Debates of April 12th, 1999

Kosovo

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his comments.

Notwithstanding the tenor of question period which concerned ground troops, it is my understanding that the hon. Leader of the Opposition supports Canada's role in the air war, that he supports the air war conducted by NATO and its possible expansion. That is my understanding.

The prime minister mentioned that he had written to the President of Russia. How important does the Leader of the Opposition think it is that Russia be involved in this situation?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again I do not want to presume to answer for other members, but I would expect that the majority of members in the House feel that the more that can be done to involve the Russian government and the Russian people in the resolution of this issue the better. The historic ties between the Serbs and the Russian government and the Russian people are deep and long. In many respects these ties are deeper and longer than their ties or connections with anyone in the west.

Yes, the Russians should have an influence and anything that could be done to bring that influence to bear in a positive way, not simply through the supplying of arms, would be helpful.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party said that he absolutely wanted to have a vote in the House at the end of the present debate.

He has a unique opportunity to decide what the House will do tomorrow. Why has he not introduced a motion which would have forced a vote on the government instead of just talking about it? This would have been more effective.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question before.

Our principal point, and perhaps I have to make it again because it did not sink in with some members, is that if the government is considering the use of ground troops or an expanded role for Canada in the Balkans it should come to the House with a votable motion seeking a mandate on which we will have a debate and a vote. This is not a vote of non-confidence in the government. Hopefully it would be a vote of confidence in whatever mandate is given the government and would be a help rather than a hindrance to solving this serious problem.

[The Speaker]

I find the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest to be in order.

Before giving the floor to the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, I would point out that, as of now, speeches will be 20 minutes long and questions and comments, ten minutes.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to your ruling, you indicated that the amendment put by the Leader of the Opposition is in order. Do we then take it that there will be a vote at the end of the debate on the amendment?

[The Speaker]

The direct answer to your question is no, there will not be a vote because it does not alter the original order which the House adopted today.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will support the motion and the amendment even if I believe that neither truly addresses the need to find a short and long term political solution, which would not only guarantee the return of refugees to their homes but also respect for the rights of the Kosovar people.

However, we deplore the lack of information provided to members, contrary to what was done during the campaign against Iraq in 1991. In that case, party leaders were consulted and invited to be part of the Canadian effort, in particular through regular briefing sessions. In this case, we got better information from RDI and CNN.

To compensate for the flaws of the resolution and what appears to be an improvised government policy, I wish to make specific proposals, on behalf of my party, which should allow Canada to play a constructive role in ensuring peace and stability, not only in Kosovo but in all the Balkans.

We are witnessing one of the most troubling human tragedies to occur since the end of the second world war, troubling because of the actions of the Serbian army and because the present situation is the direct result of President Milosevic's challenge to the international community.

We have seen, in recent history, obvious instances of pure and simple aggression for the purpose of ethnic cleansing and territorial expansion. This was the case during the aggressions against the Kurdish and Tibetan people and during the tragedy which occurred in Rwanda. We did not learn all the lessons those tragedies and the first crisis in the Balkans should have thought us.

In this case, we are witnessing not so much a classic case of territorial expansion, since Yugoslavia already controlled Kosovo, as a much more pernicious conflict, a much greater threat to peace and security in Europe. Rather we are faced with a situation where a national minority, namely the Serbs in Kosovo, with the encouragement of the Serb majority in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, are trying to forcibly expel from Kosovo the Albanian majority, which represents 90% of the population.

The Serb aggression is unacceptable. It is aimed at dispossessing the Kosovars of their belongings, their homes and their land. This aggression is all the more repugnant as it is also aimed at dispossessing the Kosovars of their past by erasing any sign of their historical presence in Kosovo. It is simply an attempt to rewrite history.

At a time when human rights and territorial status quo have been recognized by virtually every country concerned, especially through the Helsinki accords, it is of paramount importance to find a political solution to this conflict.

We would have liked the present crisis to be dealt with under the aegis of the United Nations as was the case when Iraq attacked Koweit. Unfortunately, close historical ties between Russia and Serbia and special political ties between Yugoslavia and China made it impossible.

We were faced, therefore, with the choice of either standing by helplessly as the Kosovars were slowly stripped of their nation and territory by the Serbs or finding a way to counter Serbia's expansionism.

Given the situation in Europe, following the failure of the mediation carried out by the contact group and the refusal by President Milosevic to ratify the Rambouillet agreements, NATO provided us with the only option available to put an end to the abuses committed by the Serbs in Kosovo.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois supported NATO's strategy to use air operations to get the Yugoslav government to make concessions and supported Canada's participation in these air strikes.

Unfortunately, no one had foreseen how brutal, swift and efficient the ethnic cleansing operation of the Serbian government would be in Kosovo. We are now facing a whole new situation that is forcing our allies to reassess their strategy in the Balkans.

