Debates of April 12th, 1999

Kosovo

[The Speaker]

There will now be a 10 minute question and answer period. I am going to limit the questions and the answers to one minute each.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has talked eloquently about the objective of ending the human tragedy in Kosovo and no one here disagrees with that goal. However, he had an opportunity today to ask for a mandate to pursue the military actions that are required to achieve that humanitarian objective.

The way one asks for a mandate for military objectives is to spell out what those objectives are, the resources and the options available, any conditions that should be attached to the use of those resources, and then to seek a mandate from parliament through a vote.

In 1991 the current Prime Minister attacked the government of the day for failing to hold a vote in parliament on advancing a decision to go war in the gulf. I am sure the Prime Minister would not want to repeat that mistake.

Will the Prime Minister show some democratic leadership and agree, not today but in the immediate future, to bring a motion before the House seeking a specific mandate for the military objectives necessary to achieve that humanitarian goal?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will consider the request of the Leader of the Opposition, but I make the point that the procedure selected for this type of debate was not to get up from one's seat and vote. The procedure was to give enough time for every member to speak.

We have until eight o'clock tomorrow morning to say if we are in agreement or not. It is not just to vote yes or no but to express our points of view. Everybody will be recorded. Somebody could just get up and say I agree and sit back.

I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition wants to change the rule that has worked very well so far. It gives everybody the right to get up and speak. I am just sad that he wants to formalize it in a different way. I am open to looking into that, but I thought that giving the freedom to speak to everybody would be much better than just standing up and sitting down.

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

Mr. Speaker, since I have been sitting in the House, I have taken part in debates on Iraq, Kosovo and the Central African Republic.

I have debated and I have spoken, but I have never voted on such an important decision as that involving the sending of Canadian troops, Canadian and Quebec soldiers, abroad.

As we sometimes say in Quebec, I ask the Prime Minister to give me not one, not two, but three good reasons why Parliament should not vote on this matter if we are sending ground troops?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not sending ground troops. I think we found a very practical formula, as I have just explained to the Leader of the Opposition.

Rather than have a debate where only the leaders speak, followed by a recorded division, we decided to allow every member to speak. If the hon. member prefers to vote rather than speak, we will consider that. However, I thought that giving each member of Parliament the opportunity not only to vote but to say why they agree or disagree with the government was much more democratic than to hold a recorded division.

If you prefer this arrangement, we will consider it. However, as a parliamentarian, I prefer that members have the opportunity to speak without restriction until morning.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as one of the conditions for suspending bombing the UN secretary general and NATO spokesmen have outlined the requirement of an international force that could secure the safety of Kosovars in their own homeland. Yet the defence minister persists in referring to a NATO led force to secure the safety of Kosovars.

The Prime Minister in his speech today very helpfully and wisely referred to an international force. Would he clarify whether the position of the government is as he has stated, that we are talking about an international force, or whether it is the position outlined by the defence minister, that is a NATO led force?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see a disagreement. At this moment the official position is that it should be a NATO force because there is a feeling that there is no possibility of something else.

That is why I referred to an international group. I have written to President Yeltsin about my own view that the Russians should be involved. The Russians were involved in Rambouillet and I think they can play a role here.

I would not personally object if the solution at the end of the day were something bigger than NATO, but so far as the position of NATO is concerned we say that it will be at the minimum a NATO force.

I would prefer to have the Russians and others there because other countries might be interested in participating. Everybody in that part of the world is afraid the conflict will extend to neighbouring nations.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we often hear the Prime Minister talk about ethnic cleansing. It is now official, what is going on in Kosovo is genocide. We should no longer call it ethnic cleansing, but genocide.

Often, the solution to genocide is war. In the Prime Minister's opinion, in view of the genocide taking place in Kosovo—his very own words—is Canada at war?

