Debates of April 12th, 1999

Kosovo

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have seen some pretty disastrous scenes on television lately. We have gone through wars in the past. I do not like the idea, but I feel we are justified in entering this war.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member had to say. I was particularly interested in her personal experience of the base at Trenton and what was going on there. I also understand that the member, unlike many of us, has some personal experience in Albania. Could she share those two personal experiences with us?

[Beth Phinney, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Madam Speaker, maybe I could first say a few words about Albania. I was there three or four years ago. It was the first vote Albania had ever had for democracy, the first vote at all.

They had the communist side and the democratic side. They won on their first vote. Some of them felt they did not. The democrats got 40% of the vote and thought they had lost because they had never had a vote before. They did not understand that still meant they had won because they had their first opposition ever. In the following year they had another election and they won.

It is quite amazing what they are trying to do. The ones who are working earn approximately $50 a year. They showed me their food, their groceries for the week. They had brown bags and in them they had potatoes and onions. That is what they were eating that week. Mothers were taking their groceries home for their children.

They have done things like cut down all the trees for firewood because they did not have any other means of fire. They had great spirit and were so excited about having their first vote that 99.9% of the people voted in the election. It was quite amazing.

They are being sent some 300,000 to 500,000 people and will be asked to help them out. That is why I was saying that I was hoping the international countries that will be giving aid will help Albania and other countries like it where the refugees will be going, because the people already in those countries are not much better off than the refugees themselves.

It was pretty exciting at Trenton. The armed forces are working around the clock and have established great facilities. We may not now have to use them but we may need them in the future. They are prepared with 24 hours notice to take in quite a few plane loads of people at one time. Maybe even 1,000 to 2,000 people in a couple of days. They are very prepared and we should be very proud of them.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, although I must start my comments by saying that it is not the type of debate that I was hoping for today.

Some members have certainly talked about this point already. A take note debate obviously does not generate a lot of interest even from members of parliament, judging from the number of people who have been here tonight. It certainly does not stimulate the kind of interest and the kind of debate we need to involve Canadians in right across the country.

Instead of a take note debate we should be taking part in a full-fledged debate which would end in a vote. The debate should be on focused issues, a clear motion. At the end every member of parliament should know that they will have to stand in the House to take a position either for or against the motion. Certainly that will increase the level of interest and will reach out and involve a lot more Canadians in the debate.

It is unfortunate that is not happening today, but we do have a take note debate and I will be making a few comments in that regard.

To summarize the objectives of the NATO involvement, I start by saying that I fully support Canada standing shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies in actions in Kosovo.

Three objectives must be considered in this debate. The first is the moral objective. We cannot overstate the case on this issue. The moral objective is the halting of ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing means killing. Ethnic cleansing means the expulsion of people from their homes, the burning of their homes, and the expulsion of people from their country. We must halt this ethnic cleansing. I do not think we can possibly overstate the urgency of dealing with that situation.

The reason we are talking about political and the military objectives is to deal in an effective way with the moral objective of ending the killing, the ethnic cleansing, and with the people who have been displaced, helping as necessary the refugees who are in camps outside Kosovo and, if need be, bringing refugees to our country, particularly refugees who feel they have no life, no home, nothing back in Kosovo. These are the moral objectives. The importance and urgency of meeting those objectives cannot be overstated.

Of course there are political objectives. These political objectives involve creating a safe home for Kosovars on their own soil. That must be the political objective of everything we are taking part in and it must be done through internationally supervised negotiation.

I have heard many people state today that they believe Russia should be involved in these international negotiations. There is a great deal of value in that and hopefully, that can be accommodated.

To meet these political objectives we have to meet certain military objectives, which is the third objective we have to deal with in this debate. The military objective has to damage the Serbs' military capability to reduce their capacity to kill, to remove people from their homes, to destroy people's homes and to throw people out of the country. We have to reduce their capacity so they cannot do those things. That has to be one of the military objectives. When we get them to that point then we can get them to the negotiating table. We all know it is only through negotiations that we can hope to put an end to this sad situation in Kosovo.

How do we accomplish the military objectives? That is where there has been a lot of disagreement in this House. There is a lot of agreement for the use of NATO air strikes in helping to accomplish this objective. I think there is a lot of support for Canada to continue to participate in these air strikes. I am really pleased at the level of support in this House for that objective.

Also as the member of parliament from Lakeland constituency, I am proud that many of my constituents from the Cold Lake air base are involved in the military operations, are involved in the air strikes. The job they are doing and the commitment they have shown are to be commended. It is important in a situation like this one to show support for the men and women in our forces and for the extremely important role they are playing and I do so right now.

There is a lot of agreement on the use of air strikes. The real difference seems to lie for the most part in the use of ground forces to complete that objective if necessary. There must be two conditions for committing Canadian ground troops. The first is that NATO demonstrate that this commitment in fact is necessary. Can NATO demonstrate that? Has it been able to do this so far? No.

We do not know whether we will need ground troops. We do not know how effective the air strikes are going to be. We have heard differing opinions on that in the House. We have certainly heard one opinion from CNN which, after the first three or four days when it could not see any progress, said it ain't working. That is not good enough. We have to give it the time that is needed. We may find that the air strikes will go a long way to solving the problem.

The second condition is that the government must demonstrate to this House that Canada can meet the commitment laid out by NATO.

Madam Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca and so I probably only have two minutes left.

It is important that the government demonstrate to this House and to Canadians that Canadians will be able to meet the commitment and do the job that NATO delegates to them. That decision is to be made by the chief of the defence staff. That is the role of the chief of the defence staff.

