Debates of April 19th, 1999

Supply

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech. I am a bit concerned about the phrasing of the motion, which is vague to say the least and creates a bit of a precedent. It is an area of precedent that the hon. member needs to think about very carefully.

We entered into World War II without the resolution of this parliament. We also declared war against Imperial Japan without the resolution of this parliament and we entered into the Korean conflict without the resolution of this parliament. The motion appears to imply that before we enter into war in this instance the government must get a resolution from this parliament.

Given that this motion is imprecise at best and is really on whether we should have a vote, and given that it talks about possibilities and a variety of things which could be interpreted in a variety of ways, I wonder whether the hon. member is concerned, given the precedential nature of this matter and the foundational aspect that it has to our democracy, namely the right of parliament to direct government. Is she at all concerned that this motion is not nearly as precise as many members would like it to be before voting on such a foundational issue of our democratic process?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member. I am sure that, in giving the example of the resolution by which our country got involved in the second world war, he was not suggesting that it would have been better for Canada to agree to go to war without having a resolution from parliament. I will not remind the House of the painful memories Quebecers have of that.

I do not understand why the government is saying our motion is vague. What we see right now in the news is the possibility of sending ground troops. If this is not necessary, that is good. But a solution is not in sight right now, despite the weaker and weaker reminders that air strikes would be sufficient. We do not see how NATO could succeed, how the countries that decided to take on this humanitarian cause could succeed without sending ground troops.

I repeat what I said before. If troops were sent, it would not be for a parade. This parliament has to vote on it, has to decide, with all the information available, if it should maintain troops within a framework that would be uncertain and that could also deteriorate. This is true not only for members on this side, but also for members on the other side, because we will live with this decision for a long time. A vote must absolutely be taken in this House.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have an excerpt from a letter sent to me by a constituent. There is a poem in it which talks about the day the war started. I thought the poem very eloquently summarized the need for a vote in this House. It states:

The day the war started the first green shoots of spring pushed through the thick carpets of leaves into mid-afternoon sun.

The day the war started a Norfolk and Southern diesel pulled cars of immaculate pine destined for hundreds of new homes.

The day the war started couples were married at city hall, school children learned the beauty of prairies, the beauty of snow on faraway mountains.

And on that day, too far away to notice, other children learned the beauty of flames, the beauty of the planes so high in their white sky that no one aboard could notice —that no one could even hear— the roar of wind drawn into vast fields of immaculate flames that once were schools, homes, families.

Does the hon. member not feel that this is a cause which gives support to having a vote on such an important issue?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague expressed in a different way the answer I have just given the member opposite.

The international situation is serious. It would have been preferable to have this vote before the air strikes began but, in the name of democracy, we must have it now, before getting ourselves into something that we do not know how and when it is going to end. No other decision will be more important, for all kinds of reasons. The situation will never be the same again. It is the first time NATO does such a thing.

Important changes will have to be made to international institutions. We do not have time to debate this issue any further right now, but this dirty war—because if there is war it will indeed be dirty—requires a vote before any final decision is made.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mount Royal.

I would like to begin my remarks today by advising the House of my meetings in Brussels and London over the last three days.

While in Brussels I met with NATO Secretary General Solana, the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Clark, and the Chairman of the NATO Committee, General Naumann. I also had the opportunity to consult with my Belgian counterpart, Mr. Poncelot, and in London I met with my British counterpart, Mr. Robertson.

On each occasion we discussed the full range of issues pertaining to NATO operations, both the air campaign and efforts to address the dire humanitarian situation that continues to unfold.

I want to assure the House that NATO's resolve remains unshakeable. NATO's steadily intensifying military operations are destroying, step by step, Yugoslavia's military capabilities. The air campaign supports the overall political aims of NATO countries; objectives which are widely supported by the international community, by this parliament and by the citizens of Canada.

On the weekend I also had the opportunity to visit our men and women stationed in Aviano, Italy. I am pleased to report that their morale is high. They understand the importance of the mission they have been given and they are proud that Canada has acted. They are a long way from home and they appreciate the support they have from the government, from parliament and from their fellow Canadians.

The air campaign is now in its 27th day. Progress has been steady and as each day passes the cost Mr. Milosevic is paying for his policy of humanitarian degradation rises. His military forces are being hit around the clock and their losses are mounting.

As each day passes the infrastructure that supports his forces of oppression is diminished. There is less fuel, fewer bridges and more broken lines of communication.

NATO is again intensifying its air operations by adding more aircraft. As I announced on Saturday, Canada will make available six more CF-18s, bringing the total in Aviano to 18.

This new contribution shows our government's firm commitment to this operation. We will continue to exercise the necessary leadership to ensure its success.

Good government requires many things. Strong leadership is one of them. Another is the will to make choices based on the understanding of what Canadians need and want.

Before being elected, the government spelled out its commitment to increase consultation with parliament. We were determined to offer Canadians strong leadership, informed by the views of their elected representatives in parliament. We have done just that. Since being elected, time and time again we have consulted the House on major decisions concerning the Canadian forces and national defence.

