Debates of April 27th, 1999

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington, and I must even admit that I was touched by his comments. I was touched when he talked about his days as a student in London with two former colleagues, one a Jew and the other a Biafran.

However, he digressed quite a bit from the NDP motion calling on the government to intensify and accelerate efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Kosovo—if we do not want, at this point, to talk about a war—and to involve Russia.

I want to ask the hon. member if he personally intervened in the Liberal caucus. If so, what proposal did he make to bring the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs—who, incidentally, is leaving this evening to meet his Russian counterpart—to find a diplomatic solution? What personal action did the hon. member take to convince his government to try to find a diplomatic solution?

We have lost a great deal of our ability to act as peacekeepers, because in this union with NATO, Canada is acting just like the United States and the other countries by sending aircraft that are not there to maintain peace but to strike and destroy.

Did the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington act in a positive way within his caucus?

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

Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. I will on a very rare occasion break caucus secrecy. In fact, at the last national caucus I did rise and go to the microphone, in front of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and all of my colleagues, and I urged them very strongly to look to Russia to help us out of this impasse that is occurring in the Balkans.

One of the golden opportunities that is presented here is that Russia can become involved. If Russia can be part of the peace plan, then it will help Russia feel a restoration of confidence of its important role in the world.

I talked about countries and peoples hurting, and we have to realize that the Russians are hurting now as well. They are not hurting just economically; they are hurting because the end of the century has been hard on them. We have to give them the opportunity to find their dignity. They can find their dignity by taking an important role in bringing peace to this region. That is what I said in national caucus last Wednesday.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to tell the hon. member that these distinctions between ethnic cleansing and genocide are perhaps helpful, but I still marvel at his description of the Armenian situation the other day in the House. I would like him to tell us whether or not he feels that a genocide took place in Armenia at the beginning of the century.

My question, however, has to do with the UN's role. Since he is willing to talk about what went on in his caucus, could he tell us to what extent the UN's role was discussed? What is his personal position on the importance of involving the UN in any resolution of this conflict in Yugoslavia?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can only talk about what I said. I cannot talk about what others said.

I would like to pick up on the ethnic cleansing. It is so very important to make the distinction between ethnic cleansing and genocide. It is very difficult to forgive genocide under any circumstances.

Because so many nations historically, going back to the ages of the Greeks and the Romans and even before, have been guilty of one form of ethnic cleansing or another, after the war the Serbians, Serbian Canadians and Kosovars can at least appreciate that nothing has happened in Kosovo, however horrible, that is any different than what has been going on in nations and societies across the world since the beginning of recorded history.

It is when we apply too big an epithet that we make it almost impossible for the people to communicate after the war. Then we entrench hate. There is enough hate in the Balkans. We have to find a way to get people to stop hating one another.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will refer to the last comment about getting people to stop hating. I heard Henry Kissinger, I think it was, say that was probably not a possible scenario in these parts of the Balkans. Hate is deeply ingrained in the souls, hearts and minds of the people in that region. I wish it were so that by holding up Canadian values or values which we hold dear we could communicate in some way that they should stop hating. I wish it were that easy but I fear it is not.

I congratulate the member for Halifax and the New Democratic Party for putting forward what I frankly consider to be a responsible position in a responsible use of an opposition day. We have had scenes in this place where motions have been put forward that frankly would be seen as nothing more than grandstanding for the purpose of perhaps espousing certain philosophical viewpoints or somehow trying to embarrass the government. I do not think the motion does that at all.

The motion states that the government should intensify and accelerate efforts to find a diplomatic solution. Who among us would not want that to happen? Who among the population of this great country would not want that to happen?

The mission being undertaken by the minister later this week, with meetings being set up in Russia and meetings with the Secretary General of the United Nations, is an effort to do exactly that, to find a way to answer a question I have some difficulty answering when constituents call me: How did this happen?

We have to look at history to find out how and why this has happened and why we are debating it today. It is responsible of an opposition party to suggest that the government should increase efforts to find a diplomatic solution. I agree with them that it should happen. I also think it is responsible for us to urge NATO not to accelerate the campaign beyond what is currently going on in an effort to try to find a diplomatic solution.

Having said that, we cannot stick our heads in the sand. I was very interested to hear my colleague from Hamilton—Wentworth say that he had held a town hall meeting. I wondered what it would be like to have a town hall meeting in Kosovo. I wondered how people who have been driven out of their homes and who have watched their fathers, their husbands and their sons assassinated in front of them would feel about participating in a town hall meeting. This is not media hype; we have heard testimony from refugees who have stood by and watched their mothers and their daughters raped in front of their families.

I think they would be so shocked at the democratic process which my colleague held in his riding that they would not know what to say. They could not imagine describing the horror and the pain.

While we strive to find diplomatic and peaceful solutions, we have to take a look at why we are in this position in the first place.

