Debates of April 27th, 1999

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague from Regina—Qu'Appelle for sharing his Biafran experiences with us. It was very useful for this House to hear them.

Others could tell similar stories of events in Sierra Leone, southern Sudan, Iranian or Turkish Kurdistan, more tales of atrocities, rapes and crimes against humanity, which are as serious in those regions and countries as they are in others, and this is what must be of concern to us in the aftermath of this crisis. These other crises must be considered equally important and they too merit diplomatic intervention and solutions.

I like it when there are references made to the late Lester B. Pearson, for there is one thing the two of us have in common. Like the former Prime Minister and Minister of External Affairs, I favour bow ties.

But my question to the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is as follows: The motion refers to United Nations participation. I would like to know exactly what the NDP members have in mind. They are, no doubt, aware that the United States appears to be behind a security council resolution at this time, which calls for the council to again get involved in this international dispute.

Is this what they had in mind or is it, first and foremost, UN participation in an international military or civilian force in Kosovo.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, now there is a very important UN initiative. The secretary general is in Europe. This is a very important initiative. We support it.

Also in the future there is going to be a ceasefire, there is going to be a settlement, and hostilities will stop in that part of the world. I believe there is going to be a need for an international force to keep the peace. We believe in our party that the force should come under the auspices of the United Nations.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with a colleague.

Over the past few months we have witnessed the greatest humanitarian disaster in Europe since World War II. In the heart of Europe and on NATO's doorstep the people of Kosovo have been forced to abandon their homeland and have suffered unimaginable atrocities, not because of anything they have done, but simply because of who they are. We hear reports of men being taken outside their homes to be shot, women being raped in front of their families and children being orphaned.

The motion before the House calls for a diplomatic solution. This has always been the preferred course and NATO's political objectives still include a diplomatic settlement. This motion not only ignores this fact, it also ignores the situation which confronts us.

After long and hard months of political and diplomatic activity, Canada and its allies have chosen to taken military action. The resort to military force in Yugoslavia was a decision reluctantly taken, but Mr. Milosevic left us no choice. He consistently has refused to live up to agreements he has made. At the 11th hour at Rambouillet the Yugoslavs turned their backs on diplomacy. Taking military action was, and still is, the right decision.

The alternative, to do nothing and allow Mr. Milosevic to pursue his deliberate policy of repression and ethnic violence, was simply unacceptable to Canada, the NATO alliance and, indeed, the international community. By responding as we did, Canada and its allies have taken a strong step toward a goal that has always been in our national interest, a peaceful and democratic Europe.

Our military objective is clear and our will to see it met is unshakeable. The NATO campaign is aimed at diminishing and degrading the tools the Milosevic regime has been using against helpless civilians in Kosovo since last year: the Yugoslav military, the police and paramilitary forces.

This will not be a short mission. It is difficult to be patient amidst such a humanitarian tragedy, but we should not waver from our chosen course. All NATO allies understood from the beginning that the struggle was not going to be easy. Military operations as large as this rarely are easy, if ever, and we need to provide the desired results as soon as we can, but it will take time.

The air campaign is having an effect on the Yugoslav military and police forces. The first phase of the air campaign struck at the nervous system of the Yugoslav military machine, its air defence and command and control networks. The second phase is designed to degrade the overall strategic capability of the Milosevic regime. This includes strikes against Yugoslav forces operating in and outside Kosovo, at military infrastructure and at other assets which allow the Yugoslav forces to operate.

Past experience shows that Mr. Milosevic does not respond without pressure. NATO operations are making him pay a price for his actions. In the space of a few weeks NATO attacks have destroyed more than 50% of Yugoslavia's fuel reserves and significantly reduced the capacity to refine the remaining oil. Sixteen of Yugoslavia's early warning radar sites have also been severely damaged or destroyed, and 35 ground attack aircraft and half of Serbia's MiG-29 Fulcrum fleet are gone. Airfields and aircraft support facilities have been severely damaged and key routes which Yugoslav forces used to move supplies to and from Kosovo and other parts of the country have been degraded.

It is important for everyone to recognize that these strikes are having a real impact on the situation on the ground. Yugoslav forces are running into problems with fuel, with munitions and they are having trouble supplying their planes and tanks. NATO has steadily intensified its air campaign by increasing the scope and tempo of operations and will continue to do so until Mr. Milosevic accepts the legitimate demands set out by the international community.

Over the course of the last three weeks Canada and other NATO allies have increased their contribution of aircraft to the campaign. The Canadian forces are playing a significant role in this operation and we are all very proud of their efforts in that regard. Our initial contribution of six CF-18 fighter aircraft was increased to twelve in response to a NATO request for additional combat power. In response to NATO's most recent request for additional aircraft, Canada announced on April 17 that another six CF-18s would be deployed, bringing the total Canadian contribution of CF-18s to eighteen.

Canadian forces members are also playing an important role by flying in the NATO airborne warning and control aircraft. These planes not only help direct our planes to their targets, they also provide warning information about hostile aircraft.

NATO is prepared to introduce ground forces in Yugoslavia to monitor and enforce a peace agreement along the lines set out by the Rambouillet talks in February. That is important to note. This is a clear demonstration that although we are currently engaged in military operations, NATO wants and is desperately looking for a diplomatic solution, and is actively preparing for the time when such a solution is reached. I believe that is important.

If Mr. Milosevic chooses peace and meets the demands of the international community—and we hope he does—a peace monitoring and implementation force will be established. As the government announced during the House debate on this subject, Canada is prepared to contribute between 500 and 800 personnel to this end.

This past weekend in Washington NATO marked its 50th anniversary. There was a clear message of unity and determination among alliance members to end the violence in Kosovo. The crisis represents a fundamental challenge to the values for which NATO has stood for half a century: democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

Canada and its allies seek a diplomatic solution, but we are being realistic about how this can be brought about. Words alone will not bring Mr. Milosevic to his senses, and that is unfortunate. We tried for months and it produced nothing. NATO wants a diplomatic solution, but we have to make Mr. Milosevic want one as well. To do this, more than words are required.