My second question is this: by talking about genocide, is the Prime minister not backing international diplomacy into a corner? How can we sign a peace accord with a president and a regime the Prime Minister of Canada is accusing of crimes against humanity? Genocide is the worst crime against humanity.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are still talking about ethnic cleansing even though I used the other expression earlier. I should have said ethnic cleansing.

International law and the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague want people involved in ethnic cleansing to be considered as criminals and brought before the tribunal. We want these people to stand trial before the tribunal in The Hague. President Milosevic will not allow anybody accused of ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity to be put on trial before an international court of justice.

Last January, we deplored the fact that Madam Justice Arbour was refused entry to check allegations of ethnic cleansing. When there is a lot of ethnic cleansing, it becomes genocide—it is all a matter of terminology—and those responsible must face the consequences of their crimes against humanity.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what does the Prime Minister think the mandate of NATO is becoming?

We went to Bosnia and became a police force. Now we are in Kosovo as a police force. It seems the original purpose of NATO was to be a defence mechanism. What does he see the future holding in terms of this new role for NATO?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, NATO is responsible for peace in member countries. The case of Kosovo, as it was with Bosnia, is very dangerous to the maintenance of peace in that part of the world.

What is happening in Kosovo is a little like what happened in Bosnia. We went there as peacekeepers. At one time there was some bombing to break the resolve of President Milosevic. That led to the Dayton agreement. After that we sent some troops as peacekeepers. Our goal is to stop the ethnic cleansing going on today and to be in a position to send peacekeepers into that area so the people can live their normal lives in Kosovo.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supports the government regarding this evening's debate. In fact, we even asked that the debate last until eight o'clock tomorrow morning. This initiative is from the Bloc Quebecois.

But what I want the Prime Minister to indicate is if he would be prepared, should Canada send ground troops, to let the House vote on the issue. This is what we want to know.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a purely academic issue at this point.

The suggestion that was made and supported by the Bloc Quebecois is to allow everyone to speak. Now, the Bloc Quebecois wants everyone to vote. As far as I am concerned, this represents a change to the agreements we have had for five years regarding such debates. We have agreed to give everyone a chance to speak, and now the Bloc Quebecois only wants members to vote.

I said I would be prepared to consider that possibility, but it does not apply at this point, because we are not sending troops. There is absolutely no question—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in preparing for this debate I asked myself what do Canadians want from their parliament and from their government with respect to the issue of Kosovo and the escalating violence in the Balkans.

Of course they want parliament and they want the House, in the words of the motion, to take note of the continuing human tragedy in Kosovo. However Canadians want us to do much more than take note of the obvious. They want us to put partisanship aside and develop a united position on a situation involving issues of life and death, war and peace, and national and international security. They want clear answers to such questions as why we are involved with NATO and Kosovo and the Balkans. What is it we hope to achieve politically and militarily? How do we expect to achieve it, in the air, on the ground and at the conference table?

If we are agreed on the moral, political and military objectives of our involvement in the Balkans, I believe Canadians would also want parliament to give the government a clear mandate to pursue those objectives subject to any conditions which parliament may consider prudent.

The motion before us is very fuzzy with respect to objectives and does not really seek guidance or a mandate from the House on such crucial issues as Canadian support of NATO air strikes or the commitment of Canadian ground troops to any expanded NATO effort.

The Prime Minister's remarks have filled in a few of the gaps but they have done very little to fill in the gaps on the military objectives or how we will achieve them. It appears it will be up to other members to help clarify what Canada's objectives in the Balkans should be, what mandate we should give the government, particularly militarily, to pursue those objectives, and what conditions, if any, we should impose on that mandate.

This I will now proceed to do on behalf of the official opposition and with the aid of my colleagues who will be speaking later.

First, what is the ultimate reason, the moral objective of Canada's involvement in the Balkans? This is the one issue on which there is universal agreement. We say and most members here say that it is to halt the ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by the Yugoslav government in Kosovo and to care for the victims of Serb aggression. This is the moral objective. The importance and urgency of pursuing it cannot be overemphasized.

