Debates of April 12th, 1999

Kosovo

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Vancouver East for her comments and those of her colleague from Sydney—Victoria.

I have been listening with interest to members of the New Democratic caucus throughout this debate articulate an interesting and I am sure heartfelt position, but I must admit that from time to time I become confused about exactly what their position is. It seems to be to proceed with the air war if necessary, but do not necessarily proceed with the air war; to stop the bombing in order to have negotiations, but to continue bombing in order to force negotiations.

Therefore, I say with all sincerity that I am not entirely clear as to what policy the NDP is recommending that we and our NATO allies follow. Is it to disengage from the air campaign immediately in the hope that Milosevic will come to the bargaining table, or is it to proceed with the air campaign in the hope that he will come to the bargaining table? Which is it? It certainly cannot be both at the same time.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. Throughout the debate today and certainly in question period the leader of the NDP; our foreign affairs critic, the member for Burnaby—Douglas; and all of us who have spoken in the debate have made it very clear that we believe the debate today is an opportunity for us to assess the position that has been taken by all political parties and what we should do now and in the future.

I reiterate we are hugely concerned that after 20 days of bombing we appear to be no further ahead in terms of achieving the objectives of how NATO was sent in, in the first place. We believe that through the United Nations, through a special meeting of the general assembly, we should be issuing a call to Mr. Milosevic to end his ground war, to come back to the table, and to pursue diplomacy and negotiations. On that basis bombing should be halted.

We should take this time to say that if we are serious about negotiations there are choices within that. The peace accord from Rambouillet is something that is probably now off the table. We only have to look at what happened in Northern Ireland to know that if there is a commitment to make it work a very real and genuine course can be followed.

In response to the member, that is what we in the New Democratic Party want to see emphasized. We believe now is the time to increase that effort from the UN and to have the international community, including very strategic players in terms of Russia and China or other interests in the Balkan area, be part of that initiative so that we do not lose an opportunity to give negotiation and diplomacy a chance.

What is the alternative? It is to issue other ultimatums and to keep up the bombing. I would ask a question of the member. Can we seriously and legitimately say that we have achieved the objective that was laid out to us 20 days ago? I think not.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that I will be using all the time that is available to me but I want to make a number of points. I have not been able to take in all of the debate so some of them may be a repeat of points already made. They are important in terms of my constituents and my own personal feelings on this issue.

The last exchange between the members of Reform and NDP on the question of where people are on this issue was somewhat confusing. That should not be a surprise to anybody. Ultimately that represents the terrible angst we all feel given the fact that atrocities are being perpetrated and have been perpetrated for many years which are inconsistent with what I consider to be Canadian values.

I do not mean to claim ownership of those values, but as Canadians we can take pride in our history of humanitarianism and in our values of civility, tolerance and respectful co-existence. The things that have been happening offend those values. Consequently we all struggle not with the resolution or the objectives as we refer to them but with how to achieve those objectives.

I do not think anybody should imagine that anybody is participating in this exercise with any pleasure. The reality is that we probably all want the same objective achieved. I think we all want the same outcome and we will debate how to achieve it.

From time to time we will struggle with that debate. We will struggle with the question of when it is appropriate, if ever. I am sure there are those in the House who are absolutely pacifist in their view of the world. I am not one of those. I consider myself to be a pacifist but I can imagine circumstances where I would feel compelled to act in the defence of those values.

Last weekend in my riding we commemorated the Holocaust. One has to realize that there are occasions from time to time when people of good will and civility need to take an action. I do not want to draw a parallel here, but I am simply saying that there are occasions when it would be appropriate.

The point is that the kind of difficulty people have with this debate simply reflects that. This is not about what we want. I caution everybody to avoid language which suggests that somehow there is a moral high ground here. We all want the same thing. We all want the atrocities to stop.

It is just as difficult for me to say this is an occasion when force may be used as it would be for others to say this is not an occasion where force can be used and struggle with that, with what that means to the people of Kosovo who will be there if we are not. This is a very difficult debate. I would appeal to everybody for the use of language that respects the fact that this is difficult for everybody.

There are many people who are on the ground. I think of the people who are actively involved in the NGOs. The language we use has to be respectful of them, the people who are involved. I was engaged in debates at other times in my life. I think back on the things I said about people who were engaged in acts of war and the language I used. I regret it in some cases. People are generally of good will and I would hope that people in the military would not interpret anything that is said as not being respectful of the actions being taken on their part, the bravery and the sacrifice.

I come from a constituency that has a large military base. I know what it means for families who send members off to foreign places far away. In many cases I will receive a letter or a phone call from a kid or spouse asking me as a member of parliament what this is all about while their father or mother is in Bosnia, Haiti or wherever they may be participating. We need to be respectful of their actions and be prudent in our use of language out of respect for them.

It is also important for Canadians to understand that we share similar objectives. I remember the member from Vancouver saying the difficulty was that we would not be able to argue that the objectives had been achieved. That is true. Of course we would not. If the objectives had been achieved we would not be there and the killing would stop.

However, that does not change what the original objectives were. All we are asking now is whether this is the best course to achieve them. We will have trouble with it. Everybody will have trouble with it.

If we decide we should not be doing it, that we will have trouble with it, what are the possible consequences? What would we be allowing that we should not as a civilized country? If we do it, are we not exacerbating it? Are we not making it worse? Are we not doing something that in our minds as Canadians is probably quite unfamiliar to us as a country and people?

It is important for everybody to ultimately cling to the fact that we are all after the same outcome. Regardless of where we fall in the spectrum of how to achieve it, there is not a member of the House who does not want the same thing as me. The terrible things that are happening to the Kosovars and the terrible atrocities being perpetrated in the name of some ethnic objective should cease. They are wrong and as a civilized country we need to say so.

I take the points made by members opposite. We need to do everything in our power not to allow this presently employed strategy to somehow blind us to the fact that we should be pursing other strategies either independent of this one or at the very least concurrent with this one. It may be extremely difficult to have the outcome we want. We cannot become lazy in our civility, in our attempts to achieve the same outcome in more peaceful ways.

We should involve all people of goodwill, notwithstanding the fact that the action is specific to NATO. There are countries which may not even support what NATO is doing in this instance but would be helpful in terms of bringing a solution through other means. Every effort needs to be made by our country and the other countries involved to reach a conclusion as quickly as possible.

I never suffered any illusion that this would be easy or quick. How do we achieve the outcome we would want to achieve? In 1993, the year that I first sought office, I was challenged for the nomination of my party. In the debate that took place in that nomination exercise one of the first questions I received was about what I would do as a member of parliament to deal with the ethnic cleansing being undertaken in the former Yugoslavia. This issue has been there for a long time. We have had a number of debates about it here. We have unsuccessfully attempted in a number of ways to bring forward other types of solutions that are perhaps more familiar to Canadians.

The government has decided that the time has come, in collaboration with NATO allies, to take this rather drastic, unpleasant and unwanted course of action simply because the other efforts have not been successful.

I have a great deal of difficulty and have felt terrible even considering what is happening. I also felt terrible considering what was happening before. It becomes very difficult. If it seems that we are not able to give precision in our answers or to articulate our position with any precision, it is simply by virtue of the fact that as human beings these kinds of decisions do not come easily.

Everyone in the House, regardless of where they may come down in the debate on how to accomplish it, wants the same end. They want to end the atrocities we know have been occurring in the region with haste.