Intensified military operations are designed to put more pressure on Belgrade. Reducing this pressure would do nothing to bring about a solution at this time. I want to emphasize that diplomacy has not been forgotten.

In Washington NATO allies recognize the role that Russia can play in trying to find a diplomatic solution based on the conditions set out by NATO and the international community. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is going to Moscow to hold discussions with the Russians regarding this matter. The diplomatic route can be retaken at any time, but that decision lies with Mr. Milosevic.

Today the European continent is confronting a serious crisis. Kosovo is a very small place on a very large fault line, an historic crossroads of religion and ethnicity that has often bred hatred and violence. It is in the national interest of Canada and its allies to prevent this region from once again sparking wider instability, just as we have a moral imperative to not simply watch from the sidelines as hundreds and thousands of people are brutalized and forced from their homes.

For these reasons we must stay the course and end the violence in Kosovo. Peace will not be achieved if we are weak willed and lose the courage of our convictions. We must continue to hold the tools of diplomacy in one hand and military means in the other. The dark forces at work in Kosovo will not be turned back in any other way, and that is important to note.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to comment on the words of the member who just spoke. I agree completely with him. I think his speech was excellent.

I agree that the world cannot stand by and expect that peace will just happen. I am a peace loving person. I think I speak for all of my constituents in Thornhill when I say that we wish for world peace. However, we cannot stand by and watch terror, ethnic cleansing, rapes and murders; the violence we have seen from that unfortunate part of the Balkans. We cannot stand by and allow dictators, those who would dictate to the world on their terms, without standing firm and expressing the values in which all Canadians believe. The world has stood by too often in the past and not acted in a way which would make us proud. We must stand for peace, for human security and we must do what we can, united with our NATO allies.

Those in the world who wish peace are standing together at this time, hoping that Mr. Milosevic and those in that terror stricken part of the world will indeed, as the member said, come to their senses, come to the peace table and establish a plan for the return of the refugees to Kosovo. Hopefully we will see peace in that region, which for too many generations has been troubled with violence and hatred.

I compliment the member on his speech. I have no question for him. He said it all and he said it eloquently. I know we have had many opportunities in the House to debate this issue and I thank the House for the opportunity to add these few words.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the points she raised. We need to work together effectively to bring about the kind of solution that is important for this part of the world.

It is indeed a problem area and we need to stay the course in this very important effort. It is incumbent upon the Canadian government to do so and I know that the Canadian people are very much with us in this matter, knowing full well that we are doing the right thing and doing it in a manner consistent with the values that unite us as a nation and define us as a people.

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

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot talk in this debate about international law. I point out to the member that there are several instances in the very recent past where countries have militarily done things that would appear to be in violation of international law.

I cite, for example, Canada's seizure of the Spanish trawler, which was a seizure that actually occurred on the high seas. This occurred during the cod crisis. The reason for the seizure was that the Spanish were fishing on the high seas, just off Canada's fishing grounds, and were destroying the cod stocks.

I remember very vividly talking to a member of the diplomatic community who said that seizing a vessel on the high seas is a declaration of war.

We know now, in retrospect, that most of the world agrees with that move; that countries do have to take action, even on the high seas, if it is a matter of protecting not only their own resources but the world's resources.

I point out also that we have another unusual circumstance in this situation. Canada still has representation from Yugoslavia here in Canada, even though we are in the position where we are making military strikes on Serbia.

Is it not now a situation where we should be expecting to revise some of the international laws and conventions that were basically framed in the 19th century and the early 20th century as we go into the new millennium?

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is incumbent upon us always to look at various conventions and other articles of law in the context of world peace. What we are doing in that part of the world is effective and it is important that we carry on in a manner consistent with the values of Canadians and our NATO allies. That is the right course. Canadians expect us to do that and that is precisely what we are doing.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, as hon. members will know, our government has pledged to keep the House and the people of Canada fully up to date on the scope and nature of Canada's involvement in the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo. There have been regular briefings of members of parliament as well as full discussion in question period and during debates.

The House will remember that prior to commencing military action against the government of Slobodan Milosevic, NATO had drawn up plans to deploy an international force to Kosovo to ensure the fair implementation of a just peace in that troubled province. Members will also remember that in February they debated Canadian participation in such a force. There was broad support across party lines.

I now rise to inform the House that Canada has received a formal request from NATO to initiate the deployment of our portion of the peace implementation force to the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia. Today we intend to inform NATO that the government agrees to this request. My colleague the Minister of National Defence will provide the specific details and timetable for this deployment. These troops, some 800 in total, will join 12,000 NATO troops that have already been pre-positioned in the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia to move into Kosovo as part of a peace settlement.

I wish to assure hon. members that the purpose of this deployment does not extend beyond what has already been debated in this House. The sole purpose is to support the principal objective that Canada, and all of our NATO allies, have pursued for many years in Kosovo: a fair and just peace, one that would allow the people of Kosovo, once again, to live in peace and security, that ensures that the machinery of repression and atrocities is gone, and that they can safely return to their rightful homes.

It is a matter of great pride to me, as Prime Minister, that members from all sides have spoken out with eloquence in favour of these principles, and have endorsed a role for Canada in enforcing them. As a body, we have given voice to values that our people hold so dear, tolerance and justice.

As Canadians also know, the government, together with our NATO allies, is also involved in seeking a diplomatic resolution to this crisis. That is why the Minister of Foreign Affairs is travelling this week to Moscow to meet with Russian officials and the Secretary General of the United Nations.

I am confident that the military and diplomatic course that NATO is pursuing will, over time, bring a just end to the crisis. But I would also like to assure all members that, if there is a NATO request to deploy Canadian troops in combat, the House will be consulted before any final decision is taken.

I will use the few minutes I have left to talk about what happened over the weekend.

As members know, we have renewed the collective agreement of NATO. In the debate on Kosovo it was extremely clear that all 19 nations involved were unanimous in the need to carry on the air strikes to persuade the government of Belgrade to end the atrocities, the murdering and other things that are happening, to withdraw its troops from Kosovo and to permit international troops.

