Debates of April 12th, 1999

Kosovo

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a supporter of NATO. However, I believe that when NATO's mandate has gone beyond the security mandate of defence, it is only right to ask these questions. The parliaments of Britain and Australia, and the U.S. congress and senate are openly debating this issue about sending men and women into harm's way.

It seems like the Prime Minister says we are un-Canadian if we dare challenge anything the Liberal government does. Fortunately I am in a party where I can say I think we need to have answers before we commit our troops. Other members would say that we should commit them, that we have all the answers we need.

However we should raise those questions. When I have to face parents or grandparents I want to be able to say I asked all of the questions before I gave a blank cheque.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment and then ask a brief question of the member for Red Deer who gave an excellent speech on the history of the whole Balkan area and the nature of the many hundreds of years of conflict and hatred which have existed in that area and have flourished for some strange reason.

This whole undertaking could have probably been best done under the United Nations, but we must look at the United Nations and the ineffective way it conducts its mandate to try to keep peace in the world.

Like the hon. member I asked many of the same questions during discussions in our caucus. I too am very concerned about Canadian soldiers and Canadian personnel being involved in a conflict where there may be no apparent solution, or if there is one it will not last for very long.

I ask all those questions and I come up with the answers. I have to say to the hon. member that I would not want to have lived during 1939 to 1945 when the world sat on its hands for a long period of time and watched what happened with the Nazis, Hitler and the Holocaust.

I have come to the conclusion that even with the ineffectiveness of the UN somebody had to step in. NATO seems to be the only body willing and able to do it. Did the hon. member not come to the same conclusion? When nobody else will step in to keep the peace in the world, does NATO not have the obligation to do it?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of those things. I am extremely upset that the UN has declined to the point it is at today where it is ineffective and unable because of bureaucracy, because of the veto and so on to deal with any world issues. We could go back to Rwanda and so on where it failed to react.

I did come to the conclusion that air strikes were a way to drive Mr. Milosevic to the table. I still hold that feeling. I am glad that NATO got involved. We supported that and continue to support that.

However there may well be another step. That is the step that should be openly debated. All of the facts should be put forward. There should then be an opportunity for members to vote on whether or not to do that. Then they will be able to accomplish that face to face I described at the end of my speech.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the hon. member who just spoke could inform the House and, consequently, the public, as there seems to be a communication problem.

People who are watching us at home have a right to be informed. They heard about the possibility of a world conflict. Could the hon. member inform the House, because he told us he was opposed to sending in ground troops? Could he tell us if the 18 days of air strikes have shaken Kosovo enough to make it possible to negotiate and avoid having to send in ground troops?

Having sent planes in for 18, 19 or 20 days, we look a bit ridiculous. It is vital that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, or NATO inform the public, at least the Canadian public, so that we know what we are up against. What will become of the refugees?

In the course of numerous conflicts, Canada's role has been primarily that of a peacekeeper.

Canada's role in the war in Kosovo is a far cry from putting up tents and distributing bread to the hungry. The F-18s have been brought out and now there is talk of even more advanced weaponry. I would like the member to inform the House and therefore the public, which is undoubtedly listening to this debate in the hope of being better informed.

Does the member think that Kosovo has been sufficiently rattled by the 18 to 20 days of combat to bring President Milosevic back to the negotiating table in the very near future, or is a ground war inevitable?

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this brings up a very important point. I think the member asked three things. I believe people are not well informed about the Balkans. I must admit it has taken me six years of concentrated effort and a lot of talking with ambassadors from the various areas and the people involved, including the Russian ambassador, to understand the complexity of the issue.

We owe the Canadian public this information. That is why the House should be full with 301 members and why we should have a debate. A take note debate should be an information session. Then people intelligently know the views rather than get them through the filter of the media.

Do I think the 18 days of bombing have had an effect? I believe it is starting to. Tomorrow the G-8 is conducting negotiations. The G-8, with Russia as a member, is involved. The OSCE with 55 countries is also in full negotiation. Russia is a member of that. I believe getting Russia into that international peace force will allow both sides to step back and let negotiation work. The combination of bombing and that can probably stop this thing. That is how I see it happening.

Do I know that it will work? Obviously not, but at least there is a plan that I can understand. The meetings of the G-8 tomorrow in Bonn are extremely important. They might put on additional pressure. It will not be a NATO mission any more, which would make me happy. It will then become a much broader base. It further points out how the UN is not able to handle this sort of thing.

The hon. member also asked about refugees. Obviously Canada has a role in that regard as well. For a long time we have accepted true refugees. At this point the main thing we should do in this crisis situation is make sure they are well taken care of where they are, as best we can deliver. There are now 80 flights a day into Macedonia and 60 flights a day into Albania carrying relief effort. That has solved the problem literally in the very short term.

I believe we are taking care of that. NATO is doing a great job in that area. Ultimately let us find out who wants to go back and who wants to become a refugee. Then we will solve that problem in due course.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Laval West.

I listened with great interest to the debate so far and I do not wish to repeat that which many hon. members have said in the House. It is clear from what I have listened to in the debate that most of our colleagues are in favour of the government's action and of NATO's action as it presently takes place. Some have even made it clear that they would support further action, including ground troops under certain circumstances if our humanitarian aim to return the people of Kosovo to their homes is not met.

All hon. members of the House recognize that our action raises difficult issues. The hon. member for Red Deer just referred to some of them. The hon. member for Scarborough—Agincourt also referred to some of them.

The issue of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia in traditional international law terms and in traditional diplomatic terms is a very serious issue that we must consider. The future of the United Nations system given NATO's role without specific UN security council sanction raises issues in itself which require serious consideration in the House.