I have great regard for all members who brought forward their personal views. I hope we can be prudent in our use of language, recognizing with respect each person's personal struggle with this issue.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby.

For the third time in this century there is war in Europe. Eighty years ago we brought the war in Europe which we thought was the war to end all wars to an end. It was not the war to end all wars. Twenty years later the war that claimed more lives than any other war in the entire history of the world also commenced in Europe.

The history of Canada is replete with stories of Canadian valour, bravery and personal commitment in the face of danger during these wars. When it comes to war in this century, Canada has stood side by side with the great and mighty nations. Now we have a conflagration in the Balkans that was easy to start but perhaps could prove difficult to finish.

Perhaps we have lost sight of the fine distinction between making war and making peace. In the last 40 years Canada has carved out its role as a peacemaker. Lester B. Pearson, our Prime Minister who won the Nobel peace prize, sent our Canadian troops to the Suez Canal not to make war but to make peace. Since that day Canada has played a leading role as a peacemaker deploying our armed forces in many places around the world.

Through our active role in peacemaking we can say that tens of thousands of civilians are living peacefully today in what were once trouble spots where ethnic cleansing could have been implemented before it became the buzzword to describe the military activity in the Balkans.

But the Balkans are living up to their historic reputation of small statehoods whose hatred and enmity of each other far exceed their desire to live in harmony and peace. Upon the ascent of Slobodan Milosevic to power in 1989, the Balkans have slipped inexorably into the morass of ethnic division, animosity and now slaughter.

If ever there was a need for peacekeeping, it is right now in the Balkans. We feel that we have contained the fighting in Bosnia and now supervise an uneasy peace there. Now we are faced with the rape, murder and displacement of tens of thousands of innocent Kosovar Albanian civilians whose only crime is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. The wrong place is their very own homes and villages where they have lived for generations. The wrong time is when a Serbian nationalist is bent on ensuring that his ethnic group, the Serbians, are no longer a minority in what he perceives to be their country of Kosovo and Serbia.

The human tragedy unfolding in that region is beyond our ability to comprehend. That is why I endorse Canada's position that we have a humanitarian obligation to protect the lives of innocent civilians in the Balkans today. It is an affront to our civilized society to watch what is happening. We cannot stand idly by.

There is a difference between making peace and making war. There is a difference between helping innocent civilians unarmed and defenceless to remain in their own homes and villages to live free of the threat of imminent rape, murder and displacement, to live free from the notion that their homes and livelihoods could be destroyed before their very eyes, free from the fear that their families could be scattered in some cases with no hope of being reunited. There is a difference between helping innocent people and attacking a government which has not exhibited territorial ambitions or shown any desire to expand beyond its present boundaries.

In the name of keeping the peace, NATO has gone to war. In the name of saving people's lives, NATO has started killing people. In the name of protecting the homeland of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, we are destroying the homeland of the people in Serbia.

We in Canada live by the rule of law. While I understand the human emotion that caused us to carry the war to the front door of Slobodan Milosevic, it already seems to be a dubious strategy. For months we have threatened Milosevic with bombs if he did not recognize the Kosovars' right to live in peace. When he agreed to our demands, we relaxed the threat of bombing him into submission. When he reneged on his commitments, we reiterated our threat to bomb him into acceptance. All the time, Milosevic was advancing his strategy of ethnic cleansing while we were finding out the costs of our high stakes bluffing.

We are now at the mercy of our own rhetoric. We threatened to bomb and threatened to bomb only to find that it meant nothing to Milosevic. We had a choice of making good on our threats or revealing that we were a lion that could only roar, that when the chips were down we were not up to making good on our threats.

Our negotiating strategy of demanding that Kosovars be allowed to live in peace or else we would bomb has become a military strategy of bombing to bring about peace. With hindsight, neither seems to have been close to the mark.

Had we focused on our humanitarian mission of alleviating the suffering of ethnic Albanians, our focus would have been clear and our strategy would have been obvious. There seems little doubt to me that it will require ground troops to resolve this issue. When neighbour is pitted against neighbour, it cannot be managed or resolved from 30,000 feet above the earth. Bombs cannot differentiate between friend or foe in hand to hand combat.

The point I want to make clear is that we must never lose sight of our objective which is to alleviate the suffering of innocent civilians; to stop the rape, murder and displacement of innocent civilians; and to stop the burning and the pillaging of homes where people have lived for generations. Ground troops have been required in every other peacekeeping mission to date. Dropping bombs can never be considered an act of peacekeeping.

In the final analysis we want the rule of law to prevail. It is rather ironic that in order to achieve that dream, we have trampled on international rule of law by bombing Serbia even though we all consider Milosevic to be an evil dictator.

But the end does not justify the means. Our focus is to help the innocent and to save the children. What we have done is to expand the enmity which is no longer one Balkan ethnic group against another, but is now focused with greater intensity to the war making machine of the western industrialized countries that have always forsworn the desire to strike first at a nation that does not express a threat to their own internal security.

In summation, I said that while it was easy to start, it could prove difficult to finish. Having crossed the line from peacemaking to making war, the cost of achieving our objective will be significantly higher than had we focused strictly on relieving the misery of the Kosovars and leaving Serbia to the Serbians.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there comes a time in the affairs of a nation when leaders need to embody their people, and the people their leaders. Whether we as a country send our soldiers to war is the responsibility and the accountability of the civil power, for in times past had it not been for soldiers and because we had soldiers, we can now afford to have politicians.

The people ask now who these politicians are who send soldiers in the people's name. Is it really for a noble cause? When is offensive war called an act of humanity? When is bombing peacekeeping? Can it truly be said that we are defending our high moral beliefs and defending democracy when perhaps the sending of war is the gravest betrayal of it? Perhaps we have become involved in an intrigue so dark and twisted that the cover song carries us all the way to tragedy.

We belong to a club, NATO, whose rules for membership were once noble and clear but now have incrementally changed. For the ties that bind under the NATO table are not spoken, for the appearances set above and before the club members and the world. We do our duty in the club and cite moral superiority to the community of nations. Yet because of divisions at the United Nations most are relegated to observation. All see the dead, but we cannot rightly judge, for surely all in this play have been killers.

What happens to our humanity, as neighbour beside neighbour, when the constabulary and social order evaporates? They leave all civility, take a cowardly gun and go to the neighbour's farmhouse, whose cousin is married to theirs, then murder the boy who could become a soldier, humiliate and renounce all sense of community, burn the home, steal the livestock, take any money from the victims and send the remaining souls, having lost all, on a foot journey into the unknown.

What hatred and evil comes too easily to the lips of those neighbours when together in the past they have shared the fruit of the land, co-operated in toil, though their language of birth was different and their God had a different name. Yet being brethren and part of a larger family is all cast aside for vengeance, for purity of hate, for belief in the lie of race, for a twisted version of social justice. Another bomb will not change that belief or that behaviour.

On the other edge of this pit of human misery and ignorance we look down, we roll the dice, we pick winners and losers for unspoken plans. Who are the villains? Who are the innocents? When old prejudice spills blood, when money may buy a war, who are the sides in the brawl and who is the referee? Sadly we know who the victims are.

