Debates of April 12th, 1999

Kosovo

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member speaks of an exit strategy. That is a major concern for me.

If the member wants to compare it to Vietnam, he can of course see that the height of political interference into a commitment made by their country impacting directly on the military. The military could not do the job it was assigned to do because of the very political interference that we hope to avoid here. If the military is assigned to do a job, it should be given a certain amount of freedom to accomplish that particular job and make sure that it is done effectively.

For Canadian troops to enter into some sort of a zone where there is a threat to them, unfortunately we do not have the capability of extraction. We have to rely very much on the presence of our allies to do that. I would suggest that there would be a need for a lot of support by our allies to put Canada in a role that would be most suitable for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member had to say. We know he has the interests of the armed forces very much at heart.

With regard to his emphasis on a vote on some or other fairly hypothetical aspect of this exercise, I wonder if he would give us some thoughts about that. It seems to me that we are engaged in an exercise that has been going on now for some years in which we are increasingly putting pressure on Mr. Milosevic with a view to getting him to back down and to allow the people of Kosovo to go home. That exercise is partly psychological, it is partly political, it is partly economic sanctions and it is partly military. The military side is partly threats and partly some of the reality which we are facing now.

Does the member seriously think that to commit ourselves well in advance on a hypothetical question affects the effectiveness of the strategy that we are engaged in?

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing hypothetical about the democratic process. We in the Reform Party simply put it to the government that if the issue of committing troops comes up a vote be taken in the House. What will that do? It will substantiate in the minds of the Canadian public and politicians, as well as of our troops, that parliament is behind them. There is nothing hypothetical about that. We are talking about the democratic process. It is an opportunity to support the action, whatever it may be.

That was all that was put to the minister and the Prime Minister in the form of questions today during question period. It was nothing more, nothing less.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the defence critic for the official opposition, said that he would support the actions of NATO, and the minister also suggested should it not be enough that NATO supports this action.

When the member says it is important for Canada to follow the lead of NATO, is it not equally important that Canada be involved in the process within NATO? We have no real indication that Canada was intimately involved in making this decision in the first place.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's commitment to NATO goes back many decades and we have certainly had our periods of greater influence in that organization.

The Minister of National Defence could probably answer this question in a much more definitive way, but my concern is that Canada's influence within that organization is not as great as it used to be. Unfortunately we are not always at the military negotiating table as we should be.

We have the opportunity, as a country, to be more influential, but there have been philosophical changes in the way this government looks at our military and its influence in the world. In fact, it is an influential entity. There is much more that we could offer and I would suggest that diminishes our influence within the NATO circles.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the Reform member believe NATO should play a humanitarian role, as it is doing now, since in this conflict its role has obviously been not only to deliver air strikes, but also humanitarian aid to refugees in countries next to Kosovo?

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked whether I think NATO should be involved in a humanitarian role. I believe that whether it be military action or specific assistance, such as aiding in the distribution of food and other humanitarian actions, both should fit into the role of NATO. One cannot be done without the other in many respects. If it means having to move certain kinds of aid through a war torn area or to a war torn area, NATO has the power to assist, to protect and even to help distribute supplies. It certainly would have the power, as far as the military entity is concerned, to protect refugees who have no means of protecting themselves.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation and Minister responsible for Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, as Minister for International Cooperation I want to give the House an update on the measures taken by Canada through the Canadian International Development Agency to provide humanitarian assistance to the desperate people fleeing Kosovo.

Two weeks ago on March 30 we approved $10 million in humanitarian assistance for Kosovar refugees. We wasted no time to put it to work. Within 24 hours a $2.5 million cash contribution was on its way to the UNHCR. Three days after the announcement the first shipment of relief supplies left Canada, responding to requests by the UNHCR for blankets so that some refugees would at least be safe from the cold.

Last week on April 7 I approved $5 million in food aid. This $5 million will cover both the purchase of Canadian and other food supplies and the cost of shipping them in and around the region on national defence and commercial flights. In a few days a shipment of Canadian fish will be sent to the area. This is part of our response to requests by the World Food Programme. We are making the most of their expertise in delivering appropriate relief to refugees in times of crisis.

