Debates of April 12th, 1999

Kosovo

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my Reform Party colleague, just as I asked the Prime Minister this afternoon, to give, not one, not two, but three reasons why there should be a vote in this House if a decision is made to use ground forces in the conflict in Kosovo.

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

Madam Speaker, I could probably give 10 reasons but I will give the member three because I know my time is short.

This is a democracy ruled by the people. How are people supposed to express their rulership, their decision making, if their elected representatives have no voice, if their elected representatives cannot express their will? Democracy is what we are trying to supposedly preserve in these parts of the world, but we are not practising it here because there is no vote. One reason there should be a vote is to express our commitment in this country to true democratic principles. Let the people speak.

The second reason we should have a vote is if the government is to commit the resources, human lives and well-being of the country, it should have a mandate to do so and not just some executive decision by cabinet behind closed doors into its own members do not have any input, never mind the rest of the House. The mandate should say that the people, the legislators and the elected representatives are behind what the government will do. In that way we would know there is a commitment. We would be much stronger because we would be together. It would not be just a few people deciding what is going on and other people asking what is going on and why it is going on. We would have talked about it. We would know what the plan is and would have made a wilful decision to support it, which I think would be what all of us would desire to do.

The third reason we need a vote is that in order to have a vote we must have a real debate, not this mushy motion that I read, not these nice words but some real specifics. If we are voting we have to know what we are voting on. We cannot just take notice that things are happening. We have to ask what we are voting on, what we are trying to achieve and how we will achieve it.

These are the kinds of things I talked about in my speech to which I hope the hon. member was listening. We need to have a vote. It would make members demand the facts and address their minds to the facts. I think that would be healthy, proper and appropriate.

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

Madam Speaker, actually I thought we were having a rather good debate. I have been here a very long time. Many members on all sides of the House have contributed very significantly and very well. I hope the government is taking note because many points of view have been presented.

I asked a question earlier of the hon. member's leader pertaining to the promise of a vote before Canada put ground forces into Kosovo, if Canada were to do so. I would like to observe one of the difficulties of promising a vote. When the time comes maybe there will be a vote. Indeed I rather hope there will be a vote. Between now and then, if we promise that putting in ground forces depends on a vote, every one of us would be subject in our constituency offices to pressure from the two sides in this conflict.

I remind the member that the sides in this conflict are extremely bitter. We are talking about conflict possibly leading to the killing with Canadian troops of people's relatives in Serbia or in Kosovo. The reason we cannot say that putting in ground forces depends on a vote is that we would be subject to not only intense pressure but possibly even intimidation in our ridings. It is very dangerous.

I would prefer that we set aside the question of a promise of a vote if we deployed ground forces. Let the government do what it must do when the time comes, should the time come, and I dearly hope the time never comes that we use ground troops.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say that I truly respect the member. He is one of the thoughtful members of the House. I have a great respect for many of his interventions.

However, I certainly hope the member is not buying the nonsense that somehow we do not need a vote. That is absolute garbage. Whoever is feeding him that, because I am sure he would never have thought of it himself or held that position, I hope he will not buy it. I hope he is not just a backbencher who is being led around by the nose with these kinds of ridiculous arguments.

If we are not prepared to stand the heat we should get out of the kitchen. Just because a decision is difficult, because there are strong feelings on both sides, does not mean that we should abdicate our responsibility to make informed decisions based on the best information we have and on the best balance we can achieve. I ask the member to support that position with all his heart.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I must admit it gives me no great pleasure to stand at this hour to speak to very complex issues. These issues are as involved, as profound and as complex as faced by any parliamentarian. I might mention as well that I will be splitting my time.

Literally we are debating the issue of whether we should or should not go to war, whether we should or should not operate within the treaty confines of our NATO alliance, and whether we can or cannot contribute to a resolution of an ethnic conflict that has been going on for centuries.

This area of ethnic and religious diversity has been a powder keg for years, going back to Suleman the Magnificent. Arguably it was the point of conflict that set off World War I. It was also a point of Nazi aggression in World War II when the Serbs actually fought the Nazis and the Albanians were the collaborators.

The participants in these ethnic conflicts have over time been either victims or aggressors. Yesterday's victims are today's aggressors and may well be tomorrow's victims. Indeed yesterday's aggressors are today's victims and may well be tomorrow's aggressors.

It is therefore in this historical context that NATO with the best of intentions has attempted to bring some ethnic peace and harmony to this arena. For the purposes of debate I am willing to concede that NATO and other interlocutors have made every attempt to bring the factions to the peace table. I would argue that there are no innocents in this debate and that all factions have in fact been guilty of ethnic cleansing, genocide and other horrible crimes against humanity.

NATO is not without its own difficulties as a prospective peacemaker. Its policies have not been clear and have not been consistent. For instance, in Croatia NATO was silent while the Serbs were ethnically cleansed from the greater Croatia area. In Bosnia-Hercegovina the Serbs were the protagonists in the hostilities and perpetrated some pretty awful things upon the other ethnic groups there.

This in turn led to some peacekeeping, but ultimately we bombed the Serbs to stay in a multi-ethnic state. In Kosovo we are bombing them to get out of a multi-ethnic state with the presumed aim of separating into an Albanian section and a Serbian section. This in and of itself has caused great difficulties for the population and lays bare our naive assumption that bombing will somehow or another lead to a resolution.

Our Turkish partners have their own ethnic cleansing going on. We are in a moral quagmire because we bring to the table contradictory principles. We are humanitarian hawks. We believe that if we wage war for humanitarian purposes somehow or another peace will be restored. I would suggest it is extremely naive to think that bombs will bring peace.

We are into a moral quagmire from which we will not easily extract ourselves. We are into a legal quagmire from which we will not easily extract ourselves. We are into a military quagmire from which we will not easily extract ourselves. The history of this area is fraught with inter-ethnic conflict and yields no easy solutions.