Are we Canadians also victims of this circumstance? For surely the dead we know, the childless mother we know, the marred youth we know and the hollow men. Where does the evil come from and how can we stand against it? For evil we see and an evil it is. It comes from the human heart, and can that sin of the heart be stopped with another bomb?

Canada belongs to a club. We have done our duty there, but now we must reach deeper to have love beyond duty, for love of mankind. For duty can do well but love can make beauty from ashes.

Regardless of how complicated plots, hatred, betrayal and double dealing shall rage, can we find midst the brawl an honourable way for ourselves? In times past whenever called upon we have done our duty and we have done it again in this circumstance. But club membership in NATO must not be higher than the law of love to the human race. Shall we hang on to the actions of the club in the same manner that the ethnic groups hang on to their prejudice and willingness to choose suicide rather than life and to take uncounted innocents with them?

Today before the House we have the following non-votable take note motion:

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.

The motion may make us feel good, but it is unrealistic. Our original moral objectives are now undermined by our actions. More bombs at this time will not produce a humanitarian end, even a political solution.

The objectives of self-determination for a people within the rule of law and democratic process have been manipulated by Kosovo ethnic Albanians for us to fight their war of independence that they could not win on their own. So Canadians will fight and pay for it and ensure it in the end.

Who gave our government permission to fight a foreign war of independence on behalf of a local people? Maybe we should, but the decision to do that must be approached honestly in our parliament, not through the back door of the slippery slope of incremental entanglements.

The present military objectives will also not be accomplished. The assurance of the government today of success of the air war defies history and is tactically unsound. In this case we will not bomb the Serbs into submission, but that may not be the deal anyway. Rather it may be just to try out our techie stuff, to send the Russians a message. I certainly hope not. Air bombing will not deliver the stated objective, so why continue? Ego? Club rules? The children pay.

Partition of the inhabitants, separating the belligerents is the best we can hope for in this generation of hatred, in this internal civil war of independence and revenge. If we honestly become the policemen, apprehend the wrongdoers and actually protect the innocents, then that is worthwhile, but our course is not toward such as of yet. It needs to be.

We on this side of the House have added to the motion “and in particular, this House take note that the government's determination to resolve the conflict would have more credibility after the adoption of a motion submitted to this House specifying the moral, political and military objectives of Canada's involvement, subject to such conditions as this House may impose”.

Let us understand that NATO is attacking a sovereign state. It is doing so not because Yugoslavia committed aggression against a neighbour country but to try to alter the Serbs' handling of a domestic separatist problem based on ethnic and cultural grounds. In the world of diplomacy there is no bigger no-no than using military force to intervene in the internal affairs of a country.

NATO is an alliance that was formed solely to defend its members against aggression, not to launch attacks against others. Is NATO to become a kind of international cop, the enforcer of proper behaviour by governments? If so, why not act for instance against Turkey or East Timor?

The Turks have been brutal in their submission of Kurdish demands similar to the Serbs in Kosovo. Why not bomb the Turks? We do not because Turkey is an ally. That leaves one rule for NATO members and another for the rest of Europe, a policy without principle. That is the precedent NATO is setting in Kosovo.

NATO will likely not be successful and the air war will fail to force the Serbs to come to terms. Therefore, we can expect some unravelling of western and international order that could endanger stability far beyond the Balkans.

We now need to say to our club members in NATO that we played our role but we are out for now, putting Canadian planes on the ground to exercise independent thought and prepare for our role of peacekeeper and honest broker when the dust settles. Certainly our only role in the fighting is a symbolic one of the flag on the airplane as technically we are not needed for logistical purposes.

We have picked sides and we are no longer pure anyway. Therefore at NATO at this stage we need to say that we have done our duty, that it is over for now, put Canadian planes on the ground and prepare for the peacekeeping role of preserving a deal of separating the belligerents.

In the future the Liberal government may try to fool the people and themselves for a while with lofty speeches, but we will never do better than my suggestion in the coming months. It is a better chance for a reasonable outcome than persevering with the present course for unworkable, unrealistic objectives. Canada should stop our bombing now, recover some of our honest broker status and prepare for peacekeeping when it can be used.

No matter how we slice it, Canada has slid into the wrong. We can fix it. We can lead a way out instead of being stuck in this downward spiral. As a nation we need to move from duty to the higher principle of love. We have a unique opportunity to bring some duty out of ashes.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Frontenac—Mégantic.

It is with a sense of moral obligation that I rise on this morning of April 13—I should say this night of April 13 since I have been here since around 2 p.m.—to take part in this emergency debate on the situation in Kosovo.

I was not obliged to join in, my whip did not twist my arm, I am doing it out of a sense of moral obligation. After watching what has been going on in Kosovo for several months, and in the former Yugoslavia for several years, I believe that as parliamentarians we have the duty not to stand idly by.

It is our duty not only to rise in the House, but also to listen to our fellow citizens who have something to say on this issue. This is what I have been doing for the past few days knowing this debate might take place today.

Everybody agrees the situation is complex. But we can no longer tolerate ongoing crimes against humanity. We can no longer tolerate massacres such as those in Rwanda a few years ago. One of my constituent comes from Rwanda, my son has several friends whose parents used to live in Rwanda; they escaped and came here as refugees. In the case of Rwanda, the west dragged its feet and failed to prevent the massacre.

For me, it was a lesson. We can no longer let such things occur. Hundreds of thousands of people died needlessly because the west failed to get organized to prevent such a tragedy.

At least in Kosovo, NATO countries were more prepared morally to intervene. This time they were more committed to intervene even though the solution is a very complex one. We could see it coming, it has been going on for years.

First there was the conflict between the Serbs and the Croats, then we all remember what happened in Bosnia. For the people of Kosovo, this has gone on for a number of months, close to a year now. Warnings, negotiations, the Rambouillet summit and threats were used to get President Milosevic to stop his planned campaign of ethnic cleansing, if he did not want to face NATO strikes.

These strikes did follow, because the president of Serbia decided to continue with his plan, which led to the exodus of 600,000 to 800,000 Kosovars out of Kosovo. This, of course, followed upon threats of all sorts against them.

It is in my nature to always try to weight issues as much as possible, and to pay attention to the information received via the various media, while realizing that there are often two sides to a conflict. There are often two sides to any kind of story.

When 600,000 refugees leave the country, there are 600,000 stories for observers to hear at the borders of Albania, Macedonia or Montenegro. And 600,000 to 800,000 people cannot all be lying, especially when we see their columns of misery as they come to the end of a journey of many days without even basic necessities.

We have heard of people whose passports have been seized. Any document that could prove ownership of property was destroyed. Even in the most optimistic of scenarios, they will have trouble getting their property back. Moreover, we have also seen that property going up in smoke. This is a truly deplorable situation.

Dictators' imposition of their will can no longer be tolerated without any reaction. I am no expert in international law but, under the circumstances, it is regrettable that the UN cannot intervene in this conflict. There are countries on the security council, like China and Russia, that have a veto and that are preventing the resolution of situations like the one in Iraq. There was international support for action against Saddam Hussein.

When things are blocked as they are in this case, NATO steps in. This is not the ideal situation. As the previous speaker said, allies are involved. Situations exist in some NATO countries that could be criticized, such as in Turkey and other countries. This is not, however, what today's debate is about. Still, we must not forget our critical eye and our humanitarian feelings for the people suffering cruelty in these countries.

