Debates of Oct. 7th, 1998

Scholarships Named After Olympic Athletes

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I ask the House if it would consider allowing this motion to be referred to committee for further study.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent to have the motion referred to committee for further study?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

It being 6.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to a special debate on the situation in Kosovo, pursuant to the order adopted earlier today.

Kosovo

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

moved:

That this House take note of the dire humanitarian situation confronting the people of Kosovo and the government's intention to take measures in co-operation with the international community to resolve the conflict, promote a political settlement for Kosovo and facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance to refugees.

Mr. Speaker, let me express my thanks to members of the House for granting the opportunity for this special debate on the situation in Kosovo.

It is a difficult and troubling time as we watch a tragedy unfold in that part of the world. It is one in which I believe Canadians are deeply engaged in seeing how we can try to find a solution. The immediate issue we face of course is the imminent danger to the life and well-being of tens of thousands of people in that area.

The Yugoslav government has a long history of its involvement. It is important to point out that in the late 1980s, 1989 to be exact, it withdrew the autonomous status that Kosovo had enjoyed with the former Yugoslavia. This gave rise to an insurgent movement and after nearly a decade of political repression, it has resulted in open fighting.

We can understand and perhaps could even have accepted the Yugoslav government's need to preserve its own internal security and to defend its borders from outside, which it says is the roots of its campaign of mass military action that it launched last February and March. But it is clear and obvious to anyone who looks at what is taking place that the Yugoslav government has gone way beyond anything that can be justified in terms of those set objectives.

The brutal tactics of the Yugoslav authorities in countering the Kosovo Liberation Army have included shelling civilian populations, burning homes and crops, and the execution of innocent civilians. A couple of quite tragic examples will suffice to make the point.

Just one week ago diplomatic observers visited the village of Gladno Selo, which means hungry village in our language. Virtually every house in that village had been destroyed. No furniture or possessions remained anywhere. It was flattened to the ground. There was no trace of any of the inhabitants of that village.

On the same day villagers in the Vranic area said that an indiscriminate Yugoslav offensive had started a few days earlier with artillery and then infantry backed by mechanized weapon vehicles. Twenty thousand villagers were reportedly driven from their homes into the mountains.

The next day the military informed the villagers that it was safe to return. As their convoy began to work its way back to the village, police, army and others stopped, attacked, searched and looted the convoy. The charred remains of 150 vehicles were later observed along the road to Vranic. Clearly, many people paid the price with their lives.

It is very clear. Canada and the communities must reject terrorism as a means of obtaining independence for Kosovo. We have stated clearly that the solution for Kosovo is independence within Yugoslavia. No peace is possible in the Balkans if the borders can be changed by force.

We invested a lot to prevent that in Bosnia. No one in Canada and in the international community supports the use of violence to achieve political ends.

We have even less tolerance for the actions of the Government of Yugoslavia, which controls the military, paramilitary and police forces, which in turn are using the government's artillery, tanks and planes to subdue its own people.

There are times when we have to look at the rules that guide us. There are precedents, conventions, covenants, agreements, documents and treaties, but oftentimes those have to be weighed against the sheer weight of humanity and the suffering that goes along with it.

Clearly, in this case we have the making of a major humanitarian disaster. Aid agencies report that close to 300,000 people have been displaced as a result of the actions of militarists in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Thirty thousand have become refugees in surrounding countries. The remainder are displaced persons within the republic of Yugoslavia.

We also know that in that part of the world winter is soon approaching. It is just a matter of days before the snow arrives and upward of 50,000 people are living without any form of shelter. I do not think we can afford to wait until they are frozen on the hillsides to resolve to do something, to draw the line on the actions of the government that has made them flee in the first place and put them in this untenable situation.

I want to say that from the outset Canada has attempted to mobilize and energize international action. Last summer we underwent a quite substantial diplomatic campaign in capitals around the world to try to get the United Nations Security Council engaged directly in this issue, with some degree of success. It was through those urgings that the security council, which had lain dormant on this issue for a long period time, began to meet.

