Debates of April 12th, 1999

Kosovo

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about debates advancing and I think there has been some advance in thinking on both sides since the two earlier debates we have had on this general issue.

Bearing in mind his strictures against treaties made under duress, could the hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas envisage a new diplomatic negotiating process that might produce a more even-handed disposition for either the present government of Yugoslavia or a successor government? In other words, does he have something more concrete in mind, accepting the premise that Rambouillet essentially would have been, as he said, a treaty imposed under duress as settlement?

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly we are saying that NATO cannot be the body that is ultimately responsible for bringing peace either to this region or in seeking to expand its role generally on its 50th anniversary as it looks for a new reason to exist.

Certainly we could look within the umbrella of the United Nations. We have also suggested that there may very well be wisdom in the general assembly itself. In his own comments the hon. member alluded to the importance of involving the UN general assembly and not just the security council. We may be able to bring that wisdom in to involve Russia directly in the process of decision making and ultimately negotiation.

If we are to achieve that success in negotiation, we have to be prepared to get back to the table without a whole list of preconditions. That is what our leader has called for today. That is what we are repeating at this time. For God's sake, let us recognize not a whole list of preconditions, stop the ethnic cleansing and the atrocities, stop the bombing, get back to the table and arrive at a peaceful solution that will allow all of the those who have been driven from their homes to return to their homes, that will allow for reconstruction and that will allow for just as many resources to be put into healing and rebuilding as have been put into violence and bombing.

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

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member comment on the long term impact that Canada's involvement in the Kosovo crisis will have on Canada's reputation?

As he knows, since the Pearson years and before Canada has cultivated this peacekeeping, peacemaking international reputation. Would it not be the case that as a result of Canada's modest involvement militarily in this matter its much cherished peacekeeping role internationally might be affected adversely for many years to come?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt that this is a serious concern. That is all the more reason for Canada to finally show some independence, to reach out and to show leadership internationally in brokering a solution that will restore the reputation we have fought so hard to establish.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the very important subject of today's debate.

I believe I can truthfully say that in all my 35 years of public service this is one of the most difficult issues I have ever had to grapple with. It was a struggle. We were basically taking a position and making a decision around an issue to which I am fundamentally opposed, the use of violence. It is violent. Bombing is violent. No matter how smart we say these bombs are, it is a violent approach to this problem.

However, we concluded that because of seriousness of the atrocities and the senseless slaughter taking place, which we saw coming across our TV screens with men, women and children suffering, with young children crying and being separated from their families, we would lend our support to try to bring this senseless slaughter to an end. That has been the thrust of the NDP throughout this whole business, to bring an end to the terrible situation we are faced with.

Last Friday I attended a peace rally in Halifax organized by the Voice of Women and some other organizations. One of the people primarily responsible for organizing it was a women over 90 years of age, Maria Duckworth who worked all her life for peace and harmony. The people at that rally made it very clear that they were opposed to bombing Yugoslavia. They talked about the legality of the action being taken. They stressed their concerns about the innocent people who were being slaughtered in the whole process. I assured them that we would certainly carry forward their voice and their concerns into the debate tonight.

We talk about ethnic cleansing. I would like to say right off the bat how very much I abhor that phrase. I know many members use that phrase, including members of my caucus. I suggest that we are not dealing with ethnic cleansing. When we talk about cleansing we know that when we clean something it is because something is dirty. We wash our cars because they are dirty. We scrub our floors because they are dirty. We wash our hands because they are dirty. We try to cleanse these things. When we talk about a people being purged and driven from their country and being slaughtered because someone is not content with the ethnic background of the particular group of people, that is not a cleansing process. Let us call it what it is. It is genocide. It is war. It is crime against humanity. That is what it is so we should call it that.

We see the results of that. We see countless numbers of refugees fleeing their homes. We see young children coming across the border on bicycles so traumatised that they cannot talk about what is happening.

On the way here today I read in the paper about women, young girls being taken from the caravans as they were trying to cross the border, being stripped publicly, taken back into fields and raped. People could hear the screams, many of them never to be seen again. These are the things that are happening and we must come to grips with them.