It is the role of the government, the role of this House and not just the role of the governing party, to determine what Canada's involvement should be. It is the role of the chief of the defence staff to determine what our military capabilities are. That is critical and that job must be left to the chief of the defence staff.

Those are some of the military considerations.

I would like to close by asking the minister of immigration a few questions with regard to refugees and Canada's commitment to accepting refugees who have been displaced from Kosovo. What is the minister's position on this issue? It is unclear to me.

Last week the minister said that she would accept 5,000 refugees on a temporary basis. By last Friday she said she would accept refugees only if they intended to stay in Canada permanently. Today the minister is saying that she will accept certain Kosovar Albanians if they themselves express the desire to come to Canada. They would come not as refugees but through normal immigration channels. I would appreciate clarification by the minister.

I get one message from Mr. Girard who went to Kosovar and evaluated the situation and another message from the minister. It is very important that this be clarified. I look forward to the minister's clarification.

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

Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the hon. member's remarks. I commend him for his insight into this matter. All of us in the House have learned a great deal throughout the course of this debate and the member has added to that information sharing session.

The member speaks of the preconditions for the possibility of ground troops becoming involved. Quite rightly he and his leader have both pointed out the necessity of further information as to Canada's role in terms of doing everything possible to achieve a peaceful solution to this and also the assurance that is needed with respect to the protection of our fighting forces if it should come to that. We are now painfully and sadly aware that our Canadian armed forces are ill equipped should it come to the eventual inevitability that ground forces might be sent and Canadian armed forces personnel would be in harm's way.

Does the hon. member feel that another consideration which might lead to that is the information that seems to be readily available that perhaps greater atrocities are currently taking place such as the murder of the 100,000 Kosovar men who appear to be missing within the boundaries of Yugoslavia? Should that also be a major consideration in the determination of a potential ground force deployment?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, if the objective of this military involvement is to meet a moral obligation to protect Kosovars, clearly if an atrocity such as that has occurred, then the urgency has been stepped up another major notch. If that has occurred, we know it will probably happen again. The urgency is beyond anything I can express and certainly it is a critical consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, if the Progressive Conservative member is right when he says that 100,000 men have disappeared, it may be that this is no longer ethnic cleansing but genocide.

If we were to discover that the Serb government and the security forces of Slobodan Milosevic are guilty of genocide, would that justify very quickly the sending of ground troops into Kosovo?

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a very difficult question. It is a question I think none of us would like to be facing alone, which is all the more reason that we should have had a complete debate followed by a vote in the House. That decision should be made with a lot of input from Canadians.

If we did find that such a genocide had occurred, I still believe that the three main objectives would have to be followed through on and the two conditions for the military objective would still have to be in place. In other words, is the bombing doing the job? Is it going to lead to the Yugoslavs, whether it be Milosevic or someone else, getting to the negotiating table? Is this bombing going to do the job and force that to happen?

I do not think those questions have been answered yet. It still may be effective. Even if we find this has happened, that has to be evaluated by people who know far more than I do.

Second, if the government cannot demonstrate to the House, with the input from the chief of the defence staff, that our Canadian troops are capable of carrying out the task given them by the NATO command, then why would we put our Canadian troops at risk? If it can be demonstrated and if we do find out that the bombing is not going to prevent atrocities like this from happening, if this has happened already and if there is some belief that it could be happening again very soon, then in that case I would fully support the immediate use of ground troops, including Canadian ground troops.

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

Madam Speaker, if history has taught us anything, it is that we have learned nothing. Across the world, from Angola, Sierra Leone to the Sudan we have seen countries implode and thousands of civilians killed. In fact 90% of the casualties that are borne in the wars of today are innocent civilians, unlike what happened in the first part of the century. What all these situations have in common is they demonstrate an abysmal failure on the part of the international community to get involved before thousands of people have been killed and countries have been laid to waste.

Kosovo is the latest of those countries, the one that is the apple of the eye of the media, the one that is drawing the most attention. It is by no means that which is going to be the greatest in terms of death and destruction in our world today.

As I said before, in Sierra Leone hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and thousands more are killed every day. In northern Uganda 10,000 child soldiers between the ages of eight and twelve are committing horrendous atrocities and thousands of young girls of the same age are used as sexual concubines. No one hears about that, no one talks about it and no one cares.

The situation in front of us is one where we had some very difficult choices to make, to act or not to act in the face of Kosovo. With the memory of Croatia and the memory of the atrocities of Banja Luka, Srebrenica, Bihac and Sarajevo fresh in our minds, we chose thankfully to act. And act we did, perhaps not in the best way, but we acted.

There were a number of obligations and end points we wanted to accomplish. The first was the most important, to save the innocent civilians' lives. The second was to bring Slobodan Milosevic to the table to engage in a diplomatic solution to this problem.

The fact is Milosevic is not at the table and while we were bombing Belgrade, the ethnic cleansing continued. The reason is simply that bombing will not stop ethnic cleansing, or should I use the proper term, mass murder, that takes place door to door, person to person, eyeball to eyeball. That will not stop it, although I must say that I applaud and support the government's support of NATO's bombing in the federal republic of Yugoslavia.

Our current objective has several goals. The moral obligation is to save people's lives. No one disagrees with that. The political obligation is to get Milosevic back to the table and stop further ethnic cleansing. It is also to engage in a diplomatic solution.

I would argue that the diplomatic solution put forward at Rambouillet, France is now a dead duck. The notion of an autonomous Kosovo will not happen. Too much blood has been shed, too many people have been killed and the memories last a very long time. These people, quite frankly, are not going to live together.