Last week there was a statement made that only NATO troops were involved. We as Canadians initiated talks about having an international group involved, not just NATO. That is what is being debated at this time. But the five conditions have to be met by the government of Mr. Milosevic before we stop the air strikes.

What is very important too is that all the countries surrounding Yugoslavia, countries like Bosnia, Albania, Croatia, supported the actions of NATO when we met on Sunday morning. Later on we had a meeting with the group of nations involved in the regroupment for peace. The group involved many of the new republics of the former USSR. They were in agreement and talked, to my great satisfaction, about human rights, democratic rights and so on. It was an uneasy situation because about six of them were former members of the politburo. Somebody made the observation that was just to show the progress.

It was very evident that the government of Milosevic is completely politically isolated at this time. We have to intensify the economic pressure on it so it will withdraw from Kosovo and permit the Kosovars to go back.

There was a lot of activity. The House rightly asked us last week to propose the involvement of the Russians. Everybody is in agreement on that. Kofi Annan is going there this week. The Minister of Foreign Affairs will be there. There is some activity. There was some discussion with President Clinton on Sunday morning. The president informed some of us privately and after that collectively of the nature of the discussion. There is at least discussion at this time and there is a desire by the Russians to be part of a peaceful solution, just as the premier of China told me when he visited Canada not long ago.

Canada is playing the best role we can. We are one of the many countries there. We are making a peaceful solution a priority. It is clear there will be no peaceful solution unless we persuade Milosevic to do what was agreed upon in Rambouillet. It was agreed upon in Rambouillet by everybody including the Russians. The difference we had and still have with the Russians is about the air strikes. After so many years of negotiation and precedent in Bosnia and elsewhere we had no choice but to proceed with air strikes. According to the briefing we had, they are having some effect on the government of Belgrade.

There are some positive signs like the statement made by the vice-prime minister on Sunday which was quite in contradiction from the official position of Belgrade. We do not know whether it is just another tactic. President Milosevic has been very good at using all sorts of tactics to postpone and postpone and postpone. As we have unfortunately learned, long before we had started the bombardment, more than eight months before, he had already started a plan of cleansing and murdering the Albanian Kosovars.

We are working hard to find a peaceful solution. In the meantime it is very important for everybody to know that the resolve of the 19 nations was extremely strong and very clear.

When I left for Washington, I thought there would be considerable division and that discussions would be rather difficult, but I quickly realized that there was unanimous agreement that what the government of Belgrade was doing had to stop.

The important thing is that NATO took on a role in this mission, because the political stability of all of Europe is at stake. If this problem is not resolved, there will be repercussions in all the other countries. I met with the presidents of neighbouring countries, such as Bulgaria and Hungary, which are already seriously affected by the crisis. There are 300,000 Hungarians in the northern province of Yugoslavia.

All the tension and the problems of many heads of government makes quite an impression.

We are very fortunate to be far away from the problem in some ways, but for those running a government that is very close there is a lot of tension. It is very difficult for countries that have people of the same faith as the Serbs. It is extremely complicated to manage, but everybody has shown solidarity through NATO and the neighbouring countries have clearly stated that we have to carry on. We all pray that it will terminate as quickly as possible. We are doing everything we can on the diplomatic front.

We have some different points of view in the House of Commons and that is normal. But all the leaders of all the parties have supported the action of the government and the action of the 19 countries involved in NATO. I would like to use this occasion again to say thank you to the members for their participation and collaboration.

Canada has been a member of NATO for a long time. I was very pleased that the president of the United States referred to Mike Pearson and quoted him about the purpose of NATO. NATO today is not only to defend against invasion. We have moved for the first time on a question of human rights and protection of the dignity of individuals and so on, contrary to what has been done so far. This is probably establishing a new situation that might make sure that what we have seen and still see in Kosovo will not be repeated elsewhere.

All that is done in the context of the stability of Europe. We have established our commitment to stabilize Europe for 50 years. We see the new members of NATO, the Czech republic, Hungary and Poland there. Immediately on becoming part of NATO they are being forced to be in a situation like that and are showing support of the collective effort which is extremely rewarding.

I would like to say thank you to the House. I think I probably broke the rules but if not, I am willing to take some questions.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for making this announcement in the House. It certainly does give members an opportunity to raise questions and comments. I have two questions for the Prime Minister with a bit of preamble.

First of all, I think the House has agreed that the three objectives that are being pursued in Yugoslavia are the moral objective of stopping the ethnic cleansing; the political objective of creating a safe home for the Kosovars in the region; and the military objective of damaging the Serbs' military capability to the point where they cannot practise ethnic cleansing and come to the negotiating table. I do not think there is much disagreement here on the overall goals.

My first question would be, could the Prime Minister perhaps elaborate a little bit further on how the particular creation of this peacekeeping force will enhance those goals in practical ways?

My second question is a follow-up to the debate we had in the House some weeks ago. I think there was general assent in the House to Canada's role in the air strikes that NATO was carrying on. There was a strong feeling, certainly in the House and I think in the country, that if Canada was to expand its role in any way, either through ground troops or perhaps even a naval blockade, that it would be very important to have a motion presented to the House to give the government a mandate to do whatever it was proposing to do and to have a vote on that motion. Canadians would then be clear on what authority was being given to the government. In that debate questions could be raised about how the creation of this peacekeeping force would achieve the ultimate objectives and also precisely would Canada have the capability to do what is being asked of it by NATO.

My second question would be, in light of the announcement that the Prime Minister has made, will he be bringing a motion to the House asking for a specific mandate to endorse this increase in our role in the Balkans?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Madam Speaker, in answer to the first question, it is part of the plan that was established at the Rambouillet discussion and submitted before the conclusion that we should send some peacekeepers there. Other countries have sent their peacekeepers. There are 12,000 of them. We have not. Because of distance it is more complicated for us, so we waited until they were needed.