In 1949 former Prime Minister Lester Pearson, whom I think all Canadians and members of this place would consider one of the great men of this century, won a Nobel prize. He signed an agreement with 11 other countries to form an alliance called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That membership has expanded to 19.

What was the purpose? Was it just some kind of window dressing following the war, that we should all get together once a year and have a barbecue or something like that? I do not think so.

These were 12 and now 19 countries that recognized a number of different threats existed in the world. The most obvious would have been the spread of communism in 1949. We saw what happened with the wall. We saw it go up. We saw it come down. We saw a country divided. We saw what happened economically and philosophically, or from any aspect of society we want to look at, to a country that could have been, should have been, might have been and might still be again a great country, Russia.

This may be a bias but I happen to think it is one we all believe in, the bias of democracy. This is a people who have been put in a terrible position because of the spread of communism and because of the militaristic attitude that occurred in that country. They wound up in a destitute situation. NATO was formed to monitor the spread of communism.

Tito was in charge in Yugoslavia and the army was there. I witnessed firsthand in 1990 when I was part of a parliamentary delegation as a member of the provincial legislature the first free elections in Croatia since the end of the second world war. Yet there were still armed soldiers standing over the ballot boxes intimidating the people as they came in. They stood there and did not move.

I remember how incredulous some of the Croatian people were when I went up to the armed soldiers and put a Canadian pin on their lapel. They were quite astounded that I would do that. Thinking back I was a little nuts to do it. In any event I was being friendly and extending a friendly hand to those people. We could see tears in the eyes of the Croatian people as they lined down the street to vote for the first time since the war. It was truly one of the most amazing and moving political opportunities that I have experienced.

Like most of us in this place I am really rather spoiled. Think of where we live. Think of the fact that I have often said in this place that our weapons are hopefully our minds. Our ammunition are the words that we hurl at one another. We do not kill one another. Hopefully we do not. There may be days when some would feel that way but generally speaking we are not a violent people.

Yet we see what is happening and we a partaking in what can amount to nothing other than a military action, or call it whatever we want. It is war against a regime. I do not consider this a war against the Serbian people as a nation. Although I have to openly admit obviously Serbs will be injured and killed in this exercise. That is a terrible tragedy, but we cannot sit back and do nothing.

I wonder what the Canadian people would say if Canada, a participant in NATO for the last 50 years, was to step back and say that we will not be involved in this situation; we were there for the good times and liked the conferences, but we will not participate in this action. I do not see how we could in any moral conscience take a position that we would not participate.

I pray and hope, as do all Canadians and members of the House, that what we have seen today will not escalate into the use of our soldiers in active combat. It may yet happen, but we hope it will not. They are there. They are being positioned to go in to implement a peace settlement. I hope that our minister and our Prime Minister can meet with the Russians and do what the NDP is talking about and what we would all like to see, to see if Russia can implement a peace settlement with this regime to end the fighting and the killing.

Then our people could do what they have been trained to do, that is keep a sustaining peace in that part of the world and help the Kosovars readjust, go back in and rebuild their lives. I know we all pray for that, and hopefully we will see it in the not too distant future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask our eloquent colleague whether he could answer the question I asked the member who spoke before him regarding the role of the UN and what was said about this role during their caucus meetings, or what their supporters say at public meetings.

How important does he think the UN's participation is in any solution and what does he think should be the relationship between the UN and NATO in resolving the conflict in Kosovo?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the UN should be involved. As a result of the meetings our minister will be having in Russia and with the UN secretary general, I hope we will be able to bring them in.

We have to be realistic as well and realize that NATO serves a very specific role that is somewhat different from that of the United Nations. The theatre for the United Nations is the entire world. That is not true with NATO. The theatre for NATO is Europe and the Americas. It is not Asia, Africa or the Middle East.

If NATO could come in, and China and Russian were prepared to come in and co-operate in negotiating a peace settlement, that would be entirely appropriate. Hopefully the movement by our minister to go there and meet with them will see that happen.

It would more appropriate, if it is possible, to have NATO forces enforcing a peace settlement. However we have to get a peace settlement first. As long as Russia stays on the outside and is not prepared to come in to the negotiations, I fear the UN is marginalizing itself because of one or two of its members. Hopefully we can see some serious involvement by the United Nations over coming weeks.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. friend to make one or two comments regarding not what is happening in Serbia or in Belgrade but what we are doing to our own population.

I bring to his attention the plight of a mother and a father, Zorka and Milan Lavrnja who visited Canadian immigration at Bucharest. Their son was applying to immigrate to Canada. They are Canadian citizens; they hold Canadian passports. They went into the embassy and were told: “You are Serbian Canadians. We do not want to look after you”.

Are we in the House fostering better relations and better communications within our own communities? What happens when a Canadian official overseas, such as the embassy in Bucharest, says that to a Canadian citizen? Could my colleague from Mississauga give his reaction to exactly what we are doing to our Canadian citizens if they are of Serbian background?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if anybody in the employment of this country were to make a statement like that, and it could be proven, he or she should be fired. It is plain and simple.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the hon. member, who seems to take a great interest in NATO's role in this conflict.