The House has debated Canadian commitments to the Central African Republic, Haiti, the Middle East and the former Yugoslavia. Since this government came to power the House has held seven debates on Yugoslavia alone. Parliament has held three debates in recent times on the very important issue of Kosovo.

The motion before us today completely ignores the relevant debates and decisions of this House. The question of Canadian participation in a Kosovo peacekeeping operation has already been debated.

On February 17 the House debated Canadian participation in a force to verify and enforce compliance with an agreement we hoped would result from the diplomatic talks held in Rambouillet, France. All parties agreed that Canada should participate in that kind of peacekeeping force.

During the debate I announced that Canada would be prepared to contribute 500 to 800 personnel. Although we are currently engaged in an air campaign, our objective is to bring about conditions whereby the Yugoslav government will allow for the deployment of an international military force.

Since then the 500 to 800 strong force, including an armoured reconnaissance squadron and a helicopter unit, has completed its training and is now preparing for possible deployment. Debating this again would be a step backward. In a crisis like this, when grave human issues lie in the balance, moving forward is the kind of leadership which Canadians expect.

This government's record of consulting parliament speaks for itself. We are determined to exercise the kind of decisive leadership in crisis that Canadians expect. Canadians would not accept any measure that undermines the authority of the government they elected to take quick action to protect Canada's humanitarian and national interests.

This motion, aside from ignoring the actions that have been taken and the many debates, appears to suggest that without the very precise vote which it suggests the voice of parliament will not be heard. Kosovo illustrates the falsehood of that argument perfectly.

In the three debates on Kosovo, 131 members of this House have spoken. Many voices have been heard and the consensus has been striking. Clearly, parliamentarians have expressed their views and given legitimacy to Canada's actions. Parliamentary debate is an important tool, but it should be used to facilitate action, not to undermine it.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. minister. The minister indicated that the House has debated the question of Kosovo seven times. The question that we are asking today is very simple. The Canadian people elected members of parliament to this place. Why are the Liberals afraid to put the question when we commit ground troops to a fighting force? Why are the Liberals scared to put the same question to the House of Commons?

The minister said that good government should lead. I would remind the minister that the Liberals were elected with approximately 38%. Therefore, my question to the minister is: Why not let the Canadian parliament vote on the question?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whatever percentage we received was a lot more than members on the other side received. We have a majority government in this House and that is the will of the Canadian people. Canadians elected a government to make decisions.

This parliament has every opportunity to express no confidence in the government if it does not think it is making the right decision. Members opposite have not moved a motion of no confidence. No, because they know Canadians believe in what we are doing. Canadians believe we should be doing all that we can to save those people who have been pushed out of Kosovo, those people who have been subject to ethnic cleansing. People believe that is the right and humanitarian thing to do, so we are doing it.

I do not hear people disagreeing with what we are doing. In all these debates, seven on Yugoslavia and three of them specifically on Kosovo, I have heard general agreement from all sides of the House. What is the problem? If hon. members do not think we are doing the right thing, if they do not think we are making the right decision, move a motion of non-confidence. But I do not think that they will. I do not believe they will because they know that we are reacting to what Canadians feel is the right and just thing to do.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister two questions.

First of all, he is right when he says that members have had ample opportunity to express their views in the House and that over 130 members have already done so. However, when we have a vote, it is not 137 members out of 301 who express their views. When we have a vote, it is 301 members out of 301 who take part in that vote.

Every soldier in Kosovo can say that his or her member in the House of Commons has supported our involvement or not. Every soldier supports his or her MP and is ready to do the job he or she is asked to do.

My other question is this: can the minister tell us whether or not troops are engaged in a ground operation in Kosovo at the moment?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, parliament should have every opportunity, has had every opportunity, and will continue to have every opportunity to express its views.

When I visited with our troops in Aviano, I told them that the government of this country, the parliament of this country and the people of Canada were behind them. They believe that and they believe they are doing what needs to be done in the name of all three of those entities. I believe that to be the case.

We are taking this decision in a responsible fashion. The government has to be able to do these kinds of things, to take quick action when these dangerous situations arise.

There are no ground troops being deployed to the region. We have said before that the only troops we are preparing for deployment to the area in terms of ground operations would be peacekeepers. That still stands. We have said that if that changes in any way, then we would come back to this House again for further debate and discussion.

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is a very important day in the life of Jewish people. Today is Yom Ha Zicharon, the day of remembrance. It starts tonight and continues tomorrow. It is a day to remember what took place in Europe from 1933 on and in particular Yom Ha Shoah, the Holocaust that took place. Last week was Yom Ha Shoah at which time the survivors told their stories. This week is Yom Ha Zicharon which is a remembrance of our soldiers who perished during that time.