If no peace agreement is reached they will not move in or become involved. These are not ground troops. They are peacekeepers. They will go in only when there is an agreement to move. They will be on the ground and will have the proper equipment. Six or eight helicopters will be available for reconnaissance. At this time they are helping the people involved in the humanitarian task in Macedonia.

We had a chance to talk with the Macedonians. Their economy has gone to virtually zero with 40% or 45% unemployment at the moment. They cannot take everybody. This is an extremely complicated situated. I can guarantee the House that they are there and ready to move. If there is a peace agreement, they will move quickly.

I am not afraid of a vote in the House of Commons. The question is: What is the proper thing to do? We can have debate. However, we operate under a certain system. I am not afraid of a vote because I know the vote will be clear. In our parliamentary system, the government has the confidence of the House. If a government loses the confidence of the House there are many ways to proceed.

We have heard talk about a blockade or an embargo. We have a ship available over there. The leader of the opposition gave me the impression that members would now like to have a vote on the presence of this ship that is already there. Does that mean that every little move by the armed forces and the government will result in a vote in the House of Commons? That is not how our democracy and legal system operate.

The government is the executive and needs the support and confidence of the House of Commons. This was done on previous occasions. I am afraid for the future of the House of Commons if this is the best way to run an operation. Great Britain felt it had no hope, not because the government was afraid of losing with its huge majority, but because it was keeping the principles of the executive and legislative bodies.

If the leader of the Reform Party wants to have a vote, he can frame a motion. The Reform Party still has two votable motions. A debate could be held tomorrow if the Reform Party wanted one. It can draft any resolution it wants. It can indicate what it wants and what it does not want. It can also agree. We can hold a vote to see who agrees and who does not agree with what we are doing. The Reform Party has the option.

As a representative of the executive of the government, I have to presume that I have the confidence of the House, otherwise the system would break down. I do not want to be political, but we have had more debates on this than ever before. I made an agreement with all of the opposition parties to have take note debates where everybody can speak up and express their views. I found the late debate to be very good because we had general agreement.

The question of having a vote on every little move is not the system under which we operate. I did not establish the distinction between the legislative and the executive for the fun of it. It would be easier for me in this case because I do not see a strong opposition. However, I have to remain very responsible for the proper administration of the political system of Canada.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, we all appreciate that this is a very important issue that we are dealing with. I would just bring up a small point. With the unanimous consent of the House, I will entertain at least one question from the leaders of the other parties. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification from the Prime Minister on a couple of points.

First, what exactly will be the role of the troops leaving for Macedonia in a few hours? It is said to be peacekeeping, but I would like to know more specifically what role they will play.

Second, around ten days ago we raised the point that the deployment of troops in the Balkans, even for peacekeeping purposes, in Macedonia rather than in Kosovo, might prove to be, in the short or medium term, the first step towards a military presence with an offensive mission in Kosovo itself. Admittedly, Macedonia is a lot closer to Kosovo. This is a concern.

I wonder why the Prime Minister is not holding a debate here in the House, followed by a vote, as Germany did and as the Czech Republic will do if ground troops are to be deployed. Prime Minister Jospin also announced France would vote on the issue.

I do not understand the Prime Minister's attitude nor the reasons for it. We are not asking to vote on every single military maneuver that might take place, on every little move. This is not what we are asking for. Rather we are questioning the very principle of deploying ground troops.

Moreover I am told the House must follow parliamentary procedure; it just happens that in this House votes take place every day after debate, of course. We hold a debate and then we vote on a variety of issues much less important than the deployment of troops, be it for peacekeeping or an offensive military operation. It seems to me it would be in keeping with the House's responsibilities to hold a debate, followed by a vote, as we do on so many other issues.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had explained it earlier, but I will be glad to explain it again. In preparing for an agreement with Belgrade, it was anticipated that troops would be involved. We hope an agreement can be reached at the earliest opportunity.

We were asked to send troops so as to be ready. The troops that are currently in Macedonia help greatly with the refugees. This is one of the reasons we were asked to be there. We have helicopters that may eventually fly over Kosovo, but right now they can be used to help refugees. The troops will not go to Kosovo until there is an agreement. If they must go, I said I would come back to the House of Commons with this.

As for the other issues, it goes without saying that votes are held every day. But I explained that, with an issue such as this one, the parliamentary system is based on the confidence that the House of Commons has in the government. In a situation like this one, we assume, since we form the government, that we have the authority to act until we lose that confidence.

I also said that we now have a mechanism that did not exist in the past. Nothing prevents opposition parties from asking questions during an opposition day. It is not the government's responsibility to do that. We will examine any motion to that effect and vote on it. However, we assume that we have the confidence of the parties in the House. The Bloc Quebecois had an opportunity a few days ago. It could have asked a very clear question, but instead it asked an ambiguous question.

The day after the debate in the House, the Reform Party asked a strange question on a motion that had nothing to do with the crisis in Kosovo, but referred to a committee holding consultations in western Canada. The opposition is not interested in using the opportunities that it has.

At some point, the issue of confidence will be dealt with specifically in a motion. On June 9, a vote will be held in the House of Commons on supply for the Department of National Defence. The House can vote against this. That is one way of going about it. The opposition cannot have it both ways. If it does not want us to do this, it should reject the defence budget, then we will not be able to go. This would then become a vote of confidence.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to say how very much we welcome the decision of the Prime Minister to enter this important debate today. It has been very much in the spirit that we intended in introducing the NDP opposition motion today that we have this forum to discuss further what we are going to do to intensify and accelerate our commitment, as a nation, to find a speedy, peaceful, diplomatic solution to the Kosovo crisis.

I want to say again, what we have expressed publicly and on the record, that we think having an opportunity to vote is an important issue. I have some difficulty in understanding where the Prime Minister is coming from because when we were in the gulf war we had six votes in the House and no one saw that as an erosion of the government's confidence or ability to do its job.

My question today does not focus on any votes around any possible escalation of military effort. It is our urgent hope that the point that we have now reached means that we will not be talking about escalating the military effort but rather we will be focusing on escalating the diplomatic effort.