Finally, among many other issues is the suffering of many innocent people in Yugoslavia. We must recognize that in seeking to stop the government of Mr. Milosevic and his war making machine others are paying the price.

All of us have many constituents with families asking us to bring an end to the situation. Those same constituents also recognize that ultimately the solution to this issue, the solution to the problem in the Balkans, will be the restoration of democracy in Yugoslavia, the restoration of an open, tolerant and pluralistic society in that area. That is how we got where we are by virtue of the existence of a dictatorship which did not stumble into the issue.

The member for Red Deer raised issues of the complexities of life in the Balkans. Members will recall that Bismarck said in 1888 “If another war occurs in Europe it will be because of some silly thing in the Balkans”. We are still wrestling with the complexities of the ending of the Turkish empire, the whole issue of the complexities of relationships of peoples in the Balkans. When we look at this issue we know that it was planned by one mastermind. It was planned by the government of Mr. Milosevic.

Recent evidence is showing that military leaders who were opposed to him were dismissed, that troops were put in with the specific issue of conducting ethnic cleansing, and that this would have gone on if we had done nothing and sat there. We were therefore forced to face this awful choice.

Would we sit there and do nothing as the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry said in the debate earlier this afternoon, or, as another member just said, what about the analogy of 1939? Would we sit there and do nothing, let it happen and run the certainty that there would have been over a million refugees in Macedonia and in other countries in the region, threatening the security of Europe for the next how many years?

How long would these million or million and a half people live in squalor and in refugee camps? Have we not seen the refugee camps in Palestine? Have we not seen refugee camps in other places where whole generations of people have grown up as refugees outside their countries? Could we in all honesty tolerate that situation to happen again if we had an opportunity to deal with it?

As the member for Red Deer's leader said this afternoon, did we not have a moral imperative to deal with it? Did we not have a right or a duty to say yes, this creates a difficult precedent? Yes, it raises difficult issues of sovereignty. Do we not have an obligation to ask ourselves whether we are living in a changed world, a world in which we have learned the lessons of failure to intervene in grave cases such as Rwanda or even the second world war?

Are we not living in a new world where humanitarian rules and humanitarian considerations prevail, rules that are being evolved by the international criminal court, by the Pinochet case and by other precedents which are telling us that national sovereignty is not what it used to be, that leaders can no longer in their own countries treat their population the way they wish and be able to get away with it because of a 19th century doctrine of national sovereignty?

We must deal with this because we are obliged to. Our peace and security are threatened when we see such situations developing with the terrible humanitarian consequences of millions of displaced people being pushed out of a country because of the iron will of one government and one man.

That is why the Prime Minister and the leaders of all other parties were of the view today that we must continue with this until there is a solution. That solution is that the Kosovars must go home. That is the moral imperative of which the leader of the Reform Party spoke this afternoon. That is the answer to the objections that the member for Red Deer has raised in the House this evening.

When members have said use ground troops if necessary that is what they are trying to deal with, recognizing that if that comes there would be an important role for a possible Russian contingent in such a force. This would be difficult but Russia's present prime minister, Mr. Primakov, is a very able and skilful diplomat. He may yet be able to bring some helpful resolution to this horrible problem.

I want to raise two other issues which I do not think have been considered in any great detail in the House today.

The first is that of Montenegro. We owe it to ourselves and to the people of Montenegro and their courageous president, Milo Djukanovic who has managed to keep his people out of this conflict, to ensure that we and our NATO allies do nothing that would push his people into a war situation. He has so skilfully and ably resisted the terrible pulls in that region and has saved his people from the scourge of this conflict. I hope that our NATO allies and our government are doing everything to ensure that peace will reign in that one small area of sanity that still prevails in that region.

Second, I hope that we will turn our minds to the issue of what will happen after. The leader of the New Democratic Party raised this in the House this afternoon. I support her position.

We have to be in a position to consider rebuilding the society after this is over. To intervene today and leave a totally destroyed society would be irresponsible. We cannot do that. We are now engaged, it seems to me, in a situation to ensure that Kosovars return to their homes, but they must return to homes. We will have to make sure that when this is over we will be engaged in a process to enable them to return to a real society that we help build together.

We also must make sure in Serbia itself, in Belgrade that the citizens know that when Mr. Milosevic goes, and he will eventually go at some time, and a new, open and liberal society is developed in that country, we will be there to help rebuild. Otherwise all we have done up to now will have been a total waste of time.

I ask members of the House that when we are calling for action today, let us not forget the humanitarian aid we are looking at. Humanitarian aid will have to extend well beyond that of helping refugees in their place. Humanitarian aid will have to go in the long term to rebuilding a society, to rebuilding democratic institutions and an infrastructure that will enable reasonable life to return to that area. Only if we look at this long view, only if we deal not only with the present crisis, but recognize the root causes of it, will we be able to avoid the problems that have led us here.

Only if we follow the road of recognizing that there is a new society with a new rule of law applicable to the Pinochets, the Rwandans, the Milosevics and others will we be able to assure ourselves that this will not reoccur and we will not be debating this issue at another time in the House in other circumstances.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member on his presentation. It was a very good one and very well thought out as well.

I want to make a comment and ask him a question. It is regrettable that we did not get the chance to debate this matter before our air force was committed to military action. The bottom line now is that we are embroiled in a military conflict overseas. I am sure he is aware that many military experts feel that this will inevitably lead to the involvement of ground troops. Polling seems to indicate that a majority of the Canadian public currently support the government's position on this particular issue.

I wonder if the hon. member would comment on whether in his opinion that government support will hold if we get into an all out war in the hills and mountains of Kosovo, a war that would inevitably lead to casualties on both sides.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a premise in the question which I would urge the hon. member to reconsider in saying that this matter was not debated before we engaged in the aerial operation we are presently in. The member will recall that we had a debate in the House in February around the issue of the Rambouillet accords.