Arguably our use of force to date has done nothing but create more inter-ethnic conflict, floods of refugees and oceans of blood. It has heightened world tensions in an area of the world where tensions are high at the best of times. Have we learned nothing from history? Is one world war not enough?

For instance, at this point in time Macedonia is undergoing some of its own ethnic tension as the floods of refugees have disturbed its balance. When Macedonia gets nervous so also does Greece. When Greece gets nervous so also does Turkey. Most particularly, when Serbia gets bombed the Russians feel particularly affronted.

Entering into peace brokering arrangements with the Russians is dubious at best and fraught with its own level of difficulties. One would like to assume that in dealing with a secure person such as President Yeltsin we would somehow or another achieve a resolution. However any casual reading of the situation yields the conclusion that President Yeltsin has a tenuous hold on power at best. Lined up behind him are a bunch of nut cases who would be more than happy to do sabre rattling of their own and touch off possibly a larger conflict.

At this point in time we have rained bombs down on Yugoslavia for 21 days. We have something in the order of 250,000 extra refugees, possibly as many as half a million. We have destabilized the area which is fragile at the best of times and brought into play a former superpower. Increasingly at this point the American generals have said that this was all reasonably predictable. If this was all reasonably predictable, then why in heaven's name did we get into it?

Another consequence of this conflict is the erosion of our commitment to the United Nations and the rule of law. Canada has been a booster of the United Nations and has committed itself to peacekeeping operations whenever asked. In addition, we have politicked long and hard to obtain a seat on the security council, advocated soft power, advocated human security and advocated a number of other initiatives that are consistent with our role as a middle power.

However, as soon as the conflict came along we abandoned our principal position with the United Nations, we did not secure a resolution from the security council and we abandoned any pretence of the rule of law. In the course of our proceeding in this fashion we have, for want of a better term, kissed away the rule of international law.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot, for many purposes, seek the rule of international law, seek to create international institutions, seek to obtain peace and security throughout the world through the role of international law and then, when asked by big brother to participate in NATO bombings, run off and abandon years of work at the United Nations. There have already been a lot of victims in this war and the rule of law may be one of the most significant.

We are well aware that the United States does not care about the United Nations, nor does it think anything of it. In our haste to fulfil our obligations to NATO we have bought into the American view that the United Nations is an irritating irrelevancy and not worthy of dignified dialogue among nations.

The final point I wish to make is with respect to our military quagmire. It is very easy to get into war; it is a great deal more difficult to get out. This so-called exit strategy about which many people have spoken is not as much strategy as a point of desperate departure.

We do not have an exit strategy and, of course, Mr. Milosevic cannot be counted on to accommodate us. Therefore, we are in the unenviable position of having to ratchet up our commitment to such an extent that we will have to virtually pulverize the nation of Yugoslavia into submission and then impose a peace settlement upon the nation of Yugoslavia. It echoes again of World War I when we imposed a settlement on the German nation.

There may be military analysts out there who can count that cost, but I as a parliamentarian have no idea what that cost might be and I defy my hon. colleagues to suggest otherwise.

I am therefore left to speculate. If I speculate on the basis of history, I would note that the Serbian resistance fighters in the second world war under Marshal Tito kept a very trained, well-equipped and very committed German army, under the Nazis, pinned down for years.

I think we would be foolish in the extreme to think we may have better military toys and therefore our side will win. I need only point to Vietnam as an example, where the Americans had far superior technology but little people in pyjamas won that war with 65,000 American dead.

I was in Vietnam last year. It is a dinky little country. It reduced a super power like the United States to abject humiliation through sheer force of will. Does anyone in the House or the government know that we are not just creating Europe's version of Vietnam?

We are entering into another nation's civil war which has been going on for centuries and from which we will not easily or gracefully extract ourselves. We are in a moral quagmire where there are no innocents. We are in a legal quagmire where the rule of law is a victim. We are in a military quagmire from which we cannot readily extract ourselves. This reflects very poorly on our values as a nation and compromises our standing among the nations.

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

Madam Speaker, as you can see, the Bloc Québécois is interested in these matters even at this late hour.

I would like to ask my colleague, who has a legal background and who, I believe, is well versed in criminal law, whether he believes a genocide is currently taking place in Kosovo or whether he believes that, for the moment, it is more a matter of ethnic cleansing.

Either way, under international law—because he referred to international law—does the international community not have an obligation to act to prevent genocide or ethnic cleansing?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and I congratulate him on his staying power at this late hour.

It is indeed a good question. It brings up some rather technical distinctions between what constitutes genocide and what constitutes ethnic cleansing. In simple terms, as I understand genocide, it is simply that you lock the people in and you kill them all. Ethnic cleansing is a more selective process. I must admit that if I were a victim, I would not appreciate the distinction. The distinction would probably be lost on me, as I would be dead either way.

As to the use of international institutions to bring some justice to this situation, it seems to me that we have caught ourselves in a bit of a contradictory position. For certain purposes we want to use international institutions, but we readily abandon international institutions for other purposes.

As I said in my speech, I think we are in something of a moral quagmire here. We are not being consistent with our overall commitment to international law.

We seem to want to have it both ways. We want to use international institutions for certain purposes, but for other purposes, for instance if we cannot get a resolution from the United Nations, we just walk away from it, abandon it. I think we will pay for that decision.

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

Madam Speaker, following up on what my colleague just said, I would like to ask him if he believes that under international law, NATO and its member countries are justified in intervening in Kosovo on humanitarian grounds.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asks if there is under international law an exception for the invasion of a sovereign state. That is the essence of the question, as I would understand it.

