Debates of Oct. 7th, 1998

Kosovo

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your flexibility this evening, which has enabled us to obtain from a minister the answer to what, in my opinion, is a very important question, one that is at the heart of the debate that will go on for some days. It will, without a doubt, be of interest to the Kosovars, the Yugoslavs and the entire international community, which is seeking a solution to this armed conflict, a conflict which has already left so many Kosovars dead or in exile.

I would like to begin by indicating our party's agreement with the proposals by the Reform Party. It is not often that we both agree, but where foreign affairs are concerned, we do sometimes support some of their initiatives, as we did for instance last spring when the hon. member for Red Deer introduced his motion on debates on peacekeeping operations and the role parliament ought to play in this. We indicated our agreement that parliament, this House in particular, ought to have a greater presence, be more active.

The proposal by the hon. member for Red Deer is interesting in that it is intended to be instructive. It seeks to get the members of this House more interested in foreign affairs and to ensure that MPs are aware of the issues behind major conflicts and therefore better equipped to make informed decisions on action the government wishes to make on behalf of this country aimed at keeping, or in some cases restoring, international peace.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the motion before the House this evening. It supports an initiative aimed at putting an end to the cycle of violence that has really occurred in Kosovo, in the federal republic of Yugoslavia.

As early as last March, the Bloc Quebecois drew the attention of this House to the urgent need to act before the situation in that region of the Balkans deteriorated. The conflict has been degenerating since March, forcing us today to have an eleventh hour debate as the international community prepares for more aggressive action to pressure President Slobodan Milosevic into honouring his country's commitments under the UN charter.

Canada announced that it would impose sanctions, but the sanctions that were eventually imposed in the spring and summer were quite modest, as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra and then parliamentary secretary admitted. He even said that these measures were perhaps too modest to deal effectively with the problems at hand. Six months later, we must recognize that the sanctions imposed by Canada and other countries were not successful, and the situation is much worse.

In fact, the kind of soft diplomacy exemplified by these sanctions gave attackers plenty of time to consolidate their positions, while their victims, who are confronted to this situation on a daily basis, are forced into exile as part of a mass exodus. The member for Red Deer mentioned that in excess of 250,000 Kosovars have fled their villages and communes and sought refuge outside their country. They also took refuge in European countries that are neither immediate neighbours nor states likely to provide a safe haven for the victims of the terror imposed by Slobodan Milosevic and his troops in Kosovo.

Economic sanctions are only effective if there is a real political will to demand that the actions of a foreign government which violate human rights be immediately stopped.

The brutal acts of violence and the repression of the Kosovo people by Serbian security forces are now well documented. They have been known for a long time, in fact for too long. These acts of violence and this repression justify a response on the part of the international community, but it must act in a consistent and coherent manner. But, first and foremost, the international community must act before it is too late. Canada must act jointly with other countries, including those that are part of the contact group that the member for Red Deer would like Canada to join—it is not for lack of trying on our part, but this select club simply does not want to invite Canada to join.

Canada must work in partnership with the countries that are members of the contact group, and with the other members of the UN security council, to act quickly and decisively, so that a clear and unequivocal message is sent to Mr. Milosevic.

The numerous calls for negotiation made this summer by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and his officials have remained unanswered. These appeals have been fruitless. This is why we must now use a different approach. We must now resort to means other than diplomatic and economic sanctions, because these too have been ineffective.

It is not that there has been no Security Council intervention, for on March 31, 1998 it adopted resolution 60, and more recently, on September 23, resolution 1199, to which the minister has referred several times in his speech. Intervention by the Security Council, which has obviously had only limited, if any, effects, now must be more energetic and more significant than ever before.

It is time for the Security Council to act for reasons that are essentially humanitarian in nature. It is time to act, because too many people have been forced into exile, because too many people may be slaughtered. Many have already been the victims of massacres, but many more Kosovars have been driven out of their communes, out of their towns by the killings, rapes, inhuman and degrading treatment, and torture.

Too many fear what is going on in their homeland, and have vivid memories of what went on in Sarajevo, only a few kilometres from the capital of the Republic. Too many women and children, too many young and old people, have chosen exile because winter is approaching and their harvests have been destroyed by this filthy war, a war which has laid waste to village after village, commune after commune, a war which will leave famine in its wake.

Now the people of Kosovo are turning to the international community, to the Security Council itself, for the only ray of hope they have left. The message the international community must send to the Yugoslav Republic and its president must be a clear one: civilian populations must not be abandoned. Efforts must be made to ensure that they are spared further misery.

Above all, the international community must act out of concern for these populations. Its actions must be consistent. The international community must intervene in Kosovo, in the Yugoslav Federal Republic, to ensure that its people have some chance of a better life. Not only must it engage in humanitarian efforts, but now it must go beyond them to contemplate armed retaliation, military action, until peace is restored to this region of the Balkans.

The international community has had to intervene in this region and is still involved in Bosnia, especially in Sarajevo, in certain areas where the Bosnians, the Serbs and the Croats were killing each other and where a threat remains to the lives of all these people.

At the time, however, the international community and Canada were slow to take real action against this constant threat to peace and security by, yet again, Slobodan Milosevic and his Yugoslav government.

We also tried at the time to impose sanctions and to promote a return to diplomacy and dialogue. We hoped these measures would succeed, measures that we thought Slobodan Milosevic would act on. We were forced into military intervention only in the face of the parties' refusal to negotiate a lasting ceasefire.

We considered the problem at the time with blinkers on, intimating that the problem was in Sarajevo and should be settled for Sarajevo, where the conflict was better known, more dramatic, receiving more media attention and more symbolic. Few countries intervening in Bosnia thought that the problem could surface in Kosovo.

So today, we must consider our intervention in much broader terms to prevent this conflict, once peace is returned to Kosovo, from moving on to Macedonia, as it well might. Kosovo refugees are already on Macedonian territory. Refugees could find themselves in neighbouring regions as well.

The current situation therefore calls for consistent action, a strong humanitarian commitment by UN member countries and by the members of the Security Council and the General Assembly and of NATO, which could implement the provisions of the Security Council. Consistent action is called for.

We must act quickly in concert with our international allies. I understand the dilemma the Minister of Foreign Affairs described. Obviously, the UN Security Council could be prevented from taking action under chapter VII, if Russia and China were to use their veto.

This is a major dilemma, because action taken by the international community, through a group of countries or through NATO, may be construed as illegal under international law. The member for Vancouver Quadra is perfectly aware of the illegal situation the international community would put itself in by acting without the council's approval.

But what the minister is telling us is that the international community, that a group of countries, that NATO may act illegally, because military action is justified in this case.

We have a motion before us, a motion that may be too modest, too timid. There is no mention, in this motion, of the use of armed forces or of Canadian participation through NATO. It only refers to the humanitarian situation facing an increasing number of men, women and children, the well-being of whom we must be concerned with, even though Ottawa is thousands of kilometres away from Kosovo.

The government is asking that we take notice of this terrible situation. It is indeed time Parliament took notice of this situation. The government has announced its intention to take measures. But what measures?

Reform Party members were right to point out that we do not have here, this evening, concrete indications on the measures that Canada favours, or wants to favour, in the debates that will take place at the Security Council, the NATO council and in other forums where this issue will be discussed over the next few hours or days. We are told that these measures seek a diplomatic solution to the problem. This is fine, but what specific measures? What would be Kosovo's status within or outside the Yugoslav Republic? We should consider any solution that respects the wishes of the Kosovo people.

All this seems pretty weak. The motion does not go far enough. It should have been worded in stronger terms, because the daily tragedy of these populations deserves stronger wording.

