André Bachand

[National Defence, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on the Nanoose Bay subject I ask the Prime Minister again: Is this heavy-handed approach justified, putting American military interests ahead, I repeat, ahead of the rights of the province and aboriginal people? What price will Canadian taxpayers suffer this time?

[Millennium Scholarships, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister took over two months, two tulip festivals, before appointing a negotiator. That makes no sense.

Can the minister, who today is appointing a negotiator, tell the House what his mandate will be in meeting the Quebec negotiator, when the negotiator will report to the minister and when the minister will report to the House? It is time to stop beating about the bush. Tulip time has arrived, and we need a solution.

[Millennium Scholarships, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of the millennium scholarships, two months ago I put a question to the Minister of Human Resources Development. He said he was prepared to appoint a negotiator, if such were requested. In the past two months, two agreements have been signed—with Alberta and Ontario.

This morning the minister of education sent a letter to the Minister of Human Resources Development. We learned today that the minister will announce the appointment of a negotiator, finally, after two months.

The minister is like the tulips on the Hill. He opens up, finally, and sees the light. Why did he wait two months to appoint a negotiator?

[Preclearance Act, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what is interesting about Bill S-22 is that there is unanimity on it here in the House. A very good job was done on it in the other place, particularly the amendments by two honourable senators, one of which was to put in a 5-year limit after it takes effect, after which the minister can undertake a review. This is a very wise move, and we thank the senators and the government members for having accepted the change, which I feel is a very important one. Any concerns there might be will be verified and verifiable after the legislation has been in place for five years.

I will not go back over everything other members have said this morning on Bill SS-22. Essentially, it is a very solid bill, and one that modernizes what has been done for some years in the way of airport preclearance.

There are some concerns, however. Looking at a bill like this one, one can conclude that there is not really any preclearance in the U.S. for Canada and elsewhere. As someone put it to me, “With the Canadian preclearance areas for the U.S., it is as if the Americans were trying to protect themselves, by controlling arrivals into their country from outside their country”. How reassuring.

This leads them to say “If ever there are any problems, they are not on our territory, so this will make it easier to handle arrivals of people in the United States”. This is true. One can put a negative slant on it, that is to say that the Americans are using Canadian airports to have control over what enters the United States, be it men, women, children or goods. If there is a problem, at least they are not on American soil. The law is very clear. Canadian law and the Charter prevail.

True, we are helping the U.S. authorities, but we are helping even more Canadians and Quebeckers who travel to the United States. A number of us travel to the United States on a regular basis. Preclearance and intransit areas greatly speed up entry into the United States upon arrival on U.S. soil on the other side of the border. One does not have to wait for hours.

If there is a problem, at least with preclearance one is still on Canadian soil. The minister referred earlier to this whole issue of sovereignty.

Canadian travellers have a certain guarantee. But, as I said before, there is also a guarantee for the U.S. that, should there be a problem, it will be dealt with outside of their territory. This legislation helps people living in Quebec and Canada, while also helping U.S. authorities control the movement of men, women and goods.

To sum up, as I mentioned before, Bill S-22 updates and implements a system that already exists in the context of the global economy. There is a desire to facilitate passenger travel. However, extreme caution must be exercised. Many very interesting questions were raised during the proceedings of the Senate committee. I hope that the House committee will also review the bill fully. The Americans must ensure reciprocity with respect to their legislation on preclearance and intransit areas.

But the bill is clearly a step in the right direction. We will see this in the future. Although the minister told us that very few refugee applications were made at Vancouver Airport during the preclearance and intransit areas pilot project, only one in fact, all parliamentarians must realize that other applications will follow.

There could be an increase in such applications in the future. Depending on the international context, or preclearance and intransit areas, many refugee applications will be made right here in Canada. Will Bill S-22 be blamed? That is always a possibility, but I think such applications could be attributed to the situations people face in their own country.

I would therefore like to pay tribute once again to the work done in the other Chamber. There are some exceptionally talented individuals there who are responsible for seeing that a bill as important as this one can begin or end its journey here.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the problem is what kind of message we want to send Milosevic.

At the beginning of the conflict, everyone agreed on a tough stand. Today, members are questioning the decisions of NATO and the European Community regarding an embargo or a naval blockade. Through its amendment, one party in the House is questioning those decisions, rightly or wrongly, it does not matter.

What message are we sending today? NATO has decided to impose an embargo or a blockade, not a very stringent one, but still it has decided to announce one and Europe supports it. We are saying that this is not the way to go. There should be no naval blockade or other intervention, including ground troops. What message are we sending with respect to the seriousness of past, present and future military intervention in Kosovo?

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, since we are in the middle of a conflict, we are not talking about revamping a system or an organization. In fact, there was not really any discussion of major changes at the Washington summit. Why? People are waiting to see what reaction there will be to NATO's involvement in the conflict in Kosovo. Then there will be a debriefing as to whether or not NATO did the right thing. The analysis can come later.