So, if need be, the Bloc Quebecois will support the dispatch of NATO ground troops to Kosovo. We will also support Canada's direct or indirect participation in a logistics force, for instance, in order to get President Milosevic to back down and to give up his policy for Kosovo that has turned him into a war criminal and possibly the instigator of genocide.

However, parliament must be kept better informed of the military and diplomatic strategy of the government. The consent of members of parliament must be sought before Canadian troops take part in ground battles. Parliament must take position, members must be able to express their viewpoints and to vote on this issue. I have trouble understanding why the Prime Minister refuses to consult the House since he knows he can count on the support of all parties and that this support would reinforce Canada's position and strengthen the unity needed in such hard times.

But before considering sending ground troops to Kosovo, before proceeding with this ultimate solution which would mean that NATO forces would engage in ground combat with Serbian forces, the Bloc Quebecois believes that a last effort should be made to resolve this crisis through the United Nations, which would have the advantage of involving Russia.

In the meantime, there are two things Canada can do to alleviate the human misery created by this conflict and to prevent a ground attack, the cost of which could be high in terms of human lives, from becoming necessary.

First of all, we must deploy all available resources to alleviate the suffering and improve living conditions of Kosovar refugees in Bosnia, Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro. Therefore it is important to provide appropriate humanitarian aid and logistical support to the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees.

In this regard, I must indicate our support for the Office of the High Commissioner's decision not to play President Milosevic's game. Canada must certainly do everything it can in terms of humanitarian aid, including accepting, on a temporary basis, a certain number of refugees should it become necessary—and I insist on that point—or to allow people to be reunited with family members who already are in Canada.

I say on a temporary basis because the aggression by the Serbs must stop and its effects must be reversed. This means that all refugees, wherever they are, must ultimately be free to go home safely, as soon as possible, to rebuild their life and their country.

The contrary would be tantamount to supporting the policy of the fait accompli which President Milosevic has been trying to impose. We must not support that policy in any way, because it would only add to the human tragedy experienced by each refugee and would drive the Kosovar people to despair.

I must also congratulate NATO for refusing to contemplate any partition of the territory of Kosovo, I must also congratulate NATO for refusing to contemplate any partition of the territory of Kosovo, for this would be tantamount to conceding victory to Milosevic and to rewarding aggression.

Where territorial integrity is concerned, Kosovo must be treated in the same way Slovenia, Bosnia and Croatia were. It must also be understood that Kosovo cannot be reintegrated with Yugoslavia as if nothing had happened.

Since certain aspects of the Rambouillet accords were rendered obsolete by the obstinacy of President Milosevic, any solution to the current crisis must be based on the Kosovar people's right to self-determination.

Given the variety of abuses and atrocities perpetrated by Serb troops and militiamen in Kosovo, it is unthinkable to again put the Albanian population at the mercy of the Serbian political power in Belgrade.

In order to preserve some chance of avoiding a ground war, Canada must take advantage of all available opportunities, all international forums of which it is a member, to promote a peaceful and political solution to this conflict.

To that end, the federal Yugoslav government must agree to bow to international will and to the five conditions presented by NATO if the air strikes are to come to an end.

This means that Canada, via the UN, NATO and the OSCE, must take advantage of its diplomatic influence to encourage Yugoslavia to respect the rights of the Kosovo people, to put an end to its armed aggression, and to negotiate a definitive and political solution for the future of the Kosovars.

If, despite the efforts of Canada as a member of the security council, the UN proved unable to find a rapid solution to the current conflict, it will have demonstrated that it is incapable of settling regional conflicts the way it is presently organized, and that a major reform of its institutions and its operations is required.

Canada must become a proponent of such a reform, and use its security council seat to make that point.

The conflicts in Rwanda, the Congo and Kosovo are just some of the most recent sad examples of the United Nations' inability to act.

Second, the UN has also shown that, in the absence of such a reform, regional or interstate military organizations will likely increasingly themselves take whatever measures they deem necessary to ensure international security and to protect human rights.

President Milosevic must be reminded that the world has changed since his glorious days as a communist apparatchik. As we enter the new era of international law, the despots, tyrants, terrorists and dictators are being forced to understand that they do not enjoy the immunity they thought they had.

Furthermore, those responsible for crimes against humanity, torture or terrorism must understand that they will not escape justice.

This is a new reality showing the change in international law, which three recent examples will amply illustrate.

First, there is the creation of an international criminal tribunal for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. This tribunal has already handed down a number of decisions and is preparing to lay new charges against others responsible for war crimes and massacres.

Second, there are the charges and the extradition proceedings against General Pinochet brought by Spain.

Third, there is the trial in Holland, under Scottish law, of the Libyans charged in the terrorist destruction of the Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland.

Finally, beyond the tragedy currently unfolding in Kosovo, I would like to make a suggestion to put a stop to such drama in Europe, Africa or anywhere else in the world.