Today, the American defence secretary, William Cohen, said that the international military force should be NATO-led. What does the Liberal member think?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know there is an attempt by some to somehow demonize the role of the Americans in this conflict. Let me simply say that NATO has a constitution and a mandate. In that mandate it is very clear that the responsibility of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is that it is one for all and all for one if a member is attacked.

The fact that the Americans happen to be the largest and perhaps the most dominant player because of their economic clout and their military clout I think is a given. The role that Canada can play and should play is being rightly played out on the international scene by our Minister of National Defence and our Minister of Foreign Affairs in trying to do exactly what this motion is calling for; that is, trying to find a peaceful solution and working with Russia, which can indeed be a catalyst in finding a solution.

It would seem to me that while the Americans would have little if any influence over Mr. Milosevic, the Russians do have some influence. We know that the Russian military has provided arms and weaponry to the Serbian military over the years. That is fine. That is a legitimate arrangement, a commercial contract. We know that they have a relationship.

Rather than trying to demonize the Americans and turning this into either a partisan issue or some kind of conflicting issue—and if the hon. member did not mean that I apologize, but that is how I interpreted it—I think our role as the Canadian government is to work alongside the Americans as a partner in NATO and to try to find a solution by our meeting with Russia and the United Nations.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. member for Vancouver East, Housing; the Hon. member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, International Trade.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first let me indicate that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for South Shore.

As immigration critic for the PC party, I want to make a few comments and remarks on the human tragedy that is Kosovo. Every day on television we see a tide of Kosovar Albanians fleeing to refuge outside their homeland, leaving behind their burning villages, leaving behind their friends and relatives who have been spirited away or even executed by the Serbian security forces.

Over the past number of years we have seen similar scenes in Croatia and in Bosnia, but the sheer speed and magnitude of the current exodus has riveted the world's attention.

Today's motion talks of a possible diplomatic solution to that crisis. I think it is safe to say that our party would support the motion. It is a very good motion indeed and I sincerely hope that it is possible. In the meantime, I would like to comment on two aspects of the crisis, the refugee situation and the military situation.

With regard to the Kosovar refugees, we are very pleased that Canada went on record as willing to accept and made preparations to take in about 5,000 of these unfortunate people. As a nation whose involvement is driven by humanitarian concerns we could do no less.

The other situation about which we are concerned is our military position in all of this. It is indeed regrettable that we did not debate this matter before our air force was committed to fight. The bottom line now is that we are embroiled in a military conflict overseas. Many military experts feel that this will inevitably lead to the involvement of our ground troops as well.

Our party is concerned about the way we seem to have become involved in this conflict without a long term view of the consequences. I know that war has not been formally declared, but people are shooting and people are being shot.

I need not remind the House that this region of Europe tied down many Nazi divisions during World War II, in a grinding war of attrition, with terrible atrocities committed on all sides.

We have already seen examples of how ethnic cleansing in Croatia and Bosnia came about, with enough blame and enough blood to go around for everyone involved.

We all have every confidence in the professionalism of our armed forces, but I fear that the government has presided over our military being reduced in numbers. As well, it is sadly lacking in the equipment to do the kind of job that we will probably be called upon to do.

We cannot play at war. NATO is now committed. It has very little choice but to follow through on those commitments. In Vietnam, for instance, we saw what it was like to fight a war wherein the daily targets were decided in the White House and not in the Pentagon. The result was a war that dragged on for years. No matter if we call this a conflict or a war, we had best be clear about our objectives and have the will to do what is necessary.

We cannot forget that the Yugoslav leadership will be ruthless in the use of their military and paramilitary forces, so we must not send our soldiers and airmen into harm's way with one arm tied behind their backs.

It is sad that Canada, once a leader in world affairs, a champion of United Nations peacekeeping, is now caught up in this conflict. However, the die has now been cast and we had best get very, very serious about our diplomatic, our humanitarian and our military roles in Kosovo.

The Canadian nation has the stature and the reputation to influence events, as it did in the gulf war and more recently in Croatia. However, those events took place when Canada had will as well as stature. There is no evidence that this government is able to supply that level of leadership. From what we have learned of NATO discussions, other members decided to launch an air war and Canada merely decided to go along.

According to the Prime Minister, if others decide that ground troops are necessary Canada will not be the one to say no. That is not a muscular foreign policy. It is no foreign policy at all. The announcement that we are sending 800 peacekeeping ground troops to the region is another escalation of our involvement. Our possible involvement in a naval blockade also complicates our situation, especially if the Yugoslavian navy decides to fight back.

In the meantime, we can take a number of steps to try to reassert our leadership with regard to the Kosovo situation. The first is to work seriously with Russia, which is the only power with open lines to the Serbian leadership. We must not forget that internal forces in Russia are pushing it to become involved as well. No other nation is better placed than Canada to help Russia find a constructive role, yet we have no evidence that Canada has actively played a role in that regard.

