and send them a message that we in parliament support
that action? Can the hon. member think of a more compelling case
for an opportunity to have a vote in which that expression could
take place on the floor of the House of Commons? I can think of
none.
Mr. George Proud: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague
for his remarks and his question.
I believe that parliament should always play a role in these
things. I also believe that government is elected to govern and
there are certain things that government has to do whether we
like it or not.
Even in one of the most powerful legislatures in the world, that
of the United States, the Government of the United States has the
power to commit troops to areas of conflict and then the U.S.
congress debates it, probably before it happens but most times
after it happens.
This is an ongoing debate among all parliamentarians. I would
like to see the debate take place, but there are some things that
government has to do. One does not want to lay one's cards out
on the table. If one is going to send troops into certain areas,
one does not want to tell the people before one does that. There
are certain things one must let government do and hopefully it
will do it in the best interests of all Canadians.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my congratulations as well to the hon. member for
Hillsborough for an excellent presentation. With all due
respect, he did not adequately address in his answer the question
of my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party about the
vote.
Perhaps the hon. member for Hillsborough is a bit confused. What
the opposition is asking for is not whether we commit or vote on
committing ground troops at this time. We recognize that
decision will be made at some time in the future. What we were
endeavouring to do today during Oral Question Period, and what we
will continue to try to do during this debate this evening until
the wee hours of the morning I am sure, is to get a commitment
from the government that if the government does move to commit
ground troops in the future, it will only be after a full and
open debate in the House culminating in a vote.
I do not understand what is so difficult about getting a
commitment, not only from the Prime Minister, but from all
government members of parliament on that very issue of democracy
in this parliament.
Mr. George Proud: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the previous
answer to my colleague, I think that debate must take place if we
are to send ground troops. There is nothing in my estimation
that is more important than having a debate on this issue.
The other thing about it is I am not convinced that these air
strikes will not do the job.
We are 21 days into it now and it could go on for a couple more
weeks.
1930
I am sure the damage being done will bring Mr. Milosevic's army
and his people to heel at the end of the day. I am convinced
that the air strikes will do the job. I am sure the troops that
we will be committing there after the fact will be peacekeepers.
I am sure we will have a debate in the House because governments
have to govern and there are things they have to do. I see no
reason to say that we should have a vote on it at this time.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my colleague
mentioned that we knew how ruthless Milosevic was. Under those
conditions, knowing how ruthless he was, why were we not prepared
for the tragedy that has followed? Why were we so unprepared to
look after the refugees? Why are we still unprepared to look
after the humanitarian destruction that has followed?
I think this debate should be what gives us time to stop and
look at where we went wrong because we went wrong somewhere if we
have achieved the exact opposite of what we wanted, which was
safety for the Albanian people.
Mr. George Proud: Mr. Speaker, we are doing everything we
can. Maybe we can do more for humanitarian aid. We are putting
up millions of dollars. We are sending people in to look after
the refugees. We have offered to bring the refugees to Canada.
This has probably changed at the present time. We are probably
going to send them to the surrounding countries.
I believe Canada does not have to take a back seat to any
country in what we have done to give humanitarian aid to these
people in the terrible, stressful time they are having.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this debate is a reprise of two earlier debates on October 7,
1998 and February 17, 1999.
I had posed some questions to opposition parties during the
first debate. In a very real sense we can see law emerging from
this process of discussion and give and take. We do not actually
need a vote. Sometimes we get more consensus the other way.
It is elementary that the United Nations charter outlawed the
recourse to armed force and military action except in the two
extraordinary situations sanctioned by the charter; that is
individual or collective self-defence or action under Chapter VII
of the charter, the peacemaking sections. I temporarily
overlooked Articles 53 and 107, the enemy states sections which
authorize actions without any limits. They are still there
against Germany and Japan but they are anachronisms.
It is also true that regional security organizations, being
legal creatures of the charter and subject to the charter, cannot
partake of any legal powers higher than or in conflict with the
powers of the security council. That is explicit in Chapter VIII
of the charter. In other words, a regional security organization
cannot hoist itself by its own bootstraps into a legal power to
use armed force that it does not have under the charter.
These were rules which, after the one exception of the Korean
War in 1950, the world community was able to live under during
the cold war because, in spite of some perhaps contemporary
views, the cold war system of public order maintained a strong
regulation of the political-territorial status quo of Yalta and
the other wartime agreements.
What we have seen though at the end of the cold war is the
breakdown of this post-war system of order and the breakdown in
consequence of some of those artificial multinational states that
were created by the Versaille treaty and maintained by Yalta and
other instruments thereafter. The new century, contrary to the
general view of a century of progress and enlightenment, may well
turn out to be the century of inter-ethnic conflict. We are
rediscovering in a very horrifying way the pre-1914 conflicts in
which the Balkans, of course, were the cockpits of Europe as
Bismarck said.
To go back to this general issue, what are we to do in a present
situation where a crisis faces the world community, but where, in
the view of many governments, action under Chapter VII of the
charter is inhibited by the fear—which may or may not be
unfounded until it is tested—of the exercise of a veto by a
permanent member of the security council? Russia or China are
the ones that have been fingered.
We should not forget that in the Korean War of 1950, President
Truman and his secretary of state, Dean Acheson, developed in a
very imaginative way the recourse to the UN general assembly, the
Uniting for Peace Resolution. It was adopted by 52 to 5, with 2
abstentions.
It basically stated that although the security council has
primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace
and security, if it is blocked by wilful obstruction in the use
of the veto then the general assembly has plenary powers to act.
1935
I think that is a useful precedent. I wonder if it could not be
used in the present situation if we are unable to take further
action compatibly with the charter.
We must remember that there is no veto in the general assembly.
An ordinary two-thirds majority applies and the general assembly
can be called into being with a 24 hour notice in an emergency
situation.
In the debates in the House, those two debates I referred to, I
raised this new concept of humanitarian intervention. Admittedly
it has some difficult antecedents. One was what might be called
the colonialist power of intervention asserted in the 19th
century by Britain, France, Germany and other countries,
sometimes cloaked as reprisals. That is generally considered
anachronistic. Some of us would also remember that during the
cold war it was asserted by the bloc leaders on both sides.
Everyone will remember the situation of the intervention in
Hungary in 1956 and Prague in 1968, the so-called hegemonial
intervention, that you can intervene to enforce solidarity within
your own bloc.
However, there are other antecedents to this which should not be
confused with those past interventions. One of the more
interesting developments is the attempt to flesh out, to give new
parameters defining modalities for this concept of humanitarian
intervention which is likely to be the weapon we need to cope
with this inter-ethnic conflict that is going to be with us.
I do regret that it has not been felt possible to involve the
United Nations more firmly in the process to date. However,
there is nothing to prevent the United Nations from being
accommodated to the crisis problem solving as it develops.
The Minister for International Cooperation has already
recognized the primacy of the United Nations in the general
policy aspects of humanitarian care and control of refugees. One
had hints which come close to some suggestions on the opposition
side that it might be possible to accommodate, within a framework
of an international military force now limited to NATO, non-NATO
members. There is nothing to prevent the United Nations from
authorizing an international force in which NATO might be the
prime element but which could include Russian troops or other
troops. It could even be put under U.S. command. If this sounds
rather strange, it was in fact the solution found in the Korean
War of 1950 with an American commander-in-chief but under the
political control of the United Nations. When he exceeded his
powers, and he was a very strong personality, he was fired by his
president after consultation with the secretary general of the
United Nations.
The possibility is there and it is possible in a phase 2 of the
operations to control the crisis in Yugoslavia. That would be
the best and most productive way to proceed.
I would also suggest the use of the world court. I listened
carefully to the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. He touched
on this but I would like to suggest that the court is available
and it can give decisions on very short notice, the reasons
sometimes come later. Fleshing out the limitations to this
concept of humanitarian intervention, it cannot solely be limited
to one country's own conception of what is right and wrong. We
get into the Latin legal phrase, quod licet Jovi, licet bovi.
What is allowed to Jupiter on high must be allowed also to the
humble ox. There are other countries around the world whose
jurists have been in touch with me over the last few weeks
saying, “Why can't we do this?” It suggests that we should put
this as far as possible in the next phase into United Nations'
hands.
I would also like to get a ruling on the limitations as to
aerial bombardment.
It is often forgotten that the rules of aerial bombardment are
not what they were in World War II where members will notice it
was not a count in the Nuremberg indictments. The additional
protocols in 1977 in a very real sense limit the capacity to
conduct aerial bombardment. I think it would help to have a
world court ruling on this.
1940
Why do I speak of law? It is simply because I am reminded of
another American president, President Kennedy, who had advice
from his security advisers, among others, to bomb those missile
bases in Cuba. President Kennedy's answer was essentially that a
great state is not armed solely with the law, it has its armed
power, but the essence of wise decision making is to choose those
modalities that solve the problem that are compatible with
international law.
President Kennedy's peaceful solution to the Cuban missile
crisis is a textbook case in all our university courses on United
Nations law and it is a model to follow. I welcome the
suggestions that I discern in the opposition and I discern in
some of the government answers that there will be an increasing
attempt to phase in the operations with the United Nations. That
is the more traditional Canadian way, that we operate through the
international authority, through the United Nations. In the
particular circumstances, it may not have been possible to be so
at the beginning, but it is possible to be so at the end.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I was very interested in the speaker's premise. I would just
like to develop it a little bit further.
In terms of intervention for humanitarian reasons, here we have
NATO, which has historically been a defensive organization,
suddenly turning offensive. Under what basis, what authority,
does he see this happening? Why are we not intervening, for
example, in East Timor? What would happen if an altercation
occurred between China and Taiwan? What would happen in the
Basque? What authority is there?
Surely, as a professor on this topic, he undoubtedly has some
thoughts on this. What authority does he really see NATO
involved in the way in which it is involved in this very
aggressive intervention?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, NATO was involved because
to those making the immediate decisions it was the only
organization seen to be ready and able to act. However, I have
my own doubts about it because the alliance is strictly a
defensive one. It is even more limited than the normal regional
security organization.
It should not be assumed, however, that there may not be a
sufficient legal base in itself. When President Truman launched
the Uniting for Peace resolution it was a revolutionary act, but
it is entered into UN history because it is obviously good and
sensible.
Let us face it, in terms of Canadian policies in international
organizations, the general assembly is a much more democratic and
open body than the security council. We have been arguing for a
reform of the security council. We get nowhere because the veto
of the permanent members applies to amendments of the charter
designed so the security council should yield to the general
assembly.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the question
is not to know whether or not we are going to vote. The
opposition had indeed asked the government to hold a debate to
better inform the public, because those who do not watch any of
the reports on the news networks do not know what is going on.
We know that Canada is supporting the UN to defend the Kosovars
in that war-torn land. But while we are debating this issue here
tonight to better inform the public, how many children will die?
How many women will be raped and killed while we have this
debate tonight? How many seniors will die?
The question I would like to put to my hon. colleague is the
following: what part will Canada continue to play if NATO
decides to dispatch ground troops? If this decision is made, we
know that 200,000 soldiers will have to be sent to Kosovo
tomorrow morning. Is Canada prepared to take part in ground
operations and meet all the requirements? We are part of things
right now, we are caught up in the system. How far will we have
to go?
1945
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, our role is necessarily limited
by the size of our army and by our public defence system. There
are only four planes, I think.
Of course, we have no control over the rules of the game.
Nonetheless, since we are members of NATO, we were asked to
co-operate, and we did so for these reasons. Even though our
contribution is more of a symbol than a display military might,
I think that our membership in the alliance created an
obligation for us. But we must ask whether NATO is adapted to
today's reality. That is the key question, in my view. The
renewal of NATO seems to be a pressing issue more than ever.
[English]
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the member's support for the suggestion of our
leader and our party with respect to the possibility of an OSCE
or a UN peacekeeping force as opposed to a NATO force.
I wonder if the member would also like to comment on the
application of article 52 of the Vienna convention on the law of
treaties which explicitly forbids coercion and force to compel
any state to sign a treaty or agreement. In light of that and in
light of the element in the Rambouillet accord which put NATO at
the heart of peacekeeping, does the hon. member not feel that
there is a conflict?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, on the first question
which the hon. member raised, certainly part of the consensus
that emerged during our two debates in October last year and in
February was looking toward international organizations. If it
could not be a force sanctioned by the security council, then it
could be the OSCE, which has the advantage of having the former
Soviet Union as a member. Therefore, we would have its
co-operation.
Nevertheless, like NATO it is also an organization that in many
respects is out of date. It is there to preserve the Helsinki
accords, which themselves were to preserve the Yalta division of
Europe. I am not sure that the OSCE is the answer. I would say
that we should go back to the general assembly.
I respect article 52 of the Vienna convention and the member's
interpretation of it.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I value the opportunity to participate in this very
important and significant debate. I deeply regret the decision
of the government to equivocate with respect to the role of
parliament and the role of each elected member of this House in
making a decision with respect to the issue of the possible use
of ground troops. I do not understand why it is that our
government and our Prime Minister have taken the position which
ultimately amounts to contempt for the role of elected
representatives.
I listened with interest to the Conservative questioners. My
colleague from Winnipeg Transcona and I were here in 1990 and
1991 and we certainly recall our efforts to get a vote from the
then Conservative government. It stonewalled and refused to act
until long after the military action had taken place in Iraq,
which began on January 15. I think history has to be remembered
in that instance.
I rose in this House 19 days ago on behalf of my colleagues to
speak in another debate. It was a take note debate with respect
to the pending decision to support the use of NATO aerial attacks
in Kosovo. We were then faced with compelling and moving
evidence of an impending humanitarian disaster, one which in many
respects had already started to take place: the burning of
villages, the destruction of people's homes, mass expulsions,
murder, torture and rape.
I remember vividly the assurances given by ministers, privately,
in committee and elsewhere, that this firm course of action with
air strikes would bring an early return to the negotiating table
and hopefully an end to the ethnic cleansing which all of us in
this House deplore.
1950
At that time, in the absence of what we felt was any other
viable alternative to stop the humanitarian tragedy, we supported
the decision to proceed.
Today, 19 days later, where are we? We know that our troops,
based at Aviano and elsewhere, have performed an outstanding job
under very difficult circumstances. We know the fear of their
families and indeed their own fear at a time like this and we
extend our support to them, as well as to the aid workers on the
ground.
We are deeply impressed by the incredible generosity of
Canadians who have opened their homes and their hearts to
refugees. It has not happened yet, but certainly I know my hon.
colleague from Winnipeg North Centre and others have been playing
a leading role in encouraging our government to continue this
generosity.
Here we are 19 days later with NATO foreign ministers meeting in
Brussels. What have they come up with in terms of new approaches
and a new strategy? They have decided to continue the air
attacks. Continue, keep going, make them even stronger.
Quite clearly this situation is a human and a military
catastrophe, both for the Kosovars and Albanians who have been
driven out of their homes, villages and communities; not just
outside Kosovo, but up into the mountains. They are hiding
within Kosovo itself. Their villages continue to be burned and
they continue to be raped. As well, too many innocent civilians
have been killed by the bombing. I have to ask: Why bomb a
Yugoslavian car plant which also involved the killing of innocent
civilians?
Our defence critic raised questions about the use of depleted
uranium in U.S. antitank weapons. These are serious questions
for which we are awaiting answers from the Minister of National
Defence.
My colleagues and I have all had harrowing personal stories told
to us by those who are affected by this tragedy. It was brought
home to me when a Serbian constituent phoned. He said “How do I
explain to my daughter that her government, the Government of
Canada, is bombing her grandmother's home?”
Within a couple of hours I had an anguished call from a Kosovar
Albanian living in Canada who said that he was unable to contact
his parents. Silence. He has no idea. There is fear and
uncertainty in not knowing what is happening to them.
We have to ask the question: What do we do now? How do we
answer these anguished questions of our constituents and, indeed,
of Canadians?
Today our leader, the hon. member for Halifax, called once again
on our government to put diplomacy and negotiations and not
bombing at the heart of our strategy. She reiterated the call
which my hon. colleague from Halifax West and I made at the
meeting of the national defence and veterans affairs committee on
March 31. It was a call for Canada to show leadership within
NATO and within the United Nations for an immediate return to the
negotiating table; not with a whole list of conditions, but with
two basic conditions: first, an end to the atrocities on the
ground, the brutality, the ethnic cleansing and the crimes
against humanity; and second, an end to the bombing. With those
two conditions accomplished there would be a return to the table.
When we get to the table there are a couple of key points that
must be considered. First, we have to recognize that Rambouillet
is, for all intents and purposes, dead. In fact, given the
inclusion in the Rambouillet accord of the provision for NATO
peacekeeping troops, I think many of us in retrospect would say
that this was an impossible condition for Milosevic to take back
to the Serbian government.
There were alternatives. Indeed, there are alternatives. One
alternative, of course, is not to have a NATO peacekeeping force
but a force under United Nations jurisdiction, under OSCE
jurisdiction. Instead we heard again today from our Minister of
National Defence the statement that he made as recently as last
Friday, that this has to be a NATO-led force. That is fatal to
any significant negotiated agreement in this area.
1955
We appeal to the minister to recognize that and to recognize the
absolutely critical role that Russia must play as well in these
negotiations. It has been effectively sidelined, silenced and
shut out. It proposed a G-8 meeting. We understand that may
happen and we welcome that. However, both in negotiations and in
peacekeeping on the ground Russia must be involved.
What form will Kosovo take after negotiations? It is very
difficult to say. There again, Rambouillet is likely a dead
letter. To talk about autonomy within the context of what has
taken place recently is very difficult to imagine. It may be
that there will be some sort of international protectorate, but
we will have to examine that with care.
The fundamental point that we as New Democrats are underlining
is that the United Nations and the OSCE must play the leading
role in negotiations. We called for a special emergency meeting
of the United Nations General Assembly. Once again, we are
appealing for that.
I am splitting my time, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple of minutes
left, so I will try to be brief.
We are calling for a special meeting of the UN general assembly.
At the same time we want to acknowledge the very important
contribution made by groups such as Project Ploughshares,
Veterans Against Nuclear Arms, the Regina Peace Council, the
Canadian Peace Alliance, Voices of Women, End the Arms Race and
many others in urging an alternative approach, an approach that
involves peaceful negotiations.
NATO is clearly not the answer. There is a double standard in
NATO's approach. It is silent, for example, on the appalling
situation of the Kurds in Turkey. Then there is the approach
taken by the United States within NATO. It has contempt for its
obligations to the United Nations. It has not paid its dues. It
ignores the call for an international criminal court. It ignores
the international court of justice. I could go on and on. It
supports ruthless dictators. This is not the body to enforce a
new humanitarian law.
We call, along with Project Ploughshares and others, for a new
mechanism to legitimize within the framework of the United
Nations peaceful humanitarian intervention.
I want to again note our thanks to those groups—
The Speaker: Perhaps in the questions and comments you
could mention them. I will now entertain questions and comments.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the hon. member. I recall in March
1998 when the UN passed a resolution. Early in the fall we
passed another resolution. Both of those resolutions attempted
to peacefully convince the sides to come together. That has not
happened. At the security council we had blockage and
intransigence.
However, there have been some helpful signs, some from
unexpected quarters. In this area history has shown that not
everyone comes into this situation with totally clean hands.
During part of the last two weeks I have talked to many people
in my riding, including Serbian Canadians, who have real concerns
and maybe a different point of view. I support what we are doing
within NATO, but I would welcome some intervention by the UN.
Russia has given some indication of wanting to involve itself in
negotiations. What is the member's feelings on the involvement
of Russia as a potential broker of a new rapprochement between
these parties?
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues
have said it is the key. There is no question that Russia must
be involved at the heart of these negotiations. That is one of
the reasons we have called for that consistently.
Russia's position with respect to NATO peacekeeping troops is
that it is a non-starter, so we have to re-examine that as well.
Of course we have to bring the United Nations much further into
the loop. However, there is a lot of wisdom in civil society
that has been ignored. Our government could show some leadership
in convening, both within Canada and internationally, some sort
of an international forum to seek alternatives to simple air
strikes and bombing. There is that wisdom and we should be
calling on it, both in Canada and internationally.
2000
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we were talking about debates advancing and I think there has
been some advance in thinking on both sides since the two earlier
debates we have had on this general issue.
Bearing in mind his strictures against treaties made under
duress, could the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas envisage a new
diplomatic negotiating process that might produce a more
even-handed disposition for either the present government of
Yugoslavia or a successor government? In other words, does he
have something more concrete in mind, accepting the premise that
Rambouillet essentially would have been, as he said, a treaty
imposed under duress as settlement?
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, clearly we are saying
that NATO cannot be the body that is ultimately responsible for
bringing peace either to this region or in seeking to expand its
role generally on its 50th anniversary as it looks for a new
reason to exist.
Certainly we could look within the umbrella of the United
Nations. We have also suggested that there may very well be
wisdom in the general assembly itself. In his own comments the
hon. member alluded to the importance of involving the UN general
assembly and not just the security council. We may be able to
bring that wisdom in to involve Russia directly in the process of
decision making and ultimately negotiation.
If we are to achieve that success in negotiation, we have to be
prepared to get back to the table without a whole list of
preconditions. That is what our leader has called for today.
That is what we are repeating at this time. For God's sake, let
us recognize not a whole list of preconditions, stop the ethnic
cleansing and the atrocities, stop the bombing, get back to the
table and arrive at a peaceful solution that will allow all of
the those who have been driven from their homes to return to
their homes, that will allow for reconstruction and that will
allow for just as many resources to be put into healing and
rebuilding as have been put into violence and bombing.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, could the hon. member comment on the long term impact
that Canada's involvement in the Kosovo crisis will have on
Canada's reputation?
As he knows, since the Pearson years and before Canada has
cultivated this peacekeeping, peacemaking international
reputation. Would it not be the case that as a result of
Canada's modest involvement militarily in this matter its much
cherished peacekeeping role internationally might be affected
adversely for many years to come?
Mr. Svend J. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there
is any doubt that this is a serious concern. That is all the
more reason for Canada to finally show some independence, to
reach out and to show leadership internationally in brokering a
solution that will restore the reputation we have fought so hard
to establish.
[Translation]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have the opportunity to speak to the very important subject
of today's debate.
[English]
I believe I can truthfully say that in all my 35 years of public
service this is one of the most difficult issues I have ever had
to grapple with. It was a struggle. We were basically taking a
position and making a decision around an issue to which I am
fundamentally opposed, the use of violence. It is violent.
Bombing is violent. No matter how smart we say these bombs are,
it is a violent approach to this problem.
However, we concluded that because of seriousness of the
atrocities and the senseless slaughter taking place, which we saw
coming across our TV screens with men, women and children
suffering, with young children crying and being separated from
their families, we would lend our support to try to bring this
senseless slaughter to an end. That has been the thrust of the
NDP throughout this whole business, to bring an end to the
terrible situation we are faced with.
2005
Last Friday I attended a peace rally in Halifax organized by the
Voice of Women and some other organizations. One of the people
primarily responsible for organizing it was a women over 90 years
of age, Maria Duckworth who worked all her life for peace and
harmony. The people at that rally made it very clear that they
were opposed to bombing Yugoslavia. They talked about the
legality of the action being taken. They stressed their concerns
about the innocent people who were being slaughtered in the whole
process. I assured them that we would certainly carry forward
their voice and their concerns into the debate tonight.
We talk about ethnic cleansing. I would like to say right off
the bat how very much I abhor that phrase. I know many members
use that phrase, including members of my caucus. I suggest that
we are not dealing with ethnic cleansing. When we talk about
cleansing we know that when we clean something it is because
something is dirty. We wash our cars because they are dirty. We
scrub our floors because they are dirty. We wash our hands
because they are dirty. We try to cleanse these things. When we
talk about a people being purged and driven from their country
and being slaughtered because someone is not content with the
ethnic background of the particular group of people, that is not
a cleansing process. Let us call it what it is. It is genocide.
It is war. It is crime against humanity. That is what it is so
we should call it that.
We see the results of that. We see countless numbers of
refugees fleeing their homes. We see young children coming
across the border on bicycles so traumatised that they cannot
talk about what is happening.
On the way here today I read in the paper about women, young
girls being taken from the caravans as they were trying to cross
the border, being stripped publicly, taken back into fields and
raped. People could hear the screams, many of them never to be
seen again. These are the things that are happening and we must
come to grips with them.
There is another side of the issue that we do not hear about. I
want to read briefly from a letter from a person in Belgrade who
wrote:
I wish to point out a special side effect of the bombing of which
little has been said: the actions of the NATO pact are so wide,
that in the first phase they can already be characterized as
absolute war which means the destruction
preconceptions—cultural, spiritual and natural lives of millions
of people in our country.
The toxic nature of the 19,200 tons of explosives (equal to the
amount used in the Nagasaki bombing) used is well known to you.
We warn you that Serbia is one of the greatest sources of
underground waters in Europe and that the contamination will be
felt in the whole surrounding area all the way to the Black Sea.
It then goes on to talk about the national parks and the various
factories that were hit:
The village of Gracanica was shelled; there is situated one of
the most important monasteries of the medieval orthodox culture
and the candidate for the UNESCO heritage list. Numerous civil
targets in other cities were hit—schools, hospitals, the sites
considered as cultural monuments.
Especially worrying are the latest news saying that, in the next
phases of their bombing, NATO will use the airplanes B1 and A10
which are carrying missiles with depleted uranium previously used
in Iraq and Bosnia. The use of these will bring about the vast
dangerous consequences to the health not only of the soldiers,
but also of the whole population, and you know that the toxins
and the radioactivity know no nationality or borders.
This person went on to describe some of the things being
experienced by the people in Serbia.
In reality war has no winners. Someone may end up victorious
but in reality there is no winner. Everyone suffers as is
evident by this conflict. It emphasizes that we need to have as
impartial a body as possible to deal with the international
conflicts and the conflicts within sovereign states. We need to
strengthen the UN for this purpose. It will not happen
overnight, but it will never happen as long as we keep ceding
power to NATO and not looking directly at where we should be
focusing our attention in terms of strengthening the security
council and the UN. Canada should be taking a leading in role in
this measure.
I am very pleased that Canada responded so favourably when it
appeared that we were to have many refugees coming here.
2010
I think of the small town of Greenwood, Nova Scotia, and how the
people rallied around, got all kinds of supplies and got ready to
receive refugees they thought were coming. In times of crises
like this one it shows what Canadians are really made of when we
open our hearts to other people. This is key to the whole thing,
opening our hearts to other people.
As we debate the issue tonight it should not be a we and they
kind of issue. I feel very strongly that it should not be us
against them. It should be all of us together using our
collective wisdom and using our collective will to bring an end
to this situation. We should be working together to try to find
a solution. I am sure that every member of the House wants this
tragedy to end as quickly and as peacefully as possible.
I encourage us to work together in the spirit of love and the
spirit of harmony to try to bring all our collective thoughts to
bear on the issue and to use every means possible to bring about
a peaceful negotiation.
Many suggestions have been made as to how this might be done and
I will not repeat them. At this time I would like to say in
conclusion that my thoughts and prayers go out to all who are
suffering, the many people in Kosovo who have been forced to flee
from their homes, who have been separated from their families,
and all the people in Serbia who are experiencing terrible
bombing. It must be terrible to have bombs falling around them
as they try to lead their daily lives. Our men and women in the
military are working hard to try to deal with the situation. The
people in immigration are working hard with the refugees as are
the people providing international aid. All these people are in
our thoughts and our prayers as we work together to try to
resolve this problem.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what does the hon. member think about NATO being there?
Does he feel we are achieving anything? Does he feel we are
there as a lost cause?
Does the hon. member think that the NATO forces are sensitive to
the history of the Balkans and are sensitive to the fact that two
world wars almost started from the Balkans? Does the hon. member
think that NATO is achieving anything there and, if so, what?
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, initially everyone had the
intention and the hope that the matter would be quickly resolved
but this has not happened.
Quite honestly at this point I have questions as to how
effective the bombing campaign is. That is why we are calling
for a reassessment of the situation and a serious look at what
strategy can be utilized to bring an end to it.
I agree with the many people who have already spoken about the
role it is felt Russia should play. We should be making every
concrete effort to get a commitment from Russia to try to lend
its influence with its Slavic brothers to end this conflict.
I certainly feel we have to branch away from what NATO is doing
and move beyond it because it certainly has not accomplished the
goal we hoped would be accomplished.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He made one
statement that really touched me when he said that war had no
winners. When we take a look at the issues that were confronting
us in World War I and again in World War II certainly that is
true.
Would the hon. member not agree, if we bring this to a
successful conclusion, that the only people who could be winners
would not necessarily be the Serbs or the Kosovars who are
fighting but the women, children and elderly? If we can provide
them with homes again and give them their freedom, I believe they
would be the only true winners who could come out of this
conflict. I would like the hon. member to comment.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, I agree those are the
important people we should be concerned about. They have already
lost so much that it would be difficult to say that they will
come out winners. Many of them will be coming out violated,
traumatised or have lost their families.
The men have been taken, put in places and in many cases shot.
In a lot of cases they are still losers, but they would certainly
be much further ahead if we could bring this to a conclusion as
quickly as possible.
2015
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have two brief questions for my hon. colleague. I
thank him for the work he has done on this very important issue.
First I would ask for an affirmation from my hon. colleague of
the longstanding commitment of New Democrats to the fundamental
right of self-determination of the people of Kosovo, basically
reaffirming that commitment to their right to self-determination,
to determine their own future and also obviously, for help in the
reconstruction of their shattered society when they do return to
their homes.
Second, would the hon. member comment briefly on the suggestion
made by Senator Doug Roche, a very important suggestion, that we
have another look at the agenda for peace that Boutros-Ghali
published some time ago, an essential element of which was the
creation of a rapid reaction force under UN auspices? I wonder
if the hon. member would like to comment on that suggestion as
well. It is certainly one that I support.
Mr. Gordon Earle: Mr. Speaker, on the first question, I
agree 100% that it is very important that people be able to
determine their own future. It is for that very reason I deplore
the term ethnic cleansing. As I mentioned during my speech, that
term implies superiority and inferiority, where something has to
be cleansed because one is better than the other.
That gets to the very heart of the principle of
self-determination. Even here in Canada we can look at that
principle and apply it to our aboriginal peoples. We should be
looking at that same concept of self-determination and the right
to determine one's future when we talk about our aboriginal
people.
On the rapid reaction force, I certainly agree that we have to
strengthen the United Nations to be able to respond quickly and
efficiently to these kinds of crises. With each day that goes
by, more and more lives are lost. Every life is precious. Every
time a person dies, a bit of you and me dies. We should see the
common bond of humanity and try to end the suffering. Every time
a person dies, we lose.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Louis.
I think it is fair to say that Canadians everywhere are
concerned about the crisis in Kosovo. The people in my riding of
Waterloo—Wellington share grave concerns about what is happening
in that part of the world and are watching closely as events
unfold.
How did we get to the point where we now find ourselves? The
international community has gone to great lengths to find a
diplomatic solution to the crisis in Kosovo. It is clear that
Canada and NATO would prefer to resolve the problems in that part
of the world through a negotiated settlement based on the
Rambouillet agreement, but as United Nations Secretary-General
Kofi Annan said recently, diplomacy sometimes cannot work without
the threat of force.
Unfortunately we had no choice but to resort to force to halt
what had developed into an intolerable situation. We had run out
of peaceful options when Slobodan Milosevic rejected every peace
proposal submitted to him. Meanwhile he stepped up a campaign of
terror by Yugoslav authorities that has been going on for several
months and it is continuing right now as we speak tonight. We
have seen well documented evidence of forced expulsions, the
destruction of whole villages and the massacre of civilians by
Yugoslav security forces.
At one point last October we thought we were making progress
toward peace. NATO's threat to use force led to the acceptance
of a ceasefire at that time and limitations in the deployment of
security forces in Kosovo and the creation of a Kosovo
verification mission which consisted of hundreds of international
verifiers, including 65 Canadians. Unfortunately this only
helped diminish for a short time the acts of violence being
perpetrated by the Yugoslav army and police against the people of
Kosovo.
Earlier this year the situation started to deteriorate again.
Security forces harassed the international verifiers. There was
clear evidence that they were preparing for a massive spring
offensive.
By March 20 the Organization for Security and Co-operation in
Europe, the OSCE, was forced to evacuate the Kosovo verification
mission, the KVM, because of the collapse of the ceasefire and
the unacceptable threat to the safety of mission members. With
the departure of the verification mission, Yugoslav forces
dramatically stepped up their brutal offensive.
2020
The Yugoslav government is in clear and flagrant violation of
the commitments it agreed to in October. It has violated the
ceasefire and responded disproportionately to the actions of the
Kosovo Liberation Army, the KLA. In addition to not respecting
several UN security council resolutions, Yugoslavia has
systematically violated the most basic rights under international
humanitarian law. It has unleashed a savage and calculated
campaign of hatred and violence not only against members of the
KLA, but against the civilians of Kosovo, against families. This
is offensive, this is wrong and this must be stopped.
Canada and its allies simply could not stand by and do nothing
while women and children, men and the elderly in Kosovo were
being killed, tortured, detained, persecuted and banished from
their homes and stripped of their very identities because of
their ethnic background, because of who they are. In the name of
humanity we cannot and we should not and we will not stand by
while this takes place.
Last September this house unanimously supported a resolution
calling on the government of the federal republic of Yugoslavia
and the parties involved in this inhumane confrontation to lay
down their arms and to negotiate a solution with help from
international organizations. In addition, in October all parties
took part in a take note debate and expressed their support for
Canada's involvement in Kosovo. Members of parliament have also
been kept up to date on the developments in Kosovo via standing
committee briefings.
Since then we have been closely following developments in that
part of the world. Now many fellow Canadians and the country as
a whole are engaged in the debate on what Canada should or should
not do and on NATO's role in this crisis. Since the start of
NATO's military action there has been considerable public debate
and media coverage examining the very issues from every
conceivable angle. Unlike any time in the past, Canadians have
access to a wealth of information that they can sift through to
form their own opinions at this time.
From all indications I have seen, most Canadians support the
action taken by their government and by NATO. I think the
majority of Canadians appreciate that peaceful negotiations
failed to produce a diplomatic resolution to the crisis because
of the intransigence of Milosevic and his government. Faced with
this stalemate and the dramatically stepped up ethnic cleansing
of Kosovo, I think Canadians see that military action was the
only option.
The week before last, I read with great interest an article in
the Ottawa Citizen by Christina Spencer which I believe
sums up the thinking of a great many Canadians about this crisis:
Here's why Canada is right to take military action against
Yugoslavia: Because the only legitimate role of any government is
to protect the basic rights of its citizens. When a regime
abrogates political rights, stirs hatred, shuts down the press,
burns villages, herds civilians into becoming hostages... it is
difficult to defend its legitimacy. Over many years, Milosevic
has done all of this. Yet human-rights-respecting countries are
debating whether they have the moral right to intervene. Get
serious.
As a government we still favour a diplomatic solution that
ensures sustainable results and long term security in the region.
I know that Canadians want this to happen. This diplomatic
solution can be achieved if, as NATO has suggested, Belgrade
authorities cease the savage repression of their own people and
sign a peace agreement giving significant autonomy to Kosovo.
I think most Canadians would rather not have to resort to
military force, but they believe Canada and NATO are nevertheless
on the right track given the current grim circumstances. We must
not lose our resolve to make tough choices to ensure an effective
and lasting resolution to the situation in Kosovo and the
humanitarian catastrophe in that region.
Having made our commitment, I believe that Canada must now
follow through to ensure a lasting peace in that part of the
world. It is important given all that has happened that we now
stay the course to bring about stability in that part of Europe.
We will do so knowing this is not an easy position nor a lightly
taken decision. We do so knowing that at the end of the day it
will be judged as the right thing to do on behalf of the people
of Kosovo. In the name of humanity, it is the right thing to do.
2025
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, every single
bomb we drop drives us farther and farther from our objective of
peace.
I have had calls from constituents whose families are in Serbia.
They said that last year their brothers would not fight but now
they cannot wait to fight because they have wholeheartedly turned
against the west. We are not going to achieve our objectives by
dropping more bombs. We are going to cause more problems and
more harm.
There are no rules in war. When my father fought in the second
world war women were not touched. When we drop a bomb now, we
unleash untold brutality on the very people we want to protect.
Other people who are suffering are women, children and the
elderly. Serbians and Albanians are losing their homes.
If we do not try to do things differently, we will continue to
have the same results, more cruelty and more brutality. We will
go farther and farther away from peace.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that
United Nations Secretary General Annan said recently that
diplomacy sometimes cannot work without the threat of force.
Unfortunately we are now in the position where having started
this course of action we need to follow it through.
As the hon. member correctly and eloquently points out, terrible
things are happening as a result. Unfortunately in the name of
humanitarianism and in the name of what we think is right, we
need to do these kinds of things to ensure that security
ultimately is brought to that part of Europe and to the world in
general. I support that and I think most Canadians do.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, the question is at what cost? We agree that the
atrocities have to stop. The hon. member talks about staying the
course. It seems to me that we have to define what the course is
and where we are going. If we get ourselves involved in a war,
how are we going to extricate ourselves from that war?
It is almost as if the Canadian government and other NATO
partners are making policy on the fly. Canadians were led to
believe that the air strikes would be successful within a matter
of days. The days have turned into weeks and soon the weeks will
turn into months. We are talking about sending in ground troops
now. There is an assumption that once we send in ground troops,
Canadian soldiers, the war will be won at some point if we stay
the course.
That is the same type of thinking which took place not so many
years ago in southeast Asia when the Americans went into Vietnam.
The Americans thought the war would be over in the short term but
the weeks turned into months, the months turned into years and
the years turned into the deaths of—
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Waterloo—Wellington.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we
as the Government of Canada along with our NATO partners tried
very hard to get a negotiated settlement. We worked diligently
to that end for that objective. At the end of the day when we
saw the kinds of atrocities that were taking place and the kind
of humanitarian upheaval, it was important that we act in the way
we are now doing to ensure that we bring peace in that area. It
seems to me that we have gone to great lengths to ensure that.
We are not in a time of instant gratification and instant war
starting and stopping. We have to take our time to ensure the
right thing and ensure that people and families in that part of
the world are protected.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
paraphrasing but someone once said that for evil to succeed it
just takes good men doing nothing. I see this in this situation.
Canadians are not used to conflict that is internal, inside a
boundary of one jurisdiction or one state. This is what we have
here, something that is quite different from what we see in
Canada as we live together with different cultures, ethnicities
and religions.
2030
My question is about the human security agenda, something we
talked about and are now seeing in action. I welcome comments
from the hon. member.
Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Speaker, human security is the key in
all of this and is part of the objective of not only Canada but
the NATO partners. It is important that we move in that
direction to ensure security and stability in a part of the world
that has not seen it for many years throughout the century.
If we can do our part in that area we will have served well not
only our country but the world in that area.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as one
of our colleagues put it, there are no winners in a war. War
means untold suffering, the loss of human lives, destruction and
devastation on all sides.
As our colleague from Halifax West so eloquently pointed out,
most of us are torn apart by the necessity to resort to weapons
for a cause we feel is just, while at the same time realizing
that it was brought upon by the revolting genocide going on in
Kosovo, where every passing day brings sad pictures of massacres
of thousands of innocents victims, mostly women and children.
Given its tradition of peace and the fact that pluralism is one
of its central policies and values, Canada must play a major
role in the search for a solution for Kosovo.
[English]
Indeed Canada joined the NATO operation with the central aim of
seeking a peaceful resolution of the atrocities in Kosovo and of
returning the Kosovars to a normal life in their own homes.
[Translation]
Our central objective here, in this debate, should be to look
for this same solution, eventual peace, so that NATO's current
operations can be replaced by sustainable peace measures to
restore some form of normal life for the Kosovars.
Canada can play an important role in this respect.
[English]
It is crucial for us in Canada and for Canada within NATO and
the broader international community to maintain an autonomous
mind strictly directed toward the establishment of a peaceful
solution. Military solutions as much as they may be necessary
are never real and complete solutions.
Canada has a lasting tradition as a peace seeker, as a
peacemaker, as an initiator of international peacekeeping through
the United Nations. Canada must use its undoubted credibility as
a peacemaker and peace seeker to play a leadership role in
initiating proposals for early peaceful solutions.
As a non-European country, as a traditional honest broker in
resolving international conflicts, Canada must follow its own
wise counsel and be proactive, if necessary, sometimes even in
contradiction with the U.S. and the Pentagon generals whose
operation the NATO intervention has increasingly become.
2035
I ask this question. Does the solution pass through Russia and
a constructive Russian intervention in the Kosovo issue? If
Russia were involved, prospects for settlement would be far less
difficult and would certainly be speedier to achieve. Indeed
Russia may represent the surest chance of achieving an effective
ceasefire and an eventual peace guaranteed by peacekeeping and
the resettlement of the Kosovars in their own homes. Russian
participation would eliminate a roadblock within the UN. Russia,
if it participated, might influence China to take a more positive
stance at the UN security council. Canada should take the lead
in enlisting Russian participation, inciting Russia to play a key
part in bringing Yugoslavia to accept Rambouillet or a similar
accord.
One obvious difficulty in establishing a peacekeeping force in
Kosovo is the refusal of Yugoslavia to accept a NATO force. If a
peacekeeping force were to include a strong Russian presence, it
may go a long way to influencing Yugoslavia to accept it. Even
if it meant NATO countries contributing to such participation, it
would still be a thousand times preferable to the alternative of
military operations continuing on a larger scale.
[Translation]
As far as the conduct of NATO's operations is concerned, it is
important that Canada maintain enough flexibility and autonomy.
While the United States and some European nations support
expanding the operations' scope to include ground troops, Canada
should stick to it's initial commitment, which was to send in
from 600 to 800 military personnel, but only in a peacekeeping
capacity and after a formal agreement was reached to put an end
to the operations and make sure that the Kosovars can go back
home.
[English]
I think we all agree that military operations are a last resort,
that peaceful solutions must be the central collective goal of
all of us. Canada is a nation of peace and freedom. In seeking
freedom itself for others it must believe that freedom is best
achieved in achieving peace.
This is what we must seek tonight. I would earnestly ask the
Minister of Foreign Affairs and my government to do everything
possible to enlist the help of the Russians to make a peace
settlement possible and to lift the United Nations blockade. I
hope that peace happens very soon in Kosovo.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will be brief because I know there are many who have
comments and questions. I thank the hon. member for his very
thoughtful remarks and his approach to this tragic situation.
This past weekend I attended a meeting in Vancouver hosted by
End the Arms Race, over 300 deeply concerned people from many
different walks of life including students, church leaders,
labour activists and others. There was a lot of wisdom in that
group. They were calling for an end to the bombing, an end to
the ethnic cleansing and a return to negotiations.
Does the hon. member agree that it would be a valuable and
important initiative by the Government of Canada to convene a
meeting at an early date of civil society, of key partners from
the church community and from the labour movement? I know
Canadian Auto Workers has issued a very important statement with
a number of concrete suggestions on how we might approach the
situation. Today the Canadian Federation of Students issued a
similar statement.
2040
There is not just wisdom within the military and in the House.
There is a lot of wisdom in the country, in civil society. It
would be a valuable and important exercise to convene on an
urgent basis a gathering in Canada of groups such as that to seek
alternatives to the present approach which is merely, according
to NATO, reaffirming today more bombing and more air attacks.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, Canada is in a unique
position to take a leadership role whether within NATO, whether
at the United Nations, whether in the broader community of Canada
or whatever we do. If this is one way whereby we can bring civil
society together to seek solutions, I would certainly be 100 per
cent for it.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my learned colleague for the message he brought
to the House and indeed his colleague who spoke before him.
When we hear the news, as all Canadians have, we hear mention of
the Serbian army and then the Serbian police. Obviously both are
involved in this conflict. It would seem to me they are involved
for different reasons.
I attempted to distinguish between them and all I could gather
was that the Serbian police were a specially selected, specially
trained SWAT team. From the information I can get many of the
atrocities are associated with the police.
If this is the case and we bring it to a conclusion, will it be
more difficult to attach blame to the police rather than the
military?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, as much as I am
flattered by my colleague's faith in my judgment on these issues,
I must say in all humility that I just do not know. I believe
all the elements in society within Yugoslavia that have
participated in genocide of any kind, in massacres or in
disruption of people's lives on a massive scale should be brought
to justice, whomever they may be.
I cannot say whether the blame is with the police or the army. I
do not know enough about it from this distance to make a
pronouncement, but I believe after this is settled the culprits
should be brought to justice.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I too would like to associate myself with some of the
comments made by the hon. member. I would like to elicit his
views on the subject of sending NATO ground troops into Kosovo.
In my respectful submission it would be a terrible mistake to
involve NATO and Canadian soldiers in a ground war that could
result in the loss of many lives not only on the NATO side but
also on the Serbian side.
What are the hon. member's views with respect to the sending in
of ground troops? Would he not agree that it is important for
parliament to send a very clear message that it does not support
a ground war in Kosovo?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned during my
speech that my position was clearly that we should stand by the
commitment already made by our country. We would send a few
hundred troops only if a peace settlement is achieved, if a
ceasefire is achieved, a guaranteed ceasefire under a guaranteed
agreement. Canada should move in purely for peacekeeping
purposes and not send troops. I do not agree that the NATO
operation should be enlarged by sending troops of any kind into
Yugoslavia.
2045
[Translation]
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, as I rise
in the House this evening, I pray for all our military personnel
serving abroad, as part of NATO's allied forces, and for all of
those who are affected by this military conflict, or should I
say by this war.
It is a real shame that this liberal government, the so-called
government of openness and accountability, is merely holding
another one of these take note debates, at a time when this
country and its NATO allies are involved in an armed conflict
against Yugoslavia in Kosovo. We should have a real
parliamentary debate, followed by a motion put to the House.
This would give the government a mandate to deal with this
conflict and allow the Canadian forces to wage this fight
properly.
I think the job of the defence critic for the opposition is to
hold the government of Canada responsible for its actions. In
this case, it is to avoid needless losses of human lives.
The Liberal government has decided on a foreign policy of “soft
power” at the expense of military equipment of “firm power” and
has said to the Canadian people direct threats against Canada
and Canadian interests no longer exist.
Well, I have some news for the people sitting in the first rows.
First, perhaps their foreign policy is appropriate for signing a
treaty on antipersonnel mines, but it is not appropriate for
dealing with such people as Milosevic and his government, who
kill their own people and then lay antipersonnel mines to keep
Kosovars within borders and NATO outside.
Second, the world is sometimes a jungle and dictators are not
afraid to use force.
Third, all out wars, such as the second world war, may happen
only once or twice a century, but unfortunately they happen.
Fourth, small scale wars, regional wars and civil wars are far
more frequent.
Fifth, there is nothing new about civil wars, which I would like
to point out to the historian from Princeton who was surprised
by the brutality of Milosevic after years of tragedy in Bosnia.
This government did not take the history of international
relations into account and acted in a criminal fashion by
neglecting Canada's defence, for which it is responsible. The
defence of the realm is a government's primary duty.
We have here in front of us the Liberal government that
cancelled, for purely partisan purposes, a highly needed
program, namely the EH-101 helicopter acquisition program. It is
the Liberal government that sent Canadians to be taken hostage
in the former Yugoslavia. It is the Liberal government that does
not put bread on the table of military families.
It is the Liberal government that sends teams on search and
rescue missions in Labrador helicopters and, when they do not
come back, tries to take benefits away from widows and children.
So do not think for one minute that we will let the government
take action blindly in Kosovo and in the sky over Yugoslavia,
where a larger number of Canadian lives are in danger. The
Liberal defence and military management policy has given
Canadians Hong Kong and Dieppe, and the list could grow.
But now that we have been forced to take action by Mr.
Milosevic, NATO must wage a war that it must win. We are not
dealing with nice people in Yugoslavia. They are brutal and
cunning adversaries who will stop at nothing to get their way
and who have absolutely no respect for human life and human
dignity.
2050
NATO has committed to a battle from which it cannot withdraw
unless it is victorious. Withdrawal at this time would have
major repercussions.
But what is NATO's strategy? What is the strategic objective of
NATO? Can we attain the goals NATO and this government have
set?
Mr. Milosevic is cleansing Kosovo, and he is in the process of
attaining his own strategic objective. His regime is intact and
we have not yet seen the strongest elements of his military
machine in action against NATO. He is saving them for later.
He does not appear to be ready to give up, and western
journalists report that he has the support of the people.
What is our objective? To put an end to the ethnic cleansing in
Kosovo, to force Milosevic to pull out his military and
paramilitary forces, to get the Kosovar refugees back to their
homes and to guarantee their safety under the Rambouillet accord
and thanks to the intervention of soldiers responsible for
imposing and maintaining peace?
NATO wants to do this with a progressively implemented air
campaign, but we have been at this for nearly three weeks now.
Have we managed to attain either of the goals in question?
Probably not. NATO's declared objective is not being
concretized through air strikes.
Historically, the Battle of Britain and the raids on Dresden
notwithstanding, it is not air strength that wins wars.
According to the NATO supreme commander directing this
operation, General Clark, the bombardment will not put an end to
ethnic cleansing.
The chiefs of staff in Washington share that same point of view:
NATO's air strength will not be successful in making the
Yugoslav government listen to reason.
[English]
I have some advice. It is advice which is very simple. We
should define an achievable strategic objective that will put an
end to this human tragedy. We must find the means to do so. We
must be prepared to answer questions in the House. We should
look at the state of the Canadian forces and we should fulfil the
requirements set down in the 1994 white paper.
The Canadian forces are well trained, well motivated and have a
history which is second to none, but they lack key equipment, in
particular the army. This government cut military personnel and
the defence budget to the bone. If Canadians are needlessly
killed as a result of government negligence, then this government
will be held accountable.
The present government defined its defence policy with the 1994
white paper, which committed Canada to the maintenance of a
modern, combat capable, land, sea and air force to deal with
operations across the spectrum of combat.
In terms of implementing our national security objectives the
government directed the Canadian forces to provide a joint task
force headquarters and one or more of the following: an able
task group of four major service combatants, one support ship and
maritime air support, three separate battle groups or a brigade
group, a fighter wing and a transport squadron, and all this for
a grand total of 10,000 personnel at any one time.
The intent was to have the vanguard of this joint task force in
place within three weeks and the entire force operational within
three months. This was done having a regular force of 60,000
personnel. Can we do this today? Probably not. If part III
estimates for 1999-2000 are to be trusted we are going to be
below 60,000 next year.