I will conclude by saying that this is a matter of justice. I am going to quote someone, not George Washington—whom the minister likes to quote, as he did yesterday during a debate on a piece of legislation—but Blaise Pascal, a philosopher whom some of you know and like. Pascal said: “Justice without strength is powerless. Strength without justice is tyrannical. Therefore, both justice and strength must be present and, to that end, we must make sure that what is just is also strong”.

In this particular case, justice and strength must be combined to end the tragedy suffered by the people of Kosovo. We must put an end to their tragedy.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will take advantage of the legal expertise of the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

The possibility was mentioned of a NATO-led intervention. The hon. member is well aware that NATO is a regional association governed by the UN charter, that it is limited by charter imposed conditions regarding the use of armed force.

He will certainly recall that, during the Korean War, the well-known resolution 377(V) passed by the General Assembly was used to compensate for the gaps in international public law.

Does the hon. member think that there is a new category of humanitarian intervention distinct from the charter, or are specific security council resolutions necessary before Canadian troops can be sent in?

He is well aware that the resolutions passed for Bosnia apply to a very specific area. What way is there around this legal impasse? Does he have any useful suggestions?

He is also certainly aware that the protocols, additional to the Geneva protocol of 1977, set very tight restrictions on the use of air strikes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House wants to hear about international law tonight. How very interesting.

Earlier tonight, the member for Vancouver Quadra had a test question for the member for Red Deer, a very difficult one too. The member for Red Deer gave a very political answer.

I will try to reply to the question using the knowledge we share, which we want to see benefit the House, moreover. There is some value to having expertise and to being willing to share it with one's colleagues during debates such as this.

It is difficult under current international law to claim that force can be used under chapter 7 without the formal approval of the Security Council. The use of force was possible during the Gulf crisis because the Security Council authorized certain states to use force.

Just a few months ago, we debated in this House the potential use of force against Iraq. Members will remember that, on several occasions, I asked the government if it thought that Canada and other states had the authority to use force against Iraq. That question remained unanswered. I know that legal opinions were provided on the subject.

But I think it is difficult to claim, under international law as it currently stands, that the use of force, even in this case, would be consistent with the charter without prior authorization of the Security Council.

On the other hand, are we seeing a customary rule emerge from a practice whereby the states will be able to invoke a breach of the peace to justify an intervention? I think that circumventing the charter by invoking a customary rule that would allow states to intervene in a case like this may be a way to solve the problem.

Article 51 may be the only legal basis that could be used to justify an intervention in this case, even though it would require a very liberal interpretation of that article.

Beyond all that and even as an internationalist, I think we must weigh the good and the bad in this type of situation.

If we think that an armed intervention is necessary to protect the most fundamental of human rights, if the international community agrees that such an intervention is legitimate, and if the international public is in favour of this intervention, then it is surely justified. Such intervention will free many people from the terror inflicted upon them by individuals who, one day, will hopefully have to appear before an international criminal tribunal and be held accountable for their war crimes and their crimes against humanity before the international community.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot quote Pascal or Washington, but the quote I have dug up is one by the Greek philosopher Pindar who said “the test of any man lies in action”. Versions of this have been regurgitated over time.

I do not have the answer for the question I have for the member but I would like to have his comment on it. Why is it that problems in central Europe receive, necessarily, a very high priority at the United Nations but often other equally horrendous human rights abuses in other parts of the world do not seem to grab the United Nations by the throat to say that it is a compelling problem that has to be solved today?

One example I can think of is what is going on in Algeria. According to Amnesty International thousands of people have been massacred in rural areas, and there is not a blink and no resolution. It is a human rights abuse on a grand scale and no one says anything.

In the southern part of Sudan there are Christians and tribal communities that are being actively ethnic cleansed by a Muslim government in this case. It is persecuting people systematically and no one blinks.

There are problems in Angola. We certainly know about the problems in Rwanda and they are entering into more problems in Rwanda, hopefully not as bad as they had. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees from Somalia.

There is systematic and systemic abuses in a large part of the world, a lot in Africa, and the United Nations just does not consider these to be the crisis that it does Kosovo. It is a crisis in Kosovo and that is why we are here. We all agree about that. However, I wonder why this is and I wonder if the member has thought about it.

Regardless of whether it is the Geneva convention, section 77 or security council resolutions or whatever technical things, why is it there are so many other areas of the world that the western world remains quiet about but the problem in Kosovo is seizing the world? I have some ideas on why this is happening but I was wondering if the member had any ideas.

I think it is a tragedy that the United Nations and those of us who are concerned about human rights abuses do not treat all human rights abuses as a problem for all of us. Martin Luther King was right when he coined the phrase.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, and a very difficult one to answer. Maybe the simplest answer would be that there are double standards in the international community. There are too many double standards when it comes to human rights and the ways in which the United Nations and other international organizations intervene when there are conflicts. That is the simplest answer.

The more complex answer would be that when human rights abuses bring a real threat to peace and security, that is when there is a drive toward involving the security council and other organs of the United Nations.

That is when it happens. Because there was a severe threat of international peace and security in Bosnia there was an intervention of the international community and there still is. There was also a threat of international peace and security in Somalia, in Africa. The member also mentioned Sudan and Algeria. When there was a very important threat to peace and security in Somalia there was an intervention of the UN.

Maybe because of that the problem of the intervention of the UN in Somalia was created, especially in the eyes of the Americans. That is why there is a very cautious attitude to intervene in Africa. That is very unwise. Africa is a lost continent. It is continent that is sacrificed nowadays. I do not think it should be. We should not accuse the United Nations of that. We should never forget that the United Nations is composed of member states. Those states allow or disallow the intervention of the security council.

That is the more complex answer. It does not justify double standards. Once double standards are lifted we will live in a better international community.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might seek the leave of the House to divide my time with my colleague from Halifax West.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House prepared to allow this division of time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will have 10 minutes with 5 minutes questions and comments.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by expressing my appreciation to the Minister of Foreign Affairs for giving the House this opportunity to debate this very important motion.

My colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party support the motion.

As the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry said, we were hoping that it would go further, that it would be stronger, that justice and strength, two fundamental principles, would have been expressed more clearly in this motion. Nevertheless, we support the motion.

It was last week that this House unanimously spoke with one voice following the terrible atrocities that were brought to light by Human Rights Watch, the massacre of 18 innocent civilians in a forest in the Drenica region. Other members have spoken of this earlier. The House spoke with one voice urging the Government of Yugoslavia, Milosevic and the parties involved to put down arms immediately and start negotiating a solution with the help of international organizations like the United Nations and the OSCE.

It was last week as well, a few days afterward, that Human Rights Watch issued a report that documented the terrible violations of international law showing that the Serbian special police and the Yugoslav army units have executed civilians, systematically destroyed civilian property and attacked humanitarian aid workers.

The director said it has been clear for seven months that the government is conducting a brutal war against civilians in Kosovo. These are war crimes. These are crimes against humanity and yet the Government of Yugoslavia and Milosevic refuse to co-operate with the international tribunal investigating it. They have gone further and have restricted the work of domestic and foreign journalists seeking to report on these terrible atrocities.

These atrocities can also strike home. The hon. member for Churchill spoke with family members in a community that she has the honour of representing who have family in Kosovo who were terribly injured. This strikes home to her and to each of us at a very profoundly human level.

This has gone on for far too long. We have heard the same threats, the same promises of action in the case of Kosovo that we heard in the case of Bosnia, and there the international community failed terribly. It took three years, 200,000 people who died and too many warnings before finally when spurred by the terrible mortar attack by the Serbs on a crowded marketplace in Sarajevo in August 1995 the west took action.