As I recall, at that time it was understood in the debate that if the Rambouillet accords were not adhered to, Mr. Milosevic would have to recognize that air action would be taken. My recollection was that we and the members of the House believed that was necessary to bring Mr. Milosevic to that position.

It did not succeed and the member then asks and very rightly so, what happens next if we go to ground forces? That decision can only be taken with an extreme degree of caution. I think the Prime Minister has been very cautious on this issue. He has made it very clear that this is even in his view not the time to discuss it.

If we are to discuss it, then let us make it clear it would only be done in circumstances where we would be assured that militarily the operation would be with the best possible assurance that the casualties would be minimal. We cannot ever go into a ground action and say there will be no casualties. That would be irresponsible. But we can certainly make sure that it is planned and directed in a way in which those would be an absolute minimum. That would require a great deal of planning, a great many ground forces and a lot of commitment before we got there.

I would not by any means suggest to the member that I as a responsible member of parliament would take that obligation or that idea lightly. It would be an extremely complicated and very difficult step. Given the humanitarian considerations we are looking at, we may well end up there rather than face the alternative which would be to say to Mr. Milosevic “You achieved what you want. You have a totally bombed out and destroyed society, but you have got it, you have got your piece of earth and others will not live there”.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I often agree with the general premise the chairman of our foreign affairs committee puts forward and certainly the last one regarding the rebuilding that will be necessary.

I also agree with him that if we rebuild the infrastructure and we build the economic well-being of the people in Serbia and Kosovo that we probably can create a peaceful situation. The problem with that whole thing is it is like Haiti and other areas which we have discussed. We know if we have a 30 to 50 year plan of rebuilding and reconstruction from the grassroots up, including the education system, the hospitals and all that goes with that, that we probably could accomplish it.

The problem is dollars and the commitment of any government anywhere in the world to 30 to 50 years of rebuilding. Does the member really believe we can assure the people of Serbia, as he mentioned, or the people of Kosovo, that we will be that committed?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a very fair question. It is a question of dollars and I do not disagree with the member, but we also have to ask ourselves, are the dollars more? At the moment every Cruise missile costs $1 million or whatever the amount is. There is the possible loss of life on going in to solve this. If we are going to allow this to happen again, if we do sort this out, is it going to be a longer term pain for a short term gain, instead of the reverse? We really have to look at it.

I think the member will agree with me because he and I have travelled together to Bosnia and we have looked at this situation. The NATO or SFOR protectorate to call it that which exists in Bosnia is a long term operation. He would agree with that. It requires a significant commitment to re-education, to long term understanding of democracy building and otherwise. I think he would agree with me that there are bright spots in there. There is a reason for encouragement. There is a belief of a lot of people in the world today that the old-fashioned way of settling things through wars is not going to take us anywhere successfully. We have to work toward that.

I agree with the member entirely that this would not be cheap, but the war we are otherwise going to engage in to solve it would be more expensive.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the motion regarding the human tragedy which has been happening in Kosovo.

The situation in Kosovo and surrounding countries is desperate. This is a humanitarian crisis involving hundreds of thousands of people forced to flee their homes. Once they get to the border, they are stripped of their passports, their dignity, their heritage.

This is one of the worst forced exodus of civilians in Europe since the end of the second world war.

According to unconfirmed reports, there are up to 800,000 displaced Kosovars, 150,000 to 200,000 of whom are said to be without shelter. A large number of them are being harassed by Serb authorities, and are in a dreadful state, suffering from shock, malnutrition and hypothermia. We had to act, we could not stand idle before such a disaster.

I am very proud that our government has consistently co-operated with the international community to put an end to this conflict by promoting a fair political settlement allowing refugees to go back to Kosovo without fearing for their security.

During a crisis such as this it is important for people not to lose track of underlying causes. Therefore I would like to recall how the crisis started and how Canada responded to the events.

We should bear in mind that before Mr. Milosevic rose to power, Kosovo was made up principally of ethnic Albanians and had constitutional autonomy. That right was stripped away by Mr. Milosevic in 1989. From that point forward he has deliberately implemented a plan to impoverish and oppress the Kosovars. Early last year his security forces mounted a campaign against innocent civilians similar to the ethnic atrocities we witnessed in both Croatia and Bosnia.

Canada supported the systematic efforts by our allies to settle the situation diplomatically. Last year, two UN resolutions failed to achieve an end to the fighting in Kosovo. Canada would by far have preferred a diplomatic solution—we have said so and we have repeated it—as we have indicated to Mr. Milosevic, who preferred to ignore the honest warnings given.

An agreement was reached, finally, under threat of NATO's air power. It established a ceasefire and provided for the intervention of an observation mission headed by the Organization on Security and Co-operation in Europe that would ensure the provisions were followed.

In addition, the agreement provided for the imposition of strict limitations on the deployment of Yugoslav security forces, but Mr. Milosevic unfortunately did not keep his word. The Yugoslav forces violated the ceasefire and conducted a campaign against civilians that clearly contravened international human rights.

The Yugoslavs increasingly defied the allies over the next four months, as the increased violence and specific incidents, such as the massacre at Racak, testified. Despite all, we continued all our diplomatic efforts, such as the discussions held in Rambouillet, France.

In these negotiations, we tried to find a diplomatic solution that would balance the interests and demands of the two parties. The provisional agreement reached provided, among other things, for greater autonomy for Kosovo within the federal republic of Yugoslavia. It did not affect in any way the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia. The agreement demanded of both parties the courage to make compromises.