2055
In terms of the navy, the government stated that there was an
urgent need for new maritime helicopters to replace the aging Sea
King. Five years later we have not even heard a call for
tenders, not even a statement of requirement. That is the
Liberal definition of urgent.
The government stated that it would consider replacing old
operational support vessels. We have not heard a thing about
Sealift since.
Canada's army was promised three adequately equipped brigade
groups and some 3,000 more soldiers in three light infantry
battalions.
The white paper called for new armoured personnel carriers to
replace the obsolete M-13 fleet.
There was also a discussion in very loose terms on the future
replacement of direct fire support vehicles. There was no
mention of a new main battle tank to replace the obsolete
Leopard. An army without a main battle tank will not survive in
combat. That is the end of that story.
The army has received most of its new armoured personnel
carriers in the form of the LAV-25. We have enough of those for
a good armoured reconnaissance regiment.
The three light battalions were created with about 3,000
soldiers. However, they are threatened all the time by cuts.
The air force was promised an upgrade of the CF-18 fighter
aircraft fleet. That is happening, although the government wants
to deny it every time we hear of yet another Sea King emergency
landing.
The CF-18s have received their precision guided munitions, but
the air force lost its in-air refuelling tankers and received no
new airlift capabilities. As of today Canada lacks both
strategic sealift and airlift capabilities and thus is forced to
rent these items on the open market or be dependent upon the
United States for any large military operation.
The lack of power projection capability is the Canadian forces'
biggest problem, after money of course. That is the central
issue. The white paper must be implemented if we are to project
our forces abroad effectively in support of foreign policy
objectives, including Kosovo.
Unfortunately, if the Kosovo conflict moves to the next phase,
it is likely that we will see NATO ground troops. If that is the
case, then the government will have to take a long and hard look
at the NATO plan and whether Canada has forces that are properly
trained and equipped for ground action.
In terms of ground operations, there are a number of issues that
need examination by parliament prior to deployment. For
instance, what are the objectives of the campaign? To create a
safe area within Kosovo? To partition Kosovo and Yugoslavia? Or
to invade Yugoslavia? How long does NATO make a commitment to
stay? How do NATO troops, our troops, get into Kosovo
considering the geographic realities of the Balkans and the lack
of infrastructure in either Albania or Macedonia? Will we send a
significant contingent, perhaps a battalion size group, or no
troops at all?
We do not know what the national command relationship will be.
What are the rules of engagement? We do not know how we will get
our troops over to Kosovo because we have no real sealift or
airlift capabilities. How will we sustain them in Kosovo? We do
not know which units of the Canadian forces will be sent, if any,
and whether they are trained for the mission before them. That
is very important.
Let us remember the criticisms of the Somalia mission and the
criticisms that the inquiry directed at the Canadian
predeployment to Somalia. This deployment to Kosovo could make
Somalia look like a Sunday school picnic.
Are we sending composite units that have never worked with each
other before? Are they all from one brigade group? What size of
contingent is going to Kosovo? Will we send more CF-18s over to
Italy to back up our ground troops and the soon to be increased
operational tempo? Where are the relief or reinforcements going
to come from?
Will we also maintain our forces in Bosnia? Or does this mean
that this is the end of the Bosnian commitment?
I point to the recently released Conference of Defence
Associations' strategic assessment that questioned Canada's army
organization and our ability to sustain our Bosnian forces.
They said that as the army is now configured, it uses every
resource at its disposal just to maintain that Bosnia commitment.
2100
Are we going to reorganize the army to better deal with these
long term commitments or are we going to maintain our current
core configuration and trade one taxing commitment for another
that experts claim is destroying the Canadian army? I think
Canadians want to know the answer to these questions and many
more prior to further deployments with our NATO allies and
further escalation of this conflict.
To clear up a couple of points that we had earlier, in 1990-91
there were three debates in the House, and two of them were
before a shot was fired. No one can say that it is the same
situation. These were all votes. We got this out of
Hansard so it is very clear that this happened before.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's debate. I
want to make a couple of comments and ask the member a question,
which does not really deal with the history but deals with the
emotional aspect of the situation.
In the fall of 1997 I had the privilege to visit Bosnia with the
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I
saw firsthand the consequences of that war on the lives of the
people and on the environment. It was a travesty to the human
condition, one that we must act against.
NATO's air campaign against Yugoslavia is aimed at bringing an
end to atrocities against civilians in Kosovo by diminishing the
capacities of the Yugoslav army. The military objective of NATO
has humanitarian or political consequences. Although the air
strikes are planned with the utmost care to avoid civilian
casualties, they nonetheless occur. We see this.
I ask the member how do I respond to so many of my constituents
who in the main are eastern European, many of them from Serbia?
How do I speak to them about this issue at present?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
the question. I guess it was more of a statement, a statement I
can follow along with.
I was also in Bosnia. I had a chance to talk to the people
there, to tour with our troops and to see the terrific job they
are doing. When I look at what happened in Bosnia it brings it
very close to home for myself. The area of Bosnia that Canadians
are patrolling right now is very similar to my home area, the
eastern townships, in the way the grounds are laid out. It is
very interesting to look at the fields with nothing planted in
them. They are all mined. I look at the job the Canadian troops
are doing there to try to get people back to a normal way of
life.
We are talking about a different situation in Kosovo. We have
to look very clearly at that and what our troops can do. All we
have talked about in the House, and we never voted on that, is a
peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. If we are going to do anything
else at this point, it has to come to a vote.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great interest. I was
baffled with the way he historically rhymed off some figures. He
talked about Hong Kong. He talked about Dieppe. Now he says if
they do not behave, we are going to go in there.
I wonder if my hon. colleague remembers which side of the allies
the Serbian people were on. I wonder if he remembers or if he
knows that these people might have been under Hitler at that time
and they were impoverished. They were under the German boot. Can
he tell me if he remembers which side they were supporting? Was
it the partisans not only of Serbia, but the partisans in Italy,
or the partisans in France, or the partisans in Greece? I could
go on and on. He mentioned nothing about it.
2105
The member talked about the Battle of Britain. Has my hon.
colleague dismissed all the people under hardship during that
period of our history, or has he simply chosen to ignore them?
My hon. colleague talked about our ability to keep sending
troops in and how they are undernourished and what the troops do
not have. Has my hon. friend across the way a sense of dignity
to say that we must act and act in peace without sending bombs
in, but get the people back to the negotiating table, or has he
forgotten that part of history too?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
hon. member for his question, but I am not really sure what he
said or asked. I find what he is talking about to be completely
irrelevant. It is his government that authorized the bombing. I
do not understand where he is coming from. The hon. member is not
very clear.
I made references to the disasters we have had before to come to
the point that we do not end up with another disaster of the type
that we had in Dieppe or Hong Kong and so on. So I do not
understand.
There is a long history in Yugoslavia on both sides. They have
gone both ways all through their history. It goes back at least
600 years and I am sure it goes back farther than that.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will make a comment and ask a question.
I listened to the hon. member's presentation. A good portion of
it covered our military in terms of equipment. He talked about
the Sea Kings and about replacements. I truly empathize with
what he said. We should not in any way put our military in danger
whether it is rescue or military services on the ground.
When he did touch upon the debate before us today he spoke
specifically about there having to be a war. He talked about “a
rise in his popularity at home” in referring to Milosevic. I
would like to comment on that. How did this individual's
popularity rise? There have been killings on both sides,
including innocent children and people on the Serb side. We must
admit that, irrespective of what CNN says. When somebody sees
their children, brothers or nephews being killed, they might not
like Milosevic, but they are going to bond together.
Unfortunately this is what is happening. That is why I believe
his popularity has gone. I do not know if the member agrees or
not.
About the second point that there has to be war, why must there
be war when right now we are seeking a political solution in my
view? In order to seek this political solution, does the member
agree that the Russians have to come to the table and the
Americans must find the will? Does he agree with this to really
move forward?
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the
member on the point of how Milosevic is becoming more and more
popular because of the conflict. It has helped his situation.
The other question was about why there should be war. I would
like to know what the Minister of Foreign Affairs has done at the
security council. That is a question we asked today. We find at
this point that there does not seem to be any results, nothing
solid out there. The minister has talked a lot, but he has not
come back to the House to tell us exactly what he did to try to
stop this situation, to try to move things ahead further.
On the war situation, Milosevic has declared war on NATO. So,
like it or not, we happen to be at war.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to remind my colleague opposite that the Minister of
Foreign Affairs was at the security council within the past month
on a human security agenda. He was trying to get exactly this
issue, the rights of civilians during this type of activity on
the agenda.
2110
I want to go back to the litany of shortcomings in equipment
that I heard during the hon. member's speech.
The reality is that the places that are housing and caring for
all the displaced people right now, Albania, Bosnia, Turkey and
Croatia, all these places with hundreds of thousands of displaced
people do not have a lot of resources. Indeed they have so
few resources that the large volume of refugees in their areas
could potentially destabilize their countries.
I want to ask the hon. member opposite what his view would be on
Canada's participation, maybe not today but in the near future,
after this goes, to help the economies of those countries facing
this crisis that is thrust upon them right now. What would his
view be on making the humanitarian effort on the ground? That is
the debate today. It is not a debate on helicopters and
equipment—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but I
have to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for
Compton—Stanstead, a short response.
Mr. David Price: Mr. Speaker, I would quickly answer by
asking about the minister's supposed trip to the security
council. If he did go, I am wondering why he has not made a
report to the foreign affairs committee to explain exactly what
he has done there to try to help the situation.
On the other side, what is important here is it is strange that
last week the government offered $100 million to help out the
refugees and now all of a sudden, it is reneging on the deal.
That is where we could be helping out. Those refugees need help.
That money could be spent over there. Now is when they need it,
not later on. These people are dying now.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to split my time with my hon. colleague
from Scarborough Centre.
A lot of the members today came here with prepared speeches. A
lot of the members came here today pretending that they know the
history of Bosnia. Well, to my hon. colleagues who pretend that
they know the history of Bosnia, to my hon. colleagues who have
travelled to Yugoslavia and to Kosovo and who say they know the
Balkan history, I say to them that they have another think
coming.
That part of the world has been in turmoil not for the last 50
years and not for the last 100 years, but we should say for the
last millennium. Since history has been recorded, that part of
the world has had atrocities done on both sides by all kinds of
people. The atrocities happening there have been by both sides.
It is not something new.
I can quote text and verse from 50 years ago, from 100 years
ago, from 200 years ago, the history of what has happened in that
part of the world. It was the Ottoman empire. Before that there
was the Byzantine empire. Before that was the Roman empire.
For my hon. colleagues who say that they know about Balkan
history because they have visited Bosnia, I say go read the
history and do not be ignorant.
I want to share a couple of e-mails I received from people who
are in the midst of this turmoil.
A lady from Kitchener wrote “If we, Canada, send in ground
troops to attack Yugoslavia, does that mean we are going to
declare war on Yugoslavia? If yes, are the Canadian born Serbs
and Serb immigrants going to be arrested as enemies and threats
to Canadian security? I am asking this because this happened to
Germans and Japanese during World War I and World War II”.
A lot of the people whom I have met from that part of the world
say if they walk down the street and say that they are Serbian,
people throw bad remarks at them.
Somebody from Quebec wrote “I believe that Canada should build
a safe world, creating world peace, security and a prosperous
world for our children and to secure international order, to
protect international law and the role of the UN”.
Somebody from New York City wrote to me. He said “Since
missiles do not choose their victims, children, young and old
people have been killed”. A civilian train was bombed off its
rails today. Last night there was the killing of nine and
injuring of 17.
2115
I will continue with another individual who wrote to say that
both sides have refugees. It is not only on one side, but there
are also the refugees from Yugoslavia who are in Hungary right
now. He quotes “She came to Budapest with her children about 12
days ago. She was paying for their shelter, as many other
Yugoslavs”.
I want to continue with a letter I received from a constituent
who told me he came from Russia and that he was proud to be a
Canadian. He wrote that the day he became a Canadian citizen was
one of the most remembered days in his life. He said he could
not recall a single occasion, prior to this event, when his
answer, “I am from Canada”, would not bring a friendly smile on
the face of any airport clerk or fellow traveller through all
eastern and western Europe. He said his feeling of becoming a
Canadian citizen, a full member of a peaceful, tolerant and wise
society respected all around the world, was overwhelming.
He closed his letter by saying “In the name of our future, the
future of Canada and the future of the world, I beg you to stop
this madness”.
I will continue on with an E-mail I received from another
constituent. He tells me that as a Serbian Canadian he is deeply
concerned over the recent action of the government against
Yugoslavia. He feels that not only was this action taken in
contravention of international law thereby setting a dangerous
precedent with far-reaching consequences of international
relations, but it is also in deep contradiction with Canada's
allotted role as a peace loving and peacekeeping nation.
I have a letter from another constituent who says that we do not
need anybody's human losses. She wants us to help the refugees,
the Serbians and Albanians, and to bring peace politically.
That part of the world is in turmoil. NATO acted because NATO
thought it had to act. I am not going to sit here and say NATO
did good or NATO did bad. The one thing, however, is that it
chose to act this time. NATO disrespected acting in previous
times. NATO did not act when the island of Cyprus was invaded.
NATO did nothing. It sat on its chair when genocide was
happening in Rwanda. It does nothing today in Kurdistan, in that
eastern part of Turkey where people are being prosecuted just as
badly.
I have about 6,000 Tamils in my riding. They sent me a copy of
a letter that went to the Minister of Foreign Affairs from the
Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils. They write in the
letter that the civil war in Sri Lanka not only predates the
Kosovo conflict by more than a decade, but also has claimed many
more lives, more than 75,000. They say that just like the
Albanians fleeing the Serbian onslaught, over 700 Tamils fled
when the Sinhalese army, after a bloody military campaign,
occupied the Jaffna peninsula.
They close their letter by saying that they are not asking the
hon. minister to bomb or use military force against the Sri
Lankan racist government as in the case of Yugoslavia. They are
simply asking the hon. minister to exert pressure on the Sri
Lankan government to withdraw the Sinhalese armed forces from the
Tamil homeland and seek a political solution to the ethnic
conflict.
Both groups on both sides are making comments. Both groups on
both sides believe they are right. It does not matter where the
conflict is in the world, whether it be the conflict between my
home country of Greece and Turkey, or Cyprus and the invading
armies, whether they are Serbians or Rwandans, whether the
conflict is here in Canada or it in America about 140 years ago,
the fact of the matter is that NATO has chosen to go in.
We are supposedly bombing military targets, but there is
overwhelming evidence that this is not the case. One has to ask
why we are there. Are we there because we have a particular
interest or are we there because we are the world policemen? If
we are the world policemen, will we continue tomorrow, or is this
a one time event? Will we go on from here? Will we go into Sri
Lanka? Will we ask the government of Turkey to stop oppressing
the people of Kurdistan, its own province? Will we ask all
oppressing governments to do this or did we just choose to go to
Yugoslavia because of different reasons?
Last week I had the opportunity of meeting with people.
2120
Last week I received 15,000 signatures on a petition from a
community in Toronto. The petition was addressed to the House of
Commons and party assembled. It reads, “We the undersigned
residents of Canada draw to the attention of the House the
following: that the Canadian government is blindly following the
careless and dangerous U.S.-NATO policy of bombing the sovereign
country of Yugoslavia and the Serbian people; that such policy
sets dangerous precedents and could only open the door for
foreign intervention in internal affairs of nations of
minorities; and, that violence will not resolve the Kosovar
problem but rather it facilitates the further entrenchment of the
forces on both sides. We do not want to see the residents of
Kosovo live in peace and harmony”.
I am not saying that the policy of bombing military
installations is right or wrong. I am supportive of our troops
over there. However, when we get reports that civilians have
been hurt it brings to mind a view that yes, we might be at war
but are we doing the right thing. The children of the world must
live in peace. It does not matter if they are Kosovars,
Serbians, Cypriots, Tamils, or Sinhalese.
I will support whatever action is needed in order to bring peace
to the world. I will support whatever action is needed to make
sure that our children, and God bless us all, live in peace.
To those men and women who are serving over there, as the
Government of Canada has asked them to do, I applaud and support
them. I say to them, “when you do you work, please make sure
you do not kill innocent people”.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have received confirmation from the office of the Minister of
National Defence that the U.S. does in fact use depleted uranium
in their chain gun on their A-10s.
I want to read a quote by Sara Flounders, co-director of the
International Action Centre and a contributing author of a book
entitled Medal of Dishonor: How the Pentagon Radiates
Soldiers and Civilians with DU Weapons. She states, “The use
of A-10 Warthogs with DU shells threaten to make a nuclear
wasteland of Kosovo. The Pentagon is laying waste the very
people along with their children that they claim to be saving.
This is another reason for fighting to end the attack on
Yugoslavia”.
Does the hon. member have any concerns about the fact that
depleted uranium is being used on the weapons that are currently
being deployed in Kosovo?
Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
hon. member for bringing that to the attention of the House. I
have read about this in approximately 30 e-mails that have come
to me. I seem to be the focus for e-mails and have received over
8,000 in the last week or so.
I can only confirm that statement by what I read from a
university professor in the European city of Saloniki in Greece.
He said that this will not only have an effect in Kosovo and in
Serbia but it will also spread into FYROM and to Greece. I am
really concerned with the situation.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, uranium bullets have been used in military hardware by
all sides for many years. It is because the uranium is heavy and
gets higher penetration. We should put that aside because it is
a red herring in this debate.
I listened very carefully to the member's speech and I
appreciated everything he said. Does he see any parallels, any
relationships, between what is happening to the Albanians in
Kosovo to what happened to the Armenians in 1915 as a result of
Turkey and the first world war?
Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon.
colleague for his particular question.
I would give him the following answer. If NATO or a similar
organization had existed at that time I wish it had acted.
However, there was an organization that did go in to help. The
only thing it did was uproot the people and drive them out of
their homes. It caused the Ottoman Empire to inflict more harm
on the people than it would have done. Maybe what NATO is doing
today is similar to that time.
2125
We have seen how many refugees were coming out of Kosovo before
NATO struck. After NATO struck, the number of refugees coming
out jumped and quadrupled. After watching television last night
and seeing refugees in FYROM, the former Yugoslavian Macedonian
Republic, behind barbed wire, it brought haunting images back to
my mind of when I visited Dachau in Munich at the age of five.
I say to my friends that peace is the one thing that we must
work for. We should not put aside the use of uranium.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
let me begin by thanking my colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt
for sharing his time with me.
Today as I stand to participate in this debate let me just say
from the outset that it is a very sad moment. When we, as
representatives, go to the people during campaigns, we go to the
people promising to improve our society, improve our nation, take
care of the deficit, create jobs and improve the future for our
children. We often say, for example, that our youth is our
future. If we indeed believe in that then today I say with great
sadness that we are killing that future whether it is here in
Canada or somewhere in Europe, in Serbia or in Kosovo.
I want to participate in the debate by going through some of the
events that have occurred over the past couple of months in the
House and in committee.
In a joint session not too long ago of the Senate and the House
of Commons, we had representatives from the United States,
specifically Mr. Robert McNamara, former U.S. defense secretary;
General Lee Butler, former commander in chief of the U.S.
defense; and Dr. Thomas Graham, Director of International
Security Programs, Rockefeller Foundation.
They wished they could have known then what they know today when
they were spearheading the U.S. activity and effort in Vietnam.
They came to Canada today to applaud us on our initiative and our
report in terms of ridding society of all the nuclear warheads
that are out there.
I hate to see what people like General Wesley Clark and others
are going to say maybe 20 years down the road. Are they going to
come to Ottawa and say “what a grave mistake we made back then
with the Kosovar situation?”
The people in Kosovo, like any other people on this globe,
deserve to live in peace. They deserve to raise their children.
They deserve to give their youth the opportunity that my children
and so many other children have here and all over the world.
It was sad when my colleague mentioned seeing the barbed wire
that I also saw. It brought back images of some documentaries I
saw about the holocaust. I said that this was another holocaust
happening. There were people in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia having cellular phones passed over to them so they
could get in touch with their relatives to see if indeed their
lives could improve.
I told Mr. Aragona in the foreign affairs committee a little
while ago that being in Europe was their responsibility. My
colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt touched on the fact that
unless one knows the people, the history, the diversity and what
happened 200 or 300 years ago, it is difficult to address the
problem. I refer to 1994 when the military came before a joint
committee to give us an update of what was happening in the
conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
2130
What did our military say? It said it was not sure if the
Croats were killing the Croats and blaming it on the other guys,
or if the Serbs were killing the Serbs and blaming it on the
other guys, or if the Muslims were killing the Muslims and
blaming it on the other guys. General MacKenzie to this very day
is admitting this. There is confusion as to who was doing what.
I am upset that unfortunately these atrocities are happening
today. My colleague touched upon the early 1900s and how sad it
was the way we started this century. Now we are starting to use
the words genocide and ethnic cleansing, et cetera. We started
the century with the ethnic cleansing that took place in the
early 1900s.
Earlier another colleague talked about the middle of the century
and the genocide of the Jews, sadly. Here we are about to close
the century with what? More genocide and more ethnic cleansing.
What a shame to all of us who live on the planet including me.
We talked about Rwanda. I want to take this opportunity to show
the leadership taken by this country and this Prime Minister. He
did not hesitate for a moment. He took the bull by the horns to
address that horrible situation. Later they said they should
have done more. It was as Mr. MacNamara and General Lee Butler
said: “Gee, we erred back in Vietnam”.
Earlier my colleague from the Conservative Party said that there
must be war and I asked him why. There is a political solution.
If the will is there we can find a solution.
As I suggested earlier and will suggest now, I firmly believe
that the United States has to work to bring the Russians to the
table. They can provide leadership, given the alliances and
relationships with the Serbian people historically. It is an
opportunity now.
I heard the Serbian deputy prime minister on television not too
long ago say “Please stop the bombing; we want to talk”. Why
are we not calling them out on that? Maybe he is misleading us
all. Who knows? Given the loss of life on both sides, why do we
not bring them to the table to see what their intentions are? If
they are prepared to deal in good faith then let us advance it in
a positive way. If they are not and they renege then I believe
we should consolidate with the Europeans and all the Balkan
regions.
I am glad my colleague from Hamilton put me at ease. When I
heard about the uranium I was concerned, not because of the
people in Serbia but because of the people in Italy, France,
Greece, Albania and all over that region.
When Mr. Aragona, head of the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe, was before the foreign affairs committee,
I asked him a few questions which I will repeat in the House. By
moving in as aggressively as we are, I believe we are setting a
very dangerous precedent. We know there are other hot spots
around the globe today. We see what is happening with the Basque
region. We see what is happening in northern Italy with the
separatist movement. We see what is happening in Corsica. I
heard on the news that up until about eight months ago the CIA
had the KLA on a terrorist list. Maybe it has changed. Maybe it
has been baptised. I hope it has but I do not know.
Let us try to hypothesize. What happens if bombs go off in
Corsica or in the Basque region and innocent people are killed?
Does that mean that NATO will suddenly move in and bomb these
people? I hope not.
We are setting a dangerous precedent. NATO is showing today
that it is not listening. When it was trying to sort out an
agreement in France all I heard was Madeleine Albright saying
“We are going to bomb”. Who is “we”? Is it the United
States or NATO? Why was Mr. Solana not the spokesperson on
behalf of NATO? With the Americans it seems to be Dodge City and
Gunsmoke all over again: shoot first and ask questions
later.
I support my government. It is trying to do the right thing.
As the Prime Minister said earlier today, not to choose is wrong.
We must choose. We as Canadians have set an example,
historically speaking. We have been in Cyprus. We have been all
over the world. We have a reputation, as a colleague from the
Conservative Party said, second to none. We owe it today to that
reputation to once again spearhead an effort to find a political
solution for the benefit of all these people.
2135
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I started
out by thinking that the member was for the government. Then in
the rest of the speech I was sure that he was opposed to what the
government was doing, but he ended by saying that he supported
what the government was doing.
I have a real problem. What the government has decided to do,
and we have agreed with it, is to bomb and I believe possibly
today the foreign affairs minister has agreed that if necessary
we might put in ground troops. Does the hon. member agree or
disagree with what the government will do?
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who sits
with me on the foreign affairs committee knows very well where I
stand on these issues.
I merely took this opportunity to outline some of the dangers in
this approach. NATO has decided, spearheaded by the United
States initiative, to use these types of tactics. I am simply
saying I feel that there was some room to take the agenda a bit
forward.
I do not believe that we have exhausted every possibility. I
believe that by taking the moves we did we in essence allowed
Milosevic to consolidate support. As the member mentioned
earlier he has gained popularity unwarranted. When I saw earlier
on television the youth from Serbia standing there as human
shields and demonstrating I was sad. Instead of those youths
holding high school, college or university in their hands, they
are holding up target images. I think mothers and fathers should
be busy providing for households.
If these are the tactics that are unfolding, so be it, but I
believe there is a political solution.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the very passionate remarks of
the member opposite. I know he has a great interest in the issue
and has spoken articulately about what he believes should happen.
To that end does the hon. member feel these messages are getting
through to the foreign affairs minister, a member of his
government? Have we done everything at the United Nations? Have
we done everything at the security council to get this message
across? Have we pursued every diplomatic end before taking these
steps and participating in bombing missions that are going on as
we speak?
All Canadians and all members of the House have seen the graphic
pictures, the graphic images of which he spoke of children and
the mass exodus of people being herded from their country and
their ancient homes like sheep. I am sure those images conger up
very passionate feelings not only in the member opposite but in
all members.
Has the Minister of Foreign Affairs pursued every possible
angle? Has the member opposite relayed those feelings to him
directly?
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from
what I have heard and in briefings that the minister is doing
everything within his power, within his means, and with whatever
is available to him to make sure the Canadian message gets
through.
I know my colleagues on this side are continuously putting
forward various arguments. It is not as simple as black and
white, as I mentioned in my presentation. The foreign affairs
minister and the minister of defence are trying everything
possible to achieve a peaceful resolution of this unfortunate
conflict.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Reform
Party member asked our Liberal colleague an excellent question.
2140
Since Canada decided, in a show of unity, to support the
objectives pursued by NATO, should the allies decide to send
ground troops, would the Canadian government endorse NATO's
decision to immediately send 200,000 troops to Kosovo, yes or
no?
[English]
Mr. John Cannis: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the member
from the Conservative Party, we are undertaking every initiative
to resolve the issue before we even get to that stage.
There are always contingency discussions unfolding. We would be
silly and foolish not to think. They are always planning in
advance what their next step will be. Today the military and the
political arena are planning. What will happen tomorrow or a
week or two down the road only God knows. Right now we are
hoping for a peaceful resolution.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, late last
month the House was informed by the foreign affairs minister and
the defence minister that Canadian forces aircraft were involved
in the operation in Kosovo. There was no debate. There was no
motion. There was no vote. Again we had a take note debate. We
really wonder who actually listens to take not debates.
The interest of this great country demanded that I put aside all
the reservations I might have had about that air involvement, and
my party and I supported it. Three weeks later here we are again
discussing a possible commitment of Canadian forces without a
votable motion.
I express my profound disappointment at the government's refusal
yet again to take the high road and bring forth a motion to allow
parliament to sit in committee of the whole and listen to expert
witnesses, then allow parliament to debate that issue and finally
end with a vote. That is what democracy is all about. That is
what the Canadian people deserve when it comes to an issue of
war. I am insulted and Canadians across the country should be
outraged at the government's failure to respect simple democratic
principles. We sell democracy around the world. Yet we fail to
practise it in the House.
As of March 24 I supported the current mission. Having said
that I too believe that the only resolution for the many problems
of the Balkans is through negotiation. I concur with so much
that has been said in the House this evening and this afternoon
that involvement of the Russians is critical in settling the
issue. Often in history one must go back to diplomacy, but
usually one finds that diplomacy must be backed up with military
power.
Once NATO committed itself to the solution of the Kosovar civil
war and once it got into the Rambouillet peace talks, its
credibility was put on the line. President Milosevic
underestimated the resolve of the western alliance. As each day
passes he increasingly desires a way out of the current
confrontation with NATO. We will eventually be able to negotiate
a settlement by keeping the pressure on. The best hope for long
term peace in the region is to stay the course.
We should continue with air strikes to degrade the Yugoslavian
military capabilities. Reports today say that is in fact
happening, that it is running short of fuel, that it is running
short of ammunition. That is good news for all of us and for the
people of Kosovo.
To convince Belgrade of the wisdom of negotiation will be the
diplomacy that is involved. Milosevic must be convinced that
there is a real opportunity to negotiate and that he must be
sincere if he returns to the negotiation table.
At this point in time and without further information I am not
in favour of committing Canadian forces to a ground campaign in
Kosovo. Canadians clearly want something to be done. The images
of ethnic cleansing demand a response, but Canadians are also
aware of the limitations of military capability.
2145
There are many issues that the government and NATO need to
address. I want to know what the actual objectives of such a
campaign are and what the likely exit strategy would be if we
were to go in with ground forces. I want to have some idea of
the resistance the military is expected to face. I want to have
a complete briefing on the potential casualties that we might
suffer. I also want a strongly worded, sincere and public
assurance that the Canadian forces are adequately equipped to do
the job.
The auditor general and military experts have repeatedly pointed
out the serious equipment problems faced by our land forces.
These issues should be seriously and honestly addressed by both
the defence minister and the chief of defence staff.
We are proud of our troops. We are proud of what they do, but I
too, like some others in the House, have seen them in operation
and feel sorry for them as they try to do their job with
equipment that is less than adequate.
Most important of all, I want the government to clarify why we
are in Kosovo. Why have we chosen Kosovo when there are 30 other
places where ethnic cleansing is occurring?
I want to be able to look the Canadian people in the eye and say
with total sincerity that I thought Canada's vital interests were
best served by engaging in a ground war. I want to be able to
tell Canadians that if some of their sons and daughters do not
come back from such a mission the sacrifice was worthwhile.
To date I do not have answers to any of these questions. The
government has not made a case for such an effort. It is the
government's job to make such a case. From the Prime Minister on
down the government seems indifferent and fails to deal with
these very serious considerations.
The entire Kosovo effort is also somewhat unsettling in another
perspective. In 1949 the country took an active role in creating
the North Atlantic Alliance. At the end of this month we will
celebrate the 50th anniversary of that alliance, but it is
unclear to me exactly what we will be celebrating in less than
three weeks' time.
The NATO engagement in operations over Yugoslavia does not seem
to be the defensive alliance that we helped to create in 1949.
Throughout the cold war the issues were admittedly much easier to
understand. Things are not as clear in the post cold war era and
nowhere is that perhaps more confusing than in the Balkans.
Therefore, we should be hesitant about jumping too quickly into
conflicts that are so very complex.
I am also concerned that NATO's actions today are damaging our
long term relations with Russia. We cannot construct a new
security order in Europe without the participation of a friendly
and satisfied Russia. Russian involvement will allow Mr.
Milosevic to allow an international force in Kosovo. Russian
involvement will allow NATO to stop bombing and to say that the
problem has been solved and an international force can take over.
I see Russia's involvement as being critical in this whole
issue. It seems clear that NATO's actions are not perceived as
being defensive by Moscow. In fact, they are seen as being very
threatening.
We can dismiss as posturing much of the rhetoric now coming from
Moscow. However, we must also look to the future and the day
when Russia is much stronger. It will remember the disregard to
its views that we are showing today.
The principal questions still remain unanswered. What is NATO
becoming? Is it being transformed, first by the peace support
operation in Bosnia and now by its mission in Kosovo?
2150
The 1991 strategic concept declares explicitly:
The alliance is purely defensive in purpose: None of its
weapons will ever be used except in self-defence, and it does not
consider itself to be anyone's adversary.
I do not think that anyone in this House today would argue that
the civil war in Kosovo directly threatened any NATO member. If
we accept the need to engage in this type of peacemaking, peace
enforcement or humanitarian mission, where do we draw the line?
In what region or in what conflict will we not intervene? What
will be the priority list that we set?
I have a list of over 30 countries that have recently
experienced ethnic cleansing in one form or another. We have
turned a blind eye to almost all of them. In Chechnya nearly
100,000 people were killed. Should NATO have responded? In
Sudan a war has been raging for 43 years and over one million
people have been killed. Should NATO have responded? This past
weekend in East Timor scores of people died. Will we ever forget
the image in Indonesia last year of 2,000 Chinese businessmen and
their families who were put inside automobiles and torched?
Should NATO have been involved?
We cannot expect that NATO should try to solve all of the
problems of the world. We really need to know what the limits of
NATO's activities will be. I do not believe that Canadians want
to support an alliance that repeatedly finds itself mired in
local and regional conflicts. That is not the NATO we joined in
1949. I do not believe that such an alliance is sustainable in
the long term. In my opinion we just do not have the human or
economic resources to sustain such an effort.
Let me be perfectly clear. It is in Canada's vital interest to
have a strong North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, but that alliance
will only be seen to be legitimate if it is defensive. I do not
see our people supporting NATO as a global policeman. As NATO
intervenes it risks becoming a part of the problem.
The situation in Kosovo is a case in point. By linking NATO
credibility to the peace settlement in Kosovo we have become a
combatant in a regional conflict. It is a conflict the
complexity of which I am not convinced the Liberal government
fully understands.
One can only begin to understand the issue by becoming familiar
with the history of the area. I am not at all certain that this
is being done. Today we are being overwhelmed by images of
Serbian atrocities in Kosovo, but these atrocities have occurred
on all sides. We are angered and disgusted when we see these
things, but we have to understand that this is nationalism, that
it is 1,500 years old, that it is part of something much bigger
than what we see simply on the surface. We seem to be creating a
NATO protectorate and that may not be in the best interests of
regional stability or in NATO's best interests. A protectorate
over Kosovo might demand that we remain there for a long time.
Even if we resolve the current war, I feel that there are long
term problems that we should be discussing. The question of the
ethnic Albanian population in the southern Balkans is one we will
likely have to confront in the future. The highest birth rate in
any part of the world is in that area.
Given that this war has likely raised national consciousness,
can we really expect that the ethnic Albanians will not one day
want to live together in a single state? That aim will pose a
serious challenge for existing borders. If this were to happen
Kosovo would only be a small part of what would become a very
major problem. The issue would embrace not only Kosovo, but
Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania and so on.
I mention these issues only to show how incredibly
interconnected ethnicity, politics and geography are in the
southern Balkans.
When I was there I visited nine classrooms. I visited bars,
hospitals and restaurants. I talked to the people. Only then
did I understand just how complex this problem really is.
2155
I have raised all of these questions for two purposes. First, I
want the Canadian people to know what I believe the Kosovo crisis
really involves. There is the humanitarian dimension of trying
to end the ethnic cleansing in that province, something we are
all disgusted with, and of seeking a solution to the long
simmering ethnic problems in the region. However, the stakes of
our involvement are far broader. It is also about the very
purpose of NATO itself in the post-cold war period.
Second, I raised these questions to indicate how this government
and in particular this foreign affairs minister have let
Canadians down. I suspect that we do not have a votable motion
before us today because the government does not want to confront
many of these issues. It wants a blank cheque to cover its own
failings. The government does not wish to talk about these
issues because it knows that Canada no longer has as much
influence in the world as it once had. Soft power has alienated
us from our NATO allies who no longer think of us as serious
international actors.
Thirty years of disregard and disdain for the armed forces has
left us without a credible voice at NATO military headquarters.
I have learned these facts by talking to Canadians, academics and
many foreign officials.
It is true that we still sit on the North Atlantic Council since
all members do, but our words just do not carry the weight they
once did. Our opinions are no longer as respected as they once
were. The legacy of effective Canadian diplomacy which led to
NATO's creation has been squandered by governments in the last 50
years. We are now marginalized. We are not part of the contact
group and there is a reason for that. Soft power has brought us
that.
It is often remarked that crisis focuses the mind. I hope that
the ongoing crisis over Kosovo has that effect on all members and
all parties in this House. The stakes involved are very great,
be they the lives of Canadian forces personnel or the vital
interests of this country. It is for this House to calmly and
deliberately contemplate the consequences of the actions now
being discussed. We must remember that each one of us as members
of parliament might have to stand in front of parents or
grandparents who will ask “What did my son or daughter die for
in the mud in Kosovo?”
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question for the hon. member is twofold. At the end
of his speech he asked the terrible question of how we will
explain our fellow citizens being put in harm's way by being
engaged in the present air operation or in some future operation.
I thought that his leader gave the answer to that question very
clearly in the House this afternoon in his speech. We are there
because of a moral imperative to be there. I thought his leader
put that very well. Is the member distancing himself from his
leader on the issue?
A second question comes to mind. I know the member is committed
to NATO, but he is very knowledgeable about foreign affairs. He
knows full well that NATO's mandate does not run to Chechnya,
Africa or Indonesia. Does he not fear that by raising these
sorts of fears in the minds of the Canadian public that he is
doing exactly what he says nobody should be doing, which is
putting in doubt the credibility of NATO, which as he knows is
committed to an operation in Europe and Europe alone?
Far-fetched examples from around the globe will only distract
people from a true understanding of what we are trying to achieve
in this debate.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am a supporter of NATO.
However, I believe that when NATO's mandate has gone beyond the
security mandate of defence, it is only right to ask these
questions. The parliaments of Britain and Australia, and the
U.S. congress and senate are openly debating this issue about
sending men and women into harm's way.
2200
It seems like the Prime Minister says we are un-Canadian if we
dare challenge anything the Liberal government does. Fortunately
I am in a party where I can say I think we need to have answers
before we commit our troops. Other members would say that we
should commit them, that we have all the answers we need.
However we should raise those questions. When I have to face
parents or grandparents I want to be able to say I asked all of
the questions before I gave a blank cheque.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to make a comment and then ask a brief question of the
member for Red Deer who gave an excellent speech on the history
of the whole Balkan area and the nature of the many hundreds of
years of conflict and hatred which have existed in that area and
have flourished for some strange reason.
This whole undertaking could have probably been best done under
the United Nations, but we must look at the United Nations and
the ineffective way it conducts its mandate to try to keep peace
in the world.
Like the hon. member I asked many of the same questions during
discussions in our caucus. I too am very concerned about
Canadian soldiers and Canadian personnel being involved in a
conflict where there may be no apparent solution, or if there is
one it will not last for very long.
I ask all those questions and I come up with the answers. I
have to say to the hon. member that I would not want to have
lived during 1939 to 1945 when the world sat on its hands for a
long period of time and watched what happened with the Nazis,
Hitler and the Holocaust.
I have come to the conclusion that even with the ineffectiveness
of the UN somebody had to step in. NATO seems to be the only
body willing and able to do it. Did the hon. member not come to
the same conclusion? When nobody else will step in to keep the
peace in the world, does NATO not have the obligation to do it?
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of those
things. I am extremely upset that the UN has declined to the
point it is at today where it is ineffective and unable because
of bureaucracy, because of the veto and so on to deal with any
world issues. We could go back to Rwanda and so on where it
failed to react.
I did come to the conclusion that air strikes were a way to
drive Mr. Milosevic to the table. I still hold that feeling. I
am glad that NATO got involved. We supported that and continue
to support that.
However there may well be another step. That is the step that
should be openly debated. All of the facts should be put
forward. There should then be an opportunity for members to vote
on whether or not to do that. Then they will be able to
accomplish that face to face I described at the end of my speech.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
appreciate it if the hon. member who just spoke could inform the
House and, consequently, the public, as there seems to be a
communication problem.
People who are watching us at home have a right to be informed.
They heard about the possibility of a world conflict. Could the
hon. member inform the House, because he told us he was opposed
to sending in ground troops? Could he tell us if the 18 days of
air strikes have shaken Kosovo enough to make it possible to
negotiate and avoid having to send in ground troops?
Having sent planes in for 18, 19 or 20 days, we look a bit
ridiculous. It is vital that the Minister of Foreign Affairs,
the Minister of National Defence, or NATO inform the public, at
least the Canadian public, so that we know what we are up
against. What will become of the refugees?
In the course of numerous conflicts, Canada's role has been
primarily that of a peacekeeper.
2205
Canada's role in the war in Kosovo is a far cry from putting up
tents and distributing bread to the hungry. The F-18s have been
brought out and now there is talk of even more advanced
weaponry. I would like the member to inform the House and
therefore the public, which is undoubtedly listening to this
debate in the hope of being better informed.
Does the member think that Kosovo has been sufficiently rattled
by the 18 to 20 days of combat to bring President Milosevic back
to the negotiating table in the very near future, or is a ground
war inevitable?
[English]
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, this brings up a very
important point. I think the member asked three things. I
believe people are not well informed about the Balkans. I must
admit it has taken me six years of concentrated effort and a lot
of talking with ambassadors from the various areas and the people
involved, including the Russian ambassador, to understand the
complexity of the issue.
We owe the Canadian public this information. That is why the
House should be full with 301 members and why we should have a
debate. A take note debate should be an information session.
Then people intelligently know the views rather than get them
through the filter of the media.
Do I think the 18 days of bombing have had an effect? I believe
it is starting to. Tomorrow the G-8 is conducting negotiations.
The G-8, with Russia as a member, is involved. The OSCE with 55
countries is also in full negotiation. Russia is a member of
that. I believe getting Russia into that international peace
force will allow both sides to step back and let negotiation
work. The combination of bombing and that can probably stop this
thing. That is how I see it happening.
Do I know that it will work? Obviously not, but at least there
is a plan that I can understand. The meetings of the G-8
tomorrow in Bonn are extremely important. They might put on
additional pressure. It will not be a NATO mission any more,
which would make me happy. It will then become a much broader
base. It further points out how the UN is not able to handle
this sort of thing.
The hon. member also asked about refugees. Obviously Canada has
a role in that regard as well. For a long time we have accepted
true refugees. At this point the main thing we should do in this
crisis situation is make sure they are well taken care of where
they are, as best we can deliver. There are now 80 flights a day
into Macedonia and 60 flights a day into Albania carrying relief
effort. That has solved the problem literally in the very short
term.
I believe we are taking care of that. NATO is doing a great job
in that area. Ultimately let us find out who wants to go back
and who wants to become a refugee. Then we will solve that
problem in due course.
Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Laval West.
I listened with great interest to the debate so far and I do not
wish to repeat that which many hon. members have said in the
House. It is clear from what I have listened to in the debate
that most of our colleagues are in favour of the government's
action and of NATO's action as it presently takes place. Some
have even made it clear that they would support further action,
including ground troops under certain circumstances if our
humanitarian aim to return the people of Kosovo to their homes is
not met.
All hon. members of the House recognize that our action raises
difficult issues. The hon. member for Red Deer just referred to
some of them. The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt also
referred to some of them.
The issue of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Yugoslavia in traditional international law terms and in
traditional diplomatic terms is a very serious issue that we must
consider.
The future of the United Nations system given NATO's role without
specific UN security council sanction raises issues in itself
which require serious consideration in the House.
2210
Finally, among many other issues is the suffering of many
innocent people in Yugoslavia. We must recognize that in seeking
to stop the government of Mr. Milosevic and his war making
machine others are paying the price.
All of us have many constituents with families asking us to
bring an end to the situation. Those same constituents also
recognize that ultimately the solution to this issue, the
solution to the problem in the Balkans, will be the restoration
of democracy in Yugoslavia, the restoration of an open, tolerant
and pluralistic society in that area. That is how we got where
we are by virtue of the existence of a dictatorship which did not
stumble into the issue.
The member for Red Deer raised issues of the complexities of
life in the Balkans. Members will recall that Bismarck said in
1888 “If another war occurs in Europe it will be because of some
silly thing in the Balkans”. We are still wrestling with the
complexities of the ending of the Turkish empire, the whole issue
of the complexities of relationships of peoples in the Balkans.
When we look at this issue we know that it was planned by one
mastermind. It was planned by the government of Mr. Milosevic.
Recent evidence is showing that military leaders who were
opposed to him were dismissed, that troops were put in with the
specific issue of conducting ethnic cleansing, and that this
would have gone on if we had done nothing and sat there. We were
therefore forced to face this awful choice.
Would we sit there and do nothing as the member for
Beauharnois—Salaberry said in the debate earlier this afternoon,
or, as another member just said, what about the analogy of 1939?
Would we sit there and do nothing, let it happen and run the
certainty that there would have been over a million refugees in
Macedonia and in other countries in the region, threatening the
security of Europe for the next how many years?
How long would these million or million and a half people live
in squalor and in refugee camps? Have we not seen the refugee
camps in Palestine? Have we not seen refugee camps in other
places where whole generations of people have grown up as
refugees outside their countries? Could we in all honesty
tolerate that situation to happen again if we had an opportunity
to deal with it?
As the member for Red Deer's leader said this afternoon, did we
not have a moral imperative to deal with it? Did we not have a
right or a duty to say yes, this creates a difficult precedent?
Yes, it raises difficult issues of sovereignty. Do we not have
an obligation to ask ourselves whether we are living in a changed
world, a world in which we have learned the lessons of failure to
intervene in grave cases such as Rwanda or even the second world
war?
Are we not living in a new world where humanitarian rules and
humanitarian considerations prevail, rules that are being evolved
by the international criminal court, by the Pinochet case and by
other precedents which are telling us that national sovereignty
is not what it used to be, that leaders can no longer in their
own countries treat their population the way they wish and be
able to get away with it because of a 19th century doctrine of
national sovereignty?
We must deal with this because we are obliged to. Our peace and
security are threatened when we see such situations developing
with the terrible humanitarian consequences of millions of
displaced people being pushed out of a country because of the
iron will of one government and one man.
That is why the Prime Minister and the leaders of all other
parties were of the view today that we must continue with this
until there is a solution. That solution is that the Kosovars
must go home. That is the moral imperative of which the leader
of the Reform Party spoke this afternoon. That is the answer to
the objections that the member for Red Deer has raised in the
House this evening.
2215
When members have said use ground troops if necessary that is
what they are trying to deal with, recognizing that if that comes
there would be an important role for a possible Russian
contingent in such a force. This would be difficult but Russia's
present prime minister, Mr. Primakov, is a very able and skilful
diplomat. He may yet be able to bring some helpful resolution to
this horrible problem.
I want to raise two other issues which I do not think have been
considered in any great detail in the House today.
The first is that of Montenegro. We owe it to ourselves and to
the people of Montenegro and their courageous president, Milo
Djukanovic who has managed to keep his people out of this
conflict, to ensure that we and our NATO allies do nothing that
would push his people into a war situation. He has so skilfully
and ably resisted the terrible pulls in that region and has saved
his people from the scourge of this conflict. I hope that our
NATO allies and our government are doing everything to ensure
that peace will reign in that one small area of sanity that still
prevails in that region.
Second, I hope that we will turn our minds to the issue of what
will happen after. The leader of the New Democratic Party raised
this in the House this afternoon. I support her position.
We have to be in a position to consider rebuilding the society
after this is over. To intervene today and leave a totally
destroyed society would be irresponsible. We cannot do that. We
are now engaged, it seems to me, in a situation to ensure that
Kosovars return to their homes, but they must return to homes.
We will have to make sure that when this is over we will be
engaged in a process to enable them to return to a real society
that we help build together.
We also must make sure in Serbia itself, in Belgrade that the
citizens know that when Mr. Milosevic goes, and he will
eventually go at some time, and a new, open and liberal society
is developed in that country, we will be there to help rebuild.
Otherwise all we have done up to now will have been a total waste
of time.
I ask members of the House that when we are calling for action
today, let us not forget the humanitarian aid we are looking at.
Humanitarian aid will have to extend well beyond that of helping
refugees in their place. Humanitarian aid will have to go in the
long term to rebuilding a society, to rebuilding democratic
institutions and an infrastructure that will enable reasonable
life to return to that area. Only if we look at this long view,
only if we deal not only with the present crisis, but recognize
the root causes of it, will we be able to avoid the problems that
have led us here.
Only if we follow the road of recognizing that there is a new
society with a new rule of law applicable to the Pinochets, the
Rwandans, the Milosevics and others will we be able to assure
ourselves that this will not reoccur and we will not be debating
this issue at another time in the House in other circumstances.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to commend the hon. member on his presentation. It was a
very good one and very well thought out as well.
I want to make a comment and ask him a question. It is
regrettable that we did not get the chance to debate this matter
before our air force was committed to military action. The
bottom line now is that we are embroiled in a military conflict
overseas. I am sure he is aware that many military experts feel
that this will inevitably lead to the involvement of ground
troops. Polling seems to indicate that a majority of the Canadian
public currently support the government's position on this
particular issue.
I wonder if the hon. member would comment on whether in his
opinion that government support will hold if we get into an all
out war in the hills and mountains of Kosovo, a war that would
inevitably lead to casualties on both sides.
2220
Mr. Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, I think there is a premise
in the question which I would urge the hon. member to reconsider
in saying that this matter was not debated before we engaged in
the aerial operation we are presently in. The member will recall
that we had a debate in the House in February around the issue of
the Rambouillet accords.
As I recall, at that time it was understood in the debate that
if the Rambouillet accords were not adhered to, Mr. Milosevic
would have to recognize that air action would be taken. My
recollection was that we and the members of the House believed
that was necessary to bring Mr. Milosevic to that position.
It did not succeed and the member then asks and very rightly so,
what happens next if we go to ground forces? That decision can
only be taken with an extreme degree of caution. I think the
Prime Minister has been very cautious on this issue. He has made
it very clear that this is even in his view not the time to
discuss it.
If we are to discuss it, then let us make it clear it would only
be done in circumstances where we would be assured that
militarily the operation would be with the best possible
assurance that the casualties would be minimal. We cannot ever go
into a ground action and say there will be no casualties. That
would be irresponsible. But we can certainly make sure that it
is planned and directed in a way in which those would be an
absolute minimum. That would require a great deal of planning, a
great many ground forces and a lot of commitment before we got
there.
I would not by any means suggest to the member that I as a
responsible member of parliament would take that obligation or
that idea lightly. It would be an extremely complicated and very
difficult step. Given the humanitarian considerations we are
looking at, we may well end up there rather than face the
alternative which would be to say to Mr. Milosevic “You achieved
what you want. You have a totally bombed out and destroyed
society, but you have got it, you have got your piece of earth
and others will not live there”.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I often
agree with the general premise the chairman of our foreign
affairs committee puts forward and certainly the last one
regarding the rebuilding that will be necessary.
I also agree with him that if we rebuild the infrastructure and
we build the economic well-being of the people in Serbia and
Kosovo that we probably can create a peaceful situation. The
problem with that whole thing is it is like Haiti and other areas
which we have discussed. We know if we have a 30 to 50 year plan
of rebuilding and reconstruction from the grassroots up,
including the education system, the hospitals and all that goes
with that, that we probably could accomplish it.