There is another side of the issue that we do not hear about. I want to read briefly from a letter from a person in Belgrade who wrote:

I wish to point out a special side effect of the bombing of which little has been said: the actions of the NATO pact are so wide, that in the first phase they can already be characterized as absolute war which means the destruction preconceptions—cultural, spiritual and natural lives of millions of people in our country.

The toxic nature of the 19,200 tons of explosives (equal to the amount used in the Nagasaki bombing) used is well known to you. We warn you that Serbia is one of the greatest sources of underground waters in Europe and that the contamination will be felt in the whole surrounding area all the way to the Black Sea.

It then goes on to talk about the national parks and the various factories that were hit:

The village of Gracanica was shelled; there is situated one of the most important monasteries of the medieval orthodox culture and the candidate for the UNESCO heritage list. Numerous civil targets in other cities were hit—schools, hospitals, the sites considered as cultural monuments.

Especially worrying are the latest news saying that, in the next phases of their bombing, NATO will use the airplanes B1 and A10 which are carrying missiles with depleted uranium previously used in Iraq and Bosnia. The use of these will bring about the vast dangerous consequences to the health not only of the soldiers, but also of the whole population, and you know that the toxins and the radioactivity know no nationality or borders.

This person went on to describe some of the things being experienced by the people in Serbia.

In reality war has no winners. Someone may end up victorious but in reality there is no winner. Everyone suffers as is evident by this conflict. It emphasizes that we need to have as impartial a body as possible to deal with the international conflicts and the conflicts within sovereign states. We need to strengthen the UN for this purpose. It will not happen overnight, but it will never happen as long as we keep ceding power to NATO and not looking directly at where we should be focusing our attention in terms of strengthening the security council and the UN. Canada should be taking a leading in role in this measure.

I am very pleased that Canada responded so favourably when it appeared that we were to have many refugees coming here.

I think of the small town of Greenwood, Nova Scotia, and how the people rallied around, got all kinds of supplies and got ready to receive refugees they thought were coming. In times of crises like this one it shows what Canadians are really made of when we open our hearts to other people. This is key to the whole thing, opening our hearts to other people.

As we debate the issue tonight it should not be a we and they kind of issue. I feel very strongly that it should not be us against them. It should be all of us together using our collective wisdom and using our collective will to bring an end to this situation. We should be working together to try to find a solution. I am sure that every member of the House wants this tragedy to end as quickly and as peacefully as possible.

I encourage us to work together in the spirit of love and the spirit of harmony to try to bring all our collective thoughts to bear on the issue and to use every means possible to bring about a peaceful negotiation.

Many suggestions have been made as to how this might be done and I will not repeat them. At this time I would like to say in conclusion that my thoughts and prayers go out to all who are suffering, the many people in Kosovo who have been forced to flee from their homes, who have been separated from their families, and all the people in Serbia who are experiencing terrible bombing. It must be terrible to have bombs falling around them as they try to lead their daily lives. Our men and women in the military are working hard to try to deal with the situation. The people in immigration are working hard with the refugees as are the people providing international aid. All these people are in our thoughts and our prayers as we work together to try to resolve this problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, what does the hon. member think about NATO being there? Does he feel we are achieving anything? Does he feel we are there as a lost cause?

Does the hon. member think that the NATO forces are sensitive to the history of the Balkans and are sensitive to the fact that two world wars almost started from the Balkans? Does the hon. member think that NATO is achieving anything there and, if so, what?

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, initially everyone had the intention and the hope that the matter would be quickly resolved but this has not happened.

Quite honestly at this point I have questions as to how effective the bombing campaign is. That is why we are calling for a reassessment of the situation and a serious look at what strategy can be utilized to bring an end to it.

I agree with the many people who have already spoken about the role it is felt Russia should play. We should be making every concrete effort to get a commitment from Russia to try to lend its influence with its Slavic brothers to end this conflict.