In the end the Kosovars showed the courage to sign the agreement. However, Mr. Milosevic was only interested in gaining precious time. The diplomatic track has run its course. Our vision and our commitment to leave no diplomatic stone unturned were once again rewarded by Mr. Milosevic's unwillingness to stand by the agreements he had made or to seek a peaceful solution. In fact, he continued the build up of his forces during the Rambouillet process.

Let us be clear about one thing. We have no quarrel with the people of Yugoslavia. It is Mr. Milosevic and his government which bear responsibility for this human tragedy. Now we have been forced to turn to a measure of last resort, military force. This was not an easy decision nor a hasty one. But the interests we seek to preserve and protect in this region are significant.

Peace and stability in Europe has always been a pillar of Canadian security policy. Our interest in restoring and maintaining that stability is as great today as it was in the past.

The goal of NATO's air strikes is obvious: reduce the capacity of Yugoslavia's forces to attack the people of Kosovo. Kosovars themselves admit that it is not these military operations that caused the present tragedy.

The operations seek to prevent an even worse humanitarian disaster and to prevent the instability to spread elsewhere in the region. We are using both diplomatic and military means to reach our goals. The first phase of air strikes was aimed at reducing the capacity of the very powerful air defence system of Yugoslavia and, hence, to reduce its threat to NATO's pilots. The day following the raids, Yugoslavia broke off its diplomatic relations with the United States, Great Britain, Germany and France.

In response to the intensification of Yugoslavia's offensive in Kosovo, NATO decided to launch the second phase of operations, namely to attack the armed forces of Yugoslavia and reduce their capacity to harm Kosovars.

Because of the intransigence of Mr. Milosevic, waves of refugees crossed the border into neighbouring countries. On April 3, some 320,000 Albanian Kosovars had already fled Kosovo or were gathering at the border in the hope of seeking refuge in Albania, in the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia and in Montenegro, whose governments are more tolerant than the Serbian government, and elsewhere. Refugees represent an enormous challenge for those countries, which are very poor and can hardly meet their own basic needs.

Since the beginning of April, NATO attacks have intensified, though the goal of operations remains the same, to reduce and eventually destroy the resources used by Mr. Milosevic to wage war against citizens of his own country.

Canada has contributed effectively and with determination to these military operations. Our CF-18s, with their state of the art equipment, and NATO's AWAC aircraft, that are operated in part by Canadian crews, control the air space and guarantee the effectiveness of strikes, with the essential help of support personnel.

We should not forget that, at the same time, the Canadian government is doing its share to help the affected population and has provided to date over $18 million in humanitarian help. Right here in Canada, when the government has announced on April 5 that it would receive 5,000 refugees, Canadians opened their hearts and started preparing their homes to welcome the Kosovars.

Activities in Canada to support a lasting peace in that part of the world have included permanent support for the international criminal tribunal for former Yougoslavia. We want to make it clear that Yougoslav leaders will be held responsible for all the crimes they have committed or allowed to be committed in Kosovo. We will not let Mr. Milosevic's government and armed security forces to continue their action in Kosovo.

As a loyal and effective member of NATO, Canada is striving, along with its allies, to find a solution to this conflict and to promote a fair political settlement that will allow refugees to go back in their country in safety.

I think Canada should persevere in its efforts, and I know that Canadians share my position.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech tonight with great interest.

One of the things that many people are concerned about in Canada and indeed around the world with respect to this present conflict is its possible escalation.

I was very pleased earlier today to hear the Prime Minister say that he was not adverse to a truly international peacekeeping force rather than simply a NATO force, which was one of the conditions of the Rambouillet accord. Of course, by the very nature of the fact that the NATO force is now viewed by the Serbians as being the aggressor, I think increasingly that condition is unacceptable to Serbia; not just to Milosevic, to whom it may or may not be of concern, but it is certainly unacceptable to the Serbian people.

I wonder as a member of the government if the hon. member could comment on what her view is with regards to Russia playing a greater role in a potential international peacekeeping force and why we continue to hear that Canada is not making any concerted effort to approach the Russians, to make any overtures toward them to try to have them involved in a much more substantive manner, in much the way that they were involved in brokering the Rambouillet accord. If we are going to have a negotiated settlement at some point in time, I think it is incredibly important that the Russians be involved.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. It brings up a point that I would have liked to have addressed in my earlier remarks.

Historically Russia has been an ally of the Serb population for several centuries. I would certainly hope that Russia would step in. Russia has certainly tried to help by talking to Mr. Milosevic, but from what I understand things are at a standstill.

I agree with the hon. member that it would be extremely useful for the Canadian government to stretch out a hand in dialogue. I will put it in those terms. Both Canada and Russia should sit down with other nations concerned, possibly the United States, to see what could be done.

In terms of NATO, our efforts so far have been to try to weaken the Serbian military force.

I disagree with the member that Milosevic is not an important person. He is key to what is going on in that part of the world.

I think it is important for Canada to move forward in a proactive way and to reach out to Russia.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the role of the House of Commons and parliament in this debate. It seems that speaker after speaker from the government benches has defended the idea that the House of Commons should not be involved in this decision except to have a general discussion, but not to actually have a vote.

Sometimes in this place we vote on the most absurd and silly things. However, we cannot seem to get the government to commit to a vote if we are going to have a declaration of war. It is my belief that that should never happen.

I am in full agreement with the comments made by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in 1990-91 regarding the Iraq war. At that time they said that we should not go to war, and we should not commit troops, unless we hold a vote in the House of Commons.

I would even go so far as to say that in the Constitution of Canada there should be a provision that we cannot commit troops to a military engagement, attacking another country, unless it comes to the House of Commons first. No cabinet, no 30 or 40 individuals in this country, should have that kind of power.