I also wrote directly to Russian foreign minister Primakov reminding him that as a permanent member of the council and a privileged partner with the Belgrade government, Russia had a special role to play in putting effective pressure on Milosevic.

As many members will recall, when we had the meetings of the G-8 summit in London and Birmingham last spring, there had been a direct commitment by the Russian government to intercede with Milosevic, to ask for the kind of response on the humanitarian basis that was required. As I said, they have that special access. We have made a particular effort to try to have the Russians live up to that kind of commitment and to use whatever special offices they may occupy with the Belgrade people.

I have also just recently repeated the same message to the new foreign minister, Ivanov, just before he travelled to Belgrade this weekend.

I would also like to report that we also sent our special envoy to Belgrade and to Kosovo over this past weekend to begin to undertake direct Canadian representations within that area itself, but not with a great deal of success.

I think these actions are clearly reflective of the combined actions of many other countries that have been introducing envoys, making representations and trying to get a peaceful, political reconciliation or resolution to this dispute.

In September the security council adopted a resolution that demanded that Yugoslav forces cease attacking civilians and withdraw forces that were being used to oppress their population, that they should begin meaningful dialogue and negotiations with political leaders in Kosovo with a view to achieving a political settlement, that the Kosovars themselves, the KLA, refrain from violence and also come to the negotiation table, and that there be clear commitments to allow for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and freedom of movement for international observers.

At the same time, there has been an opportunity for organizations like the OSCE and others to send missions in. Again Canada has participated in observer missions within Kosovo in an attempt to provide an international presence and an opportunity to monitor these areas.

The United States government has made a variety of efforts, including one that is still ongoing with its special envoy to again try to come to grips with the Yugoslav government and the Kosovars to say that there are ways and means of resolving this and the international community is behind them.

It is clear that up to this point the Belgrade government has simply been playing a cat and mouse game with the rest of the world and has been toying with the lives of its own citizens. It has claimed that the Kosovo crisis is purely an internal affair, that there is no violation of human rights, and that it is simply responding to terrorist attacks. This is after close to 15,000 Kosovar refugees have already crossed the border into Albania.

When NATO ministers agreed to prepare a wide range of contingency plans to prevent a spillover into the neighbourhoods of Macedonia, President Milosevic again promised that mediation and peaceful activities would ensue. He had promised President Yeltsin in a widely publicized meeting that he would implement a plan of action so a group of observers could come to Belgrade to start talking about the return of the international community to the OSCE. He agreed to set up centres where displaced persons could seek help.

However, just to show the calumny that takes place, within two weeks of making that commitment, the Yugoslav army intensified shelling and pursued actions which pushed more people out of their homes and their villages. Police routinely denied any kind of access for international observers. Over the summer the tempo of aggression toward its own people had increased.

The Belgrade authorities had clearly decided two things. First, to uproot as many Kosovars as possible, torching their homes, destroying their livelihoods. The price of supporting the insurgents would become too great. It was an act of terrorism. Those the army and the police could not convince, the winter would. Second is very much the point of tonight's debate. It was clear they did not believe the international community would act so decisively to prevent this from happening.

When we look at this record of attempts and efforts to try to come to grips with the situation and the duplicitous responses from the government itself, we can see how those conclusions could be reached. The question is what are the choices and options before us. That is the point of the debate tonight and why we welcome the participation of members of parliament who are speaking on behalf of their constituents.

To focus that debate I turn back to resolution 1199 which was adopted in September and the demands that were made. At the same time those demands were clearly articulated, NATO, which is the only international organization that has the capacity to mobilize any form of international action in the area, also began to prepare plans for air intervention and to implement and look at the contingencies for those plans. As NATO countries identified their contributions, Belgrade again in its cat and mouse game began to moderate its behaviour.

Resolution 1199 has clearly called upon the Yugoslav authorities to meet a series of conditions. As the secretary general said in his report which was tabled on Monday, those conditions have not been met. He reported that there still continues to be violations of human rights, that there still continues to be transgressions against humanitarian principles and standards, and that any compliance is clearly far from complete.