I certainly feel we have to branch away from what NATO is doing and move beyond it because it certainly has not accomplished the goal we hoped would be accomplished.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He made one statement that really touched me when he said that war had no winners. When we take a look at the issues that were confronting us in World War I and again in World War II certainly that is true.

Would the hon. member not agree, if we bring this to a successful conclusion, that the only people who could be winners would not necessarily be the Serbs or the Kosovars who are fighting but the women, children and elderly? If we can provide them with homes again and give them their freedom, I believe they would be the only true winners who could come out of this conflict. I would like the hon. member to comment.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree those are the important people we should be concerned about. They have already lost so much that it would be difficult to say that they will come out winners. Many of them will be coming out violated, traumatised or have lost their families. The men have been taken, put in places and in many cases shot. In a lot of cases they are still losers, but they would certainly be much further ahead if we could bring this to a conclusion as quickly as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two brief questions for my hon. colleague. I thank him for the work he has done on this very important issue.

First I would ask for an affirmation from my hon. colleague of the longstanding commitment of New Democrats to the fundamental right of self-determination of the people of Kosovo, basically reaffirming that commitment to their right to self-determination, to determine their own future and also obviously, for help in the reconstruction of their shattered society when they do return to their homes.

Second, would the hon. member comment briefly on the suggestion made by Senator Doug Roche, a very important suggestion, that we have another look at the agenda for peace that Boutros-Ghali published some time ago, an essential element of which was the creation of a rapid reaction force under UN auspices? I wonder if the hon. member would like to comment on that suggestion as well. It is certainly one that I support.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, on the first question, I agree 100% that it is very important that people be able to determine their own future. It is for that very reason I deplore the term ethnic cleansing. As I mentioned during my speech, that term implies superiority and inferiority, where something has to be cleansed because one is better than the other.

That gets to the very heart of the principle of self-determination. Even here in Canada we can look at that principle and apply it to our aboriginal peoples. We should be looking at that same concept of self-determination and the right to determine one's future when we talk about our aboriginal people.

On the rapid reaction force, I certainly agree that we have to strengthen the United Nations to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to these kinds of crises. With each day that goes by, more and more lives are lost. Every life is precious. Every time a person dies, a bit of you and me dies. We should see the common bond of humanity and try to end the suffering. Every time a person dies, we lose.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

I think it is fair to say that Canadians everywhere are concerned about the crisis in Kosovo. The people in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington share grave concerns about what is happening in that part of the world and are watching closely as events unfold.

How did we get to the point where we now find ourselves? The international community has gone to great lengths to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Kosovo. It is clear that Canada and NATO would prefer to resolve the problems in that part of the world through a negotiated settlement based on the Rambouillet agreement, but as United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said recently, diplomacy sometimes cannot work without the threat of force.

Unfortunately we had no choice but to resort to force to halt what had developed into an intolerable situation. We had run out of peaceful options when Slobodan Milosevic rejected every peace proposal submitted to him. Meanwhile he stepped up a campaign of terror by Yugoslav authorities that has been going on for several months and it is continuing right now as we speak tonight. We have seen well documented evidence of forced expulsions, the destruction of whole villages and the massacre of civilians by Yugoslav security forces.

At one point last October we thought we were making progress toward peace. NATO's threat to use force led to the acceptance of a ceasefire at that time and limitations in the deployment of security forces in Kosovo and the creation of a Kosovo verification mission which consisted of hundreds of international verifiers, including 65 Canadians. Unfortunately this only helped diminish for a short time the acts of violence being perpetrated by the Yugoslav army and police against the people of Kosovo.

Earlier this year the situation started to deteriorate again. Security forces harassed the international verifiers. There was clear evidence that they were preparing for a massive spring offensive. By March 20 the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the OSCE, was forced to evacuate the Kosovo verification mission, the KVM, because of the collapse of the ceasefire and the unacceptable threat to the safety of mission members. With the departure of the verification mission, Yugoslav forces dramatically stepped up their brutal offensive.