How can this government member not agree with me when I say that there must be full and complete disclosure, that there must be full and complete discussion in this House on the costs, the refugee problems, how many troops are going to be committed and the danger as this conflict escalates to a ground war? How can anyone in this House not say that we should have a vote before we commit any further to this conflict in Yugoslavia?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member answered his own question when he said, and quote:

We should have a vote before we commit to sending ground troops into Kosovo and Serbian territory. I could not be more in agreement with that. The Prime Minister repeated time and time again today during question period that at this time there is no question of our committing any Canadian ground troops and that if there ever was any question there would be a debate in this House and a vote.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in tonight's debate, but also a bit weary at having to do so, because it is always hard to address humanitarian crises that are not under control and that can lead God knows where.

For the benefit of our fellow citizens who might not have had the opportunity to follow the daily coverage of this crisis in the papers, I think it would be useful to give an overview of the situation.

On March 11, before NATO started its air campaign, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Sadako Ogata, estimated that more than 400,000 people had been forced to flee their homes since the beginning of the conflict in March 1998. Among them, 230,000 were displaced within Kosovo itself.

On March 24, the very day the air campaign started, Kosovar refugees totalled 450,000 people, including 260,000 inside Kosovo. In only 13 days, the number of displaced persons has increased by 30,000.

The last solution proposed by the Assembly was the international peace conference in Rambouillet, France. This conference ended in a peace plan which the Kosovars never signed. In a word, this peace plan extending over three years provided for a substantial level of autonomy for the Kosovars, but always within Yugoslavia.

Moreover, it provided for the deployment of NATO troops to ensure the enforcement of that plan. It is this last element that President Milosevic rejected, foreseeing the partition of Kosovo from Serbia at the end of the three years, and occupation of his territory by a foreign force.

It is therefore to put an end to the violence of the Serbian authorities against the Albanian population of Kosovo, which represents 80« of the total population, and to try and convince Milosevic to accept the Rambouillet accord, that NATO conducted air strikes against the Yugoslavian army.

It is essentially for the same reasons that Canada agreed to participate to the NATO'S Allied Forces operation. Canada also recognized that as long as this conflict was permitted to last, it could result in major humanitarian disasters and destabilise the whole region at the same time. This is why Belgrade's acceptance of the Rambouillet peace plan had become essential from a Canadian standpoint.

The Bloc Quebecois supported the NATO military intervention in Kosovo and Yugoslavia because it felt and indeed, like all the NATO countries, still thinks that it is better to try to do something in Kosovo than to let a situation that has been going on for 10 years continue to deteriorate.

But time is a very significant and legitimate time factor with respect to the air strikes in Yugoslavia. I questioned the Minister of National Defence about it in this House, but he did not answer. My first question was about the air strikes. I asked him how long they would go on—weeks, months perhaps—before any result can be achieved. Do NATO countries all agree to keep bombing Yugoslavia much longer before considering other options?

Mr. Speaker, members are presently having a private conversation near me and that bothers me. Would you please ask them to tone it down a little or to take their conversation somewhere else.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I would ask hon. members to please be a little more quiet.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

As I was saying, while NATO pursues its air strikes, the exodus is continuing. The massacres are continuing and the ethnic cleansing started a long time ago is intensifying. If our goal is to stop the dreaded genocide, the crimes against humanity and the exodus, we must ask ourselves if all of this will not be a fait accompli in a few weeks. We will then ask ourselves: What is the use of going on?

If, for the time being, Russia's opposition remains mainly rhetorical, who is to say that, in a few weeks, this opposition will not take a more active form, such as the sending of military equipment or countering NATO action?

If NATO members are really committed to solve the problem in Kosovo and to make sure refugees return to their homes, they must set a deadline which, if crossed, will entail other military or political action, including ground troops.

While his military storage sites are being bombarded, an armed Milosevic is going around getting rid of refugees, doing what he wants, acting freely on his territory, and we are attacking buildings and storage sites. If this were to go on for too long, it is very likely that Milosevic would have the time to do what he intends to do, and even though his weapon storage sites have been destroyed, he would have achieved his goal.

Lets us look at what has been gained from a few weeks of bombing. In Albania, for example, more than 500,000 refugees are crammed in camps, schools, factories, hospitals and Albanian foster families. Living conditions as reported by international agencies are described as “not too bad”. However, Albania will not be able to cope for very long without substantial assistance from the international community.

In Macedonia, more than 115,000 refugees are crowded into camps surrounded by barbed wire and controlled by the Macedonian authorities. Conditions are very difficult, and the Macedonian authorities have warned the international community on several occasions that they could not take in any more. Most of the refugees are women and children.

There are 25,000 refugees in Bosnia as well. There are 60,000 in Montenegro and 6,000 in Turkey. Over 100,000 middle aged and young men have disappeared. In Kosovo itself, over 500,000 persons have been displaced. They are either in hiding, on the roads or have sought refuge in the country.

So, for the moment, some 800,000 Kosovars are still in their homes, that is, less than the original population of this country, which was some 1,800,000.

Macedonia's parliament issued an appeal for help to the international community. Initially, the Macedonian parliamentarians asked for financial and material help and support for the NGOs in order to take charge of the refugees. Macedonia has already spent $200 million as a direct result of the atrocities committed in Kosovo, of an annual gross domestic product of $3 billion. That is fairly close to 10%.

The parliament also asked NATO members to take in refugees in order to give their countries relief, and this explains the hasty agreement by NATO countries to take in refugees.

Some 30% of the Macedonian population were Albanian speakers, and the authorities feared the ethnic balance would be upset by the influx of refugees. This explains in part their behaviour toward the refugees, the evacuations and border closures. They must be given all possible assistance.

The assembly of the people of the republic of Albania also spoke out in total support of the NATO air strikes and called for ground troops to be sent urgently.