As quickly as possible following the restitution of the individual and collective rights of the people of Kosovo, I suggest that Canada, together with other members of the Organization on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE, promote an international conference on the status and rights of national minorities in Europe and the Balkans in particular.

Based on the model of the conference in Helsinki in 1975, this conference, to which all the countries of Europe, Canada and the United States would be invited, would have specific objectives on the recognition of minority rights. At the centre of these objectives would be the issue of human rights, both individual and collective.

These objectives could be formalized in a diplomatic agreement between signatory states, like the 1975 agreement or, ideally, through a treaty that would be more binding on the signatories. These countries would therefore enter into international obligations that would go beyond mere wishful thinking and guarantee the individual and collective rights of national minorities.

That formula could also be used by countries from other continents, which could adjust their objectives and their means to the prevailing political culture, or to the values that produce a consensus.

How can we achieve that? This could be done in two stages.

First, in the short term, we must directly target the sources of instability in the Balkans, namely the difficult economic situation of the countries in that region, and the feeling of exclusion from major European political institutions.

In this regard, we must recognize the wisdom of the position adopted last week by the foreign ministers of the European community. These countries have agreed to set up a fund of at least 250 million Euros to establish a security pact for the Balkans, similar to the Marshall plan.

This fund for Balkan countries would be tied to partnership agreements with the European community, including on issues such as economic assistance and trade privileges.

So, this is a step in the right direction. Following that, we will have to go further and to integrate interested Balkan countries into the European community and NATO. This is necessary to ensure Europe's stability, the region's prosperity and the security of Europe's economic and military partners.

Second, we will have to convene the international conference on the status and rights of national minorities in Europe to which I alluded earlier.

Since this is a long term effort, the preparations for such a conference must begin immediately after the end of the conflict in Kosovo, to ensure its success as early as possible.

This is indeed an ambitious project, but the situation and the evolution of international law require us to be creative while pursuing lofty ideals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on the fact that his party has aligned itself with the government position.

When you admit that the cause is just and that force is necessary, when you are even prepared to go further than the government and now call for the commitment of ground troops, why do you put political conditions on your position today?

You say that we do not have enough information, when we had all the necessary information in committee, when we are holding a debate in the House today that gives each of us an opportunity to discuss the issue. Why weaken our position, the position of the Parliament of Canada, with a condition that strikes me as completely political—

[The Speaker]

All questions must be put through the Chair. The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is only natural that we discuss the politics of this issue, since it is a highly political issue.

Second, there is a big difference between the information provided to members of the House in 1991 and what we are seeing now. I was critical of the fact that in 1991 we were in the process of voting when troops had already been sent to Iraq and we were watching the events on television. That was obviously one drawback.

At this time, since we have already discussed air strikes in previous debates in the House, I am not questioning today's debate. However, the information provided in the briefing this morning was completely inadequate. We were asked if we had any questions.

We should be briefed each morning, like we were in 1991. Back then, the Prime Minister invited all party leaders to become members of the Privy Council. Mrs. McLaughlin, who was then leader of the NDP, accepted the invitation. Right now, this information is not available. We go after it—

[The Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska for questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the frustration felt by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois with regard to information and consultation.

It is an extremely important issue. There is a lack of information. How can we be totally convinced of what is going on in Kosovo, in terms of the involvement of Canada and NATO? We cannot be convinced of anything because we do not have the necessary information.

During the first week of the conflict, I received one phone call a day. I was asked if I had watched the news on CNN. That is where the information came from. During the second week, I received one call every two or three days. During the third week, I received one call every four days. It has now been six days since I last received a call.

How can I keep my staff informed? How can my staff keep my constituents informed?

If it was so important, why did the leader of the Bloc Quebecois not support our request to recall the House during the Easter break?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our discussions called for an emergency debate today, as was announced. Members of the Bloc Quebecois who sit on the foreign affairs committee, particularly the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, followed all the committee meetings.

Let us get back to the information issue, which I think is a major issue. We just came back here today, and so did our counterparts in Washington.

There could have been follow-up throughout the entire week, had there been important information. I come back to my colleague, who earlier said “You are weakening the position by asking questions”. I say to him that he is weakening the position by not providing information.

Those who are informed provide better support than those who are not. There is a lesson in that. Canadian history is marked by a division in important debates separating people in Quebec and Canada on the issue of war.

The government should inform us, ensure that we are always aware of what is going on and especially of military strategies—we are not naïve—and hold a vote. This would strengthen Canada's position. It is not those who are not doing anything that weaken it, but rather those who should be doing something.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago in late March, Canadian poet Raymond Souster wrote about another distant conflict. It is “almost impossible to think of, to comprehend the words war, bombings and air raid shelters with this afternoon sun glowing, spring-like”.

Today, as we participate in this important debate on Kosovo in the safety of this House and in the security of this country, it still seems almost impossible to think of.