The Prime Minister's statement today about the deployment of troops for peaceful purposes only is very much in the spirit of the position we have set out in our motion. We will of course be very vigilant in making sure that we are only talking about peaceful deployment.

My question focuses on the motion that we put before the House because that is the debate we are having. In relation to the Prime Minister's assertion about the critical importance of Russia's participation in advancing a peaceful solution, the Prime Minister knows that Russia has said that under no circumstances will its participation be possible if NATO proceeds with an oil embargo and the possibility of a naval blockade.

In that spirit, will the Prime Minister assure Canadians today that he, on behalf of Canada, and the foreign affairs minister and the defence minister, will stake out clear, unequivocal opposition to any such course of action?

We have a golden opportunity here to advance peace. We have an opportunity with the foreign affairs minister going to Moscow in what I think is increasingly an opening up of diplomatic opportunity to say that we will provide leadership in ensuring that Russia's position on this issue is respected and that we will not do anything to jeopardize the possibility of being able to continue to involve Russia in advancing a speedy, peaceful, diplomatic solution to this situation.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not a blockade. On Sunday I said that we would do nothing to provoke the Russians. The embargo is done. A lot of people can help to ensure that economic isolation is made clear to the government of Milosevic. As I said before, what is the use in bombarding the refineries when gasoline will still come in by ship from the south to replenish what was lost? We cannot have it both ways.

On the diplomatic front, when we started collectively to talk about only NATO troops there, Canada was the first to say it should be enlarged. The embargo will be a collective decision. It will not be a blockade. We are not planning to use military ships to sink Russian tankers. We are only talking about an embargo.

The Russians have an interest in finishing it too. They are opposed to the air strikes but they are in favour of Rambouillet. There is no doubt about it. We feel very strongly that we have to carry on. It is not the time to stop.

I said earlier that it is known Milosevic has been extremely skilful at quasi-agreeing to something and then delaying and delaying while doing his job. Now the collective result is to do it. The weakening of his infrastructure is huge and it will intensify. He is completely politically isolated.

I read, and probably members read it too, that there was hope in Belgrade with the news that Russian planes would come to rescue them. They are not there and they will not be there. The Russians like us would like to have a resolution of the conflict but the five conditions have to be met.

If NATO is not there, the Kosovars will not want to go back. It is very nice to say that there will be no more bombardment, but they will think twice before going back to a place that has been devastated. Their homes have been burned by the Serbs and their cities have been destroyed. They are now in Albania. When we ask them to go back home they will want to go back under a certain security.

There is another element. We have to stop the conflict. A group in Kosovo is using arms today to try to make Kosovo independent. This is another side of the problem which has to be kept in mind. We want peacekeepers there so that the people of Kosovo can go home, live a normal life and have the freedoms we are all fighting for.

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I wish to thank the Prime Minister for taking the time to come and speak to the House. We are very grateful.

Today, the Prime Minister has announced that Canada will be sending peacekeeping troops, what we used to call blue berets, to Macedonia. They will not be wearing blue berets, because the operation will be NATO-led.

I would like to know which countries have asked for this, because the Prime Minister said it was NATO that had called for troops, not the UNHCR.

Could the Prime Minister tell us what contribution other countries are making? By sending troops at this stage, is the Prime Minister saying that hostilities will soon be over? What is the rationale for sending peacekeeping troops, at NATO's request, to Macedonia right now? If it is to help refugees, the request should perhaps have come to us from the UNHCR.

Now, on the topic of the naval blockade, we are told that this is neither a blockade nor an embargo, but simply a check of what is going into Yugoslavia. Would the Prime Minister comment on what the newspapers were saying this morning, that the Minister of National Defence and a German general said that there is no question of using force to stop ships travelling to Yugoslavia through Montenegro, nor is there any question of using force to stop the entry of Russian oil?

My last question is this. Is the Prime Minister ruling out a peacekeeping force other than NATO's in Kosovo, perhaps under the UN, with the Russians?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just explained the role. The British, the French, the Italians and the Americans are already there, under the NATO umbrella.

They sent troops in the context of the preparations for the Rambouillet agreement, which did not happen. We were asked to do the same. There have been discussions and now we have received an official request, but it came from NATO.

Regarding the embargo, we have asked the military to prepare a plan. At present, the details are unknown. As I explained, this is an embargo, which means that weapons will not be used to set up a blockade.

As for the details on how this will work, at this point we do not know what types all the vessels deployed will be exactly. Some are completely above-board. It must also be kept in mind that the democratically elected government of Montenegro must not be weakened any more than necessary. Montenegro is a fairly independent province of Yugoslavia, and things between it and the government in Belgrade are rather tense.

On the other hand, the focus must not be on the south at the expense of our actions in northern Kosovo and in the Belgrade region.

It is our hope that the peace force sent to Kosovo will be a UN force. That is what we want. I do not know if that will be possible, but more than NATO is needed, and we have already said so in this House, last week.

Although the word from Brussels was that only NATO troops should be involved, personally, I remain convinced that the Russians and Ukrainians are needed in order to make the foreign presence in Yugoslavia more acceptable.

I have had an opportunity to speak to President Kuchma. Not many have contacts with the government in Belgrade, but he has sent his Minister of Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs to Belgrade. He has given me his view of the situation, and among the points he raised, I agreed with him that countries other than NATO countries ought to be involved in any future peace force.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton East.

Before I get into my comments regarding the motion before us today, I would like to comment on what we have heard this afternoon from the Prime Minister. I appreciate his being in the House to present this information and his giving Canadians and members a brief lecture on politics 101 and the executive authority of the government in the House of Commons.

I remind the Prime Minister and the executive branch of government that along with their executive decision making power comes something called executive responsibility. The opposition will be holding the government accountable for every action it takes which seems to be inappropriate to the official opposition and to the people of Canada.

With respect to that I have great concerns over the types of troops we have heard are being deployed to the Balkans. The Prime Minister has given us very few details about those troops. He has given us a number of 800 troops, but he has said very little about their role and their missions of operation. He has said very little about all of these things. I get the assurance from the defence minister that he will also speak to these issues.