These announcements were not the first demonstration of Canada's support to the people of the region. Just over $3 million had been provided in the past year for humanitarian assistance. Another $3.85 million was provided for the Kosovo verification mission carried out by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Some members of the verification mission are now supporting humanitarian efforts. For example, civilian observers are helping to register refugees in the camps.

To date we have committed $22 million to the crisis in Kosovo. We continue to monitor the situation to see how we can further respond to the current crisis and how we can contribute to reconstruction and peacebuilding efforts in the future.

I was remiss when I began my remarks. I meant to say that I will be splitting my time with one of my colleagues.

As we all know, the refugees' situation has reached tragic proportions. We are all horrified by the images we see on television and in the papers. By the tired and desparate faces tortured by hunger and by the cold. By the accounts of executions and torture. And we think of the children who have witnessed scenes of unbearable violence.

We are there to help with their immediate needs, but we do not forget that they will need more services—such as psychological counselling—to get over this ordeal in the long run. We are already in touch with UNICEF, whose work we have supported for the children of Bosnia.

Faced with a humanitarian disaster of such magnitude, Canada is stepping in to give some hope to these people, who have been taken away from their home, their job, their family and their whole life. In all this show of solidarity, let us not forget the compassion shown by the people of neighbouring countries, those who are welcoming so many refugees into their homes no matter what their situation is.

No one would have thought, not so long ago, that they would have been drawn into such an abberation. These refugees can count on our compassion and our humanitarian assistance. As we respond to the alarming situation of the thousands streaming across the borders, let us not forget those who have not made it across, those who are still in Kosovo and in Serbia.

I am particularly concerned by the information we are getting about their situation. It is impossible to obtain accurate information, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has not yet gained access.

I call on all those involved directly or indirectly to help the International Red Cross provide assistance to affected communities.

Right now, information is sketchy and sometimes contradictory. We are hearing about thousands of people trapped in the mountains. We are also hearing about Serbs fleeing Kosovo and going into Serbia and Montenegro. We are even hearing about massacres, although we are unable to verify this. Part of the funds I announced will serve to answer the appeal by the International Red Cross.

To date, Canada has provided $22 million. We are obviously following developments closely and are prepared to do more. Eventually, we will also contribute to peacebuilding and reconstruction efforts in the region.

And let us not forget the generosity shown by Canadians. Calls are pouring in from Canadians responding to requests to help these refugees going through an unbearable ordeal. I want to extend my warmest thanks to them, here, today.

We are proud to do our part in what must be an international effort. Canada is one player. Let me point out that our approach is true to our commitment to working not only one on one in bilateral settings, but also as a team player in multilateral settings.

In this case we are making sure that our contribution has the maximum impact by working closely with the people and organizations already in the field. These organizations, such as the UNHCR and the World Food Programme, are closest to the needs of the refugees. They have been monitoring the situation and providing assistance in difficult circumstances; not just in the last few weeks, but for months, from the onset of Milosevic's ethnic cleansing campaign. These organizations have our full support and admiration for the work they have done in appalling conditions.

Team work is also crucial within Canada. Immediately after announcing our humanitarian assistance package I met with Canadian NGOs to ensure that Canada's efforts made the best possible use of their readiness and experience.

We are fortunate to count on such partners as the Canadian Red Cross, CARE Canada, World Vision, CECI and many other Canadian relief organizations. They are coming forward as we speak with proposals to provide humanitarian assistance in their area of expertise. We are assessing these proposals and will soon announce how they will complement ongoing efforts.

We will continue to adapt our assistance to the situation. Members can be certain that Canada, through CIDA, will still be there when the time comes to help the region pick up the pieces and build the foundation for a lasting peace. Even now we are in contact with other donor countries and multilateral organizations. Let us not forget that when the military intervention has concluded, when the security situation is stabilized, our work with the international community will continue.

As we work to rebuild peace and stability in the region the role of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia will be of critical importance. Canada has been a lead supporter of the tribunal. To date CIDA has provided over $2 million to this tribunal. We are committed to ensuring that the tribunal will be fully effective in the aftermath of the Kosovo crisis.