As I have watched this whole question of ethnic cleansing, genocide and crimes against humanity, I can only say that we all watched with wrenched hearts and with an unfortunate reminder that this world has not learned. Following the end of the second world war in 1945 we said that never again would anything like this happen and passed a law on genocide. It is very unfortunate that the never again has not been realized.

I have heard criticism here of the United Nations. I would suggest that there is something wrong in the security council and with the way the veto vote works, but there is not something wrong with the UN itself.

We all know there have been approaches time after time in the security council for action to be taken and for the United Nations to become involved. It was turned down each time. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs has raised the issue on at least three occasions. There was a prior vote that indicated that the world approved of what we were doing but there were internal interests that prevented a move forward. The Russian vote or potential veto was a very important factor.

I have just returned from a week in Brussels. We devoted our time to issues about nuclear weapons and about the problems that confront the major cities. The major concern and attention was on Kosovo. Over 130 nations expressed their concerns. Yes, there were a few that supported the Yugoslav position, Mr. Milosevic's position. For the most part there was unanimous agreement that this war must stop. Not once was there a call for ground troops at this time.

This is such an evolving situation and it is a very difficult one. I heard the remarks made by Mr. Stroyev, the leader of the Russian delegation who suggested a joint commission for refugees and a special role for the parliaments of the NATO countries. He also said that the Yugoslav people should not be punished for the actions of President Milosevic. But if Mr. Milosevic is not stopped, the people of the region will continue to be punished by him. We cannot stand by and let this happen. The NATO action is not designed to punish Milosevic according to the Russian speaker, it is designed to put a stop to his abhorrent policy of ethnic cleansing.

I am sure we all recognize the major role Russia has to play in reaching a settlement to the crisis. We hope it will play a major peacekeeping role in the area when the fighting is over. We share a common interest with Russia in reaching a political solution to the crisis, and the sooner the better.

When I listened to the discussions, there were many expressions of serious concern. Why are hundreds of thousands of people, old men, women and helpless children fleeing in terror from Kosovo? Are they fleeing from the NATO bombs? I would say no. They are fleeing from President Milosevic and his ethnic cleansing.

Young male Kosovar Albanians are being forcibly separated from their families. This is a cause of great concern. Where are they? What will happen to them? What are they doing? Some of us have just seen that they are digging graves. That is quite disturbing. We know what happened when similar events occurred in Srebrenica. All the men were massacred. This question demands an immediate answer from the Yugoslav authorities.

Some parliamentarians say that a terrible human tragedy has been inflicted upon the people of Kosovo and Yugoslavia due to the brutality of their leader Milosevic. This was a situation that could not be tolerated and indeed demands were made for a resolution to the plight of the Kosovar people.

I think we all know as the debates in the House have demonstrated, that the Canadian people, Canadian parliamentarians and the Canadian government, as well as all NATO partners, would have preferred that the conflict be resolved through dialogue and negotiations. But President Milosevic has frustrated every attempt to find a solution.

There are no quick fixes in Yugoslavia and in Kosovo. We know that. NATO's air campaign will continue until Milosevic agrees to an international military presence in Kosovo that can ensure the safe return of the refugees created by his program of ethnic cleansing. He has systematically violated international humanitarian law by launching a campaign against civilians which includes killing and torturing, arbitrary detention and the denial of basic rights based on ethnicity. That is what happened in 1933. The world did not react then. We have evolved. We are in a position to see change. For that we should all be grateful.

Milosevic is also contravening two security council resolutions, resolutions 1199 and 1203 which impose a clear obligation on the Yugoslavian federation to respect a ceasefire and protect the civilian population.

Canada has lobbied intensively over the past year for greater United Nations Security Council engagement in Kosovo. Clearly it would have been best if the UN could have facilitated an end to the conflict in Kosovo. However, the Russians have made it clear that they would have blocked any UN Security Council's condemning of that ethnic cleansing.

And so NATO moved ahead, and thank God it did for the ethnic Kosovars in Yugoslavia. NATO was able to save at least most of that population. The refugee situation is very disturbing. That is true. That country was challenged by a misguided leader. We know this is not his first attack on the people there. Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia; a lot of history has gone on in that area.

I would sincerely hope when this government comes to a conclusion that it has no choice but to consider those ground troops and it asks for our opinion on that matter, we will all be of one voice and support that move in the interest of the ethnic Albanians. With respect to the plight of the Kosovar Albanians, please note that the overall Canadian policy and goal is a negotiated settlement based on the Rambouillet agreement and that our overriding concern is humanitarian.

In the interests of international humanitarian law, the right and the obligation to go into a country not because it has its own sovereignty but because its population is at risk is an issue we must support. This world over the last generation has been one of serious problems whether we are looking at Africa, Asia, Latin America or right now as we see in Kosovo.

NATO's role was a vital one. I am most pleased we have supported it to date. I sincerely hope the wish of Kofi Annan, the wish of this parliament, the wish of our minister and the wish of our Prime Minister is realized through negotiation, and that if we do send ground troops that they will be peacemakers and peacekeepers. I hope we do not have the kind of intervention that is so dramatic, so dangerous and so costly both to our own people and to the people who are suffering right now as ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, in Albania, in all the countries in that area.

