Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
Kosovo April 12th, 1999
Madam Speaker, if the Progressive Conservative member is right when he says that 100,000 men have disappeared, it may be that this is no longer ethnic cleansing but genocide.
If we were to discover that the Serb government and the security forces of Slobodan Milosevic are guilty of genocide, would that justify very quickly the sending of ground troops into Kosovo?
Kosovo April 12th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I got the impression that the hon. member believes that an intervention such as this one by NATO is justified in certain situations.
Could the hon. member tell me if she thinks that an intervention is made under a right to get involved recognized under the international law?
Kosovo April 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to downplay the success of NATO's military operation and the fact that it has indeed managed to destroy a good part of the arsenal of the Yugoslav army.
Having said that, the outflow of Kosovars was not slowed down during the air strikes. As I said earlier, we still have today 80,000 displaced persons within Kosovo who could fall victim of Serbian authorities. That would justify the dispatch of ground troops.
Kosovo April 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that NATO'>s strategy was to favour air strikes, so that the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia would quickly, very quickly agree to sit down at the negotiation table.
It was NATO's hope that the destruction of his military capability would prompt Slobodan Milosevic to seek a peaceful settlement and go back to the negotiation table. However, NATO obviously underestimated his ability not only to protect his military arsenal, but also to resist pressure, including international pressure, and thus refuse to go back to the negotiation table.
I think we underestimated that. Even if NATO's foreign ministers maintain that their strategy might work, it has not worked so far.
Ethnic cleansing is continuing and my great fear, which is shared by others, is that ethnic cleansing will lead to genocide. It may be that, technically speaking, we cannot talk about a genocide at this point, but even the closing of the border a few days ago should be cause for concern, because it is the prelude to a possible genocide. Under these circumstances, we must anticipate, or at least consider, ground military action.
We must not let this century end the way it began, with another genocide. Armenians were the victims of genocide at the beginning of the century. Jews were the victims of genocide half way through this century and now, at the end of the century, in addition to Cambodians and Rwandans, we may have the Kosovars.
It is true that military personnel from Quebec and Canada, your sons and daughters, will put their lives on the line if ground troops are sent in, but sometimes the lives of others must be put on the line to ensure the survival of a people. We must not let a people, the Kosovars, who contribute to the world's cultural heritage, disappear by being dispersed all over the planet, as the Serb leader is hoping to do.
Kosovo April 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that my party or any opposition party could be accused of cowardice. Indeed, we have supported actions taken by Canada and NATO and will continue to do so because we believe that by supporting those actions we send not only to Slobodan Milosevic but also to all proponents of ethnic cleansing and even genocide a clear message that we will not quietly stand by; we intend to make it very clear to them that such actions are unacceptable to the international community and its member states.
However, it seems obvious that bombing will not be enough to deal with the situation and prevent ethnic cleansing. This is why we are constantly questioning the government about the commitment of ground troops, which it refuses to consider and talk about, even if this issue is the most important and, in my opinion, deserves an answer.
Regarding the international protectorate, I point out to my colleague that we must consider another solution besides autonomy, as provided for in the Rambouillet agreement. Coexistence between Serbian and Kosovar peoples seems impossible and another solution must therefore be found.
I believe that, as a member of the security council, Canada should at least make an effort, while pursuing military efforts and interventions, to bring the UN to seek a political solution. Marginalizing the UN as we are doing now is not the way to resolve the serious crisis it may be facing and the difficulty it will have to deal with a crisis of which it has been kept out.
There are many ways to ensure UN participation—the security council, the general assembly—and this is the least we should expect from a country that has always acted as a supporter and strong advocate of the United Nations.
We can favour air raids for the time being and consider ground military action, while at the same time, and most importantly, be giving the UN a mandate to consider a political solution to the present crisis.
Kosovo April 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this House once again, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, during the debate on the government's motion asking that this House take note, and I quote:
—of the continuing human tragedy in Kosovo and the government's determination to work with the international community in order to resolve the conflict and promote a just political settlement for Kosovo that leads to the safe return of the refugees.
So far in this debate, we have had few answers to our questions. Yet, Canadians and Quebeckers expect the government to provide answers to our questions, because they feel concerned by the crisis in Kosovo and because the Liberal government has only provided them with very limited and fragmented information.