We were there with humanitarian assistance and observers before. We are responding to the basic needs of refugees now. We stand ready to consider reconstruction and peacebuilding in the future.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition is very happy to see that the minister has responded with immediate aid to alleviate the suffering that has taken place, which, as we have seen on our television screens, is horrific. I also thank the minister for having contact with the NGOs.

We have already spent $22 million in trying to alleviate suffering. When the minister of immigration announced that 5,000 refugees would be coming in, the estimated cost was over $100 million. It is understandable that the High Commission for Refugees has said that the Kosovar refugees should stay within the region.

What does the hon. minister anticipate? Is she satisfied with the way things are going and, if not, how much more does she think Canada can commit to aid and ensuring that the refugees have at least a reasonable standard of living in those regions?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the commitment that was made by the minister of immigration was the cost to receive these refugees for a certain period of time. It was just an estimate. To date we have responded to requests from UNHCR and from the World Food Program and will continue to do that.

I cannot say how much more it will cost. It all depends on how long the conflict lasts, what the conditions are, and how soon the refugees can go back. We are prepared to respond to all requests that come to us and to do our fair share as a member of NATO, as a country that cares and wants to help these people.

Over the next few months as the situation progresses members will hear more and more announcements. I know we will be doing more than we have done so far.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this debate. It gives us a chance to reassess the situation since what we are facing is political failure, humanitarian failure and now military failure in the area. Bringing refugees over as they are undocumented would be a nightmare. They live in a terrible purgatory.

Is the minister willing to put as much money and effort into humanitarian success as has been put into bombs being dropped on innocent civilians both in Yugoslavia and Kosovo? Both of those peoples should know that we support them in every way we can, but we cannot allow a humanitarian failure when our objective was to prevent it.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to do everything possible to work with the other countries involved to ensure that the people, those refugees, have some care, have some security and have some chance of having a decent life.

It is not an easy task but together we are making a difference. My reports indicate that for the most part the camps are now better organized. Food is getting to the people. Freshwater is getting to the people. It is always a challenge to continue to meet the demands of these refugees. It will be an even bigger challenge when the day comes and we have to help them return to their land. We are prepared to help them at that point with reconstruction, as we were prepared to help when Hurricane Mitch struck in Central America. Canada will definitely do its share as a caring nation.

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of International Co-operation about the co-ordination of these efforts.

We have heard from the minister of immigration and the minister of defence today. I have had calls to my office from constituents offering to help, to volunteer. I am wondering if the minister could spend a couple of minutes answering my question. I know there is a 1-800 number, but what advice would she give to Canadians who want to open their hearts and help?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid the Minister of International Co-operation will have to take less than a couple of minutes.

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my suggestion to these people is that they contact the many organizations listed on our website. They are the people we work with who are present in the area. Also, as much as possible, if there are donations, that they be in cash rather than in kind. It is better for us because it is extremely costly to transport things to the region. We only transport those things that are asked for. We try to get the best price for everything.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the weight of the words spoken today in the Chamber must not be diminished in any way by the participants in this debate.

As politicians we might at times engage in rhetoric that resonates with lofty ideals or would be aspirations, but when we debate the committing of Canadian lives to an action as grave as the conflict in the Balkans it is incumbent on each of us to weigh heavily the views we express, the words we employ, the actions we promote, for we are inputting a decision making process with grave implications for the present and future of the international community and for the jurisprudence which encompasses the actions of sovereign states.

That is so irrespective of whether we endorse or question the continued involvement of this country in the battle to alleviate the suffering of the people of Kosovo.

We are witnessing intense images of horrendous suffering by the Kosovar people. The information available and the intelligence gathered indicate that President Milosevic is engaged in wholesale efforts to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of the large majority of Albanian muslims. He is doing so in the most vile manner, utilizing barbaric methods that defy imagination and contravene the conventions of war. The result of these atrocities has led the member states of NATO to do all possible to protect the Kosovars and prevent this tyrant from attaining his goals.

The discussion in the media and elsewhere has queried the role of NATO in this action instead of the United Nations. While the response has openly acknowledged that Russia and China would have vetoed and therefore forestalled unacceptably a UN military action, we must consider the ramifications of the alternate route we have employed.

