René Laurin

[Kosovo, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it would be most desirable for this agreement between the G-8 countries to be accepted not only by the Security Council of the United Nations, but also by the government in Belgrade. Does Canada consider the principles of this agreement to be negotiable or is it prepared to impose them without the agreement of President Milosevic?

[Kosovo, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Yesterday, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs adopted general principles which ought to lead to a political solution to the Kosovo crisis.

Since these general principles must become a UN security council resolution, what approach does Canada plan to use in order to get China not to use its veto against implementation of these principles?

[Kosovo, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what hope can the Prime Minister still have for a positive outcome to these diplomatic efforts, if he and increasing numbers of NATO leaders believe that a solution should be imposed on Belgrade, because Milosevic is no longer a partner for negotiations they can trust?

[Kosovo, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is a growing consensus among NATO leaders, particularly the U.S. president, that Slobodan Milosevic is no longer a valid partner for negotiations and that a solution to the conflict will have to be imposed on him.

Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he shares this view or whether he still believes that a solution can be negotiated with Milosevic's regime?

[Kosovo, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government of Montenegro wants to protect its citizens from civil war and economic collapse. It has indicated its readiness to receive foreign observers to ensure that oil delivered to it is not passed on to the Milosevic regime.

So, instead of responding in any old which way, in the “so much the better” style, should the Prime Minister not convince his allies to try every possible way to get the Serb government to concede, while minimizing the impact on Montenegro?

[Kosovo, April 29th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were entitled to a clear response by the Prime Minister of Canada to the call from the Deputy Prime Minister of Montenegro, who has said he is prepared to take up arms against the Milosevic regime to protect his oil reserves. The response was “so much the better”.

How does the Prime Minister reconcile this very offhand remark with the statement on Kosovo he signed in Washington on the weekend, and which provides, at article 5, that any action by Belgrade against the government of Montenegro would have serious consequences?

[Kosovo, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister of Montenegro has said he has oil reserves to last two months approximately and that he would fight to defend them, should Belgrade try to get around a blockade by raiding Montenegro's oil supply.

As NATO made a commitment on the weekend to protect all the countries around Yugoslavia in the event of Serb aggression, what has the Prime Minister to say to the Government of Montenegro, which is saying it is prepared to take up arms against Milosevic to protect its oil reserves?

[Kosovo, April 28th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the diplomatic measures that must be intensified, one way to put a quick stop to the conflict is to paralyze the Serb war machine by depriving it of oil. Without oil, even the best tank is worthless. It is easy to understand.

In its diplomatic efforts, has the government taken steps with the leaders in Montenegro to discuss ways of cutting supplies to Serbia without paralyzing Montenegro?

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for letting us know about the whishes of children in his riding.

This shows that we in Quebec live by the democratic spirit of institutional governance. We want to live peacefully, this is a concern children have very early on. For them to convey this to children in Kosovo shows that Canadians and Quebeckers in particular are a peace-loving people who, even when they have to take this kind of measures, are still seeking international peace and stability.

In a situation like this one, a vote is a must. We just gave a mandate to our troops. We are sending from 600 to 800 soldiers supposedly to keep the peace, but we never know when the conflict might escalate.

As I mentioned before, the paper Le Monde was reporting today that the 12,000 NATO troops already deployed had stones thrown at them; two weeks ago a jeep was set on fire; and already there are signs of impatience. These people are not in Kosovo, they are in Macedonia.

Will the soldiers we are sending in come under attack? Will they be the target of violence? Do they have the mandate and authority to defend themselves? If so, they seem to, according to what the minister said this morning. But if they have a mandate to defend themselves against attack by the extremists over there, what assurance do we have that there will be no escalation, that things will not degenerate? What assurance do we have that they will not be forced to attack in order to defend themselves? Where is the line drawn between legitimate self-defence, attack and combat?

This means that the troops are perhaps right on the verge of engaging in a combat that will lead who knows where. It would therefore be important for this House to send a message, through a precise and clear vote in this House, a heavy majority vote, to these people who are headed off to defend freedom, to defend democracy, telling them “You have the support of all Canadians and all Quebeckers. The people are behind you. They support you because they know you are going to defend the freedom and the spirit of democracy they hold so dear”.

What more do we need? The Prime Minister tells us that, if there were any changes in the situation, he would come back to the House for a debate. At the end of a debate, a mere 15 or 20 minutes are needed for the House to be heard through a vote.

Is it that the Prime Minister's daily agenda is 15 or 20 minutes too short, or is it because the issue is not on the cabinet's agenda?

The House has spent hours upon hours, sometimes until 3, 4, 5 and even 8 in the morning, debating such issues. Since we can talk for hours on end, what prevents us from taking an additional 15 minutes to vote on these issues?