My point is that the House agrees executive decision making is in the mandate of the Government of Canada as is executive responsibility. We will do everything to make sure the proper troops are deployed and the capabilities are there. We all know the government has reduced military capability over the last five years since it came into power. It will be held to account for all those things. The auditor general has pointed it out. The chief of the defence staff has also pointed out the capability deficit we have now after six years of Liberal dominance in the country.

However, I digress. I rose this afternoon on behalf of the people of Okanagan—Coquihalla to speak to the opposition motion:

That this House calls on the government to intensify and accelerate efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Kosovo through the involvement of Russia and the United Nations, and to urge NATO not to take actions that expand the conflict and stand in the way of a diplomatic solution.

I congratulate members of the Canadian Armed Forces, particularly those in the air force who have done a superb job in executing the sorties and missions they have been given over the last 35 days. All Canadians should take time to thank them for that, and to pray for their safe and speedy return to Canada. All of us want to see a diplomatic solution to this situation.

Therein lies the problem with the motion. In the way it was written it makes it sound as though we have not been concerned about a diplomatic solution. In the newspapers I read on a daily basis and in the media reports I see, the diplomatic flurry of activity surrounding Kofi Annan, the ministers from Russia, our Minister of Foreign Affairs and other interested parties has definitely increased. Canada must show its absolute resolve not to fray away from its NATO allies in this terrible tragedy happening in Kosovo.

The motion lays out some assumptions that the Russians and the UN have been kept out of the negotiations. I feel that is totally false. I would not even want to be sending that message. That is why I cannot support the motion before the House today.

It is also important to note that the UN has been in the Balkans for most of this decade, trying to resolve various territorial and ethnic disputes. There is increased diplomatic activity going on right now, but there has been such activity for the last 10 years. We have tried.

If members of the NDP think this is some whim NATO has embarked upon for no good reason, they are sadly mistaken. We have to remember Canada's involvement. We have a stake in it as well. Eleven of our peacekeepers have died through peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. I do not say that lightly. I am quite concerned about that. Do we have a stake in it? Of course we do, because those people did not die in vain.

NATO has taken military initiative due to the failure of an agreement in the UN to take action against Serb ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Russia and China would oppose UN sanctioned action in the security council. We know that full well. Kofi Annan has even identified that.

It is ridiculous to say that Russia has been excluded. Russia is important. Every media report, everything we see, shows that all the stakeholders are trying to get Russia involved. Russia is seen as an important mediator to end this conflict.

I will remind members of the House and maybe my colleagues in the New Democratic Party of the goals. I am not condemning the NDP for bringing the motion forward. They drafted the motion in the spirit of wanting to find a solution, but I do not think there has been a lot of thought into what they are saying here.

First, one of NATO's goals is to end ethnic cleansing. Second is the withdrawal of Serb forces. Third, refugees must be allowed to return to their homes in Kosovo. Fourth, NATO peacekeepers must be allowed to enter Kosovo. Fifth is a political solution. That is the fifth link in the NATO agreement to which the 19 member states have agreed.

We are already striking Yugoslavia with our NATO air forces to reduce the ability of the Yugoslavian military and paramilitary to commit aggression. This is very, very important and it is working. The evidence shows that this tactic is working.

The comments made yesterday by the deputy prime minister of Yugoslavia show that the political decision making powers are fraying on their side. We cannot allow them to fray on our side. NATO must maintain its resolve to continue the campaign until the Yugoslavian leadership accepts a negotiated settlement.

With this type of motion I would have to ask what kind of message are we trying to send to Mr. Milosevic? He would love this motion, because this motion shows cracks in NATO's resolve. I just do not think that is appropriate at this juncture.

We have successful air operations continuing. We are reducing the Yugoslavian army capability. That is very important and there are signs that a political solution may be found.

I want to also remind people that on April 12 the Leader of the Opposition laid out some principal objectives in supporting the government and NATO. The first was that it attains the moral objective of halting ethnic cleansing. Second was that we achieve the political objective of creating safe homes for Kosovars and stabilize the region through negotiations. Third was that we pursue the military objective of damaging the military capabilities of Yugoslavia to reduce its capacity to practise ethnic cleansing and bring the Yugoslavian government to the negotiating table.

When I was home on the weekend I met up with a World War II veteran and I had a conversation with him. His name is Lieutenant Colonel Harry Kwarton. I said to Harry, “Sir, what do you think of what is going on right now?” He said to me, “At the end of the second world war we told the world that we would never let this happen again, and you bet we are doing the right thing by being there and supporting this”. I think we are on the right track.

I want to congratulate our troops and again remind the government that I for one will be holding it responsible for its executive decision making. It had better make sure that the capabilities it commits are the proper ones and we have the ability to do the job.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Madam Speaker, once again I am pleased to stand in the House on behalf of the constituents of Edmonton East and contribute to a very important debate.

Canada has a proud war history, but our role in this conflict is very different from our triumphs in Europe earlier this century. While I support the troops no matter where in the world they are sent, I too share some reservations with respect to our role and long term plan, if there is one.

The official opposition is prepared to support our involvement under the following guidelines with respect to the war in Yugoslavia. We must obtain the moral objective and halt the ethnic cleansing that has been perpetrated by the Yugoslav government. We need to achieve the political objective of creating a safe home for Kosovars by stabilizing relations between the federal republic of Yugoslavia and its neighbours through peaceful negotiations. We will pursue the military objectives of damaging the offensive military capability of the Yugoslav government and reduce its capacity to practise ethnic cleansing.

No country in history has ever been conventionally bombed into total submission and likely never will. It is clearly evident even to most armchair generals that a more comprehensive plan is required. The largest participant in this mission, the United States, knows all too well that a 20th century ground war would be both ugly and deadly.