As a collective security organization NATO should respond defensively and not offensively, but events in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have twice provoked the intervention of NATO to protect its citizens from their unscrupulous leaders.

The argument that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a sovereign state is not to be taken lightly but compels us to consider, as I stated at the outset, whether a state's claim to sovereignty is sufficient to allow that state to engage in actions against its people which contravene the rule of law and deny the very basics of human security.

At what point does Canada and the countries with which we have formed alliances decide that sovereignty is no shield from responsibility, that the very raison d'être for a sovereign state is its obligation to provide for the well-being of its citizens.

Sovereignty cannot be used as an excuse to permit an atrocity or to engage in ethnic cleansing that borders on genocide. When a country engages in such activities the analogies of history intrude. We are compelled to risk acting outside the precepts of international law as it has to date been applied and take the action we have engaged in thus far, and actions that may be proposed, to stop the possible destruction of a people.

We cannot continue to be baffled by the definitions of the past. Nor can we fail to heed the past and like Chamberlain in 1938 believe that monsters like Hitler and Milosevic can be appeased and peace in our time purchased. It cannot because they will break every value we hold basic and every human norm we hold as minimal.

We are by the very definition of our democratic societies compelled to do all that is possible and effective to assist the people over whom they hold power.

Let us recognize the turn in the road we have taken. The cold war is no more and the relative security that a two bloc world and a nuclear umbrella provided is likewise no more. We have entered a considerably more destabilized international landscape. We are today debating the Baltics, a region of Europe that has rarely enjoyed any long term stability and has frequently been the centre of racial foment and hostilities.

We must look very seriously at the consequences of this military action. Are we redefining our foreign policy strategies? Are we motivated, as Henry Kissinger might contend, by the compelling need to be partners with our allies to preserve equilibrium? Are we moving toward an unqualified support for ethnic self-determination as promoted by Woodrow Wilson? The implications of supporting these principles either alone or within coalitions such as NATO are far reaching and of considerable consequence.

We move into an uncharted legal landscape on the international plane, a landscape of foreboding future entanglements with no clear exit strategies. While the humanitarian dimension of the Kosovo quagmire is paramount, the legal precedent of this engagement will survive after the conflict and our remedy are concluded.

The Canadian government's intention to further the goal of human security at the security council and within our bilateral and multilateral alliances is legitimate from every perspective. It is the essential component that African leaders like President Konnare of Mali have defined as vital to the economic and social development of the wartorn countries of that continent.

The violation of human security in Kosovo is unacceptable. The total lack of regard for the rule of law is unacceptable. One had merely to watch in astonishment last week on Canadian television as Milosevic's henchman Arkan Raznatovic told viewers that he had no concern over Louise Arbour's charges against him of horrendous war crimes as he refused to accept the legitimacy of the international court and the War Crimes Tribunal. These are leaders for whom power is the arbiter, not the law. As Hitler demonstrated, in the world of diplomacy a loaded gun is often more potent than a legal brief.

Milosevic's reign of terror in Kosovo did not just precede the peacemaking efforts at Rambouillet by a matter of months. I was in Belgrade and Sarajevo nine years ago with the Canadian Bar Association. We were hosted by Yugoslavian lawyers. In Belgrade I met a woman lawyer who through great personal courage, I learned, acted for the Albanian Kosovars and did so often through the vehicles of the international jurists and Amnesty International.

She related incidents of chronic discrimination and denial of human rights. She described a visit there as a visit to the 15th century and despaired of anything but a steady worsening of their plight. We have witnessed such a decline culminating in the horrors we are now debating. There comes a time when we too take some risks in coming to the Kosovo defence.

The decisions before us cannot be relished and seem almost contrary to every precept I hold integral. Thirty years ago many of us fought not to engage an enemy but to halt a war that could not meet the bar for a bellum justum by any acceptable definition. As a young graduate student in 1966 in Halifax I carried a placard in Joe Howe Park, a little uncomfortable with this new role but convinced as we all were that the war in Vietnam, predicated as it was on a theory of containment and dominoes and as flawed strategically as it was bankrupted morally, had to end and such jingoistic ventures never embarked on again. As Dylan maintained, God was on no warrior's side.