Incidentally, during a speech delivered at McGill University's law faculty on Thursday, April 8, Canada's former ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations, Yves Fortier, did not hesitate to criticize the Prime Minister for his lack of transparency regarding Canada's position and action in the Kosovo conflict. We endorse that criticism, and the government must listen and change its attitude.
Like all the other governments of the Atlantic alliance, the Government of Canada is probably uncomfortable admitting that it underestimated the crisis in Kosovo and particularly Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal intentions. These governments do not seem to have learned history's lessons, otherwise they would know that the attitude of the Serb leader and of his security forces toward Kosovars is quite similar to their attitude toward Croatians and Bosnians, and to that of other political leaders—do we have to name them?—toward populations whose presence on their territory was deemed undesirable.
Like its allies, this government did not accurately assess Milosevic's strategy. It allowed itself to be dragged along by events, essentially reacting by resorting to air strikes, while pretending not to be considering a ground military option to end the exodus of the Kosovar people, to check the ethnic cleansing and to prevent a new genocide.
The about-face of the Minister of National Defence on the need to sent troops is the most deplorable example of the improvisation and lack of leadership of the Government of Canada in this conflict.
Today, after 19 days of air strikes and a massive exodus of Kosovars, the government has still not answered the most basic question. Must it consider sending in ground troops to put an end to such an exodus, to the resultant ethnic cleansing and, especially even more, to prevent the genocide of the Kosovar people?
We put this question when ministers Eggleton and Axworthy appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and throughout our interventions of the past 10 days. We have once again called the government on this question today.
Will the Prime Minister and his ministers be continuing for long their silence on this basic issue or will they consider that public opinion, both Canadian and Quebec, which, we learn, is prepared to support intervention by ground troops, is now entitled to an answer on this issue?
Intensifying bombing did nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Furthermore, if Milosevic persists, he will be able to keep Kosovo, having emptied it of its Albanian inhabitants. Even in the case of a campaign of air strikes in which all Serbian vehicles and the entire Serbian war machine were destroyed, Milosevic would still be the one occupying Kosovo, on his own.
Therefore air strikes have their limits. A plane cannot differentiate a Serb soldier from a Kosovar passer-by. Moreover, the closer to the ground our planes are flying, the more dangerous it becomes for them. But again Milosevic believes NATO will not send in ground troops to ferret him out, and he is playing a game of attrition.
But this is not the only issue the Bloc Quebecois is interested in. My party believes Canada has not used all the means at its disposal to find a solution to the conflict in Kosovo. Beside taking part in the air strikes, Canada should have diversified and still can diversify its actions to put as quick an end as possible to ethnic cleansing and, I will say it again and I cannot overemphasize it, to prevent the genocide of the Kosovar people.
Until now, the minister of Foreign Affairs has not seen fit to use Canada's seat on the UN Security Council to have the UN play a role in this conflict. Even though his participation today in Brussels in the meeting of the foreign affairs ministers of the Atlantic alliance is aimed at evaluating the present and future action of NATO, should he not now sponsor, within this forum and the United Nations, a new formula to deal with the political problem created by the conflict in Kosovo, called “a war without images” by some.
If the Rambouillet accords are no longer relevant, should Canada not bring to the security council a proposal aimed at putting Kosovo under the protection of the United Nations pending a negotiated settlement of the crisis?
If it is as concerned with the rule of law as it purports to be, Canada should also ask the International Criminal Tribunal's chief prosecutor, Mrs. Louise Arbour, to lay charges of crime against humanity against Slobodan Milosevic, or to make them public if such charges have already been laid, as well as against all the other people responsible for the ethnic cleansing campaign in Kosovo.
As a promoter of the rule of law, Canada could also initiate an international public action and ask the International Court of Justice, as Bosnia-Herzegovina has already done with regard to the other conflict caused by Milosevic, to rule on the violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by Yugoslavia.
The improvisation that has characterised the planning of the humanitarian aid efforts so far must now be replaced by a more effective type of coordination. In light of the decisions made by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Canada must now concentrate its efforts on providing assistance to Kosovar refugees in camps set up in neighbouring countries so that they can live and survive, in minimally decent conditions, until they can return home.