While the security council continues to wrestle with its problems in trying to come to grips with this issue it is also important that the broader international community of which we are also members begin to look at how it can exert maximum pressure and follow through on the declarations that have been made. It is clear that the Belgrade authorities are not of a mind to negotiate willingly. They must feel the full weight and pressure of the international community to bring them to the table and find a solution. NATO is an important part of this effort.

I have urged NATO colleagues from the outset to look at the broadest possible range of contingencies they can take to promote a resolution with particular emphasis on having a proportionate response using the right modulated measure to suit the condition. NATO has prepared a number of actions to show Milosevic that he has gone too far and must change his ways. These plans include air strikes aimed at the capacity of the Yugoslav army and police to drive people from their homes and to try to use that in a selective way to show they cannot use these forces as a form of intimidation and terror against their own population.

I emphasize that NATO is also looking at ways in which it can create a more secure environment for displaced persons to return to their homes. As the NATO meetings continue to the end of this week we will continue to emphasize the importance of developing those plans and actions that can ensure proper treatment of the displaced persons and the access to humanitarian assistance. It is also clear that NATO must be ready to act. It is also clear that Canada must be able to contribute to its readiness to act. It is also clear that such actions do not come easy. They are difficult and they must be wrestled with. That is why it is very important that we use this opportunity to consult with the House.

I was at United Nations last week for several days, meeting with the secretary-general and I spoke to members of the security council, a body by which we hope some time tomorrow we will be accepted. In the meantime we can only make our representations. I expressed that it is preferable that the security council use its article VII mandate to give clear direction. It ought to do that but there is also another reality that one or two permanent members of the security council who hold the veto power have said they will refuse to give such a mandate.

That is a tough dilemma. I still expect that tomorrow or the day after there will be further attempts to have the security council come to resolution but if not and the veto is exercised or the security council itself does not take action, does that mean that we stop and give up and allow the humanitarian tragedy to unfold? That is a dilemma we have to face.

I want to give every assurance that we have made every effort on the phones, in the corridors and in the various embassies around the world the last several days doing everything we possibly can to find a way of ensuring these actions take place within the right context and the right frame. We still have to face the terrible tragedy that we may have to decide that without that clear mandate there is enough legitimacy in resolution 1199 already passed and the clear statement by the secretary-general that has not been complied with that we would have to contemplate other actions and other measures. These would be considered at NATO council meetings at the end of this week. It is one of those tough choices that have to be made by all of us in this setting. However, under these circumstances we must be reminded of the saying that all it takes for evil to triumph is that the good do nothing.

I am here in the House this evening to invite members to express themselves on this issue and give us the best of their judgments so that we can take into account, as we go through as a government some difficult decisions in the next three or four days. I hope members will remember that all it takes for evil to triumph is for the good to do nothing.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of questions for the minister. I will try to be brief.

I realize how difficult the situation is. I guess the question a lot of people are asking is what are we going to bomb if we bomb something. That is a question we need to ask. We also need to know what happens after that. What are the contingency plans? What are we going to do to help those 270,000 homeless people?

There is also a real concern about the expansion, things like the predicament Russia is in and the impending decision it might make. What will be the reaction the minister would foresee to action by NATO after it has vetoed a potential UN involvement? I could of course also ask about Turkey, Greece and all the other countries but let us just zero in on Russia.

The other thing Canadians want to know is the level of involvement the minister foresees for Canada. What are we actually going to do? We hear about the independent Kosovo. That is what Kosovans want.

Could the minister clarify that he is not looking at that sort of thing?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, there has been a quite active series of examinations by the NATO council, the strategic command within NATO and the military forces of a series of contingency phases.

I do not think it would be very appropriate for me to outline what the steps would be until the decisions are taken. I can assure the member that one of the clear options would be to use a form of air strikes. Where the targets would be and so on I am not at liberty to discuss. We would hope the clear will and determination that could be shown to use those would mean that they would not have to be used. There is some suggestion that in the past, as we know in Bosnia, when the question of air strikes came up Milosevic did come to the table. That is the kind of equation we are dealing with.