It is a good sign that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will now go to Moscow, but does he have specific proposals to make, say, on the proposed naval blockade or on a UN resolution on the type of international security force that would allow refugees to return home in safety?

Second, Canada is a member of most of the international organizations which will be involved in developing the political settlement in Kosovo when the war is over. We should be at work now on humanitarian and reconstruction issues and on security issues as well. Once this conflict is over our aim must be to have a southern Europe that is a more stable place than it was before this conflict started.

Third, the government should be clear about ground troops. It has not yet been clear on that issue. Short of a diplomatic solution, it seems to me that ground troops will be necessary to finish what has already been started by air attacks. The Prime Minister, however, has been coy on that issue and this undermines confidence in Canada's position on the issue.

Finally, the Government of Canada should lead the way in dealing honestly with the public and the parliaments of NATO countries. This is likely to be a long conflict, with unsettling images and unsettling news. It began with significant public support because the issue was seen as a humanitarian issue. However, once there is killing on both sides questions will be raised about NATO's strategy, especially with respect to ground troops. There is a difference between support for humanitarian goals and support for NATO's strategy.

The best road to public confidence is openness, clearness and truth. The Canadian people are a good people and they deserve good leadership in this crisis, better leadership than we have seen so far. It is time for government to hold parliamentary debates on these matters before our troops are put in harm's way. It is time for government to make clear our objectives and our ways and means of carrying out the various roles that we will have in this escalating conflict. In short, we should discuss our duty, define our duty and fulfill our duty with all of the determination and pride which have served us well in crises past.

In relation to today's motion, I would certainly support continued and vigorous diplomatic activity on Canada's part. I also think it is crucial that Russia, a long time Serbian ally, be involved in finding an end to this conflict. However, any solution must involve the refugees being allowed to return home under the protection of an international and, hopefully, a United Nations peacekeeping force.

Kosovo is burning. Parts of Serbia are in ruins. NATO cannot walk away from what it has started. However, at the same time, no country is eager to get involved in a protracted ground war. Therefore, I am sure that all NATO countries would welcome a reasonable solution that would end the fighting and restore the refugees to their homes and to their homeland.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my hon. friend across the way had to say. On one side he said that ground troops are unavoidable and we have to send them in. On the other side he said that the United Nations may be an international peacekeeping force. I am a little confused as to whether or not he is supporting ground troops. I am confused as to whether the hon. member is suggesting to the House that we should send in ground troops at this stage of the game when there have been 35 days of bombing with no result. We do not see Milosevic backing away. We have heard the Yugoslav deputy prime minister, who is from the opposition party, saying that we need to do something.

My colleague across the way says that we are in a war. He is a little ignorant about the history of that part of the world. He should study it.

I would ask him to first open his book, learn what has been done in that part of the world and then come to the House and try to tell members what the government should do. Sending ground troops over there will result in body bags coming home. I am just wondering if the hon. member across the way wants to volunteer the first body bag that comes back.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear that I do not think the member was involved with me in that debate, but somebody else.

First of all, let me say that we support our role in NATO. We are one of 19 member nations of NATO and we support the bombing campaign that is currently going on. We support our eventual involvement in sending in ground troops, should that be necessary. Obviously we would first support diplomatic efforts being made by this government to ensure that we do not have to involve our soldiers in a ground troop force.

However, I think it is very important indeed that the government lay out what its objectives are with regard to this war. What is the long term view of the consequences involved? What is our strategy, for example, in participating in a naval blockade should the Yugoslavian navy decide to fight back? These are questions to which we have not received answers.

As I pointed out to the hon. member, there is a difference between support for humanitarian goals and support for NATO's strategy, but I think this government is sadly lacking in leadership. It has not yet laid out its long term views and objectives regarding this war and what our strategy would be should ground troops become necessary. When the time comes, we will support ground troops if there is no other alternative.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to get into the questions and comments part of the earlier debate but I will stick to the speech I very carefully wrote out. I hope the parliamentarians in this room will have some intelligent questions to ask at the end of it.

Yesterday Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed the British parliament for one and one-half hours and during that time took questions from British MPs on Britain's role in Yugoslavia. Today the Prime Minister of Canada had a press conference to inform Canadians and Canadian parliamentarians that we would be sending peacekeepers to the Balkans. Canadians should reflect for a few moments on that comparison, a one and one-half hour information session versus a press meeting.

This government has deliberately left parliament out of the briefing process and has not been forthwith and open to parliamentarians. At least today the Prime Minister has made some attempt to correct that imbalance. I commend this Liberal change of tact because it puts the government in a position where it is more responsible for its actions.