I hope this parliament and its members will understand why we are not taking a vote right now. The situation changes daily. The promise of the Prime Minister is one I know he will respect and keep. Let us hope for a peaceful solution.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's speech. It was very well put. I certainly agree with the contents of what she said. A drastic thing is going on. Let us all hope it comes to an end soon.

I am concerned when it comes to the debates that take place in the House. I have expressed this before and I will express it again. Does the hon. member agree with me that debates should be open and transparent and that they should be used to help make decisions regarding issues? If she does agree, could she explain why in the last parliament when we were debating whether or not to send troops to Bosnia we learned that the troops were already on their way, that the decision had already been made? Does she agree that sometimes these decisions are made without the debate? Does she agree with doing that?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question and it presents a dilemma. I do believe in transparent and open democracy and I do believe for the most part that has been the history of this government.

The exception is in circumstances of the nature the member was talking about, when it involves serious ground troops and the lives of our men in the air, on the land and on the sea. That is a very heavy responsibility cabinet must look at, evaluate and weigh.

For the most part the changes we have made recently to have open debates have been a demonstration of a great step forward. Perhaps it is not to the degree some would have liked, but every statement that has been made in the House has been looked at by cabinet and has been evaluated by the Foreign Affairs Department. Good overviews of the views of the House are presented for their consideration. That is a big improvement over what we had in the past.

I have been in the House when we had a different story during the course of very serious interventions and fear on the part of the people who were at risk, and we did not say anything. It is time now to never again be silent and to know what is going on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member had to say. I want to tell her that, in this area, it is important that we have all the information available before making decisions and that we use every means to restore peace as soon as possible.

In her speech, the hon. member said something like “We need to be able to influence what is going on”. Would a vote in parliament not be a way to support the position taken by the government, to show that this is no longer just a partisan position, not only the position of one party, but of the entire House of Commons, where hon. members have the opportunity to vote, while keeping in mind their responsibilities?

Would it not help to ensure that the peace plan put forward by Germany, but that could become everyone's peace plan, is approved as quickly as possible? People from our ridings could be involved in this war. Would it not be helpful for them to know how their members of parliament voted on this issue? On such an important and serious matter, would the influence of parliament not help to restore peace in Europe?

[Sheila Finestone, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. If there is one thing that has changed a lot in the last hundreds of years, it is that we now have television. We can watch hour after hour, day after day, what is going on in Kosovo and, more importantly, in all of Yugoslavia.

When I was in Brussels, at the meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I asked why the Yugoslavs blocked access to television so that the Serbs were unable to know what was going on. It is sad. When people do not know the truth, it is difficult to know what to do.

That is why I believe we know what we are doing. Members from this side of the House are just as interested as the member and all other parliamentarians. I am convinced that we will make an open and transparent decision in due course. I hope the hon. member will be satisfied, because the conditions we are setting are very clear and obvious.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again rise to speak on this, our opposition day.

The war in Kosovo is now in its 26th day. Who would have believed that the conflict would have gone on this long? With NATO and all the new military technologies involved, we might have expected it to be over in a few days at most.

Unfortunately, we underestimated Milosevic and the Serbian government. In particular, we had not predicted how fast and efficient that government would be in its ethnic cleansing operations against the population of Kosovo.

The Bloc Quebecois has always regretted this war, and all war moreover, yet intervention in Kosovo was necessary, unfortunately. Necessary because Milosevic and the Serb army are engaged in literally depopulating Kosovo.

The latest figures on the massive exodus of the Kosovar population are terrifying. The UNHCR is now talking of some 400,000 Kosovar refugees in Albania, 150,000 in Macedonia, 75,000 in Montenegro, and 32,000 in Bosnia.

This is not taking into account the 260,000 Kosovars refugees within Kosovo itself, nor those who have taken refuge in the mountains. To date, NATO estimates that this war has claimed 3,200 lives. NATO also believes it has found 43 mass graves. This is not even taking into account the rapes, the physical atrocities and the psychological sufferings of an entire people.

For all of these reasons, all available resources must be deployed in order to relieve the sufferings and improve the living conditions of the Kosovar refugees in Bosnia, in Macedonia, in Albania and in Montenegro. It is therefore important to provide the High Commissioner for Refugees with all the humanitarian aid and logistical support appropriate.

To this end, we are still awaiting a clear response from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the question I asked here in the House last week. Members will remember I asked her if the government was prepared to commit to using the $100 million set aside to take in the refugees here in order to provide additional support to the NGOs on location in the Balkans.

The minister responded at the time with banalities such as “the situation is stabilizing at the borders there”. However, according to the HCR, Macedonia alone expects an additional 100,000 refugees in the next few days. No need to point out that the needs are urgent in the various refugee camps.