We have an international organization barely 50 years old that is somewhat tied up by rules and the jurisprudence that has guided it in such situations.

This has to stop, because these sorts of situations occur pretty much everywhere. They are happening outside Europe. We need only think of the people of Tibet, whose government is in exile in India. They happen pretty much the world over. We saw what happened in Asia. So, I say, enough.

We speak of globalization in trade terms, but maybe we should think of the globalization of peace. In other words, communities should join together to actively work toward peace. We do not have all the figures, but it currently costs $150 million per day to bomb the former Yugoslavia and the various military or civilian targets, including refineries, to deprive Milosevic of some military power. But do we hear about that kind of money being spent on humanitarian assistance?

When it comes to humanitarian assistance, we must rely on government assistance and all Canadians must be encouraged to make a contribution. But at the same time, we should invest at least as much money as we do in offensive military initiatives. We must be prepared to implement a new Marshall plan following this crisis, otherwise it will make no sense. We will have witnessed a deportation. We must already be thinking about some form of help for those afflicted by the war. This could even include the Serbs, because there is no doubt in my mind that many are good people who are the victims of a dictatorship, of a tyrant who has decided to impose his will.

Some progress has been made regarding international peace. However, the tribunals that judge war crimes and crimes against humanity are frustrated in their efforts. Mrs. Roy was prevented from inquiring about a massacre that took place in Kosovo and in the former Yugoslavia. Everyone supports peace, but I often hear people say that, while they support peace, they do not want us to intervene in these conflicts. What would we do if we saw our neighbour beat his wife and children? We would call the police. In a case like this one, I think we must send in ground troops if that is called for.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the early hour, I feel compelled to take part in this debate initiated by the Prime Minister and his government, the Liberal government, if only out of respect for my constituents, particularly the hundreds that I met during the Easter break, who shared with me their thoughts and fears, asked me what my position was, of course, and urged me to make representations.

Is Canadian participation justified? Are the air strikes justified? Should we become involved on the ground? Members will agree with me that participation in an armed conflict always leads to pain. We know only the date and time a conflict has begun.

Today marks the 21st day of NATO air strikes in Yugoslavia. Certain NATO country representatives thought, perhaps understandably, that at most three, four or five days of air strikes would be enough to persuade the Serb president to call off his forces. After 21 days, not a single member of this House can predict the outcome of the conflict. All we know is when the air strikes began.

These air strikes were all but demanded by the 19 NATO countries, because what is happening to the Kosovars is a human tragedy that no one on this planet can accept. However, as my colleague, the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, put it so well a few moments ago, there are two sides to everything.

A while ago a commentator on the public broadcasting corporation said “In an armed conflict the first victim is truth”. After hearing reports on the public network, on CNN and from independent reporters, we have to admit that the Kosovars are very close to being the victims of a genocide.

Here are a few events that could justify air strikes. Entire families were locked in their homes, which were then set on fire. Children screamed and cried before dying. Mass rapes are taking place in unprecedented numbers. This is still going on, on the eve of the year 2000. People are being killed for the sheer pleasure of killing, often in the presence of loved ones, women and children. They steal. They humiliate. They deliberately separate families just to harm them.

The 19 NATO countries want to bring Slobodan Milosevic to his knees, and rightly so. No words are strong enough to describe this man, but few could be used in this House.

As one of the 19 NATO countries, Canada must show solidarity; it had to take part in this action, however limited it was. The Minister of National Defence deployed 12 F-18 aircraft, which are stationed in Italy.

Of course 12 aircraft might represent only a 1 or 2% contribution at most. However symbolic the contribution, the fact that we are standing by the other 18 NATO countries is witness to our will to condemn a tyrant such as Milosevic.

It is said that there are 650,000 refugees outside Kosovo and that 800,000 Kosovars are more or less prisoners inside their own country. The Bloc Quebecois, like all the other parties in the House, supports the air strikes ordered by the Liberal government. However if ever ground troops need to be sent in, let us hope it will be to maintain, safeguard or restore peace rather than to engage in ground strikes, or military actions, involving combat troops in the true sense of the word, as in Vietnam.

I hope, therefore, that Canadians will not be sent to wage war, but rather to keep the peace.

I also fault the Prime Minister and his government for their systematic refusal to allow the 301 parliamentarians in this House to voice their opinion through a vote.

I cannot understand the dogged refusal of the Prime Minister, who systematically, maliciously even, refuses to allow each of the members, who represent a total of 30 million canadiansCanadians, to rise and say “I agree” or “I disagree”. Some would probably rather stay in their offices so as not to have to state their position. He would win such a vote.

We in the Bloc Quebecois, however, take our politics more seriously than the Prime Minister who, in 1991, had his mind changed in this House by the former leader of the Liberal Party, John Turner, in the space of 36 minutes. Yesterday in the House all party leaders spoke on this matter.

To conclude, I simply want to make a few recommendations to the Prime Minister, and to his Minister of National Defence in particular.

Nine days ago, here in the parliamentary precinct, they gave a news conference in which they jumped the gun on the NATO agreement by stating that serious consideration was being given to the possibility of intervention on the ground.

The Minister of Defence needs to show solidarity but he ought not to be stealing NATO's thunder by courting the media. He must be in solidarity with NATO. As for the Prime Minister, he needs to play his cards properly, not to ensure that he is re-elected, but to properly represent the people, properly represent Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular.

In closing, I call upon Serbian President Milosevic to immediately give up on his obstinacy and to lay down his arms. It is impossible for him to win, so the sooner he admits that he is wrong, the better it will be for his people and the better it will be for the entire planet. planet.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague.

I rise today with a heavy heart to see once again human tragedy happening in the Balkans. When I became a member of parliament I never thought I would debate a situation where Canadian troops were engaged in combat.

With the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the desire of those who were oppressed either politically or economically rose to ask for freedom and autonomy so that they could control their own destiny. However, dictators and those leaders living in the past have been using old repressive methods to control these aspirations.

We have had many hot spots in the world. Somalia, Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan are a few that come to mind. However the way the world has responded to these tragedies has raised eyebrows and created an uneasiness.

Today the skies over Yugoslavia are light with trails of missiles and rows of fighter aircraft. The ground in Kosovo is on fire and soaking with the blood of the innocent. It is a scenario that no one wanted to see.

I question whether it was necessary to go to war. Just because the dictator Milosevic did not sign the peace accord, was it necessary to use force to bring him to the table? I have heard arguments on both side but I am still skeptical.

Today a large number of lives have been lost. Over half a million refugees are living in horrifying conditions. The country of Yugoslavia is losing its infrastructure. That will hurt the innocent population in years to come. Is this not a very heavy price to pay?

That is why we are asking whether the bombing of Yugoslavia was the right strategy. I have heard lots of arguments on both sides. Let me say both sides have been quite convincing, but somehow I remain convinced that there could have been a better course of action.

In my view NATO has been responding to the situation as it is arising and not with a well thought plan. I am afraid that NATO has played into the hands of this ruthless leader.

My party is supporting the current strategy of NATO. As facts stand now, it seems that we have put ourselves into a corner. I agree that under no circumstances can we let Milosevic win, or there will be no peaceful future for mankind. Hence our support for the current NATO strategy.