Tragically that action was not taken by the United Nations. One of the great dilemmas and tragedies of the situation in Kosovo is that we cannot rely on the United Nations in these circumstances to definitely respond to this humanitarian crisis. We cannot assume the security council will adopt a resolution that will authorize the kind of firm military response that clearly is warranted and was likely warranted some time ago.

We saw the effects of Serb aggression in Bosnia and now we see them in Kosovo. I witnessed them when I visited Vukovar. I witnessed the Serb aggression on Croatia and its people. I will never forget walking through the ruins of a church in Vukovar and picking up a small piece of wood, the remains of a small wooden cross.

The community of nations has to say that the occurrence of this kind of atrocity is not acceptable. The United Nations' own high commissioner for refugees has estimated that over 280,000 people have been displaced by the fighting since March. This is mostly within Kosovo. Some 50,000 have not found shelter yet. Many others are living in very difficult conditions. Over 700 have died. And with winter fast approaching there is a very real danger of a humanitarian disaster.

I urge the Government of Canada to respond to that disaster, to step up donor funding for reconstruction and winter emergency plans in Kosovo and to provide financial assistance to Montenegro, to Albania and the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia hosting many of the refugees and which desperately need support as winter fast approaches.

We would prefer a resolution of the United Nations security council. We would hope the OSCE, the regional security body in that region, would be able to come to a consensus, but we cannot allow the veto power of Russia and possibly China, the consensus rule of the OSCE to prevent the kind of action that very likely must be taken, the kind of military action that must be taken to save human lives.

Let us be under no illusions about the possible risk to Canadians. Canada has six CF-18 aircraft on the ground in Aviano, Italy, 130 Canadian pilots and ground crew. They are courageous men and women who will be directly affected by the decision our government makes. I am sure that every member of this House wishes those men and women well at this very difficult time. I am sure we all recognize that when we talk about the possibility of military action, it is our sons and daughters who may very well be on the front lines, who may be fired on by those ground to air missiles that the Serbs have threatened to use.

This is a humanitarian disaster. I believe that as Canadians we have an obligation not to stand by but to act. The member for Fraser Valley has spoken at the same time, and rightly so I believe, of the fact that there is certainly a great deal of selectivity in the international response. Of course we are profoundly concerned about the situation in Kosovo and we must recognize that air strikes alone fall far short of what would be a thoughtful and appropriate response. If there is not a presence on the ground, that could exacerbate the situation and make it even more difficult.

We must remember as well that in whatever military action that may be undertaken innocent people's lives must not be put at risk, whether Yugoslavians, Kosovars or anybody else, but we made the mistake globally of waiting too long in Bosnia and we cannot afford to make that mistake in Kosovo.

The world though has stood by, as the member for Fraser Valley said, in cases of other humanitarian disasters; the genocide in East Timor, a third of the population, 200,000 people, murdered by the Suharto regime. Where is the international outcry on that? Where is Canada's voice on that?

There have been ten resolutions at the United Nations on East Timor and Canada shamefully has either abstained or voted against every one. So the member for Fraser Valley is right. There is a double standard, whether in East Timor, the situation with the Kurds, in Turkey, northern Iraq, Colombia, Sudan.

Again, my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party support this motion. We desperately hope that Milosevic will come to his senses, pull back, respect the rights of the people of Kosovo to determine their own future, hopefully have the kind of autonomy they had previously, but to respect their rights to self-determination, and that we can avert the continued horrors, because already too many people have died, that would in many respects be totally unacceptable not just to Canadians but to all civilized people should the global community not respond, not just with words but with action. La justice et la force.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, there exists a strong possibility after hearing the addresses already in the House that there will be a political consensus. It may be an all-party political consensus within the House. I wonder if he could help us over the next stage and comment on the suggestions by the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry.

There is a new concept of humanitarian intervention which is separate, its origins different, from classic intervention. It is still subject to some limitations. The OSCE is like NATO, a regional security organization and cannot exceed charter conditions and limitations.

Would the hon. member believe either through customary international law or through the general assembly that we might find an adequate base for Canadian armed intervention if that would arise and also take us over the aerial bombardment issue?

I believe in the war in the gulf he had some difficulties with the compatibility with some of the operations. Can he help us to this next step? Customary law can gallop at the present time. There has been the phrase used, instant customary law. A number of quick precedents can help make new norms.

Can the hon. member help us here? I think there is a good possibility of a political all-party consensus emerging.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra is correct. Certainly as we listen to the debate tonight it appears there is an emerging political consensus around the desirability of hopefully the United Nations with a resolution; if not the United Nations, then certainly the OSCE as the regional body under article VII. Failing that—and I think the member asks a very important question—is there another basis in international law for military intervention?

Clearly international law is an evolving body of law. There is a clear and demonstrable threat to human life on the massive scale that we have witnessed already in Kosovo. This is not an anticipatory action, as the member is well aware. This is an action in response to brutal war crimes against humanity. Those crimes are well described in international law. If the community of nations in taking action does not exceed what is required to respond to those well documented war crimes against humanity are, I would hope that international law would recognize the justice of that intervention.

It is important at the same time that the intervention not be excessive. It is important that it be based on humanitarian law principles and that there be support and follow up. It is not acceptable to drop bombs, to conduct air strikes, and then what happens next? If there is no support for the Kosovars on the ground, there could be massive retaliation by the Serb military, a situation of complete anarchy could prevail, and it could be counterproductive.

In terms of the international legal basis for action, had the world waited for a new concept of international law in the case of Bosnia as it did in Rwanda to the shame of the international community, I can only imagine the kind of carnage that would have continued to take place. If international law does not provide that base at this point, certainly it may be time to establish that precedent.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share this opportunity to speak with the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas. I guess I am as pleased as one can be to speak to a topic of this nature. We all know it is a very serious topic. It is a very sad event. It is something that most of us would rather not be discussing.

The motion before the House reads:

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.

As has been indicated by my hon. colleague, the NDP supports the motion. Interestingly enough it was just a few days ago that our federal council approved a resolution which read as follows:

Whereas the Serbian armed forces are continuing to attack the people of Kosovo, killing, injuring and driving away hundreds and thousands of civilians in their attempt at ethnic cleansing of the area;

And whereas massacres have been conducted by the Serbian authorities in Kosovo and that these massacres have been documented and confirmed by diplomats and journalists;

And whereas all diplomatic attempts by European and North American governments have achieved nothing to stop these massacres and ethnic cleaning,

Therefore be it resolved that the federal NDP in condemning the massacre of innocent civilians of Kosovo demands the federal Liberal government in Ottawa to use its influence in NATO and the United Nations to call for intervention to halt the killings and ethnic cleansing.

Be it further resolved that the federal NDP affirms and recognizes the right of self-determination for the people of Kosovo to decide their own political future without the fear of oppression and the military presence of the Serbian armed forces.

I find it very rewarding to see tonight that the motion the government brought forward takes into consideration the concerns expressed by the grassroots people who attended our council.

In reality it shows that the issue we are dealing with is not a partisan issue. It is an issue that cuts across all parties. It is a humanitarian issue. It is one that should be of concern to all of us.

I reinforce the point that I believe was made by the hon. Reform member who spoke earlier. He talked about the fact that this was a take note debate and that it might well have served us better if we had a gathering where we could have been informed as a body about what was really happening and obtained the appropriate information so that as we debated the issue we would be more informed.

I say with all due respect that since I started the political business far too often I have found—and I am sure there may be others who have found the same thing—that we as members are rushing from one topic to the next. We are dealing with all kinds of things that are coming at a very fast and furious pace. Quite often people are speaking on subjects in the House and using notes they made at the last minute. They do not have all the information at hand they would like to have to deal with the matters appropriately.