When will the minister be announcing that this $100 million will go to refugees in the Balkans? It is a matter of life and death, and the money is available here and now.

I would hope that the minister and the government will show compassion as soon as possible, before it is too late.

It is very clear that we are now facing new realities and that the NATO forces should reassess their strategies in this war.

That is where the problem lies. The Government of Canada's haughty attitude toward the members of this parliament, drawn, it must be said, from the Liberal leader's arrogant treatment of the opposition members, prevents us from having a clear picture of the situation in the Balkans. This deplorable attitude is reflected in this government's lack of transparency in releasing information on this war.

As a member of this House democratically elected by the people of the riding of Laurentides, I am very frustrated by the Prime Minister's refusal to allow a debate followed by a vote on the possibility of sending Canadian troops in the Balkan region or on any other initiative, whether military or diplomatic.

Yet, according to an Angus Reid poll, 59% of Canadians would be willing to support the deployment of ground troops, and 61% would agree to the involvement of Canadian soldiers in this ground operation, if it became necessary.

Why is the government still stubbornly refusing to allow a vote on this issue here in the House? Considering the Angus Reid poll results, it would be in the best interests of the government to vote on this issue. The government would then come out stronger in its support, as would the Canadian democratic system.

Let us remember the Gulf war in 1991. At that time, Liberals were in the opposition. Despite the three votes taken in the House of Commons about that war, the hon. member for Shawinigan had openly criticized the government for its lack of willingness to fulfil its duty of having a consultation and a debate.

Eight years later, the Liberal government is trampling not only on Canadian democracy, but also on its own ideas. Even Yves Fortier, the former Canadian ambassador to the UN, publicly blamed the Prime Minister for his lack of transparency regarding Canadian positions and actions in the Kosovo crisis.

Since the beginning of the war in the Balkans, the government has been providing information on the conflict in dribbles. It is time the government stopped acting that way. Quebeckers and Canadians as well as members of parliament have a right to know the different military or diplomatic options to which the Canadian government and NATO are giving priority.

To this day, the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties have all supported the decisions of the government, but this does not mean that the Bloc Quebecois is ready to sign a blank cheque. We demand a substantial debate followed by a vote, to allow members of parliament to take a just and informed decision on the opportunity to send ground troops to Kosovo.

Why such lack of transparency compared to other governments? Germany has voted twice on the advisability of air strikes in Kosovo.

The United States will also vote on the granting of additional funding requested by the Pentagon to increase the American participation in Kosovo. The Hungarian parliament also voted to allow NATO aircraft to fly over its territory. The Czech Republic voted on the same issue. What is the Canadian government waiting for to show the same openness?

The lack of democracy created by the silence of the Liberal government could have a negative impact on the consensus we now have in this House. Indeed, how are we expected to be able to assess NATO's diplomatic or military initiatives if the government does not think of providing us with adequate information, which would encourage this House to debate and vote on these initiatives?

Eventually, the Bloc Quebecois might be forced to raise serious concerns on the advisability of those initiatives, which could bring the present consensus to an end.

In 1991, during the gulf war, members of the House received excellent information on the state of the conflict and governmental initiatives but this time we are better informed on the crisis in Kosovo by the medias. This is not right.

In closing, I remind all members of the House that the Bloc Quebecois is deeply disturbed by the atrocities and ethnic cleansing activities directed against Kosovars. To put a stop to such atrocities, all diplomatic and military alternatives, including sending ground troops to Kosovo, must be debated in this House and approved through a vote. What is at stake is the health of our democratic system, the legitimacy of this government, and perhaps even the survival of a people.

I would like to conclude with a short poem written by a pupil at the École des Ursulines de Québec. Her name is Sarah-Émilie Mercier. Her poem is about peace, and I will read it now:

Why does peace elude mankind? Why not put our hate behind? With fighting and poverty all round the earth Peace has retreated for all it is worth And though I seek it near and far It has become like a distant star What is so hard to comprehend? Love one another, and wars will all end.

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very nice poem and I commend the Bloc member for reading it to the House.

What does the hon. member feel is the reason that the government is not willing to put this debate to a vote for the members of parliament? Is it afraid at this point that we will be questioning its commitment, or does the member think the government will bring the debate forward after it is committed, should it ever come to that situation? Hopefully it will not? What would be her opinion?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

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

I think that in any parliament democracy must rule. What is happening in this parliament is worrisome for the future and the decisions that will have to be made, especially when we are asked to send in soldiers to defend the interests of people who are at war and in a desperate situation.

As I indicated in my speech, even opinion polls are in favour of sending troops. Therefore, I do not see why the government would not consult members from all parties. The House could reach a consensus, which would provide stronger moral support to our troops who would be deployed over there.

This is disappointing because we are here to represent the people. I represent every single constituent in the riding of Laurentides, and these people might have liked to see me take a stand here in this House on sending troops to Kosovo.