The problem is dollars and the commitment of any government
anywhere in the world to 30 to 50 years of rebuilding. Does the
member really believe we can assure the people of Serbia, as he
mentioned, or the people of Kosovo, that we will be that
committed?
Mr. Bill Graham: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a very
fair question. It is a question of dollars and I do not disagree
with the member, but we also have to ask ourselves, are the
dollars more? At the moment every Cruise missile costs $1
million or whatever the amount is. There is the possible loss of
life on going in to solve this. If we are going to allow this to
happen again, if we do sort this out, is it going to be a longer
term pain for a short term gain, instead of the reverse? We
really have to look at it.
I think the member will agree with me because he and I have
travelled together to Bosnia and we have looked at this
situation. The NATO or SFOR protectorate to call it that which
exists in Bosnia is a long term operation. He would agree with
that. It requires a significant commitment to re-education, to
long term understanding of democracy building and otherwise. I
think he would agree with me that there are bright spots in
there. There is a reason for encouragement. There is a belief
of a lot of people in the world today that the old-fashioned way
of settling things through wars is not going to take us anywhere
successfully. We have to work toward that.
I agree with the member entirely that this would not be cheap,
but the war we are otherwise going to engage in to solve it would
be more expensive.
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to have this opportunity to speak to the motion regarding the
human tragedy which has been happening in Kosovo.
The situation in Kosovo and surrounding countries is desperate.
This is a humanitarian crisis involving hundreds of thousands of
people forced to flee their homes. Once they get to the border,
they are stripped of their passports, their dignity, their
heritage.
This is one of the worst forced exodus of civilians in Europe
since the end of the second world war.
2225
According to unconfirmed reports, there are up to 800,000
displaced Kosovars, 150,000 to 200,000 of whom are said to be
without shelter. A large number of them are being harassed by
Serb authorities, and are in a dreadful state, suffering from
shock, malnutrition and hypothermia. We had to act, we could not
stand idle before such a disaster.
I am very proud that our government has consistently co-operated
with the international community to put an end to this conflict
by promoting a fair political settlement allowing refugees to go
back to Kosovo without fearing for their security.
During a crisis such as this it is important for people not to
lose track of underlying causes.
Therefore I would like to recall how the crisis started and how
Canada responded to the events.
[English]
We should bear in mind that before Mr. Milosevic rose to power,
Kosovo was made up principally of ethnic Albanians and had
constitutional autonomy. That right was stripped away by Mr.
Milosevic in 1989. From that point forward he has deliberately
implemented a plan to impoverish and oppress the Kosovars. Early
last year his security forces mounted a campaign against innocent
civilians similar to the ethnic atrocities we witnessed in both
Croatia and Bosnia.
[Translation]
Canada supported the systematic efforts by our allies to settle
the situation diplomatically. Last year, two UN resolutions
failed to achieve an end to the fighting in Kosovo. Canada
would by far have preferred a diplomatic solution—we have said so
and we have repeated it—as we have indicated to Mr. Milosevic,
who preferred to ignore the honest warnings given.
An agreement was reached, finally, under threat of NATO's air
power. It established a ceasefire and provided for the
intervention of an observation mission headed by the
Organization on Security and Co-operation in Europe that would
ensure the provisions were followed.
In addition, the agreement provided for the imposition of strict
limitations on the deployment of Yugoslav security forces, but
Mr. Milosevic unfortunately did not keep his word. The Yugoslav
forces violated the ceasefire and conducted a campaign against
civilians that clearly contravened international human rights.
The Yugoslavs increasingly defied the allies over the next four
months, as the increased violence and specific incidents, such
as the massacre at Racak, testified. Despite all, we continued
all our diplomatic efforts, such as the discussions held in
Rambouillet, France.
In these negotiations, we tried to find a diplomatic solution
that would balance the interests and demands of the two parties.
The provisional agreement reached provided, among other things,
for greater autonomy for Kosovo within the federal republic of
Yugoslavia. It did not affect in any way the territorial
integrity of Yugoslavia. The agreement demanded of both parties
the courage to make compromises.
[English]
In the end the Kosovars showed the courage to sign the
agreement. However, Mr. Milosevic was only interested in gaining
precious time. The diplomatic track has run its course. Our
vision and our commitment to leave no diplomatic stone unturned
were once again rewarded by Mr. Milosevic's unwillingness to
stand by the agreements he had made or to seek a peaceful
solution. In fact, he continued the build up of his forces
during the Rambouillet process.
Let us be clear about one thing. We have no quarrel with the
people of Yugoslavia. It is Mr. Milosevic and his government
which bear responsibility for this human tragedy. Now we have
been forced to turn to a measure of last resort, military force.
This was not an easy decision nor a hasty one. But the interests
we seek to preserve and protect in this region are significant.
Peace and stability in Europe has always been a pillar of
Canadian security policy. Our interest in restoring and
maintaining that stability is as great today as it was in the
past.
2230
[Translation]
The goal of NATO's air strikes is obvious: reduce the capacity
of Yugoslavia's forces to attack the people of Kosovo. Kosovars
themselves admit that it is not these military operations that
caused the present tragedy.
The operations seek to prevent an even worse humanitarian
disaster and to prevent the instability to spread elsewhere in
the region. We are using both diplomatic and military means to
reach our goals.
The first phase of air strikes was aimed at reducing the
capacity of the very powerful air defence system of Yugoslavia
and, hence, to reduce its threat to NATO's pilots. The day
following the raids, Yugoslavia broke off its diplomatic
relations with the United States, Great Britain, Germany and
France.
In response to the intensification of Yugoslavia's offensive in
Kosovo, NATO decided to launch the second phase of operations,
namely to attack the armed forces of Yugoslavia and reduce their
capacity to harm Kosovars.
Because of the intransigence of Mr. Milosevic, waves of refugees
crossed the border into neighbouring countries.
On April 3, some 320,000 Albanian Kosovars had already fled
Kosovo or were gathering at the border in the hope of seeking
refuge in Albania, in the former Yugoslavian Republic of
Macedonia and in Montenegro, whose governments are more tolerant
than the Serbian government, and elsewhere. Refugees represent
an enormous challenge for those countries, which are very poor
and can hardly meet their own basic needs.
Since the beginning of April, NATO attacks have intensified,
though the goal of operations remains the same, to reduce and
eventually destroy the resources used by Mr. Milosevic to wage
war against citizens of his own country.
Canada has contributed effectively and with determination to
these military operations.
Our CF-18s, with their state of the art equipment, and NATO's
AWAC aircraft, that are operated in part by Canadian crews,
control the air space and guarantee the effectiveness of
strikes, with the essential help of support personnel.
We should not forget that, at the same time, the Canadian
government is doing its share to help the affected population
and has provided to date over $18 million in humanitarian help.
Right here in Canada, when the government has announced on April
5 that it would receive 5,000 refugees, Canadians opened their
hearts and started preparing their homes to welcome the
Kosovars.
Activities in Canada to support a lasting peace in that part of
the world have included permanent support for the international
criminal tribunal for former Yougoslavia.
We want to make it clear that Yougoslav leaders will be held
responsible for all the crimes they have committed or allowed to
be committed in Kosovo. We will not let Mr. Milosevic's
government and armed security forces to continue their action in
Kosovo.
As a loyal and effective member of NATO, Canada is striving,
along with its allies, to find a solution to this conflict and
to promote a fair political settlement that will allow refugees
to go back in their country in safety.
I think Canada should persevere in its efforts, and I know that
Canadians share my position.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech tonight with
great interest.
One of the things that many people are concerned about in Canada
and indeed around the world with respect to this present conflict
is its possible escalation.
I was very pleased earlier today to hear the Prime Minister say
that he was not adverse to a truly international peacekeeping
force rather than simply a NATO force, which was one of the
conditions of the Rambouillet accord. Of course, by the very
nature of the fact that the NATO force is now viewed by the
Serbians as being the aggressor, I think increasingly that
condition is unacceptable to Serbia; not just to Milosevic, to
whom it may or may not be of concern, but it is certainly
unacceptable to the Serbian people.
2235
I wonder as a member of the government if the hon. member could
comment on what her view is with regards to Russia playing a
greater role in a potential international peacekeeping force and
why we continue to hear that Canada is not making any concerted
effort to approach the Russians, to make any overtures toward
them to try to have them involved in a much more substantive
manner, in much the way that they were involved in brokering the
Rambouillet accord. If we are going to have a negotiated
settlement at some point in time, I think it is incredibly
important that the Russians be involved.
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank
the member for his question. It brings up a point that I would
have liked to have addressed in my earlier remarks.
Historically Russia has been an ally of the Serb population for
several centuries. I would certainly hope that Russia would step
in. Russia has certainly tried to help by talking to Mr.
Milosevic, but from what I understand things are at a standstill.
I agree with the hon. member that it would be extremely useful
for the Canadian government to stretch out a hand in dialogue. I
will put it in those terms. Both Canada and Russia should sit
down with other nations concerned, possibly the United States, to
see what could be done.
In terms of NATO, our efforts so far have been to try to weaken
the Serbian military force.
I disagree with the member that Milosevic is not an important
person. He is key to what is going on in that part of the world.
I think it is important for Canada to move forward in a
proactive way and to reach out to Russia.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
want to go back to the role of the House of Commons and
parliament in this debate. It seems that speaker after speaker
from the government benches has defended the idea that the House
of Commons should not be involved in this decision except to have
a general discussion, but not to actually have a vote.
Sometimes in this place we vote on the most absurd and silly
things. However, we cannot seem to get the government to commit
to a vote if we are going to have a declaration of war. It is my
belief that that should never happen.
I am in full agreement with the comments made by the Prime
Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in 1990-91 regarding the
Iraq war. At that time they said that we should not go to war,
and we should not commit troops, unless we hold a vote in the
House of Commons.
I would even go so far as to say that in the Constitution of
Canada there should be a provision that we cannot commit troops
to a military engagement, attacking another country, unless it
comes to the House of Commons first. No cabinet, no 30 or 40
individuals in this country, should have that kind of power.
How can this government member not agree with me when I say that
there must be full and complete disclosure, that there must be
full and complete discussion in this House on the costs, the
refugee problems, how many troops are going to be committed and
the danger as this conflict escalates to a ground war? How can
anyone in this House not say that we should have a vote before we
commit any further to this conflict in Yugoslavia?
[Translation]
Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member
answered his own question when he said, and quote:
[English]
We should have a vote before we commit to sending ground troops
into Kosovo and Serbian territory. I could not be more in
agreement with that. The Prime Minister repeated time and time
again today during question period that at this time there is no
question of our committing any Canadian ground troops and that if
there ever was any question there would be a debate in this
House and a vote.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased
to take part in tonight's debate, but also a bit weary at having
to do so, because it is always hard to address humanitarian
crises that are not under control and that can lead God knows
where.
2240
For the benefit of our fellow citizens who might not have had
the opportunity to follow the daily coverage of this crisis in
the papers, I think it would be useful to give an overview of
the situation.
On March 11, before NATO started its air campaign, the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Sadako Ogata,
estimated that more than 400,000 people had been forced to flee
their homes since the beginning of the conflict in March 1998.
Among them, 230,000 were displaced within Kosovo itself.
On March 24, the very day the air campaign started, Kosovar
refugees totalled 450,000 people, including 260,000 inside Kosovo.
In only 13 days, the number of displaced persons has increased
by 30,000.
The last solution proposed by the Assembly was the international
peace conference in Rambouillet, France. This conference ended
in a peace plan which the Kosovars never signed. In a word, this
peace plan extending over three years provided for a substantial
level of autonomy for the Kosovars, but always within
Yugoslavia.
Moreover, it provided for the deployment of NATO troops to
ensure the enforcement of that plan. It is this last element
that President Milosevic rejected, foreseeing the partition of
Kosovo from Serbia at the end of the three years, and occupation
of his territory by a foreign force.
It is therefore to put an end to the violence of the Serbian
authorities against the Albanian population of Kosovo, which
represents 80« of the total population, and to try and convince
Milosevic to accept the Rambouillet accord, that NATO conducted
air strikes against the Yugoslavian army.
It is essentially for the same reasons that Canada agreed to
participate to the NATO'S Allied Forces operation. Canada also
recognized that as long as this conflict was permitted to last,
it could result in major humanitarian disasters and destabilise
the whole region at the same time. This is why Belgrade's
acceptance of the Rambouillet peace plan had become essential
from a Canadian standpoint.
The Bloc Quebecois supported the NATO military intervention in
Kosovo and Yugoslavia because it felt and indeed, like all the
NATO countries, still thinks that it is better to try to do
something in Kosovo than to let a situation that has been going
on for 10 years continue to deteriorate.
But time is a very significant and legitimate time factor with
respect to the air strikes in Yugoslavia. I questioned the
Minister of National Defence about it in this House, but he did
not answer. My first question was about the air strikes. I asked
him how long they would go on—weeks, months perhaps—before any
result can be achieved. Do NATO countries all agree to keep
bombing Yugoslavia much longer before considering other options?
Mr. Speaker, members are presently having a private conversation
near me and that bothers me. Would you please ask them to tone
it down a little or to take their conversation somewhere else.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask hon.
members to please be a little more quiet.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin: As I was saying, while NATO pursues its air
strikes, the exodus is continuing. The massacres are continuing
and the ethnic cleansing started a long time ago is
intensifying. If our goal is to stop the dreaded genocide, the
crimes against humanity and the exodus, we must ask ourselves if
all of this will not be a fait accompli in a few weeks.
We will then ask ourselves: What is the use of going on?
2245
If, for the time being, Russia's opposition remains mainly
rhetorical, who is to say that, in a few weeks, this opposition
will not take a more active form, such as the sending of
military equipment or countering NATO action?
If NATO members are really committed to solve the problem in
Kosovo and to make sure refugees return to their homes, they
must set a deadline which, if crossed, will entail other
military or political action, including ground troops.
While his military storage sites are being bombarded, an armed
Milosevic is going around getting rid of refugees, doing what he
wants, acting freely on his territory, and we are attacking
buildings and storage sites. If this were to go on for too long,
it is very likely that Milosevic would have the time to do what
he intends to do, and even though his weapon storage sites have
been destroyed, he would have achieved his goal.
Lets us look at what has been gained from a few weeks of
bombing. In Albania, for example, more than 500,000 refugees are
crammed in camps, schools, factories, hospitals and Albanian
foster families. Living conditions as reported by international
agencies are described as “not too bad”. However, Albania will
not be able to cope for very long without substantial assistance
from the international community.
In Macedonia, more than 115,000 refugees are crowded into camps
surrounded by barbed wire and controlled by the Macedonian
authorities. Conditions are very difficult, and the Macedonian
authorities have warned the international community on several
occasions that they could not take in any more. Most of the
refugees are women and children.
There are 25,000 refugees in Bosnia as well. There are 60,000
in Montenegro and 6,000 in Turkey. Over 100,000 middle aged and
young men have disappeared. In Kosovo itself, over 500,000
persons have been displaced. They are either in hiding, on the
roads or have sought refuge in the country.
So, for the moment, some 800,000 Kosovars are still in their
homes, that is, less than the original population of this
country, which was some 1,800,000.
Macedonia's parliament issued an appeal for help to the
international community. Initially, the Macedonian
parliamentarians asked for financial and material help and
support for the NGOs in order to take charge of the refugees.
Macedonia has already spent $200 million as a direct result of
the atrocities committed in Kosovo, of an annual gross domestic
product of $3 billion. That is fairly close to 10%.
The parliament also asked NATO members to take in refugees in
order to give their countries relief, and this explains the
hasty agreement by NATO countries to take in refugees.
Some 30% of the Macedonian population were Albanian speakers,
and the authorities feared the ethnic balance would be upset by
the influx of refugees.
This explains in part their behaviour toward the refugees, the
evacuations and border closures. They must be given all
possible assistance.
The assembly of the people of the republic of Albania also spoke
out in total support of the NATO air strikes and called for
ground troops to be sent urgently.
2250
Moreover, Albanian parliamentarians thank the international
community for its help and ask that such help be increased to
meet the growing needs of refugees and the population in
northern Albania.
The time has come to consider our options, whether military,
political, humanitarian, diplomatic or other. On behalf of my
party, I will propose a number of possible solutions, which we
feel this House should contemplate.
At the military level, even though we have not reached that
stage yet, we think that ground military action should be
considered, or at least discussed. We should look at the
benefits and drawbacks of such action. The time has come to
think about solutions other than the one being applied right
now, that is air strikes.
Since the beginning of the NATO air strikes, President Milosevic
has accelerated the pace of the forced exodus of Albanian
Kosovars. The police, the militia and the Serb army have
continued and even intensified their action against the
Kosovars.
The net result of this is that with 500,000 refugees—or 621,000
since March 1998 according to the UNHCR—the objectives pursued
with the air strikes have not produced the anticipated results,
namely to stop the atrocities committed against the people of
Kosovo, and nor have they led Milosevic to accept the
Rambouillet peace plan.
In that context, the Bloc Quebecois feels that the use of allied
ground troops must be considered to stop the atrocities and the
repression of which Kosovars are victims, this in light of
Milosevic's firm resolve not to make any concession about
Kosovo, which is the cradle of the Serb nation.
This intervention to impose peace should be organized, or at
least considered as quickly as possible.
In fact, the border closings, the mines laid at the borders, and
the numerous atrocities against the Kosovars reveal the
intentions of Milosevic and his security forces to commit
genocide against the Kosovo people.
NATO's military intervention on the ground could allow all
Kosovar refugees to go back home, not just some of them. NATO
must, therefore, liberate all of Kosovo. This option is the one
more closely matching the reason why Canada and NATO are
fighting: to implement a peace plan, the Rambouillet peace plan,
and to stop the atrocities against the Kosovo people.
At the political level, solutions are also possible, including
UN involvement and the application of international law. On
April 9, Kofi Annan called for a conditional cease-fire and for
Yugoslavian compliance with the numerous UN resolutions.
It is vital for the UN, its security council in particular, to
be involved in this crisis.
Canada has a duty to try, by every means possible, to submit to
the council a draft peace agreement reflecting the main thrust
of Rambouillet.
On January 19, 1999, the security council denounced Yugoslavia's
refusal to allow the international tribunal prosecutor to
investigate the Racak massacre. This request for an inquiry was
a follow-up to resolutions 1160, 1199 and 1203, all issued in
1998.
Canada must submit a new request, asking that the security
council issue a resolution condemning the actions of the
Yugoslav government. Canada must bring before the UN the
charges of genocide and crimes against humanity perpetrated by
the government of Yugoslavia, in accordance with the 1948
convention against genocide.
2255
Finally, there should be a free and democratic consultation of
Kosovars regarding the future status of Kosovo.
From a humanitarian point of view, consideration should be given
to ongoing and unconditional aid. The decisions we make today
will have an impact on the decisions our children will have to
make in 20, 25 or 30 years. Canada cannot slough off 25 or 30
years from now responsibilities it takes on today. Canada is at
war against the Serbs and Canada will have to help the people it
has fought, the people who have suffered in this war.
Canada will have to help them, and it must think about helping
them not just while the bombing is taking place, but also in the
years, and there will be many, of rebuilding ahead.
There is a strong risk that the rush of refugees to the Republic
of Macedonia and to Albania will destabilize these regimes.
Massive, unconditional and direct assistance is therefore
necessary if the conflict is not to spread throughout the
region.
The appeals from these two countries must be taken seriously and
Canada has a responsibility to respond. Beyond these
geopolitical contingencies, all western countries have an
obligation to provide all conceivable aid to the populations
displaced by these conflict.
This aid requires, and will continue to require, significant
assistance over a long period. Canada must prepare for this and
show its support for non-government organizations such as UNHCR,
the Red Cross and the Red Crescent immediately.
Airlifting refugees to Canada has already been considered and
careful preparations for this must continue. Canada is willing
to receive those displaced persons wishing to come here.
However, the government must quickly clarify their status.
Diplomatically, it is vital that thought be given to the chaos
that has prevailed in the Balkans since 1989. This situation
has brought nothing but grief to the nations in the region, and
has also caused many problems for the international community.
Human tragedies, including war crimes, crimes against humanity
and now the genocidal intent of the Milosevic regime are
unacceptable events for humanity.
The human as well as financial and political costs of such chaos
are extremely high. Once the present armed conflict comes to an
end, the situation in the Balkans will not be stabilized.
Tensions will remain very high. Yugoslavian, Kosovar, Albanian
and Macedonian infrastructures will be either destroyed or non
existent. The financial and political situation in Kosovo, and
also in Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia will remain
disastrous.
This is the reason why the Bloc Quebecois is suggesting that a
plan for the whole region be developed right away, a plan
similar to the Marshal plan, which was responsible for the
reconstruction and ultimately the unification of Europe after
the second world war; such a plan would involve massive
financial and material assistance to the tune of US$50 billion
over several years; this assistance would be dependent on the
respect of certain economic and political rules as well as the
implementation of a future peace plan.
This massive help, which at first glance appears very
significant, would be nothing compared to the cost of a war-torn
region in the heart of Europe, a region which, instead of being
part of the international community, would only bring chaos and
desolation.
Such a plan which would come under the authority of the European
Union, but Canada and the United States should be involved; it
would allow the region to move beyond war and its immediate
consequences towards reconstruction and democracy instead of
tensions and desolation.
2300
[English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
debate tonight precludes a discussion on options which were open
to us one month ago, including whether to go to war with NATO,
whether all avenues at the United Nations had been exhausted and
whether the lessons learned in Bosnia are applicable to Kosovo.
Tonight the debate takes place under different circumstances.
We have concluded that the United Nations Security Council is
impotent. We have seen images of genocide, of columns of
refugees, of burning villages and of murdered civilians. We are
participants in NATO's bombing actions.
Therefore today the questions facing us are different from a
month ago. They are: Why are we there? What are we to achieve?
How can we achieve our goals?
We are there because we can no longer watch such atrocities take
place, because diplomatic negotiations have been exhausted,
because we are members of the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe which is responsible for security in
Europe, and because there is no similar organization in existence
in other parts of the world.
We are there to achieve security and peace for the people of
Kosovo, to prevent another Bosnia and to bring stability to a
troubled region of Europe. We are there to prevent actions of
brutality such as those committed by Karadzic and General Mladic
in Bosnia.
We are there because a new principle has emerged. The principle
says that in the face of genocide there is a humanitarian role
for the world community to play that is more important than the
principle of sovereignty. It is a paradox that this humanitarian
role should take the form of military action, all other avenues
having been exhausted. It would have been preferable not to have
taken military action, but facing the options available Canada
chose the lesser of two evils, military action over allowing the
genocide to continue.
What do we wish to achieve through military action? The safe
return to their homes of all deportees and displaced persons.
The protection and care for those displaced inside Kosovo. The
expulsion from Kosovo of Serbian military, police and
paramilitary forces through a peacekeeping force, as was the case
and is the case in Bosnia, Cyprus and other troubled spots in the
world. The apprehension of indicted war criminals is amongst our
goals, as well as the defence of Macedonia, Albania and
Montenegro in the event of a Serbian attack. Finally, we wish to
achieve the improvement of communications from Europe into Kosovo
and Serbia in order to inform the population of the reasons and
motives for our actions.
Looking beyond the immediate goals there is a role for Canada to
play with like-minded nations in search of a mechanism that will
provide rules for international intervention in domestic
conflict. Canada has experts in preventive diplomacy. Canada
has a reputation as a peacebuilder and peacekeeper. Surely we
can build a new order to deal with domestic conflict.
We can start with the UN convention on the prevention and
punishment of the crime of genocide. Article 8 of that
convention is quite explicit. It states “Any contracting party
may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations—as
they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of
acts of genocide”.
It is worth noting that 50 years after the general assembly
agreed to the text of the genocide convention the United Nations
Security Council established the international tribunal for the
prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of
international humanitarian law committed in the former
Yugoslavia. The prosecutor, Louise Arbour, is playing a strong
leadership role. The tribunal is making good progress and
increasingly commands respect.
Those who disagree with Canada's military actions say that
Canada is in violation of international law. In reply it must be
noted that Yugoslavia, having engaged in acts of genocide, has
violated the UN genocide convention.
2305
The time has come to put teeth into that convention, to
reinforce the role of the international tribunal in The Hague and
to lay the foundations for building adequate international
preventive action for the future.
As we saw today in question period, it is only natural that this
debate should centre around the question of whether to send
troops into Kosovo. Several speakers have raised that question.
The answer seems fairly clear if we ask ourselves how returning
civilians and the remaining population can be assured the
necessary protection and how the removal of the Serbian police
and armed forces can be achieved. Having taken the drastic step
of intervening with air forces it becomes inevitable and
necessary, for the same reasons we decided to risk the lives of
Canadian pilots, to send in troops as well. Sending in troops so
as to intervene on the ground will become inevitable almost as a
law of military gravity.
In 1939 it could be said that western democracies declared war
when driven by exasperation, having exhausted all other means.
It seems that in 1999 western democracies have become involved in
the Balkans having exhausted all other means as well. Had this
debate taken place one month ago I would have strongly advised
against military intervention and for a greater effort through
the general assembly of the United Nations. Today, with the
decision of a military intervention having been made, while I
find it repugnant to see Canada involved in the act of bombing,
it would be even more repugnant at this point in time for Canada
to abstain from participating in a severe action aimed at
extirpating genocide and racial and ethnic persecution.
I believe that we have drawn the correct lessons from what
happened in Bosnia just a few years ago. Hopefully we will
succeed in stopping the ugly forces of nationalism in Yugoslavia.
Hopefully, when peace is restored, the security of people living
in this troubled region of Europe will be assured regardless of
ethnic origin, regardless of whether they are a majority or a
minority, regardless of whether they are Christian, Muslim or of
any other religious belief.
I am glad to share my time with the member for Peterborough.
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Madam Speaker,
the hon. member has an excellent record on human rights issues in
this House and a long service to Canada. He has certainly come
to the same conclusion as I, that really we had no alternative as
a member of NATO but to do what we did.
However, I also think that certain planning and other things
should have been done. It seems that we planned for the military
campaign as part of NATO, but we seem to have forgotten that when
bombs start to fall one of the natural things that occurs is that
the number of refugees tends to increase. In effect, we seem to
be doing some of the dirty work of Milosevic in driving more
Albanians out of Kosovo.
Could the hon. member comment on the fact that NATO seemed to be
very prepared for the military action but not prepared at all for
the human consequences of that military action?
In Argentia, Newfoundland we have tried to find a way to open up
Canadian government housing for refugees if they were to come to
Canada. Many Newfoundlanders were willing to collect toys and
clothes and do everything they could for these refugees had they
come to Canada, and maybe some of them still will come.
Would the hon. member not agree that NATO certainly prepared for
the military campaign but did not take into the account the human
consequences of that military campaign?
Hon. Charles Caccia: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. The issue of refugees is one that
prompted the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make a
very fine intervention and to lay out the position of the
Government of Canada in its decision to accept refugees. In her
speech she recognized the generosity and the spirit of the
Canadian people vis-à-vis the movement of refugees in the past
and at the present time.
2310
To expect NATO to be equipped to carry out a role in the
movement of refugees is probably expecting something that
organization is not equipped to carry out. That is probably why
there is a UN commission for refugees that has been extremely
active, particularly at the border of Macedonia and at the border
of Albania.
I am sure that the generosity of the people of Newfoundland will
be greatly welcomed and will be reciprocated should refugees
decide to come to our shores to settle in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Madam Speaker, I can say
that my colleague opposite has a very strong international
conscience and that he weighed his words. I think that, tonight,
we must weigh our words. I turned on the TV earlier and saw
images that were really difficult to watch.
The means are not that easy, but I would say that we have
reached our limit. I think we must wake up and acknowledge that
there is a conflict. The night will not be long for us, because
we do not have to suffer.
I personally do not have relatives over there, but if I had a
sister, a mother, a brother or a child over there, it would be a
lot more difficult for me.
But one thing is sure: it is still our brothers and sisters who
are suffering. And something is wrong with this president:
either he is sick or he is cruel. I would prefer to say he his
sick. If he is sick, we must see that he gets treatment. If he
is cruel, we must at least make him understand his cruelty.
I will come back later with other questions, but I would like to
ask my colleague if he would personally have been in favour of a
vote following this debate.
Hon. Charles Caccia: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague
from the Bloc Quebecois for his question.
I share the same feelings he expressed when he talked about
images that are difficult to watch and about the pain he feels
when he thinks about our brothers and sisters who are suffering.
To answer his question regarding a vote, I have no difficulty
supporting the idea of a vote. Tonight, we all have the
opportunity to state our position on the deployment of ground
troops in Kosovo in the speeches and interventions we are ready
to make.
[English]
Ms. Beth Phinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Madam Speaker, like 30 million other
Canadians, I salute the courage, resolve and dedication of the
men and women who serve in Canada's armed forces. Like every
other member of parliament, I pray that whatever sacrifices we
may ask those brave men and women to make, they are sacrifices
based on wisdom. Whatever course we chart for them, let us back
it up with every possible means of support from our nation.
I had the honour yesterday to tour CFB Trenton. My colleagues in
the House and everybody at home would be proud of the facilities
for housing and medicine that have been created and set up for
the refugees in such a very short time. I express my humble
thanks to the people of the Department of Citizenship and
Immigration and the soldiers who have been working so hard around
the clock to prepare a possible home for refugees.
2315
As someone who has visited Albania and possibly the only member
of parliament who has been in Albania, I want everyone to know
how difficult it is and will be for them to take so many refugees
because of its own extreme economic difficulties. I hope that
the nations of the world providing humanitarian aid will
recognize that with real financial assistance to the harbouring
countries such as Albania.
While at the Trenton base yesterday I looked in the faces of
fine young soldiers and I could not help but think that they are
Canada's children and grandchildren. They are fathers, mothers,
sisters and brothers so willing to serve and sacrifice, so full
of life and promise and so very young. As we make decisions that
affect those young lives let us remember that war may be
necessary but it is also nasty. War may be noble but it is also
numbing to the soul. War may be heroic but it is also
horrifying. War may be glorious but it is also gore.
Before victory comes violence. Before triumph comes tragedy.
Before defeat of the enemy often comes much death. In the words
of Milton, war truly is as terrible as hell.
None of us doubt the need to take on Milosevic and his band of
bloody thugs. In this century we have witnessed the monstrous
consequences of madmen out of control. We know that pure evil
must be driven out. We know that we cannot allow the slaughter
of the innocent who are destroyed merely for being different. The
action of Milosevic is so barbarous that we cannot find the real
words to describe our disgust so we call it ethnic cleansing. We
know that what he is doing is giving a wash of hatred to human
decency. We know that what he is doing is giving a bath of
poison to human dignity.
Choosing when and where to intervene around the world is never
easy for democracies. The line is often hazy and fluid but
Milosevic is way over the line. He is seeking to empty Kosovo of
its citizens by any means possible. For some mad reason he
thinks that the ethnic background of Kosovars justifies his cruel
and ceaseless campaign against them. The bottom line is that we
can see the frightening parallels between Milosevic and past
tyrants, and he must be stopped.
That much said, let us as Canadians do everything we can to
avoid the mistakes of previous wars. Let us be careful not to
demonize Serbian Canadians. While asking them to respect their
duty as citizens of a peaceful Canada, let us remind ourselves
that they are Canadians. We can all understand their fears while
still possibly differing with their point of view. I was
particularly concerned when a young Serbian Canadian mother came
into my constituency office wondering what she could do to keep
her children from being bullied at school. Let us remind
ourselves that what we are opposing is Milosevic and his agenda
and not innocent Serbians.
Most important, let us be prepared to back our soldiers with
more than words if they must move from peacekeepers to
peacemakers to wagers of war. We are grateful that so far no
Canadian has been a casualty over Kosovo but if and when the
stakes are raised so are the risks.
So far Milosevic has proven to be more bent on his wave of
destruction than military experts foresaw. The analysts at NATO
underestimated what it would take to stop Milosevic. That is
understandable. It is tremendously difficult to plumb the depths
of evil. Now we know that there are few limits to how far
Milosevic is prepared to go. We know the depravity. Now we see
the darker side of human nature. If NATO needs to go further let
NATO be prepared. Let readiness match resolve. Before we send
them forward, let our soldiers have the capacity to meet a master
of depravity and the darkness.
2320
If at some point Canada needs to point more of our young
soldiers in harm's way, can we be assured that ground troops or
any other troops have the proper and finest equipment? Will
Canadian troops have proper on site preparation and training?
Will our troops have proper backup? More significant, if and
when Canada commits ground troops, will all of our NATO partners
also commit ground troops?
Canadians do not expect every strategic and tactical decision to
be laid out in advance or to be laid out in public. In turn
Canadians expect that their concerns expressed in this place by
members of parliament to be incorporated into the decision making
process. I have absolute confidence in the Prime Minister doing
so. That is why this non-partisan debate is so timely and so
vital.
Canadian soldiers have long served our nation with pride and
long covered our nation with distinction. Fine young Canadians
are carrying on with that tradition as we speak now. I admire
the bravery of the Canadians who so gallantly wear our forces
uniform, but I approach debate on their potential role as
combatants with no sense of excitement or joy but rather with a
sense of utter seriousness and deep reflection.
We need to give our soldiers every possible guarantee that the
resources available to them will match their strength and their
sense of duty. We owe it to them. They are the Canadians who
will make the sacrifices, and we owe them the resources. They
are the ones upholding the flame of liberty, and we owe them all
our wisdom. They are Canada's children and grandchildren. Let
us give them our full support. We owe them that.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
got the impression that the hon. member believes that an
intervention such as this one by NATO is justified in certain
situations.
Could the hon. member tell me if she thinks that an intervention
is made under a right to get involved recognized under the
international law?
[English]
Ms. Beth Phinney: Madam Speaker, we have seen some pretty
disastrous scenes on television lately. We have gone through
wars in the past. I do not like the idea, but I feel we are
justified in entering this war.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to what the member had to say. I
was particularly interested in her personal experience of the
base at Trenton and what was going on there. I also understand
that the member, unlike many of us, has some personal experience
in Albania. Could she share those two personal experiences with
us?
Ms. Beth Phinney: Madam Speaker, maybe I could first say
a few words about Albania. I was there three or four years ago.
It was the first vote Albania had ever had for democracy, the
first vote at all.
They had the communist side and the democratic side. They won
on their first vote. Some of them felt they did not. The
democrats got 40% of the vote and thought they had lost because
they had never had a vote before. They did not understand that
still meant they had won because they had their first opposition
ever. In the following year they had another election and they
won.
It is quite amazing what they are trying to do. The ones who
are working earn approximately $50 a year. They showed me their
food, their groceries for the week. They had brown bags and in
them they had potatoes and onions. That is what they were eating
that week. Mothers were taking their groceries home for their
children.
They have done things like cut down all the trees for firewood
because they did not have any other means of fire. They had great
spirit and were so excited about having their first vote that
99.9% of the people voted in the election. It was quite amazing.
2325
They are being sent some 300,000 to 500,000 people and will be
asked to help them out. That is why I was saying that I was
hoping the international countries that will be giving aid will
help Albania and other countries like it where the refugees will
be going, because the people already in those countries are not
much better off than the refugees themselves.
It was pretty exciting at Trenton. The armed forces are working
around the clock and have established great facilities. We may
not now have to use them but we may need them in the future. They
are prepared with 24 hours notice to take in quite a few plane
loads of people at one time. Maybe even 1,000 to 2,000 people in
a couple of days. They are very prepared and we should be very
proud of them.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this debate, although I must start my
comments by saying that it is not the type of debate that I was
hoping for today.
Some members have certainly talked about this point already. A
take note debate obviously does not generate a lot of interest
even from members of parliament, judging from the number of
people who have been here tonight. It certainly does not
stimulate the kind of interest and the kind of debate we need to
involve Canadians in right across the country.
Instead of a take note debate we should be taking part in a
full-fledged debate which would end in a vote. The debate should
be on focused issues, a clear motion. At the end every member of
parliament should know that they will have to stand in the House
to take a position either for or against the motion. Certainly
that will increase the level of interest and will reach out and
involve a lot more Canadians in the debate.
It is unfortunate that is not happening today, but we do have a
take note debate and I will be making a few comments in that
regard.
To summarize the objectives of the NATO involvement, I start by
saying that I fully support Canada standing shoulder to shoulder
with our NATO allies in actions in Kosovo.
Three objectives must be considered in this debate. The first
is the moral objective. We cannot overstate the case on this
issue. The moral objective is the halting of ethnic cleansing.
Ethnic cleansing means killing. Ethnic cleansing means the
expulsion of people from their homes, the burning of their homes,
and the expulsion of people from their country. We must halt
this ethnic cleansing. I do not think we can possibly overstate
the urgency of dealing with that situation.
The reason we are talking about political and the military
objectives is to deal in an effective way with the moral
objective of ending the killing, the ethnic cleansing, and with
the people who have been displaced, helping as necessary the
refugees who are in camps outside Kosovo and, if need be,
bringing refugees to our country, particularly refugees who feel
they have no life, no home, nothing back in Kosovo. These are
the moral objectives. The importance and urgency of meeting
those objectives cannot be overstated.
Of course there are political objectives.
These political objectives involve creating a safe home for
Kosovars on their own soil. That must be the political objective
of everything we are taking part in and it must be done through
internationally supervised negotiation.
2330
I have heard many people state today that they believe Russia
should be involved in these international negotiations. There is
a great deal of value in that and hopefully, that can be
accommodated.
To meet these political objectives we have to meet certain
military objectives, which is the third objective we have to deal
with in this debate. The military objective has to damage the
Serbs' military capability to reduce their capacity to kill, to
remove people from their homes, to destroy people's homes and to
throw people out of the country. We have to reduce their capacity
so they cannot do those things. That has to be one of the
military objectives. When we get them to that point then we can
get them to the negotiating table. We all know it is only
through negotiations that we can hope to put an end to this sad
situation in Kosovo.
How do we accomplish the military objectives? That is where
there has been a lot of disagreement in this House. There is a
lot of agreement for the use of NATO air strikes in helping to
accomplish this objective. I think there is a lot of support for
Canada to continue to participate in these air strikes. I am
really pleased at the level of support in this House for that
objective.
Also as the member of parliament from Lakeland constituency, I
am proud that many of my constituents from the Cold Lake air base
are involved in the military operations, are involved in the air
strikes. The job they are doing and the commitment they have
shown are to be commended. It is important in a situation like
this one to show support for the men and women in our forces and
for the extremely important role they are playing and I do so
right now.
There is a lot of agreement on the use of air strikes. The real
difference seems to lie for the most part in the use of ground
forces to complete that objective if necessary. There must be two
conditions for committing Canadian ground troops. The first is
that NATO demonstrate that this commitment in fact is necessary.
Can NATO demonstrate that? Has it been able to do this so far?
No.
We do not know whether we will need ground troops. We do not
know how effective the air strikes are going to be. We have heard
differing opinions on that in the House. We have certainly heard
one opinion from CNN which, after the first three or four days
when it could not see any progress, said it ain't working. That
is not good enough. We have to give it the time that is needed.
We may find that the air strikes will go a long way to solving
the problem.
The second condition is that the government must demonstrate to
this House that Canada can meet the commitment laid out by NATO.
Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and so I probably only have two minutes
left.
It is important that the government demonstrate to this House
and to Canadians that Canadians will be able to meet the
commitment and do the job that NATO delegates to them.
That decision is to be made by the chief of the defence staff.
That is the role of the chief of the defence staff.
2335
It is the role of the government, the role of this House and not
just the role of the governing party, to determine what Canada's
involvement should be. It is the role of the chief of the
defence staff to determine what our military capabilities are.
That is critical and that job must be left to the chief of the
defence staff.
Those are some of the military considerations.
I would like to close by asking the minister of immigration a
few questions with regard to refugees and Canada's commitment to
accepting refugees who have been displaced from Kosovo. What is
the minister's position on this issue? It is unclear to me.
Last week the minister said that she would accept 5,000 refugees
on a temporary basis. By last Friday she said she would accept
refugees only if they intended to stay in Canada permanently.
Today the minister is saying that she will accept certain Kosovar
Albanians if they themselves express the desire to come to
Canada. They would come not as refugees but through normal
immigration channels. I would appreciate clarification by the
minister.
I get one message from Mr. Girard who went to Kosovar and
evaluated the situation and another message from the minister. It
is very important that this be clarified. I look forward to the
minister's clarification.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the hon.
member's remarks. I commend him for his insight into this matter.
All of us in the House have learned a great deal throughout the
course of this debate and the member has added to that
information sharing session.
The member speaks of the preconditions for the possibility of
ground troops becoming involved. Quite rightly he and his leader
have both pointed out the necessity of further information as to
Canada's role in terms of doing everything possible to achieve a
peaceful solution to this and also the assurance that is needed
with respect to the protection of our fighting forces if it
should come to that. We are now painfully and sadly aware that
our Canadian armed forces are ill equipped should it come to the
eventual inevitability that ground forces might be sent and
Canadian armed forces personnel would be in harm's way.
Does the hon. member feel that another consideration which might
lead to that is the information that seems to be readily
available that perhaps greater atrocities are currently taking
place such as the murder of the 100,000 Kosovar men who appear to
be missing within the boundaries of Yugoslavia? Should that also
be a major consideration in the determination of a potential
ground force deployment?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Madam Speaker, if the objective of
this military involvement is to meet a moral obligation to
protect Kosovars, clearly if an atrocity such as that has
occurred, then the urgency has been stepped up another major
notch. If that has occurred, we know it will probably happen
again. The urgency is beyond anything I can express and
certainly it is a critical consideration.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, if
the Progressive Conservative member is right when he says that
100,000 men have disappeared, it may be that this is no longer
ethnic cleansing but genocide.
2340
If we were to discover that the Serb government and the security
forces of Slobodan Milosevic are guilty of genocide, would that
justify very quickly the sending of ground troops into Kosovo?
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Madam Speaker, that is a very
difficult question. It is a question I think none of us would
like to be facing alone, which is all the more reason that we
should have had a complete debate followed by a vote in the
House. That decision should be made with a lot of input from
Canadians.
If we did find that such a genocide had occurred, I still
believe that the three main objectives would have to be followed
through on and the two conditions for the military objective
would still have to be in place. In other words, is the bombing
doing the job? Is it going to lead to the Yugoslavs, whether it
be Milosevic or someone else, getting to the negotiating table?
Is this bombing going to do the job and force that to happen?
I do not think those questions have been answered yet. It still
may be effective. Even if we find this has happened, that has to
be evaluated by people who know far more than I do.
Second, if the government cannot demonstrate to the House, with
the input from the chief of the defence staff, that our Canadian
troops are capable of carrying out the task given them by the
NATO command, then why would we put our Canadian troops at risk?
If it can be demonstrated and if we do find out that the bombing
is not going to prevent atrocities like this from happening, if
this has happened already and if there is some belief that it
could be happening again very soon, then in that case I would
fully support the immediate use of ground troops, including
Canadian ground troops.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, if history has taught us anything, it is that we have
learned nothing. Across the world, from Angola, Sierra Leone to
the Sudan we have seen countries implode and thousands of
civilians killed. In fact 90% of the casualties that are borne
in the wars of today are innocent civilians, unlike what happened
in the first part of the century. What all these situations have
in common is they demonstrate an abysmal failure on the part of
the international community to get involved before thousands of
people have been killed and countries have been laid to waste.
Kosovo is the latest of those countries, the one that is the
apple of the eye of the media, the one that is drawing the most
attention. It is by no means that which is going to be the
greatest in terms of death and destruction in our world today.
As I said before, in Sierra Leone hundreds of thousands of
people have been killed and thousands more are killed every day.
In northern Uganda 10,000 child soldiers between the ages of
eight and twelve are committing horrendous atrocities and
thousands of young girls of the same age are used as sexual
concubines. No one hears about that, no one talks about it and
no one cares.
The situation in front of us is one where we had some very
difficult choices to make, to act or not to act in the face of
Kosovo. With the memory of Croatia and the memory of the
atrocities of Banja Luka, Srebrenica, Bihac and Sarajevo fresh in
our minds, we chose thankfully to act. And act we did, perhaps
not in the best way, but we acted.
There were a number of obligations and end points we wanted to
accomplish. The first was the most important, to save the
innocent civilians' lives. The second was to bring Slobodan
Milosevic to the table to engage in a diplomatic solution to this
problem.
The fact is Milosevic is not at the table and while we were
bombing Belgrade, the ethnic cleansing continued.
The reason is simply that bombing will not stop ethnic cleansing,
or should I use the proper term, mass murder, that takes place
door to door, person to person, eyeball to eyeball. That will
not stop it, although I must say that I applaud and support the
government's support of NATO's bombing in the federal republic of
Yugoslavia.
2345
Our current objective has several goals. The moral obligation
is to save people's lives. No one disagrees with that. The
political obligation is to get Milosevic back to the table and
stop further ethnic cleansing. It is also to engage in a
diplomatic solution.
I would argue that the diplomatic solution put forward at
Rambouillet, France is now a dead duck. The notion of an
autonomous Kosovo will not happen. Too much blood has been shed,
too many people have been killed and the memories last a very
long time. These people, quite frankly, are not going to live
together.
How are we going to deal with this problem? I would proffer the
following solutions to deal with the situation in Kosovo;
solutions which I put forth in a motion last October in the
House, which unfortunately was not taken up.
The first solution is to protect innocent civilians. The way to
do that is to organize a safe haven in the southern part of
Kosovo. This can be accomplished with minimal or no casualties on
the part of the west, but it will involve ground troops. Ground
troops are required to engage in a safe haven in southern Kosovo
and those ground troops, in my view, should be European Union
troops. The reason is that they were tasked five years ago to
deal with the impending implosion of the former Yugoslavia and
they sat on their hands. They sat on their hands and thousands
of people were killed, maimed and left homeless.
The European Union troops could engage in this, which would
accomplish the following. First, it would protect the Kosovar
Albanians. Second, it would enable humanitarian aid to get to
these people safely and efficiently. Third, if these people are
going to be repatriated at the end of a politically organized
solution, then it is far easier for them to be repatriated while
in their own backyard than for them to be repatriated while
spread far afield. It will not do to send these people all over
the world and expect that at some point in the future they will
somehow wind up back in Kosovo. That simply is not going to
happen.
It would involve the partition of Kosovo. As I said before,
these people are not going to live together. Why I think this is
doable is that Milosevic wants the northern half of Kosovo
because that is where the Field of Black Birds is and that is
where the seat of Serbian nationalism comes from. That is
primarily what he wants, along with some mines which I think are
less relevant.
If we try to bring the two together it will involve a ground war
and a lot of allied troops being killed. At best, it will be
apparent victory. At worst, NATO will back down because of the
number of body bags returning home and, as a result, NATO will
lose an enormous amount of credibility; credibility that it would
take a very long time to regain. A ground war is not something
that anybody has the stomach for.
The long term political solution must involve Serbians coming to
the table, but how do we do this? One of our failures has been
to assume that Mr. Milosevic deals with the same moral framework
that we do. He does not. He is the one who is responsible for
the slaughter in Bosnia. He is the one who instigated the
slaughter which we saw in the towns of Srebrenica, Bihac and
Banja Luka. He is the one who engaged in a ground war with
Croatia. He is the one who is largely responsible, with his
leadership, for the implosion of the former Yugoslavia.
We have to recognize that we are not dealing with a familiar
creature. In fact, I would liken him to Hitler. Appeasement was
attempted in the late 1930s when Hitler was committing
atrocities. It did not work then and it certainly will not work
today. We have to use a different framework to deal with a
creature like Slobodan Milosevic.
First, to bring him to the table will mean engaging in bombing,
but I think it has to happen.
Second, we could use economic levers through the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Both of those groups have
enormously powerful economic levers to apply to any country and
they must be applied to the federal republic of Yugoslavia. If
we choke off the money supply we greatly diminish the ability of
Milosevic to carry out a war for any lengthy period of time.
2350
Third is something we have not looked upon which is the
propaganda war. Many people in Serbia are falling behind their
leader partly as a result of the bombing we have engaged in. Any
time a country is bombed it is more likely the people no matter
how much they despise their leader, will fall behind their leader
not out of support for the individual but out of support for
their country.
Therefore we have to get into the propaganda game. We need to
use short-wave radio. The UN and other groups have the capability
of beaming in what is taking place in Kosovo. We need to use
television to demonstrate what is taking place in Kosovo and also
the atrocities that took place in Croatia and in Bosnia. The
people in Serbia do not know what their leadership has been up to
and it is high time they did. If we are going to undermine Mr.
Milosevic we have to do it from within. The easiest and most
efficient way is by informing the Serbian public of what he is
responsible for.
It is important for us to demonstrate and articulate to the
Serbian people that our problem is not with them but with their
leadership. I am sure that the Serbian people, like other people
of the former Yugoslavia, want peace, that they want to live in
harmony. Let us not forget that 10% of the population of Kosovo
is Serbian. They have no stomach for killing as I am sure the
vast majority of Kosovar Albanians have no stomach for killing.
Unfortunately we see the manipulation by political leaderships to
engage in war or to compromise their people at any price.
At the end of the day we have the Kosovo situation and we will
have more Kosovos as time passes. I have been in war situations.
I have seen people with their legs blown off from land mines. I
have seen teenagers hold their bowels in their hands after being
eviscerated by guerrillas. They did not want their bowels to fall
on the ground. These are innocent people who did not ask for
this.
I implore the government to try to change its foreign policy
from one of conflict management to one of conflict prevention. I
introduced a motion which will come up for debate on Monday. It
articulates a way in which we can move our foreign policy from
one of conflict management to one of conflict prevention. It
articulates a series of methods for identifying the precursors to
conflict and pragmatic tools such as the use of diplomacy and
economic levers that have not been explored to prevent conflict
from occurring.
It has been encouraging to see people across this House work
together for the common goal of peace. I look forward to the
future debates we may have to make sure Canada stands in the
forefront of saving people's lives. We have in the past and we
will in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask our colleague from the Reform Party, who
suggested that we put the emphasis on the prevention of disputes
and that we set up a prevention mechanism, what international
organization should be responsible for such a mechanism.
Should it be the UN? Should it be the OSCE? Or should NATO
itself be involved in the prevention and the settlement of
disputes?
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question. We are lacking in leadership in the world
today. In the post cold war situation we have to develop a new
framework within which to work.
Some people have made the mistake of believing that NATO can get
involved in conflicts as far away as Africa and the Far East.
NATO's obligation is within its name, the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. It deals with that area of Europe and North
America.