One might say this is the nature of the business, that this is the kind of life we are living today, that it is a very fast paced life and we have to be able to deal with it. Perhaps that is one of the problems with the world today. We are moving fast. Perhaps that is why we are seeing so much unrest and so many humanitarian problems in all parts of the world. We do not take the time to slow down and deal with issues appropriately.

That aside, this is a humanitarian issue. We read statements about the suffering that has taken place. One news article contained these words “the television pictures are bad. A toddler lying dead, pacifier still hanging from her purple snowsuit. The corpse of a man set on fire while tied to a tree. The crumpled body of another cut down by machine gunfire from a passing car”.

And then it went on to talk about 200 villages in Kosovo that had been destroyed. An estimated 250,000 people were homeless. Thousands had died as Serb forces rooted the Kosovo liberation army. It talked about winter coming on and the prospects for mass starvation.

These things are very disturbing to us. Perhaps years ago we would not have seen or heard these things, but today we sit in our homes and see those images in our living rooms as we watch television, as our young people and our children watch television. We can see the dire consequences of man's inhumanity toward man.

This is a serious problem. We know there is a long history between the two factions fighting in the area. When we look at it and we hear talk about ethnic cleansing, the wiping out of a certain group of people, we have to come back to the basics of what we as a human race are doing to one another.

The Serbian armed forces are continuing to attack, injure and kill people. Another news article talked about a family that was massacred. We read about the corpses of five women and two children, ages 5 and 7, lying in a narrow gully near a makeshift tent where villagers said the family had sought refuge from the shelling. All the victims had been shot in the head at close range, apparently while attempting to flee the attack. The bodies of several of the victims displayed clear evidence of mutilation.

We read about a woman aged 28 who was two months pregnant according to family members. Her belly had been cut open. We read about an older man, 65, who was found in a makeshift tent. His throat had been cut open and part of his brain had been removed and placed next to him.

It is hard to believe in this day and age in the 21st century we could be talking about such atrocities. Yet these things are happening. We all agree quite readily that action must be taken to stop these things. Ideally we would all like to see the action being other than military action, because we know that military action in itself creates problems.

The minister mentioned earlier that many meetings had been attempted to try to bring about a peaceful solution. There has been consideration of the matter by the United Nations and by various officials trying to bring about a peaceful end. These have been to no avail.

When push comes to shove we have to look seriously at how to make it stop. Also, as was mentioned by an hon. member, we have to be mindful that if we make a decision to move toward military aid we are looking at our own men and women going into a very dangerous situation. We must be assured that our men and women are adequately prepared with proper equipment as well as properly equipped emotionally and otherwise. There are many other things to consider as we look at the total picture and this very serious situation.

Questions have been raised around how such things can happen, why there are double standards, why we can allow atrocities in one area and not deal with them, yet look at them in another area and deal with them. Ultimately it comes down to the responsibility of each and every one of us as individuals.

The United Nations is comprised of individuals. The security council is comprised of individuals. In reality, it comes down to what each and every one of us as individuals feels in our hearts in terms of how we deal with our fellow human beings and whether we allow these atrocities to exist.

I am reminded of a story from a well known book about man who was travelling from one village to another. He fell among thieves, was beaten, was stripped of his clothes, was robbed and left lying by the side of the road for dead.

Along came a very highly educated person who looked, crossed over and walked by on the other side. Then along came a religious leader. I am sure we have lots of religious leaders and lots of highly educated people in our society. Along came a religious leader who also looked, crossed over and walked by on the other side.

Then we are told that along came a man, a Samaritan, one of the people who was despised in that day and age by others. He was perhaps an outcast. He looked at the person lying in need. He went to him, bound his wounds, put him on his own beast, took him to town, left him at an inn and said “Here is the money to look after him. When I come back, if you have spent more I will repay you”.

That is the kind of concern that we as individuals—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid I have to interrupt the hon. member. His time has expired.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great care to the very thoughtful comments of the member for Halifax West. I wonder if I might hear his concluding comment.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will conclude very quickly. The kind of concern we must show for each other as we sit around a security table, as we sit at the United Nations, as we in the House debate this very important issue, must be the kind of concern shown by the man who looked after the person in need.

It is up to each and every one of us to do that if we are to build a better world for our children and our children's children.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, this debate concerns a very serious matter, one of life and death. It merits the attention of all members and all Canadians. I notice that there are no ministers in the House, no one to listen to my party's views. That is totally unacceptable.

The government has asked the House to take note of the situation. During the take note debate in February concerning sending Canadian troops to Iraq to what might very well have been a dangerous situation I said that it was the weakest parliamentary engagement a government could undertake.

The government refuses to place a substantive question before the House when it concerns defence matters. The government refuses to let members vote to support or condemn its policy when it concerns defence matters. It is clear that the government is ashamed of its policy when it comes to defence matters, and should it be any wonder.

The Prime Minister likes to tell Canadians that he has consulted the House of Commons. But Canadians know that the Prime Minister will not let the House vote on this issue, just as he has not let the House vote on every other military issue. He refuses to put his policy to a vote, a fundamental characteristic of democracy. In doing so, the Prime Minister weakens his case when he tells other nations how they should behave.

The issue before us is the Yugoslavian province of Kosovo. Slobodan Milosevic is the Serbian leader of Yugoslavia and the evidence suggests that he has ordered the slaughter of thousands of ethnic Albanians. This is not new evidence. The west has known publicly about these atrocities at least since February. Now 200 villages in Kosovo have been destroyed and more than 250,000 people have become refugees. Thousands have been killed.

The west has failed to act, and Canada under this government has done nothing to urge the United Nations or NATO to take action sooner. Only now when the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Britain decide it is time to take action will the government move. That is not leadership. But then Canadians have not come to expect leadership from this government. From this government they have come to expect excuses.

In Bosnia the European Union looked foolish. In Bosnia the United Nations failed. Only when NATO took action, belated action admittedly, did Milosevic respond. That action was late, but it was tough.

In 1995 air strikes led to the Dayton accords, a fragile settlement that is being monitored by 1,300 Canadian troops to this day.

Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, came out with a statement that condones military action. While the west has been late, it is important this action be taken now.

As some of us have learned, this century's greatest lesson is that if an aggressor is appeased, their appetite only grows. Although leadership on this issue has been lacking, NATO must act now.

But it is not a straightforward issue. Kosovo is a province inside Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia is ruled by Milosevic. Should we be in favour of Kosovo independence at this juncture? This is a classic case of how not to deal with ethnic minorities, but it is certainly a difficult dilemma between self-determination and not breaking up countries.

If only it could be as simple as pointing to Canada as a beacon of how two distinct peoples can live together with occasional debate and heartache, but mostly a great love and respect for each other. If only Milosevic listened to reason the way the people of Quebec and the people of Alberta listen to reason, the Balkans would be a lot safer place.

But Mr. Milosevic is not a reasonable man. By all accounts he is a murderous tyrant who must be dealt with and must be dealt with harshly. NATO has proven that it is the only credible force that can act at this time.

This government talks about taking measures. If these measures do not include helping our NATO allies who will be using force, then my party will have to disagree with the government.

Canada has six CF-18s based at Aviano Air Force Base in Italy. They must be used. There is no reason that I am aware of that Canada could not fly air cover for this mission. If there are reasons why they cannot be used, the minister has to tell the House right now. But there are risks and the government must do all that it can to prepare Canadians for these risks.

First, the CF-18s will be flying over hostile territory. Milosevic has no small force. He has four brigades and will attempt to shoot down any NATO planes. This is a risk, but a risk that Canada must take.

Second, Milosevic has threatened retaliation against NATO troops anywhere, and that includes Bosnia. As I mentioned earlier, Canada has 1,300 troops in Bosnia. I visited them last spring and they are certainly up to the task but there will be danger. They will be threatened and that is a danger. The government must tell the Canadian public about this danger. The Canadian public must know that Canadians will be part of this operation.