Military force is only a tool with which to achieve our objectives. The Reform Party has noted that it is prepared to support military force and the commitment of Canadian forces only if our government demonstrates to this House that new commitments from Canada are needed to halt ethnic cleansing and to provide for a safe return of Kosovar refugees and that the government demonstrates to the House that all Canadian duties fall within Canada's existing military capabilities and guidelines.

Until now the Liberal government has not been open with parliament and the Canadian people. The three take note debates on the crisis have been little more than a public relations token. Canada's elected government has really had no say at all. Most recently this issue came up with regard to ground troop deployment. Any naval blockade is also an escalation in this conflict and in my view deserves the attention that ground troops are due too.

The last debate was on April 12 and took place two weeks after Canadians were already involved in the conflict. The government informed parliament of Canada's involvement in the bombings when Canadian planes were in the air. Most important, there has never been any vote in parliament on Canada's involvement in the war.

Parliament has played no role in setting the parameters for involvement once again if we end up enforcing a NATO naval blockade. We must not fool ourselves into thinking that stopping ships on the high seas will not escalate this crisis. We must have clearly understood rules of engagement before we embark on any escalation in or around Kosovo.

The government must change its approach and keep parliament fully informed and involved. Canadians call on the government to give parliament a role in setting the parameters and conditions for continued or additional Canadian military participation.

The Reform Party has supported the use of air power as a means to stop Serb ethnic cleansing activities in Kosovo and to force Mr. Milosevic to the negotiating table. The air campaign has been presented as the best alternative. It would not have been acceptable or morally right to sit idly by and watch fellow humans massacred and driven from their homes. It would have handed the president a victory and fed his appetite for greater conquests. On their own, air strikes might not exert the necessary pressure to encourage Serb disengagement.

The human race has witnessed acts of genocide throughout its history. Genocide is not solely the horrendous byproduct of certain wars. Incidents of genocide are not war related at all. Genocide is also a failure of humanity, the dark side of a civilization run amok. We must admit that Kosovo unchecked could be just this, death and destruction of homes and whole families by dictate of a man gone mad.

It is important for groups that have been decimated by genocidal acts that the world remember the particular atrocities in order to learn and understand what happened. Groups affected by genocidal acts want only to be remembered. The genocides of world history cannot be distinguished on the basis of size and scope. It is commonly understood that our history has witnessed one holocaust and many attempted genocides. In my view genocide should be regarded more as a failure of civilization than a product of war, whether it be the Ukrainian famine, the Cambodian killing fields, the Holocaust, or now reportedly Kosovo. In my view Canada should institutionalize remembrance through the construction of a stand alone world genocide museum.

NATO's collective strategy is seemingly starting to have an effect. We ought to give it more time to work. However, as the situation on the ground in Kosovo changes and new commitments are considered, the government must demonstrate to this House that any such commitments still fulfil the primary objective of stopping and reversing ethnic cleansing and Milosevic's genocidal tendencies.

Our pilots and troops are to be congratulated for the fine effort they have been making. They have been doing their best to help reverse this tide of inhumanity. For that we should be proud.

The families of ground force peacekeepers in past missions worried daily. Children had no idea of what horrors their parents had witnessed and had little understanding when their parents returned home permanently different from when they had left. Post-traumatic disorders are serious, debilitating and devastating to families who seek to pick up from where they left off months earlier.

Committing Canada's ground force troops will undoubtedly mean facing these challenges and trials again. Are we learning from past experiences? We must be extremely careful in planning our troop deployment.

A few weeks ago retired Major General Lewis MacKenzie stated in the Ottawa Citizen :

—we are not in a position to participate in any prolonged ground offensive in Kosovo.... During the past 20 years, successive governments, both Liberals and Tories, have used Canada's modest military as a cash cow which has resulted in a dramatic reduction of its operational capability.

These comments were made by one of Canada's most respected military leaders. General MacKenzie is saying that the ability of the Canadian forces to sustain long term ground operations, especially those far from home, has been sharply eroded by the government.

Between 1993 and 2000 there will have been $9 billion in defence cuts. About 18,000 troops have been cut. Morale is at rock bottom, especially when money is being spent on sex change operations and combat bras. Our soldiers are lining up at food banks and wearing hand me down battle uniforms.

I do not see the distinction between the escalation by land or by sea. Whether it is a blockade or an embargo, an escalation is just that and has inherent dangers and concerns. Putting our frigates on front line service as floating targets is daunting enough. To do so without clear objectives, plans of action and with poorly understood engagement rules in my mind is reckless.

We should clearly define the role of our naval contribution with every bit of seriousness as that we would with ground troops. The government must allow the military leadership of the Canadian forces to be more honest and forthcoming. Our military command must be allowed to brief all members of our involvement. We understand that sensitivity and confidentiality are very important in military planning and we would be pleased to have the briefings in camera. For the sake of our troops' safety we must remember that the need to know must be appropriately balanced through careful disclosure and full public debate.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion today.

Let me say clearly at the outset that we in Canada, we in the government, seek peace. As always we prefer to seek peace through peaceful means.

In its quest for peace and security, Canada has always favoured diplomacy.

Our diplomatic heritage has become a tradition that we further at all opportunities. It is something that we are justifiably proud of.

But even our elder statesman of diplomacy, the former Prime Minister Lester Pearson, the father of peacekeeping, understood that military force had a necessary role in achieving peace and security. Why? Because sometimes words and threats are not enough. Negotiations require two parties at the table together believing in what their words and promises can achieve.

We have been and are willing to sit at that table. At this point President Milosevic is not. Let me remind the House of Mr. Milosevic's appalling track record when it comes to willingness to negotiate.

In March 1998 the United Nations passed resolution 1160 calling on all parties to reach a peaceful settlement. This was followed by UN resolution 1199 in September. It demanded that both sides cease hostilities and improve the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation in the region. In October 1998, backed by the threat of NATO air power, an agreement was reached that established a ceasefire and allowed for an observer mission led by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to verify compliance. The agreement also called for strict limits on the deployment of the Yugoslav security forces.