As the member alluded to, we have to engage in ways to deal with
conflict all over the world. There are three bodies that can do
this. The first is the United Nations. Kosovo demonstrates the
failure of the UN. The security council rooted in its 1945
organization needs to be revamped. The IMF and the World Bank
are the other two organizations that make up the three organized
at Bretton Woods in 1945. They can engage in economic actions
against a country that is engaging in behaviours that compromise
international and regional security.
2355
The argument in support of that is that countries engaging in a
flagrant abuse of human rights and local or international
security are an economic threat to those areas. They are
engaging in bad economics. Why should the international
community put money into countries that might use that money to
buy arms to abuse people or engage in or support a conflict in
their area? They do not have to. Within the IMF, the World Bank
and the United Nations lies the tools that can be utilized. I
might add that the United Nations is the toughest nut to crack.
While we are on the security council we need to have the courage
to articulate the tough solutions that have to be put forward to
enable the United Nations to change from being completely and
utterly unable to deal with conflicts in a proactive manner to a
body that can. There are many arguments to be made for that from
a humanitarian argument to a cold-hearted economic argument.
The bottom line is that we have been on the security council for
a year and a half. I implore the Minister of Foreign Affairs to
talk very forcefully about revamping and restructuring the
security council to broaden its number of members and to remove
the veto from all of them.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I congratulate the hon. member on his speech. I thought it was
very thoughtful.
I wanted to ask him if he looked at the situation over the last
two, three or four weeks and questioned himself. Does he think
the role of NATO in this exercise has reduced hostilities or
exacerbated the situation?
Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Speaker, that is a difficult
question but I thank my hon. member for asking it. The litmus
test in all this is our prime objective of saving the lives of
innocent civilians.
Clearly Mr. Milosevic was engaging in a process of ethnic
cleansing. Perhaps NATO was brought in late but it was brought
in and saved the lives of some people. Not as many as it should
have because of the tardiness involved. As I mentioned in my
speech there are other things NATO could have been involved in. I
do not think it has increased the hostilities. What we saw
happen would have only happened in a more extreme fashion and we
would have seen more innocent lives being taken.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, before I start my speech this evening I would like to
advise that I will be sharing my time with the member for
Peterborough.
I rise this evening at this late hour to support Canada's
involvement in Kosovo to stop the systematic campaign of terror
being perpetrated and led by Slobodan Milosevic against the
innocent civilians of Kosovo.
First and foremost I thank our Canadian fighter pilots and the
peacekeeping troops for putting their lives on the line to carry
out their missions against Yugoslav military and security forces
with skill and courage. All Canadians can be proud of their
performance.
Almost three weeks ago NATO commenced its operation allied
force. I submit that it had no further option when it did so. As
Canadians and members of the international community we could no
longer stand by and tolerate the actions of a government which
denied the most basic rights to its people, sending tanks, troops
and artillery to destroy villages, barbarically taking the lives
of innocent civilians, and forcing hundreds of thousands of
people including women and children out of their homes.
We have witnessed the pillage and agony too vividly for almost a
decade. The actions of President Milosevic and his authorities
constitute the last horrendous crime of this century. The crimes
continue to be perpetrated. This weekend we again heard of
reports of alleged rapes. We have seen aerial views of alleged
massive grave sites.
Enough is enough. Genocide and ethnic cleansing cannot and will
not be tolerated any longer.
2400
That is the message that operation allied force is sending to
President Milosevic, the Serbian government and the people who
stand up and support those policies and, in some instances, carry
them out. That is also the message that we, as Canadians and
members of NATO, must unanimously reaffirm tonight. I would
encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the House to do
so.
Over the last week questions have arisen in the media as to why
Canada, which has an international reputation for peacekeeping,
is so deeply involved in the attack on Milosevic's forces. Why
is Canada dropping bombs instead of pursuing peace?
Let it be absolutely clear that Canada's strongest preference
remains a negotiated settlement to the crisis based on the
Rambouillet agreement.
I also believe that Canada's participation in NATO is not a
brand new direction in Canada's foreign policy. Our
participation in the NATO air strikes is based on furthering
Canada's human security issues agenda, the very same agenda on
which Canada campaigned for a seat on the United Nations security
council.
Human security is a concept which responds to the changing
nature of conflict in the late 20th century where wars are
increasingly fought within, not between states. New strategies
are needed for addressing today's civil conflicts not only
because of the threat that they pose to international peace and
security, but because of the toll in civilian suffering that they
extract.
Human security extends beyond the traditional security paradigm
centred on conflict resolution between states by addressing such
issues as poverty, refugees, human rights, governance and the
rule of law, and other cross-cutting issues such as transnational
crime, terrorism and environmental degradation. The land mines
campaign and the follow up is an example of successful
international action to tackle a key human security concern.
Last week our Minister of Foreign Affairs delivered an address
to the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Relations at Princeton, New Jersey, wherein he confirmed that our
government's decision to send Canadian pilots to war was based on
our policy of furthering and protecting human security. In his
speech he stated:
If Kosovo symbolizes how human security has become a focus of
attention and concern for the international community, NATO's
response demonstrates how the defence of human security has
become a force for global action.
NATO is engaged in Kosovo to restore human security to the
Kosovars. It was and is the humanitarian imperative that has
galvanized the alliance to act.
Critics state that the proper way to resolve this issue was
through the United Nations and that Canada with a seat at the
security council had a duty to ensure that the resolution to this
crisis took place at the security council.
The fact is that the United Nations security council, acting
under Chapter VII of the UN charter, issued crucial resolutions
that identified the conflict in Kosovo as a threat to peace and
security in the regions. In fact, Resolutions 1199 and 1203 and
the October agreements between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and
NATO imposed a clear obligation on the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia to respect a ceasefire, protect the civilian
population and limit the deployment of its security forces in
Kosovo. Yet the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia breached all of
its obligations under the United Nations security council
resolutions and under the Belgrade agreements of October 1998.
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was intransigent and all
efforts to reach a negotiated settlement were rendered futile.
There is no doubt that Canada would have preferred the United
Nations security council to explicitly authorize NATO's mission
and Canada worked hard to encourage the council to pass such a
resolution. However, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated
last week, “certain members of the council would not reconcile
yesterday's assumptions about sovereignty with today's
imperatives of human emergency”.
I believe as the Minister of Foreign Affairs believes that the
notion of human security has transcended classic notions of the
nation state and sovereignty.
2405
Critics who believe that NATO has no legal right to attack a
sovereign state are overly simplistic in their analysis. While
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on
April 4, 1949 defined the case of the alliance as a collective
defence against armed attack, the nationalisms of the Balkans and
the Caucuses that helped spark World War I became resurgent.
This produced non-Article 5 missions such as the peacekeeping
force in Bosnia. As Craig R. Whitney wrote in Sunday's New York
Times, “the war is teaching NATO what its role is”. Mr.
Whitney noted:
Like it or not, the role of NATO is being defined in practice in
Kosovo, not on paper in Washington.
The role right now is that of a bulwark against the consequences
of ethnic instability in Europe's southeastern rim. For that,
much more than Russian nuclear bombs, is today the biggest threat
to European security as it was a century ago.
Mr. Whitney goes on to note:
—if NATO cannot defeat the effort of President Slobodan
Milosevic of Yugoslavia to drive the ethnic Albanian population
out of the ancient Serbian province of Kosovo, the alliance risks
going the way of the League of Nations and other failed 20th
century attempts to deal with the same ethnic instability.
As Canada and other leaders of NATO meet in Washington next week
to celebrate NATO's 50th anniversary, it will also be a time to
discuss and chart a new strategic concept as it defines its role
in the 21st century.
I hope the concept of the missions of human rights and human
security are first and foremost on the NATO leaders' agenda. This
is also an issue in which Canada can play a lead role at the
United Nations security council; by working toward a universal
set of conditions and limits for actions in favour of human
security.
Last week, when addressing the criticism about Canada's role in
NATO and its unprecedented interference with state sovereignty,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated as follows:
It is curious that far from weakening state sovereignty, action
to support human security—to the extent that it supports
democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights—can
serve to reinforce stability. Similarly, the very same countries
that argue against humanitarian intervention on the basis of
sovereignty are the most anxious to join trade and commercial
organizations, which by their nature involve creating a certain
amount of international control. It is hard to understand why it
is acceptable to sacrifice sovereignty for economic interests,
but not in the human interest.
Last but not least, let us send a very strong message today from
the House of commons to President Milosevic and his authorities
that Canada, along with its NATO allies, is determined that
Kosovo's two million people should be left in peace to govern
themselves under international protection.
If we do not prevail more atrocities will undoubtedly unfold. As
we approach the next millennium, we in the international
community have a duty to ensure that the human atrocities that we
have watched over the last 10 years cease and desist immediately.
As we enter the new millennium we must also ensure that these
atrocities never happen again.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the member for Parkdale—High Park who, at this late
hour, is brimming with energy and is keeping members awake. I
congratulate her on this.
I would also like to quote for her benefit the preamble to the
United Nations charter, which begins with the following words:
We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save
succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in
our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.
However, it would
appear that one country is no longer a true member of the UN.
Moreover, Yugoslavia's status within the UN is rather unique,
given the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. One country has
failed to uphold the principles of this charter, but because of
a veto right, the UN cannot intervene as it really should in the
conflict in Kosovo.
2410
There is one thing the UN could do. The hon. member from the
Liberal Party maintains that we are witnessing a genocide. She
used the word “genocide”. This afternoon, the Prime Minister
hesitated to use the word again when reminded that this was the
word he had used previously.
Would the hon. member who is talking about a genocide support
the idea of the Government of Canada bringing Yugoslavia up on
charges before the International Court of Justice and calling on
this court to rule that Yugoslavia has indeed violated the UN
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide?
[English]
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Madam Speaker, unlike the hon. member,
I am not an expert in international law. I thank him for quoting
the preamble to the charter for the United Nations.
Before I answer his last question, it is imperative to remember
that the United Nations did pass two resolutions, especially
1199, which stated that Kosovo was in a state of crisis. I
believe it was the hon. member who told me why we are not using
the United Nations. It was because of the veto powers of both
China and Russia that we could not use the United Nations fully.
In answer to the member, yes, we absolutely should use the
international war crimes court. I am not an authority on who
should be brought to justice at this time, but if war atrocities
are committed, Canada, as a leader in the international community
of peacekeepers and as defenders of human security issues, should
do whatever is possible and right to bring these people to
justice as soon as possible. We have seen these atrocities on
television and over the last 10 years in the Balkans. We should
make sure these atrocities never occur either in the Balkans or
anywhere else in the world.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a comment and perhaps a quick question for the
hon. member across the way.
Today during debate the Leader of the Official Opposition very
clearly laid forward the fact that the official opposition would
reluctantly support the use of ground troops if it became
necessary provided two conditions were met.
The first condition would have to be that NATO could very
clearly show that a commitment of ground troops was necessary in
order to halt the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and provide a safe
home for Kosovars in the region.
Secondly, the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition went on to
say that it would be necessary for the government to very clearly
show to the House of Commons that our troops had the tools to do
the job.
I wonder if the hon. member would support that type of position.
Furthermore, would she support the use of democracy in this
country whereby if ground troops became necessary we would have a
debate in the House and it would be put to a vote?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Madam Speaker, I would submit it is
trite to say that I believe in democracy. I believe that the
atrocities that are happening in the Balkans must stop.
As a private citizen, for years I watched on TV what was
happening in Bosnia. I would ask my children, my friends and my
family why the government was not doing anything to stop the
atrocities. I wondered why had we not stopped them before.
I am proud to be sitting in this House and to be a member of a
government that has decided to be part of an alliance to do
everything possible, based on the tools and resources available,
to safeguard the lives of the Canadian peacekeepers who are over
there and to stand up to a monster like Milosevic.
I will stand in here and defend the government for whatever it
feels it has to do to stop monsters like Milosevic from doing
what they are doing in the Balkans and anywhere else in the
world.
2415
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
when humans were organized into tribes, bound together by family
ties, language and religion it was easy to fight their neighbour
who was clearly different.
Today in Canada we have a wonderful new type of nation. Our
citizens include the very diverse first nations people who speak
a range of languages which extend beyond our borders and who may
well have relatives in other countries.
In Canada we have representatives of more than 200 nations of
the world who speak hundreds of languages and who belong to all
of the world's major religions.
Over the weekend I was told of a housing project in Toronto
where the kids speak 80 languages.
The majority of Canadians have kin abroad. It is virtually
impossible for a nation like this to engage in a dispute with
another country without it being a dispute with some Canadian
families or with people who have linguistic or religious ties
with Canada.
Today, for the third time, we are debating a conflict in the
former Yugoslavia. This is a part of the world where the ethnic,
linguistic and religious mix, although nothing like the scale of
our mix in Canada, is quite remarkable. As an inevitable result
the ties with Canada are, to say the least, intricate.
In my riding we have two first nations and some 70 first and
second generation nationalities. We have Serb Canadians,
Albanian Canadians, Greek Canadians and Macedonian Canadians who
talk on the phone to relatives in the zone of conflict. Some of
these people came to Canada to get away from the clutches of Mr.
Milosevic. We have church groups, Christian and Muslim, that
have strong ties over there. As the House can imagine, the views
of these Canadians who share a common region of origin are often
very different.
I am glad that Canada is not a tribal society. I am glad that
it is not easy for us to fight our neighbours. I hope that it
never will be.
In my riding there is a wide range of opinion about the conflict
in Kosovo. There are people who are opposed to NATO involvement.
Some simply want the bombing to stop. One person compared the
NATO actions to those of the Nazis. He said that it is like the
Nazis practising with high tech weapons on civilians.
There are people who are very much in favour of the NATO action,
who feel that we should escalate the action in the air and on the
ground rapidly to finish off Mr. Milosevic off once and for all.
I believe that the vast majority of people in Peterborough
support the NATO action, but with sadness. That is why there has
been such an outpouring of support in cash and kind for Kosovo
and neighbouring countries from people who support the NATO
action.
Never before have I known an international crisis that has
resulted in large numbers of people offering space in their homes
for refugees. One couple in Peterborough specified that they
wanted to have a family with at least three children to make good
use of their spacious home. Nurses and translators from
Peterborough have offered to travel to reception points in Canada
and to Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
The Government of Canada has already committed more than $20
million in aid at a time when we are engaged in this conflict.
Canada is not a nation which enters into conflict easily, with
the idea of pounding some other nation. Most people support the
NATO action as a necessary evil, something that they believe has
to be done.
Last October when the House first debated this matter people on
the street often mentioned Rwanda as a missed opportunity. They
would say that if only we had gone in earlier we could have saved
half a million people. Today those who contact me with offers of
aid are saying the same thing. The fact that we are in the first
hour of the Holocaust Memorial Day now reminds us of another case
where timely intervention would have prevented a tragedy.
In the first debate last October I had the strong feeling that
we were raising the ante so that Mr. Milosevic would back down.
It was a bit like a union giving its executive a strike mandate,
with each member secretly hoping that a strike would not be
necessary. In most labour-management negotiations a strike is
not necessary. The same is true of many of the actions of the
international community. Diplomatic and economic pressure
usually does the trick, but this time more serious action was
necessary.
2420
In the debate last October 7 the Minister of Foreign Affairs
pointed out that we were faced with a humanitarian tragedy and
that 300,000 people were on the move. That was six months ago
and there are now a million people on the move. Conditions in
Kosovo have become much worse.
Can we stand by when this sort of ethnic cleansing is going on?
Surely we should learn from experiences like Rwanda and the 1930s
leading up to World War II.
As I said, it is not easy for a country like Canada to enter
into a conflict like this; it never was and it never should be.
Until recently the colour sergeant of the Peterborough legion
was a man who immigrated to Canada just before World War II. He
volunteered and served through the war, much of the time in
campaigns in which his brothers were on the other side. As a new
Canadian he had to make a very difficult personal decision to
volunteer to fight in that war. So did tens of thousands of
others in our armed forces.
It was not easy for Canada to go to war then; it is not easy
now, but let no one doubt our resolve when we decide on a course
of action. We were right then; we are right now. We are engaged
in this tragic conflict today out of firm conviction. Our
intention is to halt ethnic terrorism in Kosovo and prevent its
spread in that region. Our intention is to show that the
international community is resolved on matters such as this.
Let us continue to exert all forms of diplomatic pressure to
achieve a political settlement. Let us hope that Mr. Milosevic
will soon realize that we are serious so that he will allow
Kosovo to develop in peace as an example to the world of diverse
peoples living together.
Let us pray for all those in this troubled region and for their
families, wherever they may be.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, despite the late hour, it is almost 12.30 a.m. here in
Ottawa, it is really prime time out in British Columbia, about
9.30 p.m. I suspect that a lot of my constituents from Prince
George—Peace River who have expressed deep concern to me and to
my offices in the riding over the past few weeks about the war in
Kosovo and Serbia will be watching this debate tonight with great
interest.
Despite the late hour, it is a pleasure for me to participate in
this take note debate. However, it is unfortunate that it is
just a take note debate.
Before we committed troops to the air war we had a debate in the
House, but we have never really had a full blown debate on this
issue and we have never had a vote in the House of Commons on
such an important issue. One of the big issues that came up
repeatedly today in question period was the lack of commitment on
the part of the Prime Minister to uphold democracy and to put
this issue to a vote.
It has been clarified by all the speakers for the official
opposition tonight and by the leader earlier this afternoon that
we support NATO involvement in the Balkans. As all members have
said and as I have heard repeatedly tonight, even from the
government side, it is very reluctant support that all of us give
to this war that we find ourselves in, but it is necessary. I
believe that the majority of Canadians across the land are
supportive as well.
2425
I say that with a certain degree of sadness. When this began
there were greatly mixed emotions and feelings across the land
about the issue, whether NATO should be involved or whether there
was any legal means for NATO to be doing the things that it began
to do with the air strikes and cruise missiles going into
Belgrade, other cities and military locations throughout Serbia.
Over the course of time, as one would suspect, when citizens in
a free and democratic country are confronted nightly on the news
with the appalling scenes of misery, death and destruction that
have been perpetrated on the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, public
opinion has swung quite decidedly.
In speaking with the people of Prince George—Peace River I have
heard some conflict in opinion over the past few weeks, but
generally speaking they understand why we are there and they
understand what we are endeavouring to accomplish.
I would like to talk about the Rambouillet accord and its
failure to bring about a negotiated settlement. The accord was
brokered by the UN security council contact group, which includes
Russia. There are three conditions in the Rambouillet accord:
that Kosovo must remain an integral part of Serbia; that Kosovo
would get some broad autonomy in its operations; and that 28,000
international troops would be placed in Kosovo to monitor its
implementation and to keep the peace.
I heard from a constituent in my riding, Professor Jernej
Polajnar of the University of Northern British Columbia, and I
welcome his input. Professor Polajnar is much more of an
authority on the conflict in the Balkans than I probably ever
will be. He notes that the main sticky point between the
position of Kosovo and that of President Milosevic is the third
condition, that 28,000 troops have to be in place to keep the
peace in Kosovo.
I was quite pleased that following the Prime Minister's speech
earlier today he was asked whether there was not some room on
that issue to look at a truly international force rather than a
NATO force. This is an important point because NATO is viewed by
Serbians as the aggressor. I am not speaking just of Milosevic;
I am talking about the Serbian people. There are a lot of
reasons for that. Probably one of them is the lack of open media
in Serbia to get an unfiltered message out.
Why would the average Serbian, who has bombs and cruise missiles
raining down upon them nightly, want to capitulate to the third
condition and see NATO troops being the ones supposedly keeping
the peace? I would submit that is absurd. Of course they will
not.
If there is some room to manoeuvre on this point Canada should
be actively engaging the Russians or perhaps the Finns. I am not
an authority on which countries would be the best to approach,
but I am sure there must be some countries that would be more
acceptable to the Serbian people to play the role of peacekeepers
in Kosovo than NATO. If that is the biggest sticking point, then
I suggest we must look at moving on from that third point of the
Rambouillet accord.
2430
Certainly I am not privy to the diplomatic efforts being made by
our government to actively approach the Russians and others to
get them involved and to encourage them to come forward with a
plan in which they would participate, to play that role as
peacekeepers.
I am very fortunate as a member of parliament to have a weekly
column in the newspapers in my riding. There are a number of
them because it is a large rural riding. I wrote a column a
couple of weeks ago on this subject. I said in the column, as
all members have said during the debate, that I reluctantly
supported the military intervention because I saw it as a last
resort, that we had to do something.
I used the example of the appalling loss of life that took place
in Rwanda. It is estimated that 800,000 people lost their lives
in that conflict while the world sat back and watched. I
suggested in the column that we simply could not do that in all
good conscience. We have a moral obligation and responsibility
as free and democratic people and we must intercede and do what
we can to try to prevent that from happening in Kosovo. I believe
we are endeavouring to do that.
Canadians must grapple with the question of whether we should
commit our own troops to try to prevent that type of genocide. We
cannot have it both ways. We cannot sit in front of our
televisions saying “Oh my God, why doesn't someone do
something”, and then condemn the government if it acts and does
something to try to prevent it.
That was my message in my column. It was fairly well received
according to the feedback from my constituents. People generally
understand that there has to be a reckoning for Milosevic and his
type.
As I said at the outset, the official opposition and I support
the continuing air war, but there must be some strong conditions
and there must be an open honest debate if we ever get to the
next step. We are probably going to have to look at the
insertion of ground troops in Kosovo. We definitely must have a
vote in the House of Commons if and when that takes place.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, would my colleague support the use of ground troops in
the former Yugoslavia if necessary?
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition
said so well this afternoon, the official opposition would
support the use of ground troops if a couple of conditions were
met.
The first condition is that NATO would have to very clearly show
it was necessary, that it was a reluctant last resort in order to
prevent the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing of the ethnic
Albanians and the Kosovars.
The second condition put forward by the Leader of the Opposition
was a very obvious one, the protection of our own armed forces.
During the five years I have been a member of parliament there
has been a lot of debate in the House of Commons about the
terrible state of equipment for our armed forces. The government
has consistently said that our armed forces is well equipped to
do the job, yet under the management of this government the
defence resources have shrunk from a budget of $12 billion to
about $9.3 billion. I for one cannot understand how we can
expect our armed forces to do the job when we do not give them
the tools.
2435
Yes, we are supportive if it is proven necessary that we must
put ground troops in Kosovo. The reality is if we are going to
do that, we must ensure that our sons and daughters are properly
equipped to do the job they are asked to do.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the member talked about the conditions that have been
proposed to bring peace to the Kosovo region. He also talked
about the fact that we may need to encourage those conditions to
be put into place or renegotiated with the use of ground troops.
Has he had any feedback from his constituents? Have they given
some thought to the kind of results Canadians would need to see
in order to justify risking the lives of Canadian troops in
Kosovo? Does the member believe the government has satisfied him
and other members of the House that those conditions would in
fact be met?
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question.
Yes, I have. I think every member on both sides of the House
over the last number of weeks and indeed months has had a
substantial amount of input from their constituents out of
concern for this.
One of the big concerns is the potential for escalation of this
conflict. It is a great worry because of the close ties between
Russia and the former Yugoslavia and the position that Russia has
taken in backing away since its involvement in the Rambouillet
accord. It has really backed away because of the military action
of NATO.
The real problem is a lack of communication of a plan by this
government. The vast majority of Canadians are wondering exactly
what the plan is and what the conditions are where we would say
that we have been successful and that NATO has been successful.
We can all be impassioned, speak emotionally about the issue and
our concern for the Kosovars. The only way we can judge that is
when they are back in their homes, but in many cases they do not
have homes to go back to.
We have to have a great deal more debate and discussion on this
issue. We have to have a firm plan put forward by the government
on what it will consider to be a success. I have not seen that
happen to date.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it would be a good idea if we refreshed our memories
about the motion being debated this afternoon and now into the
wee hours of the morning. I would like to read it again for those
who are following this debate. I know many Canadians are
following the debate. The motion that the government has put
forward for this debate is this:
That this House take note of the continuing human tragedy in
Kosovo and the government's determination to work with the
international community in order to resolve the conflict and
promote a just political settlement for Kosovo that leads to the
safe return of the refugees.
This motion is long on rhetoric but terribly short on specifics.
I do not want to be unkind to government members, some of whom I
know have spoken from the heart, but they have been long on
rhetoric, long on compassion, long on “we can never let this
happen again”, but very short on practicalities.
The simple fact is that this is happening. This has been
happening around the world for the last number of years, in the
killing fields of Cambodia, in Somalia, in the Sudan, in Rwanda,
in Ethiopia, in Central America, and the list goes on.
To simply say that it will make the world
safe and happy for everyone is nonsense. The government has put
forward no plan at all. There are no specifics. There is no
goal in mind that the government has articulated in a meaningful
and practical way or an action plan as to how it can be achieved.
The government is simply saying it will do something.
2440
If the government is to have a determination to work with the
international community, there should be some specifics. That is
why the Leader of the Opposition put forward an amendment to the
motion which says that the government must specify the moral,
political and military objectives of Canada's involvement with
NATO in the region.
What are the moral, political and military objectives? Although
our leader outlined what we think they are, the government needs
to be up front with Canadians about what these objectives truly
are. If it wants to accept the proposals, the definition and the
specifics we have put forward, that is well and good. If the
government does not like those, what is its moral objective?
What is the wrong that we intend to right?
The government motion says to take note of the continuing human
tragedy and work to resolve the conflict. What wrong are we
trying to right? As other members have pointed out, although
genocide has been committed against Albanians by Serbians, in the
past it has been the other way around. The Kosovo Liberation
Army has been labelled by many international observers as a
terrorist organization.
Exactly what wrong are we trying to right? Let us be specific.
What justice are we seeking to establish? We need to know these
things. We need to be specific about them. How can we achieve
objectives that have not yet been identified or defined? It is
nonsense. We cannot just get up and put our hands over our
hearts and say that this is terrible, that the pictures we see
are terrible and not specify our objectives. The atrocities
which are happening are terrible, cruel, horrible and unthinkable
in Canada. Unless we specify exactly what our objectives are, we
are never going to meet them. Unless we know where we are going,
we are not going to get there.
Let us talk about the political objectives. I suggest that is
the administrative framework to support the moral results that we
have identified. What administrative framework is going to be
put into place?
My colleague talked about the Rambouillet plan and the fact that
it may need some adjustment. We are speculating. We are not in
the NATO councils and the international discussions that the
government representatives are. At best the government has been
vague about what things are being talked about.
What are we trying to achieve as far as a political framework
and an administrative framework in order to make sure that the
justice we are seeking, and which we should specify, is actually
going to be enforced and administered? We have to talk about the
military objective. We have to have an action plan.
We have to specify the resources that are going to be necessary
to carry out the action plan. As many members of the opposition
have pointed out, we do not have the resources. It is ludicrous
for us to parade around pretending that we are going to achieve
something when we have divested ourselves of many of the
resources that we will need to achieve those objectives.
Our military capacity has been depleted over the last two years
by deliberate policies of the government. Our defence critic,
the member for Calgary Northeast, made a number of observations
about our forces and their unreadiness and lack of equipment.
Those questions have to be answered. The government did not even
address them.
The government says that we are going to get in there and we are
going to fight to protect people. With what? With how many
troops? With what equipment? The French were giving our troops
axe handles earlier on to beat off the wild dogs.
They did not have equipment to protect themselves, never mind
innocent Kosovars and Albanians. Governments have reduced the
size and capabilities of our military by 50% during the last
decade. On what basis are we to come forward and protect people
in other countries? This is a sorry tale.
2445
Over and over the issues of old equipment, unsafe equipment and
increasingly stressed out soldiers are raised in the House. While
our helicopters fall from the sky or cannot get off the ground,
our defence minister says we would never have unsafe equipment
for our troops. That is nonsense. It flies in the face of facts
and the things that happen every day. We have to talk about
these things.
What does the government do? It puts forward a soft, mushy
motion and says that it will promote a just settlement and
safety. Let us be specific. We have to tell Canadians about
this because we are asking them to support these measures. Huge
tax dollars go into these kinds of missions. In spite of the
Prime Minister's assurances that no ground troops are being
considered, we know they are. The government's own defence
minister has said it was under consideration.
If we are to ask our fathers and mothers, our sons and
daughters, our husbands and wives, our brothers and sisters to go
into another part of the world to carry out unspecified
objectives with a lack of equipment, we have to get some
information to the Canadian people to reassure them that there is
some focus, that there is some objective that can be carried out.
A number of my constituents have contacted me with concerns. The
official opposition, as is the case with all parties in the
House, has supported what has gone on in trying to rectify the
situation in Kosovo. Many of my constituents have tremendous
concerns. I would like to read one of them:
I would like to express my opposition to Canada's continued
involvement in Kosovo. Why are we there? I am very concerned
with human suffering, but I am baffled that people don't remember
the history of this place and the fact that there is a dismal
human rights record that hasn't been addressed in the past.
We owe Canadians a real debate and an expression of their will
through a vote in the House by their elected representatives. The
government is dropping the ball. It is simply saying that we had
a debate. However it has not been a meaningful debate. It has
not been on specifics. Canadians have not been well served by
the government. I urge the government to get specific, to get
real, to have a real mandate from Canadian people, and to mean
business in Kosovo.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to ask my Reform Party colleague, just as I asked the
Prime Minister this afternoon, to give, not one, not two, but
three reasons why there should be a vote in this House if a
decision is made to use ground forces in the conflict in Kosovo.
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I could probably give
10 reasons but I will give the member three because I know my
time is short.
This is a democracy ruled by the people. How are people
supposed to express their rulership, their decision making, if
their elected representatives have no voice, if their elected
representatives cannot express their will? Democracy is what we
are trying to supposedly preserve in these parts of the world,
but we are not practising it here because there is no vote. One
reason there should be a vote is to express our commitment in
this country to true democratic principles. Let the people
speak.
The second reason we should have a vote is if the government is
to commit the resources, human lives and well-being of the
country, it should have a mandate to do so and not just some
executive decision by cabinet behind closed doors into its own
members do not have any input, never mind the rest of the House.
The mandate should say that the people, the legislators and the
elected representatives are behind what the government will do.
In that way we would know there is a commitment. We would be
much stronger because we would be together. It would not be just
a few people deciding what is going on and other people asking
what is going on and why it is going on. We would have talked
about it. We would know what the plan is and would have made a
wilful decision to support it, which I think would be what all of
us would desire to do.
2450
The third reason we need a vote is that in order to have a vote
we must have a real debate, not this mushy motion that I read,
not these nice words but some real specifics. If we are voting
we have to know what we are voting on. We cannot just take
notice that things are happening. We have to ask what we are
voting on, what we are trying to achieve and how we will achieve
it.
These are the kinds of things I talked about in my speech to
which I hope the hon. member was listening. We need to have a
vote. It would make members demand the facts and address their
minds to the facts. I think that would be healthy, proper and
appropriate.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, actually I thought we were having a rather good debate.
I have been here a very long time. Many members on all sides of
the House have contributed very significantly and very well. I
hope the government is taking note because many points of view
have been presented.
I asked a question earlier of the hon. member's leader
pertaining to the promise of a vote before Canada put ground
forces into Kosovo, if Canada were to do so. I would like to
observe one of the difficulties of promising a vote. When the
time comes maybe there will be a vote. Indeed I rather hope
there will be a vote. Between now and then, if we promise that
putting in ground forces depends on a vote, every one of us would
be subject in our constituency offices to pressure from the two
sides in this conflict.
I remind the member that the sides in this conflict are
extremely bitter. We are talking about conflict possibly leading
to the killing with Canadian troops of people's relatives in
Serbia or in Kosovo. The reason we cannot say that putting in
ground forces depends on a vote is that we would be subject to
not only intense pressure but possibly even intimidation in our
ridings. It is very dangerous.
I would prefer that we set aside the question of a promise of a
vote if we deployed ground forces. Let the government do what it
must do when the time comes, should the time come, and I dearly
hope the time never comes that we use ground troops.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Madam Speaker, I must say that I
truly respect the member. He is one of the thoughtful members of
the House. I have a great respect for many of his interventions.
However, I certainly hope the member is not buying the nonsense
that somehow we do not need a vote. That is absolute garbage.
Whoever is feeding him that, because I am sure he would never
have thought of it himself or held that position, I hope he will
not buy it. I hope he is not just a backbencher who is being led
around by the nose with these kinds of ridiculous arguments.
If we are not prepared to stand the heat we should get out of
the kitchen. Just because a decision is difficult, because there
are strong feelings on both sides, does not mean that we should
abdicate our responsibility to make informed decisions based on
the best information we have and on the best balance we can
achieve. I ask the member to support that position with all his
heart.
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
must admit it gives me no great pleasure to stand at this hour to
speak to very complex issues. These issues are as involved, as
profound and as complex as faced by any parliamentarian. I might
mention as well that I will be splitting my time.
Literally we are debating the issue of whether we should or
should not go to war, whether we should or should not operate
within the treaty confines of our NATO alliance, and whether we
can or cannot contribute to a resolution of an ethnic conflict
that has been going on for centuries.
2455
This area of ethnic and religious diversity has been a powder
keg for years, going back to Suleman the Magnificent. Arguably
it was the point of conflict that set off World War I. It was
also a point of Nazi aggression in World War II when the Serbs
actually fought the Nazis and the Albanians were the
collaborators.
The participants in these ethnic conflicts have over time been
either victims or aggressors. Yesterday's victims are today's
aggressors and may well be tomorrow's victims. Indeed
yesterday's aggressors are today's victims and may well be
tomorrow's aggressors.
It is therefore in this historical context that NATO with the
best of intentions has attempted to bring some ethnic peace and
harmony to this arena. For the purposes of debate I am willing
to concede that NATO and other interlocutors have made every
attempt to bring the factions to the peace table. I would argue
that there are no innocents in this debate and that all factions
have in fact been guilty of ethnic cleansing, genocide and other
horrible crimes against humanity.
NATO is not without its own difficulties as a prospective
peacemaker. Its policies have not been clear and have not been
consistent. For instance, in Croatia NATO was silent while the
Serbs were ethnically cleansed from the greater Croatia area. In
Bosnia-Hercegovina the Serbs were the protagonists in the
hostilities and perpetrated some pretty awful things upon the
other ethnic groups there.
This in turn led to some peacekeeping, but ultimately we bombed
the Serbs to stay in a multi-ethnic state. In Kosovo we are
bombing them to get out of a multi-ethnic state with the presumed
aim of separating into an Albanian section and a Serbian section.
This in and of itself has caused great difficulties for the
population and lays bare our naive assumption that bombing will
somehow or another lead to a resolution.
Our Turkish partners have their own ethnic cleansing going on.
We are in a moral quagmire because we bring to the table
contradictory principles. We are humanitarian hawks. We believe
that if we wage war for humanitarian purposes somehow or another
peace will be restored. I would suggest it is extremely naive to
think that bombs will bring peace.
We are into a moral quagmire from which we will not easily
extract ourselves. We are into a legal quagmire from which we
will not easily extract ourselves. We are into a military
quagmire from which we will not easily extract ourselves. The
history of this area is fraught with inter-ethnic conflict and
yields no easy solutions.
Arguably our use of force to date has done nothing but create
more inter-ethnic conflict, floods of refugees and oceans of
blood. It has heightened world tensions in an area of the world
where tensions are high at the best of times. Have we learned
nothing from history? Is one world war not enough?
For instance, at this point in time Macedonia is undergoing some
of its own ethnic tension as the floods of refugees have
disturbed its balance. When Macedonia gets nervous so also does
Greece. When Greece gets nervous so also does Turkey. Most
particularly, when Serbia gets bombed the Russians feel
particularly affronted.
Entering into peace brokering arrangements with the Russians is
dubious at best and fraught with its own level of difficulties.
One would like to assume that in dealing with a secure person
such as President Yeltsin we would somehow or another achieve a
resolution. However any casual reading of the situation yields
the conclusion that President Yeltsin has a tenuous hold on power
at best. Lined up behind him are a bunch of nut cases who would
be more than happy to do sabre rattling of their own and touch
off possibly a larger conflict.
At this point in time we have rained bombs down on Yugoslavia
for 21 days. We have something in the order of 250,000 extra
refugees, possibly as many as half a million. We have
destabilized the area which is fragile at the best of times and
brought into play a former superpower. Increasingly at this
point the American generals have said that this was all
reasonably predictable.
If this was all reasonably predictable, then why in heaven's name
did we get into it?
2500
Another consequence of this conflict is the erosion of our
commitment to the United Nations and the rule of law. Canada has
been a booster of the United Nations and has committed itself to
peacekeeping operations whenever asked. In addition, we have
politicked long and hard to obtain a seat on the security
council, advocated soft power, advocated human security and
advocated a number of other initiatives that are consistent with
our role as a middle power.
However, as soon as the conflict came along we abandoned our
principal position with the United Nations, we did not secure a
resolution from the security council and we abandoned any
pretence of the rule of law. In the course of our proceeding in
this fashion we have, for want of a better term, kissed away the
rule of international law.
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot, for many purposes, seek
the rule of international law, seek to create international
institutions, seek to obtain peace and security throughout the
world through the role of international law and then, when asked
by big brother to participate in NATO bombings, run off and
abandon years of work at the United Nations. There have already
been a lot of victims in this war and the rule of law may be one
of the most significant.
We are well aware that the United States does not care about the
United Nations, nor does it think anything of it. In our haste
to fulfil our obligations to NATO we have bought into the
American view that the United Nations is an irritating
irrelevancy and not worthy of dignified dialogue among nations.
The final point I wish to make is with respect to our military
quagmire. It is very easy to get into war; it is a great deal
more difficult to get out. This so-called exit strategy about
which many people have spoken is not as much strategy as a point
of desperate departure.
We do not have an exit strategy and, of course, Mr. Milosevic
cannot be counted on to accommodate us. Therefore, we are in the
unenviable position of having to ratchet up our commitment to
such an extent that we will have to virtually pulverize the
nation of Yugoslavia into submission and then impose a peace
settlement upon the nation of Yugoslavia. It echoes again of
World War I when we imposed a settlement on the German nation.
There may be military analysts out there who can count that
cost, but I as a parliamentarian have no idea what that cost
might be and I defy my hon. colleagues to suggest otherwise.
I am therefore left to speculate. If I speculate on the basis
of history, I would note that the Serbian resistance fighters in
the second world war under Marshal Tito kept a very trained,
well-equipped and very committed German army, under the Nazis,
pinned down for years.
I think we would be foolish in the extreme to think we may have
better military toys and therefore our side will win. I need
only point to Vietnam as an example, where the Americans had far
superior technology but little people in pyjamas won that war
with 65,000 American dead.
I was in Vietnam last year. It is a dinky little country. It
reduced a super power like the United States to abject
humiliation through sheer force of will. Does anyone in the
House or the government know that we are not just creating
Europe's version of Vietnam?
We are entering into another nation's civil war which has been
going on for centuries and from which we will not easily or
gracefully extract ourselves. We are in a moral quagmire where
there are no innocents. We are in a legal quagmire where the
rule of law is a victim. We are in a military quagmire from
which we cannot readily extract ourselves. This reflects very
poorly on our values as a nation and compromises our standing
among the nations.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, as
you can see, the Bloc Québécois is interested in these matters
even at this late hour.
I would like to ask my colleague, who has a legal background and
who, I believe, is well versed in criminal law, whether he
believes a genocide is currently taking place in Kosovo or
whether he believes that, for the moment, it is more a matter of
ethnic cleansing.
2505
Either way, under international law—because he referred to
international law—does the international community not have an
obligation to act to prevent genocide or ethnic cleansing?
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question and I congratulate him on his staying power at
this late hour.
It is indeed a good question. It brings up some rather
technical distinctions between what constitutes genocide and what
constitutes ethnic cleansing. In simple terms, as I understand
genocide, it is simply that you lock the people in and you kill
them all. Ethnic cleansing is a more selective process. I must
admit that if I were a victim, I would not appreciate the
distinction. The distinction would probably be lost on me, as I
would be dead either way.
As to the use of international institutions to bring some
justice to this situation, it seems to me that we have caught
ourselves in a bit of a contradictory position. For certain
purposes we want to use international institutions, but we
readily abandon international institutions for other purposes.
As I said in my speech, I think we are in something of a moral
quagmire here. We are not being consistent with our overall
commitment to international law.
We seem to want to have it both ways. We want to use
international institutions for certain purposes, but for other
purposes, for instance if we cannot get a resolution from the
United Nations, we just walk away from it, abandon it. I think
we will pay for that decision.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp: Madam Speaker, following up on what my
colleague just said, I would like to ask him if he believes that
under international law, NATO and its member countries are
justified in intervening in Kosovo on humanitarian grounds.
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks if
there is under international law an exception for the invasion of
a sovereign state. That is the essence of the question, as I
would understand it.
The theory is that when a sovereign state commits either ethnic
cleansing or genocide on a portion or all of its population,
therefore, it is a humanitarian exception under international law
which entitles us to intervene. I would be concerned that if we
go down that path we would put into question the whole concept of
sovereignty.
I would point to an article which appeared in the Globe and
Mail on the weekend in which Marcus Gee quotes Woodrow Wilson
from 1918 concerning the principle of self-determination for a
nation of peoples. Secretary of State Robert Lansing was aghast.
The phrase, Lansing said in a private memo, was simply loaded
with dynamite.
It is my view that international law, when it comes to
intervention on humanitarian grounds, in a situation such as
this, cries out for intervention. However, I am loath to engage
that as a precedent and would want to very carefully nuance an
answer to that, which I am not sure I am going to be able to do.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to speak of peace, not war. I would like
to speak of hope, not despair. Indeed, despite the fact that we
have talked only of war, of violence and of bombing, I think
there is a glimmer of hope. I saw that glimmer, at least I
believe it was a glimmer, on an airplane coming from Winnipeg on
Friday when I was reading the Winnipeg Free Press.
2510
There was a page on the war in Kosovo which had the usual
headlines about bombing, troops moving, feeling the pain of the
refugees and so forth. However, what was interesting about this
page was the picture at the centre of it. The picture showed a
soldier in full uniform bending over a baby. The cutline read:
“An Israeli soldier covers a Kosovo refugee baby with an army
blanket after it was born in a field hospital in Macedonia”. It
was an Israeli soldier.
The page also contained a sidebar story detailing which
countries had decided to take Kosovo refugees. One of the
countries that had already taken refugees was Turkey. It had
taken 7,000 refugees and, as I understand, intends to take more.
I submit that there is a glimmer of hope there. There is a
connection between the mention of Turkey taking refugees and the
Israeli soldier in the field in Macedonia. Those two countries
were the scenes, and some might say the perpetrators, of two of
the other great ethnic cleansings of the 20th century. Those are
two out of three, the third being the holocaust.
In 1915, Turkey, the former Ottoman Empire, was at war with
Russia and the other allied powers because it was on the side of
Germany. In an effort to quell an uprising of Armenians who were
siding with the Russians it banished some 700,000 Armenians. It
transported them forcibly out of their homes, villages and cities
and sent them to Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. This occurred at a
time when there was no United Nations and when there was no
infrastructure to look after such a massive movement of people,
many of whom died.
In 1967 there was a six day war against Egypt and the other Arab
powers in the region in which the Israelis were in a fight for
their lives. After six days, when it was clear the Israelis were
winning, they shelled Palestinian villages. I remember the
consequence of that. I remember seeing the photographs in the
newspapers and seeing the television clips, which were very
similar to what we are seeing now. There were hordes of
Palestinian refugees crossing bridges into Jordan.
Here is the hope. Remember that it was the former Ottoman
Empire that actually perpetrated the expulsion of the Armenians,
but Turkey and Israel have deeply drank of the bitterness of
those expulsions. Neither country would ever say they were
genocides. They would say it was necessary because they were in
a state of war. But look at what has happened over the years, at
how big a price Israel and Turkey have both paid in bitterness.
The whole Middle East destabilized and Lebanon, one of the jewels
of the Middle East, was destroyed because of the expulsion of the
Palestinians and the conflict that resulted.
When I see that the Israelis are in Macedonia because of the
refugees and when I see Turkey putting out a hand to Albanian
refugees, I say that is a recognition of the deepness of the
bitterness and of the destabilization it causes. It is a
recognition and an atonement. It is a beginning where we can
hope there will be some forgiveness on the part of the
Palestinians of the Israelis, on the part of the Armenians of the
Turks and the other way around. So there is hope. I hope that
is something we can look forward to coming out of this.
What of Kosovo? What makes it different from what happened in
the former Ottoman Empire and in Israel? What is different is
how it parallels the other great ethnic cleansing, what happened
in Nazi Germany to the Jews. In Germany, as in Kosovo, a
government was expelling innocent civilians with force and
terror.
Germany was not at war with its Jewish population. Kosovo was
not at war with the majority of the ethnic Albanians. We admit
that it did have guerrilla problems, but it was not at war with
one million Kosovars. Yet it was expelling them. The
consequence has been the destabilization of the region.
2515
When we talk about legalities we have to remember that countries
and groups of countries have always reserved the right to take
military action when there is a major destabilization of some
region of interest that can lead to further wars. NATO was quite
correct to enter into the Kosovo situation because already
400,000 ethnic Albanians had been expelled and there were another
500,000 to go. It had to act.
There certainly was the moral imperative in the humanitarian
sense that the regime in Belgrade had no right to expel 90% of
the population of Kosovo. Quite apart from that, NATO had to act
because we could expect the same destabilization in Kosovo that
we saw in the Middle East with the Palestinian refugees.
Once having acted, what is next? It has not unfolded as we
would have hoped. Belgrade has not backed down. We have an
impasse. The last thing in the world we want to do is to send in
Canadian ground forces, or any ground forces for that matter. We
must remember to look at the situation from the perspective of
the Serbians. All through history it has been a solution of many
governments including Britain and the United States. When they
have a problem they have ethnically cleansed the region that is
the problem. They do not see that they are doing anything that
is particularly wrong.
I will give a few examples. In the Boer War the British were in
South Africa and they could not quell the Boer farmers. What did
they do? They rounded up all the civilians, all the wives and
children, and put them into concentration camps. That is how the
British solved the Boer War question.
There have been many examples in the past but they belong in the
past. The problem right now is that what is wrong in Serbia is
that it is repeating the past. We have to convince the people in
Serbia that is not the way to do it. They can no longer use the
tool of ethnic cleansing.
We must be very careful because this is not necessarily
genocide. We know what genocide is. It is what occurred in the
Holocaust when the state systematically murdered people. To
expel people as is occurring in Kosovo, if we want to make a fine
point of it, is exactly the same as what happened with the
Ottoman Empire and exactly the same as what happened with the
Israelis. They would rightly be offended if we suggested that
was a case of genocide.
On the other hand atrocities do occur. Whenever there is a
civil war, whenever there is an expulsion of people, atrocities
do occur. We have to give the Serbs credit for wanting to
preserve what they think is a legitimate ethnic identity based on
territory. We are very wrong if we do not give them some
opportunities to find a way out, to join the rest of the world,
and to appreciate that the tactics they are using are wrong.
If we send in ground troops, every Serb soldier will believe he
is fighting for a just cause and will become a martyr. We will
be making martyrs out of criminals. That would be the wrong
tactic.
What is the solution? I do not know but I can suggest there is
a key. I believe that key is Russia. We should be pleading with
Russia to intervene to try to persuade the Serbs that there is a
way out of the impasse, that there is dignity. I do not know
what it is, but I know that we cannot just simply say that these
are the five conditions and we will bomb the daylights out of
them if they do not agree. I do not think that is the way to do
it. I think that is the message coming from the leadership of
NATO. I hope it is not the message that is being delivered by
this country.
I think the bombing has to stop or at least pause. I support
going into Kosovo. There is no doubt we had to do it for the
reason of stability in the region and for humanitarian reasons.
To keep on bombing is not the answer. Diplomacy is the answer.
We should ask the country with the greatest experience in that
region that is a great power to intervene on our behalf to try to
find a solution, and I believe that is Russia.
2520
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. I was interested
to hear what he had to say in the latter part of his speech about
stopping the bombing and not requiring compliance with the full
five points that have been outlined by NATO and, for that matter,
by the UN secretary general.
It is very similar to the point of view put forward by my leader
earlier today. We need to lower the threshold for getting back
to the table and not eliminate conditions altogether. It is fair
for NATO to say to President Milosevic that at the very least the
killing in Kosovo, the expulsion of ethnic Albanians and the
other things that are being done to ethnic Albanians have to stop
in return for or simultaneously with a suspension in the bombing
in order to create the kind of political space in which there
might be a return to the table, hopefully with the help of
Russia.
We take the view, as I think the hon. member does if I
understood him correctly, that demanding the Serbian people and
the Serbian government adhere to all those things which might
well be the subject of negotiation before they go to the
negotiation table, and demanding that they adhere to things which
we already know are unacceptable, is a recipe for more and more
bombing without result.
I welcome the hon. member's comments and invite him to elaborate
further.
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, this is an open debate.
When I speak here, as I was asked by my Prime Minister who asked
all of us to speak, I speak from my heart. I speak as I see the
situation.
I hope that not only is my leadership listening but that the
world is listening. We are one of the few open democracies. Each
one of us can stand and not parrot the party line or beat our
chests and say the government must be right because it is a war.
It is not that at all. We have to speak and try to contribute to
finding solutions in this debate.
In my opinion we should at least pause the bombing, give talk an
opportunity to take hold again and give the Serbs dignity. We
can never stop a war when we take away a people's dignity. This
is why I am so afraid of NATO's propaganda.
Genocide and ethnic cleansing are very different. When we talk
about genocide we talk about what Hitler did. When we talk about
atrocities in Kosovo we do not know what has happened. It may be
the normal atrocities—and they are horrible enough—that occur
in civil wars. Genocide is something entirely different. We
must be careful of the language and we must not be trapped by it.
We must speak up in the House to make our government know that
we appreciate these distinctions.
[Translation]
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Madam Speaker, it is
true that there are distinctions between ethnic cleansing and
genocide. However, they are fuzzy, and there are no indications
that genocide could not occur in Kosovo.
Since the Kosovar population has been imprisoned and the borders
recently closed, genocide could be occurring.
I would like to ask the hon. member two questions.
Did I understand correctly that he said that what happened to
the Armenians early in this century was not genocide?
If he is so proud of democracy in this parliament, why would he
not distance himself from a Prime Minsiter who did not clearly
state whether we could vote on a motion about the use of ground
forces, if this became necessary.
I did not find his argument convincing.
2525
According to his argument, apparently it would be dangerous for
the 301 members of this House to be subjected to pressure from
the Serbs and the Kosovars. If the government makes that
decision alone, does he not believe that only some 30 members of
this House would be subjected to all that pressure?