Nevertheless we must ask some hard questions. Today polls are indicating that Canadians are favouring ground force intervention because they cannot stand the plight of the refugees. Actually who can stand the plight of the refugees and what we see on our television screens? It is horrifying. The plight of the Kosovars have touched the hearts of all. We want to see this tragedy end soon.

Military analysts are suggesting ground troops for a quick end to this misery. However I would like to caution that bombing was supposed to help bring Milosevic to the table, and 20 days later they are still bombing. They were supposed to be no refugees, and today we have over half a million refugees. We know Milosevic is a ruthless leader with no heart, but the tragedy is that the Kosovars are paying the price.

I understand we cannot stand idly by. The Rwanda crisis indicated that we cannot stand idly by. Hence the support my party has reluctantly given to the bombing of Yugoslavia. Perhaps it is time to take a pulse and open up a new front which I would like to call a diplomatic front or a diplomatic war.

Canada is in a position to take a leadership role. Canada can start by sending our diplomats to world capitals. Canada can campaign to get world leaders to descend on Belgrade.

Let us kick diplomatic sense into Milosevic. If he is not willing to listen, then we can seek out other Serb leaders. We must point out to them that the world will not stand for the atrocities that have been committed by the current leadership in Serbia. I am sure we will find Serb leaders who are willing to listen.

We can kick-start the UN into action. The UN is proving to be ineffective. It was ineffective in Rwanda. It has become ineffective in Yugoslavia. How long is the UN going to remain an ineffective organization? Let us kick-start the UN into action. The way the security council is designed it can use its veto. Nevertheless, we owe it to future generations to put all our effort into kick-starting the UN, otherwise it will become irrelevant in future world events.

We have heard from numerous speakers here, but let us get Russia involved. Why Russia? Because of Russia's special ties with Yugoslavia. Perhaps we can entice Russia with the carrot of economic aid.

Let us explore the options. There are a lot of options. We owe it to the international community to restart the diplomatic offensive.

Having said that, I salute the troops who are helping the refugees, those who are doing peacekeeping duties and those who are risking their lives over Yugoslavia to bring peace. We are proud of our soldiers.

We have heard of the special place Kosovo is for Serbia. I also heard from a U.S. general that Serbs can withstand pain to achieve an objective. I beg to differ on both points. While Kosovo may hold a special place for Serbia, Kosovo also holds a special place for the ethnic Albanians who call Kosovo their home. This is what the Serbians must understand. The Kosovars are citizens of Yugoslavia as well.

NATO has come up with the new proposal to call it a protectorate. Some of these proposals, the bombing of Yugoslavia, the creation of this protectorate infringe on international law.

I conclude by saying I hope and pray there will not be another debate in this House on the issue of Canada's involvement in a war.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I share the emotions of many of my colleagues in the House today. I did not realize when I first ran for the nomination to become a member of parliament that it would involve debating matters of such magnitude.

This morning while walking over here from my hotel there were a thousand thoughts in my mind. I had spent most of the night listening to the debate, between sleeps. It is obvious that we have a huge dilemma on our hands.

It seems to me we can boil this down to one fundamental question. How much killing do we engage in in order to stop killing? It is a sobering thought.

From the reports that we have, and we believe they are reliable, there is no doubt in our minds that tremendous atrocities are taking place in the former Yugoslavia. There are great difficulties among the people.

It reminds me of some of my family history. We take our freedoms so much for granted. When I was walking here I did not feel threatened. Several cab drivers wanted to give me a ride but they were rather generous in their invitations and did not threaten me in any way. There are people not only in Kosovo but in many parts of the world today who do not have the kind of freedom we enjoy in Canada.

It takes me back to my family history. Approximately 75 years ago my family faced the same situation as people are now facing in Kosovo. It is generally known with a name like Epp that I come from immigrant stock. Members of my family were very firm Christian believers. Perhaps they took the Christian teaching beyond what many do, but they also believed that it was wrong to kill another person for whatever reason.

My grandparents on both sides, both my mom's and my dad's families, even though they did not know each other at the time had very parallel circumstances. My mom's dad had three of his brothers shot. What was the crime? They were not supporting the revolution in Russia after the first world war. Because they were not in support of the revolution they were considered enemies of the revolution and therefore were fair game. These marauding soldiers as they were called went into the Mennonite villages and shot all the men and all the boys who were old enough to fight. Both of my grandfathers said that it was time to get out. They took their families and fled by night and hid by day until they got out of the country. It is an amazing story.

I still remember my grandmother talking about it. I think this is taking the Christian faith to the ultimate. I remember as a youngster hearing my parents and grandparents talk about their experiences. I grew up in one of those farm family homes before there was central heating. It is amazing but we had a house which had a hole in the ceiling on the main floor in order to provide some heat to the second floor. When we were kids we would hear the adults speaking. The hole in the floor was in the hallway upstairs. We left our door open so that some of the heat would come into our bedroom. We heard them talking about this.

I specifically remember my grandmother. She was probably the strongest one in this, although grandfather echoed it. Even though members of our family had been ruthlessly killed, she said that we cannot continue to hold that against them, that we must practise forgiveness.

It is regrettable that the Lord's Prayer has been taken out of our morning prayers in this House. We used to pray: Lord forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. My grandparents, ever grateful that they were able to come to Canada, insisted that their children exercise no animosity and seek no revenge.

Over all these years, these people, my family and other families like mine, have been very open to their former country, Russia. They have worked in order to bring some peace and harmony to that country.

One thing occurred to me this morning when I was thinking about this. When I think of what happened to members of my family who refused to shoot their enemies but who came here and left some of the family behind, left that country behind, I cannot help but think that perhaps there is a divine purpose for all of this. We know that the prosperity, and I am not speaking only of financial prosperity but the total prosperity, the freedom of our family was far in excess of that which they could have fought and killed for.

If we look at that part of the world today, people there have very little in comparison. They have very little in terms of personal freedoms, very little in terms of economic strength and very little in terms of amenities which we take for granted.

As Canadians and in the solid Christian tradition on which this country was founded, we ought to be emphasizing what we can do there to alleviate the suffering. We do not have any idea of what kind of terror those people have gone through.

Our son worked for a while in Bosnia. He has been in many different parts of the world. One of the things that struck him when he was over there was how much the countryside was the same as Alberta's, how the homes looked so similar, but close up the difference was that they were full of bullet holes. He told us of some of the atrocities. It is difficult to speak about them. Some things are so horrible one cannot even verbalize them.

He spoke of the atrocities against women. One of the things my son did over there was to provide refuge for people who were victims of these marauding what they call soldiers but that is a misnomer. They are marauding criminals who go around raping, pillaging, killing and burning. That is what is happening in Kosovo.

I would like to see big time in big spades Canada reaching out to those people in love and compassion and providing a refuge for them in this time of trouble.

I cannot imagine some of the things they are going through. My son told us about some of the things. I will resist the temptation to talk about them here because as I said, they are so horrible I cannot even bring myself to say the words.

Canada is known around the world for its peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts. I have some problems with the fact that we are engaging in dropping bombs. Is there a worse terror? Which is more terrorizing, the fear of the marauding tribe coming into someone's home at night with guns and bayonets or the stray bomb that blows someone instantly into oblivion?

These are difficult questions. We have spoken of having a vote. What a difficult vote that would be, yet that is what should be done.

In conclusion, I simply say my thoughts, my prayers, my compassion are for the people over there who are suffering.