The Prime Minister spoke of the need for flexibility, for being able to react quickly in extreme situations. But would 15 minutes prevent him from taking quick action? France stated its position through its prime minister.

Today, Lionel Jospin assured French parliamentarians that the possibility of a military involvement on the ground would not be considered without submitting the matter to them. “In such a case, you would be consulted in a formal fashion to authorize or not, through a vote, such an intervention”.

If France can do it, so can Canada. This is what respect for democracy is all about.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we have now been discussing the problems in Kosovo for more than a month. I believe it is important for us to examine the progress we have made because the Prime Minister has just told us that he is now sending troops to Macedonia.

The situation is, briefly, as follows: Kosovar refugees have been driven out of Kosovo. Of these, some 140,000 are in Macedonia, 375,000 in Albania, and 75,000 in Montenegro. Some are in France, and a few in England. It is estimated that, in all, about 735,000 Kosovars have been forced out of their country. In addition, it is estimated that another 500,000 to 800,000 have been forced out of their homes but remain within Kosovo.

Considering that there are about two million Albanians in Kosovo, this means that more than three-quarters of the population is now experiencing instability.

This situation requires us to ask ourselves what our reaction should be, as a country that is outside this theatre of military conflict.

Obviously, we cannot be insensitive to the situation, but it must be kept in mind that what we are seeking first of all is to restore peace. We also seek to prevent more Kosovars being forced out of their country. We seek to restore peace. We want to see the expelled Kosovars be allowed to return to their country of origin and start to rebuild.

So we cannot oppose any action that might lead to the achievement of these objectives. The last measure we discussed was an embargo by NATO members and neighbouring countries to block oil supplies to Serbia.

Obviously, if, after we have bombed oil refineries and destroyed this means of oil production, they succeed in obtaining oil supplies from outside, we have not really resolved the problem. There are in fact countries that would stand to benefit since, for them, this is a new export target. It could be economically attractive, as a stopgap measure.

We are not talking about a blockade. I think that was made clear. Setting up a blockade could be very dangerous, because it assumes military force will be used against tankers bringing supplies to Serbia. There could be Russian tankers among these ships, and the Russians are sympathetic to the Serbian cause, at present. Will we open up new fronts? I think we have to be very careful.

An embargo implies the willing consent of all possible oil suppliers. If the international community is aware of the danger Kosovo represents, it should willingly agree to this embargo and refuse to deliver oil to this country in conflict.

The best solution is still patience, diplomacy and political negotiations.

It is true we are dropping bombs, and there are skirmishes. There is no ground combat, but there is air combat. However, we must think that, beyond the fighting, there will have to be peace one day. So every action taken today must be taken, considered and planned according to what will happen at the end of the conflict.

It is all very well to crush a people and a political regime, but to crush the feelings and emotions of a people is something else. These people will have to live together after the conflict and live in peace. The Kosovars and the Serbs will have to live next to each other and maintain economic, social and political relations. They will have to accept to live as a community.

When two peoples are pitted against each other, they can be forced to cohabit. They can be physically forced to do something, but we cannot change their souls, their minds, their feelings and their emotions through force.

The consequences of this conflict may be felt for many years, if not generations. This is why we must carefully measure the impact of each action, to avoid exacerbating the psychological state of those who will have to live together after the conflict has ended.

We must save lives, not only the lives of Kosovars, who are currently mistreated and forced from their homes, but also the lives of Serbs. There are Serbs who are innocent in this conflict. There is a president, a dictator who does not care about the population. However, there are also innocent Serbs who are being forced to take military action.

Not all the Serbs are prepared to take arms in this conflict. These people also deserve to live. They too are at the mercy of a tyrant and they will need understanding and help. Their lives deserve to be saved just like those of the Kosovars and of the people in neighbouring countries.

Instability in the Balkans would pose a threat to all of Europe and perhaps even to the other countries that might be drawn into a world war. We must take great care that this goal of saving lives now does not lead us to thoughtless acts of war that would yield undesirable results.

At any rate, the decisions being made are very serious. This is why we congratulated the Prime Minister today on informing us of Canada's most recent decision to send troops over there. We are delighted that the House was the first to be informed, but we believe this is not enough.

We still ask for a vote on this and on the deployment of troops. We do not know what the future will bring.

What will happen to the 600 or 800 Canadian troops who are going to be sent to Macedonia in the weeks to come? They will bear arms, they might come under attack. This has already begun. This morning a dispatch published in Le Monde said “Acts of anger or open hostility against NATO countries are becoming more numerous in Macedonia”.

Further it said “The twelve thousand NATO men stationed in Macedonia frequently have stones thrown at them. On April 20, a French forces jeep was set on fire in a village inhabited by Serbs”. This is happening in Macedonia. This is what NATO troops are being subjected to.

How can we tell whether in a week or two—