In a genuine democracy, then, should parliament not vote on such
an important question as sending troops into another country?
[English]
Mr. John Bryden: Madam Speaker, had it not been for the
United Nations at the time of the expulsion of the Palestinians
from the West Bank in Gaza during the six day war, they would
have all died. The member should know that the Middle East does
not have the nicest climate in the world. People die very
quickly in deserts. People probably die quicker in deserts than
traversing parts of Turkey in the direction of Syria and Iraq.
If we say that people died as part of the expulsion in Turkey as
a result of genocide, we have to ascribe to the Israelis the
intention of genocide. I am not prepared to do that because for
centuries countries have believed that it was legally and
ethically permissible to expel ethnic groups in times of war and
that it was not genocide. Genocide was something such as in
Rwanda when machetes were used or in Nazi Germany when ovens were
used.
If the member makes a parallel with what happened in the former
Ottoman Empire, he has to apply that parallel to Israel, to the
Boar War and all kinds of other examples. From my knowledge I do
not accept that what happened in the former Ottoman Empire was
genocide.
The whole point of my speech was that we should get away from
that type of language. We should admit that ethnic cleansing is
the wrong thing to do under any circumstances as it creates
bitterness and hate. We should be looking for forgiveness,
atonement and forgetfulness in these instances so that we can
live together in the future. That is the way to go.
I think I have answered the other question asked by the member.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Madam Speaker, I wish to
inform the House that I will share my time with the hon. member
for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
It is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak in this House
today about the catastrophic war in Kosovo. Diplomacy did not
alas have the hoped-for results, and it is with arms that the
international community is attempting to convince Slobodan
Milosevic to halt his aggression against the Kosovars. It is
consensus within NATO that will replace the endorsement of the
United Nations.
As the Bloc Quebecois international co-operation critic, I am
concerned above all about the fate of the refugees driven from
Kosovo by this conflict.
The conflict we are seeing in Kosovo at the present time is the
outcome of many years of instability in the Balkans, instigated
largely by one man, or rather one dictator, Slobodan Milosevic.
This 57 year old man has tried for an entire decade to dictate
the course of history in the Balkans, always using the same
methods, terror and blood, and always with the same goal,
strengthening his own power.
It was time the international community took steps to
change this state of affairs. Obviously the Bloc Quebecois
would have preferred a peaceful diplomatic solution to the
conflict over Kosovo, but unfortunately there is this man,
Slobodan Milosevic, defending a greater Serbia at any cost.
The result has been war in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo.
Each time it is the same Machiavellian logic. Igniting a
crisis, proclaiming himself the nation's champion to reassert
his authority and legitimacy over a powerless people already
suffering from many years of bloody conflicts.
2530
These people are now nothing but the playthings of a single
man's ambition and, each time, the adventure is a real debacle
of humanitarian catastrophes.
Let us pass in review the military exploits of this dictator,
Milosevic. First, it is important to bear in mind that the
population of Kosovo is 90% Albanian. In 1974 Albania was
given independent status, but in 1989 Milosevic unilaterally
withdrew by decree its status of independent territory. That
was the spark that led to the Yugoslav explosion of the 1990s.
As part of Milosevic's harassment, the Albanian language was
banned, and Albanian language schools, theatres and newspapers
were closed down.
In light of this new situation, the Kosovars held a referendum
that allowed them to declare Kosovo's independence.
The Milosevic government reacted brutally to that resistance by
sending troops into Kosovo. From then on, the Kosovar people
were the victims of massacres, gang rapes, and the systematic
destruction of villages. A number of NGOs estimated that over
250,000 Kosovars had been displaced and that at least 50,000
persons had fled to the mountains. I need not tell you that,
from then on, the international community was faced with a
humanitarian disaster.
Let us now look at the present situation. On March 11, 1999,
before the air strikes had begun, Sadako Ogata, the UN High
Commissioner for Refugees, estimated that 400,000 persons had
been forced to flee their homes since the conflict had begun in
March 1998.
Of that number, nearly 230,000 had been displaced within Kosovo.
On March 24, the day the air strikes began, there were a total
of 450,000 Kosovar refugees, including 260,000 within Kosovo.
Today, according to estimates by the UN High Commission for
Refugees, some 650,000 inhabitants out of a population of some
2 million have fled Kosovo. Furthermore, it is estimated that
half the refugees are under 18 years of age.
Among the adult refugees, some 85% are women. There is also a
great many elderly persons. As well, in today's newspapers, we
read that the British authorities estimate the number of men
Kosovar refugees who may have disappeared at 100,000.
Faced with such a disastrous picture, now is more than ever the
time to think about these humanitarian crises. Why have we not
learned from the past? In the present conflict, international
diplomatic efforts broke down, let us remember, back in 1989.
What explanation is there for the fact that the international
community, including Canada, did not take note of the Bosnian
tragedy and not only the humanitarian but also the financial and
political costs of failing to take strong action while there was
still time?
It was a good long time ago that the Bloc Quebecois first warned
the Canadian government about the atrocities in Kosovo and the
importance of considering air strikes and, if no other solution
could be found, the sending of NATO ground troops in to put a
stop to ethnic cleansing and prevent the genocide of the people
of Kosovo.
I want to repeat that the Bloc Quebecois has always been in
favour of a diplomatic resolution to the current conflict, but
one must be realistic when faced with the obstinacy of Slobodan
Milosevic. It is probable that, if Canada and the international
community had followed the advice of the Bloc Quebecois, there
would not now be 650,000 Kosovar refugees, to say nothing of
massacred civilians, torture and the mass exile of whole
villages.
It is high time that the international community gave serious
thought to and registered, once and for all, all the errors that
have been committed, and made sure they will not happen again.
This having been said, the fact remains that we are now facing
an atrocious reality, that of a humanitarian crisis.
2535
The refugee overflow into the republic of Macedonia and into
Albania may well destabilize the governments of those countries.
This means that direct, massive, unconditional assistance must
be provided if we want to prevent the conflict from spilling
over in the entire region. Appeals by these two countries must
be taken seriously, and Canada has an obligation to respond to
them.
In addition to these geographic and political contingencies, all
western countries have an obligation to provide every assistance
they can to the persons displaced by the conflict.
The assistance required is considerable, and will continue to be
so for a long time. Canada must prepare to provide assistance
and, starting now, must show its support for NGOs, the UN High
Commission for Refugees, the Red Cross and other organizations.
Canada must also consider the urgency of the situation on the
ground, particularly in Albania and the republic of Macedonia,
where the influx of Kosovar refugees and the resulting need for
humanitarian assistance continue unabated every day.
I want to reiterate the question I asked here in this House
during Oral Question Period this afternoon: Is the government
prepared to reallocate the $100 million set aside to take in
Kosovar refugees here, to help the NGOs that are now looking
after refugees over there? Unfortunately I did not obtain a
response to my question this afternoon. The government must
realize that every dollar spent on humanitarian assistance can
save a life, or at least lessen the suffering of the Kosovar
refugees. The need is very great indeed.
I would like to quote the words of Bajram Cena, the director of
the hospital in Kukes, Albania, where every day thousands of
refugees are pushing to get in:
It is like the end of the world—in the operating room, all
that is available to doctors are scissors, thread for sutures
and a few bottles of rubbing alcohol. The nurses are digging
out shrapnel splinters without anaesthetic. On the other side
of the corridor, blood soaked compresses are floating in the
toilets—
Could this money not be put to use by this doctor for his
hospital? When I say that the life and the most basic well-being
of the refugees depends on this, it is nothing but the stark
truth. What will the government do with the $100 million? That
money must be used immediately.
In conclusion, and for the benefit of listeners in Quebec and
Canada, I would like to recall that it is vital to give
generously to help Kosovar refugees. Those who would like to
donate money, because money is what is most urgently needed, can do
so via the Red Cross, among other agencies, at a toll free number
that I will give right now: 1-800-418-1111.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on an excellent speech. I
felt it came very much from her heart, but I have a question.
I alluded to the Palestinian situation in my remarks. What
happened after the expulsion of the Palestinians was that they
remained in refugee camps for decades. Indeed, they are still in
refugee camps.
What does the hon. member think is a reasonable length of time
to have the Kosovo Albanians in refugee camps? If there is a
limit to that time, does she suggest some other solution other
than refugee camps?
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, for the moment all that can be
done is to protect those refugees who are outside Kosovo. This
will take as long as it takes. What is important at the moment
is for these people to have food, basic care, everything they
need to survive.
It is up to developed countries to send them what they need, to
send money and whatever is required to ensure their survival.
Has a time limit ever been put a war or a dispute between
countries? Must a limit be set, whereby people can remain in
one place for six months, and then will be sent elsewhere?
These people do not want to leave their region, they want to
stay there. Their culture is there. Their country is there.
They are just waiting to be able to get back to it.
Let us try to settle the situation as soon as possible, so that
they can get back to Kosovo and finally find happiness in their
country.
2540
They are not going to find happiness by being taken to other
countries continents away. I would not want to compare the
present crisis with what is going on in Palestine. Every crisis
has its own history. Every war, every movement has its own
history, in its own time. They cannot be compared.
Canada and all of the developed countries have a duty to send
aid to these people in Albania and Macedonia as promptly as
possible, particularly since we know that those countries do not
have the resources to be able to help them.
Let us do our duty, then, and let the government send the
necessary funds and aid to these countries.
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask my colleague, the member for Laurentides, if
she were, for instance, a minister in a sovereign Quebec, what
would be her priority right now, what would she do as minister
for international cooperation given this crisis in Kosovo?
Mrs. Monique Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry. I am not the minister for
international co-operation but I do have some ideas and I would
act swiftly.
We already have some resources at our disposal. We have CIDA,
which is active throughout the world. I would first use the
resources we already have in these regions to provide whatever
help is needed as quickly as possible.
I would not be afraid to ask for $100 million. I think the
minister is not being vocal enough to get the government to hand
over the money needed to help the countries caught in this
crisis.
I would exert incredible pressure on the Minister of Finance
and the Prime Minister to get the funds needed and to help these
people, I would try to avoid duplication and use existing
resources in these regions to act more quickly.
That is what I would do.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in this special
debate.
I remind members that the motion provides:
That this House take note of the continuing human tragedy in
Kosovo and of the government's determination to work with the
international community in order to resolve the conflict and
promote a just political settlement for Kosovo that leads to the
safe return of the refugees.
The member for Laurentides described very clearly and succinctly
the situation of the refugees and the international aid, which
must come quickly to enable them to enjoy basic living
conditions and, once the political and military crisis is over,
to return to their country having suffered as little as possible
in the situation.
The situation also raises certain questions. Was this type of
intervention really necessary? Was NATO justified in
intervening as it did and did it do it right?
I think the answer is in the speech by the member for
Laurentides and in all the images we have seen of the refugees
and the treatment given them by another government, which
treated them like guinea pigs. It is as if they decided to tell
these people they could not live where they wanted. Clearly,
there is a major crisis.
Was the intervention by NATO the most appropriate and properly
planned? Did it anticipate the reality as we have seen it with
all these refugees fleeing Kosovo, pushed by the Serbs' action,
which is in fact ethnic cleansing. I am not sure.
In terms of the end result, where are we today? We must look at
this in three ways, that is in military, humanitarian and
diplomatic terms.
2545
There must be an assessment of the bombing strategy. The
ministers responsible in all NATO countries are currently
conducting such an assessment and they are trying to see whether
other measures are in order, including whether ground troops
should be sent in.
Given the planning difficulties, we have many reservations and
we want to make sure that, when the decision is made, it will be
made with full knowledge of the facts.
This is not an issue regarding which we must wait until we have
absolutely all the relevant information, since it might then be
too late and since that information might no longer be useful.
However, all the necessary preparations must be made, and the
parliaments concerned must be provided with appropriate
information, because several of them will send troops to take
part in such operations.
It is important for us, as elected officials, to be allowed to
vote on this issue. As all the opposition parties have asked
today, there should be a vote on the issue, so that parliament
can indicate its intention with a massive vote. In the case
before us, it would strengthen the position of the Government of
Canada. I hope that the Prime Minister will continue to ponder
the issue and will make a positive decision.
Some humanitarian measures must also be taken. The hon. member
for Laurentides clearly showed the urgent need to act and the
importance of taking the necessary steps so that such action can
take place quickly.
We are going to be judged partly on this aspect by the
international community. So far, our image has not necessarily
been a positive one, given the air strikes and their impact. We
must, from a humanitarian point of view, do our utmost to show
that this is not an act of vengeance, but an act to ensure
respect of international rights and of the rights of citizens
all over the world.
What is needed in a few years is for the Balkans to be fully
integrated into a Europe where there is genuine respect for
human rights, and for the actions taken in 1999 to have improved
the atmosphere and produced acceptable solutions.
On the diplomatic level, I feel that Canada did not play its
role fully. The Government of Canada, through the UN, could
have done much more. Talks with the Russians or the Chinese,
who have a veto, should be continued. If these vetos are
ultimately exercised, we would know by whom. This would lead us
also to take a much closer look at all the weaknesses of the
United Nations.
The fact that NATO has now stepped in without the agreement of
the UN—which I think would have been preferable—is a result of the
imperfections in the UN system. What would prevent a reform at
the present time? The UN system originally made sense, but
evolved over several decades as the international situation
changed. Should something not be learned from all this and the
UN reformed so that this kind of veto does not get in the way of
enforcing respect for human rights internationally in future?
There are lessons to be learned and a public debate is in order.
Whether during the Suez crisis or at other times in the last 30
or 40 years, the Government of Canada has taken some interesting
initiatives internationally.
In this particular case, Canada's diplomatic role was very
limited compared to the role it could have played, not because
we are a major world power but because Canada, through its
contacts, can intervene usefully with the Russians, for
instance, who will play a very important role in the final,
inevitably political, solution, and Russia, in turn, can
intervene with Yugoslavia.
All this bears thinking about. When the Prime Minister of
Canada went to Mexico, he was criticized by Mexico's head of
state for Canada's position.
2550
He explained his position but he may also have to help all those
countries to have a better knowledge of the issue, a better
knowledge of the situation.
If we had an appropriate system in the United Nations, the
general assembly could probably, through a strong enough vote,
overturn certain vetoes. It might be a way to achieve results
and prevent a military organisation like NATO from taking
political stands.
All this brings us back to the fact that we do not have a
perfect system. There are still flaws that have to be remedied.
For the time being, people are going through an unacceptable
situation.
The lesson we should learn from the 20th century is that signs
of ethnic cleansing, as we are now seeing, carry a possibility
of genocide. No one can say that we did not act because we did
not know and that we did not have enough information to take
action.
We do have enough information. We know the terrible situation we
are facing. NATO's action, which may seem to have been
inadequately planned according to comments heard this week, must
send a clear message that will force Yugoslavia to take heed and
allow us to reach a political solution to the present situation.
Let us not forget that the important images are not those of
planes leaving aircraft carriers or military bases in Italy.
The important images are those showing old people, women, all
those displaced persons who are going through a difficult
situation, in humanitarian terms.
The Kosovars we saw on television are not leaders in their
communities. We could see very well that they were simple people
like those in our own communities. Those people were all of a
sudden deprived of their ordinary way of life, in a violent and
unacceptable way.
For those reasons, we must absolutely take clear action. It is
important that the House be allowed to vote to send a clear
message to the international community.
[English]
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay—Superior North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I compliment my colleague on the sincerity of his
speech, but there are some difficulties I am having trouble
understanding. I have several questions.
I do not think there is any difference between that side of the
House and our side of the House with respect to what should be
done as we deal with the refugee crisis and the humanitarian
considerations in the terrible conflict going on in the Balkans.
My colleague made several statements with respect to the
military aspects. One dealt with the imperfections of NATO and
that the Government of Canada could do something else other than
what is being done. The member made some comments about the
United Nations.
What does the member think should happen when 19 countries in
NATO are all united, and have been united in the last three weeks
and three or four days with respect to the military action taken
in trying to bring this terrible person under some kind of
control? What does the member think the United Nations should be
doing? We are all agreed, those of us in the free world and
NATO, and the secretary general recently stated that the United
Nations is doing all it can to find diplomatic efforts to solve
this problem.
The member commented with respect to what our peacekeeping
forces did in the past, starting with the Pearson peacekeeping
movement that Canada adopted and in which Canada has been a world
leader.
2555
To stand in this House and criticize our peacekeeping movement
which has been the honour of Canada for the past 45 years, to
criticize what we are doing as one of the 19 countries of NATO
and to criticize what we are doing as a very important member of
the United Nations does not stand in good stead for the unity
this House should be showing in supporting our efforts on the
military side and what we are attempting to do to satisfy the
humanitarian concerns in which we are all interested.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Speaker, considering the present situation,
I do not think that it would be rude to point out that world
diplomacy did not play its role very well. Had it fully played
its role and been fully effective, we could have avoided
military intervention.
It would have been better to go about things differently. For
me, diplomacy is always the first choice. When we can solve a
problem without resorting to arms, I think that is the course we
must take.
In this case, NATO would have a much stronger position, morally,
if it had been what I would call the military arm of the UN.
That would have been a lot more effective, and it would be a lot
easier to build a consensus among countries outside of NATO.
Earlier, I gave the example of Mexico. Had there been a UN
resolution justifying a military strike based on the need to
protect human rights in the Balkans, I think our position would
have been much stronger.
My intention was not to lash out against Canada's actions on
various issues over recent years. I do think that in the
situation at hand, Canada could have done more than just go
along with the other NATO players. It could have taken up a more
dynamic, aggressive and positive role to try to bring about a
broad international consensus, and thus put pressure on UN
members who have a veto, like Russia and China, and find some
other solution or approach. In the future, that is what we
should do in other such instances.
Who can say that, a couple of months from now, we will not need
a special force to defend a protectorate in Kosovo. To have a
sufficient moral authority, will this special force not need a
mandate from the UN?
After the NATO bombardments, soldiers involved in those NATO
strikes may not be the best choice to act as a buffer between
these two communities. We may need a different kind of
intervention. This is what Canada should be concerned with, and
it should be more active, on the diplomatic front.
[English]
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to split my time with the
hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant.
In times of peace and prosperity, countries and individuals
alike follow higher standards because they are not being forced
into a situation in which they must do something they do not want
to do. But war is a stern teacher. In depriving them of the
power of easily satisfying their daily wants, it brings most
people's minds down to the level of their actual circumstances.
The circumstance that is uppermost in the minds of people today
is the worsening human crisis in Kosovo.
Our thoughts rightly turn to a range of important questions.
What is the current situation in and around Kosovo? What is the
status of NATO's efforts to reduce Slobodan Milosevic's ability
to further harm Kosovo's inhabitants? What does this conflict
mean for us as Canadians and for Canada as a member of the north
Atlantic alliance? What is the nature of our interests and
obligations, be they strategic, political or moral?
As we debate these and other issues today, it is clear to me
that our perspectives on some of these questions and perhaps
those that come closest to home are largely influenced by our
respective views on Canada's traditions.
I join this debate to say a number of things, but first and
foremost to speak my mind on what I believe has developed in the
course of this century into a proud Canadian tradition of helping
others.
2600
Canadians have shown a very real appreciation for the
significance of events occurring far from home, and this
awareness has had an important influence on the government's
decision making.
When they see that the international situation demands it,
Canadians have supported sending the Canadian forces into harm's
way in order to make a tangible contribution to the cause of
international peace and security. This willingness to involve
ourselves in the world has become traditional for us and it is a
tradition that we all can be proud of. It is a tradition rooted
in culture and commitment. It is an expression of our values and
interests abroad.
Canada has long-standing links to the broader international
community through culture, economy and family. As a major
trading nation, we thrive in a stable and international system
and we are directly affected by instability elsewhere. Our
security depends on global peace and stability, and we protect
our interests by working with others.
That is why we are founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization and the United Nations, and why we have committed
ourselves to a host of other international institutions. It is
why we went to Europe to fight for peace in 1914 and returned to
do so again in 1939. After the second world war we fought for
those same ideals in Korea.
Since then, we have become the world's pre-eminent peacemaker;
well intentioned, well equipped and well trained.
Over the last 50 years more than 100,000 Canadian men and women
have served in peacekeeping missions around the world. When the
Nobel prize was awarded to the United Nations for peacekeeping
operations, Canada was singled out for its contributions and
honoured by the international community.
The concept of peacekeeping, which Prime Minister Lester B.
Pearson gave the world over 40 years ago, was a simple yet
powerful idea. And, as history shows, this idea caught on.
Prime Minister Pearson's perspective on international security
also provided two of the fundamental pillars of our foreign and
defence policies. The first is that the promotion of
international peace and stability is of paramount importance to
Canada. The second is that promotion of this stability is best
undertaken collectively because it clearly demonstrates the will
of the international community.
For these reasons Canada may be required from time to time to
commit our military resources to protect deeply held Canadian
interests and values.
We must also remember that Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson's
concept of peacemaking was not limited to providing troops when
fighting had stopped. He clearly understood that military forces
sometimes had to be employed not merely to monitor peace but to
create the conditions in which it can be established.
In 1997, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan echoed
Lester Pearson's vision, stating that “you can do a lot more
with diplomacy when it is backed up with firmness and force”.
Our country has a well deserved reputation as a peacekeeper, but
that reputation and the events that created it are also elements
of a wider tradition. That tradition is one of international
engagement on a range of issues, peace and security being among
them. To understand that tradition we must not forget that we
have never and will never shy away from stronger means if that is
what the pursuit of peace requires.
Canada of course always prefers a diplomatic solution. Our
tradition has always been to appeal to the powers of reason and
try to achieve peace without the use or even the threat of force.
Sometimes, however, diplomatic action is not enough. Diplomatic
efforts sometimes fail to produce the desired result and that
leaves governments with a choice. They have the option of
walking away, but where the interests are real, the international
community is left with little choice but to take action against
those who refuse to adhere to international standards of conduct.
This is a reality of international relations.
2605
This decade alone has given us examples of such circumstances.
When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the international community
had to employ its military resources. In Bosnia, NATO had to use
selective force to bring about the conditions for peace and
stability. On both occasions Canada was there with our allies.
Last year we returned to the gulf to pressure Iraq to comply
with the United Nations weapons inspections. This year we
returned to the Balkans to ease the humanitarian suffering in
Kosovo. Over the years, thousands of Canadian forces personnel
have made Canada's presence felt.
In my riding we are privileged to have one of the largest
military bases in Canada, CFB Petawawa. I am proud to say that
the troops of Base Petawawa have discharged their duty with
diligence, dedication and devotion to securing peace throughout
the world. Our present involvement in NATO operations is only
the most recent form of our long-standing commitment to security.
There are those who will argue that the use of force against
Milosevic's efforts in Kosovo is not in line with multilateralism
or with Canada's traditions. I believe these people are wrong.
In conclusion, I would like to paraphrase John Donne. No person
is an island entire of itself. Every person is a part of the
whole. Any person's death diminishes me because I am involved in
mankind. Therefore, never ask for whom the bell tolls; the bell
tolls for thee.
Right now the bell is tolling loud and clear that Canada must
defend the defenceless of the world, the hundreds of thousands of
refugees in Kosovo who have fled from the destruction of their
homes and the murder and rape of their relatives. We cannot and
will not stand for this kind of evil ethnic cleansing, this
genocide, this destruction of humanity, because when the
oppressed of the world call, Canada answers the bell.
I am so proud that ordinary Canadians from such places as
Arnprior, Barry's Bay, Calabogie, Douglas, Eganville, Renfrew,
Petawawa, Pembroke, Deep River, Stonecliffe, Deux-Rivières and
thousands and thousands in my great riding of
Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke are committed to helping the
refugees and committed to Canada's intervention in the Kosovo
crisis.
When words and hope cannot protect the innocent, Canada cannot
stand idly by. We must move forward with resolute resolve to end
Milosevic's brutal campaign so that one day the bell will toll no
longer, so that one day all mankind will live in peace, security
and prosperity.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for my colleague, because it is important for us to
think things over together tonight—it is 2.10 a.m.
I listened to my colleague's impassioned speech about how we got
to this stage. But how is it that we are here tonight wondering
whether or not we should send in ground troops?
When the air strikes were decided on, there had to be a plan. I
suppose it was thought it would take 5 to 10 days to settle
matters. But it is taking a lot longer and so we are gathered
here tonight.
Some of our young soldiers, and soldiers from other countries,
may have to die—this has to be pointed out—before this conflict is
over.
There is a phrase some people no longer want to hear. I like to
quote it now and then. It is not something I coined. It goes
like this “Peace on earth to men of good will” .
How is it that on the eve of the year 2000 we still believe we
should forge ahead, even though there may be a lot of bloodshed.
2610
As a whole our soldiers are young and generous, and they are
ready. I have trouble understanding how we got to this stage,
virtually unanimously. Everybody agreed this had to be done.
Is there any good reason for asking our soldiers to put their
lives on the line, so to speak? I would like the member to give
me a few good reasons why we should send in ground troops.
Mr. Hec Clouthier: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, tonight's
debate is a historic one, but there is a reason we are
intervening in Kosovo.
[English]
The member opposite seems to be troubled by the fact that
Canadians are risking their lives to fight for the peace and
freedom of others. This is exactly what former Prime Minister
Lester B. Pearson was talking about in his peacemaking efforts.
It is not our desire to risk the lives of our young soldiers, be
they from Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Nova Scotia or any
place around the world. However, on occasion situations
determine that we cannot turn a blind eye. We must act. In this
situation, we know there are hundreds of thousands of people
dying. I find it unfathomable that the member opposite does not
realize this. If it were the member's family, his brother,
sister, mother or father, who were being slaughtered, would he
not want someone to intervene?
I find it almost impossible to believe that the member opposite
would not be rallying behind the Canadian troops saying “Canada
you are doing the right thing”.
I hope he and his party are not saying that Canada should not be
there. I firmly believe we should be. We cannot turn our backs
on these people. We cannot turn our backs on the world community
when it calls for help. It is an atrocity for him to even
intimate that. I hope he is not saying that, but that is what I
gathered from his comments.
If we are playing mere politics that is wrong. I firmly believe
that our young troops, be they from Quebec, Ontario or from CFB
Petawawa in my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, want
to be there to protect peace and freedom throughout the world.
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with a heavy heart and mixed feelings that I rise
today to speak on this very important issue, the issue of the
Canadian Armed Forces going overseas to help protect freedom and
democracy.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the many men and women
of the Canadian Armed Forces who on a daily basis serve and
represent their country in many theatres overseas, not only in
the area of fighting on behalf of their country, but particularly
in the area of peacekeeping in many troubled spots around the
globe.
I also want to thank and praise the Canadian fighter pilots who
are now overseas taking action on behalf of their country. I want
to praise their families and loved ones who are sitting at home
wondering exactly what is happening to their loved ones. I know
that times are difficult for these families. I want them to know
that Canadians all across this country thank them. I know
Canadians would agree with me to pray for their loved ones.
2615
How did we get into this crisis? Mr. Milosevic's intransigence,
his conduct in this current crisis in Kosovo, his support of the
Yugoslav army in going into the area and raping, pillaging, and
removing these poor people out of their homes and their country
was something Canada needed to respond to.
Prior to Milosevic's rise to power, Kosovo was made up mostly of
ethnic Albanians and had constitutional authority within the
country of Yugoslavia. This right was stripped away from these
people by Mr. Milosevic in 1989. Since then his security forces
and his police have mounted a campaign in which innocent men,
women and children have suffered.
Canada has had a long history in this region. It has
participated in the region since 1991. It was part of the
European Community's monitoring mission from 1992 to 1995.
Diplomatic solutions are preferable. In March 1998 the United
Nations passed a resolution which called on parties to this
conflict to reach a peace settlement. This was followed by
another resolution which demanded both sides to end their
hostilities and come to a peaceful agreement.
In October 1998 when faced by the threat of NATO air power, the
Milosevic government agreed to a ceasefire. It agreed to an
observer mission to oversee the ceasefire and also agreed to sit
down and have talks on the issue. Over the next five months,
Yugoslav forces violated this ceasefire. They took actions
against the Kosovo Liberation Army and carried out a violent
campaign and also carried out a violent campaign against the
citizens. Canada and the international community could not stand
by and see these people suffer.
An interim agreement was agreed to in Rambouillet, France. That
agreement was signed by only one party. Unfortunately the
Serbian delegation refused to sign. Again the Americans, through
Richard Holbrooke, tried to get an agreement and tried to get the
Milosevic government to see reason in its actions. Those talks
failed and we are now in this situation.
The United Nations would have been the preferable way to resolve
this issue. However, the United Nations Security Council could
not come up with an agreement because two countries refused to
agree for various reasons.
I was encouraged when United Nations Secretary General Kofi
Annan called on Milosevic and the Yugoslav Serb authorities to
end immediately the campaign of intimidation and expulsion. He
called on them to cease all activities of military and
paramilitary forces in Kosovo, to accept unconditionally the
return of refugees, to accept the deployment of an international
military force, and to permit the international community to
verify this. The NATO objectives in Kosovo are essentially the
same requests by Secretary General Kofi Annan.
2620
Canada's preference and I am sure the preference of all
Canadians would have been a negotiated settlement. I speak now on
behalf of my constituents in Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant whom I
have talked to not only during the last two weeks over the Easter
break but before that. Most of them have said to me that they
would have preferred a negotiated settlement. They would have
preferred the United Nations system to work.
I can speak for the overwhelming majority of them when I say
that these constituents of mine support the position of the
Government of Canada on this. They support the fact that the
Government of Canada is involved not only on the military side
but particularly on the humanitarian side, on the side of trying
to help the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons in the
region. We have seen on TV the signs of women and children coming
out of the area.
It is important also to thank Canadians for their humanitarian
efforts in this area. Many Canadians through their church groups
and their community organizations have offered support for people
in this area. About 800,000 or a million displaced people need
our help. I thank Canadians in all parts of the country for
coming forward with that help.
I thank the members of the Canadian armed forces who are now in
the region, away from their families and loved ones, representing
our country. I thank them for their efforts and assure them of
the Government of Canada's continued support to help them in
their efforts.
I call on the Milosevic government to listen to reason, to look
at the negotiated settlement of Rambouillet and to stop the
hostilities in that area.
The Government of Canada is on the right track. I believe that
Canadians support us in this. It is something I am sure no
government would ever want to do, but it is something that I can
say on behalf of my constituents that we support.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, one of the things the hon. member said which is worth
exploring is one of the things that bothers me, which is the
analysis that has attended our getting into this situation. The
member referred to it when he talked about the fact that the
Milosevic government did not sign the Rambouillet agreement but
that the KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army did.
It seems to me that we can make too much of this. Not so much
that Milosevic did not sign it. I think that is obviously
something that should be taken into consideration, although there
is a considerable degree of analysis which suggests that the
Rambouillet agreement was designed in such a way as to make it
impossible for Mr. Milosevic to sign it. But we can also
overemphasize, it seems to me, the fact that the KLA did sign it,
because the KLA signed it in the full knowledge that the Serbian
government would not sign it. There was no price to pay for
signing this agreement.
I think it is a mistake to laud the KLA for signing this peace
agreement, not that I am suggesting the member did it but I have
heard others do it. The KLA knew full well the other party to
the talks would not sign. By signing it in the full knowledge
that the others would not sign it, in effect they conscripted
NATO as their air force in this conflict between themselves and
the Serbian government.
I suggest to the member not by way of argument that this is one
of the things that bothers me about the analysis that at one
point or another we have all accepted. I am not trying to single
out the member, or his party for that matter, because this was a
decision that was made with a certain degree of unanimity here in
parliament.
2625
One of the elements that bothers me in the analysis we were all
informed by is the overemphasis of the fact that the KLA had
signed the Rambouillet agreement when the Serbs had not. In fact
I have been told there was an earlier agreement which the Serbs
signed and the KLA did not. It is a bit more murky than we we
have made out collectively.
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question.
Most international observers and countries around the world when
they look at that agreement, the situation and the history of the
area, would agree it was a reasonable agreement. It was not a
situation in which somehow the world was taking this area out of
Yugoslavia. It was giving the people the same authority they had
had before 1989 when the Milosevic government essentially took it
away from them.
The purpose of the agreement was to give the people in that area
the ability to have self-government, to govern themselves, to
work in the area in such a way that they could fend for their
families and have some sort of democracy, the ability to have a
government to speak on their behalf. It was not a situation in
which we were saying that we were going to rip this area out of
Yugoslavia. The hon. member would agree that most observers feel
it was a reasonable agreement.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will ask
the same question I put earlier to his colleague, who completely
ignored it because he did not understand it, I believe.
How is it that all the diplomatic efforts that were made failed?
How did we reach this dead end and why is there such urgency
now? What else could have been done on the diplomatic front? Did
Canada do all it could in this respect? What was missing?
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller: Mr. Speaker, I want to praise the work
of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National
Defence, the minister responsible for humanitarian relief and the
Prime Minister for the work they have done in this area. Knowing
the Prime Minister and how he takes his job seriously, it must be
difficult for him to be sitting at the top and making decisions
such as this. It is something he has taken seriously. I commend
the Prime Minister and give him our blessings because I know this
has to be a difficult time for him.
The hon. member's question is very difficult to answer. Nobody
knows. We try as much as we can to come up with a solution. The
United Nations is working on a solution. Many countries in the
region have tried to come up with a solution.
As I said in answer to the previous question, most would agree
that the Rambouillet agreement seemed to be a reasonable
compromise. Why the United Nations Security Council, and why it
could not work in this situation needs to be seriously looked at.
I wish it could have worked and I am sure most Canadians wish it
could have worked, but we could not stand by as a government and
see the suffering going on in that region without taking action.
I want to praise the Prime Minister for taking that action.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg
Centre.
2630
The situation in which we find ourselves in Yugoslavia today
with respect to Kosovo is a perfect example in my mind of what
was meant when someone said that the road to hell was paved with
good intentions.
We had a situation developing in Kosovo which was reminiscent of
things that had happened previously in Bosnia. Europe, North
America and the world in general felt guilty about not doing
enough about that situation in time. When we saw an analogous
but not a perfectly analogous situation developing in Kosovo,
there was an appropriate sense of moral urgency that we not allow
a similar situation to occur. We had this sense that something
had to be done, but what was to be done?
In spite of all that we know from history about the
ineffectiveness of bombing and about the counterproductive effect
that bombing often has on a population, we nevertheless opted as
a parliament and as a country to approve air strikes by NATO. We
did that with the understanding that three conditions applied at
the time.
The first condition was that it would be short in duration, that
it would only be for two or three days. This is the kind of
assurances that were given publicly and were given privately.
It was also agreed to on the condition that it would be
effective in bringing Milosevic back to the table. That is why
it would only take two or three days. The argument was that
Milosevic only needed this almost therapeutic bombing to provide
him with an opportunity to come back to the table.
We were told that this would be effective in protecting ethnic
Albanians, that it would bring an end to the atrocities being
perpetrated against the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo.
It failed on all three counts. It has not been short. We are
almost at the end of the third week of bombing, and the bombing
has not been as selective and as smart as we would have liked.
That is another thing we were promised. We see almost every day
now mistakes being made, trains being bombed, car plants being
bombed. It has not been effective in bringing Milosevic back to
the table. It has not been effective in protecting ethnic
Albanians. Certainly no one would want to argue that. The
situation has become arguably worse since the bombing started.
Having regard to the debate about ground troops, I would
certainly be sceptical if the same people, the same analysts, the
same brain trust that gave me these assurances three weeks ago,
were then to come back to the House and say that they would like
us to make a decision in favour of ground troops in Kosovo.
Frankly their record in terms of analysis and in terms of
consequences is not a good one. It seems to me that there is a
rational argument for at least taking stock of the current
situation, taking stock of our analysis and what might have been
wrong with it, and taking stock of where we go from here.
Very quickly in terms of the analysis, we need to entertain the
notion that we underestimated the depth of Serbian feeling about
Kosovo and the depth of the symbolism involved in Kosovo with
respect to the Serbian collective psyche, something that
transcends Mr. Milosevic and something that we may well have
misunderstood and underestimated in our initial analysis.
We need to entertain the notion that we have not fully
understood the implications of the Rambouillet agreement in so
far as it pertains to how the Serbians understood that agreement.
Many of the conditions in Rambouillet may have been conditions
that were simply never on with respect to how the Serbians saw
the situation.
I am thinking in particular of what I understand to have been a
late add on to Rambouillet after the Russians signed off in an
earlier stage of the negotiations which stipulated that it would
be NATO troops in Serbia that would supervise the Rambouillet
agreement. We need to look at that and ask ourselves some
difficult questions about it.
2635
As I said earlier, we need to ask ourselves whether or not we
are exaggerating the difference between the KLA and the Serbians
in terms of who signed the agreement and who did not when we know
that the KLA only signed after it knew the Serbians would not
sign. We know that there was an earlier agreement in which the
Serbs signed and the KLA did not.
I raise these things in terms of thinking that we have to be
self-critical. We have to be reflective on whether the analysis
that caused us to embark on this was adequate. Having done these
things with an inadequate analysis but nevertheless for the very
best of reasons, which was to stop the ongoing humanitarian
disaster in Kosovo, we need to take stock of what to do now.
My leader in the House of Commons and the critic for the NDP,
the member for Burnaby—Douglas, suggested that one thing we
could do would be to lower the threshold which is now being
imposed upon Milosevic for coming back to the table.
We know what NATO is saying and what the UN secretary general is
saying, that Milosevic has to meet five different conditions. We
know those conditions are unacceptable, so why are we setting the
bar so high that we know we are literally making ourselves
captive to a bombing strategy that goes on and on? Why not make
the only condition that the killing stop, that the atrocities
stop and that the expulsion of Albanian Kosovars stop?
We suggest that be the condition on which NATO and Milosevic go
back to the table with the bombing and killing stopping. We hope
it would create an opportunity in which diplomatic efforts can
succeed. If it does not then we have to consider once again what
the military strategy may be. We simply do not see the wisdom of
adhering to a policy which says basically that we have set
conditions that we know are unacceptable and if they continue to
not accept them we will bomb Yugoslavia forever and a day until
such time as it accepts the unacceptable. We find this to be a
dubious strategy.
Another thing we have said, which is an important point to make,
is that we have been very concerned, particularly with the way
the Minister of National Defence has talked, about it having to
be NATO troops that are there to supervise whatever settlement is
arrived at. We need to talk more about the international
community and the UN, but I am also concerned that what is
happening in the House and in the debate generally about Kosovo
is that the international community and NATO are being spoken of
interchangeably. This raises concerns for us because whatever
NATO is, it is not the international community. It should not
pretend to speak for the international community.
That raises concerns about what is going on inside the
collective mindset of NATO. I was at the last two NATO
parliamentarian meetings in Barcelona in the spring of last year
and in Edinburgh in the fall of last year. One thing that
concerned me then, and I wrote about it at that time, was that I
could see NATO making a bid in its own mind to replace the UN as
the policeman of the world, so to speak.
We see here a manifestation of that. It is a manifestation we
have supported, only to the extent that we felt the situation was
urgent, that something needed to be done, and that NATO was the
only organization with the capacity to do anything about it at
the moment. We do not do it with any support whatsoever for what
may be in the minds of some NATO planners or subliminally in the
collective consciousness of NATO, which is that it is in fact to
replace the UN as the enforcer of international law. That would
ultimately be very hypocritical and could well be interpreted as
fitting into a larger American plan to degrade the status of the
United Nations, which they have systematically done by not paying
their dues, and by generally calling the reality and credibility
of the United Nations into disrepute.
There are a lot of things here that ought to be of concern to
Canadians while at the same time we all join together in knowing
why we made the decision we did.
2640
We also need to be open to changing our minds, to responding to
the newness of the situation or to failure, to the fact that what
we are now doing does not appear to be working. I would urge
that open-mindedness upon the government and ask it not to be too
NATO fixated and always be looking for the solution. Of course,
as we have said over and over again, the solution will involve
bringing the Russians into the loop and into the process.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I recommend
to the hon. member a number of books both on Kosovo and Bosnia
written by Noel Malcolm. I say that because perhaps we are not
as up on our history as we should be.
I have concerns about the hon. member's comments. I do not
believe he appreciates or gives credit for what Canada and NATO
have done. Somebody had to step in. We know what happened in
the first world war when the League of Nations was not in a
position to step in. A few countries went forth. Canada was one
of them.
I do not know if there is ever a perfect solution, but I know
that when China does not agree to the renewal of peacekeepers in
Macedonia we have a situation where NATO is unable to act.
We should have some appreciation for what Canada and NATO have
done. It would be nice if we would have some criticism of
Milosevic's regime. I get the sense that there is more criticism
coming from that side of the House directed at NATO and directed
at our efforts than at what is happening on the ground in the
former Yugoslavia.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of cheap,
jingoist, patriotic crap that I just do not have any tolerance
for.
I do not think we need to debate among ourselves about whether
or not we are on the side of Mr. Milosevic. We are all very much
against Mr. Milosevic and what he is doing. I thought we lived
in a democracy and we did not check our brains in at the door
when we walked into the chamber of the House of Commons. I
thought we could offer some intelligent criticism of the position
that we collectively and unanimously took and reflect on it
without having this kind question put to me.
The hon. member says we ought to know our history. He talks
about the League of Nations not being able to act and that was
why we had the first world war. The League of Nations was not
created until after the first world war. The hon. member should
get it straight. He should not lecture me on history if he does
not even remember when the League of Nations was created. Then he
talked about the China veto—
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I will not have the hon. member misrepresent the League
of Nations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order. That is debate.
Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have experienced this
hon. member before and his inaccuracies far outnumber anything
useful that he might ever have to say.
He also talked about the China veto keeping NATO from acting. It
was the China veto that kept the UN from acting. That is a
problem and it is something that we pointed to in our speeches
today. We have a problem at the United Nations.
NATO is made up of 19 countries, some of them the most powerful
countries in the world. Instead of using the incapacity of the
UN as a reason for expanding its own role in the world, one of
the things NATO could have been doing for a long time is playing
a role at the UN in reforming the UN so that the UN itself could
act.
But one of the major leaders in NATO, the United States, has done
exactly the opposite. Instead of saying that it has a problem in
the United Nations with the vetoes on the security council, and
the difficulty it has in acting, so let us reform the UN, the
U.S. has basically walked away from the UN and tried to create
its own institution for the enforcement of international law. In
this case that appears to have become NATO. That is one of the
concerns we have. I think it is a valid concern and it is a
concern expressed by a lot of people who have a great deal of
respect for international law. They see the dangerous precedent
that has been set or that could be set.
2645
The action by NATO could go two ways. It could be a
breakthrough by which we set a precedent, albeit this time with
the wrong institution, NATO, whereby we declare that human rights
violations happening within sovereign nations are no longer
beyond the reach of the international community, or it could be a
breakaway on the part of NATO by which it seeks to establish
itself as the policeman of the world. That would be a mistake
and would set precedents that would be used by other super powers
that we would not find very attractive.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for Winnipeg—Transcona for sharing his time
with me.
I would like to start by pointing out that history has shown us
one thing that we should all be conscious of today, which is that
federations are the hardest form of government in the world to
try to keep together and to keep stable. By their very nature
they are thrown together by a disparate bunch of states or
provinces, often with very different and competing interests and
points of view. They are usually thrown together voluntarily to
form federations.
However, what many people do not realize is that there are less
than 20 federations in the world. In fact there are far less.
India would probably be the largest. The United States would be
the wealthiest and the most powerful. But even the United States
only lasted 75 years before blowing itself up into a massive
civil war. We we can see the tensions that exist within federal
states.
Currently, of those federal states that exist in the world,
three of them are in the process of self-demolition. The
U.S.S.R. is all but gone from its former incarnation. The former
Yugoslavia has gone in recent years. The third is Canada, which
is at risk of being split apart by disparate forces. There is a
western separatist party pulling it in one direction and an
eastern French separatist party pulling it in another.
As we review the turmoil in Kosovo it is good for us to pause to
reflect on some of the lessons that can be learned: how fragile
the institution of any federal state is; the collective will that
it takes to hold it together, in spite of all the competing
forces; and how violent and destructive it can be to all
concerned if we weaken in our collective will to hold it
together. It can shatter, dissolve or blow up like we are seeing
in the current situation.
For some time now Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic has
pursued with vengeance his vision of a greater Serbia. He has
ruthlessly suppressed the rights of the other former states
within Yugoslavia. After Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia
gained their independence, only Montenegro and Serbia remained,
with Kosovo, a province within Serbia.
Kosovo's population is 90% ethnic Albanian, as we have been
reminded by other speakers. In 1989 Milosevic ended their
autonomy and tried to suppress their language and culture. The
world stood by as over 200,000 people died in Bosnia. It was not
until after the bombing in Sarajevo and the horrors of the
concentration camp at Srebrenica that NATO finally intervened.
It is significant to note that the United Nations did not
intervene.
2650
It is important to remember that before NATO struck its first
bomb over 225,000 Kosovo Albanians had already been burned out of
their homes. For the west not to have acted after so many final
warnings to Milosevic would have sent him and other despots the
signal that they could terrorize their own populations and commit
crimes against humanity without the world taking action. The
notion that national sovereignty and sovereign immunity can act
as a shield to genocide and to crimes against humanity is finally
under significant challenge by the international community.
It is significant to note again that Pinochet is now being
tried. The international criminal court is being created, in
spite of U.S. opposition. In this context it is most
enlightening to read the words of the former leader of the NDP,
Tommy Douglas, in 1945 in his disagreement with another former
leader of the CCF, J.S. Woodsworth. Those two had a disagreement
over Woodsworth's pacifist stand on world war two. At that time
Tommy Douglas said that when a group of lawless men endeavour to
destroy the fabric of law and order by which alone human society
is possible, then we have a responsibility to discharge.
As the immigration critic for the NDP I will limit most of my
remarks to the impact that the Kosovo tragedy is having on the
refugees and the people who may end up taking refuge in this
country. It is helpful to start with a list of some of the
current numbers.
As I said, the population of Kosovo is 90% ethnic Albanian. Of
a total of 1.956 million people in Kosovo, more than 1.6 million
are ethnic Albanians. Displaced from Kosovo homes in the last
year, by NATO's own numbers, were 912,000 people. Fled or
expelled since NATO began its air attacks were 450,000 people.
So of those 912,000, 450,000 have fled in the last 19 days. It
is easily the largest movement of displaced people in Europe
since the second world war, causing unbelievable challenges to
the neighbouring states to which these people are fleeing.
As the immigration critic for the NDP I have maintained all
along that the most significant contribution Canada could make in
this whole tragedy is not to be adding our meagre contribution to
the military effort. I really believe that the world's super
powers which are involved with NATO can easily handle the
physical bombing of Milosevic's army. I believe and have
maintained all along that Canada's contribution should be
concentrated solely on the humanitarian side of the effort. I
have advocated since March 24 that we should be airlifting
Kosovar refugees into this country. I called for that in a press
release which I issued on March 27. Canada should respond to the
enormous flood of Kosovo refugees with a massive airlift similar
to that which brought Hungarians to this country in 1956.
I made the argument that with thousands of refugees literally
flooding across the border into Albania, the neighbouring states
simply cannot handle it and nobody on the ground is guaranteeing
the safety of these people as they flee the conflict zones.
I wrote a letter to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration
shortly thereafter, on March 31, asking her to allow, through
special ministerial permit, Kosovar refugees to come to this
country because the groundswell of interest was really gaining
momentum in my community and in many others.
We called upon the minister to use whatever means necessary,
even if it meant creating a special category for these people, to
allow them to seek refuge here; not to make them Canadian
citizens, but simply to allow them sanctuary and safe refuge
until they are able to return to where they properly belong.
The critics of this idea said that we would be playing into
Milosevic's hands by helping him to cleanse his area, although I
am trying to avoid the term ethnic cleansing. As the member for
Halifax West correctly pointed out, it is not a term we should be
using.
I disagree with the argument that we would be playing into
Milosevic's hands. I believe that one of Milosevic's strategies
is to destabilize the neighbouring states by flooding them with
refugees in order to expand a greater Serbia by causing
instability in those neighbouring states so that he could
undertake some type of coup.
We would actually be undermining this nefarious scheme by
relieving the pressure on those states.
2655
The second thing that the critics pointed out was the cost.
Certainly there is a cost, but what is the cost of undertaking
the military intervention that we are taking part in now? The
six CF-18s stationed in Italy alone cost $212 million a year.
That is for six airplanes. We now have 12 over there. Every
bomb costs $25,000. The cost is unbelievable. As well, money
would be spent in this country if these people were brought here.
I believe that all the preparations that have been made to
accommodate Kosovar refugees in this country will still be used.
Now that the Easter ceasefire has ended we anticipate an
escalation in the expulsion and a further flood of refugees
crossing the border. I believe that we will still need all the
hospitality that Canadians expressed and all the preparations
that we have made on the military bases.
I fully anticipate that Canada will be able to show its
generosity and its hospitality by welcoming these new Canadians
to this country, for sanctuary at least, and with all the hope
and optimism that some or many will choose to become Canadians
citizens.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I say to my
colleague who sits on the citizenship and immigration committee
that Canada originally wanted to take 5,000 refugees. As a
matter of fact, everything was in place to do that. However, we
were told by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,
Her Excellency Sadako Ogato, that they wanted to keep the
Kosovars close to their former homeland.
The member made reference to the Hungarian revolution and the
refugees that Canada took during that period of time. Let me
tell the member, I know a lot about that. I was a refugee who
came to Canada in 1957. Certainly the reception and the help we
received from Canadians is remembered and appreciated and we try
to give back in that regard.
Let me tell the hon. member that the nice difference I think
with the Kosovar situation is that we are hoping the people of
Kosovo will be able to go home. If there is any rainbow on the
horizon, it is the fact that we are hopeful that things will
resolve themselves as soon as possible. I think that all members
of the House will pray for that and work toward that.
Once that happens, then the people can return to their homeland.
I think the member would agree that is much more optimistic than
was the case with the Hungarian refugees in 1957 who had no place
to go. It was not until 1990 that the iron curtain fell.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, the member raises a very
valid point. However, I do not have the same optimism that the
Kosovar refugees will be able to return to their homes in the
near future.
It is not unusual for refugees to find themselves in refugee
camps for weeks, months and years. I recently hired a Vietnamese
woman who spent two years sleeping on a dirt floor in a refugee
camp, waiting to come to Canada, with 60,000 other Vietnamese
refugees.