Third, after this bombing, it may be necessary to put troops on the ground. U.S. Secretary of Defence Cohen said yesterday in Washington that might indeed be necessary. He said that if it is done, it will only be European troops. Canada needs to know if that has been agreed to and exactly what role Canada will be playing after the initial bombings.

There are other factors. There is the Russian factor. As the House knows, the Russians are related ethnically and religiously to the Serbs. They have told us that they are against NATO bombing. That is unfortunate, but unfortunately NATO will have to go ahead without their approval. Hopefully they will get on side once the urgency of the matter is made clear to them.

There is another factor that I must make reference to and that is the Clinton factor. The president is weakened because he is under investigation in a legitimate legal inquiry under the U.S. constitution. At this time, in my party's opinion, it is important for our NATO allies to show solidarity more than ever.

While U.S. leadership is essential, if Canada is assertive and plays its role as it should, the world will know that NATO continues to be history's finest example of collective security. And while the situation in Kosovo is certainly a humanitarian crisis, it is also a military situation.

Bosnia showed that NATO was the only credible force Milosevic will respect.

At this time the foreign minister, who has no understanding of the world, is talking about Canada leading the way in calling for total nuclear disarmament, a policy that would have Canada expelled from NATO. Now is the time for this government, this minister of defence to be serious about Canada and the world and live up to its good name.

Canada must play a role of responsibility. It must understand that NATO is the one structure that can make a difference and it must take action with our allies.

My party will stand behind this government if this government stands behind its soldiers.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks I would like to inform the House that I just returned from Greenwood, Nova Scotia from a memorial service for the victims of the tragic helicopter crash last Friday that took six lives. I know all members, both present and not, would join me in expressing sympathy to the families of these brave Canadians.

The sad events of last Friday serve to remind us of the contribution that is made by the men and women of the Canadian forces.

There are times when international peace and security and respect for human rights are a threat and where action must be taken. Canada has always considered these issues worthy of its concern. On occasion the Canadian forces have been called upon to be the instruments of our resolve.

I believe we face one of those moments today. What is occurring in Kosovo represents a serious threat to international peace and stability and it undermines our most basic belief in the principle of human rights. For these reasons, I join with my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs who spoke earlier, in endorsing Canadian participation in operations with our NATO allies, if such action is deemed necessary.

Canadian participation with our allies in Kosovo is in every way consistent with our traditional approach to international security threats and the protection of human rights. We have always been ready to join the international community in opposing threats to stability and to peace.

For all these reasons, we are one of the founding members of NATO. The men and women in the Canadian armed forces have been involved in NATO peacetime operations for over 50 years.

We have been engaged from day one. If the alliance to which we belong becomes involved in an operation to promote peace and stability and restore human rights, Canada should play its part.

This willingness to stand up and be counted reaches all the way back to the early days of Canadian statehood. We went to Europe in 1914 to help return peace to that continent. We returned in 1939 to do so again. In the early years of the cold war Canadian forces went to Korea to preserve the peace. They did it for the same reasons that we twice fought in Europe.

Some six years after, Prime Minister Pearson gave the world a simple yet powerful idea, military forces of the international community should be used to maintain the peace between conflicting parties. As history shows, the idea caught on.

With few exceptions, the United Nations peacekeeping missions almost always involve the men and women of the Canadian forces.

For Canada, two of the fundamental tenets of our foreign and defence policies are rooted in the concept introduced by Mr. Pearson. First, the promotion of international peace and stability is of paramount importance to Canada. Second, the 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 its military resources to protect deeply held Canadian interests and values, and our record of doing so speaks for itself.

We must remember that Prime Minister Pearson's concept of peacekeeping was not limited to only providing troops when the fighting had stopped. He clearly understood that military forces sometimes have to be employed not merely to monitor peace, but to create the conditions in which peace can be re-established. This decade alone has given us several examples of just such circumstances.

In Bosnia NATO has had to use selective force to bring about the conditions for peace and stability.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait the international community had to employ its military resources again. We were there with our allies. We recently returned to the gulf to pressure Iraq to comply with the United Nations weapons inspections.

In this case UN Secretary General Kofi Annan went to Iraq to try to secure the compliance of Saddam Hussein by diplomatic means. He was successful in doing so, but in his words from Baghdad at the end of the session, and they are worth reflecting on, he said “you can do a lot more with diplomacy when it is backed up with firmness and force”.

Canada has been an active player in the troubled region of the Balkans since 1991 when war broke out. We participated first in the European Community monitoring mission and then with UNPROFOR from 1992 to 1995. Over the years, thousands of members of the Canadian forces have made Canada's presence felt.

Canada remains in Bosnia under SFOR as part of our longstanding commitment to security in this region. Currently we have almost 1,300 Canadian personnel in Bosnia-Hercegovina. They are supported by a contingent of six CF-18s located in Aviano, Italy, whose role is to help enforce no-fly zones over Bosnia, and to participate in NATO led flight operations intended to demonstrate our resolve with respect to Kosovo.

In the last SFOR renewal debate held in the House, member after member stood up and agreed that Canada should do its part to preserve the peace brought about as a result of NATO's intervention in Bosnia. We agreed that our work was not done in this important region of the world. That was a good thing because our interest in Europe's stability is not merely altruistic. Let us not forget that over 100,000 members who served in Canada's forces are buried in European soil. They are the reminder of the importance we place on peace and stability in Europe.

For several months in Kosovo we faced the problems of ethnic violence, ethnic cleansing and the displacement of thousands and thousands of refugees. The cold blooded murder of innocent civilians has again confronted us in recent days. The heavy hand of the Yugoslav authorities in dealing with the Kosovars is unacceptable. We also deplore the abuses of the Kosovo liberation army, the UCK, and Kosovar Albanians must be pressured to participate in negotiations in good faith.

However, diplomatic pressure may not be enough. Earlier this year NATO aircraft were deployed to demonstrate our resolve in this matter. We did this with the notion of diplomacy backed by force. Canada augmented its longstanding contribution of troops to this European region by deploying six CF-18 aircraft.

The Canadian Forces have the capability and the readiness to participate in NATO led operations should they be deemed necessary. Our contribution to operations in the former Yugoslavia, our recent deployment into the Central African Republic and our recent deployment to the gulf clearly demonstrate that they are ready and they are capable.

Naturally, Canada would prefer a diplomatic solution. Traditionally, we always appeal to reason and we have tried to restore peace without using force, without even the threat of using it.

It is not our tradition to retreat in the face of intransigence. Our freedom and our regard for the dignity of human beings of all ethnic and religious backgrounds mean little if we will not stand up for these principles when they are violated. If necessary, Canada must be ready to act with our NATO allies.

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister says we will be ready but if there are NATO air strikes will we be actively participating? If so, are we preparing our troops on the ground in other parts of Bosnia for the retaliation that will probably happen?

It would have been nice before this debate had we had an all-party briefing to prepare us a little more. That is what happened the last time and it would have appreciated if we could have had the same type of thing this time. I hope we can expect that there will be briefings along the way as this file progresses.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, in terms of an all-party briefing, I remind the hon. member that events have moved very rapidly. There has been every effort made. My colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has spent a considerable amount of time trying to bring a diplomatic resolution to this matter. He has recently been to the United Nations to try to bring that about. That has been uppermost in this government's mind. Every effort has been made to bring about a diplomatic resolution.

Time is now running out. Winter is approaching. There are people who have been displaced. There are refugees who risk starvation, who risk freezing to death this coming winter. So we have had to move very quickly.

All the issues involved here and the difficulties in getting security council support for further action if necessary had been part of the daily media coverage. I think we have a pretty good idea of what the issues are here.