How are we going to deal with this problem? I would proffer the following solutions to deal with the situation in Kosovo; solutions which I put forth in a motion last October in the House, which unfortunately was not taken up.

The first solution is to protect innocent civilians. The way to do that is to organize a safe haven in the southern part of Kosovo. This can be accomplished with minimal or no casualties on the part of the west, but it will involve ground troops. Ground troops are required to engage in a safe haven in southern Kosovo and those ground troops, in my view, should be European Union troops. The reason is that they were tasked five years ago to deal with the impending implosion of the former Yugoslavia and they sat on their hands. They sat on their hands and thousands of people were killed, maimed and left homeless.

The European Union troops could engage in this, which would accomplish the following. First, it would protect the Kosovar Albanians. Second, it would enable humanitarian aid to get to these people safely and efficiently. Third, if these people are going to be repatriated at the end of a politically organized solution, then it is far easier for them to be repatriated while in their own backyard than for them to be repatriated while spread far afield. It will not do to send these people all over the world and expect that at some point in the future they will somehow wind up back in Kosovo. That simply is not going to happen.

It would involve the partition of Kosovo. As I said before, these people are not going to live together. Why I think this is doable is that Milosevic wants the northern half of Kosovo because that is where the Field of Black Birds is and that is where the seat of Serbian nationalism comes from. That is primarily what he wants, along with some mines which I think are less relevant.

If we try to bring the two together it will involve a ground war and a lot of allied troops being killed. At best, it will be apparent victory. At worst, NATO will back down because of the number of body bags returning home and, as a result, NATO will lose an enormous amount of credibility; credibility that it would take a very long time to regain. A ground war is not something that anybody has the stomach for.

The long term political solution must involve Serbians coming to the table, but how do we do this? One of our failures has been to assume that Mr. Milosevic deals with the same moral framework that we do. He does not. He is the one who is responsible for the slaughter in Bosnia. He is the one who instigated the slaughter which we saw in the towns of Srebrenica, Bihac and Banja Luka. He is the one who engaged in a ground war with Croatia. He is the one who is largely responsible, with his leadership, for the implosion of the former Yugoslavia.

We have to recognize that we are not dealing with a familiar creature. In fact, I would liken him to Hitler. Appeasement was attempted in the late 1930s when Hitler was committing atrocities. It did not work then and it certainly will not work today. We have to use a different framework to deal with a creature like Slobodan Milosevic.

First, to bring him to the table will mean engaging in bombing, but I think it has to happen.

Second, we could use economic levers through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Both of those groups have enormously powerful economic levers to apply to any country and they must be applied to the federal republic of Yugoslavia. If we choke off the money supply we greatly diminish the ability of Milosevic to carry out a war for any lengthy period of time.

Third is something we have not looked upon which is the propaganda war. Many people in Serbia are falling behind their leader partly as a result of the bombing we have engaged in. Any time a country is bombed it is more likely the people no matter how much they despise their leader, will fall behind their leader not out of support for the individual but out of support for their country.

Therefore we have to get into the propaganda game. We need to use short-wave radio. The UN and other groups have the capability of beaming in what is taking place in Kosovo. We need to use television to demonstrate what is taking place in Kosovo and also the atrocities that took place in Croatia and in Bosnia. The people in Serbia do not know what their leadership has been up to and it is high time they did. If we are going to undermine Mr. Milosevic we have to do it from within. The easiest and most efficient way is by informing the Serbian public of what he is responsible for.

It is important for us to demonstrate and articulate to the Serbian people that our problem is not with them but with their leadership. I am sure that the Serbian people, like other people of the former Yugoslavia, want peace, that they want to live in harmony. Let us not forget that 10% of the population of Kosovo is Serbian. They have no stomach for killing as I am sure the vast majority of Kosovar Albanians have no stomach for killing. Unfortunately we see the manipulation by political leaderships to engage in war or to compromise their people at any price.

At the end of the day we have the Kosovo situation and we will have more Kosovos as time passes. I have been in war situations. I have seen people with their legs blown off from land mines. I have seen teenagers hold their bowels in their hands after being eviscerated by guerrillas. They did not want their bowels to fall on the ground. These are innocent people who did not ask for this.

I implore the government to try to change its foreign policy from one of conflict management to one of conflict prevention. I introduced a motion which will come up for debate on Monday. It articulates a way in which we can move our foreign policy from one of conflict management to one of conflict prevention. It articulates a series of methods for identifying the precursors to conflict and pragmatic tools such as the use of diplomacy and economic levers that have not been explored to prevent conflict from occurring.

It has been encouraging to see people across this House work together for the common goal of peace. I look forward to the future debates we may have to make sure Canada stands in the forefront of saving people's lives. We have in the past and we will in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask our colleague from the Reform Party, who suggested that we put the emphasis on the prevention of disputes and that we set up a prevention mechanism, what international organization should be responsible for such a mechanism.

Should it be the UN? Should it be the OSCE? Or should NATO itself be involved in the prevention and the settlement of disputes?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. We are lacking in leadership in the world today. In the post cold war situation we have to develop a new framework within which to work.

Some people have made the mistake of believing that NATO can get involved in conflicts as far away as Africa and the Far East. NATO's obligation is within its name, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It deals with that area of Europe and North America.

As the member alluded to, we have to engage in ways to deal with conflict all over the world. There are three bodies that can do this. The first is the United Nations. Kosovo demonstrates the failure of the UN. The security council rooted in its 1945 organization needs to be revamped. The IMF and the World Bank are the other two organizations that make up the three organized at Bretton Woods in 1945. They can engage in economic actions against a country that is engaging in behaviours that compromise international and regional security.