There are two reasons for which I do not think the Kosovar
refugees will be able to return home. The first is the
indication of how sinister and calculating the Milosevic Serbian
government is being in its clearing of people. As it throws
people out of their homes, whether they are torched or not, the
land titles are torn up, as well as other documents such as birth
certificates and any reference that this family ever existed in
the community. It will be very difficult for Kosovars to claim
ownership of their own land in eight weeks, two years or
whenever.
Second, those refugees who have been lucky enough to get access
to telephones have been phoning their old phone numbers in Kosovo
and the phones are being answered by Serbian families who have
already moved into the homes that the refugees vacated only weeks
ago. The Serbian families are getting firmly entrenched into the
communities and are claiming squatters' rights or legal ownership
of those homes.
2700
I do not think it is will be possible for the 900,000 displaced
people to simply reclaim their homes. This leads me to believe
that if not now but in the very near future there will be a great
demand for safe refuge, sanctuary and maybe even new homes for
many of the displaced people. I know Canadians will be willing
to do what they can because they have indicated that in very
large numbers already.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time. I have listened to the debate
throughout most of the day. Like many members and other
Canadians I have learned quite a bit about the breadth of the
issues that are facing Canada along with its NATO allies.
As all members have been exposed to feedback from their
constituents, I thought I would start by sharing a couple of the
experiences of my constituents. One person who is quite active
in the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom has
written to me often on matters such as the Kosovo conflict.
It is very interesting that these communications have indicated
that the military aggression now taking place has actually
exacerbated the situation and further instability in the Balkan
region. This is a complex situation which has baffled
negotiators for centuries. The situation has arguably led to two
world wars. Some would argue that it could potentially lead to
another one. They go on to argue what to expect with regard to a
peaceful resolution to conflict around the world.
It is very important for those who fear the ravages of war
around the world, its impact on people and human lives, to be
heard. I want them to know that they are being heard, that they
have been heard by me and by many members.
A Serbian family came to me who was so distraught with what was
going on that it immediately wanted to make application to
sponsor its parents to come to Canada. In fact they were already
in Canada under a visa and thought it would be appropriate to
find out if I might be able to make that happen.
As all members know it just does not happen that way. It is a
process that is very difficult particularly when someone is
already here on a visa. The concern was for no other reason than
family. It was not an ethnic dispute but a matter of safety and
security of family.
The piano store owner across the street from my constituency
office was born in Yugoslavia and lived there most of his life.
He came here with his family. He wanted to thank Canada for what
it was doing over there. He knew what was happening. He knew
the history and he told me all about it. Despite the fact that
he knew there were people in harm's way, he wanted me to know
that it was important that we break this cycle, the centuries of
ethnic wars and the killing of innocent people.
A Serbian gentleman came to my office and gave me quite a
lecture about the centuries of history of the area. His basic
conclusion was that it was their turn, that many Serbians had
died over the years and that they had to get even. It was as
bald as that. It was their turn to kill somebody.
2705
It dawned on me that in Canada we have probably very diverse
opinions about what is going on, depending on one's background,
depending on one's linkages to the Balkans, to European countries
and to other places around the world that have experienced civil
war, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Unfortunately this is part
of our history.
Listening to the debate today makes me ask more questions and
maybe provide more answers. It was clear that ethnic cleansing
was going on as far back as 14 months ago. In October of last
year it was even written about in the papers while negotiations
were being held to somehow bring this matter to some stability,
and it did not happen.
For the last 20 days the NATO alliance has been executing a
military plan, a bombing plan. I wonder why NATO waited as long
as it did. I wonder if that was not a big mistake. When we
consider the number of people, the number of refugees that moved
so quickly to the borders and literally overwhelmed the NATO
allies in terms of sheer numbers, it was clear that NATO was not
ready for that number of people.
It was also a big surprise that some 250,000 refugees are still
within Kosovo. There is grave concern about their safety. They
have no shelter. They have no food. Who knows what their fate
is? This raises some very serious questions about what is going
on.
Canadian people responded to a poll recorded in today's press
about their degree of support for the current actions of the
government. It surprised a lot of people, probably the defence
department and the foreign affairs department as much as any. It
was no surprise that Canadians had opened up their hearts to the
refugees and wanted to help in whatever way possible.
I think it is a big mystery to Canadians why refugees ultimately
did not want to come to Canada. It begs a question. The linkage
is to the strength of feelings in the Balkans. Canadians are
having some difficulty understanding why people who are in harm's
way and literally without food and shelter would not accept a
helping hand and come to the safety of Canada.
It is difficult to understand. We need to understand that there
is something more to this situation than simply a civil war.
There is something much more when we see Serbian demonstrators
daily in downtown Toronto, for the most part peacefully
demonstrating but fervently stating that their situation is such
that we must have the bombing stopped because their families are
in harm's way.
Most people would ask whether they are also concerned about
ethnic Albanians. I am sure stories will be coming out of the
atrocities, of the rapes, of the murders and of the slaughters of
people. Are they not also concerned about that? No. They are
concerned about their families and it being their turn.
When we hear such things we wonder how Canadians will feel when
the dimensions of what has happened become public, when we find
out how bad the situation is and how many people have been
affected by the situation even in the short period of time.
In the last moments of my speech I want to dwell on the whole
issue that has been raised in the House about having a vote. It
struck me that the Reform Party, for instance, wants to know the
military, political and moral objectives and dimensions so that
we can debate them and have a vote on them before we do
something. I believe the NDP is of the same view, that we have
to vote.
We may have to ease up on some of the NATO requirements before we
feel we have an opportunity to bring the negotiators back to the
table.
2710
I found out today that the vote being asked for, at least by the
NDP, is not a vote and debate before the government takes action.
NDP members made it very clear that they wanted to have a vote
after the government had made its decision and after action was
been taken by NATO. They just want a vote so that in retrospect
they can put their position on the table after a decision has
been taken.
It is very important to know that because that is not the way it
was presented to the House. It was presented that before the
government took action we wanted to have a say and a vote. It is
important for Canadians to know that strategically and militarily
it would be somewhat foolish to have the House debate the
dimensions of a proposed action.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to raise a question about what my Liberal
colleague mentioned toward the end of his speech about a vote in
the House of Commons. He mentioned the New Democratic Party and
ourselves. It is very clear that in question period yesterday
the call for a vote was in reference to deployment of future
troops should that be necessary. That is what the question was
about. That is what opposition parties were asking about. It
was quite clear.
The member said that he was listening to the debate. He must
have missed some of it because it was clearly stated that members
of the opposition were not asking for a vote on the motion before
the House today. They were simply asking that the government put
to a vote the issue of whether or not ground troops should be
deployed, or if that question were to arise that it be debated
fully in the House and that a vote be held not as a partisan
issue of opposition versus government but as an issue on which
all members could debate and, I would anticipate, strongly
support the government in doing that as an issue of process.
Would the member comment on that specific and not go back into
history and reiterate something that was not stated by members of
the opposition in the New Democratic Party or in the Reform
Party? Does he think that it would be a good thing, should the
time come where ground troops are necessary, to have an open
debate in the House and then to put it to a vote? Then there
could be a gathering together of members and of public opinion on
the issue to which he referred in his speech.
Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I hope the member will
remember this months from now when we reflect on what happened.
It shows precisely how little Reform Party members understand
strategic military activity, how little they understand being
part of an alliance in a war.
The member honestly believes that in a middle of a war we should
be thinking of going back to the legislators and having a debate.
As one of his colleagues said, they should be told the moral,
political and military dimensions so they can have a big debate.
Then there will be a vote on it to determine whether or not to
take the next strategic military step.
If we had done that it would no longer be strategic. It would
no longer be an element of military activity. We cannot have
that debate before it is done. We cannot do that in the middle
of a war. The member does not understand that, but the NDP does.
If the member would talk to NDP members he would understand what
they were asking for. If, as and when ground troops are used in
the Kosovo conflict and Canada participated, they are asking for
a vote in the House after the fact on whether or not they agreed
with the government's action.
2715
The Reform Party is suggesting that somehow the vote would be
taken before taking action. The NDP vote would be a vote after
the government has taken action and it is a matter of whether or
not a confidence in the government's action would be taken. That
is the difference between the Reform Party and the NDP.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is 3.16 a.m. and we still have members in the House.
We are debating for the third time the situation in the former
Republic of Yugoslavia.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration documented some of
the humanitarian responses from Canadians and put forth our
generosity as well as our concerns.
The Prime Minister spoke in the House. He stated “I look
forward today to hearing the views and concerns from members on
all sides of the House because whatever our individual views are
about involvement in Kosovo, we are each guided by our desire to
do the right thing for Canada and for the international
community”. The Prime Minister talked about taking great pride
in the efforts and the work of our forces as well as that of
government and non-government organizations that are on the front
lines.
On occasions such as this I retreat to one of my favourite
places in this building. The memorial chamber, where the names
of the Canadian war dead are listed, puts in real perspective the
issues we are dealing with.
Debates such as this one have a very personal meaning for me.
Tonight bombs are falling less than 100 kilometres from where I
was born. Tonight hundreds of thousands of Kosovars are without
homes, without identity cards and often without their loved ones.
I know their fears for they were my fears four decades ago when
Soviet tanks stamped out freedom in my former homeland. That year
in Hungary, 1956, for a brief moment we had hope that help would
come, but it did not. Many had hope that help would come but it
did not. I think of those who died that year in Hungary, later in
Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rwanda and the killing fields of
Cambodia. Those unspeakable crimes occurred after we said never
again.
Last week we saw the crowded trains crammed with refugees
without identity cards or belongings. We had seen those trains
before on the way to Auschwitz and Buchenwald. People on those
trains told us of atrocities occurring in the heart of Europe not
far from those death camps that we thought we would never see
again.
This time it is different. Help will come. Canada in
partnership with our allies will not let Slobodan Milosevic and
the evil he represents escape responsibility for his crimes.
The leader of the New Democratic Party spoke eloquently about
Tommy Douglas' speech in 1939 when the second world war occurred.
There were those in the ranks of his party who said what happened
in Europe did not matter to Canada. Mr. Douglas said that when
the lawless destroy the basic principles of human order and
decency, Canada cannot step aside. Many others at that time did
and the League of Nations was unable to act. But Canada and a
few others stepped forward to confront the fundamental evil that
fascism represented. Thank God they did.
Each year on Armistice Day all of us pay tribute to our veterans
for fighting so bravely in a war that we are proud to have
fought.
We defeated fascism and in the aftermath of war, we built a more
just society in Canada itself, one that respects basic human
rights and freedoms.
2720
This year our soldiers are fighting again to defeat a fascist
mentality that feeds ethnic hatred. We fought before to defeat
those who hated and killed Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and
newspaper editors who would not agree.
What we hear from Belgrade today is all too familiar, all too
dangerous. In September 1996 I observed elections in Bosnia in
the historic city of Mostar. I saw too many fresh flowers on
gravesites. My interpreter, Igor, showed me the grave of his
best friend Boris who was killed in 1994 at the age of 20. His
parents brought flowers to his gravesite every day.
I have heard others say that NATO is going too far. I ask who
else has come forward? United Nations Secretary General Kofi
Annan has said that sometimes it is necessary to use force when
those who use brutal violence against their own people defy
compromise.
The United Nations could not act. The Chinese even vetoed the
extension of the United Nations force in Macedonia. There was no
hope that the United Nations would have acted.
We must remember that the United Nations offered compromises and
failed. NATO offered compromises and failed. Milosevic lied to
his emissaries while he prepared his bloody and criminal attack
on Kosovo.
Should we fail, the alternatives are unthinkable. Could we
accept Milosevic's sneer of triumph? Could we accept that he
could ethnically cleanse over a million people? If we end our
century that way, what hope do we have for the future?
I remember the fall of 1956 when we hoped for help which never
came. I know how Kosovars feel this evening as they hope to
return to their homes, their families and their communities. This
time we can offer hope. We can confront evil. We can make the
worst horrors of this century a thing of the past, not a forecast
of the new century's future.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
certainly share the member's feelings that everyone's first
choice is that the ethnic Kosovars end up going back to their own
homes. As I outlined, there could be some obstacles in that
records are being torn up, land titles are being burned. As the
member said, even IDs such as birth certificates are being seized
to make it harder for them and to further destabilize the region.
A second problem exists. As a previous speaker pointed out, we
have underestimated the level of animosity. Some of the refugees
are so seized with the idea of going back and reclaiming their
homeland that they are turning down an opportunity that would
actually be better for their families, to get their families out
of harm's way, get them to a safe sanctuary like Canada even if
just temporarily. It indicates the level of animosity and even
hatred between those two camps. Most Canadians, unless they have
been there and I have not been there, probably underestimate
that.
What level of interest does the member have in pushing to have
more of the ethnic Kosovars taken from the area where they are in
imminent danger or living in unsatisfactory refugee camps and
having them come here, providing them safe refuge and ultimately
hoping that many will choose to make Canada their home and settle
here?
2725
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon.
member that there are horrible challenges facing Canada, NATO and
the United Nations.
On the upside, there is the whole issue of identification which
is being looked at now and identifications are going to be
issued. That is good because now is the time they can gather the
information and make cross-references and issue truly verified
identification.
After the war, Europe was devastated and rebuilding began. I am
hoping the same will happen in Kosovo once the situation
stabilizes.
Canada is ready to welcome refugees, be it on a temporary or
full time basis. The minister has said that. We are hearing
from the people in Kosovo that they would rather remain close to
their homeland. I am hopeful and I believe the rest of the House
is hopeful that their dreams and aspirations will be realized.
Let me talk about what is so beautiful and magical about this
country. Every religious group and every ethnic group inhabits
this land called Canada. We are able to use our diversities as
strengths.
The real tragedy and scary thing for us is looking over there
and seeing how diversity is used as a weakness to be exploited by
very unscrupulous people. It is something we have to fight
against continually. We have to do whatever we can to stabilize
the situation there. It is not just Kosovo. We have to look at
what is happening in Bosnia and Hercegovina. We have people on
the ground keeping peace, making sure that various ethnic groups
are working together as much as possible and certainly stopping
ethnic cleansing and stopping crimes based on ethnicity.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kings—Hants.
As immigration critic for the PC party, it is incumbent upon me
to make a few remarks on the human tragedy that is Kosovo. I am
very pleased that this debate is taking place. I must say that
sitting here for the last 17 hours, since 10 o'clock Monday
morning, I am beginning to learn a little bit about what is a
very complicated issue.
I want to say as well that I question the usefulness of
conducting such an important debate at three and four o'clock in
the morning when most reasonable people are asleep, instead of at
a time when they can conveniently hear what we have to say. But
such is the way of politics.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few remarks on
this very important issue. Every day on television we see a tide
of Kosovar Albanians trudging to refuge outside their homeland
leaving behind their burning villages and their friends and
relatives who have been spirited away or even executed by Serbian
security forces. Over the past number of years we have seen
similar scenes in Croatia and Bosnia, but the sheer speed and
magnitude of the current exodus has riveted the world's
attention.
There are two aspects to the crisis which I want to address, the
refugee situation and the military situation. With regard to the
Kosovo refugees, I am pleased that Canada was willing to accept
and make preparations to take in 5,000 of these very unfortunate
people. As a nation whose involvement there is driven by
humanitarian concerns, we could not do less. The minister
indicated that the government was willing to set aside
approximately $100 million for that purpose.
2730
Now that the United Nations has expressed a preference for those
refugees to stay in their region, I do hope that the majority of
these funds can be redirected to relief efforts on the ground in
Europe. However, today in question period the minister did not
answer my question as the availability of these funds. Rather,
the Minister of International Affairs spoke of the $22 million
her department had spent so far.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration also stated, in
answer to another question, that our proposed airlift of 5,000
refugees would not be necessary because the situation on the
border had stabilized. However, we hear that the Yugoslavs have
shelled Albania and refugees continue to pour out of Kosovo.
I also have concerns about the fact that we appear to have been
caught off guard with respect to our position on the Kosovar
refugees. On Friday, April 2 our position was that we would not
be accepting refugees from Kosovo. The following day we were
ready to accept 5,000. On April 9 we were only accepting
refugees with special needs under ministerial permit. Yesterday
our special envoy in Kosovo said we are talking about
immigration, not temporary protection. It is rather confusing.
The point I am trying to make is that we should have known the
likely result of military intervention and that the refugee
exodus would likely accelerate. We appear to have been caught
off guard as far as the refugees are concerned. If the basis for
our military intervention was humanitarian, then surely
government planners should have seen that there was a role for
our refugee and immigration officials as well.
The minister has indicated that she will be issuing ministerial
permits for refugees with special needs. One has to ask what
that mean in practical terms. Are we talking about people with
special medical needs? Are we talking about the adoption of
orphans and the reunification of families? Are we talking about
potential new immigrants who will need language training and a
host of other settlement services?
Have arrangements been made with the provincial and municipal
governments delivering health and various social services in
Canada? Will some of that $100 million be used to fund any
extraordinary costs incurred by these local agencies and
governments?
These are all very legitimate questions and Canadians have a
right to expect clear answers.
We pride ourselves on being a compassionate nation, but in order
to do a good job we need to approach these issues in an organized
way. Compassion without the necessary ways and means only raises
expectations unfairly. Surely these people have already suffered
enough.
The other situation about which I am concerned is our military
position in all of this. It is regrettable that we did not get
to debate this matter before the air force was committed to go in
and fight. The bottom line is that we are now embroiled in a
military conflict overseas.
Many military experts, who we hear talking on TV about this
particular issue, feel that this will inevitably lead to the
involvement of ground troops. While polling would seem to
indicate that a majority of the Canadian public currently support
the government's position, one has to ask if that opinion would
hold if we get into an all out war in the hills and mountains of
Kosovo, a war that would inevitably lead to casualties on all
sides.
As one Canadian, I have grave concerns about the way we seem to
have gotten into a conflict without a long term view of the
consequences. I need not remind the House that this region of
Europe tied down many Nazi divisions during World War II in a
grinding war of attrition with terrible atrocities committed on
all sides.
We have already seen earlier examples of ethnic cleansing in
Croatia and Bosnia, with enough blame and blood to go around for
all. I therefore have to ask the question: Are we up for this,
both psychologically and militarily? There is no doubt that
during World War II we were involved in a total war.
2735
I have every confidence in the professionalism of our armed
forces, but I fear the government has presided over our military
being reduced in numbers and is sadly lacking in equipment to do
the job.
We cannot play at war. NATO is now committed and has very
little choice but to follow through on its commitments. In the
Vietnam war we saw what it was like to fight a war wherein the
daily targets were decided in the White House and not in the
Pentagon. The result was a war that dragged on for years.
No matter if we call this a conflict or a war, we had best be
clear about our objectives and have the will to do what is
necessary. We cannot forget that the Yugoslav leadership will be
ruthless in its use of military and paramilitary forces. We must
not send our soldiers and our airmen into harm's way with one arm
tied behind their back.
It is sad that Canada, once a leader in world affairs and
champion of the United Nations peacekeeping, is now caught up in
this conflict. However, now that the dye is cast we had best get
serious about our humanitarian and military roles in Kosovo.
The Canadian people are a good people. They deserve better
leadership in this crisis than what we have seen so far. It is
time for the government to hold parliamentary debates on these
matters before our troops are put in harm's way. It is time for
the government to make clear our objectives and our ways and
means of carrying out our various roles in the escalating
conflict and humanitarian disaster.
In short, we should discuss our duty, define our duty and
fulfill that duty with all of the determination and pride that
has served us so well in the past.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many will want to speculate about how this war will play out over
the next while.
The NATO conditions are: that Slobodan Milosevic stop the
killing and expelling of ethnic Albanians; that he withdraw his
army and guarantee refugees a safe return to their homes; that he
permit an international presence for the security of those
people; and that he sign a binding peace settlement as per the
interim agreement.
I am sure the member would agree that there is very little
likelihood that Milosevic will eventually accept those
conditions. He probably will not agree to withdraw his army nor
accept the NATO force as the peacekeeping force there. Given
that is the case, I think it would be reasonable to speculate
that the possibility of ground troops is very high and that NATO
forces have to be prepared to act.
The member suggested we should be careful about putting our
military in harm's way. He probably knows that they are already
in harm's way. They are flying sorties and are subject to
anti-aircraft fire now. They also know that Canada is prepared
to participate to the extent that it can. It will also not
deploy troops who are not well prepared to do their jobs the way
they should to do done.
Is the member seriously thinking that somehow the House has to
suspend the war in Kosovo and come back to parliament to discuss
again whether or not we should deploy ground troops, or would he
not agree that is exactly what we have been talking about in this
debate that started yesterday at 3 p.m.?
2740
Mr. Norman Doyle: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are very much
aware that the military is already in harm's way, but the
possibility of casualties will be so much greater if we send in
ground troops.
The official position of our party is that we will support
sending in ground troops to Yugoslavia if that is the only means
by which peace and stability can be achieved in that particular
area.
However, many more military casualties will occur if we do send
in ground troops. Many military experts feel that it will
inevitably lead to casualties. While opinion polls now support
the government in its efforts so far, I am just wondering if the
opinion and support of the Canadian people will hold once ground
troops go in and they see the inevitable casualties.
We on this side of the House support the involvement of ground
troops, if that is the only way to achieve peace and stability,
but we also feel strongly that such an action should not only be
debated in the House of Commons but voted on as well. That is
what we support.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great concern that I rise today to speak about the important
issue of Canada's involvement in NATO's intervention in Kosovo.
This intervention is one of the riskiest ventures that NATO has
ever participated in. The air strikes against Bosnian Serbs in
1995 were successful in many ways. In due course a treaty was
signed which has since then worked fairly well. I visited Bosnia
with the foreign affairs committee in the fall of 1997 and was
able to see some of the success of the Dayton accord and the
post-Dayton situation is relatively stable.
Canadian peacekeepers are respected globally. I saw first-hand
the professionalism of the Canadian peacekeepers who were
participating in the S-4 intervention in the former Yugoslavia.
It really made me very proud to be a Canadian.
Periodic air attacks in Iraq by the U.S. have helped to prevent
Saddam Hussein from committing some atrocities. He has still
continued to flare up periodically and to commit atrocities
against his own and other people, but the air strikes have helped
somewhat.
This time, however, it is different. This is the first attack
on a sovereign state that stands accused of vile behaviour not to
its neighbours but to its own people. Where was NATO for
instance when Russia tried to squelch the Chechnians at a cost of
100,000 lives? What did we do to try to prevent genocide in
Rwanda in terms of significant interventions?
How would the west respond, for instance, if China were to carry
out air strikes against an Indian government that was fighting to
prevent a Muslim majority province such as Jammu-Kashmir from
seceding, or if one country were to intervene in an other
country's internal debates about issues of human rights or ethnic
cleansing?
In Serbia, we are dealing with a better armed and more
militarily sophisticated group than the Bosnian Serbs. It is in
fact more militarily equipped and more sophisticated than latter
day Iraq.
Hopefully, the smart bombs and the missiles can achieve victory
without the use of ground troops. However, I think that is
naive. I think the Canadian government, in creating an
expectation that is possible, has misled many Canadians. Many
military experts, including the supreme general of NATO and the
U.S. military experts, have agreed with the view that ground
troops will be necessary.
2745
In Kosovo and Serbia the military targets and the civilians are
inextricably linked. As my hon. colleague from St. John's East
mentioned, the terrain in Kosovo is not conducive to effective
air strikes.
NATO members are becoming increasingly uneasy. The goals of the
air attacks were to end Serbia's brutalities against the ethnic
Albanians, who make up nine-tenths of the population of Kosovo,
and at the same time not break up the country. Yet in the first
four days of NATO air attacks the number of Kosovars driven from
their homes had risen to 500,000, one-quarter of the population.
Up to 100,000 Kosovars have been killed.
By last week about 1.1 million of Kosovo's 1.8 million people
had been driven out of their homes. NATO seemed unprepared.
There was a chaotic response to the refugee issue. The response
from Canadians at the grassroots level who wanted to help was
very warm. I saw it in my own riding. To see Canadian
non-governmental organizations such as the Red Cross and the
Salvation Army coming forward and individual Canadians offering
to help reaffirmed my belief in the Canadian people. However, at
the same time NATO and this government's participation in NATO
did not seem prepared for the inevitable issue of the refugees.
While NATO has carried out the bombing, the Serb forces in
Kosovo have continued ethnic cleansing. In fairness, this ethnic
cleansing, these killings, would have taken place anyway. They
would have taken place perhaps at a more leisurely pace than they
have, but they would have taken place.
I received a petition today in my constituency office from a
group in Wolfville. The petition states:
We want an immediate end to the bombings and a return to
diplomacy and negotiation with the active involvement of the UN.
This group generally feels that the bombings have heightened a
sense of nationalism and in fact have strengthened Milosevic. The
group is right in a way because the bombings have strengthened
the resolve of the Serbians and Milosevic's popularity is up.
However, I believe that sustained bombing over a period of time
could serve to sap morale and lead to the Serb population
questioning Milosevic, making it more difficult for him to lead
and defend what is an untenable position.
Perhaps Milosevic will give up the ungovernable province of
Kosovo anyway, in the same way that he has given up territories
in the past which he had previously said he would not give up.
Part of Milosevic's strategy has always been to create a sense of
martyrdom with the Serbs, to revel in this martyrdom and past
defeats. He almost celebrates these defeats. It is possible
that at some point he will give up at least some of his demands
in relation to the Kosovo issue.
It is possible also that the Kosovar guerrillas will be
effective on the ground against Serb soldiers in the same way
that the Croat soldiers were during the NATO air strikes against
Bosnian Serbs in 1995. We do not really know if the Kosovars
have an effective soldiery now, but there is a risk that the
Kosovar ground troops could get an upper hand. It will be very
difficult for NATO to stop the Kosovar troops from butchering the
Serb minority in Kosovo and declaring independence. That is an
issue we have to look at as well.
The west does not want that. It does not want to break up
Yugoslavia. It is not there for either side to win. It just
wants security for the Kosovars, the ethnic Albanians.
Ground troops may be necessary. NATO currently has 12,000
troops in Macedonia. The Serbs have 40,000 troops in Kosovo.
NATO would need about 150,000 troops for a decisive victory.
There would be many casualties and as mission creep evolved
there would be comparisons with Vietnam. There are several NATO
countries which might back out.
Greece, Italy and the Czech republic are already lukewarm at
best.
2750
I believe that NATO was right in principle to intervene. We
should not hide behind the antiquated 19th century notion of
national security solely as a foreign policy imperative. The
evolution of human security in the post-cold war environment is a
very important evolution. There have been 100 conflicts in the
post-cold war environment. Most of them have been interstate
conflicts and most of those have been between governments and
their own people.
We have seen the evolution of an international criminal court.
We see cases like the Pinochet case. Leaders simply cannot get
away with atrocities against their own people as they were able
to do in the past.
We only need look back at the film footage of the liberation of
some of the concentration camps at the end of World War II to
realize that there were times in the past when we should have
intervened and did not. Today more than ever, in the post-cold
war environment, with the evolution of human security, there are
times when we must act and I believe that this is one of those
times.
However, there must be a new global framework that can work to
avert crises by addressing them earlier through a concerted
effort by the UN. I heard one member speak earlier about the
involvement of the IMF and the World Bank. We could use
diplomatic and economic levers and evolve some of the
institutions, such as the Bretton Woods institutions, which need
to be reformed to reflect current realities. Canada should play
a leadership role in these fora and I am concerned that Canada is
not maximizing its leadership as it should.
Even if we accept human security as an imperative, where do we
draw the line? Where do we intervene and where do we not
intervene? Are we prepared to intervene in the inevitability of
ground troops? Is our Canadian military prepared? I fear that
is not the case. The government has allowed the Canadian
military to reach a crisis situation of its own in terms of
equipment and personnel.
The bottom line is that these types of debates are very
important. They should be accompanied by a vote. Certainly
before we send ground troops to Kosovo it is very important that
we have a full debate in the House, with a vote, to demonstrate
unequivocally that not only are the members of the House
unanimously committed to this very important humanitarian effort,
but that Canadians value democracy enough to protect it within
their own borders.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member made some interesting points, but he made a statement
that I do not think was quite correct when he said that NATO
members were becoming uneasy. From all of the reports and the
press conference given by NATO today, following the meeting of
the foreign affairs ministers of the NATO alliance, they are
unanimous and are united in the efforts of the alliance.
The member also mentioned, and it is too bad the Speaker did not
pick it up, misleading Canadians about ground troops. When
Canada entered into this war with its fighter aircraft and put
its military in harm's way there was nothing misleading about it.
Canada has agreed to participate in this NATO effort because of
its importance.
I know that the member appreciates the significance of what is
happening over there, the significance of the atrocities and the
fact that there is no logical conclusion to this situation on its
own. There is nothing that is going to break this cycle of
genocide and violence unless the NATO allies step in to protect
lives.
My question really has to do with a vote. I am still looking
for the answer as to how it is possible that the NATO alliance
could suspend its activities and have its participating members
go back to their countries to ask their governments and their
legislators to have a debate on all of the details of their next
move and then have a vote on it before they make the move.
It sounds a bit foolish to me to suggest that somehow we are
going to discuss military strategy and have a vote on it before
it happens.
2755
I would like the member to try to explain to me and to Canadians
how exactly we are going to suspend a war while we consider what
we are considering today.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, there is unease within
NATO among some of the 19 member countries. Countries like
Italy, Greece and the Czech republic are committed, but there has
been a certain trepidation in their commitment. The commitment
of ground troops would further strain what is already a
commitment with significant concern and reservation.
Relative to the issue of voting in this House to determine
whether we should send ground troops, the issue of committing to
air strikes is quite different for many Canadians than the issue
of committing to ground troops. There are Canadians who feel it
is appropriate that we are committed to participate through NATO
in air strikes, but they would question our participation with
ground troops.
The hon. member opposite suggested that my position on this was
foolish. It is not as foolish as the position of the current
Prime Minister at the time of the Persian Gulf crisis when he
said that it was all right to send Canadian forces into the
Persian Gulf, but it was very important that they all come back
the first time a shot was fired, which was at best illogical, and
at worst ridiculous and idiotic.
It is important to reflect on what the Prime Minister said
earlier today. He said that we did not have to have votes in the
House of Commons about these issues. In fact, it was more
democratic to give members the opportunity to talk, but not to
vote. I suggest that the Prime Minister deliver that message to
Canadians and suggest to them that in the next election they
would be much better off if they did not have a vote but were
given a few minutes to talk. They would not be allowed to elect
anybody, but they would be allowed to talk about it. That was
the Prime Minister's suggestion earlier. The logical corollary
would be that we would have 30 million Canadians in the next
election talking but no one actually voting.
These are complex issues and I really believe that we owe it to
Canadians to debate them and vote on them in the House of
Commons. In fact, there are some countries, prior to
intervention, which require voting on the commitment of military
resources and ground troops. I do not understand the rationale
for the Liberal opposition to democracy on this or many other
fronts.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank members for the opportunity to share with them a
few moments to reflect, discuss and consider Canada's
participation in a very sad and tragic conflict in a region many
of us know as eastern Europe.
I share with all Canadians, especially the constituents of my
northern Ontario riding of Algoma—Manitoulin, a great sense of
sadness that a century, indeed a millennium, is ending with war.
It may seem that this conflict is unique. Unfortunately it is
one of many conflicts ongoing around the world. It is, however,
at this point in time, in terms of air power, manpower and the
involvement of armed forces personnel, the largest conflict that
we are seeing on our television screens, hour after hour, day in
and day out.
Like the conflicts in Northern Ireland, in Africa and in many
other parts of the world there is no easy solution. There is no
simple set of reasons which brought the players to this place in
time.
2800
I am no expert in history. Like many Canadians I am probably
not aware of all the facts. In this case we have to search back
hundreds and hundreds of years to find many of the reasons for
the conflict today.
As average Canadians and as we attempt as members of parliament
to represent our constituents as best we can, we see the tragedy
unfolding in the present. It is difficult for us to fully
appreciate what brought the players, the stakeholders in this
tragic conflict, to this point in time.
Before saying too much more, I would like to join my colleagues
in commending our Canadian armed personnel that are involved
directly in the Balkans or are in Canada providing very necessary
support. Our hearts, our best wishes, our prayers go out to all
of them.
I also want to say a few words commending many constituents in my
riding. I think of the Killens family on Manitoulin Island, the
Timeriskis on Elliot Lake, Reeve Aquino in Wawa and others. Those
Canadians have picked up the phone, contacted their local service
clubs, or have taken different initiatives to express in one way
or another their support and their willingness to help the
hundreds of thousands of refugees displaced in this conflict.
We live in a beautiful country. For the most part we live in
relative comfort. It is easy for us to dismiss and not fully
understand the degree of suffering that is going on. I include
myself in that comment. It behoves us to make an extra effort to
realize that hundreds of thousands of people have been removed
from homes in which they have lived for generations, from
communities where they have invested their lives. Their parents
are from there and their ancestors are from there, yet they have
been forcibly removed and taken to strange places and camps
beyond their borders.
It is difficult for us to understand the deep sense of loss the
refugees are feeling. When Canadians reach out and offer their
assistance they are doing so with an appreciation that we are
fortunate. Whatever Canada and Canadians can do to help to make
sure those who are displaced can find some measure of comfort
while this conflict continues is important.
The news tends to focus on what the leaders on all sides are
doing. Far be it from me to understand the thinking of President
Milosevic and his cohorts. I cannot understand how one human
being can act such as we have seen toward another.
2805
There are apologists on all sides. I am sure Mr. Milosevic has
provided many reasons for what he has done, but what I see most
of all is denial of the fact that at the grassroots it is
innocent people who are being hurt.
There are innocent people on all sides. If average Serbian
citizens who work in the restaurants and in the factories knew
all the facts, I do not believe they could possibly support Mr.
Milosevic. They too are victims in a way. They have seen
conflict over many years. Certainly there are innocent victims
in the Kosovo region.
If average citizens are for the most part innocent victims of
what is going on, how can we as a civilized nation in any way do
anything but participate in as forceful and as useful a way as
possible? To those who would say we should not be participating
in NATO, I suggest that had we chosen not to participate and NATO
could not intervene in air attacks there would be no end in
sight. It may seem even today that there is no end in sight but
at least there is hope. Had NATO not decided to become involved,
I believe Mr. Milosevic would have not only continued his
atrocities in the way we have seen but even more so. I would
worry not only about Montenegro but in fact the destabilization
of the entire region.
I realize there is no vote at the end of this debate. It is
difficult to debate the kind of action we should take in a
conflict situation, but these debates are extremely important for
Canadians, for all parliamentarians and for the leadership of the
government who after all were duly elected to lead. These
debates are of great assistance to the Prime Minister, to cabinet
and in fact to all of us. They help to make sure this place has
a sense of what Canadians are thinking from coast to coast.
I support Canada's involvement in NATO and the need for air
strikes. If we accept what we see on the news it may be
questionable whether we are seeing any progress. Is there a
perfect solution to this conflict? I doubt it. We have to try
to come out with the best solution from among many terrible
solutions. If it takes a massive air offensive to destroy the
military machine of President Milosevic and his so-called
government, that is what we must do. We must shut down his
ability to continue destabilizing not only citizens of his own
region but those of a much wider area.
When it comes to the question of whether Canada should
participate in a ground offensive, it certainly raises the
stakes. I am not any kind of military expert. I doubt there are
many here. We are just members of parliament trying to do our
best to understand a very complex situation. My intuition is
that it will be inevitable, that a ground offensive of some sort
will be necessary.
2810
Based on the Rambouillet negotiations it was hoped that at some
point in time there would be an agreement that the NATO alliance,
the United Nations and other bodies would create a force to
essentially keep the peace.
As the days and weeks go by and we attempt to understand the
thinking of President Milosevic, I conclude that we are not
dealing with a leader who goes by any rules of engagement that we
would ever understand. The use of deceit and manoeuvres designed
to manipulate have convinced me that as much as we all want a
negotiated settlement, the probability of that is not very high.
As much as all of my colleagues and I would shudder at the
thought of sending ground troops, Canadian military men and women
to this region, it may be inevitable.
We are looking at a situation where hundreds of thousands of
ethnic Albanians from Kosovo have been removed to places outside
the region or into the mountains. Under the current
circumstances they cannot return to their homes. If we believe
as a member of NATO and as a civilized nation that ethnic
Albanian Kosovars deserve the opportunity to go back to their
homes and to rebuild, we must be involved, because Mr. Milosevic
will not allow the creating of space to which they can
return. Sadly that may mean space will need to be created on the
ground by foot soldiers, by infantry. That is a dangerous
situation.
There is no perfect solution. We cannot turn the clock back.
Turning the clock back would mean going back hundreds and
hundreds of years. It cannot be done. Emotions are running too
high. We could look at the conflict in Northern Ireland, which
is a little closer to home and maybe a little easier to
understand. The emotions and feelings of nationalism running as
deeply as we see in the Balkans, Ireland and elsewhere are not
erased overnight. It will take years, decades or longer, maybe
well beyond our own lifetimes, for there to be real solutions.
That does not mean we should sit back and allow the so-called
ethnic cleansing to continue. As we close this century it is an
absurd thought that we should sit back. We have done that before in
this century and there was too much loss of life, dignity and
civility.
As much as I would be reluctant to support any further
engagement of Canadians, I feel it may be necessary. If it
becomes necessary given all the facts, my constituents and I
would support it. We would hope there would be no loss of life
at all but realistically we have to be prepared for anything.
The air war up to this moment has resulted essentially in zero
losses on the NATO side. There has been loss of life in Serbia
and in Kosovo, the vast majority of it perpetrated by President
Milosevic and a small number as a consequence of NATO's attempts to
shut down the government and the regime of Mr. Milosevic.
2815
As a civilized nation we owe it to our children and
grandchildren to end conflict, but sometimes to end conflict it
is necessary to engage in conflict. It seems oxymoronic that we
must fight to end fighting, but a glance at history will show
that is too often the case. We cannot avoid it simply because we
wish it to go away.
I believe there may be a silver lining to this very dark cloud.
This conflict is so public and so in our face because of the
media coverage. Even though it is far away, it is still close to
home. Maybe this conflict will provide us with the impetus to
reconsider how we as a collection of nations allied for peace can
involve ourselves in conflicts in areas which themselves are
sovereign.
How do we learn from this experience where to draw the line on
sovereignty? How do we know exactly when to intervene in a
regional conflict when it may mean, as it has here, crossing into
another country and interfering in a constructive way with a
government in order to bring about peace?
I do not suggest that I have all the answers. Hopefully at
least the worst of this conflict will be resolved in the next few
weeks. I hope that in the wake of this conflict, NATO and all
the member nations of the UN will pick through the bones of this
conflict in an attempt to achieve some degree of wisdom. If and
when this should happen again, we will know better how to resolve
these conflicts and in the best way for all the stakeholders.
In conclusion, our hearts go out to the refugees. Our hearts go
out to all the innocent victims of the conflict in this region,
including those innocent people in Serbia who themselves do not
support their own government in its ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
Our hearts go out to those refugees who have been removed from
their homes and who now sleep under plastic tarps, if they even
have a plastic tarp.
I applaud our government, all Canadians and the relief agencies
in their efforts to bring food, shelter, medicine and supplies to
those in need at this time.
It is a tough issue, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for this
opportunity to say a few words.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
begin with a few comments, then put a question to my colleague
across the way.
This is the first time I take part in this debate. I must say
that it feels strange to rise in this House at 4.20 a.m. If
today's debate is one society must hold, I find it somewhat odd
that it should take place during the night since this is a time
when most people are sleeping. I find it rather ironic that such
a debate be held during the night.
2820
The other problem I have with this debate is that I find it
difficult to talk with conviction about a topic that is so
mind-boggling. What is going on in Europe right now is ethnic
cleansing. I find it easier to understand when we talk about
economic war. Tonight I was watching a report by Céline
Galipeau, who was just back from the war zone. She said that
even the local people have trouble understanding what is going
on.
Today, as parliamentarians, we are supposed to debate something
that is happening halfway across the world and that even the
people involved have trouble understanding.
I must say that this is far from restoring my faith in humanity,
particularly when this year marked the 50th anniversary of the
charter of rights. We have recently also marked the 50th
anniversary of the second world war, with its memories of
Auschwitz and so on. Those in my generation were always told
“Remember these events, so that you do not have to witness
anything like it in your lifetime.”
A few years later, here we are, witnessing scenes exactly like
those of 50 years ago. This is unbelievable. We must not
forget to speak, at least to say that there is something
incomprehensible in it all. Perhaps it is because of my young
age that I speak this way this evening. It may be, but it is
also because I think there are many people throughout the world
who have trouble understanding all this.
I have a duty today as a parliamentarian, along with all the
other members of this House, to talk military tactics, when I
have no clue as to how things work when one wants to intervene
to change a situation somewhere.
It has to be done, however. This debate is essential. As
parliamentarians, we must nevertheless be cautious because we
have only limited information available to us. I have to form
my opinions on this situation like most other people in the
world, by listening to the news and watching the major
television networks.
We have seen that foreign journalists have been expelled from
Kosovo. We must therefore form our opinions on a conflict that
is hard to understand to begin with, on the basis of a rather
limited amount of information.
What I would like to ask my colleague across the floor is this:
Does he believe that parliamentarians have the pertinent
information required for holding such a debate?
[English]
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech, but I would like to
know if he has a question.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member was in the very act
of asking his question. I was allowing him to go on a little
because there are only two members rising on questions and
comments and we do have 10 minutes in this case. The hon. member
for Lac-Saint-Jean.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Reform
Party is quite right. I put the question. Naturally, I believe
in the importance of this debate. But I put the following
question to him: does he think that parliamentarians have
information that is relevant and essential to such a debate? I
raise the matter of the quality of the debate. I do not
question the need for it.
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe for a
moment that we have all the facts. I do not believe it is
possible in anything as complex as this conflict that we could
ever have all the facts.
I agree with the hon. member that much of the information we get
is from the news networks. By their nature, coming from the
western side so to speak, there may be a degree of western bias.
That bias is mostly the result of the fact that journalists, as
the hon. member has suggested, have been expelled from the
principal region of conflict, from Kosovo.
2825
Even though we may not have all the facts, I do believe that the
journalists involved in interviewing refugees and others are
attempting to glean as much of the true story as is possible. At
best, we have available to us partial information. But when
partial information comes from many directions and it is pieced
together, it is possible to say with a reasonable degree of
certainty that what is happening is actually taking place.
When a small child is about to tip a pot of boiling water from
the stove onto his or her face, you do not stop to consider that
it is gravity that is going to cause that pot to fall. You look
at exactly what is happening and the potential for serious harm
to the child.
In this case there is much that we do not know directly, but we
have seen enough and know enough to act, and to act firmly and
fairly. Even though Canada's reputation as a peacemaker and a
peacekeeper may be compromised in the minds of some, in my mind
it is not in the least.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the member's speech.
He supports the NATO involvement in Kosovo and feels that the
situation has deteriorated to the point that troops may be
required. If we are to commit troops, is the member prepared to
see them continue on the aggressive action that has been taken to
move all the way to Belgrade and remove President Milosevic? Or
is he feeling that the troops should only be committed to
alleviate the suffering and the humanitarian need of the refugees
that have been displaced?
It would seem to me that we have started the war. We are the
ones who have done the bombing, which is a fairly aggressive act.
If we are to commit ground troops, are we going to continue on
in the same vein of being aggressive toward the Serbian nation,
or is the humanitarian relief the focus of committing troops?
Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have
the opportunity to clarify my own thinking on the subject.
If, and I want to underline the little word if, it becomes
necessary for NATO to involve troops on the ground, I do not
believe we should be entering Serbia proper, Serbia proper
meaning excluding Kosovo. We should continue the air offensive
there as part of ongoing efforts to shut down Mr. Milosevic's
military machine.
The member used the right word. Ground troops, if needed, would
be undertaking humanitarian involvement, if it is possible to
have a humanitarian military involvement in Kosovo. They would
clear space, as I said in my speech, to make room for the
Kosovars, the ethnic Albanians, to return to their homes. Our
ground action would be limited to Kosovo, to push back or arrest,
if we can do that, the military gangs operating in that province.
2830
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the hon. member for
Dewdney—Alouette.
I rise in the early hours of this day to speak to the growing
troubles that we now see in Kosovo. The subject of war troubles
me very deeply. This is not a topic that I nor I am sure anyone
else in the House takes very lightly. Not only are the lives of
people in those countries on the line, but indeed Canadian lives
are also on the line.
I wish to begin by paying tribute to our troops who are over
there. I wish for their personal safety and their safe return
home to their loved ones as soon as possible. It is perhaps
unfortunate that the government motion did not also include the
phrase “the safe return of our Canadian forces personnel”. We
ought not to forget them at this particular time.
It bothers me greatly, and the Liberal government should be
ashamed, that it has taken Canada so far down this path of
aggression without any authority from the House of Commons. We
are at war and until now have not even debated the issue.
I must ask the simple question: What is our intention in
Kosovo? Are we going to attempt to make peace or are we going to
be peacemakers when the opportunity arises? Obviously, there is
no peace at this time.
Canada has placed the lives of Canadian men and women at great
risk. These men and women are prepared to go where we, as the
elected officials of their country, ask them to go. Again I must
ask the question: What is our intention in Kosovo? What are we
asking our men and women to do? When we ask them to do
something, are we ensuring that they have the tools to do the
job?
The motion that we are debating states:
I have no difficulty in adding my voice of support in the
recognition of this terrible situation, but what does take note
mean? Are we being asked to recognize the plight of the refugees
by assisting them through the provision of food and other basic
necessities? If so, then of course the government has my full
support.
Are we being asked to right the terrible wrongs that are being
forced upon the refugees? I have concerns as to how to go about
this and, therefore, whether we should go about this or not. In
a region that has known hostilities for over 500 years, is it
possible for any of us sitting very safely in this House of
parliament to fully understand, know and determine the rights and
the wrongs of the situation?
The forceful removal of people from their homes is of course
never right. Depriving people of their identification and
property is never right. The murder of innocent people is never
right.
The motion continues to state:
Like many government motions, this is sufficiently vague enough
to mean a lot of different things. If this means sending in
ground troops, I am opposed and I have strong concerns. If this
means that the Canadian forces will play a role in maintaining
the peace, I am willing to support it.
The motion concludes “that leads to the safe return of the
refugees”. I am also in support of this. I think one of the
biggest questions that must be considered with this is what are
the refugees going home to. When will we know that the NATO
forces have fully achieved their objective and that it is
sustainable? How long do we expect our troops to be in Kosovo?
There was a time when Canadians generally were very proud of our
international role in peacekeeping. We sent our troops to some
of the most difficult places in the world and we did a good job
of keeping warring factions apart; places like Cyprus and the
Middle East. We were not involved then in the invasion of a
sovereign nation.
However, in the last few years Canadians have begun to view our
Canadian Armed Forces in a different light. That is partially
due to the inability of the government to clearly articulate to
the Canadian people what it believes the military role is.
2835
Because of this indecisiveness, our troops have been underpaid,
undermanned and underequipped. They have had to work with
obsolete equipment, live in substandard housing and moonlight at
other jobs in order to make financial ends meet. Couple this
with scandals like the Somalia affair, the treatment of women in
the forces and moral is at an all time low.
Throughout this decade and in the midst of all of these
circumstances, we persist in sending our troops into no win
international situations. Instead of being the peacekeepers of
which we can be proud, we are forcing them to be aggressors
tainted with the results of killing and wounding innocent
civilians.
Let us look at the record. We are part of NATO. In order to
fulfill our commitment to this organization, we have been dragged
into international conflicts on the coattails of American foreign
policy. Let us not make any mistake about it; the Americans are
the ones who are pushing these international war operations
today. The record is not good.
In the early years of this decade, we sent our airplanes into
Kuwait and Iraq as part of the desert storm operation. The goal
was to stop Saddam Hussein in his mad long rush to conquer Kuwait
and its oil rich territory. However, what really happened? We
unleashed all the power of modern warfare against him and when
victory was in our grasp and it was possible to eliminate this
awful dictator, we stopped on his doorstep, turned our backs and
hightailed it home. Now we wait until he builds up his war
machine to continue his terror and seven years later go back in
and do it all over again. It does not seem to make any sense.
Either these operations must have clearer objectives that will
once and for all destroy the war machines of these madmen
dictators, or we do not go in at all and we let history take its
course.
We now have a similar situation with Serbia and the madman
Milosevic. No one condones his ethnic cleansing of Albanians,
but this hatred between the races has been going on for
centuries. It will not be changed by the dropping of bombs but
by a dramatic change in human hearts.
Once again, what is the objective here? Is it to get rid of
Milosevic and his henchmen in order to stop the ethnic cleansing?
Do we really think this war against a sovereign nation will
change anything? Has U.S. foreign policy determined that it will
use the NATO disguise to go so far and then back off only to come
in another day or year to flex its muscles again? Are Canadian
troops being used as pawns in the hands of the Americans in a war
exercise that does not seem to have a clear objective?
What exactly is it that we are trying to achieve? I believe
these are importance questions that are being asked by many
Canadians. We in this parliament deserve to give them an answer.
In the meantime, Canadians are killing innocent civilians,
children and young people. We are bombing non-military targets.
I know it is unintentional but it still is happening. War is
hell and these things will always happen when we engage our
troops in it.
We are committing our sometimes under strength, underpaid,
ill-equipped troops to a war that I do not think we can win
unless we are prepared to pull out all the stops. We all know
the risks of that today. In the nuclear age, we are only just
one button push away from world war III, its horrors and the
possibility of the end of the human race that this would bring.
Is that what we want our Canadians troops involved in? Not this
Canadian. Keep our troops for the time-honoured and world
respected role of peacekeepers. Do not turn them into aggressors
waging war against civilians. Do not send our army or any ground
troops for that matter into this conflict in Kosovo. This is not
Kuwait. It is a mountainous country where armies can hole up in
the hills for ages fighting guerrilla warfare. The second world
war proved this. This conflict would be protracted, ugly and
covered with blood and could well take us into world war III.
There has to be a better way. Are there no decent Serbians who
know the truth about Milosevic? They cannot tolerate him
forever. Could we not expect that they would somehow get rid of
him and his henchmen; that truth would prevail and that right
would win out? There has to be another option.
I do not believe that what we are doing is the answer. Canadians
should not be there in their present role. We are not the
policemen of the world. Let us always be known as peacekeepers
and peacemakers. Our military reputation is already tarnished in
the world community.
Along with many Canadians, I long for the day that is described
in the Bible, a day when the lamb lies down with the lion, a day
when we shall beat our swords into ploughshares and man will know
war no more.
Until that day comes, we must work for peace. We must be viewed
by the world as peacemakers and not aggressors.