The theory is that when a sovereign state commits either ethnic cleansing or genocide on a portion or all of its population, therefore, it is a humanitarian exception under international law which entitles us to intervene. I would be concerned that if we go down that path we would put into question the whole concept of sovereignty.

I would point to an article which appeared in the Globe and Mail on the weekend in which Marcus Gee quotes Woodrow Wilson from 1918 concerning the principle of self-determination for a nation of peoples. Secretary of State Robert Lansing was aghast. The phrase, Lansing said in a private memo, was simply loaded with dynamite.

It is my view that international law, when it comes to intervention on humanitarian grounds, in a situation such as this, cries out for intervention. However, I am loath to engage that as a precedent and would want to very carefully nuance an answer to that, which I am not sure I am going to be able to do.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak of peace, not war. I would like to speak of hope, not despair. Indeed, despite the fact that we have talked only of war, of violence and of bombing, I think there is a glimmer of hope. I saw that glimmer, at least I believe it was a glimmer, on an airplane coming from Winnipeg on Friday when I was reading the Winnipeg Free Press .

There was a page on the war in Kosovo which had the usual headlines about bombing, troops moving, feeling the pain of the refugees and so forth. However, what was interesting about this page was the picture at the centre of it. The picture showed a soldier in full uniform bending over a baby. The cutline read: “An Israeli soldier covers a Kosovo refugee baby with an army blanket after it was born in a field hospital in Macedonia”. It was an Israeli soldier.

The page also contained a sidebar story detailing which countries had decided to take Kosovo refugees. One of the countries that had already taken refugees was Turkey. It had taken 7,000 refugees and, as I understand, intends to take more.

I submit that there is a glimmer of hope there. There is a connection between the mention of Turkey taking refugees and the Israeli soldier in the field in Macedonia. Those two countries were the scenes, and some might say the perpetrators, of two of the other great ethnic cleansings of the 20th century. Those are two out of three, the third being the holocaust.

In 1915, Turkey, the former Ottoman Empire, was at war with Russia and the other allied powers because it was on the side of Germany. In an effort to quell an uprising of Armenians who were siding with the Russians it banished some 700,000 Armenians. It transported them forcibly out of their homes, villages and cities and sent them to Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. This occurred at a time when there was no United Nations and when there was no infrastructure to look after such a massive movement of people, many of whom died.

In 1967 there was a six day war against Egypt and the other Arab powers in the region in which the Israelis were in a fight for their lives. After six days, when it was clear the Israelis were winning, they shelled Palestinian villages. I remember the consequence of that. I remember seeing the photographs in the newspapers and seeing the television clips, which were very similar to what we are seeing now. There were hordes of Palestinian refugees crossing bridges into Jordan.

Here is the hope. Remember that it was the former Ottoman Empire that actually perpetrated the expulsion of the Armenians, but Turkey and Israel have deeply drank of the bitterness of those expulsions. Neither country would ever say they were genocides. They would say it was necessary because they were in a state of war. But look at what has happened over the years, at how big a price Israel and Turkey have both paid in bitterness. The whole Middle East destabilized and Lebanon, one of the jewels of the Middle East, was destroyed because of the expulsion of the Palestinians and the conflict that resulted.

When I see that the Israelis are in Macedonia because of the refugees and when I see Turkey putting out a hand to Albanian refugees, I say that is a recognition of the deepness of the bitterness and of the destabilization it causes. It is a recognition and an atonement. It is a beginning where we can hope there will be some forgiveness on the part of the Palestinians of the Israelis, on the part of the Armenians of the Turks and the other way around. So there is hope. I hope that is something we can look forward to coming out of this.

What of Kosovo? What makes it different from what happened in the former Ottoman Empire and in Israel? What is different is how it parallels the other great ethnic cleansing, what happened in Nazi Germany to the Jews. In Germany, as in Kosovo, a government was expelling innocent civilians with force and terror. Germany was not at war with its Jewish population. Kosovo was not at war with the majority of the ethnic Albanians. We admit that it did have guerrilla problems, but it was not at war with one million Kosovars. Yet it was expelling them. The consequence has been the destabilization of the region.

When we talk about legalities we have to remember that countries and groups of countries have always reserved the right to take military action when there is a major destabilization of some region of interest that can lead to further wars. NATO was quite correct to enter into the Kosovo situation because already 400,000 ethnic Albanians had been expelled and there were another 500,000 to go. It had to act.

There certainly was the moral imperative in the humanitarian sense that the regime in Belgrade had no right to expel 90% of the population of Kosovo. Quite apart from that, NATO had to act because we could expect the same destabilization in Kosovo that we saw in the Middle East with the Palestinian refugees.

Once having acted, what is next? It has not unfolded as we would have hoped. Belgrade has not backed down. We have an impasse. The last thing in the world we want to do is to send in Canadian ground forces, or any ground forces for that matter. We must remember to look at the situation from the perspective of the Serbians. All through history it has been a solution of many governments including Britain and the United States. When they have a problem they have ethnically cleansed the region that is the problem. They do not see that they are doing anything that is particularly wrong.

I will give a few examples. In the Boer War the British were in South Africa and they could not quell the Boer farmers. What did they do? They rounded up all the civilians, all the wives and children, and put them into concentration camps. That is how the British solved the Boer War question.

There have been many examples in the past but they belong in the past. The problem right now is that what is wrong in Serbia is that it is repeating the past. We have to convince the people in Serbia that is not the way to do it. They can no longer use the tool of ethnic cleansing.

We must be very careful because this is not necessarily genocide. We know what genocide is. It is what occurred in the Holocaust when the state systematically murdered people. To expel people as is occurring in Kosovo, if we want to make a fine point of it, is exactly the same as what happened with the Ottoman Empire and exactly the same as what happened with the Israelis. They would rightly be offended if we suggested that was a case of genocide.