The Yugoslav government is in clear and flagrant violation of the commitments it agreed to in October. It has violated the ceasefire and responded disproportionately to the actions of the Kosovo Liberation Army, the KLA. In addition to not respecting several UN security council resolutions, Yugoslavia has systematically violated the most basic rights under international humanitarian law. It has unleashed a savage and calculated campaign of hatred and violence not only against members of the KLA, but against the civilians of Kosovo, against families. This is offensive, this is wrong and this must be stopped.

Canada and its allies simply could not stand by and do nothing while women and children, men and the elderly in Kosovo were being killed, tortured, detained, persecuted and banished from their homes and stripped of their very identities because of their ethnic background, because of who they are. In the name of humanity we cannot and we should not and we will not stand by while this takes place.

Last September this house unanimously supported a resolution calling on the government of the federal republic of Yugoslavia and the parties involved in this inhumane confrontation to lay down their arms and to negotiate a solution with help from international organizations. In addition, in October all parties took part in a take note debate and expressed their support for Canada's involvement in Kosovo. Members of parliament have also been kept up to date on the developments in Kosovo via standing committee briefings.

Since then we have been closely following developments in that part of the world. Now many fellow Canadians and the country as a whole are engaged in the debate on what Canada should or should not do and on NATO's role in this crisis. Since the start of NATO's military action there has been considerable public debate and media coverage examining the very issues from every conceivable angle. Unlike any time in the past, Canadians have access to a wealth of information that they can sift through to form their own opinions at this time.

From all indications I have seen, most Canadians support the action taken by their government and by NATO. I think the majority of Canadians appreciate that peaceful negotiations failed to produce a diplomatic resolution to the crisis because of the intransigence of Milosevic and his government. Faced with this stalemate and the dramatically stepped up ethnic cleansing of Kosovo, I think Canadians see that military action was the only option.

The week before last, I read with great interest an article in the Ottawa Citizen by Christina Spencer which I believe sums up the thinking of a great many Canadians about this crisis:

Here's why Canada is right to take military action against Yugoslavia: Because the only legitimate role of any government is to protect the basic rights of its citizens. When a regime abrogates political rights, stirs hatred, shuts down the press, burns villages, herds civilians into becoming hostages... it is difficult to defend its legitimacy. Over many years, Milosevic has done all of this. Yet human-rights-respecting countries are debating whether they have the moral right to intervene. Get serious.

As a government we still favour a diplomatic solution that ensures sustainable results and long term security in the region. I know that Canadians want this to happen. This diplomatic solution can be achieved if, as NATO has suggested, Belgrade authorities cease the savage repression of their own people and sign a peace agreement giving significant autonomy to Kosovo.

I think most Canadians would rather not have to resort to military force, but they believe Canada and NATO are nevertheless on the right track given the current grim circumstances. We must not lose our resolve to make tough choices to ensure an effective and lasting resolution to the situation in Kosovo and the humanitarian catastrophe in that region.

Having made our commitment, I believe that Canada must now follow through to ensure a lasting peace in that part of the world. It is important given all that has happened that we now stay the course to bring about stability in that part of Europe. We will do so knowing this is not an easy position nor a lightly taken decision. We do so knowing that at the end of the day it will be judged as the right thing to do on behalf of the people of Kosovo. In the name of humanity, it is the right thing to do.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, every single bomb we drop drives us farther and farther from our objective of peace.

I have had calls from constituents whose families are in Serbia. They said that last year their brothers would not fight but now they cannot wait to fight because they have wholeheartedly turned against the west. We are not going to achieve our objectives by dropping more bombs. We are going to cause more problems and more harm.

There are no rules in war. When my father fought in the second world war women were not touched. When we drop a bomb now, we unleash untold brutality on the very people we want to protect. Other people who are suffering are women, children and the elderly. Serbians and Albanians are losing their homes.

If we do not try to do things differently, we will continue to have the same results, more cruelty and more brutality. We will go farther and farther away from peace.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I said at the outset that United Nations Secretary General Annan said recently that diplomacy sometimes cannot work without the threat of force. Unfortunately we are now in the position where having started this course of action we need to follow it through.