2840
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, regardless of how we got to where we are, I wonder if
the member understands that Mr. Milosevic does not appear to be
using any normal rules of engagement in this conflict and, in
particular, in the efforts of his regime to remove the ethnic
Albanians from Kosovo. Would he not agree that it would be in
the definition of peacemaking to go into the Kosovo region to
arrest or at least push back the gangs, the henchmen of the
Milosevic regime who are perpetrating his evil designs?
If there is no agreement in the near future, would the member
not agree that it might be reasonable and necessary to use ground
troops? Would it not be in the order of peacemaking to arrest or
push those henchmen out and make room for the resettlement of the
Kosovars in their homeland?
Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any
rules in war. When we get involved in a situation like this
anything can happen. We unleash a terror and an evil in the
hearts of men that only ends up in the slaughter of many people.
That is the lesson of history.
What Canadians have to decide is whether we as a country really
want our troops doing that kind of thing. Is that what we want
our troops known for? Personally, as a Canadian I do not want
our troops to be known in this way. We have a good reputation as
peacemakers. We can fulfill our NATO commitments and be the
peacemakers. If the other countries of the world want to be
aggressors, let them be, but let us not, just for the sake of
going along with the crowd, be like everybody else. Let us be
peacemakers the way we have been for years.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the debate has certainly gone on for a fairly long time but it is
an important debate to have. While we appreciate the opportunity
to speak, we wish this was something our country did not have to
face.
There certainly has been a variance of opinion. It is good that
our members have an opportunity to express their points of view
as they reflect the wishes of their constituents and others. We
have also heard a wide range of ideas and opinions here.
This debate has sparked a deeper philosophical debate across
this country. This occurs when there is an armed conflict where
clearly, as in this instance, wrongs are being perpetrated
against individuals in another part of the world. It is clear
that what Mr. Milosevic is undertaking in Serbia and Kosovo is
wrong and that is the basis of this debate tonight.
Individuals across this land are questioning NATO's right to get
involved? They are questioning the fact that innocent people are
being injured and killed. Yes, that is true. As a member of the
government pointed out not long ago, there are innocent people on
both sides of this conflict. Civilians who are trying to live
their lives may not be fully aware of the terrible things that
are happening in their country.
2845
There are individuals in our country as well who when taking one
side or another perhaps have not stopped to fully look at the
whole situation and to look at what is involved in this kind of
conflict. Historically the conflict in this region has gone on
for many hundreds of years. There is deep bitterness and
resentment of one side to another. That has continued on.
We are not looking in this debate to solve or to assign blame to
that situation because when a wrong has been committed by more
than one party then both are in the wrong. There have been
atrocities on both sides over the past hundreds of years.
We see a greater wrong being perpetrated now by Mr. Milosevic in
the fact that he is killing innocent people. The term ethnic
cleansing has been used quite a bit in the media and in this
debate. It may be easier for us to talk about that term rather
than about the atrocities it represents. Innocent people are
being murdered simply because they belong to one particular group
or another, because they belong to one religious group or
another, because they are a particular minority within that area.
That is simply wrong.
We have to stand up when something as wrong as this goes on. The
often stated line that evil will flourish if good men do nothing
is so true. I believe that to be the case in this situation. If
good men and women do nothing, then evil will flourish. We cannot
simply stand by and watch this happen a world away.
We may not have intervened in other areas when perhaps we should
have. We do not want to second guess that. But we know now and
the fact is clear that Mr. Milosevic is doing wrong. It is a
clear and simple fact. We must stand to oppose that. That is
what we are here to debate today.
We think about the refugees, the over 500,000 individuals who
have been displaced from their homes. Even for those refugees
there is no going back in the same way after this conflict. There
is no going back to their homeland with the same perspective or
frame of reference after witnessing the horrors of war that have
occurred.
The veterans within our own country who fought in World War II
and in other conflicts are never the same people they once were
after having engaged in that kind of conflict and having
witnessed the kinds of things they have seen. I think of my own
father, a veteran of World War II, and how that shaped his
perspective. He was never the same person as he was before he
participated in that conflict.
These events are terrible and awful. We would have hoped they
had not happened but they have. In order to put an end to them,
something needs to be done. Action needs to be taken. For that
reason I support the involvement of the NATO forces, not
flippantly because I know that in doing so individuals will lose
their lives as some have already. It would be my hope and prayer
that none of our own personnel would be lost in this.
It is a very deep and heavy question that weighs upon all of us
should it come to a point in time where military troops are asked
to be deployed in that area of Kosovo to further support the
military action being taken. That deep and heavy question weighs
on the hearts of all members in this place and a great number of
Canadians across this land.
It would be my hope, should the day come where we are faced with
the prospect of asking our young men and women to go into an
armed conflict on the ground that we would have another debate, a
full and open debate in this place and that we would be able to
vote on whether or not to do that. I know that is one step
further down the road. We do not know if that is going to happen
and we hope and pray it does not.
2850
Ultimately it is up to us in this place as the elected
representatives of the country to have that debate, to have
today's debate and to anticipate a further debate. It is our
role as leaders in the country to anticipate events. We do not
look ahead blindly, but anticipate the possibility of all
eventualities in this kind of conflict.
It is up to us to consult with individuals in our ridings, to
ask the hard questions and to look together in a non-partisan way
for solutions to this issue particularly because it involves the
lives of so many.
It is certainly a question that has been asked of me several
times by different people in my own riding and by people on both
sides of the issue. There are those who say yes, we should
support the NATO actions, and those who say no, we should not. As
legislators in this place, we have to weigh all that information.
We have to ask those hard questions. We have to direct some hard
questions toward the government on this issue.
I was quite surprised earlier today that the Prime Minister
seemed to be somewhat reluctant to want to state that we would
have a vote should we get to the point of deploying ground
troops. I know that in other NATO countries there will be a
debate. I cannot see the American forces being sent in without a
debate in the congress, if not a debate in the senate. I would
hope that would happen here as well.
Ultimately the objective of this NATO action is to stop the
wrong, to stop the atrocities that are going on. That is the
bottom line and the question that needs to be answered. It is
for that reason we must have this debate. We must support our
troops who are there and the NATO decision that has been made at
this point regarding the air offensive, again for the reason of
stopping the wrong that Mr. Milosevic is perpetrating against his
own citizens.
We must stand. If we do not stand, if good men and women will
not stand, then evil will continue to flourish. We cannot allow
that to happen.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech. I appreciate
the comments he made.
The question I wish to put to him is well at the top of my own
mind. What is the distinction, if any, between peacekeeping and
peacemaking? Too many people use those words interchangeably.
That is okay. It may be their interpretation of those words,
that they are the same, but in my own mind they are different
words.
If we go back a couple of thousand years, a great person
referred to peacemakers as blessed. Blessed are the peacemakers.
Does the hon. member have an opinion, and I am sure he does, on
what distinction, if any, can be made between peacekeeping and
peacemaking? Would he agree that peacekeeping comes after
peacemaking? When there is an armed standoff in a community or
city, before there can be peace to be kept, the police may have
to go make some peace. Then they will maintain the peace after.
I think this is where I am coming to in my own thinking on this.
In the absence of a decision by Mr. Milosevic to make an
agreement, we may have to go and make some peace. That is the
essence of our debate. We understand fairly well Canada's role
as a peacekeeper. What is Canada's role as a peacemaker?
2855
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
the question. It is a good question. He is right when he says
that first of all peace must be made before we can keep the
peace. He has asked about the distinction between peacemaking and
peacekeeping.
We have tried to negotiate with Mr. Milosevic for a long period
of time. Many people have tried to negotiate peace and it simply
has not worked. As a result of that this action has been taken.
In many ways I would agree with my colleague on the government
side that yes, we have to have peace before we can maintain the
peace. In Mr. Milosevic's case, it seems to be that he will not
negotiate. He does not understand or he has a different
philosophical perspective about what it means to stop. It seems
it is simply forceful actions that will show him, and that is
what it will take to stop the atrocities he is perpetrating.
In essence that is what we must continue to do. Then after the
fact hopefully a resolution will be found and peacekeeping troops
will be deployed as they have been in other areas in that region.
The member asked a valid and very good question.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when I was
elected to represent Lotbinière in the House of Commons on June
2, 1997, I would not have thought that I would be asked to speak
in the context of a world conflict.
We all recall operation desert storm in which the UN intervened
in 1991 to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait.
Today, April 13, 1999, at the dawn of the third millennium,
another dictator, the Serbian president, is threatening peace,
this time in Europe. For more than ten years, the president of
Serbia, on pretext of defending the Serb minorities, invaded and
fought a war in Bosnia, Croatia and, now, Kosovo.
We will recall the images of the war in Sarajevo the media
broadcast to the world at the opening of the Olympic winter
games in Lillehammer in 1994. The TV networks, in order to
raise world awareness, showed the images of a jubilant people
celebrating at the 1984 Olympic winter games.
Ten years later, the traditional fireworks had given way to the
fireworks of Serb shelling and the bombs that destroyed 300
historical monuments in Dubrovnik, a city recognized by UNESCO
for its historical beauty, and the city of Mostar, which I had
the pleasure of visiting in 1988. It was a surprise to the
tourists to discover such cultural variety in this lovely corner
of the country.
It was impressive to see, in the same skyline, the minaret of a
muslin mosque and the steeples of a catholic church and the
onion-domed towers of an orthodox cathedral. Bosnians, Croats and
Serbs were living together in peace. A few years later, this
spectacular city was the target of Serb bombings.
I shudder when I see the images of suffering and destruction in
this country, which we have been seeing on TV for the past three
weeks. Long lines of Kosovar refugees fleeing their homeland,
pursued by Serb soldiers, unfortunately remind us of the horrors
of the second world war. Nobody would have thought Europe would
have to endure the madness of yet another dictator.
Sixty years later, on the eve of the year 2000, NATO is faced
with another warrior president, who harbours much hatred for a
whole people, the people of Kosovo.
In 1993, acting in another professional capacity, I had the
opportunity to chat with Martin Gray at the launching of one of
his books. He told us he feared the worst for the Balkans. The
decline of human values and the escalating ethnic conflicts in
the former Yugoslavia were of great concern to him.
Referring to the horrors of the second world war he said “I saw
men acting like animals, attacking women and children and
decimating whole families”. Indeed the Kosovars, who are seeing
Serb militiamen with such hatred in their hearts, are living
through the same nightmare as Martin Gray and his loved ones.
If there is anyone who can bear witness to genocide, it is
Martin Gray. If there is anyone who saw a barbaric army destroy
his fellow citizens, it is Martin Gray.
2900
In spite of the messages of this proponent of peace and of the
numerous reports reminding us of the atrocities of World War II,
we waited. Our military action was limited and we let the
Serbian president implement his sinister plan.
Sure, peacekeepers were sent to Bosnia to maintain peace, but it
was too late. The damage had been done. Cities and villages had
been destroyed. Tens of thousands of civilians had been killed.
And yet, President Milosevic is still free.
How could NATO and even the UN have been so tolerant when faced
with such a hellish situation? Journalists, military strategists
and historians wonder about the effectiveness of NATO's military
operation.
How could NATO not see the threat to Kosovars? How could NATO be
indirectly responsible for the massive exodus of Kosovars? How
could NATO not see the genocide planned by the Serbian
president?
While NATO was trying to find a peaceful solution to the
situation in Kosovo, the Serbian army was preparing to invade
that region. While NATO was threatening Serbia with sanctions,
the Serbian army was crossing the Kosovo border. Finally, when
NATO began its air strikes against Belgrade and other military
targets in Serbia, Serbian troops resorted to force and
barbarity to force people to leave Kosovo.
This is the sad scenario that led to the current situation in
Kosovo. Yet, NATO, with the support of American and western
media, boasted about this military operation and about the
merits of its powerful military arsenal, including Canada's
F-18's.
The world let out a sigh of relief when the American president,
Bill Clinton, announced that air strikes had begun against
Serbia. Twenty days later, NATO has still not convinced the
Serbian president to listen to reason, Kosovo is empty, and
Kosovars are suffering terribly.
NATO countries have made a concerted effort to help the hundreds
of thousands of Kosovo refugees who were expelled from their
native land by the Serbian army.
But, in the meantime, where do the Serbs stand? The president,
his military leaders, and his numerous supporters throughout the
world remain unmoved in the face of all this injustice,
suffering and human misery.
And what is Canada doing? It has taken the humanitarian step of
opening its borders to Kosovar refugees. Now it must demand
that NATO force the Serb president back to the negotiating table
and get him to accept the following conditions to right the
wrongs done to Kosovo: sign the Rambouillet agreement; pull the
Serb army out of Kosovo immediately; facilitate the return of
the Kosovars to their homeland; help rebuild Kosovo; and agree
to the presence of a peaceful NATO or UN military force.
Enough is enough. NATO must also examine the presence of the
Russians in the Kosovo peace process or find a foreign envoy
able to stand up to President Milosevic. It must continue its
efforts to liberate Kosovo and once again reason with the
current president of Serbia who, in addition to persecuting the
Kosovars, is using this war to increase his popularity among his
fellow Serbs. Once the war is over, Milosevic will be
accountable to humanity.
NATO must not repeat the mistake made by the UN in 1991 when it
decided not to arrest President Saddam Hussein. Everyone knows
what happened next. NATO must therefore step up the air strikes
until the Serb president puts out a white flag.
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for his remarks. He
gave an excellent synopsis of some of the more recent history and
certainly laid out a desirable plan for all of us to consider.
2905
If all attempts to get Mr. Milosevic to the negotiating table
fail and if it appears that he will not negotiate or agree to
anything because he has some sort of national death wish, would
the member agree that it may be necessary for ground troops to
enter the Kosovo region and not Serbia proper to arrest those who
are perpetrating horrific crimes against ethnic Albanians?
Ultimately, if there is a war crimes tribunal, many of the
accused will be or will have been in the Kosovo region
Would the member agree that while the air campaign is ongoing it
may be necessary to enter Kosovo to arrest and push back
Milosevic's henchmen to create room for the return of the
refugees? Would he consider that might be a possibility?
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his remarks.
When NATO decided to intervene with the air strikes, it may have
been a bit off in its estimate of how long it would take to
annihilate the Serbian military forces.
Judging from televised reports, the context in Kosovo is one of
a small mountainous province with very winding roads. The Serbs
know Kosovo well, as they have now been there close to a year.
If we are thinking of sending over ground forces, we will need
to be sure there are good guides available. We must be sure
that these forces are able to make the Serbian president see
reason.
I believe that, at present, NATO has taken the right steps by
wanting to weaken the military arsenal of the Serbian president.
If I understand the historical situation properly, Serbia
currently possesses the military arsenal of the former
Yugoslavia.
Members will recall that, when Yugoslavia broke up after the
demise of Tito, Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina became independent
and Serbia, taking advantage of its military arsenal and all the
military might it had at its disposal, began to attack Croatia
and Bosnia. Now it is Kosovo's turn.
This is more than a question of conflict.
It is a question of a man making use of his power, a man with no
respect for democracy, and particularly no respect for the
people with whom he lives.
I have already spoken of the time I spent in Mostar, and how
impressed I was to see so many cultures cohabiting. Now,
however, the President of Serbia has decided, under the pretext
of false nationalism, to change the rules of the game.
If ground forces have to be sent in, Canada will definitely have
to play a leadership role so that the co-operative effort will be
more seriously planned than the improvisation that has been
going on since the conflict began.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is 5.07
a.m. this Tuesday morning, and I want to say things a number of
members are thinking, which we have discussed among ourselves,
but which have yet to be included in the debate.
First, the members of the House are not better informed about
the situation in Kosovo than the average citizen who reads the
papers and watches TV. I am here at the moment to debate an
important issue and, despite the fact that I am a member of
parliament, the information I have is no different than that
available to the public in the papers or on radio and
television.
2910
As a member, and this is the case with all the members in this
House, I did not have access to specific information. I was not
better informed. I do not know whether the government agrees or
disagrees with the information the media provide.
The media, with the best of intentions, do not always carry all
of the information available and do not always present it from
all angles.
I am no better informed than the ordinary citizen in Quebec
and Canada, and it is this context that I must use my judgment
to express my viewpoint.
This brings me to the second issue. I will express my opinion,
but what will come of it? Will it allow my colleagues in this
House to support some of my views, to oppose them, to complete
them, or to improve them so that we can make a better decision?
In other words, will my comments help the House make a better
decision? The answer is no, because no decision will be made.
At the conclusion of this debate, there will be no vote, no
decision. The decision has already been made by the government.
What am I doing here at ten past five in the morning? I am not
happy. I am not happy about the way the government is treating
the members of this House. There are 301 members of parliament.
We represent Quebeckers and Canadians.
We do our best to make a positive and constructive contribution
to the business of this House, particularly today with the issue
of Kosovo. Under the circumstances, I feel very useless and,
unfortunately, not very knowledgeable.
Still, I realize that the Prime Minister wants to avoid a vote
that might show the international community, and particularly
Milosevic, that we do not stand united on this issue.
The result of this could be very different, because we are
sending the message that our Prime Minister is so unsure about
us being united, so insecure about the current situation, that
he will not even ask this House to vote to support the positions
that he is proposing to the international community.
There is a danger that the Prime Minister's decision will have
exactly the opposite effect. Rather than presenting a united
front, he is going to make people think there is a lack of unity
when, in fact, that is not the case.
The situation in Kosovo is tragic. Kosovo is about the same
size as the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area. It is not very large.
It consists of a plain surrounded by mountains, like the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, and is home to 2.5 million people.
Coming from the North, the Serbs, led by Milosevic—and I would
like to say in passing that I firmly believe that the Serbs are
as honest as anyone else on the planet—have received the order to
expel the residents of Kosovo from their territory.
2915
Let us imagine for a moment what is happening. We are in our
home, with our furniture, our belongings and our memories. We
are sitting in front of our television when there is knock at
our door and someone yells that we are to gather up our things
and leave the country. That is what is happening.
Right now, one quarter of the population—approximately 600,000
people, if we are to believe the electronic media—have already
been forced to leave, under terrible conditions, and cross a
mountain range with winter barely over.
It is not known how many people have died so far. It is not
known how many have been wounded. It is not known how many
families have been split up.
Nobody knows how many children died. Nobody knows how many old
people were left behind.
We are faced with an absolutely tragic situation I would compare
to the following one: suppose we have neighbours who are
experiencing family problems and they are quarrelling. Through
closed doors and windows we can hear voices getting louder. We
might try mediating and bring things back to normal.
But if we hear gun shots, it is time to call the police and
bring in the tactical team to prevent a disaster. Things have
gone far enough.
This is what the current situation is like. For ten years now
there has been negotiations. They are leading nowhere, they are
deadlocked. People are dying.
Is the death toll 1,000, 10,000, 100,000? We do not know for
sure. I am in the dark. But one thing is certain, we must
intervene and do so on several fronts.
First, we must provide shelter for the refugees, particularly in
neighbouring countries such as Macedonia and Albania. These
countries are poor and do not have the means to accommodate the
hundreds of thousands of refugees who are streaming in day after
day. Therefore we have to provide them with what is required in
terms of infrastructure, food supplies, health care and drugs to
ensure these people are taken care of.
This will not be short term. It will be a long time before the
refugees can go back home, if there is anything to go back to.
We hear on the news that their houses were burned down.
The first step to be considered is receiving the refugees.
Then, making it possible for them to go home. This will not be
possible unless Milosevic and the people around him can be made
to see reason. This is precisely the purpose of the air
strikes, to ensure that the Serbs realize that there is a price
to pay for their actions, a price that will make them less and
less able to continue what they are doing.
The day will come when, if we want the Kosovars to return to
their country, support will have to be provided to them for
reconstruction and to ensure their safety. So troops to ensure
security will not be the only ones that will have to be sent;
engineers will be needed as well. Social workers will be
needed, doctors, people who will help the Kosovars rebuild what
Milosevic and his army have destroyed.
We are faced with an extremely delicate and extremely complex
problem.
I truly regret that the government did not inform MPs more fully
on this entire situation and the issues involved. I would be
better able to form a clear judgment. With a better
understanding of the issues, I would be able to make a better
contribution to this debate.
I regret that this debate is, to all intents and purposes, only
a show. We are giving the Canadian public the impression that
we are profoundly reflecting on the matter in order to reach the
best decision. That is not the case. We are reflecting. We
are reacting, but the decision is not ours. It is out of our
hands.
2920
We are denied this democratic right we enjoy in the name of
those we represent to take part in decisions. We have no part
in them. That seems totally unfair.
I will return to the situation in Kosovo. At the moment, this
country—which is the size, as I mentioned, of the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region—is being shot up and bloodied by
the Serbs. Why are the Serb troops doing that? Is it because
they are inherently wicked? We have to really understand how an
army works. As I was saying, the Serbs are decent and good
people. But when people are in the army, they follow orders,
and if they do not, they pay the price and, generally, in times
of war, it is with their life.
At the moment, Serb troops are being ordered to fire on and
bloody Kosovo. This country, the size of the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, is hemmed in by mountains,
village after village, city after city, street after street and
neighbourhood after neighbourhood. The people are of Albanian
origin, but have lived in Kosovo for centuries and are being
expelled and pushed toward the borders.
Some travel in vehicles, others take the train—and the media have
showed us unbearable hardship—while others walk along the
railroad tracks.
At this point, we are definitely in no position to intervene in
Kosovo itself to help people migrate. We have to wait for them
at the border. However, we have learned that access to the
border has now been denied. What does this mean for Kosovars? It
means they can no longer use roads to get to a neighbouring
country. They must walk through the forest, through the woods,
and while this is spring, nights can still be quite cold in the
mountains.
In the hours and days to come, it is critical that energetic
action be taken to welcome these refugees in Macedonia,
Montenegro and Albania, which are Kosovo's neighbours.
Of course, this will require money and also some means of
transport to bring in supplies. What role can Canada play? Our
air force can bomb Serbian positions inside Serbia. But we must
participate in the humanitarian effort to help the refugees. The
fact is that Canadian forces have a great deal of experience in
humanitarian missions.
Before there can be any thought of peacekeeping in Kosovo—this is
not for tomorrow, and people should realize this—there is the
humanitarian mission of taking in refugees, which is where I am
sure our troops could play a role, ensuring the provision of
sanitary conditions and food and, as we are seeing on
television, educational facilities for the youngest, so that
they are treated with respect and dignity while waiting to be
able to return to their own country.
Although Canada, the United States and other countries thought
they would be able to take in refugees one, one and a half or
two weeks ago, the situation has now degenerated and has taken a
completely different turn.
One or two weeks ago, it was thought that there would be a
hundred thousand refugees to take in, and that the majority of
Kosovars would remain in Kosovo.
2925
But now, all that has changed. The entire population is being
driven out of Kosovo. It would therefore be completely
unthinkable and unacceptable to have these refugees rebuild
their lives elsewhere in the world and completely abandon their
country. This would be an admission that Milosevic was right to
do what he has done, to drive everyone out of Kosovo. It would
signify approval of this massive expatriation of all inhabitants
of Kosovo.
It is therefore imperative that Kosovars be provided with decent
accommodation in the countries bordering on Kosovo, thus
guaranteeing two things: first, it will show Milosevic that we
are going to do what it takes to enable these people to return
home, if their homes are still standing and, if they are not,
that we are going to help them rebuild; second, it will show the
Kosovar refugees that they can count on the international
community to help them return to their homes.
It is late and I know that other members would also like to
speak, so I will stop here.
[English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to ask a question
of my colleague and friend, the member for Portneuf.
He made a number of excellent comments. Early in his remarks he
wondered why he was participating in this debate. He was
lamenting the fact that it will not conclude with a vote. He
wondered if this was all a masquerade.
As I listened to his comments he proved to me that he did
deserve to be here and to make these comments. Listening to him
I learned something, as I am sure others in the House and those
watching did. Indeed, he has proven the opposite of his point.
In fact his contributions this morning have been very valuable to
the discussion, notwithstanding that at the end of the day there
may or may not be a vote. In this case there will not be a vote.
I would like to ask him a question which relates to getting from
A to B. He talked eloquently. He brought me right
into the home of an ethnic Albanian in Kosovo who was watching
television, heard a knock at the door and was asked to move out
within 10 minutes. That is an experience that none of us, I am
sure, have ever had and hopefully will never have. It is
difficult to imagine. However, by imagining it, it is possible
to feel the moment of terror and tragedy which those families
suffered.
Does he believe, should President Milosevic never agree to some
terms of settling the conflict, that it may be necessary for NATO
and Canada as a participant to involve ground troops in order to
make peace in that region? Does he believe that Milosevic and
his thugs should be arrested so that the international criminal
court can deal with them and make room for the Kosovars to return
to their homes? They will not be able to move back unless there
is peaceful space for them.
If there is yet no agreement, does he think today that it might
be necessary to send in ground troops to make space for the
refugees to return to their homes?
2930
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, before answering the question
from the hon. member for Algoma—Manitoulin, I would like to
comment his statement to the effect that I contradict myself by
saying that this debate is useless when I am making a
contribution he described as useful.
I am happy to know what I said was useful. However, I did not
become a member of parliament to be a lecturer. I used to be a
teacher, and the transfer of knowledge was my job. I was paid to
do that. Now I am a member of parliament, and my job is to take
part in the decision making process. That is not what I am being
asked to do today.
I hope that my contribution is useful. Otherwise I would
not have risen up so early to come here and make my
presentation, but that is not what I am paid to do. I am paid to
take part in the decision making process. What upsets me is that
fact that I am not allowed to do my job. My constituents do not
expect me to come here just to make speeches. They expect me to
take action and to make decisions, but that is not what I am
doing today.
To answer the question from my colleague, this conflict
will necessarily end one day, because no conflict is eternal,
but for peace to be lasting, it will have to be the result of
negotiations.
That is how things are done in labour relations. The same
applies to international relations. The parties must come to an
agreement, which agreement can only be achieved through
negotiations.
In work relations, when negotiations become difficult, pressure
tactics are taken. People work to rule or go on strike. In
international affairs, when negotiations become more difficult
or stall completely, we turn to the diplomacy of arms.
A day will come when parties will have to sit together,
negotiate and reach an agreement. In the meantime, will we have
to complement air strikes with ground operations? Maybe, maybe
not. I have, to date, absolutely no information that would allow
me to know for sure. I am left in total darkness as are all
members. I cannot give my colleague an answer on this specific
aspect of his question.
However, as I said earlier, when an agreement is reached between
the parties, two things will have to be done: Ensure security in
the region with a peacekeeping force and provide technical
support by sending in engineers, workers specialized in various
fields and doctors to help Kosovo rebuild and heal.
That is all I can say given the information I have and, much
more so, the information I do not have.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member for Portneuf has painted a very clear picture of the
situation in Serbia and Kosovo for us. However, he reminded us
that the Liberal government, under the leadership of the Prime
Minister, will unfortunately deny this House the possibility to
vote at the end of this long debate, which started at 3 p.m.
yesterday and will be than 10 hours long by the time it is over.
The five parties in the House support air strikes and the
actions taken by the Canadian government. Could the hon. member
for Portneuf risk an explanation of that situation? Could he
explain why the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister and the
Minister of National Defence would categorically refuse the hon.
members who represent all Canadians an opportunity to vote on
the Canadian involvement in the conflict?
2935
Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Prime
Minister has in mind, and I would be hard pressed to guess what
it is.
But I can say I am offended that I am not allowed to fulfill
decently my duty as a member of the House by making an
enlightened contribution to the government's decisions. I am not
allowed to fulfill my duty at all or decently, because I am not
given the information I need and because I am denied the
opportunity to vote.
I can tell the House I am for a motion during the
debate, but the real decision is made when I stand in my place
and vote for the motion that is before the House. In this case,
I am not allowed to take a stand on behalf of my constituents of
Portneuf. I am not allowed to do the work I am paid for.
Today, everything is fine, and we all agree with the Prime
Minister that we should go. There is no disagreement between
various parties in the House, and there is none between the
government and the opposition parties. We all agree. Everything
is fine. We do not have the right to express our support through
a vote, but since we all agree on this, we are probably not
really angry.
Let us imagine the opposite situation, where we would
disagree and the government would not allow us to vote.
Obviously, democracy would be thwarted.
I happen to think that if it is thwarted when we disagree, it is
also when we are in agreement and are denied the opportunity to
vote. That is the point I wanted to make.
[English]
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
should indicate at the outset that I will be splitting my time
with the hon. member for Vancouver East.
At this early hour in the morning when the people in my
constituency will just be getting up I first want to thank the
many Canadians who have written, e-mailed and phoned my office in
the last few weeks to express their concerns about this country's
engagement in Yugoslavia.
I also want to thank in particular my constituents in the riding
of Sydney—Victoria who over the Easter break contacted me or
whom I contacted to discuss their views on this most important
issue. Their deliberations and opinions are crucial to the
debate we are having here in the wee hours of the morning.
I can say that the vast majority of constituents who spoke with
me supported at the end of March the position of NATO and agreed
with the New Democratic Party policy to support the government on
this alternative before the House adjourned.
However, like us in the New Democratic Party, they did so
cautiously and they did so warily. They still may do so on
humanitarian grounds, but they do so quietly and soberly without
jingoism and without blind patriotism.
We know that the Kosovo region of Yugoslavia has a long history
of struggle. Like many nations in the Baltic region its history
is both rich and complex. To understand the events of the last
few months we must understand the complex struggles in this
region of the world.
The majority of the population in Kosovo is Albanian. In 1985 I
think Kosovo held one-third of the entire Albanian population in
the world. While rich agriculturally the area has long been
among the poorest regions of Yugoslavia.
The Albanians have a claim to this property and it is important
to understand the backdrop here. They claim that they settled
Kosovo in the middle of the second millennium BC.
2940
However the Serbs view Kosovo as the cradle of the Serbian
empire. It was in that territory, and we have heard this in many
debates in the House, that the Serbs were defeated by the Turks
on the Plain of Blackbirds in 1389. This is sacred territory to
the Serbs.
In 1913 Kosovo became part of Yugoslavia. It is important to
remember that during the second world war Kosovo was occupied by
Italy. During the second world war it is the claim of Albania
that the nationalists clearly expressed the view that Kosovo be
allowed to exercise the right of self-determination when the war
ended.
In 1945 following the second world war there was a nationalist
uprising in Kosovo against reimposition of Serbian rule. This
was crushed and there were many casualties.
There is no question that since Tito has died the residents of
Kosovo, and particularly the ethnic Albanians, have been harshly
treated. In 1981 unemployment in Kosovo stood at 27.5% and the
standard of living in Kosovo was one quarter that of the Yugoslav
national average and was falling. It was no wonder that rioting
occurred in 1981 and there were many deaths. There was violence
again in Pristina in 1989 when ethnic Albanians demonstrated.
As in all conflicts there are faults on both sides. Some
writers have pointed to evidence of hypocrisies committed by
ethnic Albanians against the Serbian minority in that province.
There are arguments that anti-Serb text and literature flow to
Kosovo through Albania.
There is evidence that while in the autonomous province within
the second Yugoslavia the Serb minority felt its human rights
were violated. This built anger upon anger, hatred upon hatred.
In fact it was the feeling of mistreatment by the Serbian
minority in Kosovo that allowed President Milosevic to pole vault
to political power when he promised to assuage and avenge those
perceived wrongs.
Since Serbian control there are some issues that we have to look
at. In 1991 Serbia ordered the schools in Kosovo to be
segregated between Albanians and Serbs. Some 6,000 ethnic
Albanian teachers lost their jobs. By 1992 at least 100,000
Albanians had lost their public sector jobs, including 800 of
Pristina's 900 academics.
In March 1999, 40,000 Serb troops began a campaign of what is
called ethnic cleansing. We know that villages were burned and
that 2,000 people had been killed before NATO began to move in.
The fragile situation in Kosovo is as complex as that in the
Middle East or Northern Ireland. It is against that backdrop
that we must set the events of the last few months.
The international community had tried to mediate the dispute
between these two people in the wake of what had been dramatic
changes in eastern Europe in the last decade. It is our
responsibility as signators to the United Nations Convention on
Human Rights as a privileged nation and as fellow world citizens
to assist in the solving of human rights crises and to avert
potential human rights atrocities.
Diplomatic efforts had been exhausted. The Serbian president
refused to sign the Rambouillet agreement. It is alleged that he
refused to cease gross violations of human rights that may well
border on genocide. He refused to allow the international war
crimes prosecutor, Canadian judge Louise Arbour, to investigate
those allegations.
We could simply no longer wait to assist those who were being
persecuted. We could no longer wait to see what happened as the
tide of events engulfed Albanians and the rest of the world. It
was time for action and Canada responded, but we responded with
regret. We responded with concern while we responded with
action.
We will continue to respond with determination and conviction
and we will honour our international obligations. Canadians will
keep their word. That is why this party some time ago supported
NATO's position regarding selective bombings.
Events in war do not follow nice, normal time lines.
Circumstances today are not as they were two weeks ago.
2945
We are not even close to a resolution of this terrible tragedy.
Even as we speak tonight there are reports of a train being
bombed in Serbia. There are reports that the French president
has softened that country's position and has moved more in line
with the position of our leader of the New Democratic Party, who
this morning called for the United Nations to play a more
integral role in settling this situation.
Circumstances in war change quickly. To find peace in any
conflict requires an opportunity for the enemies to negotiate and
the proper forum for these talks must be the United Nations.
That is why we have advocated that Canada call for a special
meeting of the United Nations General Assembly.
Since this issue was last debated in the House the secretary
general has set terms and conditions for Yugoslavia to meet to
form the basis of a ceasefire. We think that Canada and NATO
should call on President Milosevic to stop the war on the ground,
to leave the killing fields and to agree to negotiate. If he
does that, we in this party argue for the air raids to be
suspended for a period of time and for Kofi Annan's terms to form
the stage on which a settlement could be negotiated. This is a
necessary requirement for the Serbian president's redemption.
We want peace to be restored and we want it to be restored with
justice and with respect for human rights. This party has never
and does not support unilateral intervention into another
nation's concerns. However, if we have learned anything in this
century, surely it is that the human condition is so fragile that
we all have a role to play in the protection of the essential
human rights of humanity.
Elie Wissel said: “The opposite of love is not hate, it is
indifference”. In 1999 we can no longer afford to be
indifferent to the fate of those with whom we share the world.
It is not in their interest and it is not in ours.
Hence we call for a new international order. We can only seek
peace if we are prepared to be as aggressive in our diplomatic
efforts as we are in our military action.
I have not spoken of ground troops in this debate. I will wait
until there is a debate and a vote in the House on that issue.
Democracy demands as much.
Canadians responded with generosity and compassion toward the
refugee crisis and we will need more of that in what I see as a
lengthy ordeal in the Balkans.
Finally, I want to assure those Canadians who serve our country
in both military service and humanitarian efforts that they are
in our thoughts. My constituents and I pray for their safety and
for their families. We pray too for the Albanians and the Serbs
and we pray for peace.
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
Kosovo has drawn the attention of the world. No matter where we
live in Canada we have watched on television and we have read in
the newspapers the horrors and the atrocities, the violations of
human rights that have taken place in Kosovo against Muslim
Albanians.
In the past two weeks in my riding of Vancouver East I have been
overwhelmed by the response that I have received over the
telephone, by mail, e-mail, faxes and from people I have met on
the street. The response I have had in my own community has been
on a couple of levels. First, there has been the response that
we have all seen in the House of Commons, across Canada and
indeed around the world. That has been the response of: What
can we do to stop this violence? What can we do to provide a
humanitarian effort to ensure that the Albanians of Kosovo are
not violated further?
From my constituents I have also heard another very thoughtful
response. It concerns the question of what is the appropriate
role and what is it that Canada should do as part of the
international community to ensure that there is a just peace in
the Balkans and in particular in Kosovo.
2950
I have been very gratified by the amount of debate that has
taken place regarding what Canada's role should be. Many of my
constituents have expressed very grave concerns about the fact
that Canada has participated in a NATO action that has escalated
into military intervention.
Twenty days ago all political parties in the House, including
the NDP, supported that intervention because we believed that it
was necessary to provide a humanitarian response to the
atrocities that were taking place.
However, here we are twenty days later and I think we have to
say that the situation has changed. Twenty days ago there was an
assurance, a prediction, that the NATO initiative would be short
and effective and that its objective was to protect the
Kosovars.
This debate has gone on for many hours. We are approaching
early morning. Although we will not be voting, today is the time
to take stock, to pause for a moment, even in terms of our
Canadian contact, to say “What is Canada doing? What has our
response been? Is it still the appropriate response?”
The situation has changed. Rather than the situation being
contained, which we were told was the objective of NATO, in
actual fact the situation has worsened. The bombing has provoked
a horrific number of atrocities and a greater fleeing of
refugees. Over 500,000 refugees have fled Kosovar.
The bombing has caused untold harm, suffering and death to
civilian populations. It is very important to point out that in
today's wars—and this is a war, let us make no mistake about
it—it is the civilian populations who are the primary
casualties. Even though we are told that there is strategic
bombing, it is still the civilians who pay the price.
We were told that this would be effective, but we now face the
very real danger and threat of the situation escalating. As I
and people in my community of Vancouver East watch the news, we
watch with a sense of anxiety and stress. We see this drama in
the Balkans playing out with Russia particularly, as well as
China, becoming involved and making various threats. The whole
situation is becoming destabilized.
In today's debate and certainly in our discussions in caucus we
believe that we must have the courage to stand and examine what
solutions are going to provide a humanitarian, peaceful and just
solution in Kosovo and in the Balkans.
We have to ask ourselves if the continued bombing of the people
of Serbia and the continued fleeing of refugees is bringing any
stability to the area. Evidence is mounting that the contrary is
happening. There is greater instability, greater harm is being
done and the NATO initiative is leading us into a situation that
is more and more volatile and tense.
People in the peace movement have suggested and predicted that
because NATO went in without the authority of the United Nations
the very issue of NATO itself has become one of credibility. We
went in with a massive force, we issued an ultimatum and then it
became very hard to back down, rather than seeking out other
resolutions that would bring peace to the area.
Our caucus has had very serious and thoughtful debates about
what it is we should be bringing forward to this House of
Commons, what we should be saying on behalf of our constituents.
We believe very strongly that in terms of what Canada does at
this point we should be emphasizing and moving back to a role
within the United Nations, a role within international
peacekeeping forces, which includes Russia, the OSCE and China.
Otherwise we run the huge risk and danger of having the situation
worsen daily and we will see the NATO objectives failing.
2955
One of the major peace organizations in British Columbia, End
the Arms Race, whose members are expert in the areas of
international law, peacekeeping and conflict, wrote a letter to
the Prime Minister expressing their opinion that Canada has
failed the United Nations. They said that the unilateral
military action of NATO has further undermined the authority of
the United Nations, the new international court of justice and
other UN bodies, and that Canada has contributed to international
anarchy by demonstrating that international politics is not
governed by law, but by military power.
Those are very sobering words. I urge members of the House to
take stock of what is taking place and to recognize that, yes, we
must have a humanitarian response, but we are also allowing a
crisis to develop in the role of the UN and how the international
community responds, not just to the situation in Kosovo, but
elsewhere.
We only have to look around the globe at the situation in the
Congo, which is a bloody civil war, at the Kurds in Turkey, at
the Great Lakes region of Africa, at Sierra Leone, Indonesia or
East Timor. There are very fundamental issues about how it is
that we strengthen international law, how we protect human rights
and how we use the role of the UN as a catalyst to facilitate
peacekeeping and the protection of human rights, rather than
using NATO as an instrument of U.S. foreign policy to further its
own interests.
There is a huge concern growing about the further escalation of
the war in Kosovo and whether we have met the humanitarian
objectives which we started with 20 days ago. Now we have the
contemplation of the possible use of Canadian ground troops, with
no assurance from the government that it will be done through a
democratic vote in the House of Commons.
I think it is time to say that we want to see an end to the
bombing. We want to see a serious pursuit of diplomacy and not
the rejection of every diplomatic overture from Russia or other
countries. We want to see a serious negotiation take place under
the auspices of the UN. We want to see an international
peacekeeping force and, very importantly, an international system
under the auspices of the general assembly, after a debate in the
general assembly, to adjudicate and make decisions about the use
of peacekeeping forces.
Also I think we want to see a commitment that other atrocities,
often perpetrated or abetted to serve U.S. interests, receive the
same kind of attention. There is an issue of consistency here.
The media have drawn our attention to what happens in Kosovo, but
we have to be aware of other situations that also demand that
kind of response from the international community.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I commend the hon. member for Vancouver East for her comments and
those of her colleague from Sydney—Victoria.
I have been listening with interest to members of the New
Democratic caucus throughout this debate articulate an
interesting and I am sure heartfelt position, but I must admit
that from time to time I become confused about exactly what their
position is. It seems to be to proceed with the air war if
necessary, but do not necessarily proceed with the air war; to
stop the bombing in order to have negotiations, but to continue
bombing in order to force negotiations.
Therefore, I say with all sincerity that I am not entirely clear
as to what policy the NDP is recommending that we and our NATO
allies follow. Is it to disengage from the air campaign
immediately in the hope that Milosevic will come to the
bargaining table, or is it to proceed with the air campaign in
the hope that he will come to the bargaining table? Which is it?
It certainly cannot be both at the same time.
3000
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
comments. Throughout the debate today and certainly in question
period the leader of the NDP; our foreign affairs critic, the
member for Burnaby—Douglas; and all of us who have spoken in the
debate have made it very clear that we believe the debate today
is an opportunity for us to assess the position that has been
taken by all political parties and what we should do now and in
the future.
I reiterate we are hugely concerned that after 20 days of
bombing we appear to be no further ahead in terms of achieving
the objectives of how NATO was sent in, in the first place. We
believe that through the United Nations, through a special
meeting of the general assembly, we should be issuing a call to
Mr. Milosevic to end his ground war, to come back to the table,
and to pursue diplomacy and negotiations. On that basis bombing
should be halted.
We should take this time to say that if we are serious about
negotiations there are choices within that. The peace accord
from Rambouillet is something that is probably now off the table.
We only have to look at what happened in Northern Ireland to know
that if there is a commitment to make it work a very real and
genuine course can be followed.
In response to the member, that is what we in the New Democratic
Party want to see emphasized. We believe now is the time to
increase that effort from the UN and to have the international
community, including very strategic players in terms of Russia
and China or other interests in the Balkan area, be part of that
initiative so that we do not lose an opportunity to give
negotiation and diplomacy a chance.
What is the alternative? It is to issue other ultimatums and to
keep up the bombing. I would ask a question of the member. Can
we seriously and legitimately say that we have achieved the
objective that was laid out to us 20 days ago? I think not.
Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I doubt
very much that I will be using all the time that is available to
me but I want to make a number of points. I have not been able
to take in all of the debate so some of them may be a repeat of
points already made. They are important in terms of my
constituents and my own personal feelings on this issue.
The last exchange between the members of Reform and NDP on the
question of where people are on this issue was somewhat
confusing. That should not be a surprise to anybody. Ultimately
that represents the terrible angst we all feel given the fact
that atrocities are being perpetrated and have been perpetrated
for many years which are inconsistent with what I consider to be
Canadian values.
I do not mean to claim ownership of those values, but as
Canadians we can take pride in our history of humanitarianism and
in our values of civility, tolerance and respectful co-existence.
The things that have been happening offend those values.
Consequently we all struggle not with the resolution or the
objectives as we refer to them but with how to achieve those
objectives.
I do not think anybody should imagine that anybody is
participating in this exercise with any pleasure. The reality is
that we probably all want the same objective achieved. I think we
all want the same outcome and we will debate how to achieve it.
From time to time we will struggle with that debate. We will
struggle with the question of when it is appropriate, if ever. I
am sure there are those in the House who are absolutely pacifist
in their view of the world. I am not one of those. I consider
myself to be a pacifist but I can imagine circumstances where I
would feel compelled to act in the defence of those values.
3005
Last weekend in my riding we commemorated the Holocaust. One
has to realize that there are occasions from time to time when
people of good will and civility need to take an action. I do
not want to draw a parallel here, but I am simply saying that
there are occasions when it would be appropriate.
The point is that the kind of difficulty people have with this
debate simply reflects that. This is not about what we want. I
caution everybody to avoid language which suggests that somehow
there is a moral high ground here. We all want the same thing.
We all want the atrocities to stop.
It is just as difficult for me to say this is an occasion when
force may be used as it would be for others to say this is not an
occasion where force can be used and struggle with that, with
what that means to the people of Kosovo who will be there if we
are not. This is a very difficult debate. I would appeal to
everybody for the use of language that respects the fact that
this is difficult for everybody.
There are many people who are on the ground. I think of the
people who are actively involved in the NGOs. The language we
use has to be respectful of them, the people who are involved. I
was engaged in debates at other times in my life. I think back
on the things I said about people who were engaged in acts of war
and the language I used. I regret it in some cases. People are
generally of good will and I would hope that people in the
military would not interpret anything that is said as not being
respectful of the actions being taken on their part, the bravery
and the sacrifice.
I come from a constituency that has a large military base. I
know what it means for families who send members off to foreign
places far away. In many cases I will receive a letter or a
phone call from a kid or spouse asking me as a member of
parliament what this is all about while their father or mother is
in Bosnia, Haiti or wherever they may be participating. We need
to be respectful of their actions and be prudent in our use of
language out of respect for them.
It is also important for Canadians to understand that we share
similar objectives. I remember the member from Vancouver saying
the difficulty was that we would not be able to argue that the
objectives had been achieved. That is true. Of course we would
not. If the objectives had been achieved we would not be there
and the killing would stop.
However, that does not change what the original objectives were.
All we are asking now is whether this is the best course to
achieve them. We will have trouble with it. Everybody will have
trouble with it.
If we decide we should not be doing it, that we will have
trouble with it, what are the possible consequences? What would
we be allowing that we should not as a civilized country? If we
do it, are we not exacerbating it? Are we not making it worse?
Are we not doing something that in our minds as Canadians is
probably quite unfamiliar to us as a country and people?
It is important for everybody to ultimately cling to the fact
that we are all after the same outcome. Regardless of where we
fall in the spectrum of how to achieve it, there is not a member
of the House who does not want the same thing as me. The
terrible things that are happening to the Kosovars and the
terrible atrocities being perpetrated in the name of some ethnic
objective should cease. They are wrong and as a civilized
country we need to say so.
3010
I take the points made by members opposite. We need to do
everything in our power not to allow this presently employed
strategy to somehow blind us to the fact that we should be
pursing other strategies either independent of this one or at the
very least concurrent with this one. It may be extremely
difficult to have the outcome we want. We cannot become lazy in
our civility, in our attempts to achieve the same outcome in more
peaceful ways.
We should involve all people of goodwill, notwithstanding the
fact that the action is specific to NATO. There are countries
which may not even support what NATO is doing in this instance
but would be helpful in terms of bringing a solution through
other means. Every effort needs to be made by our country and
the other countries involved to reach a conclusion as quickly as
possible.
I never suffered any illusion that this would be easy or quick.
How do we achieve the outcome we would want to achieve? In 1993,
the year that I first sought office, I was challenged for the
nomination of my party. In the debate that took place in that
nomination exercise one of the first questions I received was
about what I would do as a member of parliament to deal with the
ethnic cleansing being undertaken in the former Yugoslavia. This
issue has been there for a long time. We have had a number of
debates about it here. We have unsuccessfully attempted in a
number of ways to bring forward other types of solutions that are
perhaps more familiar to Canadians.
The government has decided that the time has come, in
collaboration with NATO allies, to take this rather drastic,
unpleasant and unwanted course of action simply because the other
efforts have not been successful.
I have a great deal of difficulty and have felt terrible even
considering what is happening. I also felt terrible considering
what was happening before. It becomes very difficult. If it
seems that we are not able to give precision in our answers or to
articulate our position with any precision, it is simply by
virtue of the fact that as human beings these kinds of decisions
do not come easily.
Everyone in the House, regardless of where they may come down in
the debate on how to accomplish it, wants the same end. They
want to end the atrocities we know have been occurring in the
region with haste.
I have great regard for all members who brought forward their
personal views. I hope we can be prudent in our use of language,
recognizing with respect each person's personal struggle with
this issue.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be splitting my time with the member for New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.
For the third time in this century there is war in Europe.
Eighty years ago we brought the war in Europe which we thought
was the war to end all wars to an end. It was not the war to end
all wars. Twenty years later the war that claimed more lives
than any other war in the entire history of the world also
commenced in Europe.
3015
The history of Canada is replete with stories of Canadian
valour, bravery and personal commitment in the face of danger
during these wars. When it comes to war in this century, Canada
has stood side by side with the great and mighty nations. Now we
have a conflagration in the Balkans that was easy to start but
perhaps could prove difficult to finish.
Perhaps we have lost sight of the fine distinction between
making war and making peace. In the last 40 years Canada has
carved out its role as a peacemaker. Lester B. Pearson, our
Prime Minister who won the Nobel peace prize, sent our Canadian
troops to the Suez Canal not to make war but to make peace. Since
that day Canada has played a leading role as a peacemaker
deploying our armed forces in many places around the world.
Through our active role in peacemaking we can say that tens of
thousands of civilians are living peacefully today in what were
once trouble spots where ethnic cleansing could have been
implemented before it became the buzzword to describe the
military activity in the Balkans.
But the Balkans are living up to their historic reputation of
small statehoods whose hatred and enmity of each other far exceed
their desire to live in harmony and peace. Upon the ascent of
Slobodan Milosevic to power in 1989, the Balkans have slipped
inexorably into the morass of ethnic division, animosity and now
slaughter.
If ever there was a need for peacekeeping, it is right now in
the Balkans. We feel that we have contained the fighting in
Bosnia and now supervise an uneasy peace there. Now we are faced
with the rape, murder and displacement of tens of thousands of
innocent Kosovar Albanian civilians whose only crime is to be in
the wrong place at the wrong time. The wrong place is their very
own homes and villages where they have lived for generations.
The wrong time is when a Serbian nationalist is bent on ensuring
that his ethnic group, the Serbians, are no longer a minority in
what he perceives to be their country of Kosovo and Serbia.
The human tragedy unfolding in that region is beyond our ability
to comprehend. That is why I endorse Canada's position that we
have a humanitarian obligation to protect the lives of innocent
civilians in the Balkans today. It is an affront to our civilized
society to watch what is happening. We cannot stand idly by.