On the other hand atrocities do occur. Whenever there is a civil war, whenever there is an expulsion of people, atrocities do occur. We have to give the Serbs credit for wanting to preserve what they think is a legitimate ethnic identity based on territory. We are very wrong if we do not give them some opportunities to find a way out, to join the rest of the world, and to appreciate that the tactics they are using are wrong.

If we send in ground troops, every Serb soldier will believe he is fighting for a just cause and will become a martyr. We will be making martyrs out of criminals. That would be the wrong tactic.

What is the solution? I do not know but I can suggest there is a key. I believe that key is Russia. We should be pleading with Russia to intervene to try to persuade the Serbs that there is a way out of the impasse, that there is dignity. I do not know what it is, but I know that we cannot just simply say that these are the five conditions and we will bomb the daylights out of them if they do not agree. I do not think that is the way to do it. I think that is the message coming from the leadership of NATO. I hope it is not the message that is being delivered by this country.

I think the bombing has to stop or at least pause. I support going into Kosovo. There is no doubt we had to do it for the reason of stability in the region and for humanitarian reasons. To keep on bombing is not the answer. Diplomacy is the answer. We should ask the country with the greatest experience in that region that is a great power to intervene on our behalf to try to find a solution, and I believe that is Russia.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. I was interested to hear what he had to say in the latter part of his speech about stopping the bombing and not requiring compliance with the full five points that have been outlined by NATO and, for that matter, by the UN secretary general.

It is very similar to the point of view put forward by my leader earlier today. We need to lower the threshold for getting back to the table and not eliminate conditions altogether. It is fair for NATO to say to President Milosevic that at the very least the killing in Kosovo, the expulsion of ethnic Albanians and the other things that are being done to ethnic Albanians have to stop in return for or simultaneously with a suspension in the bombing in order to create the kind of political space in which there might be a return to the table, hopefully with the help of Russia.

We take the view, as I think the hon. member does if I understood him correctly, that demanding the Serbian people and the Serbian government adhere to all those things which might well be the subject of negotiation before they go to the negotiation table, and demanding that they adhere to things which we already know are unacceptable, is a recipe for more and more bombing without result.

I welcome the hon. member's comments and invite him to elaborate further.

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

Madam Speaker, this is an open debate. When I speak here, as I was asked by my Prime Minister who asked all of us to speak, I speak from my heart. I speak as I see the situation.

I hope that not only is my leadership listening but that the world is listening. We are one of the few open democracies. Each one of us can stand and not parrot the party line or beat our chests and say the government must be right because it is a war. It is not that at all. We have to speak and try to contribute to finding solutions in this debate.

In my opinion we should at least pause the bombing, give talk an opportunity to take hold again and give the Serbs dignity. We can never stop a war when we take away a people's dignity. This is why I am so afraid of NATO's propaganda.

Genocide and ethnic cleansing are very different. When we talk about genocide we talk about what Hitler did. When we talk about atrocities in Kosovo we do not know what has happened. It may be the normal atrocities—and they are horrible enough—that occur in civil wars. Genocide is something entirely different. We must be careful of the language and we must not be trapped by it. We must speak up in the House to make our government know that we appreciate these distinctions.

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

Madam Speaker, it is true that there are distinctions between ethnic cleansing and genocide. However, they are fuzzy, and there are no indications that genocide could not occur in Kosovo.

Since the Kosovar population has been imprisoned and the borders recently closed, genocide could be occurring.

I would like to ask the hon. member two questions.

Did I understand correctly that he said that what happened to the Armenians early in this century was not genocide?

If he is so proud of democracy in this parliament, why would he not distance himself from a Prime Minsiter who did not clearly state whether we could vote on a motion about the use of ground forces, if this became necessary.

I did not find his argument convincing.

According to his argument, apparently it would be dangerous for the 301 members of this House to be subjected to pressure from the Serbs and the Kosovars. If the government makes that decision alone, does he not believe that only some 30 members of this House would be subjected to all that pressure?

In a genuine democracy, then, should parliament not vote on such an important question as sending troops into another country?

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

Madam Speaker, had it not been for the United Nations at the time of the expulsion of the Palestinians from the West Bank in Gaza during the six day war, they would have all died. The member should know that the Middle East does not have the nicest climate in the world. People die very quickly in deserts. People probably die quicker in deserts than traversing parts of Turkey in the direction of Syria and Iraq.

If we say that people died as part of the expulsion in Turkey as a result of genocide, we have to ascribe to the Israelis the intention of genocide. I am not prepared to do that because for centuries countries have believed that it was legally and ethically permissible to expel ethnic groups in times of war and that it was not genocide. Genocide was something such as in Rwanda when machetes were used or in Nazi Germany when ovens were used.

If the member makes a parallel with what happened in the former Ottoman Empire, he has to apply that parallel to Israel, to the Boar War and all kinds of other examples. From my knowledge I do not accept that what happened in the former Ottoman Empire was genocide.

The whole point of my speech was that we should get away from that type of language. We should admit that ethnic cleansing is the wrong thing to do under any circumstances as it creates bitterness and hate. We should be looking for forgiveness, atonement and forgetfulness in these instances so that we can live together in the future. That is the way to go.

I think I have answered the other question asked by the member.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will share my time with the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

It is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak in this House today about the catastrophic war in Kosovo. Diplomacy did not alas have the hoped-for results, and it is with arms that the international community is attempting to convince Slobodan Milosevic to halt his aggression against the Kosovars. It is consensus within NATO that will replace the endorsement of the United Nations.

As the Bloc Quebecois international co-operation critic, I am concerned above all about the fate of the refugees driven from Kosovo by this conflict.

The conflict we are seeing in Kosovo at the present time is the outcome of many years of instability in the Balkans, instigated largely by one man, or rather one dictator, Slobodan Milosevic. This 57 year old man has tried for an entire decade to dictate the course of history in the Balkans, always using the same methods, terror and blood, and always with the same goal, strengthening his own power.

