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.