As far as our relation with Russia, again it is not easy. The Russians have made very clear statements. They were in Belgrade just this last weekend. There will be meetings tomorrow in London of the contact group. I was in touch with certain foreign ministers today to talk about that. We would hope that those discussions would lead to discussion with the Russian foreign minister which I hope would lead to a more active and positive contribution in the security council itself and the support of a resolution in the security council. I cannot say that I am wildly optimistic about that and the time grows short.

There will be a planned meeting I believe on Friday of the NATO-Russian joint council. Members will recall that when we talked about the NATO expansion there was an agreement to have this joint council that brings NATO and Russia together. I believe there is a meeting planned on Friday before we go into the weekend discussions at the NATO council level.

As for the commitment at the present time, Canada has six CF-18s in the theatre stationed in Italy. They have been part of the contingency planning at this point. It is probably more proper to raise the question with the Minister of Defence who will be here later this evening, but at this point there are no further commitments on that.

It is one of the areas we have been emphasizing during the discussions both at the UN and at NATO that we also see the need for some form of provision for security within Kosovo from the point of view of humanitarian assistance and for assurances of protection of displaced persons. These people are afraid. They are not going to come back to their villages. They are going to freeze. They think when they come back they are going to be hit, and that is the difficulty we face. I have to say to the member for Red Deer that is part of the contingency plan as well.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have three questions for the minister.

In his speech, he referred to the fact that two permanent members of the Security Council could exercise their veto. We all realize that Russia is one of the members, since he said so clearly. Could he tell us which other member he considers likely to exercise its veto and why it would do so?

My second question concerns the work done by the minister's personal representative. I think the minister made a very good choice in calling on James Wright, an official with his department, who is very well liked. I have had the opportunity of working with him on a mission to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I understand that he has met Yugoslav government officials as well as representatives of the Kosovars. I would like to know what the minister's personal representative had to report and what was the outcome of the discussions he referred to earlier.

Third and last, I would like to know what the minister thinks of a statement made at the start of the week, I think, by someone described as arcane and a notorious warlord, who said, and I quote—

“We shall not kneel before NATO missiles. We shall not allow ourselves to become enslaved to NATO or any other foreign power”.

Is the minister concerned about such statements? Does he think that military intervention under the NATO or UN banner could lead to a dangerous war for the people of Kosovo and the Yugoslavs?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the questions.

The answer to the first is that reports are that China has also indicated that it would exercise a veto. But I think that again depends on the resolution itself. As I said, there is still some time to play.

As the hon. member knows, because he and I talked about it at length, based on this question of the balance between non-ingérence that is classic under article 2 of the United Nations charter versus the broader humanitarian issue, I will not give a full description at this time but that is one of the major transition issues that we are facing today. How far can the international community go to its international organizations to hold nations accountable to humanitarian standards? That really is the issue which is at stake at this point in time.

I certainly agree with the hon. member's assessment that Mr. Wright is by far the best and most appropriate person, which is the reason he was there. I have not received written reports, but we have had telephone conversations.

He was able to get access to Belgrade authorities and was able to deal directly with the Kosovar civilian people, not the armed rebels. But he did not have a great deal of success. They do not seem to be willing to change what is going on at this point in time. But we never know. We were there. We were making the case. It was heard and listened to and we can only hope that the cumulative effect of that will perhaps have some influence over the next day or two.

As for the statement that was read, it is somewhat of a threatening statement. It is not unusual. I am not surprised by it. We certainly heard similar kinds of statements when we wrestled with the problems in Bosnia. I do not think it will result in a wider conflict. In fact I still have very much hope that by having debates such as this, by showing that there is some will that is going to be exercised, we may be able to find a political solution by the end of the week. But it has to be accompanied, clearly, not simply by the minuet that has been going on; it has to be accompanied by a much clearer sense of direction and it must be made clear that we are prepared to use the necessary measures.

