Debates of April 12th, 1999

Kosovo

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned during my speech that my position was clearly that we should stand by the commitment already made by our country. We would send a few hundred troops only if a peace settlement is achieved, if a ceasefire is achieved, a guaranteed ceasefire under a guaranteed agreement. Canada should move in purely for peacekeeping purposes and not send troops. I do not agree that the NATO operation should be enlarged by sending troops of any kind into Yugoslavia.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I rise in the House this evening, I pray for all our military personnel serving abroad, as part of NATO's allied forces, and for all of those who are affected by this military conflict, or should I say by this war.

It is a real shame that this liberal government, the so-called government of openness and accountability, is merely holding another one of these take note debates, at a time when this country and its NATO allies are involved in an armed conflict against Yugoslavia in Kosovo. We should have a real parliamentary debate, followed by a motion put to the House. This would give the government a mandate to deal with this conflict and allow the Canadian forces to wage this fight properly.

I think the job of the defence critic for the opposition is to hold the government of Canada responsible for its actions. In this case, it is to avoid needless losses of human lives.

The Liberal government has decided on a foreign policy of “soft power” at the expense of military equipment of “firm power” and has said to the Canadian people direct threats against Canada and Canadian interests no longer exist.

Well, I have some news for the people sitting in the first rows. First, perhaps their foreign policy is appropriate for signing a treaty on antipersonnel mines, but it is not appropriate for dealing with such people as Milosevic and his government, who kill their own people and then lay antipersonnel mines to keep Kosovars within borders and NATO outside.

Second, the world is sometimes a jungle and dictators are not afraid to use force.

Third, all out wars, such as the second world war, may happen only once or twice a century, but unfortunately they happen.

Fourth, small scale wars, regional wars and civil wars are far more frequent.

Fifth, there is nothing new about civil wars, which I would like to point out to the historian from Princeton who was surprised by the brutality of Milosevic after years of tragedy in Bosnia.

This government did not take the history of international relations into account and acted in a criminal fashion by neglecting Canada's defence, for which it is responsible. The defence of the realm is a government's primary duty.

We have here in front of us the Liberal government that cancelled, for purely partisan purposes, a highly needed program, namely the EH-101 helicopter acquisition program. It is the Liberal government that sent Canadians to be taken hostage in the former Yugoslavia. It is the Liberal government that does not put bread on the table of military families.

It is the Liberal government that sends teams on search and rescue missions in Labrador helicopters and, when they do not come back, tries to take benefits away from widows and children.

So do not think for one minute that we will let the government take action blindly in Kosovo and in the sky over Yugoslavia, where a larger number of Canadian lives are in danger. The Liberal defence and military management policy has given Canadians Hong Kong and Dieppe, and the list could grow.

But now that we have been forced to take action by Mr. Milosevic, NATO must wage a war that it must win. We are not dealing with nice people in Yugoslavia. They are brutal and cunning adversaries who will stop at nothing to get their way and who have absolutely no respect for human life and human dignity.

NATO has committed to a battle from which it cannot withdraw unless it is victorious. Withdrawal at this time would have major repercussions.

But what is NATO's strategy? What is the strategic objective of NATO? Can we attain the goals NATO and this government have set?

Mr. Milosevic is cleansing Kosovo, and he is in the process of attaining his own strategic objective. His regime is intact and we have not yet seen the strongest elements of his military machine in action against NATO. He is saving them for later. He does not appear to be ready to give up, and western journalists report that he has the support of the people.

What is our objective? To put an end to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, to force Milosevic to pull out his military and paramilitary forces, to get the Kosovar refugees back to their homes and to guarantee their safety under the Rambouillet accord and thanks to the intervention of soldiers responsible for imposing and maintaining peace?

NATO wants to do this with a progressively implemented air campaign, but we have been at this for nearly three weeks now. Have we managed to attain either of the goals in question? Probably not. NATO's declared objective is not being concretized through air strikes.

Historically, the Battle of Britain and the raids on Dresden notwithstanding, it is not air strength that wins wars. According to the NATO supreme commander directing this operation, General Clark, the bombardment will not put an end to ethnic cleansing. The chiefs of staff in Washington share that same point of view: NATO's air strength will not be successful in making the Yugoslav government listen to reason.

I have some advice. It is advice which is very simple. We should define an achievable strategic objective that will put an end to this human tragedy. We must find the means to do so. We must be prepared to answer questions in the House. We should look at the state of the Canadian forces and we should fulfil the requirements set down in the 1994 white paper.

The Canadian forces are well trained, well motivated and have a history which is second to none, but they lack key equipment, in particular the army. This government cut military personnel and the defence budget to the bone. If Canadians are needlessly killed as a result of government negligence, then this government will be held accountable.

The present government defined its defence policy with the 1994 white paper, which committed Canada to the maintenance of a modern, combat capable, land, sea and air force to deal with operations across the spectrum of combat.

In terms of implementing our national security objectives the government directed the Canadian forces to provide a joint task force headquarters and one or more of the following: an able task group of four major service combatants, one support ship and maritime air support, three separate battle groups or a brigade group, a fighter wing and a transport squadron, and all this for a grand total of 10,000 personnel at any one time.