The argument in support of that is that countries engaging in a flagrant abuse of human rights and local or international security are an economic threat to those areas. They are engaging in bad economics. Why should the international community put money into countries that might use that money to buy arms to abuse people or engage in or support a conflict in their area? They do not have to. Within the IMF, the World Bank and the United Nations lies the tools that can be utilized. I might add that the United Nations is the toughest nut to crack.

While we are on the security council we need to have the courage to articulate the tough solutions that have to be put forward to enable the United Nations to change from being completely and utterly unable to deal with conflicts in a proactive manner to a body that can. There are many arguments to be made for that from a humanitarian argument to a cold-hearted economic argument.

The bottom line is that we have been on the security council for a year and a half. I implore the Minister of Foreign Affairs to talk very forcefully about revamping and restructuring the security council to broaden its number of members and to remove the veto from all of them.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his speech. I thought it was very thoughtful.

I wanted to ask him if he looked at the situation over the last two, three or four weeks and questioned himself. Does he think the role of NATO in this exercise has reduced hostilities or exacerbated the situation?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a difficult question but I thank my hon. member for asking it. The litmus test in all this is our prime objective of saving the lives of innocent civilians.

Clearly Mr. Milosevic was engaging in a process of ethnic cleansing. Perhaps NATO was brought in late but it was brought in and saved the lives of some people. Not as many as it should have because of the tardiness involved. As I mentioned in my speech there are other things NATO could have been involved in. I do not think it has increased the hostilities. What we saw happen would have only happened in a more extreme fashion and we would have seen more innocent lives being taken.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I start my speech this evening I would like to advise that I will be sharing my time with the member for Peterborough.

I rise this evening at this late hour to support Canada's involvement in Kosovo to stop the systematic campaign of terror being perpetrated and led by Slobodan Milosevic against the innocent civilians of Kosovo.

First and foremost I thank our Canadian fighter pilots and the peacekeeping troops for putting their lives on the line to carry out their missions against Yugoslav military and security forces with skill and courage. All Canadians can be proud of their performance.

Almost three weeks ago NATO commenced its operation allied force. I submit that it had no further option when it did so. As Canadians and members of the international community we could no longer stand by and tolerate the actions of a government which denied the most basic rights to its people, sending tanks, troops and artillery to destroy villages, barbarically taking the lives of innocent civilians, and forcing hundreds of thousands of people including women and children out of their homes.

We have witnessed the pillage and agony too vividly for almost a decade. The actions of President Milosevic and his authorities constitute the last horrendous crime of this century. The crimes continue to be perpetrated. This weekend we again heard of reports of alleged rapes. We have seen aerial views of alleged massive grave sites.

Enough is enough. Genocide and ethnic cleansing cannot and will not be tolerated any longer.

That is the message that operation allied force is sending to President Milosevic, the Serbian government and the people who stand up and support those policies and, in some instances, carry them out. That is also the message that we, as Canadians and members of NATO, must unanimously reaffirm tonight. I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the House to do so.

Over the last week questions have arisen in the media as to why Canada, which has an international reputation for peacekeeping, is so deeply involved in the attack on Milosevic's forces. Why is Canada dropping bombs instead of pursuing peace?

Let it be absolutely clear that Canada's strongest preference remains a negotiated settlement to the crisis based on the Rambouillet agreement.

I also believe that Canada's participation in NATO is not a brand new direction in Canada's foreign policy. Our participation in the NATO air strikes is based on furthering Canada's human security issues agenda, the very same agenda on which Canada campaigned for a seat on the United Nations security council.

Human security is a concept which responds to the changing nature of conflict in the late 20th century where wars are increasingly fought within, not between states. New strategies are needed for addressing today's civil conflicts not only because of the threat that they pose to international peace and security, but because of the toll in civilian suffering that they extract.

Human security extends beyond the traditional security paradigm centred on conflict resolution between states by addressing such issues as poverty, refugees, human rights, governance and the rule of law, and other cross-cutting issues such as transnational crime, terrorism and environmental degradation. The land mines campaign and the follow up is an example of successful international action to tackle a key human security concern.

Last week our Minister of Foreign Affairs delivered an address to the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Relations at Princeton, New Jersey, wherein he confirmed that our government's decision to send Canadian pilots to war was based on our policy of furthering and protecting human security. In his speech he stated:

If Kosovo symbolizes how human security has become a focus of attention and concern for the international community, NATO's response demonstrates how the defence of human security has become a force for global action.

NATO is engaged in Kosovo to restore human security to the Kosovars. It was and is the humanitarian imperative that has galvanized the alliance to act.

Critics state that the proper way to resolve this issue was through the United Nations and that Canada with a seat at the security council had a duty to ensure that the resolution to this crisis took place at the security council.

The fact is that the United Nations security council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN charter, issued crucial resolutions that identified the conflict in Kosovo as a threat to peace and security in the regions. In fact, Resolutions 1199 and 1203 and the October agreements between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and NATO imposed a clear obligation on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to respect a ceasefire, protect the civilian population and limit the deployment of its security forces in Kosovo. Yet the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia breached all of its obligations under the United Nations security council resolutions and under the Belgrade agreements of October 1998.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was intransigent and all efforts to reach a negotiated settlement were rendered futile.

There is no doubt that Canada would have preferred the United Nations security council to explicitly authorize NATO's mission and Canada worked hard to encourage the council to pass such a resolution. However, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated last week, “certain members of the council would not reconcile yesterday's assumptions about sovereignty with today's imperatives of human emergency”.

I believe as the Minister of Foreign Affairs believes that the notion of human security has transcended classic notions of the nation state and sovereignty.