It was time the international community took steps to change this state of affairs. Obviously the Bloc Quebecois would have preferred a peaceful diplomatic solution to the conflict over Kosovo, but unfortunately there is this man, Slobodan Milosevic, defending a greater Serbia at any cost.

The result has been war in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. Each time it is the same Machiavellian logic. Igniting a crisis, proclaiming himself the nation's champion to reassert his authority and legitimacy over a powerless people already suffering from many years of bloody conflicts.

These people are now nothing but the playthings of a single man's ambition and, each time, the adventure is a real debacle of humanitarian catastrophes.

Let us pass in review the military exploits of this dictator, Milosevic. First, it is important to bear in mind that the population of Kosovo is 90% Albanian. In 1974 Albania was given independent status, but in 1989 Milosevic unilaterally withdrew by decree its status of independent territory. That was the spark that led to the Yugoslav explosion of the 1990s.

As part of Milosevic's harassment, the Albanian language was banned, and Albanian language schools, theatres and newspapers were closed down. In light of this new situation, the Kosovars held a referendum that allowed them to declare Kosovo's independence.

The Milosevic government reacted brutally to that resistance by sending troops into Kosovo. From then on, the Kosovar people were the victims of massacres, gang rapes, and the systematic destruction of villages. A number of NGOs estimated that over 250,000 Kosovars had been displaced and that at least 50,000 persons had fled to the mountains. I need not tell you that, from then on, the international community was faced with a humanitarian disaster.

Let us now look at the present situation. On March 11, 1999, before the air strikes had begun, Sadako Ogata, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, estimated that 400,000 persons had been forced to flee their homes since the conflict had begun in March 1998. Of that number, nearly 230,000 had been displaced within Kosovo.

On March 24, the day the air strikes began, there were a total of 450,000 Kosovar refugees, including 260,000 within Kosovo.

Today, according to estimates by the UN High Commission for Refugees, some 650,000 inhabitants out of a population of some 2 million have fled Kosovo. Furthermore, it is estimated that half the refugees are under 18 years of age.

Among the adult refugees, some 85% are women. There is also a great many elderly persons. As well, in today's newspapers, we read that the British authorities estimate the number of men Kosovar refugees who may have disappeared at 100,000.

Faced with such a disastrous picture, now is more than ever the time to think about these humanitarian crises. Why have we not learned from the past? In the present conflict, international diplomatic efforts broke down, let us remember, back in 1989.

What explanation is there for the fact that the international community, including Canada, did not take note of the Bosnian tragedy and not only the humanitarian but also the financial and political costs of failing to take strong action while there was still time?

It was a good long time ago that the Bloc Quebecois first warned the Canadian government about the atrocities in Kosovo and the importance of considering air strikes and, if no other solution could be found, the sending of NATO ground troops in to put a stop to ethnic cleansing and prevent the genocide of the people of Kosovo.

I want to repeat that the Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of a diplomatic resolution to the current conflict, but one must be realistic when faced with the obstinacy of Slobodan Milosevic. It is probable that, if Canada and the international community had followed the advice of the Bloc Quebecois, there would not now be 650,000 Kosovar refugees, to say nothing of massacred civilians, torture and the mass exile of whole villages.

It is high time that the international community gave serious thought to and registered, once and for all, all the errors that have been committed, and made sure they will not happen again.

This having been said, the fact remains that we are now facing an atrocious reality, that of a humanitarian crisis.

The refugee overflow into the republic of Macedonia and into Albania may well destabilize the governments of those countries. This means that direct, massive, unconditional assistance must be provided if we want to prevent the conflict from spilling over in the entire region. Appeals by these two countries must be taken seriously, and Canada has an obligation to respond to them.

In addition to these geographic and political contingencies, all western countries have an obligation to provide every assistance they can to the persons displaced by the conflict.

The assistance required is considerable, and will continue to be so for a long time. Canada must prepare to provide assistance and, starting now, must show its support for NGOs, the UN High Commission for Refugees, the Red Cross and other organizations.

Canada must also consider the urgency of the situation on the ground, particularly in Albania and the republic of Macedonia, where the influx of Kosovar refugees and the resulting need for humanitarian assistance continue unabated every day.

I want to reiterate the question I asked here in this House during Oral Question Period this afternoon: Is the government prepared to reallocate the $100 million set aside to take in Kosovar refugees here, to help the NGOs that are now looking after refugees over there? Unfortunately I did not obtain a response to my question this afternoon. The government must realize that every dollar spent on humanitarian assistance can save a life, or at least lessen the suffering of the Kosovar refugees. The need is very great indeed.

I would like to quote the words of Bajram Cena, the director of the hospital in Kukes, Albania, where every day thousands of refugees are pushing to get in:

It is like the end of the world—in the operating room, all that is available to doctors are scissors, thread for sutures and a few bottles of rubbing alcohol. The nurses are digging out shrapnel splinters without anaesthetic. On the other side of the corridor, blood soaked compresses are floating in the toilets—

Could this money not be put to use by this doctor for his hospital? When I say that the life and the most basic well-being of the refugees depends on this, it is nothing but the stark truth. What will the government do with the $100 million? That money must be used immediately.

In conclusion, and for the benefit of listeners in Quebec and Canada, I would like to recall that it is vital to give generously to help Kosovar refugees. Those who would like to donate money, because money is what is most urgently needed, can do so via the Red Cross, among other agencies, at a toll free number that I will give right now: 1-800-418-1111.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on an excellent speech. I felt it came very much from her heart, but I have a question.

I alluded to the Palestinian situation in my remarks. What happened after the expulsion of the Palestinians was that they remained in refugee camps for decades. Indeed, they are still in refugee camps.