The intent was to have the vanguard of this joint task force in place within three weeks and the entire force operational within three months. This was done having a regular force of 60,000 personnel. Can we do this today? Probably not. If part III estimates for 1999-2000 are to be trusted we are going to be below 60,000 next year.

In terms of the navy, the government stated that there was an urgent need for new maritime helicopters to replace the aging Sea King. Five years later we have not even heard a call for tenders, not even a statement of requirement. That is the Liberal definition of urgent.

The government stated that it would consider replacing old operational support vessels. We have not heard a thing about Sealift since.

Canada's army was promised three adequately equipped brigade groups and some 3,000 more soldiers in three light infantry battalions.

The white paper called for new armoured personnel carriers to replace the obsolete M-13 fleet.

There was also a discussion in very loose terms on the future replacement of direct fire support vehicles. There was no mention of a new main battle tank to replace the obsolete Leopard. An army without a main battle tank will not survive in combat. That is the end of that story.

The army has received most of its new armoured personnel carriers in the form of the LAV-25. We have enough of those for a good armoured reconnaissance regiment.

The three light battalions were created with about 3,000 soldiers. However, they are threatened all the time by cuts.

The air force was promised an upgrade of the CF-18 fighter aircraft fleet. That is happening, although the government wants to deny it every time we hear of yet another Sea King emergency landing.

The CF-18s have received their precision guided munitions, but the air force lost its in-air refuelling tankers and received no new airlift capabilities. As of today Canada lacks both strategic sealift and airlift capabilities and thus is forced to rent these items on the open market or be dependent upon the United States for any large military operation.

The lack of power projection capability is the Canadian forces' biggest problem, after money of course. That is the central issue. The white paper must be implemented if we are to project our forces abroad effectively in support of foreign policy objectives, including Kosovo.

Unfortunately, if the Kosovo conflict moves to the next phase, it is likely that we will see NATO ground troops. If that is the case, then the government will have to take a long and hard look at the NATO plan and whether Canada has forces that are properly trained and equipped for ground action.

In terms of ground operations, there are a number of issues that need examination by parliament prior to deployment. For instance, what are the objectives of the campaign? To create a safe area within Kosovo? To partition Kosovo and Yugoslavia? Or to invade Yugoslavia? How long does NATO make a commitment to stay? How do NATO troops, our troops, get into Kosovo considering the geographic realities of the Balkans and the lack of infrastructure in either Albania or Macedonia? Will we send a significant contingent, perhaps a battalion size group, or no troops at all?

We do not know what the national command relationship will be. What are the rules of engagement? We do not know how we will get our troops over to Kosovo because we have no real sealift or airlift capabilities. How will we sustain them in Kosovo? We do not know which units of the Canadian forces will be sent, if any, and whether they are trained for the mission before them. That is very important.

Let us remember the criticisms of the Somalia mission and the criticisms that the inquiry directed at the Canadian predeployment to Somalia. This deployment to Kosovo could make Somalia look like a Sunday school picnic.

Are we sending composite units that have never worked with each other before? Are they all from one brigade group? What size of contingent is going to Kosovo? Will we send more CF-18s over to Italy to back up our ground troops and the soon to be increased operational tempo? Where are the relief or reinforcements going to come from?

Will we also maintain our forces in Bosnia? Or does this mean that this is the end of the Bosnian commitment?

I point to the recently released Conference of Defence Associations' strategic assessment that questioned Canada's army organization and our ability to sustain our Bosnian forces. They said that as the army is now configured, it uses every resource at its disposal just to maintain that Bosnia commitment.

Are we going to reorganize the army to better deal with these long term commitments or are we going to maintain our current core configuration and trade one taxing commitment for another that experts claim is destroying the Canadian army? I think Canadians want to know the answer to these questions and many more prior to further deployments with our NATO allies and further escalation of this conflict.

To clear up a couple of points that we had earlier, in 1990-91 there were three debates in the House, and two of them were before a shot was fired. No one can say that it is the same situation. These were all votes. We got this out of Hansard so it is very clear that this happened before.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's debate. I want to make a couple of comments and ask the member a question, which does not really deal with the history but deals with the emotional aspect of the situation.

In the fall of 1997 I had the privilege to visit Bosnia with the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I saw firsthand the consequences of that war on the lives of the people and on the environment. It was a travesty to the human condition, one that we must act against.

NATO's air campaign against Yugoslavia is aimed at bringing an end to atrocities against civilians in Kosovo by diminishing the capacities of the Yugoslav army. The military objective of NATO has humanitarian or political consequences. Although the air strikes are planned with the utmost care to avoid civilian casualties, they nonetheless occur. We see this.

I ask the member how do I respond to so many of my constituents who in the main are eastern European, many of them from Serbia? How do I speak to them about this issue at present?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I guess it was more of a statement, a statement I can follow along with.

I was also in Bosnia. I had a chance to talk to the people there, to tour with our troops and to see the terrific job they are doing. When I look at what happened in Bosnia it brings it very close to home for myself. The area of Bosnia that Canadians are patrolling right now is very similar to my home area, the eastern townships, in the way the grounds are laid out. It is very interesting to look at the fields with nothing planted in them. They are all mined. I look at the job the Canadian troops are doing there to try to get people back to a normal way of life.