I sincerely hope, because I doubt the government's decision is final, that the government will make the right decision in letting us debate the issue in the House so that all parties can eventually vote on this decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, after question period, many questions were raised on the opposition side, mainly by the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party. We are concerned, and rightly so, that the national defence minister may have already committed ground troops.

My question to the hon. member for Laurentides is this: could the government act in secret and deploy troops in Kosovo without consulting parliament and without a vote in the House?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government could certainly send troops without consulting the House. However, I think it would be ill-advised. The government would have a heavy price to pay for making decisions without consulting the members of this House. It would be undemocratic to send in troops without informing us. This kind of decision should be discussed and made in the House. Members have views they want to express. There are members from all over Canada who also have an opinion on the matter and who are certainly getting phone calls at their riding or Ottawa offices from people who take a stand and want to know what their member really thinks of this war, but who may not have all the information.

We have a role to play, and we should be allowed to play it in the House. Otherwise, what is the use of electing members of parliament? To act like a bunch of yes-men and women just supporting the government? That is not what we are here for. We are here to represent our constituents and vote on important issues like sending in troops to participate in the ongoing war in Kosovo.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, early last Tuesday morning, I had the opportunity and the privilege to speak in this House to explain why I am personally in favour of the current military intervention in the former Yugoslavia.

Why do we have to debate this issue again today? I would say or I would be tempted to say that it is because of the government's bad faith. But I will not talk about bad faith, but rather about clumsiness. I do not want to presume right from the start that the government is acting in bad faith, so I will say that it is being clumsy. Why is it being clumsy? Because, despite the consensus that was expressed spontaneously regarding the intervention in the former Yugoslavia, despite the fact that all parties in the House have spontaneously supported the government in its intervention, the government is acting in a mean-spirited way toward the opposition parties by giving them very little information, voluntarily creating confusion and giving an impression of improvisation. I think shows the government as well as Canada's and NATO's intervention in the field in a bad light.

I can only hope that there is no such improvisation in reality. I would even go as far as saying that I am convinced there is no such improvisation, which leads me to think that the government is indeed hiding information from the House. We only get spurious answers to our numerous questions. We are being told that the question is hypothetical, that NATO officials have made no such request, that the question is premature. In fact, we have been given that type of answer at virtually every stage of the conflict since the beginning.

The defence minister insidiously stated that we had to consider sending ground troops, then backed down a few hours later, saying: “We have yet to reach that stage”. When we enquired about the opportunity of sending peacekeepers in Kosovo we were told that “the situation is hypothetical, we have not received any request so far, we have yet to reach that stage”. However we learned a few days later that the government was preparing to send 600 troops for a peacekeeping mission in Macedonia.

The same thing happened when we heard that additional CF-18s could be sent because the U.S. president wanted to double NATO's air capability. We asked: “How many additional aircraft will be sent to satisfy this request?” The government replied: “We have not received any request so far, we have yet to reach that stage, this is a hypothetical question, it is premature”. At last, we learned that 6 additional CF-18s have been sent or are about to be sent to the theatre of operations.

Now we learn that Canadian troops are probably already in Kosovo. Again, we ask the same question and we are told once more that it is a hypothetical question and that we are not at that stage yet. We got the same old answers we have been getting for some time now.

We recognize that in a conflict situation, strategic constraints prevent us from disclosing the details of operations and preparations. This would certainly be against the national interest and that of the allied forces.

In that case, why not be a little more open and frank and say “As things now stand, we cannot, for strategic reasons, give the House a clear answer to this question”. This would be better than misleading the House and its members by stating “It is a hypothetical question. We have not received any request to that effect. We are not there yet. It is premature”.

Somebody famous once said that war was too important an issue to leave it to politicians. I believe this saying applies to the government and the military staff that stands behind it in this conflict. Indeed, it seems universally recognized that members of parliament are not knowledgeable, credible or serious enough to be able to deal with matters as important as wars and conflicts.

By its mean attitude, the government is jeopardizing the strong consensus that had spontaneously formed around him on the issue of the military intervention in the former Yugoslavia.

The government is taking this consensus for granted, as the Prime Minister made very clear today. He allows himself to treat the opposition in a very condescending way by saying “Anyway, they all agree”. We are not throwing back into question our position on the intervention in the former Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, some kind of mistrust of the government is emerging and that is unhealthy during a conflict.

As I said earlier, the government's attitude could give the impression that it is improvising to some extent. This improvisation takes many shapes, including that of appearing to let others take the lead. We could have expected that Canada, with its long peacekeeping and peace-seeking tradition and its seat at the UN Security Council, would have shown leadership in trying to reach a negotiated solution to the conflict.

Instead, Canada kept silent. It embarked in military operations without necessarily looking for a political solution or giving the impression it was looking for one. Our German friends have come up with a very detailed peace plan, which, of course, we support, but Canada seems to be dragging its feet.

It was also said that, as far as military operations are concerned, Canada was trailing behind NATO and the USA. On that point, allow me to put into perspective this so-called submissiveness to American interests.