There are many questions that must be raised over this government's handling of this critical issue. It is time the Prime Minister clearly defined Canada's objective in this campaign and more important the role we have occupied in NATO, and the Prime Minister's involvement and interaction with our NATO allies. The question begs to be asked as to what has happened to Canada's former leadership in these areas. I would submit that Canada is not only not being listened to by its NATO allies but worse yet, is following blindly.

Canada's objectives are not clear. Our strategy is not clear. And now by the looks of things, this Prime Minister is sending our soldiers into battle with no clear concise objective and no strategy to accomplish this vague goal. Surely the Prime Minister is finally going to be held responsible for such ill conceived and blatantly anti-military decisions such as “I will take the contract and write zero helicopters across it”. As a representative of Canadian soldiers and airmen, I hang my head in shame that we would irresponsibly consider sending Canadian pilots to war in planes and helicopters that are older than the pilots who fly them.

Recently the minister of defence stated that he was close to procurement. I would like to state for the record that vague phrases such as “we are close to procurement” will be meaningless to pilots forced to fly unsafe helicopters. I dare say it will also be meaningless to troops who will depend upon these helicopters.

The objectives of this war are unclear, the strategy is flawed and Canada's role of having any significant say in decisions that will eventually cause the death of Canadian soldiers is in question.

NATO entered this war with the president of the United States declaring that the U.S. would not send in ground troops. Where was Canada's respected position? How well was Canada listened to? Did we complain about the outright stupidity of such tactics? Canadians know that Canada's voice has not been heard. Canadians also know that Canada's opinion is not requested. Our soldiers are at war against a veteran military power while our government is at best anti-military and at worst irresponsible in terms of our soldiers' lives.

For me this debate is not about what Canada should be doing. This debate is about whether Canadian lives will be sacrificed because their government is sending them to a war without proper training and worse yet, without proper equipment.

As a parliamentarian, I accept the responsibility of parliamentarians and governments making difficult decisions. I can even accept the government being led blindly by the nose. What I cannot accept, and what no parliamentarian should accept, is giving our soldiers a job to do, albeit a job they are trained to do, but a job they do not have the tools to complete.

Tens of thousands of Canadian soldiers have died in foreign wars to assure Canadians that decisions that are made which affect our troops will be made by Canadian generals and by Canadians themselves. I hope these soldiers did not die in vain.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak on this issue in the previous days of debate. Unfortunately I did not make it on the list of speakers.

I thought I would take it from a different tact today by talking about the concerns expressed by my constituents on both sides of the issue.

I have a letter from an elderly gentleman who was concerned about the Aviano air base and whether or not there was protection in case Milosevic lobbed some missiles. I have letters claiming that this NATO action is completely illegal and should not be happening.

A few people have become very emotional about the issue, but I must say that overall there has not been a lot of public reaction to this despite the serious nature of the issue. Last week while monitoring radio talk shows in the Vancouver area, we did not pick up a single call on this issue. Despite the serious nature of this issue and the fact that Canada is involved in this international conflict, it would seem that the average person on the street considers it too far away and something that is not important enough to worry about. I receive more letters about the taxes families are paying and the difficulties with the immigration system or justice issues than I receive about the situation in Kosovo.

Nevertheless there are some strong feelings out there. I want to put on the record some of the input I am getting. It is frustrating for me as a person who is reasonably well travelled that I have never been to the region where this conflict is taking place. All of the constituents who have written to me have not been there either. Sifting through all the information can be frustrating in trying to make sure that we have the correct impression about what is going on in Kosovo.

Perhaps the one thing that everyone agrees upon is that the conflict has been there for a long time. Without making judgments as to who is at fault or who is doing what to whom, the conflict has been there for a long time. Perhaps there is a lot of truth in the argument some constituents are presenting that doing what we are doing will not solve the problem, that it may actually exacerbate it.

It is frustrating not to have been there. It would have been valuable and interesting to have heard from any members who had lived there or had relatives there. They could have given us some inside information about the way people feel in that country.

I asked a question at one of the military briefings at the defence committee last week regarding the number of refugees and how much that problem had escalated. Were there ten times as many refugees now as there were six months ago? The answer was that there had been a large increase in the number of refugees but it was not related to the bombing but rather to the police activities of driving people out of their homes. That is indirectly related to the bombing. Because of the bombing going on police were getting more enthusiastic and driving people out of their homes.

I had no opportunity to cross-examine and pursue this further to get deeper into the question. This relates to the frustration of not having intimate knowledge about the area and being certain that the information we are getting is 100% correct.

I will read a couple of excerpts from some of the letters I have received. These reflect some of the concerns coming from people in my riding. Mr. Ken Moir wrote to me and said in part of his letter:

These people are in greater disarray as the bombing attacks continue. The objective of the bombing attack is not being achieved-may turn the war into an infantry assault-at very great cost, and should not be considered in any way whatsoever.

It is my opinion an infantry assault would be a preamble to WW 3. Let our MPs ponder this unthinkable probability, and think wisely as to how Canada is to proceed either in NATO or out of NATO. It is my opinion that (the Prime Minister) is not the leader that we so urgently need at this time.... Where is Lester Pearson when we need him? My views have some input from my time in Europe in WW 2 1943-45.