Regrettably, and true to form as we have seen over many years, Mr. Milosevic did not keep his word. Yugoslav forces violated the ceasefire, responded disproportionately to the actions of the Kosovo Liberation Army and carried out a campaign against civilians in clear violation of international humanitarian law.

Despite this gross misconduct, we still gave negotiations another chance. Talks quickly began in Rambouillet, France. These negotiations sought a peaceful solution by balancing the interests and the demands of the parties. The interim agreement we reached provided for a high degree of autonomy for Kosovo, but as part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In the end the Kosovars agreed. They exercised courage and they signed the agreement. Mr. Milosevic did not. Eleventh hour efforts by U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke proved fruitless.

By March 24 we realized that the diplomatic track to that point in time had run its course. Our patience and our commitment to leave no diplomatic stone unturned was once again rewarded by Mr. Milosevic's unwillingness to honour the agreements that he had made or to seek a peaceful resolution.

I have just described the long history of our diplomatic efforts to stand against Milosevic's tyranny. This crisis represents a fundamental challenge to the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. These are values which Canadians have defended in words, but also in deeds in the first and the second world wars, in Korea and, more recently, in the gulf war. They are also values that NATO has upheld since its inception some 50 years ago.

Our military actions are justified. We have been forced to use the military tool because the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has repeatedly violated United Nations Security Council resolutions. It has spurned attempts to forge a negotiated peace, with catastrophic results to the people of Kosovo. The unrestrained assault by the Yugoslav military police and paramilitary forces on Kosovar civilians has created a massive humanitarian catastrophe and threatens to destabilize the surrounding region. These have been extreme, calculated and criminal policies. They cannot be defended on any ground.

Let me be clear. The military action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia supports the political aims of the international community. Our objective is to foster a return to a peaceful multi-ethnic and democratic Kosovo in which all of its people can live in security and enjoy universal human rights and freedoms on an equal basis. Canada and its allies are united in this objective.

It is an objective that is supported by the UN Secretary General and the European Union, and by Russia. Even Russian efforts to seek a negotiated settlement were met with half-hearted concessions and a flagrant disregard for the need to respect basic human rights and international law. However, the alliance shares a common interest with Russia in reaching a political solution to the crisis in Kosovo and will work constructively with Russia to this end wherever possible.

We know of the forthcoming mission of my colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and we wish him well in his efforts to help bring that about.

The international community is united in its ultimate preference for a negotiated settlement in this crisis.

Before I finish I would like to provide some additional information on the latest developments. As the Prime Minister indicated just a few moments ago, Canada has now received a formal request from NATO to deploy to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia the military contingent we had identified some months ago as our contribution to the international peace implementation process in Kosovo. We have agreed to this request.

A Canadian peacekeeping force in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia will consist of up to 800 people and will be equipped with about 280 vehicles and eight Griffon helicopters. Its main components will be a reconnaissance squadron, which will be capable of conducting surveillance and security operations in Kosovo. In fact, they will be using some of the latest equipment, such as the Coyote. The helicopter unit which I mentioned will carry out airborne surveillance, transport and medical evacuation missions. Also added to this team of about 600 people will be 200 combat engineers.

Our force will operate as part of a British armoured brigade within the NATO led allied rapid reaction core. That is why we are going to Macedonia. That is where the British brigade is located. These troops and these functions complement and supplement those which the British will be providing. We currently work with them in SFOR in Bosnia and it will be a similar kind of arrangement in Macedonia. The British already have troops in the region and they are counting on us to be there with them. The secretary of defence for the U.K. specifically said that to me in a meeting held last week.

It will take our force up to 60 days, we hope a little less, to reach the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and become operationally ready. This period is necessary to assemble the required military equipment and logistical supplies, move them by rail to Montreal and then by ship to Europe.

As the Prime Minister pointed out, our Canadian forces contingent will be part of an international peace implementation force. In other words, they will be peacekeepers. Although a peace settlement has not yet been reached, deploying our people now will serve two important purposes. First, it will allow our force to integrate fully with the British brigade and to train with them so that they can respond rapidly and effectively when a settlement is reached. Second, our troops will be able to provide immediate support to ongoing humanitarian operations in the region until and after a peace settlement is reached.

With our military campaign we are achieving what we set out to do. The cost of standing idly by is being measured in the lives of our fellow human beings. We have seen so far a callous and ominous disregard for human security. Canada always prefers a diplomatic solution. Our tradition has always been to appeal to the powers of reason and to try to achieve peace without the use of force or even the threat of it.

Although we have gained a deserved reputation as a peacekeeper, no one should ever forget that we have never and will never shy away from the stronger means if that is what is necessary to pursue peace and human rights.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. minister mentioned troops in Macedonia, saying that they will be equipped with Griffon helicopters, which will conduct security operations in Kosovo.

I would like him to elaborate on this because we were under the impression, after listening to the Prime Minister's statements, that our troops would be stationed in Macedonia only. There was no mention of Kosovo for the time being, but the minister said there will be security operations in Kosovo.

Does this mean there will be forays into Kosovo? I would like the Minister of National Defence to elaborate on this.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I neglected to mention at the beginning of my speech that I will be splitting my time with the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

In response to the question, we are pre-deploying our troops to FYROM, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, for eventual movement into Kosovo as part of a peacekeeping mission when a ceasefire and a peace settlement has been reached. That has always been the plan. That was what was talked about in terms of the Rambouillet agreement, that we would have an international military presence in Kosovo to ensure the peace and security of Kosovo and for the Kosovars to be able to live in peace and security.

We are taking them from Canada to the region and putting them adjacent to Kosovo, in Macedonia, so that when the time comes for a peacekeeping mission to go into Kosovo they will be there together with numerous other countries. It is not just the British, it is the French, the Italians and numerous others. There are 12,000 of them in Macedonia, but there are also a number of troops in Albania, troops that will be part of a peacekeeping force that will go in when agreement is reached.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if you would seek the unanimous consent of the House to extend the time for questions to be put to the minister by about five minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member is asking the House for unanimous consent to extend the period by five minutes. Is there consent?