Moreover, Albanian parliamentarians thank the international community for its help and ask that such help be increased to meet the growing needs of refugees and the population in northern Albania.

The time has come to consider our options, whether military, political, humanitarian, diplomatic or other. On behalf of my party, I will propose a number of possible solutions, which we feel this House should contemplate.

At the military level, even though we have not reached that stage yet, we think that ground military action should be considered, or at least discussed. We should look at the benefits and drawbacks of such action. The time has come to think about solutions other than the one being applied right now, that is air strikes.

Since the beginning of the NATO air strikes, President Milosevic has accelerated the pace of the forced exodus of Albanian Kosovars. The police, the militia and the Serb army have continued and even intensified their action against the Kosovars. The net result of this is that with 500,000 refugees—or 621,000 since March 1998 according to the UNHCR—the objectives pursued with the air strikes have not produced the anticipated results, namely to stop the atrocities committed against the people of Kosovo, and nor have they led Milosevic to accept the Rambouillet peace plan.

In that context, the Bloc Quebecois feels that the use of allied ground troops must be considered to stop the atrocities and the repression of which Kosovars are victims, this in light of Milosevic's firm resolve not to make any concession about Kosovo, which is the cradle of the Serb nation.

This intervention to impose peace should be organized, or at least considered as quickly as possible. In fact, the border closings, the mines laid at the borders, and the numerous atrocities against the Kosovars reveal the intentions of Milosevic and his security forces to commit genocide against the Kosovo people.

NATO's military intervention on the ground could allow all Kosovar refugees to go back home, not just some of them. NATO must, therefore, liberate all of Kosovo. This option is the one more closely matching the reason why Canada and NATO are fighting: to implement a peace plan, the Rambouillet peace plan, and to stop the atrocities against the Kosovo people.

At the political level, solutions are also possible, including UN involvement and the application of international law. On April 9, Kofi Annan called for a conditional cease-fire and for Yugoslavian compliance with the numerous UN resolutions. It is vital for the UN, its security council in particular, to be involved in this crisis.

Canada has a duty to try, by every means possible, to submit to the council a draft peace agreement reflecting the main thrust of Rambouillet.

On January 19, 1999, the security council denounced Yugoslavia's refusal to allow the international tribunal prosecutor to investigate the Racak massacre. This request for an inquiry was a follow-up to resolutions 1160, 1199 and 1203, all issued in 1998.

Canada must submit a new request, asking that the security council issue a resolution condemning the actions of the Yugoslav government. Canada must bring before the UN the charges of genocide and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the government of Yugoslavia, in accordance with the 1948 convention against genocide.

Finally, there should be a free and democratic consultation of Kosovars regarding the future status of Kosovo.

From a humanitarian point of view, consideration should be given to ongoing and unconditional aid. The decisions we make today will have an impact on the decisions our children will have to make in 20, 25 or 30 years. Canada cannot slough off 25 or 30 years from now responsibilities it takes on today. Canada is at war against the Serbs and Canada will have to help the people it has fought, the people who have suffered in this war.

Canada will have to help them, and it must think about helping them not just while the bombing is taking place, but also in the years, and there will be many, of rebuilding ahead.

There is a strong risk that the rush of refugees to the Republic of Macedonia and to Albania will destabilize these regimes. Massive, unconditional and direct assistance is therefore necessary if the conflict is not to spread throughout the region.

The appeals from these two countries must be taken seriously and Canada has a responsibility to respond. Beyond these geopolitical contingencies, all western countries have an obligation to provide all conceivable aid to the populations displaced by these conflict.

This aid requires, and will continue to require, significant assistance over a long period. Canada must prepare for this and show its support for non-government organizations such as UNHCR, the Red Cross and the Red Crescent immediately.

Airlifting refugees to Canada has already been considered and careful preparations for this must continue. Canada is willing to receive those displaced persons wishing to come here. However, the government must quickly clarify their status.

Diplomatically, it is vital that thought be given to the chaos that has prevailed in the Balkans since 1989. This situation has brought nothing but grief to the nations in the region, and has also caused many problems for the international community. Human tragedies, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and now the genocidal intent of the Milosevic regime are unacceptable events for humanity.

The human as well as financial and political costs of such chaos are extremely high. Once the present armed conflict comes to an end, the situation in the Balkans will not be stabilized. Tensions will remain very high. Yugoslavian, Kosovar, Albanian and Macedonian infrastructures will be either destroyed or non existent. The financial and political situation in Kosovo, and also in Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia will remain disastrous.

This is the reason why the Bloc Quebecois is suggesting that a plan for the whole region be developed right away, a plan similar to the Marshal plan, which was responsible for the reconstruction and ultimately the unification of Europe after the second world war; such a plan would involve massive financial and material assistance to the tune of US$50 billion over several years; this assistance would be dependent on the respect of certain economic and political rules as well as the implementation of a future peace plan.

This massive help, which at first glance appears very significant, would be nothing compared to the cost of a war-torn region in the heart of Europe, a region which, instead of being part of the international community, would only bring chaos and desolation. Such a plan which would come under the authority of the European Union, but Canada and the United States should be involved; it would allow the region to move beyond war and its immediate consequences towards reconstruction and democracy instead of tensions and desolation.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, the debate tonight precludes a discussion on options which were open to us one month ago, including whether to go to war with NATO, whether all avenues at the United Nations had been exhausted and whether the lessons learned in Bosnia are applicable to Kosovo.

Tonight the debate takes place under different circumstances. We have concluded that the United Nations Security Council is impotent. We have seen images of genocide, of columns of refugees, of burning villages and of murdered civilians. We are participants in NATO's bombing actions.