Critics who believe that NATO has no legal right to attack a sovereign state are overly simplistic in their analysis. While Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington on April 4, 1949 defined the case of the alliance as a collective defence against armed attack, the nationalisms of the Balkans and the Caucuses that helped spark World War I became resurgent.

This produced non-Article 5 missions such as the peacekeeping force in Bosnia. As Craig R. Whitney wrote in Sunday's New York Times , “the war is teaching NATO what its role is”. Mr. Whitney noted:

Like it or not, the role of NATO is being defined in practice in Kosovo, not on paper in Washington.

The role right now is that of a bulwark against the consequences of ethnic instability in Europe's southeastern rim. For that, much more than Russian nuclear bombs, is today the biggest threat to European security as it was a century ago.

Mr. Whitney goes on to note:

—if NATO cannot defeat the effort of President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavia to drive the ethnic Albanian population out of the ancient Serbian province of Kosovo, the alliance risks going the way of the League of Nations and other failed 20th century attempts to deal with the same ethnic instability.

As Canada and other leaders of NATO meet in Washington next week to celebrate NATO's 50th anniversary, it will also be a time to discuss and chart a new strategic concept as it defines its role in the 21st century.

I hope the concept of the missions of human rights and human security are first and foremost on the NATO leaders' agenda. This is also an issue in which Canada can play a lead role at the United Nations security council; by working toward a universal set of conditions and limits for actions in favour of human security.

Last week, when addressing the criticism about Canada's role in NATO and its unprecedented interference with state sovereignty, the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated as follows:

It is curious that far from weakening state sovereignty, action to support human security—to the extent that it supports democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights—can serve to reinforce stability. Similarly, the very same countries that argue against humanitarian intervention on the basis of sovereignty are the most anxious to join trade and commercial organizations, which by their nature involve creating a certain amount of international control. It is hard to understand why it is acceptable to sacrifice sovereignty for economic interests, but not in the human interest.

Last but not least, let us send a very strong message today from the House of commons to President Milosevic and his authorities that Canada, along with its NATO allies, is determined that Kosovo's two million people should be left in peace to govern themselves under international protection.

If we do not prevail more atrocities will undoubtedly unfold. As we approach the next millennium, we in the international community have a duty to ensure that the human atrocities that we have watched over the last 10 years cease and desist immediately. As we enter the new millennium we must also ensure that these atrocities never happen again.

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

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Parkdale—High Park who, at this late hour, is brimming with energy and is keeping members awake. I congratulate her on this.

I would also like to quote for her benefit the preamble to the United Nations charter, which begins with the following words:

We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.

However, it would appear that one country is no longer a true member of the UN. Moreover, Yugoslavia's status within the UN is rather unique, given the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. One country has failed to uphold the principles of this charter, but because of a veto right, the UN cannot intervene as it really should in the conflict in Kosovo.

There is one thing the UN could do. The hon. member from the Liberal Party maintains that we are witnessing a genocide. She used the word “genocide”. This afternoon, the Prime Minister hesitated to use the word again when reminded that this was the word he had used previously.

Would the hon. member who is talking about a genocide support the idea of the Government of Canada bringing Yugoslavia up on charges before the International Court of Justice and calling on this court to rule that Yugoslavia has indeed violated the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, unlike the hon. member, I am not an expert in international law. I thank him for quoting the preamble to the charter for the United Nations.

Before I answer his last question, it is imperative to remember that the United Nations did pass two resolutions, especially 1199, which stated that Kosovo was in a state of crisis. I believe it was the hon. member who told me why we are not using the United Nations. It was because of the veto powers of both China and Russia that we could not use the United Nations fully.

In answer to the member, yes, we absolutely should use the international war crimes court. I am not an authority on who should be brought to justice at this time, but if war atrocities are committed, Canada, as a leader in the international community of peacekeepers and as defenders of human security issues, should do whatever is possible and right to bring these people to justice as soon as possible. We have seen these atrocities on television and over the last 10 years in the Balkans. We should make sure these atrocities never occur either in the Balkans or anywhere else in the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a comment and perhaps a quick question for the hon. member across the way.

Today during debate the Leader of the Official Opposition very clearly laid forward the fact that the official opposition would reluctantly support the use of ground troops if it became necessary provided two conditions were met.

The first condition would have to be that NATO could very clearly show that a commitment of ground troops was necessary in order to halt the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and provide a safe home for Kosovars in the region.

Secondly, the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition went on to say that it would be necessary for the government to very clearly show to the House of Commons that our troops had the tools to do the job.

I wonder if the hon. member would support that type of position. Furthermore, would she support the use of democracy in this country whereby if ground troops became necessary we would have a debate in the House and it would be put to a vote?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would submit it is trite to say that I believe in democracy. I believe that the atrocities that are happening in the Balkans must stop.

As a private citizen, for years I watched on TV what was happening in Bosnia. I would ask my children, my friends and my family why the government was not doing anything to stop the atrocities. I wondered why had we not stopped them before.

I am proud to be sitting in this House and to be a member of a government that has decided to be part of an alliance to do everything possible, based on the tools and resources available, to safeguard the lives of the Canadian peacekeepers who are over there and to stand up to a monster like Milosevic.

I will stand in here and defend the government for whatever it feels it has to do to stop monsters like Milosevic from doing what they are doing in the Balkans and anywhere else in the world.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, when humans were organized into tribes, bound together by family ties, language and religion it was easy to fight their neighbour who was clearly different.

Today in Canada we have a wonderful new type of nation. Our citizens include the very diverse first nations people who speak a range of languages which extend beyond our borders and who may well have relatives in other countries.