Before I conclude I want to assure members that we have already, as a concern related to Canadians within Yugoslavia, given warning notices to dependants and the non-essential staff at our embassy. They have been given notice to leave. We will likely maintain a small skeleton staff at the embassy for the duration.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is my pleasure to speak to this issue. I guess it is the sort of thing that one wishes they did not have to talk to in this parliament.

I have to go back to when I first came to this parliament. I think the very first week we were here we were discussing Bosnia. That was one of the first issues on the table. At that point we again had a take note debate and again we were dealing with the issue of how to deal with this sort of situation.

It is obvious that we do need to deal with it. There are 275,000 people suffering, both of Albanian and Serbian background. There are 50,000 or more homeless people. All of us are touched by that. We all watch television, and we all believe that we must respond.

I do not think the question is that we need to respond, that we need to do something. However, there are a lot of questions that we need to address, that we need to bring forward. Therefore, this evening I will try to ask some of these questions. Some of them are not answerable, but I still think Canadians expect us to discuss them in this House.

It is symptomatic of the age in which we live, the post-cold war period, that we have a lot of these problem areas which require action.

We agree with much of what the minister says. That is the case on issues such as this. Certainly we have to support the fact that we may require NATO action because people like Slobodan Milosevic seem to understand only one thing and that is the big hammer over the head. It is unfortunate that people like that exist, but there are many of them in many parts of this world that we have to deal with. We obviously support that sort of NATO response or the ultimate probability that that response will be required.

We as well read the report of Kofi Annan this week. We read about the 6,000 to 7,000 buildings which have been destroyed. We saw villages totally damaged, being shelled, and people living in fear of returning to their homes.

As I look at those pictures on television I cannot help but think back to travelling through some of those valleys in Bosnia where there was mile after mile, kilometre after kilometre, of bombed out villages. There was nobody there. The only thing we could see were the graves in the ditches as we drove along in the bus. There was total silence. I have never experienced war. There were not even birds flying in the air. It was totally dead silence. There were nothing but graves.

That brought it home very quickly. We could not step off the roadside. We could not drive our vehicle off the road. We were told to only stand on what looked like old pavement because there were mines everywhere. There were mines in the corn fields. Cobs of corn had plastic explosives in them. When someone picked that cob of corn they would loose an arm or a leg. They would be maimed.

The most serious thing I saw was in a schoolyard. The children had all gone into the school. I visited with those children. They wrote to me about what it was like to live in a war zone. I have 12 pages of 10 and 11 year old kids telling me what it was like and what their future would be like. What I saw in the schoolyard were Coke tins. They looked like full Coke tins sitting on the table. I said to the translator “Those are Coke tins. The kids are going to love those”. He said “Let me grab a big stick”. He grabbed a big stick and pushed the Coke tin off the table. There was a loud boom and the table disappeared. There was a mine underneath that Coke tin. Some little kid was going to grab that Coke tin when they came out from class. That would be retaliation.

That is what we are talking about. That is the kind of environment that we as Canadians cannot imagine exists anywhere in the world.

It is obvious why we need to get involved. The humanitarian factor is so obvious, but the problems are many. We saw the guy on television carrying the limp body of his young child. That wells up something in all of us and says that we must respond to this kind of terror.

As well the minister mentioned the problem of the United Nations. This is a problem that we are going to have to deal with. This problem is not just in Kosovo. We can go back and talk about Rwanda. We can talk about Nigeria. We can talk about Bosnia. The inability of the United Nations to respond is becoming a more serious problem.

I travelled to India and Pakistan this summer. The inability to respond to the problem in that area is something that the world has to deal with. We need to deal with the Kashmir problem. I have said, and I will say it again, that Canada has an important role to play. We can show some leadership. I call it diplomatic leadership. I call it mediation. We could become the mediators of the world. I use some of these examples and I would even carry it as far Kosovo. We have a reputation which would allow us to be there and do things that the Americans cannot do, the Russians cannot do, the French cannot do and the British cannot do. No one can do it but a country like Canada which is a middle power. We are in the G-7. We belong to NATO. We belong to all kinds of things. We would be respected in playing that role.