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to criticize, but hard to act. This is very true in the case of the people, organizations, countries and parties that condemn NATO's air strikes in Yugoslavia.

It is easy to point out, as they do, what should not have been done. But they should tell us what, in their opinion, should have been done. Of course they will say that we should have continued to negotiate.

Really? Continue to negotiate? Let us look at the facts. On February 6, the members of the contact group, including Russia, gave two weeks to the two sides to agree to a peace plan. To that end, their officials were locked up in Rambouillet, with an excellent chef. It is said that meals taken together are a good way to get closer.

On February 23, since there was still no agreement, the UN secretary general extended the period to March 15. At the end of that period, the contact group realized that not only was there still no agreement, but Milosevic had taken advantage of those six weeks to continue his ethnic cleansing operation. Only then did NATO decide to strike. What else could we do to save the Kosovars?

I will not repeat what was said by those who spoke before me to defend the legitimacy of the strikes and to support the idea that, should the air bombing not produce any result, we will surely have to send in ground troops, but with parliament's approval.

Let us first take a look at the past to see what history has taught us, so as to have a better perspective in the context of this debate. Then, looking to the future, I will speak of the hopes and the problems too arising from this precedent in which a multinational organization has taken upon itself to intervene militarily for humanitarian reasons on the soil of a country that has committed no foreign aggression.

Let us look at the lessons of history first. In 1755, Acadians, British subjects against their will, refused to swear allegiance to King George II, a foreigner to them. England deported them and scattered them in its other colonies, leaving only English colonists in the country.

In 1999, the Kosovars, Yugoslav subjects against their will, subjected to the Serbs, revolt against their domination. Milosevic savagely drives them toward the border.

The great dispersal of the Acadians, the forced exodus of the Kosovars: two and a half centuries apart, two ethnic cleansings, the second being the most brutal, I agree. British pilots involved in the air strikes in Serbia are trying to prevent Milosevic from following the example of their king, George II.

Second, on January 8, 1918, in a famous speech, Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States, announced a people's right to self-determination as one of the 14 principles to underlie the peace treaties concluded at the end of the war. Honoured in part at Versailles, this principle presided over the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian empire.

Yugoslavia, however, born of this break-up, remained a mosaic of peoples. It took the collapse of communism to in turn break up the new Yugoslavia, which continued to comprise various peoples, including primarily Serbs and Kosovars. And we know what happened.

Perhaps the lesson to be drawn from the situations in Yugoslavia and in Canada is to allow nations their own governments.>

Third, on March 7, 1935, Hitler moved his troops across the Rhine, reoccupying the Rhineland and thus violating one of the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. France and England could legally have used force to oppose the Germans and drive them out. At the time, Hitler's army was very small. The human cost of this operation would have been very low, but pacifists were against it.

Three years later, on March 14, 1938, emboldened by this lack of reaction, Germany annexed Austria. On September 30 of that year, France and England, still in the grip of pacifist movements, abandoned Czechoslovakia to its fate. The country was immediately occupied by the Germans.

It would have cost very little to nip the German dictator's ambitions in the bud in 1935. Because people refused to pay that price, it took a world war that went on for five years and cost 30 million men and women their lives to finally overthrow the tyrant.

A French journalist recently declared that he hated war, but was afraid of people who are too afraid of war.

Let us take our inspiration from this remark and remember the German example when deciding what to do in Serbia. There is nothing like dogmatic pacifists to set off wars.

Now, for what lies ahead. NATO's intervention in Serbia sets an historic precedent. It could give the world community the right to send military forces into third countries for humanitarian reasons. There is no doubt that this is a large incentive to leaders of countries to improve their treatment of the populations under their control. I have three comments.

First, let us make sure that, if the right to intervene is ever recognized, it will be sufficiently well defined to ensure that humanitarian grounds cannot be invoked to abusively attack a country.

Oka amply showed how an internal military operation could be blown out of proportion, exaggerated and misrepresented by foreign media. During the Oka crisis I remember meeting in Dorval a dozen of European MPs who had been sent by their parliaments to look into what had been reported as our barbaric treatment of Indians.

Let us make sure the door we rightly opened to military interventions on humanitarian grounds cannot be abused in the future by aggressors claiming some minor trespass against political ethics, which would be exaggerated of course.

Second, let us suppose—purely hypothetically of course—that what the Serbs are doing today to the Kosovars, the Russians or the Chinese will do it tomorrow to one of their minorities eager to shake off their yoke. Would one country or a group of countries go and bomb Moscow or Beijing? Of course not. The only chance the precedent created by NATO in Serbia will succeed in establishing the principle of international military intervention on humanitarian grounds is dependent on the guilty country being weak.

Third and last comment: some are taking offence at the fact that the strikes are probably illegal, since they were not authorized by the UN, the only body empowered to do so. But we should not forget that often the law comes after the fact, if the cause is just.

In Quebec striking was illegal for a long time. It took workers in Asbestos and elsewhere to legitimately defy the law for the law to be struck down because what they did was just. Let us not be moved by criticisms to the effect that not only pacifists, but also legalists could oppose our actions in Serbia.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also very pleased to take part in what I feel is a very important debate on Canada's intervention in the former Yugoslavia, Serbia specifically.

I would like to start with a Latin saying Si vis pacem, para bellum , which means if you wish peace, prepare for war. I must admit that it is a bit ironic to start my speech in such a way, since it is linked in a way with the principle of dissuasion which has put the planet in fear for the past while.

In the light of what is going on at the present time, however, this saying must be understood as having a totally new connotation as we speak. We find ourselves in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to use force, even to wage war, in order, ironically, to impose peace. Given that peace is defined in relation to war, in that peace can only exist in the absence of conflict, needless to say there is some feeling of discomfort about all of this, one that is totally legitimate under the circumstances.

I would also say that a degree of sympathy can be felt for the Serbian demonstrators throughout the world, including here in Canada and Quebec, who are massing in front of legislative buildings and foreign consulates to protest NATO intervention in their country.

It is understandable that seeing their country attacked in this way may indeed awake in them a certain nationalistic pride. As well, they have very legitimate concerns about their relatives and friends still living in the former Yugoslavia.

While we can sympathize with these protesters, while we deeply care for peace, it is absolutely out of the question not to act, to stand idly by while terrible things are going on in Kosovo.

We cannot stand idly by when such ethnic cleansing operations—which look more and more like genocide—are taking place. It is impossible to remain silent when we see such massive displacements of human beings, when we see 650,000 people forced to leave and go into exile. We cannot remain silent when we see those burned houses, those civilians killed in such cowardly fashion.

Some might wonder if it was absolutely necessary to go to war. Was it absolutely necessary to resort to military action against Yugoslavia?

First, it is illusory to think we could simply have relied on the good will of the Belgrade regime, considering that even NATO's bombings cannot undermine its grim determination to literally eradicate Kosovo's Albanian population, by whatever means are necessary.

Remembering Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia should be enough to convince us that military action was absolutely necessary. Neither must we forget that the government of Milosevic knowingly, deliberately turning its back, violated a number of the resolutions passed by the United Nations on the internal situation, resolutions 1199 and 1203, and the October 1998 agreements between the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, NATO and the former Yugoslavia.

The international community criticized Milosevic on several occasions, but he decided to turn a deaf ear to the appeals of the international community. How could we, under the circumstances, remain indifferent, not act, do nothing?