As the hon. member correctly and eloquently points out, terrible things are happening as a result. Unfortunately in the name of humanitarianism and in the name of what we think is right, we need to do these kinds of things to ensure that security ultimately is brought to that part of Europe and to the world in general. I support that and I think most Canadians do.

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

Mr. Speaker, the question is at what cost? We agree that the atrocities have to stop. The hon. member talks about staying the course. It seems to me that we have to define what the course is and where we are going. If we get ourselves involved in a war, how are we going to extricate ourselves from that war?

It is almost as if the Canadian government and other NATO partners are making policy on the fly. Canadians were led to believe that the air strikes would be successful within a matter of days. The days have turned into weeks and soon the weeks will turn into months. We are talking about sending in ground troops now. There is an assumption that once we send in ground troops, Canadian soldiers, the war will be won at some point if we stay the course.

That is the same type of thinking which took place not so many years ago in southeast Asia when the Americans went into Vietnam. The Americans thought the war would be over in the short term but the weeks turned into months, the months turned into years and the years turned into the deaths of—

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that we as the Government of Canada along with our NATO partners tried very hard to get a negotiated settlement. We worked diligently to that end for that objective. At the end of the day when we saw the kinds of atrocities that were taking place and the kind of humanitarian upheaval, it was important that we act in the way we are now doing to ensure that we bring peace in that area. It seems to me that we have gone to great lengths to ensure that.

We are not in a time of instant gratification and instant war starting and stopping. We have to take our time to ensure the right thing and ensure that people and families in that part of the world are protected.

[Sue Barnes, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am paraphrasing but someone once said that for evil to succeed it just takes good men doing nothing. I see this in this situation.

Canadians are not used to conflict that is internal, inside a boundary of one jurisdiction or one state. This is what we have here, something that is quite different from what we see in Canada as we live together with different cultures, ethnicities and religions.

My question is about the human security agenda, something we talked about and are now seeing in action. I welcome comments from the hon. member.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, human security is the key in all of this and is part of the objective of not only Canada but the NATO partners. It is important that we move in that direction to ensure security and stability in a part of the world that has not seen it for many years throughout the century.

If we can do our part in that area we will have served well not only our country but the world in that area.

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

Mr. Speaker, as one of our colleagues put it, there are no winners in a war. War means untold suffering, the loss of human lives, destruction and devastation on all sides.

As our colleague from Halifax West so eloquently pointed out, most of us are torn apart by the necessity to resort to weapons for a cause we feel is just, while at the same time realizing that it was brought upon by the revolting genocide going on in Kosovo, where every passing day brings sad pictures of massacres of thousands of innocents victims, mostly women and children.

Given its tradition of peace and the fact that pluralism is one of its central policies and values, Canada must play a major role in the search for a solution for Kosovo.

Indeed Canada joined the NATO operation with the central aim of seeking a peaceful resolution of the atrocities in Kosovo and of returning the Kosovars to a normal life in their own homes.

Our central objective here, in this debate, should be to look for this same solution, eventual peace, so that NATO's current operations can be replaced by sustainable peace measures to restore some form of normal life for the Kosovars.

Canada can play an important role in this respect.

It is crucial for us in Canada and for Canada within NATO and the broader international community to maintain an autonomous mind strictly directed toward the establishment of a peaceful solution. Military solutions as much as they may be necessary are never real and complete solutions.

Canada has a lasting tradition as a peace seeker, as a peacemaker, as an initiator of international peacekeeping through the United Nations. Canada must use its undoubted credibility as a peacemaker and peace seeker to play a leadership role in initiating proposals for early peaceful solutions.

As a non-European country, as a traditional honest broker in resolving international conflicts, Canada must follow its own wise counsel and be proactive, if necessary, sometimes even in contradiction with the U.S. and the Pentagon generals whose operation the NATO intervention has increasingly become.

I ask this question. Does the solution pass through Russia and a constructive Russian intervention in the Kosovo issue? If Russia were involved, prospects for settlement would be far less difficult and would certainly be speedier to achieve. Indeed Russia may represent the surest chance of achieving an effective ceasefire and an eventual peace guaranteed by peacekeeping and the resettlement of the Kosovars in their own homes. Russian participation would eliminate a roadblock within the UN. Russia, if it participated, might influence China to take a more positive stance at the UN security council. Canada should take the lead in enlisting Russian participation, inciting Russia to play a key part in bringing Yugoslavia to accept Rambouillet or a similar accord.