I remember that, in 1991, during the Gulf war, many of those opposed to the conflict told us that it was somewhat shocking to see the USA, and the international community behind it, launch military operations in Kuwait while doing nothing about the conflict that was breaking out in Bosnia at that time.

These bleeding hearts were saying “Of course, there are economic interests at stake in Kuwait; there are oil fields. If there had been oil in Bosnia, they would have intervened”. Now, these same people often wonder why Canada is following the United States. The same people who criticized the United States, NATO and the international community for not intervening in Bosnia are now condemning this intervention in Kosovo. I think the situation must be put in perspective.

My Bloc Quebecois colleagues and myself have explained at length why it had become absolutely necessary to intervene. At the end of World War II, we believed that mankind had changed, that it had learned from its mistakes. Unfortunately, the tragic events in Rwanda showed us that this was not the case, that we had not learned from our mistakes, that we had not changed as much as we thought we had. At that point we told ourselves that we would never again let the situation deteriorate to the point of witnessing such mass killings.

Therefore, we intervened in Kosovo. The former Yugoslavia refused the German peace plan, and the United Kingdom's defence minister, the NATO secretary general and the U.S. secretary of state are suggesting that Milosevic must be removed from office in Belgrade. This leads us to think that the conflict will be a long one and that it will probably require the sending of ground troops. Should this be the case, it would be totally unacceptable for the government to decide to send Canadian troops to the theatre of operations without first consulting this House. We are talking about the lives of our fellow citizens, and we are accountable to them.

Earlier, I heard the minister say “We have the support of Canadians”. This government seems to be governing by polls. It should remember that its legitimacy lies only in the general election that led to this parliament and that, consequently, it must consult the House before sending ground troops.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to call on the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, who has been sitting in this House for six years and who has a masters degree in political science.

I would like him to tell us why parliament should really have to deal with an issue such as this one? Why is it not enough to let the government decide, on such an issue? Why is it critical to call on parliament, as other parliaments have done—and my colleague could provide examples of other parliaments that debated the issue and voted on it—to have a decisive say on this issue?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit embarrassed at having to answer such a relevant question by my hon. colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry, an eminent law professor. Such a question risks leaving me stunned and incapable of responding.

However, despite all, I will try to respond and trust my answer will find favour in the eyes of my colleague.

It is true that, under Canada's Constitution and its National Defence Act, the government is not obliged in theory to seek the approval of the House before acting in such matters. However, it goes, I would say, a little beyond the legal principle.

There are moral principles. There is the government's right to send soldiers to take part in an armed conflict that puts their lives at risk, without first taking a vote in parliament.

Earlier, my colleague from Joliette said appropriately that we did indeed have debates in this House. It is true that many parliamentarians have had the opportunity to speak on this important question, but what Canadians and Quebeckers want to know is whether their particular MP is in favour of sending ground troops and this they can know only if the government takes the trouble to consult this House.

My colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry pointed out rightly that, among the NATO member states, a number of governments have had the decency, drawing on this principle of legitimacy and on these moral principles, to consult their parliament.

Today in fact there is a debate in the British House of Commons, and there have been two votes in the German parliament on the issue of intervening in the former Yugoslavia. The two houses of the Czech Republic are preparing to vote today on such intervention.

I would remind the members of the government, that at the time of the gulf war in 1991, the official opposition at the time called for a vote in the House on an armed intervention. I call on the government majority to recall the remarks it addressed to the government in 1991 in calling for consultation of this parliament.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mississauga West.

I feel it is essential for me to address the House and comment on the critical issue we are grappling with today.

Certain members of this House seem to feel it would be appropriate for the government to allow not only a debate but also a vote on the decision to deploy Canadian ground troops to the Balkans who might become engaged in military operations and/or peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and the Balkans.

First of all, I would like to say that I am opposed to this motion, just as I was when we debated a similar motion on three occasions during the past year.

We remain convinced that by adopting such a motion we would paralyze the government for no good reason in the midst of situations which often require a rapid and effective response. We also believe that in adopting this position we are respecting the wishes of the Canadian people. Finally, we persist in our belief that parliament is capable of making an important contribution under such circumstances through the process of consultation.

I would point out that the government is taking into account the vital role played by parliament in this crisis. We obviously feel that obtaining the support of all members of this House is essential. Government decisions can only gain further legitimacy in the eyes of the international community when they receive the unanimous support of parliament. And it is in this spirit that we have decided to hold three debates on this issue thus far.

In October 1998, the House held a special debate on the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo and the special measures the government planned to implement in concert with the international community in order to resolve the conflict.

In February 1999, when we were hoping to see a peaceful end to this crisis, we held another debate, this time focusing on the possible deployment of Canadian troops to Yugoslavia.

And last Monday, April 12, we again debated the issue, allowing every MP who wished to comment on this serious humanitarian crisis to do so.

I would respectfully point out that on every one of these occasions we fortunately saw our policy receive unanimous support from members of every party.