We are talking about a different situation in Kosovo. We have to look very clearly at that and what our troops can do. All we have talked about in the House, and we never voted on that, is a peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. If we are going to do anything else at this point, it has to come to a vote.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great interest. I was baffled with the way he historically rhymed off some figures. He talked about Hong Kong. He talked about Dieppe. Now he says if they do not behave, we are going to go in there.

I wonder if my hon. colleague remembers which side of the allies the Serbian people were on. I wonder if he remembers or if he knows that these people might have been under Hitler at that time and they were impoverished. They were under the German boot. Can he tell me if he remembers which side they were supporting? Was it the partisans not only of Serbia, but the partisans in Italy, or the partisans in France, or the partisans in Greece? I could go on and on. He mentioned nothing about it.

The member talked about the Battle of Britain. Has my hon. colleague dismissed all the people under hardship during that period of our history, or has he simply chosen to ignore them?

My hon. colleague talked about our ability to keep sending troops in and how they are undernourished and what the troops do not have. Has my hon. friend across the way a sense of dignity to say that we must act and act in peace without sending bombs in, but get the people back to the negotiating table, or has he forgotten that part of history too?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question, but I am not really sure what he said or asked. I find what he is talking about to be completely irrelevant. It is his government that authorized the bombing. I do not understand where he is coming from. The hon. member is not very clear.

I made references to the disasters we have had before to come to the point that we do not end up with another disaster of the type that we had in Dieppe or Hong Kong and so on. So I do not understand.

There is a long history in Yugoslavia on both sides. They have gone both ways all through their history. It goes back at least 600 years and I am sure it goes back farther than that.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will make a comment and ask a question.

I listened to the hon. member's presentation. A good portion of it covered our military in terms of equipment. He talked about the Sea Kings and about replacements. I truly empathize with what he said. We should not in any way put our military in danger whether it is rescue or military services on the ground.

When he did touch upon the debate before us today he spoke specifically about there having to be a war. He talked about “a rise in his popularity at home” in referring to Milosevic. I would like to comment on that. How did this individual's popularity rise? There have been killings on both sides, including innocent children and people on the Serb side. We must admit that, irrespective of what CNN says. When somebody sees their children, brothers or nephews being killed, they might not like Milosevic, but they are going to bond together. Unfortunately this is what is happening. That is why I believe his popularity has gone. I do not know if the member agrees or not.

About the second point that there has to be war, why must there be war when right now we are seeking a political solution in my view? In order to seek this political solution, does the member agree that the Russians have to come to the table and the Americans must find the will? Does he agree with this to really move forward?

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member on the point of how Milosevic is becoming more and more popular because of the conflict. It has helped his situation.

The other question was about why there should be war. I would like to know what the Minister of Foreign Affairs has done at the security council. That is a question we asked today. We find at this point that there does not seem to be any results, nothing solid out there. The minister has talked a lot, but he has not come back to the House to tell us exactly what he did to try to stop this situation, to try to move things ahead further.

On the war situation, Milosevic has declared war on NATO. So, like it or not, we happen to be at war.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague opposite that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was at the security council within the past month on a human security agenda. He was trying to get exactly this issue, the rights of civilians during this type of activity on the agenda.

I want to go back to the litany of shortcomings in equipment that I heard during the hon. member's speech.

The reality is that the places that are housing and caring for all the displaced people right now, Albania, Bosnia, Turkey and Croatia, all these places with hundreds of thousands of displaced people do not have a lot of resources. Indeed they have so few resources that the large volume of refugees in their areas could potentially destabilize their countries.

I want to ask the hon. member opposite what his view would be on Canada's participation, maybe not today but in the near future, after this goes, to help the economies of those countries facing this crisis that is thrust upon them right now. What would his view be on making the humanitarian effort on the ground? That is the debate today. It is not a debate on helicopters and equipment—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member. The hon. member for Compton—Stanstead, a short response.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would quickly answer by asking about the minister's supposed trip to the security council. If he did go, I am wondering why he has not made a report to the foreign affairs committee to explain exactly what he has done there to try to help the situation.

On the other side, what is important here is it is strange that last week the government offered $100 million to help out the refugees and now all of a sudden, it is reneging on the deal. That is where we could be helping out. Those refugees need help. That money could be spent over there. Now is when they need it, not later on. These people are dying now.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with my hon. colleague from Scarborough Centre.

A lot of the members today came here with prepared speeches. A lot of the members came here today pretending that they know the history of Bosnia. Well, to my hon. colleagues who pretend that they know the history of Bosnia, to my hon. colleagues who have travelled to Yugoslavia and to Kosovo and who say they know the Balkan history, I say to them that they have another think coming.

That part of the world has been in turmoil not for the last 50 years and not for the last 100 years, but we should say for the last millennium. Since history has been recorded, that part of the world has had atrocities done on both sides by all kinds of people. The atrocities happening there have been by both sides. It is not something new.

I can quote text and verse from 50 years ago, from 100 years ago, from 200 years ago, the history of what has happened in that part of the world. It was the Ottoman empire. Before that there was the Byzantine empire. Before that was the Roman empire.

For my hon. colleagues who say that they know about Balkan history because they have visited Bosnia, I say go read the history and do not be ignorant.