This take note debate provides every opportunity to hear different opinions on our involvement and the precedent setting issues that could be involved here if there is no further resolution of the security council and if NATO makes the determination to take further action.

If NATO decides to take further action, we have military assets in the area that could be made available subject to a decision of this government. We are trying to get the input before we make the decision which is why we are here tonight. We have six CF-18 aircraft and a Hercules air refuelling aircraft that would be provided. We have had discussions accordingly with the supreme allied commander in Europe with respect to that. Upon a final decision by this government and upon a final decision by the NATO those assets and the personnel involved would be made available as part of an operation.

As I said quite clearly in my remarks, if our NATO allies are going to go in there, if action has to be taken, if we cannot come to a diplomatic resolution, Canada expects to be there with its allies.

As far as troops on the ground are concerned, that matter is under active consideration. It would most likely be necessary but it has not yet been finalized. The military authorities of NATO are examining the possibilities, the size, where the operations might take place on the ground. I expect we will be asked to participate in that as well but that is still in the preliminary planning stage. At this point two activation warnings have been given by NATO. Both relate to the possibility of a limited air option, a limited air strike. The other is a phased air campaign. If the first one does not work then there is the possibility of an ever accelerating air campaign.

I reiterate our hope that a diplomatic resolution can be found but we know the history in terms of Mr. Milosevic with respect to Bosnia. We know that air strikes worked there to bring him to the table. As the hon. member indicated a few moments ago, that led to the Dayton accord. If we have to use these means to bring him to the table then, subject to the decision of this government and the decision of NATO, those resources would be made available to do so.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I begin by thanking the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs for their comments this evening. For the record I support the positions they have stated. I support the use of military intervention. As the minister stated and as somebody said earlier, the only thing Mr. Milosevic understands is being clubbed over the head.

I will add a few comments and some concerns. I understand it is very difficult to get the permission of the UN security council. As we know, there are some vetoes likely to be used by Russia and China. They may proceed under a current security council resolution or they may end up proceeding under NATO but we will have to let that take its course. I support Canada's involvement there and the use of Canada's military. We have a role to play.

Someone's first question might be why should Canada be there. We have to state from the outset that we have seen the slaughter of thousands and thousands of innocent individuals. We have seen something in the magnitude of 250,000 to 300,000 people driven from their homes. We have seen entire communities burned. This is clearly not acceptable to a civilized nation such as ours. I believe we have a duty to intervene. I do not know if words can describe how bad it is over there. I came back from the Canada-Europe parliamentary meetings in Strasbourg. This was an emergency debate over there. I had an opportunity to speak to many of my colleagues from the European Community. They also expressed exactly what I have stated in this House.

This is the feeling I had after speaking to some of these people. I will read a few sentences from an article written by Gwynne Dyer on October 4 of this year, very current. It will set the tone. I cannot go very far into it because it becomes unacceptable to read it in the House: “They stripped one woman and cut off her ears, nose and fingers, said a farmer who watched from a hiding as the Serbian police massacred 18 members of the family ranging from 18 months to 95 years old”.

I could not go on reading because it gets worse and worse. It makes my stomach turn to realize that this is what is happening over there, that Mr. Milosevic has ordered his officials to carry out these types of tasks. They burned out entire villages.

We have heard the foreign affairs critic for the official opposition talk about his observations driving down the roads and seeing grave after grave and entire villages burnt out.

I believe Canada has a duty to participate. This type of ethnic cleansing is equal to what we have seen and heard of the Holocaust in World War II. It is not acceptable. I think Mr. Milosevic has had ample opportunity to comply with current UN security resolutions and he has elected not to do so.

I do not have the same optimism and I may be mischaracterizing the minister of defence when he says our goal is for a peaceful resolution. I honestly believe he does wish we could achieve that. However, I do not think that is possible with this man we are dealing with. He may even agree with that. I think Canada and the rest of the world have been more than patient with Mr. Milosevic and we now must act as the slaughter of innocent people by the thousands is clearly not acceptable anywhere in the world now or at any other time.

Let us assume we are going to proceed. I support that whether it is under NATO or whether we get a UN security agreement or we have to proceed under an existing one. What happens next? We know there are hundreds of thousands of these families and people who have been driven to the hills. As the minister has correctly stated, winter is fast approaching; 300,000 people left shelterless and homeless.

I think we also have to be prepared as a nation to make a commitment, whether it is the UN or NATO. That has to be followed up after. Yes, the air strikes have to happen. I am not even so sure that we want to bring Milosevic back to the table or we just want to find some place where we can put him. I am not sure whether we can reason with a man like that.

I guess the point I am emphasizing is that we as a nation have to make a long term commitment to ensure that what actions we carry out now are not temporary, that there is an overall plan, a goal we have to achieve. It is a very difficult situation. The Serbs are not prepared to give up the province of Kosovo for all kinds of reasons. Yet it is 90% Albanian. I think we are there for the long haul and hopefully part of a UN force that will be present to ensure the safety of these individuals.

Hopefully this region could become a republic separate from Serbia. That may be argued against by some of my colleagues. We have had a very interesting debate. Some of them do not think that is achievable, that in the long term it could not become an independent republic but would have to remain a part of Serbia, with autonomy, as it did prior to 1990.

These are fascinating debates when we look at all the details. However, at the end of the day I would like to offer my encouragement to both ministers who were present tonight. I hope there will be a long term commitment on the part of Canada. I am very pleased to be a part of this debate and to see that everybody is focused on the crisis in Kosovo and looking toward a solution in the near future.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government's motion tonight is timely, appropriate and sound.

Each member who has spoken before me has supported the motion of the foreign affairs minister in his call to resolve the conflict, promote a political settlement for Kosovo and facilitate the provision of humanitarian assistance to refugees.

In Kosovo we face a very complex situation for historic and symbolic reasons. It was here I learned that in 1389 the Serbs fought their battle of the Kosovo polie; namely, the field of Kosovo battle against the Turks. It was in Kosovo that the church of Serbia was born. It is here we find the symbolic values the Serbs attribute to Kosovo, to their religious ground, virtually their holy land or the equivalent of it.

However, against this background it must also be said that although the Serbs pretend to be civilized members of the world community, they have failed miserably to prove themselves. For weeks and months now we have witnessed a situation to which we cannot remain indifferent despite the distances and the ocean between Europe and us. The suffering is immense, the atrocities unbearable and the crimes unforgivable.

As members of the human species we must resolve this conflict and find ways to resolve it soon. We must push for a political settlement. We must provide humanitarian assistance to the 300,000 displaced people and the 30,000 refugees.

Several speakers have referred to a NATO intervention. I hope we will not be so naive as to believe that NATO air attacks will solve the problem. They will only strengthen the already rigid and unbearable position taken by the Serbs. Instead, NATO ground forces to protect the entire civilian population would represent the first necessary step.

In that context let us have no elusion. The presence of troops to protect the population may be required for years. Kosovo could turn out to be another Cypress and the presence of troops, be they NATO or the United Nations, may be necessary for many decades to come.

The Council of Europe, where this parliament has, through the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, observer status, produced a political report prepared by Andras Bargony of Hungary. It is entitled “Crisis in Kosovo and the situation in the federal Republic of Yugoslavia”. The recommendations of the report, adopted two weeks ago by the Assembly of the Council of Europe, include the following elements considered as essential by European parliamentarians in reaching a lasting peaceful solution to the crisis.

The first element is to guarantee the security of all people living in Kosovo, to be achieved through the withdrawal of the Serbian security forces, the disarmament of armed groups of ethnic Albanians and the deployment of an international peace force.