Therefore today the questions facing us are different from a month ago. They are: Why are we there? What are we to achieve? How can we achieve our goals?

We are there because we can no longer watch such atrocities take place, because diplomatic negotiations have been exhausted, because we are members of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe which is responsible for security in Europe, and because there is no similar organization in existence in other parts of the world.

We are there to achieve security and peace for the people of Kosovo, to prevent another Bosnia and to bring stability to a troubled region of Europe. We are there to prevent actions of brutality such as those committed by Karadzic and General Mladic in Bosnia.

We are there because a new principle has emerged. The principle says that in the face of genocide there is a humanitarian role for the world community to play that is more important than the principle of sovereignty. It is a paradox that this humanitarian role should take the form of military action, all other avenues having been exhausted. It would have been preferable not to have taken military action, but facing the options available Canada chose the lesser of two evils, military action over allowing the genocide to continue.

What do we wish to achieve through military action? The safe return to their homes of all deportees and displaced persons. The protection and care for those displaced inside Kosovo. The expulsion from Kosovo of Serbian military, police and paramilitary forces through a peacekeeping force, as was the case and is the case in Bosnia, Cyprus and other troubled spots in the world. The apprehension of indicted war criminals is amongst our goals, as well as the defence of Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro in the event of a Serbian attack. Finally, we wish to achieve the improvement of communications from Europe into Kosovo and Serbia in order to inform the population of the reasons and motives for our actions.

Looking beyond the immediate goals there is a role for Canada to play with like-minded nations in search of a mechanism that will provide rules for international intervention in domestic conflict. Canada has experts in preventive diplomacy. Canada has a reputation as a peacebuilder and peacekeeper. Surely we can build a new order to deal with domestic conflict.

We can start with the UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. Article 8 of that convention is quite explicit. It states “Any contracting party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations—as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide”.

It is worth noting that 50 years after the general assembly agreed to the text of the genocide convention the United Nations Security Council established the international tribunal for the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the former Yugoslavia. The prosecutor, Louise Arbour, is playing a strong leadership role. The tribunal is making good progress and increasingly commands respect.

Those who disagree with Canada's military actions say that Canada is in violation of international law. In reply it must be noted that Yugoslavia, having engaged in acts of genocide, has violated the UN genocide convention.

The time has come to put teeth into that convention, to reinforce the role of the international tribunal in The Hague and to lay the foundations for building adequate international preventive action for the future.

As we saw today in question period, it is only natural that this debate should centre around the question of whether to send troops into Kosovo. Several speakers have raised that question. The answer seems fairly clear if we ask ourselves how returning civilians and the remaining population can be assured the necessary protection and how the removal of the Serbian police and armed forces can be achieved. Having taken the drastic step of intervening with air forces it becomes inevitable and necessary, for the same reasons we decided to risk the lives of Canadian pilots, to send in troops as well. Sending in troops so as to intervene on the ground will become inevitable almost as a law of military gravity.

In 1939 it could be said that western democracies declared war when driven by exasperation, having exhausted all other means. It seems that in 1999 western democracies have become involved in the Balkans having exhausted all other means as well. Had this debate taken place one month ago I would have strongly advised against military intervention and for a greater effort through the general assembly of the United Nations. Today, with the decision of a military intervention having been made, while I find it repugnant to see Canada involved in the act of bombing, it would be even more repugnant at this point in time for Canada to abstain from participating in a severe action aimed at extirpating genocide and racial and ethnic persecution.

I believe that we have drawn the correct lessons from what happened in Bosnia just a few years ago. Hopefully we will succeed in stopping the ugly forces of nationalism in Yugoslavia. Hopefully, when peace is restored, the security of people living in this troubled region of Europe will be assured regardless of ethnic origin, regardless of whether they are a majority or a minority, regardless of whether they are Christian, Muslim or of any other religious belief.

I am glad to share my time with the member for Peterborough.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has an excellent record on human rights issues in this House and a long service to Canada. He has certainly come to the same conclusion as I, that really we had no alternative as a member of NATO but to do what we did.

However, I also think that certain planning and other things should have been done. It seems that we planned for the military campaign as part of NATO, but we seem to have forgotten that when bombs start to fall one of the natural things that occurs is that the number of refugees tends to increase. In effect, we seem to be doing some of the dirty work of Milosevic in driving more Albanians out of Kosovo.

Could the hon. member comment on the fact that NATO seemed to be very prepared for the military action but not prepared at all for the human consequences of that military action?

In Argentia, Newfoundland we have tried to find a way to open up Canadian government housing for refugees if they were to come to Canada. Many Newfoundlanders were willing to collect toys and clothes and do everything they could for these refugees had they come to Canada, and maybe some of them still will come.

Would the hon. member not agree that NATO certainly prepared for the military campaign but did not take into the account the human consequences of that military campaign?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The issue of refugees is one that prompted the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to make a very fine intervention and to lay out the position of the Government of Canada in its decision to accept refugees. In her speech she recognized the generosity and the spirit of the Canadian people vis-à-vis the movement of refugees in the past and at the present time.

To expect NATO to be equipped to carry out a role in the movement of refugees is probably expecting something that organization is not equipped to carry out. That is probably why there is a UN commission for refugees that has been extremely active, particularly at the border of Macedonia and at the border of Albania.

I am sure that the generosity of the people of Newfoundland will be greatly welcomed and will be reciprocated should refugees decide to come to our shores to settle in Canada.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can say that my colleague opposite has a very strong international conscience and that he weighed his words. I think that, tonight, we must weigh our words. I turned on the TV earlier and saw images that were really difficult to watch.

The means are not that easy, but I would say that we have reached our limit. I think we must wake up and acknowledge that there is a conflict. The night will not be long for us, because we do not have to suffer.