It must also facilitate the work of Canadian and Quebec NGOs that have mobilized a lot more effectively to come to the rescue of Kosovars and prevent them from having to disperse against their will, adding to the Armenian and Jewish Diasporas, just to name these two, a new Diaspora that will bemoan the homeland it lost for generations and generations.
The humanitarian crisis in Kosovo also demonstrates the need for genuine reform of the mechanisms related to maintaining and imposing international peace and security. It is not appropriate for NATO to dominate events to the point of becoming the military arm of the international community, while the UN is left out of operations that are of great concern to the community of the world.
More than ever before, the United Nations' military and financial capacity must be examined in depth, and the vetoes of its permanent members seriously challenged.
As an applicant for membership on the security council, Canada made a commitment to advocating a genuine reform of that forum. Now it needs to convince others on the security council and in the UN family of the urgency for such a reform, and show that its election to the security council counts has not been without effect.
In concluding, I cannot help but express my frustration—and I do not believe I am the only one in this House—about the Prime Minister's refusal to clearly commit to a debate, followed by a vote, in the event that consideration ought to be given to sending ground forces to Kosovo.
In fact, our participation in this evening's exercise must not in any way be interpreted as a green light for the government to continue to act without further debate in Parliament. It must seek parliamentary authorization, particularly if it comes to putting the Canadian Forces on active service in Kosovo.
It is, moreover, high time that the National Defence Act was amended in order to require the government to obtain such authorization from Parliament. Sections 31 and 32 should formally and explicitly provide that the government is required to seek parliamentary approval, thus democratizing the process by which our armed forces are deployed to ensure international peace and security.
There has been a Crown prerogative in this area for long enough. This must be done away with, and the elected representatives of the people must be given a deciding voice when it comes to sending troops abroad to impose, build or maintain peace.
If the international community had taken action against Hitler in 1936, 50 million lives could have been spared, and the genocide of the Jewish people avoided.
Canada can assume a lead role within the Atlantic Alliance and the international community. It must stop cowering before a man who has committed and has others commit with each passing day crimes that outrage humanity and that must stop.
Just as the lovers in Sarajevo were victims of crimes that have gone largely unpunished, the lovers of Pristina must not be allowed to become the victims of the dark machinations and trickery thought up by men to justify their cowardice, to paraphrase Euripides.
These men should ask themselves why war is necessary, as sixth-grader Élyse Caron-Beaudoin did when she wrote:
Why go to war and cause such pain? Why break people's hearts Again and again?
Why let our hate Destroy our souls? Why strike down love While the drumbeat rolls?
Why orphan children Who have done no wrong? Why terrify those With nowhere to belong?
Why is there always A country at war? Why can there not be Peace ever more?
Why do you fight Young soldier, so brave? Why all these bombs And these thousands of graves?
Why is war necessary? Sometimes, too often in fact, because of cowardice. Why is war necessary? Sometimes for freedom.
Kosovo April 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious how very moved my colleague across the floor is.
Recent opinion polls indicate that women are less prepared than men to accept war, even as a means of settling differences, as is the case at present.
Under what circumstances would my colleague consider a war to be just?
Kosovo April 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, does the Reform member believe NATO should play a humanitarian role, as it is doing now, since in this conflict its role has obviously been not only to deliver air strikes, but also humanitarian aid to refugees in countries next to Kosovo?
Kosovo April 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, here is my question for the minister.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are over 655,000 refugees abroad, but within Kosovo itself there are 800,000 displaced persons.
To your knowledge, are Canada and other countries able to help displaced persons inside Kosovo and is it enough to help refugees outside Kosovo?
When will we know whether the High Commissioner for Refugees will ask Canada to take in some refugees and how exactly do you intend to inform the population?
Kosovo April 12th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the Minister of National Defence.
I was present in October 1998, when we had a debate—as the minister will remember—and there were very few members in the House. Yet the government used that debate to claim it was entitled to take part in air strikes without a vote in this House.
What the opposition objects to when we are dealing with such important issues is that the debate should be followed by a vote. I would like to hear the minister's view on this.
My question, however, is this: Has Canadian military equipment been damaged during the 19 days of air strikes, and have Canadian or Quebec military personnel been injured or been harmed in any way?