What does the hon. member think is a reasonable length of time to have the Kosovo Albanians in refugee camps? If there is a limit to that time, does she suggest some other solution other than refugee camps?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for the moment all that can be done is to protect those refugees who are outside Kosovo. This will take as long as it takes. What is important at the moment is for these people to have food, basic care, everything they need to survive.

It is up to developed countries to send them what they need, to send money and whatever is required to ensure their survival.

Has a time limit ever been put a war or a dispute between countries? Must a limit be set, whereby people can remain in one place for six months, and then will be sent elsewhere? These people do not want to leave their region, they want to stay there. Their culture is there. Their country is there. They are just waiting to be able to get back to it. Let us try to settle the situation as soon as possible, so that they can get back to Kosovo and finally find happiness in their country.

They are not going to find happiness by being taken to other countries continents away. I would not want to compare the present crisis with what is going on in Palestine. Every crisis has its own history. Every war, every movement has its own history, in its own time. They cannot be compared.

Canada and all of the developed countries have a duty to send aid to these people in Albania and Macedonia as promptly as possible, particularly since we know that those countries do not have the resources to be able to help them.

Let us do our duty, then, and let the government send the necessary funds and aid to these countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague, the member for Laurentides, if she were, for instance, a minister in a sovereign Quebec, what would be her priority right now, what would she do as minister for international cooperation given this crisis in Kosovo?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry. I am not the minister for international co-operation but I do have some ideas and I would act swiftly.

We already have some resources at our disposal. We have CIDA, which is active throughout the world. I would first use the resources we already have in these regions to provide whatever help is needed as quickly as possible.

I would not be afraid to ask for $100 million. I think the minister is not being vocal enough to get the government to hand over the money needed to help the countries caught in this crisis.

I would exert incredible pressure on the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister to get the funds needed and to help these people, I would try to avoid duplication and use existing resources in these regions to act more quickly.

That is what I would do.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak in this special debate.

I remind members that the motion provides:

That this House take note of the continuing human tragedy in Kosovo and of 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 member for Laurentides described very clearly and succinctly the situation of the refugees and the international aid, which must come quickly to enable them to enjoy basic living conditions and, once the political and military crisis is over, to return to their country having suffered as little as possible in the situation.

The situation also raises certain questions. Was this type of intervention really necessary? Was NATO justified in intervening as it did and did it do it right?

I think the answer is in the speech by the member for Laurentides and in all the images we have seen of the refugees and the treatment given them by another government, which treated them like guinea pigs. It is as if they decided to tell these people they could not live where they wanted. Clearly, there is a major crisis.

Was the intervention by NATO the most appropriate and properly planned? Did it anticipate the reality as we have seen it with all these refugees fleeing Kosovo, pushed by the Serbs' action, which is in fact ethnic cleansing. I am not sure.

In terms of the end result, where are we today? We must look at this in three ways, that is in military, humanitarian and diplomatic terms.

There must be an assessment of the bombing strategy. The ministers responsible in all NATO countries are currently conducting such an assessment and they are trying to see whether other measures are in order, including whether ground troops should be sent in.

Given the planning difficulties, we have many reservations and we want to make sure that, when the decision is made, it will be made with full knowledge of the facts.

This is not an issue regarding which we must wait until we have absolutely all the relevant information, since it might then be too late and since that information might no longer be useful. However, all the necessary preparations must be made, and the parliaments concerned must be provided with appropriate information, because several of them will send troops to take part in such operations.

It is important for us, as elected officials, to be allowed to vote on this issue. As all the opposition parties have asked today, there should be a vote on the issue, so that parliament can indicate its intention with a massive vote. In the case before us, it would strengthen the position of the Government of Canada. I hope that the Prime Minister will continue to ponder the issue and will make a positive decision.

Some humanitarian measures must also be taken. The hon. member for Laurentides clearly showed the urgent need to act and the importance of taking the necessary steps so that such action can take place quickly.

We are going to be judged partly on this aspect by the international community. So far, our image has not necessarily been a positive one, given the air strikes and their impact. We must, from a humanitarian point of view, do our utmost to show that this is not an act of vengeance, but an act to ensure respect of international rights and of the rights of citizens all over the world. What is needed in a few years is for the Balkans to be fully integrated into a Europe where there is genuine respect for human rights, and for the actions taken in 1999 to have improved the atmosphere and produced acceptable solutions.

On the diplomatic level, I feel that Canada did not play its role fully. The Government of Canada, through the UN, could have done much more. Talks with the Russians or the Chinese, who have a veto, should be continued. If these vetos are ultimately exercised, we would know by whom. This would lead us also to take a much closer look at all the weaknesses of the United Nations.

The fact that NATO has now stepped in without the agreement of the UN—which I think would have been preferable—is a result of the imperfections in the UN system. What would prevent a reform at the present time? The UN system originally made sense, but evolved over several decades as the international situation changed. Should something not be learned from all this and the UN reformed so that this kind of veto does not get in the way of enforcing respect for human rights internationally in future?

There are lessons to be learned and a public debate is in order. Whether during the Suez crisis or at other times in the last 30 or 40 years, the Government of Canada has taken some interesting initiatives internationally. In this particular case, Canada's diplomatic role was very limited compared to the role it could have played, not because we are a major world power but because Canada, through its contacts, can intervene usefully with the Russians, for instance, who will play a very important role in the final, inevitably political, solution, and Russia, in turn, can intervene with Yugoslavia.

All this bears thinking about. When the Prime Minister of Canada went to Mexico, he was criticized by Mexico's head of state for Canada's position.

He explained his position but he may also have to help all those countries to have a better knowledge of the issue, a better knowledge of the situation.

If we had an appropriate system in the United Nations, the general assembly could probably, through a strong enough vote, overturn certain vetoes. It might be a way to achieve results and prevent a military organisation like NATO from taking political stands.