The second is to give a new political status to Kosovo based on a high level of autonomy within the Yugoslav federation, based on the prerogatives the province enjoyed according to the 1974 constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, adapted of course to the new situation and, where necessary, enlarged.

Thirdly, such status would include the highest possible form of self-government for Kosovo in lawmaking, the executive, the judiciary, public order, economy, education and culture with respect to the rights of Serbs and other minorities living in Kosovo, and finally the direct participation of Kosovo representatives in federal institutions and also through the adoption of democratic reforms.

The fourth element is to give international guarantees, ensuring respect for the future agreement and preventing any attempts to return to the status quo or to secede.

The final element is to introduce democratic reforms implemented through the federal Republic of Yugoslavia, guaranteeing full compliance with the Council of Europe standards concerning the functioning of a democratic political system, the rule of law and the protection of human rights and the rights of national minorities, notably in Kosovo, in Vojvodina and in Sanjak.

It seems to me that these are very sensible proposals made by the Council of Europe, by the assembly and by our European colleagues. The assembly also considered that in the absence of a clear and unequivocal position of the international community the political and military pressure exerted on the two sides to engage in negotiations would remain largely unaffected.

Therefore, it would seem that a clear and unequivocal position of the international community is urgently needed. The future status of Kosovo must be placed at the top of the international agenda. That is quite clear now. The participation of all interested parties, governments and relevant international bodies is essential.

I am sure that everyone will agree tonight that we must not fail the people of Kosovo. We must prove that the international community can intervene in the name of humanity. It is high time that we do so.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, as we in this House are peacefully discussing international problems, as we speak freely, in peace, in confidence, in the respect of our institutions and in the safety of our own homes, in another part of the world people are dying, being martyred and abused, watching their children being raped and their families being separated, without a flicker of hope that this conflict will be quickly settled.

In another part of the world, people want autonomy so they may be their own leaders and control their own institutions. A bloodthirsty president, who does not share their opinions, is making them suffer and depriving them of their dignity.

Today, we are wondering what we could or should do to help the people of Kosovo, these Albanian-speaking people who are being victimized. Last winter, serious situations were experienced in some parts of Canada and Quebec, which warranted a humanitarian operation. The people who had to leave their homes temporarily and relocate away from their familiar surroundings were finding themselves in need of assistance.

Back then, if we had known of any means of stopping the wind, the rain, the storm and the ice, all the people of Quebec and of Canada would have agreed that that means ought to be used to halt the force of nature, whose effects become devastating when spread over a period of days or weeks. All would have agreed that everything should be done to spare a few children and families a disagreeable situation lasting a few weeks, one which did not endanger their lives.

If we spared no effort in trying to limit the ravages of nature in our own country, how could we not agree today that the Government of Canada should take the necessary action to help people who are 100, 1,000 times worse off than we were?

Our floods and our ice storm pale in comparison with what is now going on in Yugoslavia, in Kosovo. It is not just the lives of these particular people that will be marked, but the lives of several generations to come. We have the means of helping to resolve this situation quickly. Perhaps we have even delayed too long.

The government is moving that action be taken because it is clear that diplomatic efforts have failed. But while our diplomats were talking, people were being driven out of their villages and homes. They were being forced to take refuge in the mountains and the forests, sometimes without their children. Sometimes, it was the children who had to flee, who sought shelter because they no longer had any parents. Some of these fleeing children were even missing limbs. They were orphans.

If we could experience, even for half a day, the horrors of being victims of domination, we would not need a full evening's debate in the House of Commons to decide that Quebeckers and Canadians are in agreement on going to the assistance of a population that is the victim of a cold-blooded adversary once again, one who has not yet been made to heed the voice of reason.

I myself would not subscribe to the policy of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but what we are dealing with here is not attacking someone we do not like, but preventing an attacker from continuing his inhumane actions against defenceless populations.

The idea is to give these helpless people the means to protect themselves against a ruthless aggressor. It is not a case of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, but a matter of self-defence. It is a case of protecting oneself against an invader that will simply not listen to reason.

Even the pressure exerted by the international community was not enough to make Mr. Milosevic realize that his action is condemned almost everywhere in the world, except for a few countries that have not clearly expressed their disapproval.

Canada must not hesitate. We must offer our modest contribution. We are not, of course, as powerful as the United States, but we are a country whose military capability and humanitarian intervention forces are well developed and can enable us to fulfil our role in the world, our obligations to other countries, and our commitment to provide humanitarian assistance.

We must now do for others what we would like others to do for us in one, five, ten or twenty years should the Canadian or Quebec people be attacked by dictators of that type, who might decide to rule over people who decided some day to have their own government and institutions.

Everything has been taken from these people, including their institutions, their right to practice a religion, their universities, their newspapers, their radio stations, their means of expression, their means of being themselves. Such is the justification of the bloodthirsty dictator who wants to subdue these people. This is why he is pursuing these people into their homes, and even into their bedrooms.

This is a barbaric act. It is an unacceptable action which Canada must not condone. I am convinced our country must take the necessary measures advocated in today's motion.

I am sure all Canadians and Quebeckers will agree that our officials should act so as to put an end to this massacre and restore peace in Kosovo.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House today in support of Canada's participation in a possible NATO operation in Kosovo.

There are many excellent reasons for Canada to participate in such an operation.

First, like the rest of the international community, Canada is very concerned about the climate of violence and human rights violation that continue to prevail in Kosovo. We have been appalled by the recent massacre of 14 civilians. We are holding the Yugoslav leadership and President Milosevic in particular, directly responsible for the current situation in Kosovo.

The Yugoslav republic's failure to co-operate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia constitutes a serious breach of its international obligations. The number of displaced persons, that is those brutally forced out of their homes, has already exceeded 280,000.

Our country, with its long and proud tradition of promoting respect for human life and human dignity throughout the world, cannot remain indifferent to such abuses, such atrocities. The time has come for action in Kosovo.

Second, as loyal members of NATO, we feel we are duty-bound to continue to unreservedly support the efforts of our allies and the international community to prevent a catastrophe in this region that has suffered so much already.

Third, such participation would be in keeping with our commitment to the principle of collective security. It would be in line with our foreign and defence policies.

Fourth, this participation would constitute a logical extension of our prior commitments in the Balkans.

In fact, since 1991 we have been involved in the efforts by the international community to put an end to the violence and the taking of innocent lives, and to restore peace to this region, within either the UN or NATO. Since the signature of the Dayton agreement, we have been playing a vital role in the measures taken by NATO in restoring stability to Bosnia-Herzegovina.

At the present time, we have six CF-18s stationed at Aviano, Italy, where they are backing up the ground element of the Bosnia stabilization force. These aircraft take part in the effort to enforce NATO's no-fly zone over these territories and in a NATO partnership for peace exercises in this region.

Resolution 1199 passed by the United Nations security council on September 23 shows how seriously the world community takes this situation.

Canada calls upon the warring parties to fulfil their obligations under this resolution and especially, pursuant to the ceasefire agreement, to take measures to bring the humanitarian crisis to an end and to come to a peaceful solution.

NATO is developing plans for various possible operations in Kosovo. It has started to take stock of all the resources its member states could provide if it was decided to launch a military operation.

Members of the alliance have yet to decide if they are going to take military action in Kosovo. However, should NATO decide in favour of military action, Canada should take part in it.

There are two main reasons why I wholeheartedly support Canada's participation in possible NATO action in Kosovo. First, I have personally been witness to the horrors hidden behind the antiseptic term “ethnic cleansing”. Also, I was able to see with my own eyes the positive impact of the presence of Canadian troops in Bosnia and the remarkable work done by our forces through NATO's stabilization force.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, I had, last November, the honour of heading a delegation of eight members of the defence and foreign affairs committees visiting Bosnia.