Night after night Canadians and the world community watch in horror as thousands upon thousands of desperate people flee for their lives. They leave behind their homes, their work, their communities and even members of their own family. They bring with them those few possessions they can carry and their anguish.

Our television screens are lit as well by pictures of destruction from air strikes and bombs. Here too, innocent civilians are losing their homes, their neighbourhoods and their lives.

Canadians who came to this country from both sides of the conflict watch the news and search the Internet for signs that their relatives are safe. In communities across Canada families and friends of our men and women of the armed forces watch and worry as the people they love risk their lives on dangerous military missions.

Today our first and last thoughts must be with all of those people whose lives are touched by the tragic events in Kosovo. We are indebted to the service personnel who put their lives at risk and to the aid workers who are helping the refugees in Albania and Macedonia.

While thousands of ethic Albanians flee from Kosovo, Canada with other NATO countries, is bombing Serbia. We are doing this to a country that has not waged war on Canada all without a resolution from the government, a debate on that resolution or a vote by the House of Commons, and without the sanction of the United Nations General Assembly.

How did we get here? How did we get to this terrible place?

For some years now, Yugoslav President Milosevic has been ruthlessly suppressing the rights of former states within Yugoslavia. By March of this year, as Mr. Milosevic spurned all attempts at peace talks, he amassed 40,000 troops in and around Kosovo and began a campaign of brutal ethnic cleansing. The United Nations Security Council failed to act.

At this point all 19 NATO countries agreed to intervene with an air campaign intended to stop the atrocities of Milosevic's forces, push him to withdraw from Kosovo and accept the entry of an international military presence to protect civilians.

For New Democrats the maintenance of peace has always been and remains our highest priority. Any decision to take military action is particularly troubling for us as internationalists seeking a peaceful world order based on respect for human rights.

However, the scale of the human disaster unfolding before the world made it imperative in our view for the international community to act. To sit by and do nothing was simply not an option.

As Tommy Douglas said about World War II:

When a group of lawless men endeavour to destroy the fabric of law and order by which alone human society is possible, then I have a responsibility to discharge.

Our actions are directed against the lawless violations of human rights on a massive scale in Kosovo, not against the people of Serbia. In this conflict, as in all wars, there is a tendency to demonize entire peoples and we must resist that. We must not forget the tragedy suffered by the Serbian people down through history and the threats which they face in the current catastrophe. At the same time we are determined to pursue those guilty of war crimes through the international criminal court.

Not all Canadians support armed intervention. Some activists in the peace movement oppose Canadian intervention in the conflict because of their pacifist convictions or because of different interpretations of the nature of the crisis.

My caucus colleagues and I understand and respect such views. We urge all members of the House to listen carefully and thoughtfully to them as we all struggle to determine the responsible course of action in line with our conscience and our convictions.

Since NATO's air campaign began Canadians have watched events with anguish and dismay. We must now face the reality that the air campaign clearly did not stop the Milosevic atrocities in Kosovo as the NATO leadership led us to believe. In fact the brutal evacuation of Albanian Kosovars from their homeland has increased during the NATO strikes.

Today's debate allows us all to take stock of this grave and difficult situation and to ask ourselves: Where do we go from here?

The government's response has been to ask for patience, to wait and see if the military force alone will force Milosevic's hand.

The government decided to focus only on military action. It decided to ignore political solutions and to forget Canada's internationalist tradition.

Canadians do not want their government to be so mesmerized by military developments that it fails to explore every possible political or diplomatic opening that might end the bombing at the earliest possible opportunity and allow the Kosovar refugees to return home safely.

Today we call on the Canadian government to take the full diplomatic action that Canadians expect of their government; to end the bombing at the earliest possible opportunity that gives the Kosovar refugees the chance to return safely home.

We call on the government to initiate a diplomatic offer to the Milosevic government that if it will stop the ethnic cleansing, if it will stop the atrocities and the killing and agree to come to the negotiating table, then NATO will suspend its bombing.

Since this crisis began there has not been a meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations. We also call on the Canadian government to call for a special meeting to address the crisis in Kosovo. We need to make every effort to build the capacity of the United Nations to act.

Our first priority must be to seek out every diplomatic and political opportunity that could bring the bombing to an end at the earliest opportunity.

The Milosevic regime may refuse all diplomatic and political overtures. The air campaign may fail to secure an agreement to allow an international force to accompany the Kosovar refugees back to their homes in safety.

Should that be the case, the Canadian government and other members of the international community will no doubt explore what other means can be used to stop the ethnic cleansing, including the use of ground troops. In that instance, I and my New Democratic Party caucus colleagues insist that any decision to use ground troops must be made by members of this House only after a full debate and only on an explicit resolution presented by the government, with a vote to follow.

We say this not to prejudice that important decision, but it is a democratic imperative that the House of Commons be allowed to decide this question affecting the state of international security and the safety of the men and women in our armed forces.

Last week the Minister of National Defence sent out confusing and contradictory signals about the state of planning within NATO for the use of ground troops.