In Canada we have representatives of more than 200 nations of the world who speak hundreds of languages and who belong to all of the world's major religions.

Over the weekend I was told of a housing project in Toronto where the kids speak 80 languages.

The majority of Canadians have kin abroad. It is virtually impossible for a nation like this to engage in a dispute with another country without it being a dispute with some Canadian families or with people who have linguistic or religious ties with Canada.

Today, for the third time, we are debating a conflict in the former Yugoslavia. This is a part of the world where the ethnic, linguistic and religious mix, although nothing like the scale of our mix in Canada, is quite remarkable. As an inevitable result the ties with Canada are, to say the least, intricate.

In my riding we have two first nations and some 70 first and second generation nationalities. We have Serb Canadians, Albanian Canadians, Greek Canadians and Macedonian Canadians who talk on the phone to relatives in the zone of conflict. Some of these people came to Canada to get away from the clutches of Mr. Milosevic. We have church groups, Christian and Muslim, that have strong ties over there. As the House can imagine, the views of these Canadians who share a common region of origin are often very different.

I am glad that Canada is not a tribal society. I am glad that it is not easy for us to fight our neighbours. I hope that it never will be.

In my riding there is a wide range of opinion about the conflict in Kosovo. There are people who are opposed to NATO involvement. Some simply want the bombing to stop. One person compared the NATO actions to those of the Nazis. He said that it is like the Nazis practising with high tech weapons on civilians.

There are people who are very much in favour of the NATO action, who feel that we should escalate the action in the air and on the ground rapidly to finish off Mr. Milosevic off once and for all. I believe that the vast majority of people in Peterborough support the NATO action, but with sadness. That is why there has been such an outpouring of support in cash and kind for Kosovo and neighbouring countries from people who support the NATO action.

Never before have I known an international crisis that has resulted in large numbers of people offering space in their homes for refugees. One couple in Peterborough specified that they wanted to have a family with at least three children to make good use of their spacious home. Nurses and translators from Peterborough have offered to travel to reception points in Canada and to Albania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The Government of Canada has already committed more than $20 million in aid at a time when we are engaged in this conflict.

Canada is not a nation which enters into conflict easily, with the idea of pounding some other nation. Most people support the NATO action as a necessary evil, something that they believe has to be done.

Last October when the House first debated this matter people on the street often mentioned Rwanda as a missed opportunity. They would say that if only we had gone in earlier we could have saved half a million people. Today those who contact me with offers of aid are saying the same thing. The fact that we are in the first hour of the Holocaust Memorial Day now reminds us of another case where timely intervention would have prevented a tragedy.

In the first debate last October I had the strong feeling that we were raising the ante so that Mr. Milosevic would back down. It was a bit like a union giving its executive a strike mandate, with each member secretly hoping that a strike would not be necessary. In most labour-management negotiations a strike is not necessary. The same is true of many of the actions of the international community. Diplomatic and economic pressure usually does the trick, but this time more serious action was necessary.

In the debate last October 7 the Minister of Foreign Affairs pointed out that we were faced with a humanitarian tragedy and that 300,000 people were on the move. That was six months ago and there are now a million people on the move. Conditions in Kosovo have become much worse.

Can we stand by when this sort of ethnic cleansing is going on? Surely we should learn from experiences like Rwanda and the 1930s leading up to World War II.

As I said, it is not easy for a country like Canada to enter into a conflict like this; it never was and it never should be.

Until recently the colour sergeant of the Peterborough legion was a man who immigrated to Canada just before World War II. He volunteered and served through the war, much of the time in campaigns in which his brothers were on the other side. As a new Canadian he had to make a very difficult personal decision to volunteer to fight in that war. So did tens of thousands of others in our armed forces.

It was not easy for Canada to go to war then; it is not easy now, but let no one doubt our resolve when we decide on a course of action. We were right then; we are right now. We are engaged in this tragic conflict today out of firm conviction. Our intention is to halt ethnic terrorism in Kosovo and prevent its spread in that region. Our intention is to show that the international community is resolved on matters such as this.

Let us continue to exert all forms of diplomatic pressure to achieve a political settlement. Let us hope that Mr. Milosevic will soon realize that we are serious so that he will allow Kosovo to develop in peace as an example to the world of diverse peoples living together.

Let us pray for all those in this troubled region and for their families, wherever they may be.

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

Madam Speaker, despite the late hour, it is almost 12.30 a.m. here in Ottawa, it is really prime time out in British Columbia, about 9.30 p.m. I suspect that a lot of my constituents from Prince George—Peace River who have expressed deep concern to me and to my offices in the riding over the past few weeks about the war in Kosovo and Serbia will be watching this debate tonight with great interest.

Despite the late hour, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this take note debate. However, it is unfortunate that it is just a take note debate.

Before we committed troops to the air war we had a debate in the House, but we have never really had a full blown debate on this issue and we have never had a vote in the House of Commons on such an important issue. One of the big issues that came up repeatedly today in question period was the lack of commitment on the part of the Prime Minister to uphold democracy and to put this issue to a vote.

It has been clarified by all the speakers for the official opposition tonight and by the leader earlier this afternoon that we support NATO involvement in the Balkans. As all members have said and as I have heard repeatedly tonight, even from the government side, it is very reluctant support that all of us give to this war that we find ourselves in, but it is necessary. I believe that the majority of Canadians across the land are supportive as well.

I say that with a certain degree of sadness. When this began there were greatly mixed emotions and feelings across the land about the issue, whether NATO should be involved or whether there was any legal means for NATO to be doing the things that it began to do with the air strikes and cruise missiles going into Belgrade, other cities and military locations throughout Serbia.