I want to share a couple of e-mails I received from people who are in the midst of this turmoil.

A lady from Kitchener wrote “If we, Canada, send in ground troops to attack Yugoslavia, does that mean we are going to declare war on Yugoslavia? If yes, are the Canadian born Serbs and Serb immigrants going to be arrested as enemies and threats to Canadian security? I am asking this because this happened to Germans and Japanese during World War I and World War II”.

A lot of the people whom I have met from that part of the world say if they walk down the street and say that they are Serbian, people throw bad remarks at them.

Somebody from Quebec wrote “I believe that Canada should build a safe world, creating world peace, security and a prosperous world for our children and to secure international order, to protect international law and the role of the UN”.

Somebody from New York City wrote to me. He said “Since missiles do not choose their victims, children, young and old people have been killed”. A civilian train was bombed off its rails today. Last night there was the killing of nine and injuring of 17.

I will continue with another individual who wrote to say that both sides have refugees. It is not only on one side, but there are also the refugees from Yugoslavia who are in Hungary right now. He quotes “She came to Budapest with her children about 12 days ago. She was paying for their shelter, as many other Yugoslavs”.

I want to continue with a letter I received from a constituent who told me he came from Russia and that he was proud to be a Canadian. He wrote that the day he became a Canadian citizen was one of the most remembered days in his life. He said he could not recall a single occasion, prior to this event, when his answer, “I am from Canada”, would not bring a friendly smile on the face of any airport clerk or fellow traveller through all eastern and western Europe. He said his feeling of becoming a Canadian citizen, a full member of a peaceful, tolerant and wise society respected all around the world, was overwhelming.

He closed his letter by saying “In the name of our future, the future of Canada and the future of the world, I beg you to stop this madness”.

I will continue on with an E-mail I received from another constituent. He tells me that as a Serbian Canadian he is deeply concerned over the recent action of the government against Yugoslavia. He feels that not only was this action taken in contravention of international law thereby setting a dangerous precedent with far-reaching consequences of international relations, but it is also in deep contradiction with Canada's allotted role as a peace loving and peacekeeping nation.

I have a letter from another constituent who says that we do not need anybody's human losses. She wants us to help the refugees, the Serbians and Albanians, and to bring peace politically.

That part of the world is in turmoil. NATO acted because NATO thought it had to act. I am not going to sit here and say NATO did good or NATO did bad. The one thing, however, is that it chose to act this time. NATO disrespected acting in previous times. NATO did not act when the island of Cyprus was invaded. NATO did nothing. It sat on its chair when genocide was happening in Rwanda. It does nothing today in Kurdistan, in that eastern part of Turkey where people are being prosecuted just as badly.

I have about 6,000 Tamils in my riding. They sent me a copy of a letter that went to the Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Federation of Associations of Canadian Tamils. They write in the letter that the civil war in Sri Lanka not only predates the Kosovo conflict by more than a decade, but also has claimed many more lives, more than 75,000. They say that just like the Albanians fleeing the Serbian onslaught, over 700 Tamils fled when the Sinhalese army, after a bloody military campaign, occupied the Jaffna peninsula.

They close their letter by saying that they are not asking the hon. minister to bomb or use military force against the Sri Lankan racist government as in the case of Yugoslavia. They are simply asking the hon. minister to exert pressure on the Sri Lankan government to withdraw the Sinhalese armed forces from the Tamil homeland and seek a political solution to the ethnic conflict.

Both groups on both sides are making comments. Both groups on both sides believe they are right. It does not matter where the conflict is in the world, whether it be the conflict between my home country of Greece and Turkey, or Cyprus and the invading armies, whether they are Serbians or Rwandans, whether the conflict is here in Canada or it in America about 140 years ago, the fact of the matter is that NATO has chosen to go in.

We are supposedly bombing military targets, but there is overwhelming evidence that this is not the case. One has to ask why we are there. Are we there because we have a particular interest or are we there because we are the world policemen? If we are the world policemen, will we continue tomorrow, or is this a one time event? Will we go on from here? Will we go into Sri Lanka? Will we ask the government of Turkey to stop oppressing the people of Kurdistan, its own province? Will we ask all oppressing governments to do this or did we just choose to go to Yugoslavia because of different reasons?

Last week I had the opportunity of meeting with people.

Last week I received 15,000 signatures on a petition from a community in Toronto. The petition was addressed to the House of Commons and party assembled. It reads, “We the undersigned residents of Canada draw to the attention of the House the following: that the Canadian government is blindly following the careless and dangerous U.S.-NATO policy of bombing the sovereign country of Yugoslavia and the Serbian people; that such policy sets dangerous precedents and could only open the door for foreign intervention in internal affairs of nations of minorities; and, that violence will not resolve the Kosovar problem but rather it facilitates the further entrenchment of the forces on both sides. We do not want to see the residents of Kosovo live in peace and harmony”.

I am not saying that the policy of bombing military installations is right or wrong. I am supportive of our troops over there. However, when we get reports that civilians have been hurt it brings to mind a view that yes, we might be at war but are we doing the right thing. The children of the world must live in peace. It does not matter if they are Kosovars, Serbians, Cypriots, Tamils, or Sinhalese.