If the government introduces a resolution on sending troops, the mission must be clear. The objectives of the air campaign were imprecise and not achieved. In fact, the humanitarian crisis was worsened as the result of the air strikes.

Today we repeat our call for the government to seek international agreement for the force of ground troops that will accompany the Kosovar refugees back into Kosovo to be under some authority other than NATO. A force organized under the authority of the UN or of the OSCE might have some chance of gaining the acceptance of the Milosevic regime and bring us closer to a political settlement, especially if Russia were to be part of that force. Indeed, securing Russian participation in diplomatic efforts to resolve this crisis is essential.

I am pleased that in debate this afternoon the Prime Minister indicated that he very much agreed with us in that regard. We are asking that the government play a more proactive role in advancing this position.

While the scale of the refugee crisis in Kosovo surprised NATO planners, the generous response of the public to that crisis came as no surprise to Canadians. We were pleased that our government joined with other countries in offering to temporarily evacuate thousands of Kosovars to Canada should that have been necessary and desirable.

On Friday, as we know, that plan was suspended after consultations with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. To remain steadfastly focused on the objective of Kosovars returning safely to their own homeland, we urge the government to continue working closely with the UNHCR. We hope and trust that the government will be dedicating all of the resources it was prepared to put into bringing refugees here to providing relief and support to refugees in Albania and Macedonia.

As we grapple with the Kosovo catastrophe we must learn from it what needs to be accomplished internationally if we are to avoid such crises in the future or handle them in a more effective way.

Some who have opposed Canada's military intervention have rightly pointed out the hypocrisy of NATO's intervention in this case of human rights violation and the very same countries' lack of action in many other cases of gross human rights violations taking place around the world.

One reaction to this hypocrisy is to argue for consistency. If governments did nothing about East Timor or the Kurds, the argument goes, if they stood by during the genocide in Rwanda, then they should do the same in this crisis.

There is another reaction to this hypocrisy, a more hopeful one. This could be a major turning point, where governments that have in the past turned a blind eye to gross human rights violations are now prepared to take bold action to face up to them.

If we are to make the legacy of the Kosovo tragedy a lasting and positive legacy, if we are to make this the beginning of a time when governments take their responsibilities for human rights seriously, then we have a lot of work to do. We must work to improve the capacity of the United Nations to deal with such situations.

Lack of consensus on the security council prevented the UN from taking a lead role in this desperate crisis, but current political differences on the security council were only a part of the problem.

The United Nations, like all of our current international organizations, is based on relations between sovereign states. Even though the UN charter refers to world citizenship, it has difficulties acting to protect the rights of world citizens where conflicts take place within sovereign states. This problem is one of the biggest challenges before the international community and we must deal with it in coming years.

The absence of a role for the UN and OSCE in this crisis left NATO as the only organization capable of taking action. We cannot allow the particular events of this crisis to permit NATO to become the self-appointed policeman of the world. Since the end of the cold war NATO has been very much an alliance in search of a role. That role cannot, in the long term, be as a free agent operating outside of the authority of the United Nations.

The crisis in Kosovo provides the latest proof of the terrible human cost of letting conflicts fester to the point where large scale military action is required to counter a humanitarian disaster.

We have to work at finding new ways of resolving conflicts in a peaceful manner. I want to commend Project Ploughshares, Voices of Women and other peace organizations for their excellent work in this regard.

Many potential civil conflicts could be prevented with progressive, enlightened policies of international economic assistance and co-operation. In this regard, unfortunately, the government has been heading precisely in the wrong direction. It has steadily eroded budgets for overseas development assistance and it continues to support an international economic order of unrestrained markets that pushes the poorest nations further and further to the economic margins. These policies will make civil strife and conflict more rather than less likely in the coming years.

We know there is no quick fix solution to the Kosovo catastrophe. The road to peace will not be smooth. But as we debate this issue let us remember that with every hour that passes more families flee their homes for safety outside Kosovo, more and more men and women sift through the rubble of their homes accidentally destroyed by air strikes, and more Canadians serving overseas experience trauma and risk their lives. For the sake of all these world citizens it is imperative that we explore every possible avenue to resolve the conflict quickly and peaceably.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explore with the hon. member what she would precisely propose in terms of this diplomatic initiative which she seems to feel we have failed to explore, given the background of the Rambouillet accord.

The hon. member well knows, of course, that the OSCE operates on a consensus minus one basis and therefore no operation to the OSCE would have been possible without the agreement of Russia and many other countries. The UN was blocked through a Russian and a possible Chinese veto, as we know.

What precisely does she say we should have done? Does she feel we should have done nothing and allowed the situation to develop recognizing the fact we needed troops? What has been said is we failed to pursue every diplomatic initiative. What else could we have concretely done? What would she have diplomatically pursued if she were in our place? How can she help the House?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member knows very well that I did not make the assertions that he attributed to me. Rather the entire thrust of what I think every member of this House needs to be concerned about, I want to reassure the member that I was very concerned about and I put my comments forward, is where we go from here.