My colleague for Terrebonne—Blainville recalled a number of relevant precedents earlier. We must remember that the international community remained silent, did nothing and watched impassively as Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. A few years later, it was definitely silent and impassive as Austria was annexed. It was silent, I might even say it was an accomplice, in the breakup of Czechoslovakia with the infamous Munich agreements that France and England signed.

When Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain returned to London, the man who would later become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Winston Churchill, said:

“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war”.

He said “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”

I think we should remember the lessons from these words of Winston Churchill. You can of course say the situation is different today, that one involved aggression against foreign countries, although in the case of the remilitarization of the Rhineland, it was a bit different, it involved the annexation of foreign countries, so it was not an internal matter.

Any aggression against a foreign country violates international law. NATO's action would therefore be illegal, except that there is a growing conviction that there is an obligation, not to say a duty, under international law to intervene on humanitarian grounds.

To draw a parallel with domestic law, standing idly by and watching what is happening in Kosovo without taking some sort of action in spite of the humanitarian duty to do so would be tantamount to doing nothing to help a person in danger.

The international community had a duty to intervene. Because of how it operates, and because of the Russian and Chinese vetoes, the UN was not in a position to intervene. The international community turned to NATO.

We should also be glad that NATO decided to provide a form of humanitarian assistance to the civilian populations forced to flee to neighbouring countries, in addition to its military intervention.

In conclusion, I strongly urge the Liberal government to put the question of any future intervention by ground troops to a vote following a debate in the House. It is only right in a democratic country such as Canada that something as fundamental as sending ground troops abroad be approved by members of the House.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of my colleague. Is he my colleague? No, he is a member of the Bloc.

I listened to the comments of my fellow parliamentarian with care. I am sure he has been agonizing over the same question I have. If people are peace loving and do not attack each other, there is no need for restraint and no need for people to go in with guns and try to hold a person back.

What do we do with a person, as we have in this situation, who seems hell-bent on destroying other people's lives? What do we do to stop him? Basically it is replacing one war with another, but the general tone of his speech was that he would like to pull out of there and not do anything. Then the atrocities would continue. I would like to have him respond to my comments.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleague—if I may call him that, when he is a member of the Reform Party, but he made the same comment—to check Hansard for my remarks, because there is indeed a sort of dilemma, almost an existential dilemma, surrounding the situation prevailing at the present time.

We are profoundly attached to peace. We would have liked to avoid a military intervention. We would have liked to have been able to bring into play a whole battery of interventions before having to resort to the use of arms to bring the Milosevic government around to have kinder feelings and show more consideration for the Albanian population of Kosovo.

I would venture to say that we have in fact used all possible and imaginable means under the circumstances: an embargo, a number of resolutions, and negotiations between the parties involved. Yet even under the threat of the possible use of force, the Milosevic government maintained its stubborn stand to not heed the appeals by the international community.

Under the circumstances, I believe that we had in fact no choice but to intervene, as we are doing at the present time.

Of course, it is our fondest wish, as it is yours I imagine, that the Milosevic government will finally listen to reason, thus avoiding any further deterioration of the situation, and will put an end as promptly as possible to the wrongful actions its regime is engaged in at the present time, in Kosovo in particular.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today. Conflict comes about when alternatives to peace are either exhausted or abandoned by reasonable people. The current crisis in the Balkans has deep roots in history dating back even beyond the 14th century.

In the international community nations are sovereign. The nation state is the highest authority. Even then the nation state is tempered by the fact that we have international organizations such as the United Nations. Whether it be the UN, OPEC or others, the fact is that states limit some of their sovereignty.

Sovereignty therefore is not unlimited. States cannot act with impunity. When the lives and the safety of individuals or populations are victimized by governments, I believe it is the responsibility, indeed the duty, of the international community to respond.

We are witnessing a crisis in Kosovo of epic proportions. By any standards the conflict there cannot be tolerated. In the past when governments and the international community did not respond, we witnessed the forced expulsions of Asians from Uganda, the atrocities in Cambodia under Pol Pot, and recently in Central Africa and Rwanda in 1994.

The philosopher Monescue reminds us of the fact that governments are not infinite. The power of governments must be tempered by common sense. Clearly the actions which we are seeing in the Balkans, the actions which we are seeing in Kosovo, force nations to respond in a way which says that we will not allow, will not tolerate this kind of atrocity.

The government of Milosevic in Yugoslavia clearly has gone beyond, by any definition, the norms of international behaviour. The formation of NATO in 1949 came about as a defensive alliance to stop aggression. There is no one in the House and certainly no one I know who likes to see the kind of bloodshed, the kind of forced expulsion of ethnic Albanians that is currently going on.

Clearly the road to peace does not lie in Ottawa. The road to peace does not lie in Washington. The road to peace lies in Belgrade.

The events which have unfolded over the last few weeks have developed because in 1989 the limited autonomy which 90% of Kosovar Albanians enjoyed was stripped away by the Milosevic government. The seeds of destruction have started to escalate since 1989.

We have a responsibility as a government and as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to take action when we see these kinds of rights stripped away. We have to take action when we see that the type of ethnic cleansing we witnessed in Bosnia in 1992 through 1996 is escalating.

There is no question that our involvement is part of the obligations that we have as a member of NATO. We cannot say that we want to be a member of this organization but when push comes to shove that we do not want to participate because that is not our role.

There are obligations and there are duties as a member of an alliance. Although our contribution may be small by other state standards, we are signifying that as a member of the international community we are prepared to act. We are prepared to stand up for rights and we are prepared to say enough is enough.

Canada has a long and proud tradition as a peacekeeping nation. Canada also has a long and proud tradition of responding in times of conflict when the call has gone out, whether it be in the great war, the second world war, Korea or the many peacekeeping operations which developed as a result of the work by former Prime Minister Pearson. This nation has never shrunk, never stepped aside when called upon by the international community. This tradition of involvement, this tradition of participating and doing the right thing, is reflected in the current situation in Kosovo.

We are acting because of humanitarian concerns. We are not acting to attack and say that this side is right or this side is wrong. We are saying that morally we know that what is happening is indefensible and that we have the responsibility to participate. I would hope that genuine peace will come quickly.

As I said before, I believe that the decision for peace lies in Belgrade. It does not lie in Ottawa. It does not lie in other NATO capitals. The fact is that there have been resolutions before the United Nations. There have been in the past statements made under resolution 1160 which called for all parties in March 1998 to find a peaceful settlement to the crisis.

Then we had resolution 1199 in September of last year. It demanded that both sides end the hostilities, not just one side but both sides. Clearly NATO was indicating that it did not want the conflict to continue to escalate. We know that the Balkans have always been known as the powder keg of Europe. In fact the start of the great war in 1914 occurred because of in part the assassination of Archduke France Ferdinand in June 1914 in Sarajevo in what is now Bosnia.

Knowing that history and knowing that we are looking at the ethnic Albanians not only in Kosovo but in Macedonia and Albania proper, this is a very volatile area. In October of last year NATO threatened to use air power if a peaceful solution was not agreed upon.

We then had the recent peace talks in France. At that time part of the proposed agreement was for the cessation of hostilities, for the bringing in of international monitors to look at a timeframe where people in that area would be able to vote on their future. The fact is that it takes two sides, two parties, to bring about a resolution of conflict. Regrettably that did not occur.