Over the course of time, as one would suspect, when citizens in a free and democratic country are confronted nightly on the news with the appalling scenes of misery, death and destruction that have been perpetrated on the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, public opinion has swung quite decidedly.

In speaking with the people of Prince George—Peace River I have heard some conflict in opinion over the past few weeks, but generally speaking they understand why we are there and they understand what we are endeavouring to accomplish.

I would like to talk about the Rambouillet accord and its failure to bring about a negotiated settlement. The accord was brokered by the UN security council contact group, which includes Russia. There are three conditions in the Rambouillet accord: that Kosovo must remain an integral part of Serbia; that Kosovo would get some broad autonomy in its operations; and that 28,000 international troops would be placed in Kosovo to monitor its implementation and to keep the peace.

I heard from a constituent in my riding, Professor Jernej Polajnar of the University of Northern British Columbia, and I welcome his input. Professor Polajnar is much more of an authority on the conflict in the Balkans than I probably ever will be. He notes that the main sticky point between the position of Kosovo and that of President Milosevic is the third condition, that 28,000 troops have to be in place to keep the peace in Kosovo.

I was quite pleased that following the Prime Minister's speech earlier today he was asked whether there was not some room on that issue to look at a truly international force rather than a NATO force. This is an important point because NATO is viewed by Serbians as the aggressor. I am not speaking just of Milosevic; I am talking about the Serbian people. There are a lot of reasons for that. Probably one of them is the lack of open media in Serbia to get an unfiltered message out.

Why would the average Serbian, who has bombs and cruise missiles raining down upon them nightly, want to capitulate to the third condition and see NATO troops being the ones supposedly keeping the peace? I would submit that is absurd. Of course they will not.

If there is some room to manoeuvre on this point Canada should be actively engaging the Russians or perhaps the Finns. I am not an authority on which countries would be the best to approach, but I am sure there must be some countries that would be more acceptable to the Serbian people to play the role of peacekeepers in Kosovo than NATO. If that is the biggest sticking point, then I suggest we must look at moving on from that third point of the Rambouillet accord.

Certainly I am not privy to the diplomatic efforts being made by our government to actively approach the Russians and others to get them involved and to encourage them to come forward with a plan in which they would participate, to play that role as peacekeepers.

I am very fortunate as a member of parliament to have a weekly column in the newspapers in my riding. There are a number of them because it is a large rural riding. I wrote a column a couple of weeks ago on this subject. I said in the column, as all members have said during the debate, that I reluctantly supported the military intervention because I saw it as a last resort, that we had to do something.

I used the example of the appalling loss of life that took place in Rwanda. It is estimated that 800,000 people lost their lives in that conflict while the world sat back and watched. I suggested in the column that we simply could not do that in all good conscience. We have a moral obligation and responsibility as free and democratic people and we must intercede and do what we can to try to prevent that from happening in Kosovo. I believe we are endeavouring to do that.

Canadians must grapple with the question of whether we should commit our own troops to try to prevent that type of genocide. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot sit in front of our televisions saying “Oh my God, why doesn't someone do something”, and then condemn the government if it acts and does something to try to prevent it.

That was my message in my column. It was fairly well received according to the feedback from my constituents. People generally understand that there has to be a reckoning for Milosevic and his type.

As I said at the outset, the official opposition and I support the continuing air war, but there must be some strong conditions and there must be an open honest debate if we ever get to the next step. We are probably going to have to look at the insertion of ground troops in Kosovo. We definitely must have a vote in the House of Commons if and when that takes place.

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

Madam Speaker, would my colleague support the use of ground troops in the former Yugoslavia if necessary?

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

Madam Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition said so well this afternoon, the official opposition would support the use of ground troops if a couple of conditions were met.

The first condition is that NATO would have to very clearly show it was necessary, that it was a reluctant last resort in order to prevent the ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing of the ethnic Albanians and the Kosovars.

The second condition put forward by the Leader of the Opposition was a very obvious one, the protection of our own armed forces. During the five years I have been a member of parliament there has been a lot of debate in the House of Commons about the terrible state of equipment for our armed forces. The government has consistently said that our armed forces is well equipped to do the job, yet under the management of this government the defence resources have shrunk from a budget of $12 billion to about $9.3 billion. I for one cannot understand how we can expect our armed forces to do the job when we do not give them the tools.

Yes, we are supportive if it is proven necessary that we must put ground troops in Kosovo. The reality is if we are going to do that, we must ensure that our sons and daughters are properly equipped to do the job they are asked to do.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member talked about the conditions that have been proposed to bring peace to the Kosovo region. He also talked about the fact that we may need to encourage those conditions to be put into place or renegotiated with the use of ground troops.

Has he had any feedback from his constituents? Have they given some thought to the kind of results Canadians would need to see in order to justify risking the lives of Canadian troops in Kosovo? Does the member believe the government has satisfied him and other members of the House that those conditions would in fact be met?

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question.

Yes, I have. I think every member on both sides of the House over the last number of weeks and indeed months has had a substantial amount of input from their constituents out of concern for this.

One of the big concerns is the potential for escalation of this conflict. It is a great worry because of the close ties between Russia and the former Yugoslavia and the position that Russia has taken in backing away since its involvement in the Rambouillet accord. It has really backed away because of the military action of NATO.

The real problem is a lack of communication of a plan by this government. The vast majority of Canadians are wondering exactly what the plan is and what the conditions are where we would say that we have been successful and that NATO has been successful.

We can all be impassioned, speak emotionally about the issue and our concern for the Kosovars. The only way we can judge that is when they are back in their homes, but in many cases they do not have homes to go back to.