That is a concerned person writing in with his feelings about the situation.

A lady who writes to me quite often, Victoria Hogan, sent me an e-mail addressed actually to the defence minister:

My opinion is not reflected in the alleged 78% of Canadians approving of our bombing of Yugoslavia. If asked, I most certainly would have said NO, and so would hundreds of people of my own personal acquaintance. In fact, today on national TV Vancouver Sun Columnist Barbara Yaffe said that the media has been giving a very one-sided account of events in Yugoslavia, and that this could well account for this so-called majority opinion. I had thought so right from the start, but Barbara was courageous enough to say it on national TV.

Ms. Hogan goes on to express her opposition to what is going on, much in the way that Ken Moir did, asking us to concentrate much more on diplomatic efforts.

To the credit of the NDP, that is the basis of the motion that is before us today. I will read it into the record for members who may have missed it: “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 impose a naval blockade or take any other actions that expand the conflict and stand in the way of a diplomatic solution”.

It is hard to disagree with the intent of the motion. I know there has been a lot of support for it today.

Moving back to some of the correspondence I have received, I received an e-mail addressed to the Prime Minister from Nenad Gajic, who I believe is a person from the Yugoslav area, expressing a strong protest toward NATO's and consequently Canada's declaration of war on the federal republic of Yugoslavia.

You have acted unilaterally in this matter. You led Canada into aggression against a sovereign country which did not attack Canada.

That is a different perspective of the situation from someone who has come to Canada from that region and is very disturbed about it. I know other members have received e-mails like that from people who have come here perhaps as refugees or as immigrants and feel that Canada has declared war, that we are doing entirely the wrong thing.

Finally, I would like to mention Mr. Ken Timewell who writes to me regularly on issues of peace throughout the world, or perhaps conflicts throughout the world. I received a letter from him dated April 17:

I have just returned home after a vacation abroad, only to learn that the Canadian government is actively supporting the U.S.-led NATO bombing of “Serb targets” in the Balkans. Worse still, I am told that all five major political parties in Canada support this illegal military action. It is truly a sad time in our history.

Mr. Timewell goes on to mention that he does not support the aggressive military action by NATO members and does not see how it can possibly bring anything but added instability to the region.

He wrote to me again a few days later and we had several discussions on the telephone too. This gentleman was deeply concerned about the issue. He wanted me to get his concern on the record in the House and I am pleased to do that today.

We had quite a discussion about whether or not he had intimate knowledge of the region. When he wrote his second letter he did say:

Perhaps not unlike yourself, my knowledge of the recent history of the Balkans is quite modest, however I am working hard to become informed on the subject.

He then goes on to say that despite his lack of information of an intimate nature about the area, he still within himself is opposed to this type of conflict and really does not want us to be involved. He goes on to encourage us to get involved at a diplomatic level. That relates back again to the thrust of the motion before us today.

That puts on the record some of the concerns which have come through. I must say I have had many more letters against what is happening than those for. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, listening to the radio talk shows and looking at letters to the editor in the newspapers, there really has not been a lot of public reaction.

I am not sure if other members have found this in their ridings as well. We have certainly received letters from individual constituents, but the public as a whole does not seem to have reacted.

That pretty much wraps up everything I needed to get on the record today. I welcome any input from members as a result of what I raised today. If there are any questions I would be pleased to answer them.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Before we get to comments and questions, could the hon. member for North Vancouver confirm that it was his intention to use a 10 or a 20 minute time slot? Was he sharing his time?

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was to use 10 minutes for my speech and 5 minutes for questions and comments.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from North Vancouver I too have had a considerable amount of input from constituents on this issue. They are very concerned about what is happening. I also have had the full spectrum of responses.

Some have asked “What are you doing using my taxpayer money to bomb my relatives over there?” There is a very genuine concern on the part of people with family there who may not necessarily be on one side or the other of the initial conflict but are in the line of fire of the bombs that come from high.

Then there is the opposite view where others ask “How come when we have an internal conflict in our country we have to take on the whole world in order to try to solve it?” Those are questions that we need to work through by increasing debate. We need to see if we can find a solution to the problems.

I am very concerned that the government is proceeding in a way which I think is perhaps very ill advised. Regardless of what we do in our country, it is very important for us to have the consensus and support of our people. That can only come by having a debate and by having a vote on an issue of great importance.

We know from the government that it does not like to have debate on things which are controversial. A day or so ago we had the unseemly event of the government invoking time allocation on matters that it did not want to have too many people across the country getting upset about. It used time allocation and said “We will not talk about it. We will just do it and we will tell our guys how to vote”.

I am also concerned about the fact that members are not given the opportunity to cast a vote on Canada's involvement. That is wrong. We should be able to express our support for our troops if we are to send them. Or, we should be able to say we are not sending them for very good reasons. That can only come when there is open and honest debate with a vote at the end.