There is a difference between making peace and making war. There
is a difference between helping innocent civilians unarmed and
defenceless to remain in their own homes and villages to live
free of the threat of imminent rape, murder and displacement, to
live free from the notion that their homes and livelihoods could
be destroyed before their very eyes, free from the fear that
their families could be scattered in some cases with no hope of
being reunited. There is a difference between helping innocent
people and attacking a government which has not exhibited
territorial ambitions or shown any desire to expand beyond its
present boundaries.
In the name of keeping the peace, NATO has gone to war. In the
name of saving people's lives, NATO has started killing people.
In the name of protecting the homeland of ethnic Albanians in
Kosovo, we are destroying the homeland of the people in Serbia.
We in Canada live by the rule of law. While I understand the
human emotion that caused us to carry the war to the front door
of Slobodan Milosevic, it already seems to be a dubious strategy.
For months we have threatened Milosevic with bombs if he did not
recognize the Kosovars' right to live in peace. When he agreed to
our demands, we relaxed the threat of bombing him into
submission. When he reneged on his commitments, we reiterated our
threat to bomb him into acceptance. All the time, Milosevic was
advancing his strategy of ethnic cleansing while we were finding
out the costs of our high stakes bluffing.
We are now at the mercy of our own rhetoric. We threatened to
bomb and threatened to bomb only to find that it meant nothing to
Milosevic.
We had a choice of making good on our threats or revealing that
we were a lion that could only roar, that when the chips were
down we were not up to making good on our threats.
3020
Our negotiating strategy of demanding that Kosovars be allowed
to live in peace or else we would bomb has become a military
strategy of bombing to bring about peace. With hindsight,
neither seems to have been close to the mark.
Had we focused on our humanitarian mission of alleviating the
suffering of ethnic Albanians, our focus would have been clear
and our strategy would have been obvious. There seems little
doubt to me that it will require ground troops to resolve this
issue. When neighbour is pitted against neighbour, it cannot be
managed or resolved from 30,000 feet above the earth. Bombs
cannot differentiate between friend or foe in hand to hand
combat.
The point I want to make clear is that we must never lose sight
of our objective which is to alleviate the suffering of innocent
civilians; to stop the rape, murder and displacement of innocent
civilians; and to stop the burning and the pillaging of homes
where people have lived for generations. Ground troops have been
required in every other peacekeeping mission to date. Dropping
bombs can never be considered an act of peacekeeping.
In the final analysis we want the rule of law to prevail. It is
rather ironic that in order to achieve that dream, we have
trampled on international rule of law by bombing Serbia even
though we all consider Milosevic to be an evil dictator.
But the end does not justify the means. Our focus is to help
the innocent and to save the children. What we have done is to
expand the enmity which is no longer one Balkan ethnic group
against another, but is now focused with greater intensity to the
war making machine of the western industrialized countries that
have always forsworn the desire to strike first at a nation that
does not express a threat to their own internal security.
In summation, I said that while it was easy to start, it could
prove difficult to finish. Having crossed the line from
peacemaking to making war, the cost of achieving our objective
will be significantly higher than had we focused strictly on
relieving the misery of the Kosovars and leaving Serbia to the
Serbians.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there comes a time in the affairs of a
nation when leaders need to embody their people, and the people
their leaders. Whether we as a country send our soldiers to war
is the responsibility and the accountability of the civil power,
for in times past had it not been for soldiers and because we had
soldiers, we can now afford to have politicians.
The people ask now who these politicians are who send soldiers
in the people's name. Is it really for a noble cause? When is
offensive war called an act of humanity? When is bombing
peacekeeping? Can it truly be said that we are defending our
high moral beliefs and defending democracy when perhaps the
sending of war is the gravest betrayal of it? Perhaps we have
become involved in an intrigue so dark and twisted that the cover
song carries us all the way to tragedy.
We belong to a club, NATO, whose rules for membership were once
noble and clear but now have incrementally changed. For the ties
that bind under the NATO table are not spoken, for the
appearances set above and before the club members and the world.
We do our duty in the club and cite moral superiority to the
community of nations. Yet because of divisions at the United
Nations most are relegated to observation. All see the dead, but
we cannot rightly judge, for surely all in this play have been
killers.
What happens to our humanity, as neighbour beside neighbour,
when the constabulary and social order evaporates? They leave
all civility, take a cowardly gun and go to the neighbour's
farmhouse, whose cousin is married to theirs, then murder the boy
who could become a soldier, humiliate and renounce all sense of
community, burn the home, steal the livestock, take any money
from the victims and send the remaining souls, having lost all,
on a foot journey into the unknown.
What hatred and evil comes too easily to the lips of those
neighbours when together in the past they have shared the fruit
of the land, co-operated in toil, though their language of birth
was different and their God had a different name.
Yet being brethren and part of a larger family is all cast aside
for vengeance, for purity of hate, for belief in the lie of race,
for a twisted version of social justice. Another bomb will not
change that belief or that behaviour.
3025
On the other edge of this pit of human misery and ignorance we
look down, we roll the dice, we pick winners and losers for
unspoken plans. Who are the villains? Who are the innocents?
When old prejudice spills blood, when money may buy a war, who
are the sides in the brawl and who is the referee? Sadly we know
who the victims are.
Are we Canadians also victims of this circumstance? For surely
the dead we know, the childless mother we know, the marred youth
we know and the hollow men. Where does the evil come from and
how can we stand against it? For evil we see and an evil it is.
It comes from the human heart, and can that sin of the heart be
stopped with another bomb?
Canada belongs to a club. We have done our duty there, but now
we must reach deeper to have love beyond duty, for love of
mankind. For duty can do well but love can make beauty from
ashes.
Regardless of how complicated plots, hatred, betrayal and double
dealing shall rage, can we find midst the brawl an honourable way
for ourselves? In times past whenever called upon we have done
our duty and we have done it again in this circumstance. But club
membership in NATO must not be higher than the law of love to the
human race. Shall we hang on to the actions of the club in the
same manner that the ethnic groups hang on to their prejudice and
willingness to choose suicide rather than life and to take
uncounted innocents with them?
Today before the House we have the following non-votable take
note motion:
That this House take note of the continuing human tragedy in
Kosovo and the government's determination to work with the
international community in order to resolve the conflict and
promote a just political settlement for Kosovo that leads to the
safe return of the refugees.
The motion may make us feel good, but it is unrealistic. Our
original moral objectives are now undermined by our actions. More
bombs at this time will not produce a humanitarian end, even a
political solution.
The objectives of self-determination for a people within the
rule of law and democratic process have been manipulated by
Kosovo ethnic Albanians for us to fight their war of independence
that they could not win on their own. So Canadians will fight
and pay for it and ensure it in the end.
Who gave our government permission to fight a foreign war of
independence on behalf of a local people? Maybe we should, but
the decision to do that must be approached honestly in our
parliament, not through the back door of the slippery slope of
incremental entanglements.
The present military objectives will also not be accomplished.
The assurance of the government today of success of the air war
defies history and is tactically unsound. In this case we will
not bomb the Serbs into submission, but that may not be the deal
anyway. Rather it may be just to try out our techie stuff, to
send the Russians a message. I certainly hope not. Air bombing
will not deliver the stated objective, so why continue? Ego?
Club rules? The children pay.
Partition of the inhabitants, separating the belligerents is the
best we can hope for in this generation of hatred, in this
internal civil war of independence and revenge. If we honestly
become the policemen, apprehend the wrongdoers and actually
protect the innocents, then that is worthwhile, but our course is
not toward such as of yet. It needs to be.
We on this side of the House have added to the motion “and in
particular, this House take note that the government's
determination to resolve the conflict would have more credibility
after the adoption of a motion submitted to this House specifying
the moral, political and military objectives of Canada's
involvement, subject to such conditions as this House may
impose”.
Let us understand that NATO is attacking a sovereign state. It
is doing so not because Yugoslavia committed aggression against a
neighbour country but to try to alter the Serbs' handling of a
domestic separatist problem based on ethnic and cultural grounds.
In the world of diplomacy there is no bigger no-no than using
military force to intervene in the internal affairs of a country.
3030
NATO is an alliance that was formed solely to defend its members
against aggression, not to launch attacks against others. Is
NATO to become a kind of international cop, the enforcer of
proper behaviour by governments? If so, why not act for instance
against Turkey or East Timor?
The Turks have been brutal in their submission of Kurdish
demands similar to the Serbs in Kosovo. Why not bomb the Turks?
We do not because Turkey is an ally. That leaves one rule for
NATO members and another for the rest of Europe, a policy without
principle. That is the precedent NATO is setting in Kosovo.
NATO will likely not be successful and the air war will fail to
force the Serbs to come to terms. Therefore, we can expect some
unravelling of western and international order that could
endanger stability far beyond the Balkans.
We now need to say to our club members in NATO that we played
our role but we are out for now, putting Canadian planes on the
ground to exercise independent thought and prepare for our role
of peacekeeper and honest broker when the dust settles. Certainly
our only role in the fighting is a symbolic one of the flag on
the airplane as technically we are not needed for logistical
purposes.
We have picked sides and we are no longer pure anyway. Therefore
at NATO at this stage we need to say that we have done our duty,
that it is over for now, put Canadian planes on the ground and
prepare for the peacekeeping role of preserving a deal of
separating the belligerents.
In the future the Liberal government may try to fool the people
and themselves for a while with lofty speeches, but we will never
do better than my suggestion in the coming months. It is a
better chance for a reasonable outcome than persevering with the
present course for unworkable, unrealistic objectives. Canada
should stop our bombing now, recover some of our honest broker
status and prepare for peacekeeping when it can be used.
No matter how we slice it, Canada has slid into the wrong. We
can fix it. We can lead a way out instead of being stuck in this
downward spiral. As a nation we need to move from duty to the
higher principle of love. We have a unique opportunity to bring
some duty out of ashes.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the member for Frontenac—Mégantic.
It is with a sense of moral obligation that I rise on this
morning of April 13—I should say this night of April 13 since I
have been here since around 2 p.m.—to take part in this emergency
debate on the situation in Kosovo.
I was not obliged to join in, my whip did not twist my arm, I am
doing it out of a sense of moral obligation. After watching what
has been going on in Kosovo for several months, and in the
former Yugoslavia for several years, I believe that as
parliamentarians we have the duty not to stand idly by.
It is our duty not only to rise in the House, but also to listen
to our fellow citizens who have something to say on this issue.
This is what I have been doing for the past few days knowing
this debate might take place today.
Everybody agrees the situation is complex. But we can no longer
tolerate ongoing crimes against humanity. We can no longer
tolerate massacres such as those in Rwanda a few years ago. One
of my constituent comes from Rwanda, my son has several friends
whose parents used to live in Rwanda; they escaped and came here
as refugees. In the case of Rwanda, the west dragged its feet
and failed to prevent the massacre.
3035
For me, it was a lesson. We can no longer let such things occur.
Hundreds of thousands of people died needlessly because the west
failed to get organized to prevent such a tragedy.
At least in Kosovo, NATO countries were more prepared morally to
intervene. This time they were more committed to intervene even
though the solution is a very complex one. We could see it
coming, it has been going on for years.
First there was the conflict between the Serbs and the Croats,
then we all remember what happened in Bosnia.
For the people of Kosovo, this has gone on for a number of
months, close to a year now. Warnings, negotiations, the
Rambouillet summit and threats were used to get President
Milosevic to stop his planned campaign of ethnic cleansing, if
he did not want to face NATO strikes.
These strikes did follow, because the president of Serbia
decided to continue with his plan, which led to the exodus of
600,000 to 800,000 Kosovars out of Kosovo. This, of course,
followed upon threats of all sorts against them.
It is in my nature to always try to weight issues as much as
possible, and to pay attention to the information received via
the various media, while realizing that there are often two
sides to a conflict. There are often two sides to any kind of
story.
When 600,000 refugees leave the country, there are 600,000
stories for observers to hear at the borders of Albania,
Macedonia or Montenegro. And 600,000 to 800,000 people cannot
all be lying, especially when we see their columns of misery as
they come to the end of a journey of many days without even
basic necessities.
We have heard of people whose passports have been seized. Any
document that could prove ownership of property was destroyed.
Even in the most optimistic of scenarios, they will have trouble
getting their property back. Moreover, we have also seen that
property going up in smoke. This is a truly deplorable
situation.
Dictators' imposition of their will can no longer be tolerated
without any reaction. I am no expert in international law but,
under the circumstances, it is regrettable that the UN cannot
intervene in this conflict.
There are countries on the security council, like China and
Russia, that have a veto and that are preventing the resolution
of situations like the one in Iraq. There was international
support for action against Saddam Hussein.
When things are blocked as they are in this case, NATO steps in.
This is not the ideal situation. As the previous speaker said,
allies are involved. Situations exist in some NATO countries
that could be criticized, such as in Turkey and other countries.
This is not, however, what today's debate is about. Still, we
must not forget our critical eye and our humanitarian feelings
for the people suffering cruelty in these countries.
We have an international organization barely 50 years old that
is somewhat tied up by rules and the jurisprudence that has
guided it in such situations.
3040
This has to stop, because these sorts of situations occur pretty
much everywhere. They are happening outside Europe. We need
only think of the people of Tibet, whose government is in exile
in India. They happen pretty much the world over. We saw what
happened in Asia. So, I say, enough.
We speak of globalization in trade terms, but maybe we should
think of the globalization of peace. In other words,
communities should join together to actively work toward peace.
We do not have all the figures, but it currently costs $150
million per day to bomb the former Yugoslavia and the various
military or civilian targets, including refineries, to deprive
Milosevic of some military power. But do we hear about that kind
of money being spent on humanitarian assistance?
When it comes to humanitarian assistance, we must rely on
government assistance and all Canadians must be encouraged to
make a contribution. But at the same time, we should invest at
least as much money as we do in offensive military initiatives.
We must be prepared to implement a new Marshall plan following
this crisis, otherwise it will make no sense. We will have
witnessed a deportation. We must already be thinking about some
form of help for those afflicted by the war.
This could even include the Serbs, because there is no doubt in
my mind that many are good people who are the victims of a
dictatorship, of a tyrant who has decided to impose his will.
Some progress has been made regarding international peace.
However, the tribunals that judge war crimes and crimes against
humanity are frustrated in their efforts. Mrs. Roy was prevented
from inquiring about a massacre that took place in Kosovo and in
the former Yugoslavia. Everyone supports peace, but I often hear
people say that, while they support peace, they do not want us
to intervene in these conflicts. What would we do if we saw our
neighbour beat his wife and children? We would call the police.
In a case like this one, I think we must send in ground troops
if that is called for.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
despite the early hour, I feel compelled to take part in this
debate initiated by the Prime Minister and his government, the
Liberal government, if only out of respect for my constituents,
particularly the hundreds that I met during the Easter break,
who shared with me their thoughts and fears, asked me what my
position was, of course, and urged me to make representations.
Is Canadian participation justified? Are the air strikes
justified? Should we become involved on the ground? Members
will agree with me that participation in an armed conflict
always leads to pain. We know only the date and time a conflict
has begun.
3045
Today marks the 21st day of NATO air strikes in Yugoslavia.
Certain NATO country representatives thought, perhaps
understandably, that at most three, four or five days of air
strikes would be enough to persuade the Serb president to call
off his forces. After 21 days, not a single member of this
House can predict the outcome of the conflict. All we know is
when the air strikes began.
These air strikes were all but demanded by the 19 NATO
countries, because what is happening to the Kosovars is a human
tragedy that no one on this planet can accept. However, as my
colleague, the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, put it so
well a few moments ago, there are two sides to everything.
A while ago a commentator on the public broadcasting corporation
said “In an armed conflict the first victim is truth”. After
hearing reports on the public network, on CNN and from
independent reporters, we have to admit that the Kosovars are
very close to being the victims of a genocide.
Here are a few events that could justify air strikes. Entire
families were locked in their homes, which were then set on
fire. Children screamed and cried before dying. Mass rapes are
taking place in unprecedented numbers. This is still going on,
on the eve of the year 2000. People are being killed for the
sheer pleasure of killing, often in the presence of loved ones,
women and children. They steal. They humiliate. They
deliberately separate families just to harm them.
The 19 NATO countries want to bring Slobodan Milosevic to his
knees, and rightly so. No words are strong enough to describe
this man, but few could be used in this House.
As one of the 19 NATO countries, Canada must show solidarity; it
had to take part in this action, however limited it was. The
Minister of National Defence deployed 12 F-18 aircraft, which are
stationed in Italy.
Of course 12 aircraft might represent only a 1 or 2%
contribution at most. However symbolic the contribution, the
fact that we are standing by the other 18 NATO countries is
witness to our will to condemn a tyrant such as Milosevic.
It is said that there are 650,000 refugees outside Kosovo and
that 800,000 Kosovars are more or less prisoners inside their
own country.
The Bloc Quebecois, like all the other parties in the House,
supports the air strikes ordered by the Liberal government.
However if ever ground troops need to be sent in, let us hope it
will be to maintain, safeguard or restore peace rather than to
engage in ground strikes, or military actions, involving combat
troops in the true sense of the word, as in Vietnam.
3050
I hope, therefore, that Canadians will not be sent to wage war,
but rather to keep the peace.
I also fault the Prime Minister and his government for their
systematic refusal to allow the 301 parliamentarians in this
House to voice their opinion through a vote.
I cannot understand the dogged refusal of the Prime Minister,
who systematically, maliciously even, refuses to allow each of
the members, who represent a total of 30 million
canadiansCanadians, to rise and say “I agree” or “I disagree”.
Some would probably rather stay in their offices so as not to
have to state their position. He would win such a vote.
We in the Bloc Quebecois, however, take our politics more
seriously than the Prime Minister who, in 1991, had his mind
changed in this House by the former leader of the Liberal Party,
John Turner, in the space of 36 minutes. Yesterday in the House
all party leaders spoke on this matter.
To conclude, I simply want to make a few recommendations to the
Prime Minister, and to his Minister of National Defence in
particular.
Nine days ago, here in the parliamentary precinct, they gave a
news conference in which they jumped the gun on the NATO
agreement by stating that serious consideration was being given
to the possibility of intervention on the ground.
The Minister of Defence needs to show solidarity but he ought
not to be stealing NATO's thunder by courting the media. He must
be in solidarity with NATO.
As for the Prime Minister, he needs to play his cards properly,
not to ensure that he is re-elected, but to properly represent
the people, properly represent Canadians, and Quebeckers in
particular.
In closing, I call upon Serbian President Milosevic to
immediately give up on his obstinacy and to lay down his arms.
It is impossible for him to win, so the sooner he admits that he
is wrong, the better it will be for his people and the better it
will be for the entire planet.
planet.
[English]
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague.
I rise today with a heavy heart to see once again human tragedy
happening in the Balkans. When I became a member of parliament I
never thought I would debate a situation where Canadian troops
were engaged in combat.
With the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the desire of those who were oppressed either politically
or economically rose to ask for freedom and autonomy so that they
could control their own destiny. However, dictators and those
leaders living in the past have been using old repressive methods
to control these aspirations.
We have had many hot spots in the world. Somalia, Rwanda, Iraq
and Afghanistan are a few that come to mind. However the way the
world has responded to these tragedies has raised eyebrows and
created an uneasiness.
Today the skies over Yugoslavia are light with trails of
missiles and rows of fighter aircraft. The ground in Kosovo is
on fire and soaking with the blood of the innocent.
It is a scenario that no one wanted to see.
3055
I question whether it was necessary to go to war. Just because
the dictator Milosevic did not sign the peace accord, was it
necessary to use force to bring him to the table? I have heard
arguments on both side but I am still skeptical.
Today a large number of lives have been lost. Over half a
million refugees are living in horrifying conditions. The
country of Yugoslavia is losing its infrastructure. That will
hurt the innocent population in years to come. Is this not a
very heavy price to pay?
That is why we are asking whether the bombing of Yugoslavia was
the right strategy. I have heard lots of arguments on both
sides. Let me say both sides have been quite convincing, but
somehow I remain convinced that there could have been a better
course of action.
In my view NATO has been responding to the situation as it is
arising and not with a well thought plan. I am afraid that NATO
has played into the hands of this ruthless leader.
My party is supporting the current strategy of NATO. As facts
stand now, it seems that we have put ourselves into a corner. I
agree that under no circumstances can we let Milosevic win, or
there will be no peaceful future for mankind. Hence our support
for the current NATO strategy.
Nevertheless we must ask some hard questions. Today polls are
indicating that Canadians are favouring ground force intervention
because they cannot stand the plight of the refugees. Actually
who can stand the plight of the refugees and what we see on our
television screens? It is horrifying. The plight of the
Kosovars have touched the hearts of all. We want to see this
tragedy end soon.
Military analysts are suggesting ground troops for a quick end
to this misery. However I would like to caution that bombing was
supposed to help bring Milosevic to the table, and 20 days later
they are still bombing. They were supposed to be no refugees,
and today we have over half a million refugees. We know
Milosevic is a ruthless leader with no heart, but the tragedy is
that the Kosovars are paying the price.
I understand we cannot stand idly by. The Rwanda crisis
indicated that we cannot stand idly by. Hence the support my
party has reluctantly given to the bombing of Yugoslavia. Perhaps
it is time to take a pulse and open up a new front which I would
like to call a diplomatic front or a diplomatic war.
Canada is in a position to take a leadership role. Canada can
start by sending our diplomats to world capitals. Canada can
campaign to get world leaders to descend on Belgrade.
3100
Let us kick diplomatic sense into Milosevic. If he is not
willing to listen, then we can seek out other Serb leaders. We
must point out to them that the world will not stand for the
atrocities that have been committed by the current leadership in
Serbia. I am sure we will find Serb leaders who are willing to
listen.
We can kick-start the UN into action. The UN is proving to be
ineffective. It was ineffective in Rwanda. It has become
ineffective in Yugoslavia. How long is the UN going to remain an
ineffective organization? Let us kick-start the UN into action.
The way the security council is designed it can use its veto.
Nevertheless, we owe it to future generations to put all our
effort into kick-starting the UN, otherwise it will become
irrelevant in future world events.
We have heard from numerous speakers here, but let us get Russia
involved. Why Russia? Because of Russia's special ties with
Yugoslavia. Perhaps we can entice Russia with the carrot of
economic aid.
Let us explore the options. There are a lot of options. We owe
it to the international community to restart the diplomatic
offensive.
Having said that, I salute the troops who are helping the
refugees, those who are doing peacekeeping duties and those who
are risking their lives over Yugoslavia to bring peace. We are
proud of our soldiers.
We have heard of the special place Kosovo is for Serbia. I also
heard from a U.S. general that Serbs can withstand pain to
achieve an objective. I beg to differ on both points. While
Kosovo may hold a special place for Serbia, Kosovo also holds a
special place for the ethnic Albanians who call Kosovo their
home. This is what the Serbians must understand. The Kosovars
are citizens of Yugoslavia as well.
NATO has come up with the new proposal to call it a
protectorate. Some of these proposals, the bombing of
Yugoslavia, the creation of this protectorate infringe on
international law.
I conclude by saying I hope and pray there will not be another
debate in this House on the issue of Canada's involvement in a
war.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I share the
emotions of many of my colleagues in the House today. I did not
realize when I first ran for the nomination to become a member of
parliament that it would involve debating matters of such
magnitude.
This morning while walking over here from my hotel there were a
thousand thoughts in my mind. I had spent most of the night
listening to the debate, between sleeps. It is obvious that we
have a huge dilemma on our hands.
3105
It seems to me we can boil this down to one fundamental
question. How much killing do we engage in in order to stop
killing? It is a sobering thought.
From the reports that we have, and we believe they are reliable,
there is no doubt in our minds that tremendous atrocities are
taking place in the former Yugoslavia. There are great
difficulties among the people.
It reminds me of some of my family history. We take our
freedoms so much for granted. When I was walking here I did not
feel threatened. Several cab drivers wanted to give me a ride
but they were rather generous in their invitations and did not
threaten me in any way. There are people not only in Kosovo but
in many parts of the world today who do not have the kind of
freedom we enjoy in Canada.
It takes me back to my family history. Approximately 75 years
ago my family faced the same situation as people are now facing
in Kosovo. It is generally known with a name like Epp that I
come from immigrant stock. Members of my family were very firm
Christian believers. Perhaps they took the Christian teaching
beyond what many do, but they also believed that it was wrong to
kill another person for whatever reason.
My grandparents on both sides, both my mom's and my dad's
families, even though they did not know each other at the time
had very parallel circumstances. My mom's dad had three of his
brothers shot. What was the crime? They were not supporting the
revolution in Russia after the first world war. Because they
were not in support of the revolution they were considered
enemies of the revolution and therefore were fair game. These
marauding soldiers as they were called went into the Mennonite
villages and shot all the men and all the boys who were old
enough to fight. Both of my grandfathers said that it was time
to get out. They took their families and fled by night and hid by
day until they got out of the country. It is an amazing story.
I still remember my grandmother talking about it. I think this
is taking the Christian faith to the ultimate. I remember as a
youngster hearing my parents and grandparents talk about their
experiences. I grew up in one of those farm family homes before
there was central heating. It is amazing but we had a house
which had a hole in the ceiling on the main floor in order to
provide some heat to the second floor. When we were kids we
would hear the adults speaking. The hole in the floor was in the
hallway upstairs. We left our door open so that some of the heat
would come into our bedroom. We heard them talking about this.
I specifically remember my grandmother. She was probably the
strongest one in this, although grandfather echoed it. Even
though members of our family had been ruthlessly killed, she said
that we cannot continue to hold that against them, that we must
practise forgiveness.
It is regrettable that the Lord's Prayer has been taken out of
our morning prayers in this House. We used to pray: Lord forgive
us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
My grandparents, ever grateful that they were able to come to
Canada, insisted that their children exercise no animosity and
seek no revenge.
3110
Over all these years, these people, my family and other families
like mine, have been very open to their former country, Russia.
They have worked in order to bring some peace and harmony to that
country.
One thing occurred to me this morning when I was thinking about
this. When I think of what happened to members of my family who
refused to shoot their enemies but who came here and left some of
the family behind, left that country behind, I cannot help but
think that perhaps there is a divine purpose for all of this. We
know that the prosperity, and I am not speaking only of financial
prosperity but the total prosperity, the freedom of our family
was far in excess of that which they could have fought and killed
for.
If we look at that part of the world today, people there have
very little in comparison. They have very little in terms of
personal freedoms, very little in terms of economic strength and
very little in terms of amenities which we take for granted.
As Canadians and in the solid Christian tradition on which this
country was founded, we ought to be emphasizing what we can do
there to alleviate the suffering. We do not have any idea of
what kind of terror those people have gone through.
Our son worked for a while in Bosnia. He has been in many
different parts of the world. One of the things that struck him
when he was over there was how much the countryside was the same
as Alberta's, how the homes looked so similar, but close up the
difference was that they were full of bullet holes. He told us of
some of the atrocities. It is difficult to speak about them.
Some things are so horrible one cannot even verbalize them.
He spoke of the atrocities against women. One of the things my
son did over there was to provide refuge for people who were
victims of these marauding what they call soldiers but that is a
misnomer. They are marauding criminals who go around raping,
pillaging, killing and burning. That is what is happening in
Kosovo.
I would like to see big time in big spades Canada reaching out
to those people in love and compassion and providing a refuge for
them in this time of trouble.
I cannot imagine some of the things they are going through. My
son told us about some of the things. I will resist the
temptation to talk about them here because as I said, they are so
horrible I cannot even bring myself to say the words.
Canada is known around the world for its peacekeeping and
humanitarian efforts. I have some problems with the fact that we
are engaging in dropping bombs. Is there a worse terror? Which
is more terrorizing, the fear of the marauding tribe coming into
someone's home at night with guns and bayonets or the stray bomb
that blows someone instantly into oblivion?
These are difficult questions. We have spoken of having a vote.
What a difficult vote that would be, yet that is what should be
done.
In conclusion, I simply say my thoughts, my prayers, my
compassion are for the people over there who are suffering.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Terrebonne—Blainville, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
easy to criticize, but hard to act. This is very true in the
case of the people, organizations, countries and parties that
condemn NATO's air strikes in Yugoslavia.
3115
It is easy to point out, as they do, what should not have been
done. But they should tell us what, in their opinion, should
have been done. Of course they will say that we should have
continued to negotiate.
Really? Continue to negotiate? Let us look at the facts. On
February 6, the members of the contact group, including Russia,
gave two weeks to the two sides to agree to a peace plan. To
that end, their officials were locked up in Rambouillet, with an
excellent chef. It is said that meals taken together are a good
way to get closer.
On February 23, since there was still no agreement, the UN
secretary general extended the period to March 15.
At the end of that period, the contact group realized that not
only was there still no agreement, but Milosevic had taken
advantage of those six weeks to continue his ethnic cleansing
operation. Only then did NATO decide to strike. What else could
we do to save the Kosovars?
I will not repeat what was said by those who spoke before me to
defend the legitimacy of the strikes and to support the idea
that, should the air bombing not produce any result, we will
surely have to send in ground troops, but with parliament's
approval.
Let us first take a look at the past to see what history has
taught us, so as to have a better perspective in the context of
this debate.
Then, looking to the future, I will speak of the hopes and the
problems too arising from this precedent in which a
multinational organization has taken upon itself to intervene
militarily for humanitarian reasons on the soil of a country
that has committed no foreign aggression.
Let us look at the lessons of history first. In 1755, Acadians,
British subjects against their will, refused to swear allegiance
to King George II, a foreigner to them. England deported them
and scattered them in its other colonies, leaving only English
colonists in the country.
In 1999, the Kosovars, Yugoslav subjects against their will,
subjected to the Serbs, revolt against their domination.
Milosevic savagely drives them toward the border.
The great dispersal of the Acadians, the forced exodus of the
Kosovars: two and a half centuries apart, two ethnic cleansings,
the second being the most brutal, I agree. British pilots
involved in the air strikes in Serbia are trying to prevent
Milosevic from following the example of their king, George II.
Second, on January 8, 1918, in a famous speech, Woodrow Wilson,
the President of the United States, announced a people's right
to self-determination as one of the 14 principles to underlie the
peace treaties concluded at the end of the war. Honoured in
part at Versailles, this principle presided over the break-up of
the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Yugoslavia, however, born of this break-up, remained a mosaic of
peoples. It took the collapse of communism to in turn break up
the new Yugoslavia, which continued to comprise various peoples,
including primarily Serbs and Kosovars. And we know what
happened.
Perhaps the lesson to be drawn from the situations in Yugoslavia
and in Canada is to allow nations their own governments.>
Third, on March 7, 1935, Hitler moved his troops across the
Rhine, reoccupying the Rhineland and thus violating one of the
conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. France and England
could legally have used force to oppose the Germans and drive
them out. At the time, Hitler's army was very small. The human
cost of this operation would have been very low, but pacifists
were against it.
Three years later, on March 14, 1938, emboldened by this lack of
reaction, Germany annexed Austria. On September 30 of that
year, France and England, still in the grip of pacifist
movements, abandoned Czechoslovakia to its fate. The country was
immediately occupied by the Germans.
It would have cost very little to nip the German dictator's
ambitions in the bud in 1935.
Because people refused to pay that price, it took a world war
that went on for five years and cost 30 million men and women
their lives to finally overthrow the tyrant.
A French journalist recently declared that he hated war, but was
afraid of people who are too afraid of war.
3120
Let us take our inspiration from this remark and remember the
German example when deciding what to do in Serbia. There is
nothing like dogmatic pacifists to set off wars.
Now, for what lies ahead. NATO's intervention in Serbia sets an
historic precedent. It could give the world community the right
to send military forces into third countries for humanitarian
reasons. There is no doubt that this is a large incentive to
leaders of countries to improve their treatment of the
populations under their control. I have three comments.
First, let us make sure that, if the right to intervene is ever
recognized, it will be sufficiently well defined to ensure that
humanitarian grounds cannot be invoked to abusively attack a
country.
Oka amply showed how an internal military operation could be
blown out of proportion, exaggerated and misrepresented by
foreign media. During the Oka crisis I remember meeting in
Dorval a dozen of European MPs who had been sent by their
parliaments to look into what had been reported as our barbaric
treatment of Indians.
Let us make sure the door we rightly opened to military
interventions on humanitarian grounds cannot be abused in the
future by aggressors claiming some minor trespass against
political ethics, which would be exaggerated of course.
Second, let us suppose—purely hypothetically of course—that what
the Serbs are doing today to the Kosovars, the Russians or the
Chinese will do it tomorrow to one of their minorities eager to
shake off their yoke. Would one country or a group of countries
go and bomb Moscow or Beijing? Of course not. The only chance
the precedent created by NATO in Serbia will succeed in
establishing the principle of international military
intervention on humanitarian grounds is dependent on the guilty
country being weak.
Third and last comment: some are taking offence at the fact that
the strikes are probably illegal, since they were not authorized
by the UN, the only body empowered to do so. But we should not
forget that often the law comes after the fact, if the cause is
just.
In Quebec striking was illegal for a long time. It took workers
in Asbestos and elsewhere to legitimately defy the law for the
law to be struck down because what they did was just.
Let us not be moved by criticisms to the effect that not only
pacifists, but also legalists could oppose our actions in
Serbia.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am also very pleased to take part in what I feel is a very
important debate on Canada's intervention in the former
Yugoslavia, Serbia specifically.
I would like to start with a Latin saying Si vis pacem, para
bellum, which means if you wish peace, prepare for war. I
must admit that it is a bit ironic to start my speech in such a
way, since it is linked in a way with the principle of
dissuasion which has put the planet in fear for the past while.
In the light of what is going on at the present time, however,
this saying must be understood as having a totally new
connotation as we speak.
We find ourselves in the somewhat embarrassing position
of having to use force, even to wage war, in order, ironically, to
impose peace. Given that peace is defined in relation to war,
in that peace can only exist in the absence of conflict,
needless to say there is some feeling of discomfort about all of
this, one that is totally legitimate under the circumstances.
I would also say that a degree of sympathy can be felt for the
Serbian demonstrators throughout the world, including here in
Canada and Quebec, who are massing in front of legislative
buildings and foreign consulates to protest NATO intervention in
their country.
It is understandable that seeing their country
attacked in this way may indeed awake in them a certain
nationalistic pride. As well, they have very legitimate
concerns about their relatives and friends still living in the
former Yugoslavia.
3125
While we can sympathize with these protesters, while we deeply
care for peace, it is absolutely out of the question not to act,
to stand idly by while terrible things are going on in Kosovo.
We cannot stand idly by when such ethnic cleansing
operations—which look more and more like genocide—are taking
place. It is impossible to remain silent when we see such
massive displacements of human beings, when we see 650,000
people forced to leave and go into exile. We cannot remain
silent when we see those burned houses, those civilians killed
in such cowardly fashion.
Some might wonder if it was absolutely necessary to go to war.
Was it absolutely necessary to resort to military action against
Yugoslavia?
First, it is illusory to think we could simply have relied on
the good will of the Belgrade regime, considering that even
NATO's bombings cannot undermine its grim determination to
literally eradicate Kosovo's Albanian population, by whatever
means are necessary.
Remembering Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia should be enough to
convince us that military action was absolutely necessary.
Neither must we forget that the government of Milosevic
knowingly, deliberately turning its back, violated a number of
the resolutions passed by the United Nations on the internal
situation, resolutions 1199 and 1203, and the October 1998
agreements between the Organization for Security and Co-operation
in Europe, NATO and the former Yugoslavia.
The international community criticized Milosevic on several
occasions, but he decided to turn a deaf ear to the appeals of
the international community. How could we, under the
circumstances, remain indifferent, not act, do nothing?
My colleague for Terrebonne—Blainville recalled a number of
relevant precedents earlier. We must remember that the
international community remained silent, did nothing and watched
impassively as Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland.
A few years later, it was definitely silent and impassive as
Austria was annexed. It was silent, I might even say it was an
accomplice, in the breakup of Czechoslovakia with the infamous
Munich agreements that France and England signed.
When Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned to London, the
man who would later become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,
Winston Churchill, said:
[English]
“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose
dishonour and you will have war”.
[Translation]
He said “You were given the choice between war and dishonour.
You chose dishonour and you will have war.”
I think we should remember the lessons from these words of
Winston Churchill. You can of course say the situation is
different today, that one involved aggression against foreign
countries, although in the case of the remilitarization of the
Rhineland, it was a bit different, it involved the annexation of
foreign countries, so it was not an internal matter.
3130
Any aggression against a foreign country violates international
law. NATO's action would therefore be illegal, except that
there is a growing conviction that there is an obligation, not
to say a duty, under international law to intervene on
humanitarian grounds.
To draw a parallel with domestic law, standing idly by and
watching what is happening in Kosovo without taking some sort of
action in spite of the humanitarian duty to do so would be
tantamount to doing nothing to help a person in danger.
The international community had a duty to intervene. Because of
how it operates, and because of the Russian and Chinese vetoes,
the UN was not in a position to intervene. The international
community turned to NATO.
We should also be glad that NATO decided to provide a form of
humanitarian assistance to the civilian populations forced to
flee to neighbouring countries, in addition to its military
intervention.
In conclusion, I strongly urge the Liberal government to put the
question of any future intervention by ground troops to a vote
following a debate in the House. It is only right in a
democratic country such as Canada that something as fundamental
as sending ground troops abroad be approved by members of the
House.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to the comments of my colleague. Is he my colleague? No, he is
a member of the Bloc.
I listened to the comments of my fellow parliamentarian with
care. I am sure he has been agonizing over the same question I
have. If people are peace loving and do not attack each other,
there is no need for restraint and no need for people to go in
with guns and try to hold a person back.
What do we do with a person, as we have in this situation, who
seems hell-bent on destroying other people's lives? What do we
do to stop him? Basically it is replacing one war with another,
but the general tone of his speech was that he would like to pull
out of there and not do anything. Then the atrocities would
continue. I would like to have him respond to my comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleague—if I
may call him that, when he is a member of the Reform Party, but
he made the same comment—to check Hansard for my remarks, because
there is indeed a sort of dilemma, almost an existential
dilemma, surrounding the situation prevailing at the present
time.
We are profoundly attached to peace. We would have liked to
avoid a military intervention. We would have liked to have been
able to bring into play a whole battery of interventions before
having to resort to the use of arms to bring the Milosevic
government around to have kinder feelings and show more
consideration for the Albanian population of Kosovo.
I would venture to say that we have in fact used all possible
and imaginable means under the circumstances: an embargo, a
number of resolutions, and negotiations between the parties
involved. Yet even under the threat of the possible use of
force, the Milosevic government maintained its stubborn stand to
not heed the appeals by the international community.
3135
Under the circumstances, I believe that we had in fact no choice
but to intervene, as we are doing at the present time.
Of course, it is our fondest wish, as it is yours I imagine,
that the Milosevic government will finally listen to reason,
thus avoiding any further deterioration of the situation, and
will put an end as promptly as possible to the wrongful actions
its regime is engaged in at the present time, in Kosovo in
particular.
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate today. Conflict comes about
when alternatives to peace are either exhausted or abandoned by
reasonable people. The current crisis in the Balkans has deep
roots in history dating back even beyond the 14th century.
In the international community nations are sovereign. The
nation state is the highest authority. Even then the nation
state is tempered by the fact that we have international
organizations such as the United Nations. Whether it be the UN,
OPEC or others, the fact is that states limit some of their
sovereignty.
Sovereignty therefore is not unlimited. States cannot act with
impunity. When the lives and the safety of individuals or
populations are victimized by governments, I believe it is the
responsibility, indeed the duty, of the international community
to respond.
We are witnessing a crisis in Kosovo of epic proportions. By
any standards the conflict there cannot be tolerated. In the
past when governments and the international community did not
respond, we witnessed the forced expulsions of Asians from
Uganda, the atrocities in Cambodia under Pol Pot, and recently in
Central Africa and Rwanda in 1994.
The philosopher Monescue reminds us of the fact that governments
are not infinite. The power of governments must be tempered by
common sense. Clearly the actions which we are seeing in the
Balkans, the actions which we are seeing in Kosovo, force nations
to respond in a way which says that we will not allow, will not
tolerate this kind of atrocity.
The government of Milosevic in Yugoslavia clearly has gone
beyond, by any definition, the norms of international behaviour.
The formation of NATO in 1949 came about as a defensive alliance
to stop aggression. There is no one in the House and certainly
no one I know who likes to see the kind of bloodshed, the kind of
forced expulsion of ethnic Albanians that is currently going on.
Clearly the road to peace does not lie in Ottawa. The road to
peace does not lie in Washington. The road to peace lies in
Belgrade.
The events which have unfolded over the last few weeks have
developed because in 1989 the limited autonomy which 90% of
Kosovar Albanians enjoyed was stripped away by the Milosevic
government. The seeds of destruction have started to escalate
since 1989.
We have a responsibility as a government and as a member of the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization to take action when we see
these kinds of rights stripped away.
We have to take action when we see that the type of ethnic
cleansing we witnessed in Bosnia in 1992 through 1996 is
escalating.
3140
There is no question that our involvement is part of the
obligations that we have as a member of NATO. We cannot say that
we want to be a member of this organization but when push comes
to shove that we do not want to participate because that is not
our role.
There are obligations and there are duties as a member of an
alliance. Although our contribution may be small by other state
standards, we are signifying that as a member of the
international community we are prepared to act. We are prepared
to stand up for rights and we are prepared to say enough is
enough.
Canada has a long and proud tradition as a peacekeeping nation.
Canada also has a long and proud tradition of responding in times
of conflict when the call has gone out, whether it be in the
great war, the second world war, Korea or the many peacekeeping
operations which developed as a result of the work by former
Prime Minister Pearson. This nation has never shrunk, never
stepped aside when called upon by the international community.
This tradition of involvement, this tradition of participating
and doing the right thing, is reflected in the current situation
in Kosovo.
We are acting because of humanitarian concerns. We are not
acting to attack and say that this side is right or this side is
wrong. We are saying that morally we know that what is happening
is indefensible and that we have the responsibility to
participate. I would hope that genuine peace will come quickly.
As I said before, I believe that the decision for peace lies in
Belgrade. It does not lie in Ottawa. It does not lie in other
NATO capitals. The fact is that there have been resolutions
before the United Nations. There have been in the past
statements made under resolution 1160 which called for all
parties in March 1998 to find a peaceful settlement to the
crisis.
Then we had resolution 1199 in September of last year. It
demanded that both sides end the hostilities, not just one side
but both sides. Clearly NATO was indicating that it did not want
the conflict to continue to escalate. We know that the Balkans
have always been known as the powder keg of Europe. In fact the
start of the great war in 1914 occurred because of in part the
assassination of Archduke France Ferdinand in June 1914 in
Sarajevo in what is now Bosnia.
Knowing that history and knowing that we are looking at the
ethnic Albanians not only in Kosovo but in Macedonia and Albania
proper, this is a very volatile area. In October of last year
NATO threatened to use air power if a peaceful solution was not
agreed upon.
We then had the recent peace talks in France. At that time part
of the proposed agreement was for the cessation of hostilities,
for the bringing in of international monitors to look at a
timeframe where people in that area would be able to vote on
their future.
The fact is that it takes two sides, two parties, to bring about
a resolution of conflict. Regrettably that did not occur.
3145
Canada has continued to work toward a negotiated settlement.
Canada's involvement clearly has not only been on the military
front but on the diplomatic front. We are committed to peace, a
long lasting peace not just in Kosovo but in the entire region.
What are the objectives? The objectives, by NATO's actions, are
to stop the killings and the ethnic cleansings. We have a mass
migration of 500,000 people or more. Anyone watching television
cannot help but be moved by the plight of those men, women and
children.
We are very fortunate in this country that we only watch it on
television or read about it. Although we have not experienced
that, it does not mean we do not have the right and, indeed, the
obligation to intervene when we know that things are wrong.
This is a humanitarian crisis. I believe, therefore, that if it
takes the might of NATO to bring about an end to the conflict
then so be it.
What we are looking for is an end to this violence and the
withdrawal of Yugoslav and Serbian security forces. I would hope
to see a disarmament on both sides of the conflict so that we can
bring about genuine peace.
Even when peace is established and the monitors are hopefully in
there, there is a massive rebuilding to go on and that, of
course, is where the international community will have a very
important role to play.
There has been talk in the House about the use or potential use
of ground forces. It is certainly my fervent hope that we will
not come to the point of having to discuss that. Given the
history and the tenacity of the Serbs, which we saw during their
heroic struggle against the Nazis in the 1940s, and given the
terrain, I do not believe ground troops would be either advisable
or logical given that we could wind up in a very long and
protracted conflict. We want to shorten this conflict and
hopefully the military air power will be enough.
Members have called for a debate on the deployment of ground
troops. I would agree that if there is any contemplation by the
government to look at ground forces that we debate it in the
House and, indeed, look at voting on the issue.
In conclusion, I think we are all united in the fact that the
actions we see currently in Kosovo defy description. We must be
resolved as one, particularly when our fighting forces are
engaged in dangerous combat over Yugoslavia. Our brave men and
women are involved in a conflict and I believe it is the
responsibility and duty of members to support our fighting
forces.
I hope that the resolution to this conflict and true peace will
come about because reasonable people will be sitting around the
table discussing ways to develop a long and effective peace not
just for Kosovo but for the region as a whole. I hope that in
the future we will not have to see actions such as what has
currently been undertaken in the name of peace and humanity.
3150
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
comment and a question.
I am really disappointed we only had 17 hours to debate such an
important issue in this House. My colleague from Dartmouth and I
have spent the whole night in the House to get a chance to speak
and give our view on the crisis in Kosovo. This is regrettable,
because just yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House there
would be a debate and every member would have the opportunity to
speak. That is why I wanted to make this point.
I also would like to ask a question to try to clarify the
position of the NDP, especially mine and that of my colleagues.
Would my colleague agree that at some point in a war, or in a
conflict anywhere in the world, there should be a pause? One
must try to open the door to negotiations. One must try to find
solutions. This is the reason why the NDP said clearly other
people should be approached, including Russia, to try to get
them involved.
We must go to Milosevic and tell him “Stop the killing, the
massacre you are perpetrating. Stop it, and we will stop the
strikes. We will sit at the negotiating table unconditionally to
try to find a humanitarian solution for all and for the well
being of the whole world.”
I would like to hear what my colleague on the other side of the
House has to say.
[English]
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that
the signals for a negotiated settlement must come from Belgrade.
My colleague talks about having no conditions at all. NATO has
clearly indicated certain conditions. The difficulty of having
breathing space is that it is often a time for parties to
regroup.
What we have here is a two-pronged approach. We have the
current military operations that are going on in Kosovo and
Yugoslavia. I agree with my colleague that we need to involve
the Russians. Yesterday, the German foreign minister was talking
about involving the Russians more.
There are discussions going on behind the scenes, but in order
to have discussions we have to have a position for which people
are prepared to stand up and say “yes, we are prepared to stop
the ethnic cleansing that is going on”.
What is happening is that there seems to be no signal from
Milosevic that he is prepared, under any circumstances at the
moment, to do the kind of things that my colleague is asking for.
I would suggest to my colleague that diplomacy is always the
better route. The difficulty, however, is that in order to have
diplomacy we need to have people of goodwill who are prepared to
sit down and negotiate.
It is not like this has just happened. The road to the conflict
has been simmering for many years, but more so within the last
year. I think Milosevic has received enough signals to know that
at some point what is going on now was going to happen if he was
not prepared to sit down reasonably. There were arguments on
both sides, but the negotiations in Rambouillet, France indicated
that they rejected all of the proposals and conditions. We
cannot have a starting point if one side refuses to accept any
conditions at all.
In conclusion, I hope that the discussions going on behind the
scenes will move more to the forefront. In the meantime, I do
not think we can relinquish our resolve in dealing with this
situation.
3155
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in
this take note debate.
We have already heard from the Prime Minister and some of the
Liberal government cabinet ministers in this long, take note
debate on the crisis in Kosovo.
I think the House can and should do much more than this take
note debate of the obvious. Canadians want us to participate in
a non-partisanship way on this important issue. This take note
debate becomes irrelevant and just acts as a rubber stamp. It
allows parliament to simply rubber stamp the policies and
decisions that have already been made by the Prime Minister and
his top bureaucrats. I think that is harmful to the House and
will be more so in the future.
On the Liberal leadership mismanagement, I would like to point
out two things. The American secretary of state, Madeleine
Albright, has been left to conduct a form of shuttle diplomacy in
the time period preceding the NATO bombing of Serbia, as we have
all seen on TV.
The Liberals have done very little on this issue. This is
unlike the historical role and conduct of the Canadian government
in this century. I do not recall anything that it has done to
resolve this crisis diplomatically so far.
Canadians served in the Boer War early in the 1900s. We served
in two world wars, in Korea, in Cyprus, in Haiti, in the Persian
Gulf, in Somalia and in Bosnia, to name a few of the conflicts
around the world where we have contributed a peacemaking and
peacekeeping role.
The point is that throughout this century Canada has been seen
as a just country active on the world stage and a major
contributor to peace in the world. We have led negotiations in
treaties. We have prevented the outbreak of violence. We have
been perceived as fair and just in the conduct of these affairs.
Canada has earned a name as a mediator and we have been in a
better position to mediate than any other country in the world.
On the world stage our leaders have been looked up to with great
respect and hope by those who find their rights and privileges
threatened or even taken away. That is our legacy.
Today we find that the Liberals seem to have abandoned our
traditional role of exemplifying leadership in resolving
conflicts around the world.
I scold and blame the Liberals for abandoning Canada's
traditional role of seeking out and managing to have peaceful
negotiations engaged in by the international community. That is
where the leadership has let us down. The Prime Minister, the
foreign affairs minister and the defence minister did not
exercise the kind of diplomacy that Canada is famous for.
On ending ethnic cleansing, the official opposition strongly
believes that Canada must stand shoulder to shoulder with our
NATO allies to ensure that the Serbs end their aggression against
ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
The political and moral objective of NATO military action in
Yugoslavia is to punish and halt the ethnic cleansing which is
being perpetrated by the Serbs in Kosovo.
The military objective is to damage the Serbs' military
capability, to end the practice of ethnic cleansing and to bring
the Serb government to the negotiating table. Ground forces may
be required to facilitate and reinforce the resettlement of
ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, but this is a NATO decision.
On refugees, the Reform Party's blue book policy states:
Kosovo Albanians are being displaced against their will and are
clearly genuine refugees.
On other issues, the current NATO military action raises a
number of important questions which Reform intends to raise at an
appropriate time. These include: examination of NATO's changing
role as an international police force; examination of the causes
of Canada's diminishing role in international military decision
making; examination of Canada's—
3200
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member,
but it being 8 a.m., the House stands adjourned until later this
day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8 a.m.)