We have to have a great deal more debate and discussion on this issue. We have to have a firm plan put forward by the government on what it will consider to be a success. I have not seen that happen to date.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, it would be a good idea if we refreshed our memories about the motion being debated this afternoon and now into the wee hours of the morning. I would like to read it again for those who are following this debate. I know many Canadians are following the debate. The motion that the government has put forward for this debate is this:

That this House take note of the continuing human tragedy in Kosovo and the government's determination to work with the international community in order to resolve the conflict and promote a just political settlement for Kosovo that leads to the safe return of the refugees.

This motion is long on rhetoric but terribly short on specifics. I do not want to be unkind to government members, some of whom I know have spoken from the heart, but they have been long on rhetoric, long on compassion, long on “we can never let this happen again”, but very short on practicalities.

The simple fact is that this is happening. This has been happening around the world for the last number of years, in the killing fields of Cambodia, in Somalia, in the Sudan, in Rwanda, in Ethiopia, in Central America, and the list goes on.

To simply say that it will make the world safe and happy for everyone is nonsense. The government has put forward no plan at all. There are no specifics. There is no goal in mind that the government has articulated in a meaningful and practical way or an action plan as to how it can be achieved. The government is simply saying it will do something.

If the government is to have a determination to work with the international community, there should be some specifics. That is why the Leader of the Opposition put forward an amendment to the motion which says that the government must specify the moral, political and military objectives of Canada's involvement with NATO in the region.

What are the moral, political and military objectives? Although our leader outlined what we think they are, the government needs to be up front with Canadians about what these objectives truly are. If it wants to accept the proposals, the definition and the specifics we have put forward, that is well and good. If the government does not like those, what is its moral objective? What is the wrong that we intend to right?

The government motion says to take note of the continuing human tragedy and work to resolve the conflict. What wrong are we trying to right? As other members have pointed out, although genocide has been committed against Albanians by Serbians, in the past it has been the other way around. The Kosovo Liberation Army has been labelled by many international observers as a terrorist organization.

Exactly what wrong are we trying to right? Let us be specific. What justice are we seeking to establish? We need to know these things. We need to be specific about them. How can we achieve objectives that have not yet been identified or defined? It is nonsense. We cannot just get up and put our hands over our hearts and say that this is terrible, that the pictures we see are terrible and not specify our objectives. The atrocities which are happening are terrible, cruel, horrible and unthinkable in Canada. Unless we specify exactly what our objectives are, we are never going to meet them. Unless we know where we are going, we are not going to get there.

Let us talk about the political objectives. I suggest that is the administrative framework to support the moral results that we have identified. What administrative framework is going to be put into place?

My colleague talked about the Rambouillet plan and the fact that it may need some adjustment. We are speculating. We are not in the NATO councils and the international discussions that the government representatives are. At best the government has been vague about what things are being talked about.

What are we trying to achieve as far as a political framework and an administrative framework in order to make sure that the justice we are seeking, and which we should specify, is actually going to be enforced and administered? We have to talk about the military objective. We have to have an action plan.

We have to specify the resources that are going to be necessary to carry out the action plan. As many members of the opposition have pointed out, we do not have the resources. It is ludicrous for us to parade around pretending that we are going to achieve something when we have divested ourselves of many of the resources that we will need to achieve those objectives.

Our military capacity has been depleted over the last two years by deliberate policies of the government. Our defence critic, the member for Calgary Northeast, made a number of observations about our forces and their unreadiness and lack of equipment. Those questions have to be answered. The government did not even address them.

The government says that we are going to get in there and we are going to fight to protect people. With what? With how many troops? With what equipment? The French were giving our troops axe handles earlier on to beat off the wild dogs. They did not have equipment to protect themselves, never mind innocent Kosovars and Albanians. Governments have reduced the size and capabilities of our military by 50% during the last decade. On what basis are we to come forward and protect people in other countries? This is a sorry tale.

Over and over the issues of old equipment, unsafe equipment and increasingly stressed out soldiers are raised in the House. While our helicopters fall from the sky or cannot get off the ground, our defence minister says we would never have unsafe equipment for our troops. That is nonsense. It flies in the face of facts and the things that happen every day. We have to talk about these things.

What does the government do? It puts forward a soft, mushy motion and says that it will promote a just settlement and safety. Let us be specific. We have to tell Canadians about this because we are asking them to support these measures. Huge tax dollars go into these kinds of missions. In spite of the Prime Minister's assurances that no ground troops are being considered, we know they are. The government's own defence minister has said it was under consideration.

If we are to ask our fathers and mothers, our sons and daughters, our husbands and wives, our brothers and sisters to go into another part of the world to carry out unspecified objectives with a lack of equipment, we have to get some information to the Canadian people to reassure them that there is some focus, that there is some objective that can be carried out.

A number of my constituents have contacted me with concerns. The official opposition, as is the case with all parties in the House, has supported what has gone on in trying to rectify the situation in Kosovo. Many of my constituents have tremendous concerns. I would like to read one of them:

I would like to express my opposition to Canada's continued involvement in Kosovo. Why are we there? I am very concerned with human suffering, but I am baffled that people don't remember the history of this place and the fact that there is a dismal human rights record that hasn't been addressed in the past.

We owe Canadians a real debate and an expression of their will through a vote in the House by their elected representatives. The government is dropping the ball. It is simply saying that we had a debate. However it has not been a meaningful debate. It has not been on specifics. Canadians have not been well served by the government. I urge the government to get specific, to get real, to have a real mandate from Canadian people, and to mean business in Kosovo.