It is very important that we not be stuck back at the point of saying that the Rambouillet accord said thus and so and therefore nothing else is a possibility. It is very important that we recognize that we have been bombing for 19 straight days. The objective that was set out at the beginning and thought to be achievable within a few days has simply not come anywhere closer to being achieved.

We absolutely have to redouble our efforts to seek every single possible avenue for a peaceful and early solution. How? Very specifically, propose to Milosevic, take a bold initiative that if he will stop the atrocities, if he will stop the killing, if he will agree to come to the table, then we will stop the NATO bombing.

[John Nunziata, Independent, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for all intents and purposes, Canada is at war. Canadian pilots are dropping bombs. People are being killed. Yet we have not taken a vote in the House of Commons in terms of a declaration of war. In any event as I understand it, the NDP supports the actions of the government so in effect supports this war that is taking place.

The Leader of the Official Opposition has indicated that under certain conditions the official opposition would support the sending of ground troops into Kosovo. I ask the leader of the New Democratic Party, under what conditions would her party support, if at all, the sending of ground troops into Kosovo?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to reiterate, because it is extremely important that we do so, that we have not exhausted all possibilities. We simply cannot take the position that only more military intervention is going to bring us to a peaceful solution. I want to carefully restate that.

This was a question that was addressed by my colleagues the international affairs critic and defence critic on March 31. We took the position then calling for us to redouble our efforts to seek a diplomatic and political solution. Should the issue of ground troops become one as an absolute last resort, then it is absolutely incumbent upon the government to come before parliament to set out clearly the military objectives, the terms of engagement, what precisely it is the government is proposing and after a full debate in parliament, that no such initiative be launched without there being a full vote of parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, since the leader of the New Democratic Party still believes a diplomatic solution is possible and desirable, can she indicate to us whether she believes the solution of autonomy is still possible within Yugoslavia, or whether what needs to be looked at, as I have just asked the Prime Minister, is a totally different status for Kosovo now, an international protectorate or protected zone, in light of recent events which make it very unlikely that Kosovars will want to co-exist with Serbs within their territory at this time?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, we have to recognize that these are all options, that these are all matters that need to be fully explored. They can only be explored if we can get to the negotiating table. These are not options that can be considered in the context of relentless hostilities, aggression and bombing. We have to get to the table.

It is absolutely critical for us to recognize that we have to move forward. If it is true that the bombings are achieving their desired objective, which is what NATO keeps claiming, then surely it is true that the situation is closer to one where the Milosevic regime will be brought to the negotiating table. We are simply saying that these and all options must be the subject of negotiation or we are not going to find a solution to the current Kosovo catastrophe.

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

Mr. Speaker, some people have said it was impossible to negotiate with someone who had committed, or was presumed to have committed, crimes against humanity.

What is the hon. member's response to those who think in this way and believe that no negotiation with Slobodan Milosevic is possible?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in the entire world community who is not horrified by the crimes against humanity committed by President Milosevic. But let us not give up on the notion that it is possible to come to the point of being able to negotiate a peaceful solution. If we are going to completely give up on the possibility that this can be achieved, then does the NATO bombing not constitute a hoax?

The continuing stated purpose of the NATO initiatives has been to bring Milosevic to the negotiating table. That has to remain our objective, but it is quite clear through 19 days of bombing that has not been achieved. We have to try every single possible avenue to reach a negotiated and peaceful settlement. We will only be able to do that if we can keep taking bold initiatives that have some potential to put an end to the hostilities on both sides and get down to negotiations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the House and to Canadians about the ongoing military conflict in Yugoslavia and to offer my remarks on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. This discussion is overdue and a substantive debate and vote is what Canadians deserve.

Members of the Canadian armed forces are taking part in a justified offensive action to end the slaughter and to return the basic rights of innocents in Kosovo. It is ironic that the Prime Minister and his government have had to be cajoled and shamed into consulting the elected representatives of Canadians with respect to Canada's participation in this conflict.

Before today, there have been two occasions when the government has asked members of this House to take note of the situation in Kosovo, on October 7, 1998 and on February 17, 1999. Both of these discussions were held under extraordinary rules; no motion was before the House for approval and a constitutional rule requiring the attendance of members was not observed. Parliament has never been asked to vote on this terrible matter in Kosovo.

War is not familiar to those of my generation. It is something I wanted to exist only in old film reels, yellowed newspapers and history books. Conflict in central Europe was something that was meant to be restricted to the archives or the annals of time. Sadly we find the atrocities of Kosovo dominating our mass media. We cannot ignore the lessons of history or shirk the Canadian tradition of service that we inherit.

I offer my support and that of my party to the women and men of the Canadian armed forces. They are courageously putting their lives on the line to restore peace and stability to the province of Kosovo.