We saw how Canada helped implement policies to establish peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peace was maintained through our military involvement in the stabilization force under NATO. We visited reconstruction projects carried out with the help of Canadian NGOs and the Canadian armed forces.

I would like to digress a moment to remind my colleagues that Canada's participation in the region continues. In fact, since March, Canada has contributed $430,000 to UNICEF emergency measures, $435,000 to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and $400,000 to the Red Cross for aid to refugees.

During our fact-finding trip in November of last year, we witnessed democratization initiatives being undertaken with the co-operation of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the international police group and many more organizations. Judging from all we have seen there, we have concluded that considerable progress had been made in Bosnia since the Dayton accord.

We have been proud to hear and see for ourselves that Canada has played a major role in the military and civilian aspects of the peace accord, and members of our group unanimously concluded that Canada should continue to take part in this international initiative.

In all the places we visited, we felt a deep emotion and pride when we heard people tell use repeatedly how important our presence was. They also asked us to thank Canadians for their contribution and their efforts to help them rebuild their country.

During that November trip, my colleagues and I saw for ourselves the horrible destruction brought about by ethnic cleansing. Ruins could be seen throughout the countryside. In every village we visited, we could see houses that had been destroyed by bombardments during the war and other houses that had been destroyed to make it impossible for their occupants to return home.

When we first arrived in Bosnia, one of our first briefing sessions dealt with the use of land mines as a means of ethnic cleansing. We were told to stay on the paved portion of the roads and to avoid walking in the grass around the villages. We were told that, for years, the fields had not been planted with crops but with mines.

We were told that in Bosnia there were still probably a million mines left. Brief though our visit was, we were horrified by this constant, invisible and insidious threat. We could not imagine how the local people had, for years, been able to live in such an atmosphere, knowing that death or mutilation awaited them or their children at every turn.

It is difficult to describe the horror of such an experience, difficult to understand the hatred that drives neighbours who, the day before, were friends to kill each other, difficult to understand the extent of the violence of which humanity is capable.

I therefore urge my colleagues to approve Canada's participation in any NATO action in Kosovo.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak in this debate on Kosovo.

We have been here before. When I was first elected in 1993 I remember a debate in the House on the same conflict. What the intervening five years have proven is that we have learned nothing.

While over the last nine months Albanians in Kosovo have been slaughtered, murdered, mutilated and raped, we in the international community have wrung our hands, pointed fingers and done nothing. This has happened time and time again. The last five years have proven that we have learned no lessons whatsoever.

With respect to Kosovo, in 1989 Slobodan Milosevic came to power with a promise to rid Kosovo of its 93% ethnic Albanian population. This was a promise he made and true to his word he has been engaging in the process of ethnic and cultural genocide of the people there.

First he started to close down the schools, then he threw Albanians out of jobs. What are they supposed to do? They started the Kosovo Liberation Army to try to defend their people. They were successful initially but they have been losing quite badly.

As we speak, 250,000 innocent civilians have been displaced and 50,000 innocent Albanian people from Kosovo are in the forests freezing, starving and sick. Some have been subjected to some of the worst atrocities any of us could possibly imagine. And we still sit on our hands.

It is remarkable that as we stand here today trying to decide what we are going to do, for months people have been slaughtered. We have only one option in the face of a despot like Milosevic. That is to bomb. He understands one thing and one thing only and that unfortunately is force. I am certain that is not what his people want but he, a man of shrewd political and ruthless means, wants to do that. He will understand nothing but force.

We have tried diplomatic initiatives time and time again and they have been completely fruitless. He has played games with us. He has teased us with the hope that he will negotiate rather than fight, but this is only temporary and he goes back and continues the onslaught. No more. There are some solutions that would solve the problem.

One, Milosevic has been given the ultimatum. We know from Secretary General Annan that he is not withdrawing his troops and we must bomb. We must bomb hard military targets, hard military Serbian targets within Kosovo and move into greater Serbia if necessary.

Two, we have to ensure that in the future, after that is done, there will be a continued reinforcement of the blockade around Serbia. Right now it is a joke. The Russians and the Greeks are providing arms and cash, and military hardware to the Serbs, thereby fueling this problem. The Russians want a foot in the Balkans. That blockade has to be strengthened if we are going to meet success.

Three, the legitimate concerns of the Serbian people have to be met. Kosovo is to the Serbs what Jerusalem is to the Jews. The Field of Black Birds is a very important symbol for them. Unfortunately it is a negative symbol for them but it is an important one and one that must be respected. It is a shrine for the Serbian people. They must be allowed free and unfettered access to it.

We must not support an independent country called Kosovo. If we were to support the pre-1989 situation when Kosovo was an autonomous state, then I think we would find a reasonable compromise which would enable the Albanians in Kosovo to live peacefully and would enable the Serbs and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to have free access to those shrines.

If we do this, a compromise can be made. However, the compromise is being made much more difficult by the actions of President Milosevic. Through his genocidal actions he is polarizing communities and laying the seeds of future violent ethnic discontent for years to come. Unfortunately this tragic situation will bubble up again.

We have heard some discussions today about intervention. It has been proven over the last several decades that the world has been unable or unwilling to deal with conflicts when they occur and only get involved after a huge loss of lives has taken place. From Rwanda to Chechnya, to Cambodia, to the Sudan and to others, the world has sat on its hands while innocent civilians have been slaughtered.

That is why international law respects, acknowledges and supports intervention by outside powers within the borders of a country if gross human rights abuses are taking place. The reason it supports that is that although we support the integrity of a nation state, international law respects the integrity and safety of people over and above the nation state. In other words, a despot cannot abuse people and expect to go away unscathed.

We collectively have a responsibility to protect people not only on humanitarian grounds but also for very pragmatic reasons. What happens in a conflict half a world away winds up on our own doorstep through increasing demands on our defence budgets, aid budgets and our social programs domestically as people migrate away from an ethnic conflict and wind up as refugees on our shores.

International law respects and supports intervention. The proof in the pudding is when we look at who pays the price. Civilians pay the price. It was not always that way. In World War I 85% of the casualties were soldiers. Wars took place between nation states. In World War II 60% were soldiers. Today 85% of the penalties that are paid in blood, in death and in rape are paid for by innocent unarmed men, women and children. The civilian population pays the price in conflicts that are by and large ethnic conflicts within the boundaries of a country. They generally are not wars between nation states.

We need political will. We need a spine, we need guts and we need courage. I and my colleagues do not want to stand here five years from now on a debate about another group of people who have been murdered and slaughtered while we sat around waiting for somebody to go first.

Canada with its enormous diplomatic ability and international respect can work with other nation states to pull them together. I introduced a private members' motion last year asking the Minister of Foreign Affairs to bring together like-minded nations to have a common foreign policy in certain areas and particularly the area of conflict prevention.

I am very happy to see that the Minister of Foreign Affairs signed a treaty with Norway. We need to expand this treaty with other like-minded nations such as New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Sweden, Finland and Costa Rica for starters. There are others. We should bring them together maybe in Ottawa to discuss a common foreign policy for certain areas. We should have a common focus in a certain part of our foreign policy that deals with one thing, conflict prevention.

Early intervention by identifying the precursors to conflict and having the tools to address them are essential. We should first start with non-military means and then work up to military means.

I was disappointed earlier today. I introduced a private members' motion asking the House of Commons to call on the United Nations to indict Slobodan Milosevic for war crimes and to allow the UNHCR and NGOs free and unfettered access to the refugees in and around Kosovo. I was deeply saddened that the House did not give unanimous consent. I hope the government will take heed of that motion and adopt it as soon as possible.

I am glad we had this debate. We must remember that in the future we cannot allow this genocide in Kosovo or in other country to continue. We must work early and preventatively because the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children are at stake.