Over the Easter break I had the opportunity to spend some precious time with our two little grandchildren aged 18 months and 9 months. These little lives, thank God, have not yet experienced any real pain or privation or violence or hatred. Those who love them will do everything in our power to make sure that they never experience those things.

When we look at the Balkans and see the stream of refugees from Kosovo, now numbering in excess of half a million people, mothers, fathers, old people, children, babes in arms, victims or potential victims of ethnic cleansing, violence from military and paramilitary and police officials, children whose eyes have seen things that no human eye should ever see, children whose ears have heard things that no human ears should hear, I say that the moral imperative of a NATO presence and a Canadian presence in the Balkans becomes abundantly clear and it becomes imperative.

In stressing this moral imperative, I am not ignoring the very real need to create a better legal framework for multinational action against inhuman acts by the government of a sovereign state. Nor am I denying the danger of developing and practising double standards with multinational groups acting against ethnic cleansing in one instance but declining to do so in others.

As we know in the Balkans there is scarcely any ethnic group without blood on its hands. We acknowledge that the Serbs themselves have been victims as well as perpetrators of violence against ethnic minorities. At this point in time, with the magnitude of the humanitarian tragedy in Kosovo reaching the proportions that it has, I do not think we can allow these unresolved issues to stand in the way of concrete, collective action to halt the ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by the Yugoslav regime.

Second, this debate should clarify what is the political objective of NATO's intervention in Kosovo and Canada's involvement in that intervention. What is the political solution that we would like to see achieved by negotiation rather than by clash of arms?

Are NATO and the Canadian government still committed to the Rambouillet agreement calling for an autonomous Kosovo within Yugoslavia? Or is NATO and our government now inclining toward supporting an independent Kosovo? If so, would Kosovo be partitioned? Would a UN or NATO patrolled safe haven be established? What would be the wider implications of an independent Kosovo for stability and ethnic peace in the region?

I believe that most members of this House support the notion that the answers to these questions are best provided not by our speculating on them, but through internationally supervised negotiations among the affected parties themselves. A clearer statement of NATO's and Canada's political objectives with respect to Kosovo, a clearer statement than that contained in the take note motion, would be to say we are determined to create a safe home for Kosovars in the region and to stabilize relations between the republic of Yugoslavia and its neighbours through internationally supervised negotiations.

Third, I turn to the area I felt the Prime Minister did not discuss thoroughly enough. What is the military objective that we are pursuing with our NATO allies through the current action against the Yugoslav regime? The motion before us is completely silent on this subject. Yet surely this is the issue on which the public has the most questions and one where we would expect the government to be seeking a more explicit mandate from this House.

The Prime Minister has not elaborated on that subject today. In fact he has tried to avoid it. From the statements made by other NATO spokespersons, we conclude that the military objective of our involvement—and I think we should be precise about this; if we are misunderstanding it, let us get it corrected—is to damage the military capability of the Yugoslav government to thereby reduce its capacity to practise ethnic cleansing and to bring that government to the negotiating table. That is the whole purpose of the military operation in the Balkans.

The official opposition supports this objective and Canada's participation with its NATO allies to achieve it. We support it as the regrettable means to a desirable end, namely to halt the ethnic cleansing and to force negotiations.

As we have said before, we are supportive of the NATO air strikes and Canada's participation therein. We believe this effort should be given time to have the desired effect. We should not be stampeded into premature expectations by the video game mindset that governs the TV media coverage of such operations.

It is also our view, as I wrote the Prime Minister on March 31, that once the decision was made to commit Canadian air forces to the NATO effort in Yugoslavia, we in this parliament should not engage in second guessing the mission when it has scarcely begun. Rather, we should offer our steadfast support, our political support, our moral support, our vocal support, to those brave Canadian personnel who are involved.