I will support whatever action is needed in order to bring peace to the world. I will support whatever action is needed to make sure that our children, and God bless us all, live in peace.

To those men and women who are serving over there, as the Government of Canada has asked them to do, I applaud and support them. I say to them, “when you do you work, please make sure you do not kill innocent people”.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have received confirmation from the office of the Minister of National Defence that the U.S. does in fact use depleted uranium in their chain gun on their A-10s.

I want to read a quote by Sara Flounders, co-director of the International Action Centre and a contributing author of a book entitled Medal of Dishonor: How the Pentagon Radiates Soldiers and Civilians with DU Weapons . She states, “The use of A-10 Warthogs with DU shells threaten to make a nuclear wasteland of Kosovo. The Pentagon is laying waste the very people along with their children that they claim to be saving. This is another reason for fighting to end the attack on Yugoslavia”.

Does the hon. member have any concerns about the fact that depleted uranium is being used on the weapons that are currently being deployed in Kosovo?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing that to the attention of the House. I have read about this in approximately 30 e-mails that have come to me. I seem to be the focus for e-mails and have received over 8,000 in the last week or so.

I can only confirm that statement by what I read from a university professor in the European city of Saloniki in Greece. He said that this will not only have an effect in Kosovo and in Serbia but it will also spread into FYROM and to Greece. I am really concerned with the situation.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, uranium bullets have been used in military hardware by all sides for many years. It is because the uranium is heavy and gets higher penetration. We should put that aside because it is a red herring in this debate.

I listened very carefully to the member's speech and I appreciated everything he said. Does he see any parallels, any relationships, between what is happening to the Albanians in Kosovo to what happened to the Armenians in 1915 as a result of Turkey and the first world war?

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his particular question. I would give him the following answer. If NATO or a similar organization had existed at that time I wish it had acted. However, there was an organization that did go in to help. The only thing it did was uproot the people and drive them out of their homes. It caused the Ottoman Empire to inflict more harm on the people than it would have done. Maybe what NATO is doing today is similar to that time.

We have seen how many refugees were coming out of Kosovo before NATO struck. After NATO struck, the number of refugees coming out jumped and quadrupled. After watching television last night and seeing refugees in FYROM, the former Yugoslavian Macedonian Republic, behind barbed wire, it brought haunting images back to my mind of when I visited Dachau in Munich at the age of five.

I say to my friends that peace is the one thing that we must work for. We should not put aside the use of uranium.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt for sharing his time with me.

Today as I stand to participate in this debate let me just say from the outset that it is a very sad moment. When we, as representatives, go to the people during campaigns, we go to the people promising to improve our society, improve our nation, take care of the deficit, create jobs and improve the future for our children. We often say, for example, that our youth is our future. If we indeed believe in that then today I say with great sadness that we are killing that future whether it is here in Canada or somewhere in Europe, in Serbia or in Kosovo.

I want to participate in the debate by going through some of the events that have occurred over the past couple of months in the House and in committee.

In a joint session not too long ago of the Senate and the House of Commons, we had representatives from the United States, specifically Mr. Robert McNamara, former U.S. defense secretary; General Lee Butler, former commander in chief of the U.S. defense; and Dr. Thomas Graham, Director of International Security Programs, Rockefeller Foundation.

They wished they could have known then what they know today when they were spearheading the U.S. activity and effort in Vietnam. They came to Canada today to applaud us on our initiative and our report in terms of ridding society of all the nuclear warheads that are out there.

I hate to see what people like General Wesley Clark and others are going to say maybe 20 years down the road. Are they going to come to Ottawa and say “what a grave mistake we made back then with the Kosovar situation?”

The people in Kosovo, like any other people on this globe, deserve to live in peace. They deserve to raise their children. They deserve to give their youth the opportunity that my children and so many other children have here and all over the world.

It was sad when my colleague mentioned seeing the barbed wire that I also saw. It brought back images of some documentaries I saw about the holocaust. I said that this was another holocaust happening. There were people in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia having cellular phones passed over to them so they could get in touch with their relatives to see if indeed their lives could improve.

I told Mr. Aragona in the foreign affairs committee a little while ago that being in Europe was their responsibility. My colleague from Scarborough—Agincourt touched on the fact that unless one knows the people, the history, the diversity and what happened 200 or 300 years ago, it is difficult to address the problem. I refer to 1994 when the military came before a joint committee to give us an update of what was happening in the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

What did our military say? It said it was not sure if the Croats were killing the Croats and blaming it on the other guys, or if the Serbs were killing the Serbs and blaming it on the other guys, or if the Muslims were killing the Muslims and blaming it on the other guys. General MacKenzie to this very day is admitting this. There is confusion as to who was doing what.

I am upset that unfortunately these atrocities are happening today. My colleague touched upon the early 1900s and how sad it was the way we started this century. Now we are starting to use the words genocide and ethnic cleansing, et cetera. We started the century with the ethnic cleansing that took place in the early 1900s.

Earlier another colleague talked about the middle of the century and the genocide of the Jews, sadly. Here we are about to close the century with what? More genocide and more ethnic cleansing. What a shame to all of us who live on the planet including me.