Canada has continued to work toward a negotiated settlement. Canada's involvement clearly has not only been on the military front but on the diplomatic front. We are committed to peace, a long lasting peace not just in Kosovo but in the entire region.

What are the objectives? The objectives, by NATO's actions, are to stop the killings and the ethnic cleansings. We have a mass migration of 500,000 people or more. Anyone watching television cannot help but be moved by the plight of those men, women and children.

We are very fortunate in this country that we only watch it on television or read about it. Although we have not experienced that, it does not mean we do not have the right and, indeed, the obligation to intervene when we know that things are wrong.

This is a humanitarian crisis. I believe, therefore, that if it takes the might of NATO to bring about an end to the conflict then so be it.

What we are looking for is an end to this violence and the withdrawal of Yugoslav and Serbian security forces. I would hope to see a disarmament on both sides of the conflict so that we can bring about genuine peace.

Even when peace is established and the monitors are hopefully in there, there is a massive rebuilding to go on and that, of course, is where the international community will have a very important role to play.

There has been talk in the House about the use or potential use of ground forces. It is certainly my fervent hope that we will not come to the point of having to discuss that. Given the history and the tenacity of the Serbs, which we saw during their heroic struggle against the Nazis in the 1940s, and given the terrain, I do not believe ground troops would be either advisable or logical given that we could wind up in a very long and protracted conflict. We want to shorten this conflict and hopefully the military air power will be enough.

Members have called for a debate on the deployment of ground troops. I would agree that if there is any contemplation by the government to look at ground forces that we debate it in the House and, indeed, look at voting on the issue.

In conclusion, I think we are all united in the fact that the actions we see currently in Kosovo defy description. We must be resolved as one, particularly when our fighting forces are engaged in dangerous combat over Yugoslavia. Our brave men and women are involved in a conflict and I believe it is the responsibility and duty of members to support our fighting forces.

I hope that the resolution to this conflict and true peace will come about because reasonable people will be sitting around the table discussing ways to develop a long and effective peace not just for Kosovo but for the region as a whole. I hope that in the future we will not have to see actions such as what has currently been undertaken in the name of peace and humanity.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question.

I am really disappointed we only had 17 hours to debate such an important issue in this House. My colleague from Dartmouth and I have spent the whole night in the House to get a chance to speak and give our view on the crisis in Kosovo. This is regrettable, because just yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House there would be a debate and every member would have the opportunity to speak. That is why I wanted to make this point.

I also would like to ask a question to try to clarify the position of the NDP, especially mine and that of my colleagues.

Would my colleague agree that at some point in a war, or in a conflict anywhere in the world, there should be a pause? One must try to open the door to negotiations. One must try to find solutions. This is the reason why the NDP said clearly other people should be approached, including Russia, to try to get them involved.

We must go to Milosevic and tell him “Stop the killing, the massacre you are perpetrating. Stop it, and we will stop the strikes. We will sit at the negotiating table unconditionally to try to find a humanitarian solution for all and for the well being of the whole world.”

I would like to hear what my colleague on the other side of the House has to say.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the signals for a negotiated settlement must come from Belgrade. My colleague talks about having no conditions at all. NATO has clearly indicated certain conditions. The difficulty of having breathing space is that it is often a time for parties to regroup.

What we have here is a two-pronged approach. We have the current military operations that are going on in Kosovo and Yugoslavia. I agree with my colleague that we need to involve the Russians. Yesterday, the German foreign minister was talking about involving the Russians more.

There are discussions going on behind the scenes, but in order to have discussions we have to have a position for which people are prepared to stand up and say “yes, we are prepared to stop the ethnic cleansing that is going on”.

What is happening is that there seems to be no signal from Milosevic that he is prepared, under any circumstances at the moment, to do the kind of things that my colleague is asking for. I would suggest to my colleague that diplomacy is always the better route. The difficulty, however, is that in order to have diplomacy we need to have people of goodwill who are prepared to sit down and negotiate.

It is not like this has just happened. The road to the conflict has been simmering for many years, but more so within the last year. I think Milosevic has received enough signals to know that at some point what is going on now was going to happen if he was not prepared to sit down reasonably. There were arguments on both sides, but the negotiations in Rambouillet, France indicated that they rejected all of the proposals and conditions. We cannot have a starting point if one side refuses to accept any conditions at all.

In conclusion, I hope that the discussions going on behind the scenes will move more to the forefront. In the meantime, I do not think we can relinquish our resolve in dealing with this situation.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in this take note debate.

We have already heard from the Prime Minister and some of the Liberal government cabinet ministers in this long, take note debate on the crisis in Kosovo.

I think the House can and should do much more than this take note debate of the obvious. Canadians want us to participate in a non-partisanship way on this important issue. This take note debate becomes irrelevant and just acts as a rubber stamp. It allows parliament to simply rubber stamp the policies and decisions that have already been made by the Prime Minister and his top bureaucrats. I think that is harmful to the House and will be more so in the future.

On the Liberal leadership mismanagement, I would like to point out two things. The American secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, has been left to conduct a form of shuttle diplomacy in the time period preceding the NATO bombing of Serbia, as we have all seen on TV.

The Liberals have done very little on this issue. This is unlike the historical role and conduct of the Canadian government in this century. I do not recall anything that it has done to resolve this crisis diplomatically so far.

Canadians served in the Boer War early in the 1900s. We served in two world wars, in Korea, in Cyprus, in Haiti, in the Persian Gulf, in Somalia and in Bosnia, to name a few of the conflicts around the world where we have contributed a peacemaking and peacekeeping role.

The point is that throughout this century Canada has been seen as a just country active on the world stage and a major contributor to peace in the world. We have led negotiations in treaties. We have prevented the outbreak of violence. We have been perceived as fair and just in the conduct of these affairs.

Canada has earned a name as a mediator and we have been in a better position to mediate than any other country in the world. On the world stage our leaders have been looked up to with great respect and hope by those who find their rights and privileges threatened or even taken away. That is our legacy.

Today we find that the Liberals seem to have abandoned our traditional role of exemplifying leadership in resolving conflicts around the world.

I scold and blame the Liberals for abandoning Canada's traditional role of seeking out and managing to have peaceful negotiations engaged in by the international community. That is where the leadership has let us down. The Prime Minister, the foreign affairs minister and the defence minister did not exercise the kind of diplomacy that Canada is famous for.

On ending ethnic cleansing, the official opposition strongly believes that Canada must stand shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies to ensure that the Serbs end their aggression against ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

The political and moral objective of NATO military action in Yugoslavia is to punish and halt the ethnic cleansing which is being perpetrated by the Serbs in Kosovo.

The military objective is to damage the Serbs' military capability, to end the practice of ethnic cleansing and to bring the Serb government to the negotiating table. Ground forces may be required to facilitate and reinforce the resettlement of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, but this is a NATO decision.

On refugees, the Reform Party's blue book policy states:

The Reform Party supports accepting genuine refugees who find their way to Canada.

Kosovo Albanians are being displaced against their will and are clearly genuine refugees.

On other issues, the current NATO military action raises a number of important questions which Reform intends to raise at an appropriate time. These include: examination of NATO's changing role as an international police force; examination of the causes of Canada's diminishing role in international military decision making; examination of Canada's—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 8 a.m., the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8 a.m.)