Few of us here can properly appreciate or understand the commitment that our forces are making to end the terror of ethnic cleansing and racial murder in Yugoslavia. Our commitment to peace and safety of Canadians, our allies, the people of Kosovo demand that we cannot be neutral. Make no mistake about it, the Conservative Party supports Canada's NATO efforts thus far.

We must continue all efforts to seek solutions that would ensure that our soldiers and the people of Kosovo have a dignified way out of this horror. However, we now confront the reality that Canadians are facing the real possibility of battlefield deployment. Now is the time to consult before more Canadians are asked to put their lives at risk. Canadians have a proud record of international military service. It is imperative that we exercise proper judgment and discretion when sending our armed forces abroad.

It was a former Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, the leader of the Canadian government during the first world war, who said of a nation's military interventions “continuous consultation leading to concerted action”. After all, it was Borden who during the great war worked tirelessly to ensure that Canada had significant military and diplomatic influence during that most infamous period of instability. Borden's efforts secured Canada a seat at the Versailles treaty table. His leadership helped define Canada's place on the world stage.

This government could learn from Borden's actions and from the efforts of our former government. Through this conflict we have seen yet again the callous disregard this government has for parliament and the people of Canada.

It appears Canadian forces were called to action without a proper plan. While we as a party fully support Canada's military actions thus far, it is the method and the means with which the government made this commitment which is offensive to parliament and to the Canadian democratic principles.

The choices at times like this are never simple. Innocent people were being killed before the intervention, as they are now. All avenues other than intervention were tried and failed. The question then became whether the world was to stand back and allow actions tantamount to mass murder of a people, the forced expulsion of people from their ancient homes and a pattern of aggression that threatened the stability of a region, a region whose instability has plunged the world into war before. With stakes this high, this real, it was incumbent upon NATO and Canada to act.

Inaction can always be justified, and the world did justify it in Rwanda, in Burundi and elsewhere. This is a precedent of which we cannot be proud, either on humanitarian grounds or as for regional stability.

Nor is this a precedent which should bind our hands in circumstances where the prospects of successful intervention might be stronger. There is a question of state sovereignty, but as Mr. Milosevic has demonstrated, there are a multitude of ways to violate the sovereignty of one's neighbours and one's people.

At the end of the day the question became whether the alliance which had tried other means should simply stand back and let events take their murderous course. We cannot turn a blind eye when such inhumane suffering is inflicted on a people by their own government.

History has demonstrated that it would have been preferable to act under the broader mandate of the United Nations. Canadians deserve to know in great detail how Canada used its unique influence as a member of the security council and as a close friend and ally of the United States of America to advance that option.

In the early 1990s the previous government adopted a two track policy with respect to the crisis in the Persian Gulf, working for peace but preparing for hostilities if diplomacy failed. That record clearly shows that from the day Iraq invaded Kuwait, the former government engaged in extensive diplomatic efforts designed to find a peaceful solution to that crisis. Those efforts included wide consultation in that region and elsewhere, promotion of the importance of the UN as the instrument of the world's response, urging the prompt withdrawal by Iraq and counselling prudence on the part of our allies.

Everything the previous government did, it did knowing that international peace and order was its overriding objective. And we did not fear consultation with parliament.

The Prime Minister will recall that in 1990 and 1991 during the crisis in the gulf, the Progressive Conservative government placed before the House substantive motions for a vote. The Prime Minister has said in his remarks that our soldiers deserve the support and respect of Canadians and of parliament. Surely the best way to achieve that unanimity is through a vote in the House.

The Deputy Prime Minister has put forward an amendment to a motion before the House seeking that the House of Commons give approval to the government prior to any commitment of ground troops. I ask rhetorically, will the Prime Minister seek such approval if the need for ground troops arises in this conflict? Our foreign policy should not shrink from the world around us.

The crisis also raises questions about Canada's role and influence in international affairs. Sadly, under the Liberal government we are paying a price for the gradual deterioration in Canada's capacity to act internationally.

Unfortunately, Canada now has a government that is shirking its responsibilities and leadership. This has led to an erosion in Canada's stature abroad. This is what causes us to question the nature of its multilateral efforts in the context of the Kosovo conflict.

We cannot forget that. Despite our huge investment in peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia, Canada was not invited to be a member of the contact group negotiating with the various sides of the conflict in 1995.

In May 1995, when NATO bombed Bosnian Serb ammunition dumps in the vicinity of our peacekeepers, Canada was not advised of the situation in advance. Scores of Canadian soldiers were taken hostage in retaliation.

On the other hand, the policy of the former government was to work with the United Nations from the beginning to take more action both diplomatically and militarily. We firmly proclaimed our belief in collective security and responsibility in our commitment to help others. We did not follow the UN or NATO. We led them.