I am distressed about what is happening in Kosovo. I am certainly supportive of the motion before us today. I believe we should be solving problems like this one with debates and votes. We should not be solving such problems with bullets, body bags and bombs. I know that is the dilemma we face. We have President Milosevic who is hell-bent on promoting this conflict.

Having had family at the brunt end of such dictators and such people who do not value the lives of others, I have a great deal of sympathy for those who are now being forced out of their homes and out of their country. That is exactly what happened to my family a scant 70 years ago. I remember as a youngster hearing my family members, my grandparents and others, talking about it. It is totally distressing.

When I heard of these people and the atrocities to which they were subjected, my first reaction was just like that of everyone else's. What can we do to stop this killing? What can we do to stop this ethnic cleansing, as it is called?

I really think that is a misnomer. Somehow it makes the word clean become a dirty word. I wish we could come up with something better in the English language to describe it. It is devastating and dreadful. Surely it would be good if we could persuade that president to stop this and to engage in negotiations, as we would all love to see.

What do we do with a person who says “I am not talking; we have decided what we are doing and we are just going to go ahead with it?” Does one then put the force of war and attack into his face and have him face the consequences? I suppose that is the only other alternative. In that instance we have to work together with all other countries in the world to protect the lives of the people who are being so unfairly attacked.

My son has spent some time in that part of the world and he had some gruesome stories to tell about some of the atrocities. They were things that we do not like to even talk about because they are so dreadful, things that were being done to women and children.

Again, that is exactly what happened to my family when family members were being attacked. Three of my grandfather's brothers were shot. That is the day that my grandfather said “I think we are going to leave”. They escaped the bullets directly themselves. They got out because of the atrocities that were being committed against their friends and family.

That is what is happening in Kosovo. These people are fleeing a dreadful enemy, a dreadful attacker, a ruthless attacker. I have great sympathy for them.

If I had my druthers, what we would do is provide as much help as we could for those who are fleeing. It should be done in the province of Kosovo. Perhaps our troops could secure a part of the country or make arrangements with neighbouring provinces and provide for those people so that their needs are met.

I do not know if the House can imagine it. We take our amenities of life for granted. My son reported that one of the things that amazed him about that part of the world was how similar it was to ours. The homes looked the same. The streets in the towns and cities looked the same. He said the only difference is when one gets close to the homes one sees that they are riddled with bullet holes.

It is dreadful to think that tomorrow we might be pushed out of our homes. We would no longer have our own beds to sleep in. We would no longer have the facilities and amenities to which we are so accustomed. We would just be out. We would be living in tents, if we were lucky. Otherwise we would be out in the open with an uncertain food supply, an uncertain water supply and no shelter.

Some of them are suffering from illness and injury. I would like to see Canada being the leader. We have a reputation as being peacekeepers and providing for people in a humane fashion. I would like to see Canada up its efforts in this area to make sure those who have escaped the ravages of this attack at least have their immediate physical needs met over there.

I know there are a lot of non-governmental agencies working in the area. I encourage our government to support them because I think they administer that type of assistance in a very efficient way, at least the organizations with which I am familiar. They are there. They are reaching out a hand of friendship and help to those people, and that is what we should be doing.

In the meanwhile we should seriously look at what we can do, as the motion suggests, in forcing the hand of Mr. Milosevic to the table, forcing him by demanding that there be negotiation and that he start to talk about what his plans are and what we can do to work this problem out and stop the atrocities toward people.

Whatever that military procedure, it is much beyond my ability because I am not a military strategist, but I believe something has to be done. I would certainly encourage us to up the ante in terms of a diplomatic approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I respect the member opposite and many of the things he said I just have to bring him up on one point. He called for a debate, and I do believe that we have been having a debate right here. It is a debate where at least this member of parliament feels he is not speaking for the government side, but I am speaking for the nation, speaking for Canada.

Whether there is a vote or not at the end of this debate, the important thing is that we should be here in our privileged positions as members of parliament, as the very few people in this entire country that can actually speak from our hearts and speak for our constituents about the situation in Yugoslavia at this time.

The member alluded to the lack of a vote and I have to also comment on that, even though I do not want this debate to become partisan. Unfortunately, his leader at every opportunity has complained about the lack of a vote in this kind of debate that we are having.

We are not the United States. In the United States the president can unilaterally declare war. He is the chief of the armed forces and he is unreachable by Congress. It is true that in the United States he can go on for a long time until the money runs out and carry on a war; but here in Canada our leader, if he does embark on a military enterprise, be it a declared war or undeclared war, is still subject to challenge in this House at any time in a vote of no confidence. In the United States they cannot get rid of the president except by impeachment if he decides to embark on a military venture of any kind, like Vietnam for example; but here in this House we always have the opportunity to vote the government down and out.