We talked about Rwanda. I want to take this opportunity to show the leadership taken by this country and this Prime Minister. He did not hesitate for a moment. He took the bull by the horns to address that horrible situation. Later they said they should have done more. It was as Mr. MacNamara and General Lee Butler said: “Gee, we erred back in Vietnam”.

Earlier my colleague from the Conservative Party said that there must be war and I asked him why. There is a political solution. If the will is there we can find a solution.

As I suggested earlier and will suggest now, I firmly believe that the United States has to work to bring the Russians to the table. They can provide leadership, given the alliances and relationships with the Serbian people historically. It is an opportunity now.

I heard the Serbian deputy prime minister on television not too long ago say “Please stop the bombing; we want to talk”. Why are we not calling them out on that? Maybe he is misleading us all. Who knows? Given the loss of life on both sides, why do we not bring them to the table to see what their intentions are? If they are prepared to deal in good faith then let us advance it in a positive way. If they are not and they renege then I believe we should consolidate with the Europeans and all the Balkan regions.

I am glad my colleague from Hamilton put me at ease. When I heard about the uranium I was concerned, not because of the people in Serbia but because of the people in Italy, France, Greece, Albania and all over that region.

When Mr. Aragona, head of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, was before the foreign affairs committee, I asked him a few questions which I will repeat in the House. By moving in as aggressively as we are, I believe we are setting a very dangerous precedent. We know there are other hot spots around the globe today. We see what is happening with the Basque region. We see what is happening in northern Italy with the separatist movement. We see what is happening in Corsica. I heard on the news that up until about eight months ago the CIA had the KLA on a terrorist list. Maybe it has changed. Maybe it has been baptised. I hope it has but I do not know.

Let us try to hypothesize. What happens if bombs go off in Corsica or in the Basque region and innocent people are killed? Does that mean that NATO will suddenly move in and bomb these people? I hope not.

We are setting a dangerous precedent. NATO is showing today that it is not listening. When it was trying to sort out an agreement in France all I heard was Madeleine Albright saying “We are going to bomb”. Who is “we”? Is it the United States or NATO? Why was Mr. Solana not the spokesperson on behalf of NATO? With the Americans it seems to be Dodge City and Gunsmoke all over again: shoot first and ask questions later.

I support my government. It is trying to do the right thing. As the Prime Minister said earlier today, not to choose is wrong. We must choose. We as Canadians have set an example, historically speaking. We have been in Cyprus. We have been all over the world. We have a reputation, as a colleague from the Conservative Party said, second to none. We owe it today to that reputation to once again spearhead an effort to find a political solution for the benefit of all these people.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I started out by thinking that the member was for the government. Then in the rest of the speech I was sure that he was opposed to what the government was doing, but he ended by saying that he supported what the government was doing.

I have a real problem. What the government has decided to do, and we have agreed with it, is to bomb and I believe possibly today the foreign affairs minister has agreed that if necessary we might put in ground troops. Does the hon. member agree or disagree with what the government will do?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who sits with me on the foreign affairs committee knows very well where I stand on these issues.

I merely took this opportunity to outline some of the dangers in this approach. NATO has decided, spearheaded by the United States initiative, to use these types of tactics. I am simply saying I feel that there was some room to take the agenda a bit forward.

I do not believe that we have exhausted every possibility. I believe that by taking the moves we did we in essence allowed Milosevic to consolidate support. As the member mentioned earlier he has gained popularity unwarranted. When I saw earlier on television the youth from Serbia standing there as human shields and demonstrating I was sad. Instead of those youths holding high school, college or university in their hands, they are holding up target images. I think mothers and fathers should be busy providing for households.

If these are the tactics that are unfolding, so be it, but I believe there is a political solution.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the very passionate remarks of the member opposite. I know he has a great interest in the issue and has spoken articulately about what he believes should happen.

To that end does the hon. member feel these messages are getting through to the foreign affairs minister, a member of his government? Have we done everything at the United Nations? Have we done everything at the security council to get this message across? Have we pursued every diplomatic end before taking these steps and participating in bombing missions that are going on as we speak?

All Canadians and all members of the House have seen the graphic pictures, the graphic images of which he spoke of children and the mass exodus of people being herded from their country and their ancient homes like sheep. I am sure those images conger up very passionate feelings not only in the member opposite but in all members.

Has the Minister of Foreign Affairs pursued every possible angle? Has the member opposite relayed those feelings to him directly?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from what I have heard and in briefings that the minister is doing everything within his power, within his means, and with whatever is available to him to make sure the Canadian message gets through.

I know my colleagues on this side are continuously putting forward various arguments. It is not as simple as black and white, as I mentioned in my presentation. The foreign affairs minister and the minister of defence are trying everything possible to achieve a peaceful resolution of this unfortunate conflict.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party member asked our Liberal colleague an excellent question.

Since Canada decided, in a show of unity, to support the objectives pursued by NATO, should the allies decide to send ground troops, would the Canadian government endorse NATO's decision to immediately send 200,000 troops to Kosovo, yes or no?

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said to the member from the Conservative Party, we are undertaking every initiative to resolve the issue before we even get to that stage.