I would hope that every member in this House would agree that achieving the military objective of damaging the military capability of the Yugoslav regime requires us to look ahead. Surely the expectation of the public is not that we just discuss the situation today—yes, we must discuss that—but to look ahead. What if something more than the NATO air strikes is required to achieve these objectives? Where does Canada stand? Where does the government and parliament stand?

Speaking for the official opposition, we are prepared to support the commitment of Canadian ground forces to the NATO effort in Yugoslavia subject to two very important conditions. First, we are prepared to support that commitment if NATO can demonstrate that such a commitment is necessary to halt the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and provide a safe home for Kosovars in the region. In other words, if that is necessary to achieve the ultimate moral and political objective, we are prepared to consider it.

If we are truly committed to the moral objective of halting these atrocities, we must not give the Milosevic regime any indication that our resolve is either limited or weak.

The official opposition is therefore prepared to support the commitment of Canadian ground forces to the NATO effort in Yugoslavia if this is necessary, but also subject to the condition that the Canadian government demonstrate to the House that the commitments requested are within Canada's capability.

The Minister of National Defence has repeatedly assured us that Canadian armed forces are adequately equipped to do the dangerous jobs they are called upon to do. But the government's foreign policy repeatedly expands our commitment to peacekeeping and peace making while its management of defence budgets has shrunk our defence resources from $12 billion per year to $9.3 billion.

Our land forces have been especially neglected. Concerns with regard to Canadian land forces equipment have been raised by the auditor general as well as by many other experts. In some categories of equipment, Canada is at least a generation behind its NATO allies.

If our Canadian forces are called upon to do a job in Kosovo or anywhere else, we must insist and do insist that they be given the tools to do the job. Hence the second condition, the need for hard questions about the adequacy of our resources and the need for straight answers.

In conclusion, we are supportive of this take note motion before the House, as far as it goes, but as hon. members will gather, we believe that the House can and should do more than simply take note and concur with generalities. We believe that parliament should spell out clearly for the benefit of all Canadians the moral, political and military objectives of our involvement with NATO in Yugoslavia. Canadians will support these objectives if they are clearly spelled out, but if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will rally to its call?

If we are agreed on objectives, I also believe the government could then ask the House for an explicit mandate to pursue those objectives. Speaking for the official opposition, we would be prepared to give that mandate, provided that the military objectives were subject to the two conditions which I have outlined.

In other words I am urging the government to follow up this take note debate with a more substantive motion along the lines of the following:

That this House take note of the continuing human tragedy in Kosovo and the government's determination to work with the international community in order to: one, attain the moral objective of halting the ethnic cleansing being perpetrated by the Yugoslav government in Kosovo and caring for the victims of Serb aggression; two, achieve the political objective of creating a safe home for Kosovars in the region and stabilizing relations between the republic of Yugoslavia and its neighbours through negotiation; three, pursue the military objectives of damaging the military capability of the Yugoslav government, to reduce its capacity to practise ethnic cleansing and to bring the Yugoslav government to the negotiating table;

And that this House mandate the government to pursue this military objective through the commitment of Canadian forces to participation in NATO operations subject to the following conditions: (a) that NATO demonstrate that such commitments are necessary to halt ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and to provide a safe home for Kosovars on their own soil; and (b) that the government demonstrate to this House that the commitment of Canadian forces requested by NATO is within Canada's capabilities.

That is the type of motion I would have liked to have seen and would expect to be brought by a government seeking a mandate of the House. To encourage the government to bring forward such a motion and to seek such a mandate, I move that the take note motion before the House be amended by simply adding the words:

And that this House take note that the government's determination to resolve the conflict would have more credibility after the adoption of a motion submitted to this House specifying the moral, political and military objectives of Canada's involvement with NATO in the region and a request for a mandate to continue that involvement, subject to such conditions as this House may impose.

I would expect that if that motion were put in the grand democratic traditions of the House, it would be a votable motion.