It is a sad spectacle when the current Prime Minister admitted in June 1995 in this House that Canada's international stature was so diminished under his leadership that the UN and NATO gave us no forewarning of air strikes in Bosnia.

A little over a year ago, the government was mounting the argument for Canadian participation in the military action against Iraq. The Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time admitted that Canada had not made any serious effort to achieve a consensus among the UN security council before such action because we ran the risk of establishing and defining a rift within the UN security council.

Pretending that problem did not exist was wrong and is highlighted today because that rift exists within the security council with respect to Kosovo.

This is further evidence that Canada has not maintained the political and diplomatic capability which was until recently a defining feature of Canada's role in the world.

It is still not clear, given the answers and the comments offered today by the Prime Minister, what diplomatic efforts the government undertook to resolve that rift.

When my party formed the government of Canada, we were successful in bringing the unique influence of Canada to play in order to carry out one of the mandates of the United Nations. Has the present government really fulfilled its role in persuading Washington, Moscow and Beijing to carry out one of the mandates of the United Nations?

How hard did the government try to use our unique position to persuade Washington, Moscow and then Beijing to achieve a UN mandate? Canadians have a right to know whether we mobilized our diplomatic and political influence with the same intensity in this case as we did so successfully in the gulf conflict.

When military action is proposed certain standards of conduct and criteria must be met. First, there should be clear political agreement on objectives.

Second, the scope of military action would have to be defined geographically and by capability. The government has deliberately chosen not to maintain the capability of the Canadian Armed Forces to live up to the roles we have traditionally played on the world stage.

Third, military action would have to be appropriate to the circumstances.

Fourth, the conditions that would precipitate a western military response would have to be clearly defined for all concerned in advance.

Finally, due regard must be given to the disengagement scenario prior to deeper involvement.

As for this last point, the Government of Canada must have known, when it agreed to air strikes against Serb targets, that ground troops could well be necessary if we are going to finish what it started. The use of ground troops is never a first option, yet perhaps a necessary one when the exercise of measured force is required.

The Prime Minister and the government should have been more frank and truthful with Canadians at this time.

Canadians and their elected representatives have been told that the objectives of the NATO operation are to halt the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, force the Yugoslav military and paramilitary forces returning to Kosovo to withdraw, enable the refugees to return home in safety and force the Yugoslavian government to accept the Rambouillet peace agreement along with the NATO peacekeeping force.

Canadians are left with questions about NATO strategy: its short term objectives, its long term objectives and how its success will be measured. When will the NATO bombing campaign end? What is the criteria for any potential decision to employ ground troops? These are but a few of the many questions that need to be answered by the Prime Minister and the government.

Recent reports from the BBC indicate that ground troops have been contemplated. A spokesman for the American state department suggested that NATO might put aside its reluctance to use ground troops in a military role in Kosovo. A spokesman for the minister of defence in London, General Sir Charles Guthrie, acknowledged that NATO planners had discussed sending in ground troops.

Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, defined victory as the removal of Serb troops and the return of Kosovar refugees with the protection of an international peacekeeping force. As for the political status of Kosovo, he said that partition was out of the question but that there still had to be autonomy at the very least and the question of independence would have to be determined at a later date. He also suggested that even if Mr. Milosevic was ready to return to the negotiating table, he was uncertain whether that was still an option given the charges against him of crimes against humanity.

This is the American view. What is the Canadian government's view on these important issues? Canadians deserve answers.

The government refused to recall parliament while major decisions affecting the deployment of Canadian soldiers were being made. Where have we come as a nation and a parliament if we cannot set aside time to properly debate ideas for action to stem this crisis in Yugoslavia, a crisis that grips the entire world? We have taken this path before. Why can we not do it now when the lives of so many may be at stake?

My final words and those of my party are for the Canadian and NATO personnel and their families and the people of Kosovo who are directly affected by this tragedy and this conflict. While we in Canada cannot fathom the depth of the courage of our military personnel or sufficiently comprehend the suffering of the Kosovars, we will work in unity to ensure that this conflict is brought to a just end. The efforts of our forces and the suffering of the people of Kosovo must not be in vain.

It has been said that the history of the Balkans always repeats itself. Thus far these repetitions have been nothing but bloody and tragic. However, we must not assume that reconciliation in this region is still impossible. It is incumbent upon all of us in this parliament to make sure that Canada helps to end that chilling cycle of catastrophic unrest. The people of Kosovo must be free from tyranny and allowed to live in peace and freedom.

There is an honourable heritage to uphold Canada's intervention and a moral obligation as a peace loving nation. The Conservative Party will support all legitimate efforts to seek enforcement of lasting peace in Kosovo.

I would like to move an amendment to the amendment moved by the Reform Party that would read as follows:

And in the interim, this House supports the existing commitment of Canada to the NATO action to resolve the continuing tragedy in Kosovo and requires the government to regularly consult and inform parliament respecting this commitment and any changes thereto.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair will take the amendment to the amendment under advisement for a few moments.