There are always contingency discussions unfolding. We would be silly and foolish not to think. They are always planning in advance what their next step will be. Today the military and the political arena are planning. What will happen tomorrow or a week or two down the road only God knows. Right now we are hoping for a peaceful resolution.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, late last month the House was informed by the foreign affairs minister and the defence minister that Canadian forces aircraft were involved in the operation in Kosovo. There was no debate. There was no motion. There was no vote. Again we had a take note debate. We really wonder who actually listens to take not debates.

The interest of this great country demanded that I put aside all the reservations I might have had about that air involvement, and my party and I supported it. Three weeks later here we are again discussing a possible commitment of Canadian forces without a votable motion.

I express my profound disappointment at the government's refusal yet again to take the high road and bring forth a motion to allow parliament to sit in committee of the whole and listen to expert witnesses, then allow parliament to debate that issue and finally end with a vote. That is what democracy is all about. That is what the Canadian people deserve when it comes to an issue of war. I am insulted and Canadians across the country should be outraged at the government's failure to respect simple democratic principles. We sell democracy around the world. Yet we fail to practise it in the House.

As of March 24 I supported the current mission. Having said that I too believe that the only resolution for the many problems of the Balkans is through negotiation. I concur with so much that has been said in the House this evening and this afternoon that involvement of the Russians is critical in settling the issue. Often in history one must go back to diplomacy, but usually one finds that diplomacy must be backed up with military power.

Once NATO committed itself to the solution of the Kosovar civil war and once it got into the Rambouillet peace talks, its credibility was put on the line. President Milosevic underestimated the resolve of the western alliance. As each day passes he increasingly desires a way out of the current confrontation with NATO. We will eventually be able to negotiate a settlement by keeping the pressure on. The best hope for long term peace in the region is to stay the course.

We should continue with air strikes to degrade the Yugoslavian military capabilities. Reports today say that is in fact happening, that it is running short of fuel, that it is running short of ammunition. That is good news for all of us and for the people of Kosovo.

To convince Belgrade of the wisdom of negotiation will be the diplomacy that is involved. Milosevic must be convinced that there is a real opportunity to negotiate and that he must be sincere if he returns to the negotiation table.

At this point in time and without further information I am not in favour of committing Canadian forces to a ground campaign in Kosovo. Canadians clearly want something to be done. The images of ethnic cleansing demand a response, but Canadians are also aware of the limitations of military capability.

There are many issues that the government and NATO need to address. I want to know what the actual objectives of such a campaign are and what the likely exit strategy would be if we were to go in with ground forces. I want to have some idea of the resistance the military is expected to face. I want to have a complete briefing on the potential casualties that we might suffer. I also want a strongly worded, sincere and public assurance that the Canadian forces are adequately equipped to do the job.

The auditor general and military experts have repeatedly pointed out the serious equipment problems faced by our land forces. These issues should be seriously and honestly addressed by both the defence minister and the chief of defence staff.

We are proud of our troops. We are proud of what they do, but I too, like some others in the House, have seen them in operation and feel sorry for them as they try to do their job with equipment that is less than adequate.

Most important of all, I want the government to clarify why we are in Kosovo. Why have we chosen Kosovo when there are 30 other places where ethnic cleansing is occurring?

I want to be able to look the Canadian people in the eye and say with total sincerity that I thought Canada's vital interests were best served by engaging in a ground war. I want to be able to tell Canadians that if some of their sons and daughters do not come back from such a mission the sacrifice was worthwhile.

To date I do not have answers to any of these questions. The government has not made a case for such an effort. It is the government's job to make such a case. From the Prime Minister on down the government seems indifferent and fails to deal with these very serious considerations.

The entire Kosovo effort is also somewhat unsettling in another perspective. In 1949 the country took an active role in creating the North Atlantic Alliance. At the end of this month we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of that alliance, but it is unclear to me exactly what we will be celebrating in less than three weeks' time.

The NATO engagement in operations over Yugoslavia does not seem to be the defensive alliance that we helped to create in 1949. Throughout the cold war the issues were admittedly much easier to understand. Things are not as clear in the post cold war era and nowhere is that perhaps more confusing than in the Balkans. Therefore, we should be hesitant about jumping too quickly into conflicts that are so very complex.

I am also concerned that NATO's actions today are damaging our long term relations with Russia. We cannot construct a new security order in Europe without the participation of a friendly and satisfied Russia. Russian involvement will allow Mr. Milosevic to allow an international force in Kosovo. Russian involvement will allow NATO to stop bombing and to say that the problem has been solved and an international force can take over.

I see Russia's involvement as being critical in this whole issue. It seems clear that NATO's actions are not perceived as being defensive by Moscow. In fact, they are seen as being very threatening.

We can dismiss as posturing much of the rhetoric now coming from Moscow. However, we must also look to the future and the day when Russia is much stronger. It will remember the disregard to its views that we are showing today.

The principal questions still remain unanswered. What is NATO becoming? Is it being transformed, first by the peace support operation in Bosnia and now by its mission in Kosovo?

The 1991 strategic concept declares explicitly:

The alliance is purely defensive in purpose: None of its weapons will ever be used except in self-defence, and it does not consider itself to be anyone's adversary.

I do not think that anyone in this House today would argue that the civil war in Kosovo directly threatened any NATO member. If we accept the need to engage in this type of peacemaking, peace enforcement or humanitarian mission, where do we draw the line? In what region or in what conflict will we not intervene? What will be the priority list that we set?