[The Speaker]

I will of course look over the amendment. In the meantime we have 10 minutes of questions and comments. We will limit the questions and the answers to one minute maximum.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke of a motion that would involve a vote in the House. During question period he proposed a vote that pertained to the deployment of ground troops. The Prime Minister, while not rejecting the possibility of a vote out of hand, did evade a direct reply.

In my constituency office during the Croatian struggles and the Bosnian struggles I had all kinds of representations and anger on both sides. If the Prime Minister had said there would be a vote on ground troops, is it not true that every one of us would be subject to pressure and intimidation from both sides in our ridings?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on what important issue are we not subject to those kinds of pressures? That is part of the democratic process.

Members from all parties today were not even asking for the form of the motion. They were just asking that if the commitment of ground troops is part of the possible future action in the Balkans that the Prime Minister would commit today to get a mandate from parliament through a vote before that action was taken.

I do not think that is unreasonable. I think any representations on that issue by the public to ourselves would certainly be welcome, at least on this side of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, in an article published by the Ottawa Citizen , the Reform Party critic for foreign affairs said, and I quote:

“The Rambouillet formula may no longer be viable but sooner or later Mr. Milosevic will negotiate and negotiations are the only means of resolving this dispute”.

My question is for the leader of the official opposition. Does the Reform Party maintain that position, or does it believe that ground troops should now be sent in, since Mr. Milosevic has shown that he does not want to negotiate peace for Kosovo?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I suggest that the two options are not mutually exclusive. The point of the military intervention is to try to force the Yugoslav regime to that negotiating table which I think all members would prefer to be the forum in which this issue is resolved. The two issues fit together.

We all wish that these people would come to the negotiating table without the persuasion of bombs and air attacks. That would be the hope of every member in this House. But if that will not happen, and it has not happened, then we say regretfully that we endorse the military action required to bring about the negotiations that members in the House would hope would bring a solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question with respect to the issue of the future and how the global community responds to a crisis of this nature.

Obviously the current situation is critical. Many people are expressing deep concern about the possibility that somehow NATO is taking on to itself a new and very dangerous role of somehow being the enforcer of international humanitarian law. In fact this is a role that the United Nations, clearly needing some form of change in terms of its ability to respond, should be taking on and not NATO when we look at the tragedy in Turkey and the situation of the Kurds in Turkey, when we look at East Timor, Colombia, Sudan and elsewhere.

I want to ask the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he agrees with the need for a new credible international mechanism strengthening the United Nations, getting around some of the paralysis that can result from the veto under the present structure. Does he agree with that need and with the need to look into what many see as the hypocrisy and the double standard that currently exists—

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that the current international legal framework for dealing with these crises is inadequate and that we should be working toward creating a better framework. I would not put all my eggs in the UN basket because, as the member knows, in this case the veto of action by the UN on the part of Russia and presumably China is enough to paralyze action.

However, recognizing the need for this better international legal framework, I would still say that the inadequacy of that framework should not deter us from doing something in this particular situation. I think we should make it clear that we are not trying to generalize from this situation to every situation in the world. I do not think we should say that what is being done here is perfect. However, we should not let the inadequacy of the international legal framework prevent us from acting when we know there are laws being broken: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not rape, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not hurt women and children.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. Some of the concerns which he has are shared by all members of the House.

I was quite concerned that the Minister of National Defence evaded the question with respect to whether a commitment has already been made to NATO, if there are to be ground troops, that Canada is in.

My question is for the Leader of the Opposition who has been calling for a vote in the House and who has proposed an amendment to the House. Could he explain why he failed to stand in the House to block the government's motion which prohibits a vote on this amendment, as we did earlier?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we want to have this debate, but more important, we are not insisting that there be a vote on this particular motion. It is a motherhood motion. We know what the vote would be without taking it. What we are asking for is a specific vote on a mandate for the government to take military action in the Balkans, particularly if that action involves the use of ground troops. We expect a motion to come from the government and that it be debated with a vote at the end of it. That is the debate and the vote that we are specifically looking for.