All this brings us back to the fact that we do not have a perfect system. There are still flaws that have to be remedied. For the time being, people are going through an unacceptable situation.

The lesson we should learn from the 20th century is that signs of ethnic cleansing, as we are now seeing, carry a possibility of genocide. No one can say that we did not act because we did not know and that we did not have enough information to take action.

We do have enough information. We know the terrible situation we are facing. NATO's action, which may seem to have been inadequately planned according to comments heard this week, must send a clear message that will force Yugoslavia to take heed and allow us to reach a political solution to the present situation.

Let us not forget that the important images are not those of planes leaving aircraft carriers or military bases in Italy. The important images are those showing old people, women, all those displaced persons who are going through a difficult situation, in humanitarian terms.

The Kosovars we saw on television are not leaders in their communities. We could see very well that they were simple people like those in our own communities. Those people were all of a sudden deprived of their ordinary way of life, in a violent and unacceptable way.

For those reasons, we must absolutely take clear action. It is important that the House be allowed to vote to send a clear message to the international community.

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Nipigon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague on the sincerity of his speech, but there are some difficulties I am having trouble understanding. I have several questions.

I do not think there is any difference between that side of the House and our side of the House with respect to what should be done as we deal with the refugee crisis and the humanitarian considerations in the terrible conflict going on in the Balkans.

My colleague made several statements with respect to the military aspects. One dealt with the imperfections of NATO and that the Government of Canada could do something else other than what is being done. The member made some comments about the United Nations.

What does the member think should happen when 19 countries in NATO are all united, and have been united in the last three weeks and three or four days with respect to the military action taken in trying to bring this terrible person under some kind of control? What does the member think the United Nations should be doing? We are all agreed, those of us in the free world and NATO, and the secretary general recently stated that the United Nations is doing all it can to find diplomatic efforts to solve this problem.

The member commented with respect to what our peacekeeping forces did in the past, starting with the Pearson peacekeeping movement that Canada adopted and in which Canada has been a world leader.

To stand in this House and criticize our peacekeeping movement which has been the honour of Canada for the past 45 years, to criticize what we are doing as one of the 19 countries of NATO and to criticize what we are doing as a very important member of the United Nations does not stand in good stead for the unity this House should be showing in supporting our efforts on the military side and what we are attempting to do to satisfy the humanitarian concerns in which we are all interested.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, considering the present situation, I do not think that it would be rude to point out that world diplomacy did not play its role very well. Had it fully played its role and been fully effective, we could have avoided military intervention.

It would have been better to go about things differently. For me, diplomacy is always the first choice. When we can solve a problem without resorting to arms, I think that is the course we must take.

In this case, NATO would have a much stronger position, morally, if it had been what I would call the military arm of the UN. That would have been a lot more effective, and it would be a lot easier to build a consensus among countries outside of NATO.

Earlier, I gave the example of Mexico. Had there been a UN resolution justifying a military strike based on the need to protect human rights in the Balkans, I think our position would have been much stronger.

My intention was not to lash out against Canada's actions on various issues over recent years. I do think that in the situation at hand, Canada could have done more than just go along with the other NATO players. It could have taken up a more dynamic, aggressive and positive role to try to bring about a broad international consensus, and thus put pressure on UN members who have a veto, like Russia and China, and find some other solution or approach. In the future, that is what we should do in other such instances.

Who can say that, a couple of months from now, we will not need a special force to defend a protectorate in Kosovo. To have a sufficient moral authority, will this special force not need a mandate from the UN?

After the NATO bombardments, soldiers involved in those NATO strikes may not be the best choice to act as a buffer between these two communities. We may need a different kind of intervention. This is what Canada should be concerned with, and it should be more active, on the diplomatic front.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to split my time with the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant.

In times of peace and prosperity, countries and individuals alike follow higher standards because they are not being forced into a situation in which they must do something they do not want to do. But war is a stern teacher. In depriving them of the power of easily satisfying their daily wants, it brings most people's minds down to the level of their actual circumstances. The circumstance that is uppermost in the minds of people today is the worsening human crisis in Kosovo.

Our thoughts rightly turn to a range of important questions. What is the current situation in and around Kosovo? What is the status of NATO's efforts to reduce Slobodan Milosevic's ability to further harm Kosovo's inhabitants? What does this conflict mean for us as Canadians and for Canada as a member of the north Atlantic alliance? What is the nature of our interests and obligations, be they strategic, political or moral?

As we debate these and other issues today, it is clear to me that our perspectives on some of these questions and perhaps those that come closest to home are largely influenced by our respective views on Canada's traditions. I join this debate to say a number of things, but first and foremost to speak my mind on what I believe has developed in the course of this century into a proud Canadian tradition of helping others.

Canadians have shown a very real appreciation for the significance of events occurring far from home, and this awareness has had an important influence on the government's decision making.

When they see that the international situation demands it, Canadians have supported sending the Canadian forces into harm's way in order to make a tangible contribution to the cause of international peace and security. This willingness to involve ourselves in the world has become traditional for us and it is a tradition that we all can be proud of. It is a tradition rooted in culture and commitment. It is an expression of our values and interests abroad.

Canada has long-standing links to the broader international community through culture, economy and family. As a major trading nation, we thrive in a stable and international system and we are directly affected by instability elsewhere. Our security depends on global peace and stability, and we protect our interests by working with others.

That is why we are founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations, and why we have committed ourselves to a host of other international institutions. It is why we went to Europe to fight for peace in 1914 and returned to do so again in 1939. After the second world war we fought for those same ideals in Korea.

Since then, we have become the world's pre-eminent peacemaker; well intentioned, well equipped and well trained.