The reality, however, is that if it comes to MPs deciding policy in times of conflict, whether it is a war situation conflict or a diplomatic conflict, we cannot make informed choices in our votes if we are not at the NATO table, if we do not have the same information that the Prime Minister has.

The Prime Minister is plugged into the intelligence services. The foreign minister is having talks with the Russians. All of this pertains to whether or not we will do something tomorrow, be it whether we will send a frigate out into the sea to conduct an embargo or whether we will use combat troops or whether we will use peacekeeping forces.

In this House one cannot ask us, we MPs, to decide on the future of the nation when we cannot be at the table. We cannot be at the table, as we have already seen in the House because of a member of the Conservative Party who rose in this House and asked questions pertaining to the disclosure of covert operations that were occurring in Yugoslavia, theoretically, which could put members of our forces at risk. So long as we cannot guarantee that members will keep the confidences entrusted in them, we cannot have a vote in this House because we can never be entrusted with all the knowledge.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I somehow still have this belief that the very essence, the very foundation of democracy is the elector voting. All of us have been sent here by people on the basis of a vote and we make decisions in this House based upon a vote. I just find it very ironic for us when we are dealing with such an important matter.

One of the things that bears very heavily on me is the fact that those people who are now being deployed to Macedonia to be ready to enter a ground war are soldiers from my riding. I should be able to be here to debate and to vote on whether or not we are committing them at the risk of their lives, their health and their safety. As their representative in the House of Commons, which is supposed to be the supreme body here, I should have the authority to actually express it in a vote. I do not think I will back down on that.

The member certainly made some pretty strong arguments on the other side. If he can convince me that every backbencher over there who votes with the government on command is fully apprised of all the issues, then maybe his argument would have a little more strength.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that the proceedings on the motion have expired.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Hepatitis C

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to provide a humane and fair resolution for those infected with hepatitis C through the blood supply system, and provide for research, education and support into the identification of other inherited bleeding disorders, in particular von Willebrand's disease.

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be on my feet again on this very timely topic. I just want to remind the House that it will be a year ago tomorrow that we voted on the compensation package for all hepatitis C victims. I want to read into the record the motion the House voted on a year ago.

That this House urges the government to act on the recommendation of Justice Horace Krever to compensate all victims who contracted Hepatitis C through tainted blood.

The difficulty is of course that the government only recognizes those individuals between 1986 and 1990. That pretty well explains my motion. What we have are innocent victims outside of that time package who are as deserving of compensation as those people within that time period. It is a very narrow period of time that the government purposely designed. It has created problems.

I have always figured, and I think most of us have, that Canada is a very fair and generous country. When we are leaving victims outside a package designed to compensate them there is something dreadfully wrong.

I want to go through some of the numbers just to point out how generous Canadians are. We are very supportive as a people, as a group and as a country of compensating all of those victims. These are some statistics. Statistics alone cannot obviously tell the story. I will be the first to admit that no government should operate basically on public opinion all the time because there are other factors that have to be considered. However, I think this gives a sense of what Canadians are thinking.

Statistics tell us that 89% of Canadians support providing financial assistance to all persons with serious adverse consequences as a result of contracting hepatitis C from the blood supply system; 83% of Canadians believe it is unfair that pre-1986 victims are not eligible for financial assistance; and only 9% said it is fair.

In terms of supporting compensation, it is pretty unanimous across the country. For example, in Ontario it is 88%, 93% in Quebec, 87% in B.C., 84% in the prairies and 95% in Atlantic Canada. It is pretty compelling when we take a look at the statistics in terms of public support for compensating all victims.

I want to quote directly from Justice Krever's report, volume 3, page 1029. It states:

The compassion of a society can be judged by the measures it takes to reduce the impact of tragedy on its members.

In Volume 3, page 1045 of that same report, Krever states:

Until now, our treatment of the blood-injured has been unequal. After years of suffering devastating financial losses, many persons infected with HIV from blood or blood products, or their surviving family members, finally did receive financial assistance. Other Canadians—

—and we are talking about hepatitis C people—

—who have suffered injuries from blood therapy have not received any compensation. Yet the needs of those who have been harmed are the same, regardless of their cause and whether or not fault can be proved. Compensating some needy sufferers and not others cannot, in my opinion, be justified.

I think the Canadian people are in complete agreement with Justice Krever. We cannot justify a package that leaves people outside. Think of the dates, 1986 to 1990. It means that if someone became infected because of a blood transfusion on December 31, 1985 they would not be compensated. A day later, New Year's day of 1986, they would be.

What kind of perverse logic would lead someone to believe that type of package would be acceptable to the Canadian people? It is not acceptable. We in the House fought for months on that particular issue.

A year ago tomorrow will be the day when the Liberals stood up and supported a package that discriminates against victims of hepatitis C through no fault of their own. Why would they do it? Why did they do it? They just simply kowtowed or bowed down to pressure exerted on them by the Prime Minister. They all stood in their place and did it.

[An hon. member]

And the Minister of Health.