The times were to have changed but the horrendous suffering we are seeing in Kosovo is witness to the fact that much has not changed. The people of the international community must accept and promote the application of force in containing a demagogue like Melosevic who knows no bounds and knows no morality.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to what my colleague said. I was quite moved by many of the comments she made. I know her personally and I think she put her point of view forward very well.

When she started her comments, she said that we have to be very careful as to what we say and to make the right decision here. Would she not think it is right for parliament to debate and for parliamentarians to be held responsible by their constituents if in the future, not now but in the future, Canada is going to commit ground forces, its soldiers, in the war? Does she not think it is the right of parliament and parliamentarians to debate and vote on that issue?

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his question. While I value his point of view, I believe we must contain ourselves to the question at hand, which is to engage in a debate on the action that is before us, on that action that is being taken.

Indeed the war, like other wars, could lead to new steps and at that time it must come back to parliament for debate. However whether or not Canada and NATO allies will indeed send in ground forces is not the issue today, but rather the bombing that has been explained and brought forward to the House is to be debated and considered by all of us.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious how very moved my colleague across the floor is.

Recent opinion polls indicate that women are less prepared than men to accept war, even as a means of settling differences, as is the case at present.

Under what circumstances would my colleague consider a war to be just?

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. It is indeed a question I considered as I looked up into the galleries today and saw the young people who were here to observe their representatives debate a critical issue.

One could spend a long time as my learned colleague knows in a discussion of what constitutes a just war. From my remarks I have not only brought forward the amount of thinking that was necessary for me in preparing to speak today, but also the analysis I believed necessary before I could stand in the House and say that the evil we are observing and the terror being imposed upon a people is at such a level that we are justified in responding with force and with military might.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is definitely not a theoretical one, because a number of members of this House have relatives in the Canadian armed forces. That is why this matter must be addressed most seriously.

This reminds me of all the negotiations in which the former Prime Minister was involved at the time of the Gulf War, in which the United Nations was finally led to a more concerted action.

It is our opinion that, with what is going on in Kosovo at the present time, Canada's international role is not an optimum one. It is our impression that we are somewhat at the beck and call of other NATO members when it comes to decision making, and I find that a pity.

In order to reassure us before there is any direct ground force involvement—since it is the children of all of us who will be called upon to go over there—I would like to ask my colleague how she perceives the decision making process. Does she see a debate in the House of Commons with a specific vote on a very specific question? Are we going to commit our young people to a ground intervention in Kosovo?

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

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

We are members of NATO. NATO is a collective security. A collective security is an association of states. This one in particular works through discussion and works through participation by all members in the decisions taken.

Article 5 of NATO makes clear and puts forward that if any one of the 19 members is attacked, such action will result in all 19 members coming to that member's defence. This is not a defensive action, but still the logistics and the role that Canada plays as one of those 19 members is such that we too are very much a part of the decision making process. We are equal with the other states in bringing our views to the decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this House once again, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, during the debate on the government's motion asking that this House take note, and I quote:

—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.

So far in this debate, we have had few answers to our questions. Yet, Canadians and Quebeckers expect the government to provide answers to our questions, because they feel concerned by the crisis in Kosovo and because the Liberal government has only provided them with very limited and fragmented information.

Incidentally, during a speech delivered at McGill University's law faculty on Thursday, April 8, Canada's former ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations, Yves Fortier, did not hesitate to criticize the Prime Minister for his lack of transparency regarding Canada's position and action in the Kosovo conflict. We endorse that criticism, and the government must listen and change its attitude.

Like all the other governments of the Atlantic alliance, the Government of Canada is probably uncomfortable admitting that it underestimated the crisis in Kosovo and particularly Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal intentions. These governments do not seem to have learned history's lessons, otherwise they would know that the attitude of the Serb leader and of his security forces toward Kosovars is quite similar to their attitude toward Croatians and Bosnians, and to that of other political leaders—do we have to name them?—toward populations whose presence on their territory was deemed undesirable.

Like its allies, this government did not accurately assess Milosevic's strategy. It allowed itself to be dragged along by events, essentially reacting by resorting to air strikes, while pretending not to be considering a ground military option to end the exodus of the Kosovar people, to check the ethnic cleansing and to prevent a new genocide.