As the Prime Minister himself has pointed out several times, it is critical that we speak with one voice and that Mr. Milosevic be in no doubt as to the position of the Canadian government. Peace, respect for human rights and democracy constitute values that are unanimously respected and supported by the Canadian people and their parliament.

The current situation is so serious and so important that we must not allow him any openings whatsoever. Mr. Milosevic must understand that our position is unwavering. This is no time for playing political games. To act otherwise would only display a lack of respect for Canada's democratic institution par excellence, the House of Commons.

The government remains committed to consulting parliament. It has undertaken to ensure greater parliamentary involvement in reviewing major issues relating to foreign and defence policy, and it has held a significant number of parliamentary debates.

Since 1994, the government has consulted parliament regarding many of the internatinal missions carried out by the Canadian forces. For example, we held two debates, in April 1998 and February 1999, regarding the deployment of a peacekeeping force to the Central African Republic. We held a debate on potential military action against Iraq in February 1998.

In November 1996, we debated Canada's role in alleviating the suffering in the African Great Lakes region. We also held more than one debate on Canada's role in implementing the measures taken by the international community to maintain stability and security in Haiti, in 1995 and 1997.

With respect to our involvement in Yugoslavia, we have held seven parliamentary debates so far. I will not list the innumerable sessions of the House of Commons defence and foreign Affairs committees at which Canadian participation on a wide variety of peacekeeping forces was discussed.

In 1994, a series of joint committees were specially organized to take an in-depth look at Canada's foreign and defence policy. These committees held unprecedented and comprehensive public hearings. Their work has led to the adoption of a new defence policy and the review of Canada's foreign policy.

Parliament has also played a major role in many other aspects of foreign and defence policy. For example, the expansion of NATO, the renewal of the NORAD Agreement that provides for the security and defence of North America, and Canadian policy on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, arms control and disarmament have all been the subjects of consultation with parliament.

In 1998, the Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, which I had the honour of chairing, carried out an unprecedented study on the social and economic challenges confronted by Canadian Forces members. This study contributed significantly to the development of a government quality-of-life program designed to meet the challenges posed by military life. Furthermore, this committee is currently examining the federal government's procurement policy and holding hearings with the defence industry across Canada.

All these measure testify to the government's willingness to consult parliament in shaping Canada's foreign and defence policy.

I would like as well to reaffirm the position taken by the Minister of National Defence: the government is fully committed to consulting with parliament and, as I have shown, has proved repeatedly that it has kept its promises in this regard.

However, the Canadian government, which is duly elected by the Canadian people, must not relinquish its ability to govern responsibly and to make hard decisions where necessary. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and would be viewed as such by the Canadian people.

Any additional steps in the deployment process would undermine Canada's ability to respond rapidly and effectively to international crises. Requiring a vote on the deployment of Canadian forces abroad could even impose pointless delays.

Once again, I must underscore the fact that the situation is so serious and the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo so great that it cannot be used as a pretext to serve political agendas. Even if we were to agree to consult the Canadian people and the members of this House, we would still be as determined as ever to do whatever possible to maintain, and in some cases to re-establish, peace and freedom. We have listened to Canadians and we have consulted parliament.

Our government and the Canadian people are proud of the role played by Canada both as a world leader in peacekeeping and as a faithful partner in times of crisis. We will continue to consult parliament, both through debates in the House and through the testimony of ministers and other spokespersons before standing committees. Anyone who wants government to remain sensitive to the opinions of the elected representatives of Canadians will understand that this must be the case.

But those same Canadians will understand how misguided it would be to adopt a motion that might compromise Canada's ability to respond when events call for immediate intervention.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find the words of the parliamentary secretary interesting when it comes to pointing a finger at the opposition. When I say the opposition, from one party to the other, they are actually supporting the government on this issue. They are actually supporting the government on this Kosovo crisis and our involvement with NATO.

The accusation coming from the parliamentary secretary is accusing the opposition of political jockeying. Because the opposition has basically unanimously sought to have a vote on a very important issue it is being accused of political manoeuvring or political jockeying.

I believe it is incumbent upon this House to show unanimously that Canadian troops have our total support, that we stand behind them morally and that they know this from their elected representatives right across the country. What is happening now is that the Liberal government is accusing the opposition of the very opposite, which is not true.

I am curious as to why the parliamentary secretary would use such damaging words about the opposition and its support for our troops.

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I have mentioned on a number of occasions that opposition parties support the government in sending our troops. I mentioned that I appreciate that. However, what they also seem to be saying is that we are closing off debate.

I know it has been mentioned before, but I am going to mention it again. This is the fourth debate we have had on Kosovo. According to the Minister of National Defence, over 131 parliamentarians have spoken on the subject.

I would also like to point out that this afternoon a few of the members, and I know it was probably done accidentally, seemed to be suggesting that we have soldiers in Kosovo right now. I would just like to mention that as the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence have said, we have no soldiers in Kosovo right now.