I am frustrated, as I am sure the minister is. I grabbed from my notes a note of March 23, 1998 when I talked to our caucus about Kosovo. I could grab other ones. I said that there has to be action. People are being killed. Women and children are being killed. We are now in October and we are still talking. We have done nothing. That is extremely frustrating for all of us. We have to end it. We have to find a better way of dealing with these kinds of situations. I wish I had all the answers and could say “Mr. Minister, this is what we have to do and it will all work”. I can give him some suggestions, but I do not know that they will answer all of the problems.

I have difficulty with take note debates. I repeat this and I will say it every time we have one of these debates. I think the better way would be to have the House invite someone to give us a complete briefing. It would be for all members of parliament and it would be done in a non-partisan fashion. We should bring in the best experts we have in this country, and we have a number of them. Let them tell us all about this issue so that we as Canadians understand the issue much better.

Then we could let two speakers or four from the government and two from the opposition, whatever the formula, give the position of their respective party.

Then we could have an honest vote, based not on partisan politics. This is not partisan stuff. We are talking about lives. We are talking about people. Then we could vote on what we should do. We could come to a consensus. I think foreign affairs lends itself to that and we would be respected. We would feel better in ourselves. Many feel they should speak on these issues but do not necessarily have the background, understanding or information to do it. I would put forward that suggestion as being a better way than the take note debate we are having here tonight.

I think the problem of being so slow to respond is probably more frustrating than anything else about this issue. I would like us to address that. When we deal with someone like Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein, or whoever we want to put in this category, we know what kind of person we are dealing with and, therefore, we should be able to build a response to these kinds of people.

Canadians want to know a number of things. They want to know what we will bomb if we have to bomb something. They want to be assured that we are not just going to create more victims. They are concerned about the nature of the police force, the nature of the Serbian clean-up and the ethnic cleansing. Can we really go in and bomb unless it is decided that we are going for Belgrade and we are really going to teach this guy a lesson? He would understand that all right, but is that really the solution that we should be talking about? How far do we go? We should talk about that.

What about the dangers for Canadians? We should talk about that too. We understand that in Serbia there is a really good radar system. There are missiles, there are rockets and there is a defence system set up there.

If Canadians are at risk we should know that ahead of time. I know it is fine to say military is always at risk, but I think the levels of risk could certainly be discussed more fully.

Are we considering using ground troops? We know ground troops would be the way to make it work. In Bosnia it works because there are people with big guns and they use a big stick.

One thing I learned from talking to people there was that the hatred is still there and they are waiting. They are waiting because that big gun will go away some day and when it does they will kill their neighbour who killed their grandmother, their grandfather or their child.

These kids can talk about what happened in 1942. They are 10 years old. They can relate what happened in 1536 when the Ottoman Turks came. My goodness, they are living 500 years of history and it is affecting them.

The answer would be to get on the ground and come up with a plan.

I think we always have to ask about U.S. dedication to this whole issue. That is a question that we all need to know because I do not know that any of us could be there without that big U.S. stick.

We need to know and we need to be assured by our defence minister about the readiness of our troops and equipment. We are proud of them. Those of us who have travelled in war zones, when we see the Canadian flag on the troop carrier, it makes us darned proud. But we have to be sure that they are equipped to handle this sort of thing.

As well, besides saying that we need a long term plan, we should be a part of the contact group. I think we have earned our stripes. We have been there from the beginning. I cannot see how we cannot force ourselves, more aggressively, to become a part of that contact group. Our future involvement should partly depend on our having a say about what our troops do.

When we talk about a long term plan we need to involve the European Union. We need to ask what it is prepared to commit in its backyard. I know the difficulties in asking that question. I posed it to Germans and French and have received opposite stories. They need to face up to that as well.

We need schools. We need infrastructure. We need planned society for 30 years or 40 years if we are to fix that part of the world. Who has the commitment and the money? Only on a big, collective issue can we do it. Then we could be proud and say that we have done something for that country.