The about-face of the Minister of National Defence on the need to sent troops is the most deplorable example of the improvisation and lack of leadership of the Government of Canada in this conflict.

Today, after 19 days of air strikes and a massive exodus of Kosovars, the government has still not answered the most basic question. Must it consider sending in ground troops to put an end to such an exodus, to the resultant ethnic cleansing and, especially even more, to prevent the genocide of the Kosovar people?

We put this question when ministers Eggleton and Axworthy appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and throughout our interventions of the past 10 days. We have once again called the government on this question today.

Will the Prime Minister and his ministers be continuing for long their silence on this basic issue or will they consider that public opinion, both Canadian and Quebec, which, we learn, is prepared to support intervention by ground troops, is now entitled to an answer on this issue?

Intensifying bombing did nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Furthermore, if Milosevic persists, he will be able to keep Kosovo, having emptied it of its Albanian inhabitants. Even in the case of a campaign of air strikes in which all Serbian vehicles and the entire Serbian war machine were destroyed, Milosevic would still be the one occupying Kosovo, on his own.

Therefore air strikes have their limits. A plane cannot differentiate a Serb soldier from a Kosovar passer-by. Moreover, the closer to the ground our planes are flying, the more dangerous it becomes for them. But again Milosevic believes NATO will not send in ground troops to ferret him out, and he is playing a game of attrition.

But this is not the only issue the Bloc Quebecois is interested in. My party believes Canada has not used all the means at its disposal to find a solution to the conflict in Kosovo. Beside taking part in the air strikes, Canada should have diversified and still can diversify its actions to put as quick an end as possible to ethnic cleansing and, I will say it again and I cannot overemphasize it, to prevent the genocide of the Kosovar people.

Until now, the minister of Foreign Affairs has not seen fit to use Canada's seat on the UN Security Council to have the UN play a role in this conflict. Even though his participation today in Brussels in the meeting of the foreign affairs ministers of the Atlantic alliance is aimed at evaluating the present and future action of NATO, should he not now sponsor, within this forum and the United Nations, a new formula to deal with the political problem created by the conflict in Kosovo, called “a war without images” by some.

If the Rambouillet accords are no longer relevant, should Canada not bring to the security council a proposal aimed at putting Kosovo under the protection of the United Nations pending a negotiated settlement of the crisis?

If it is as concerned with the rule of law as it purports to be, Canada should also ask the International Criminal Tribunal's chief prosecutor, Mrs. Louise Arbour, to lay charges of crime against humanity against Slobodan Milosevic, or to make them public if such charges have already been laid, as well as against all the other people responsible for the ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo.

As a promoter of the rule of law, Canada could also initiate an international public action and ask the International Court of Justice, as Bosnia-Herzegovina has already done with regard to the other conflict caused by Milosevic, to rule on the violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by Yugoslavia.

The improvisation that has characterised the planning of the humanitarian aid efforts so far must now be replaced by a more effective type of coordination. In light of the decisions made by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Canada must now concentrate its efforts on providing assistance to Kosovar refugees in camps set up in neighbouring countries so that they can live and survive, in minimally decent conditions, until they can return home.

It must also facilitate the work of Canadian and Quebec NGOs that have mobilized a lot more effectively to come to the rescue of Kosovars and prevent them from having to disperse against their will, adding to the Armenian and Jewish Diasporas, just to name these two, a new Diaspora that will bemoan the homeland it lost for generations and generations.

The humanitarian crisis in Kosovo also demonstrates the need for genuine reform of the mechanisms related to maintaining and imposing international peace and security. It is not appropriate for NATO to dominate events to the point of becoming the military arm of the international community, while the UN is left out of operations that are of great concern to the community of the world.

More than ever before, the United Nations' military and financial capacity must be examined in depth, and the vetoes of its permanent members seriously challenged.

As an applicant for membership on the security council, Canada made a commitment to advocating a genuine reform of that forum. Now it needs to convince others on the security council and in the UN family of the urgency for such a reform, and show that its election to the security council counts has not been without effect.

In concluding, I cannot help but express my frustration—and I do not believe I am the only one in this House—about the Prime Minister's refusal to clearly commit to a debate, followed by a vote, in the event that consideration ought to be given to sending ground forces to Kosovo.