Over the last 50 years more than 100,000 Canadian men and women have served in peacekeeping missions around the world. When the Nobel prize was awarded to the United Nations for peacekeeping operations, Canada was singled out for its contributions and honoured by the international community.

The concept of peacekeeping, which Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson gave the world over 40 years ago, was a simple yet powerful idea. And, as history shows, this idea caught on.

Prime Minister Pearson's perspective on international security also provided two of the fundamental pillars of our foreign and defence policies. The first is that the promotion of international peace and stability is of paramount importance to Canada. The second is that promotion of this stability is best undertaken collectively because it clearly demonstrates the will of the international community.

For these reasons Canada may be required from time to time to commit our military resources to protect deeply held Canadian interests and values.

We must also remember that Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson's concept of peacemaking was not limited to providing troops when fighting had stopped. He clearly understood that military forces sometimes had to be employed not merely to monitor peace but to create the conditions in which it can be established.

In 1997, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan echoed Lester Pearson's vision, stating that “you can do a lot more with diplomacy when it is backed up with firmness and force”.

Our country has a well deserved reputation as a peacekeeper, but that reputation and the events that created it are also elements of a wider tradition. That tradition is one of international engagement on a range of issues, peace and security being among them. To understand that tradition we must not forget that we have never and will never shy away from stronger means if that is what the pursuit of peace requires.

Canada of course always prefers a diplomatic solution. Our tradition has always been to appeal to the powers of reason and try to achieve peace without the use or even the threat of force.

Sometimes, however, diplomatic action is not enough. Diplomatic efforts sometimes fail to produce the desired result and that leaves governments with a choice. They have the option of walking away, but where the interests are real, the international community is left with little choice but to take action against those who refuse to adhere to international standards of conduct. This is a reality of international relations.

This decade alone has given us examples of such circumstances. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the international community had to employ its military resources. In Bosnia, NATO had to use selective force to bring about the conditions for peace and stability. On both occasions Canada was there with our allies.

Last year we returned to the gulf to pressure Iraq to comply with the United Nations weapons inspections. This year we returned to the Balkans to ease the humanitarian suffering in Kosovo. Over the years, thousands of Canadian forces personnel have made Canada's presence felt.

In my riding we are privileged to have one of the largest military bases in Canada, CFB Petawawa. I am proud to say that the troops of Base Petawawa have discharged their duty with diligence, dedication and devotion to securing peace throughout the world. Our present involvement in NATO operations is only the most recent form of our long-standing commitment to security.

There are those who will argue that the use of force against Milosevic's efforts in Kosovo is not in line with multilateralism or with Canada's traditions. I believe these people are wrong.

In conclusion, I would like to paraphrase John Donne. No person is an island entire of itself. Every person is a part of the whole. Any person's death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind. Therefore, never ask for whom the bell tolls; the bell tolls for thee.

Right now the bell is tolling loud and clear that Canada must defend the defenceless of the world, the hundreds of thousands of refugees in Kosovo who have fled from the destruction of their homes and the murder and rape of their relatives. We cannot and will not stand for this kind of evil ethnic cleansing, this genocide, this destruction of humanity, because when the oppressed of the world call, Canada answers the bell.

I am so proud that ordinary Canadians from such places as Arnprior, Barry's Bay, Calabogie, Douglas, Eganville, Renfrew, Petawawa, Pembroke, Deep River, Stonecliffe, Deux-Rivières and thousands and thousands in my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke are committed to helping the refugees and committed to Canada's intervention in the Kosovo crisis.

When words and hope cannot protect the innocent, Canada cannot stand idly by. We must move forward with resolute resolve to end Milosevic's brutal campaign so that one day the bell will toll no longer, so that one day all mankind will live in peace, security and prosperity.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, because it is important for us to think things over together tonight—it is 2.10 a.m.

I listened to my colleague's impassioned speech about how we got to this stage. But how is it that we are here tonight wondering whether or not we should send in ground troops?

When the air strikes were decided on, there had to be a plan. I suppose it was thought it would take 5 to 10 days to settle matters. But it is taking a lot longer and so we are gathered here tonight. Some of our young soldiers, and soldiers from other countries, may have to die—this has to be pointed out—before this conflict is over.

There is a phrase some people no longer want to hear. I like to quote it now and then. It is not something I coined. It goes like this “Peace on earth to men of good will” .

How is it that on the eve of the year 2000 we still believe we should forge ahead, even though there may be a lot of bloodshed.

As a whole our soldiers are young and generous, and they are ready. I have trouble understanding how we got to this stage, virtually unanimously. Everybody agreed this had to be done.

Is there any good reason for asking our soldiers to put their lives on the line, so to speak? I would like the member to give me a few good reasons why we should send in ground troops.

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, tonight's debate is a historic one, but there is a reason we are intervening in Kosovo.

The member opposite seems to be troubled by the fact that Canadians are risking their lives to fight for the peace and freedom of others. This is exactly what former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson was talking about in his peacemaking efforts.

It is not our desire to risk the lives of our young soldiers, be they from Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Nova Scotia or any place around the world. However, on occasion situations determine that we cannot turn a blind eye. We must act. In this situation, we know there are hundreds of thousands of people dying. I find it unfathomable that the member opposite does not realize this. If it were the member's family, his brother, sister, mother or father, who were being slaughtered, would he not want someone to intervene?

I find it almost impossible to believe that the member opposite would not be rallying behind the Canadian troops saying “Canada you are doing the right thing”.

I hope he and his party are not saying that Canada should not be there. I firmly believe we should be. We cannot turn our backs on these people. We cannot turn our backs on the world community when it calls for help. It is an atrocity for him to even intimate that. I hope he is not saying that, but that is what I gathered from his comments.

If we are playing mere politics that is wrong. I firmly believe that our young troops, be they from Quebec, Ontario or from CFB Petawawa in my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, want to be there to protect peace and freedom throughout the world.