One obvious difficulty in establishing a peacekeeping force in Kosovo is the refusal of Yugoslavia to accept a NATO force. If a peacekeeping force were to include a strong Russian presence, it may go a long way to influencing Yugoslavia to accept it. Even if it meant NATO countries contributing to such participation, it would still be a thousand times preferable to the alternative of military operations continuing on a larger scale.

As far as the conduct of NATO's operations is concerned, it is important that Canada maintain enough flexibility and autonomy. While the United States and some European nations support expanding the operations' scope to include ground troops, Canada should stick to it's initial commitment, which was to send in from 600 to 800 military personnel, but only in a peacekeeping capacity and after a formal agreement was reached to put an end to the operations and make sure that the Kosovars can go back home.

I think we all agree that military operations are a last resort, that peaceful solutions must be the central collective goal of all of us. Canada is a nation of peace and freedom. In seeking freedom itself for others it must believe that freedom is best achieved in achieving peace.

This is what we must seek tonight. I would earnestly ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs and my government to do everything possible to enlist the help of the Russians to make a peace settlement possible and to lift the United Nations blockade. I hope that peace happens very soon in Kosovo.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because I know there are many who have comments and questions. I thank the hon. member for his very thoughtful remarks and his approach to this tragic situation.

This past weekend I attended a meeting in Vancouver hosted by End the Arms Race, over 300 deeply concerned people from many different walks of life including students, church leaders, labour activists and others. There was a lot of wisdom in that group. They were calling for an end to the bombing, an end to the ethnic cleansing and a return to negotiations.

Does the hon. member agree that it would be a valuable and important initiative by the Government of Canada to convene a meeting at an early date of civil society, of key partners from the church community and from the labour movement? I know Canadian Auto Workers has issued a very important statement with a number of concrete suggestions on how we might approach the situation. Today the Canadian Federation of Students issued a similar statement.

There is not just wisdom within the military and in the House. There is a lot of wisdom in the country, in civil society. It would be a valuable and important exercise to convene on an urgent basis a gathering in Canada of groups such as that to seek alternatives to the present approach which is merely, according to NATO, reaffirming today more bombing and more air attacks.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is in a unique position to take a leadership role whether within NATO, whether at the United Nations, whether in the broader community of Canada or whatever we do. If this is one way whereby we can bring civil society together to seek solutions, I would certainly be 100 per cent for it.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my learned colleague for the message he brought to the House and indeed his colleague who spoke before him.

When we hear the news, as all Canadians have, we hear mention of the Serbian army and then the Serbian police. Obviously both are involved in this conflict. It would seem to me they are involved for different reasons.

I attempted to distinguish between them and all I could gather was that the Serbian police were a specially selected, specially trained SWAT team. From the information I can get many of the atrocities are associated with the police.

If this is the case and we bring it to a conclusion, will it be more difficult to attach blame to the police rather than the military?

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

Mr. Speaker, as much as I am flattered by my colleague's faith in my judgment on these issues, I must say in all humility that I just do not know. I believe all the elements in society within Yugoslavia that have participated in genocide of any kind, in massacres or in disruption of people's lives on a massive scale should be brought to justice, whomever they may be.

I cannot say whether the blame is with the police or the army. I do not know enough about it from this distance to make a pronouncement, but I believe after this is settled the culprits should be brought to justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to associate myself with some of the comments made by the hon. member. I would like to elicit his views on the subject of sending NATO ground troops into Kosovo. In my respectful submission it would be a terrible mistake to involve NATO and Canadian soldiers in a ground war that could result in the loss of many lives not only on the NATO side but also on the Serbian side.

What are the hon. member's views with respect to the sending in of ground troops? Would he not agree that it is important for parliament to send a very clear message that it does not support a ground war in Kosovo?