In fact, our participation in this evening's exercise must not in any way be interpreted as a green light for the government to continue to act without further debate in Parliament. It must seek parliamentary authorization, particularly if it comes to putting the Canadian Forces on active service in Kosovo.

It is, moreover, high time that the National Defence Act was amended in order to require the government to obtain such authorization from Parliament. Sections 31 and 32 should formally and explicitly provide that the government is required to seek parliamentary approval, thus democratizing the process by which our armed forces are deployed to ensure international peace and security.

There has been a Crown prerogative in this area for long enough. This must be done away with, and the elected representatives of the people must be given a deciding voice when it comes to sending troops abroad to impose, build or maintain peace.

If the international community had taken action against Hitler in 1936, 50 million lives could have been spared, and the genocide of the Jewish people avoided.

Canada can assume a lead role within the Atlantic Alliance and the international community. It must stop cowering before a man who has committed and has others commit with each passing day crimes that outrage humanity and that must stop.

Just as the lovers in Sarajevo were victims of crimes that have gone largely unpunished, the lovers of Pristina must not be allowed to become the victims of the dark machinations and trickery thought up by men to justify their cowardice, to paraphrase Euripides.

These men should ask themselves why war is necessary, as sixth-grader Élyse Caron-Beaudoin did when she wrote:

Why go to war and cause such pain? Why break people's hearts Again and again?

Why let our hate Destroy our souls? Why strike down love While the drumbeat rolls?

Why orphan children Who have done no wrong? Why terrify those With nowhere to belong?

Why is there always A country at war? Why can there not be Peace ever more?

Why do you fight Young soldier, so brave? Why all these bombs And these thousands of graves?

Why is war necessary? Sometimes, too often in fact, because of cowardice. Why is war necessary? Sometimes for freedom.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I understand from my colleague's intervention that he supports NATO's involvement in the Yugoslav republic, on the one hand. I understand that, on the other, he supports our country's humanitarian mission, but there is a bit of a paradox I would like him to explain.

He is proposing that Canada head a UN initiative to make Kosovo a protectorate. We know very well that the UN has proven totally incapable of staunching the hemorrhage that started in Kosovo long before NATO initiated its air strikes.

How is it possible to acknowledge that the UN has been unable to fulfil the role now played by NATO and at the same time ask the UN to provide a solution to the problems it could not initially solve?

The two are incompatible.

My colleague mentioned quite rightly and simply cowardice. To count on the impossibility of acting in order to assuage one's conscience would be cowardice. Seeing that the UN was unable to intervene to resolve the basic humanitarian problem in Kosovo, NATO intervened, and we supported this initiative. It would have been cowardice to say “Since we cannot resolve the problem with the UN, let us do nothing”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that my party or any opposition party could be accused of cowardice. Indeed, we have supported actions taken by Canada and NATO and will continue to do so because we believe that by supporting those actions we send not only to Slobodan Milosevic but also to all proponents of ethnic cleansing and even genocide a clear message that we will not quietly stand by; we intend to make it very clear to them that such actions are unacceptable to the international community and its member states.

However, it seems obvious that bombing will not be enough to deal with the situation and prevent ethnic cleansing. This is why we are constantly questioning the government about the commitment of ground troops, which it refuses to consider and talk about, even if this issue is the most important and, in my opinion, deserves an answer.

Regarding the international protectorate, I point out to my colleague that we must consider another solution besides autonomy, as provided for in the Rambouillet agreement. Coexistence between Serbian and Kosovar peoples seems impossible and another solution must therefore be found.

I believe that, as a member of the security council, Canada should at least make an effort, while pursuing military efforts and interventions, to bring the UN to seek a political solution. Marginalizing the UN as we are doing now is not the way to resolve the serious crisis it may be facing and the difficulty it will have to deal with a crisis of which it has been kept out.

There are many ways to ensure UN participation—the security council, the general assembly—and this is the least we should expect from a country that has always acted as a supporter and strong advocate of the United Nations.

We can favour air raids for the time being and consider ground military action, while at the same time, and most importantly, be giving the UN a mandate to consider a political solution to the present crisis.