The concept of regional instability troubles us all. We are concerned about Russia economically, from a nuclear standpoint and from a stability standpoint in Europe and the rest of the world. We are concerned about Macedonia and Albania and a potential flare-up. We are also concerned about Greece and Turkey, two NATO partners that may come into conflict in terms of this decision. We need to ask those questions and need to be sure we have looked at them before we get too far into any kind of military action.

I wish I could say tonight that I have the solution, that this is what the minister should be doing and if we were government we would do it. However, this is not situation we are looking at. We are looking at a situation where Canadians need to understand our involvement. We need to get that information out through members of parliament of all parties. We need to answer their questions. We need to address the issues. Then we can say we have done what we are here to do in terms of an issue like this one.

I hope the minister thinks seriously about a different approach to take note debates. If it does not work we can always come back to this method. If we could just give it a try we would have better informed members of parliament, better informed Canadians, and more pride in the actions we take to help people of the world in serious crises such has the one in Kosovo.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, the member for Red Deer.

Since we are not in a position to evaluate the costs of any intervention by Canada or the form such intervention would take, would he like to see this issue debated again in the House or by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we had what I would consider to be a fairly successful debate in committee regarding the Haiti situation. Experts came before us and resolutions were put forward. I see the chairman nodding on the other side. He would agree that it worked quite well. It was extensive. We had a chance to ask a lot of questions and we had a chance to debate. The problem was that it was only members of the committee. It did not get out to Canadians the way it would if we used the full House for something as important.

It needs more debate. We need to get the information out. This take note debate will not do it. I am firmly convinced of that, even though our briefings will help solve some of the problems.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I have taken into account the comments of the hon. member. I will defer to my friend from Vancouver soon.

I do not consider this debate to be necessarily the only opportunity we will have as parliamentarians to deal with the issue. We wanted a take note debate now because we will be facing, particularly this coming weekend, decisions at the NATO council and at the United Nations. It is important to get the views of parliamentarians before we actually move forward with those and have to make a decision as government.

I know there is a break next week, but I would certainly undertake to members of the House to work with the critics and the House leaders to organize some system, whether through the committee or whatever, to maintain a degree of information and briefing and so on. We can work out the techniques for that.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, might I address the hon. member for Red Deer and ask him whether I am correct in assuming that his party would authorize the use of armed force involving Canadian forces.

If so, would he relate that to existing security council resolutions which are territorialized rather precisely, or would he base it on more general chapter 7, article 51 provisions? In particular, what is his feeling on the use of aerial power? How would he relate that to the protocols additional to the Geneva protocols of 1977?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we have always done in take note debates, we would support the ultimate decision to use military force if dealing with someone like Mr. Milosevic. That is the only thing he understands. We also believe that these questions should be asked and answered. That is what Canadians want to know.

Overall our party and Canadians support our involvement in international situations. Obviously, though, we are responding to a humanitarian need. It is very troubling that the veto will be used. We may end up fulfilling NATO action as opposed to UN action.

That is troubling because I believe it greatly weakens the position of the United Nations. It means that more and more people will challenge its authority. Going outside the UN does nothing but hurt that organization and could ultimately lead to its demise.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a couple of things for the member for Red Deer and the minister.

Both the minister and the opposition critic used personal examples of the ongoing horror in Kosovo. That in itself is justification to take decisive action. The problem many Canadians and I are having understanding is what the decisive action will be.

The member for Vancouver Quadra asked whether we would support air strikes. I would support air strikes. I would support quite a bit if I knew for sure what the objective was. The difficulty is that we want to stop the horror and the suffering, but I am puzzled what we will consider a victory.

We can call up air strikes, one of those surgical things we can do which do not get our hands too dirty. We want to solve it. We do not want to get our guys in harm's way but we will want to blow up a few fuel dumps and stuff. The difficulty is what we will consider a victory once we start the process. What is the political and military objective when we start the process?

When I think of committing the Canadian Armed Forces to the process, I would like to know what we will accomplish, what is the end goal. I want to stop the suffering. I want peace. I want all those good things it is easy to be in favour of. The difficulty I am having is what we will consider a victory.

