René Laurin

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

It is obvious that Canada is not comfortable with its response. As I recall, since the last world war, Canada took part in military interventions on three occasions only—

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleague to check his information. A debate was indeed held in Germany, the country that put forward the peace plan. In the U.S. too there was a debate. The American government has been keeping its citizens better informed on these matters than we have here.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I will comment on my Liberal colleague's comment.

We made comments because it was our turn to do so. We have not taken anybody's turn. We have 20 minutes to make comments but we agreed to share our time. My comments were of normal duration.

I will use the comment the member of the Liberal Party started making to tell him I find it surprising that he would invoke parliamentary practices to deny the House such a vote.

When it is time to send a delegation of 5, 6, 7, 8 or 10 members abroad as part of a parliamentary association or other group, the House is asked to authorize the required funding. It is deemed important for the House to vote on this matter.

Today, we are talking about eventually sending soldiers to risk their lives in Kosovo, and it is deemed not necessary for the House to vote on this. We are told that a cabinet decision will be sufficient. If it takes the approval of the House for 10 members to travel abroad, its approval should also be required to send hundreds or thousands of soldiers abroad.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, today, we are having another debate on the very important issue of Kosovo. This time, we wanted to make sure our demands would be crystal clear.

Over the last 20 days, in fact since the very beginning of the crisis in Kosovo, we have asked many questions. And each time, we have been given answers that were incomplete or evasive, answers that were not answers.

Today, we are asking the government to give us an opportunity to vote clearly. Obviously, this requires that the government give us the relevant information, because, before we can make an informed decision, we need to have all the available information.

The government still has a long way to go in that regard and this is why we ask the government, in the case of new developments regarding the commitment of ground troops to Kosovo, to hold a debate and a vote on this issue.

The government said no. This morning, its representative, the secretary of state, told us that the government's refusal was based on considerations of convenience and availability.

How can members of parliament officially express their opinions in the House and speak on behalf of their taxpayers and represent them well, if not by a vote?

In a democracy, the only way members of parliament can make their positions known officially and without ambiguity is by voting. Of course, we can always deliver speeches, which is what I am doing right now. That is what the government has allowed us to do so far on the issue of Kosovo. The government said it would consult parliament by giving members an opportunity to express theirs views on the issue. So far, more than 130 members have taken advantage of this opportunity.

But a speech is quite different from a vote. In a speech, we can always qualify our statements.

We can always make sure there is a way out. But when time comes to vote, you either say yes or no. This is very clear.

I believe that the taxpayers each of us represents in our respective ridings have the right to know where their member of parliament stands. Does he agree or not with what is coming next in Kosovo? Yes or no, does he support ground military action?

In a speech, the member can always say “I agree as long as” or “I disagree because of such and such event or because such and such condition was not met”. But this is not voting. You cannot vote conditionally. You either vote for or against a proposition. The taxpayers to whom we are responsible are entitled to know how we feel on the issue.

Why are taxpayers entitled to that type of respect? First of all, because it is the very essence of our democratic system. Taxpayers are entitled to know what we came here to say on their behalf. Secondly, because this Kosovo crisis is far from being over. It is not only about the actual crisis and its bombing raids that are not over yet. Besides, we do not know when all this will end. There might be ground attacks or not. We do not know. But what we do know is that it will be long.

And even when a peace agreement is reached, many weeks, months and even years will pass before the Kosovo problem is settled. Canadian taxpayers will therefore certainly be involved again.

They might be asked to make sacrifices to help the government respect the commitments that will have been made during the Kosovo war. Taxpayers are entitled to know right now what these commitments are, how far we are prepared to go, how far we are able to go, and what choices they will eventually have to face because of the decisions that we are making now.

Taxpayers are entitled to know if today in Canada decisions are made in the minister's office or the cabinet, without a vote in the House. Cabinet is ready to commit astronomical amounts. They were talking about $100 million just to take in 5,000 refugees. That was simply for bringing 5,000 Kosovars here. Needless to say that has been put on the backburner for now, but the amount forecasted was $100 million.

If it costs $100 million to take in 5,000 Kosovars, how much more does it cost to provide 18 CF-18s, in addition to the troops already deployed and the humanitarian assistance already provided to the refugees still in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia and other adjacent countries?

We figure that several million dollars have been committed to date. We are asking that the government tell us the truth, be transparent and allow us to vote for or against this.

So far, we have not hassled the government too much. So far, we have supported its positions. We have supported them because we thought it was essential that help be sent to Kosovo, where children, women and entire families live under the threat of being killed, harmed or deported. These people are sick, they do not have a home or anything to eat.

It was therefore essential that we give our support.

But now that the process has been initiated, we can take the time to ask ourselves other questions. The decisions we make are made for humanitarian reasons, but they must be made by laying everything out on the table, so that we can all give to the taxpayers of this country, our fellow citizens and constituents, information about the positions we all agreed on.

The government has no reason to prevent us from debating this issue and voting on it. Why would it deny us this right? The readiness argument does not hold.

Armed conflicts do not break out every six months. And if ever there was another one, our motion is not asking the government to settle things for all times to come. It is asking the government to ensure that we will have an opportunity to vote on the sending of troops for peacekeeping, or for other purposes, in Kosovo and in the Balkan region. This is what we want to vote on.

We are not committing ourselves for other times to come. We are not asking the government to promise us anything for other times. We are saying: “We have this situation. In this particular situation, we are asking the government for the right to fully exercise democracy, for the right to be informed and, mostly, we are asking it to give us an opportunity to express our opinion, to give our approval with a full knowledge of the issue”.

That is the least the government should commit to.

[Kosovo, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, once again yesterday we learned that NATO had requested additional participation by Canada. We also learned that the war could last a number of weeks, if not months, more.

Would it not be appropriate for the government to announce, after 23 days, what the extent of our financial involvement in the conflict is and what projections have been made, so that our commitment for the coming months may be assessed?

[Kosovo, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has informed Americans on the cost of their involvement in Kosovo. It seems to us that Canadians would be entitled to the same information and to know how much this operation is likely to cost them.

Without questioning the necessity of our participation, might we know what budget envelope the government has set for its present operations in Kosovo?

[Kosovo, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the NATO supreme commander confirmed that the U.S. had been asked for 300 more aircraft, and the allies for about 50 more, which would raise the total number of planes involved in the conflict to more than 1,000.

Can the Minister of National Defence tell us what exactly is the supplementary effort NATO is requesting from Canada, and what role those planes would play in intensifying the air strikes in Yugoslavia?

[Kosovo, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the debate in February concerned the deployment of a peacekeeping force in Kosovo.

The minister is now talking about sending these soldiers on a different mission in a different location. The House was therefore never consulted on the government's new plans.

Will the Prime Minister promise, from his seat, to not send any ground troops to Kosovo or elsewhere without consulting the House and obtaining its approval as expressed in a vote?

[Kosovo, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Defence again raised the possibility of Canada's sending between 600 and 800 ground troops to Kosovo. They would probably be posted in Macedonia.

No mention was ever made in the House of soldiers being posted anywhere but in Kosovo and doing anything but playing a humanitarian and peacekeeping role.

Would the Minister of National Defence confirm that 800 soldiers could be sent to Macedonia, and, if so, what role they will play?

[Kosovo, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is no way that the chief of the defence staff has not considered from the beginning the possibility of having to send ground troops to Kosovo. With a call from NATO possible at any time, they had to be prepared.

My question for the Prime Minister is this: Is the Canadian army ready or not to send in troops? And, if so, what role will they play?