I personally do not have relatives over there, but if I had a sister, a mother, a brother or a child over there, it would be a lot more difficult for me. But one thing is sure: it is still our brothers and sisters who are suffering. And something is wrong with this president: either he is sick or he is cruel. I would prefer to say he his sick. If he is sick, we must see that he gets treatment. If he is cruel, we must at least make him understand his cruelty.

I will come back later with other questions, but I would like to ask my colleague if he would personally have been in favour of a vote following this debate.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his question.

I share the same feelings he expressed when he talked about images that are difficult to watch and about the pain he feels when he thinks about our brothers and sisters who are suffering.

To answer his question regarding a vote, I have no difficulty supporting the idea of a vote. Tonight, we all have the opportunity to state our position on the deployment of ground troops in Kosovo in the speeches and interventions we are ready to make.

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue]

Madam Speaker, like 30 million other Canadians, I salute the courage, resolve and dedication of the men and women who serve in Canada's armed forces. Like every other member of parliament, I pray that whatever sacrifices we may ask those brave men and women to make, they are sacrifices based on wisdom. Whatever course we chart for them, let us back it up with every possible means of support from our nation. I had the honour yesterday to tour CFB Trenton. My colleagues in the House and everybody at home would be proud of the facilities for housing and medicine that have been created and set up for the refugees in such a very short time. I express my humble thanks to the people of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the soldiers who have been working so hard around the clock to prepare a possible home for refugees.

As someone who has visited Albania and possibly the only member of parliament who has been in Albania, I want everyone to know how difficult it is and will be for them to take so many refugees because of its own extreme economic difficulties. I hope that the nations of the world providing humanitarian aid will recognize that with real financial assistance to the harbouring countries such as Albania.

While at the Trenton base yesterday I looked in the faces of fine young soldiers and I could not help but think that they are Canada's children and grandchildren. They are fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers so willing to serve and sacrifice, so full of life and promise and so very young. As we make decisions that affect those young lives let us remember that war may be necessary but it is also nasty. War may be noble but it is also numbing to the soul. War may be heroic but it is also horrifying. War may be glorious but it is also gore.

Before victory comes violence. Before triumph comes tragedy. Before defeat of the enemy often comes much death. In the words of Milton, war truly is as terrible as hell.

None of us doubt the need to take on Milosevic and his band of bloody thugs. In this century we have witnessed the monstrous consequences of madmen out of control. We know that pure evil must be driven out. We know that we cannot allow the slaughter of the innocent who are destroyed merely for being different. The action of Milosevic is so barbarous that we cannot find the real words to describe our disgust so we call it ethnic cleansing. We know that what he is doing is giving a wash of hatred to human decency. We know that what he is doing is giving a bath of poison to human dignity.

Choosing when and where to intervene around the world is never easy for democracies. The line is often hazy and fluid but Milosevic is way over the line. He is seeking to empty Kosovo of its citizens by any means possible. For some mad reason he thinks that the ethnic background of Kosovars justifies his cruel and ceaseless campaign against them. The bottom line is that we can see the frightening parallels between Milosevic and past tyrants, and he must be stopped.

That much said, let us as Canadians do everything we can to avoid the mistakes of previous wars. Let us be careful not to demonize Serbian Canadians. While asking them to respect their duty as citizens of a peaceful Canada, let us remind ourselves that they are Canadians. We can all understand their fears while still possibly differing with their point of view. I was particularly concerned when a young Serbian Canadian mother came into my constituency office wondering what she could do to keep her children from being bullied at school. Let us remind ourselves that what we are opposing is Milosevic and his agenda and not innocent Serbians.

Most important, let us be prepared to back our soldiers with more than words if they must move from peacekeepers to peacemakers to wagers of war. We are grateful that so far no Canadian has been a casualty over Kosovo but if and when the stakes are raised so are the risks.

So far Milosevic has proven to be more bent on his wave of destruction than military experts foresaw. The analysts at NATO underestimated what it would take to stop Milosevic. That is understandable. It is tremendously difficult to plumb the depths of evil. Now we know that there are few limits to how far Milosevic is prepared to go. We know the depravity. Now we see the darker side of human nature. If NATO needs to go further let NATO be prepared. Let readiness match resolve. Before we send them forward, let our soldiers have the capacity to meet a master of depravity and the darkness.

If at some point Canada needs to point more of our young soldiers in harm's way, can we be assured that ground troops or any other troops have the proper and finest equipment? Will Canadian troops have proper on site preparation and training? Will our troops have proper backup? More significant, if and when Canada commits ground troops, will all of our NATO partners also commit ground troops?

Canadians do not expect every strategic and tactical decision to be laid out in advance or to be laid out in public. In turn Canadians expect that their concerns expressed in this place by members of parliament to be incorporated into the decision making process. I have absolute confidence in the Prime Minister doing so. That is why this non-partisan debate is so timely and so vital.

Canadian soldiers have long served our nation with pride and long covered our nation with distinction. Fine young Canadians are carrying on with that tradition as we speak now. I admire the bravery of the Canadians who so gallantly wear our forces uniform, but I approach debate on their potential role as combatants with no sense of excitement or joy but rather with a sense of utter seriousness and deep reflection.

We need to give our soldiers every possible guarantee that the resources available to them will match their strength and their sense of duty. We owe it to them. They are the Canadians who will make the sacrifices, and we owe them the resources. They are the ones upholding the flame of liberty, and we owe them all our wisdom. They are Canada's children and grandchildren. Let us give them our full support. We owe them that.

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

Madam Speaker, I got the impression that the hon. member believes that an intervention such as this one by NATO is justified in certain situations.

Could the hon. member tell me if she thinks that an intervention is made under a right to get involved recognized under the international law?