Kosovo has been not annihilated but mostly annihilated. What will get people back into their areas? What will get the refugees to come back? What assurances, what political stability do we hope to offer in the long term?

What military assurances can we give those people? We could take out all the fuel dumps we could find and take out the heavy military stuff, the stuff that can be taken out with aircraft, but we cannot protect them from the presence on the ground of a bunch of Milosevic's animals.

The people will not go back. They need the assurance of a long term of 30 years or 40 years, a generation or two of stability. Although this is a take note debate and I understand we are limited in what we can do, I still remain puzzled about what we hope to achieve in the long run both politically and militarily.

Because we want to do something we will send in the jets. I think that is what will happen. Dammit, we want to do something, but what will we offer the people of Kosovo that says when we are finished this is what they will have? I have not seen it yet. I do not know what it is. There is no simple answer.

Will we do this with F-18s? Will we strike and make a statement? Milosevic will pull back a bit and say that it is still his because we cannot do the military and political things required to keep him out of there in the long term.

That is basically what I wanted to say comment-wise. However, what are will we do that is more than the emphatic and heart-felt desire to take decisive action? What will we offer the people of Kosovo that will give them assurance that pinpoint bombing and then a withdrawal will make any difference in their lives?

What is the long term plan? What is the vision? If it is just to bomb and strafe a few regions to make our point, I am not sure what commitment we can make. Other than I wish it would stop over there, I do not know what commitment we can make that will make any difference in the long run.

It is discouraging for me because we all want to take that decisive action. I am afraid we will take action that in the long run the people of Kosovo will say thanks for the bombing but still have no homes, no future, no stability, no political structure, and no civil society.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Red Deer deserves some time to reply. He will have about 30 seconds.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the frustration is obvious. The minister has expressed that. I think all of us would express it.

If I were answering that question I would say that the bombing will bring Milosevic to the table because he understands a plank over the head. Then the real problem starts because there has to be a long term plan to provide the people with a solution. I would start with education, hospitals and infrastructure.

We could ask about dollars and who will do that. Then the diplomatic work starts to get everybody involved in solving the problem. Do we have the will? Do we have the money? Those are the questions.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, may I make a request? I know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has to leave, but I would like to make a comment that might perhaps give him an opportunity to answer a question. Could I have the unanimous consent of the House for that purpose?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Our difficulty is that the House agreed not to have people seeking unanimous consent during this debate. That is the order under which we are operating. That is why the Chair is being put in a rather difficult position here, and there will be other requests.

The hon. member now has the floor. He can make a speech and the minister may want to question him or make a comment on it later.

Does the House want to hear the minister say something further in response to a question?

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Ask for unanimous consent.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is the problem. If we do it on one we are going to get it later. Perhaps with the leave of the House, the minister will give a response but we are not getting consent to do this.

[Daniel Turp, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague's concern is interesting. The minister replied that he could not give the House specific details of the form of military intervention.

A question that I think is much more important and that merits perhaps an answer or at least a comment from the minister is the following: If President Milosevic gives assurances, how good would they have to be for the idea of military intervention to be dropped? I put the question because Mr. Milosevic has given such assurances in the past, to Russia in particular, without following through.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have an idea: the Minister may answer, but it will be included in the time allowed the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has the floor.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not eat into the hon. member's time but let me say first that resolution 1199 passed by the security council does set out very specific conditions that we would want the Belgrade authorities to meet.

Beyond that I think it is important to look at the text of the secretary-general's report which also indicates that in order to have this occur there would have to be a more active form of international presence. I think that answers the previous questions regarding how to get some form of guarantee, some assurances, particularly to the displaced people, that they can come back. That would have to be part of any discussions and negotiations at the table. There is that combination.

I am not trying to be vague. I think these comments are very helpful. There is still security council activity potentially tomorrow, Thursday. There will certainly be NATO meetings beginning on Thursday, Friday and likely Saturday. These types of comments will inform us as we make representation in terms of formulating the ultimate plan that will be decided at the NATO council.