I have a list of over 30 countries that have recently experienced ethnic cleansing in one form or another. We have turned a blind eye to almost all of them. In Chechnya nearly 100,000 people were killed. Should NATO have responded? In Sudan a war has been raging for 43 years and over one million people have been killed. Should NATO have responded? This past weekend in East Timor scores of people died. Will we ever forget the image in Indonesia last year of 2,000 Chinese businessmen and their families who were put inside automobiles and torched? Should NATO have been involved?

We cannot expect that NATO should try to solve all of the problems of the world. We really need to know what the limits of NATO's activities will be. I do not believe that Canadians want to support an alliance that repeatedly finds itself mired in local and regional conflicts. That is not the NATO we joined in 1949. I do not believe that such an alliance is sustainable in the long term. In my opinion we just do not have the human or economic resources to sustain such an effort.

Let me be perfectly clear. It is in Canada's vital interest to have a strong North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, but that alliance will only be seen to be legitimate if it is defensive. I do not see our people supporting NATO as a global policeman. As NATO intervenes it risks becoming a part of the problem.

The situation in Kosovo is a case in point. By linking NATO credibility to the peace settlement in Kosovo we have become a combatant in a regional conflict. It is a conflict the complexity of which I am not convinced the Liberal government fully understands.

One can only begin to understand the issue by becoming familiar with the history of the area. I am not at all certain that this is being done. Today we are being overwhelmed by images of Serbian atrocities in Kosovo, but these atrocities have occurred on all sides. We are angered and disgusted when we see these things, but we have to understand that this is nationalism, that it is 1,500 years old, that it is part of something much bigger than what we see simply on the surface. We seem to be creating a NATO protectorate and that may not be in the best interests of regional stability or in NATO's best interests. A protectorate over Kosovo might demand that we remain there for a long time.

Even if we resolve the current war, I feel that there are long term problems that we should be discussing. The question of the ethnic Albanian population in the southern Balkans is one we will likely have to confront in the future. The highest birth rate in any part of the world is in that area.

Given that this war has likely raised national consciousness, can we really expect that the ethnic Albanians will not one day want to live together in a single state? That aim will pose a serious challenge for existing borders. If this were to happen Kosovo would only be a small part of what would become a very major problem. The issue would embrace not only Kosovo, but Macedonia, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania and so on.

I mention these issues only to show how incredibly interconnected ethnicity, politics and geography are in the southern Balkans. When I was there I visited nine classrooms. I visited bars, hospitals and restaurants. I talked to the people. Only then did I understand just how complex this problem really is.

I have raised all of these questions for two purposes. First, I want the Canadian people to know what I believe the Kosovo crisis really involves. There is the humanitarian dimension of trying to end the ethnic cleansing in that province, something we are all disgusted with, and of seeking a solution to the long simmering ethnic problems in the region. However, the stakes of our involvement are far broader. It is also about the very purpose of NATO itself in the post-cold war period.

Second, I raised these questions to indicate how this government and in particular this foreign affairs minister have let Canadians down. I suspect that we do not have a votable motion before us today because the government does not want to confront many of these issues. It wants a blank cheque to cover its own failings. The government does not wish to talk about these issues because it knows that Canada no longer has as much influence in the world as it once had. Soft power has alienated us from our NATO allies who no longer think of us as serious international actors.

Thirty years of disregard and disdain for the armed forces has left us without a credible voice at NATO military headquarters. I have learned these facts by talking to Canadians, academics and many foreign officials.

It is true that we still sit on the North Atlantic Council since all members do, but our words just do not carry the weight they once did. Our opinions are no longer as respected as they once were. The legacy of effective Canadian diplomacy which led to NATO's creation has been squandered by governments in the last 50 years. We are now marginalized. We are not part of the contact group and there is a reason for that. Soft power has brought us that.

It is often remarked that crisis focuses the mind. I hope that the ongoing crisis over Kosovo has that effect on all members and all parties in this House. The stakes involved are very great, be they the lives of Canadian forces personnel or the vital interests of this country. It is for this House to calmly and deliberately contemplate the consequences of the actions now being discussed. We must remember that each one of us as members of parliament might have to stand in front of parents or grandparents who will ask “What did my son or daughter die for in the mud in Kosovo?”

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for the hon. member is twofold. At the end of his speech he asked the terrible question of how we will explain our fellow citizens being put in harm's way by being engaged in the present air operation or in some future operation. I thought that his leader gave the answer to that question very clearly in the House this afternoon in his speech. We are there because of a moral imperative to be there. I thought his leader put that very well. Is the member distancing himself from his leader on the issue?

A second question comes to mind. I know the member is committed to NATO, but he is very knowledgeable about foreign affairs. He knows full well that NATO's mandate does not run to Chechnya, Africa or Indonesia. Does he not fear that by raising these sorts of fears in the minds of the Canadian public that he is doing exactly what he says nobody should be doing, which is putting in doubt the credibility of NATO, which as he knows is committed to an operation in Europe and Europe alone? Far-fetched examples from around the globe will only distract people from a true understanding of what we are trying to achieve in this debate.