I remind the House that NATO was not created to do what it is now doing in Kosovo. It took a unilateral decision, without any real negotiations or discussion, to play an offensive role. It may be right, but the fact remains that a small group made this decision without any real negotiations or discussion.

People are asking what role NATO should play. It is no longer the same organization that it was 50 years ago. It has changed completely. In fact, the various types of international organizations should be reviewed.

Will NATO become an organization for ensuring the military protection of Europe, as seems to be happening, in which case there will be military forces on every continent to ensure a certain stability? Maybe so, and maybe not.

Thought is being given to revamping NATO. The organization has undergone a rapid metamorphosis over the past year. Should NATO revert to its original role, or stay as it is? That is perhaps the real question.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we do not have a lot of time, but I would like to thank the New Democratic Party for allowing this House, once again, to continue its debate on the events in Kosovo. Once again, this is an opposition initiative.

This motion and the proposed amendment make significant reference to the blockade or embargo that NATO and the European countries have decided to decree. The New Democrats do not support a blockade or embargo. In essence, the reason is to avoid upsetting or angering Russia. Russia has been cropping up in discussions since the start of this conflict.

However, I would remind my New Democrat colleagues that we started bombing Yugoslavia and Kosovo without giving a whole lot of thought to Russia. Furthermore, I would point out that it was not an embargo or blockade that was proposed, but a check, control, at the borders, including those of Montenegro.

We read in this morning's paper, in statements by our own Minister of National Defence and a German general, that no ships will be stopped by force. Requests will be made to board ships delivering cargo to Yugoslavia, including oil.

They said in their statement that there would not be too much of a push. They are afraid of the reaction of the Russians. The Minister of National Defence went even further, saying that Russian oil exports to Yugoslavia would not be stopped.

There is a war of words. In addition to a real war, there is a war of words that, in my opinion, is really not credible. Why? Because, from the beginning, Yugoslavia was told that it would be bombed but no ground troops would be sent. Now, it is being told that there will be an embargo, but that no ships will be stopped and Russia will be allowed to continue exporting its oil.

There is a credibility problem in this war, no clear plan of action. All eyes are on Russia. Our minister is to hold meetings; it is worth mentioning and worthy of our appreciation. After this visit, Russia will probably put a resolution before the security council. The council will say that, in the event of a ceasefire—not peace, because negotiating peace is a long, drawn-out affair—in Kosovo and in Yugoslavia, Russia should lead a force under the UN. We will quickly see this in the security council in the days and weeks ahead.

And all to the good, if it will end the war. Increasingly, we are seeing cracks and divisions beginning to develop in the Yugoslavian bloc, just as they are developing in this House. We are starting to qualify our initial reactions, our initial statements, our initial press releases. Divisions are becoming apparent in Parliament.

It is clear that the House is divided, just as the Yugoslavian parliament is divided. The Yugoslav deputy prime minister—who may or may not be credible—is becoming open to the idea of a unilateral ceasefire, on condition that troops are withdrawn from Kosovo. There is no talk of peace. That will require negotiation, and a signed agreement. But at least there is talk of a ceasefire.

This is good news because President Milosevic has been called so many names, and accused of war crimes and of crimes against humanity. It was difficult, therefore, for NATO to find someone with whom it could eventually sign a peace accord. It would appear there is now a breach in the Serb bloc, which could lead to a peaceful settlement.

We are seeing the same thing here. During the first two weeks of fighting, opposition parties, especially the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois, had rather harsh positions and were talking about genocide in Kosovo and deploying ground troops there. The NDP member corrected our Reform colleague but I too remember that we were talking rather tough. The media were reporting that several opposition parties were calling for the deployment of ground troops. Today the situation has changed. We are talking diplomacy. Of course it is important, we have been saying it all along.

But we should restrain NATO's eagerness. Let us not forget the war in Kosovo is been conducted under NATO's auspices. In the end what the amendment from the New Democratic Party is saying is that NATO should maintain its current position and not do more. What a nice message for Milosevic. It is as if we were saying to him “Don't worry, we will not deploy ground troops, we will not prevent you from buying oil or food”. This is not the kind of message we ought to be sending. The initial message was loud and clear. Are we going to stick to it or not? If not, let us get out of there real quick.

I do not believe anything will come of this idea of a blockade or embargo, because at any rate right here in Canada, in Germany and elsewhere in the world people are saying it is not a real blockade, a real embargo.

We are now seeing Canada multiplying diplomatic initiatives, which is good. But what did Canada do before the war? On one of the occasions when the Minister of Foreign Affairs appeared before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, I asked him what efforts and actions Canada had taken in the 9 to 12 months prior to this war. The minister is supposed to be providing us with that information. What action did Canada take to try to prevent this war? What efforts did it make on the diplomatic front?

At this time we are at war, and the diplomatic process is being stepped up, as indeed it should be. But what was done in the past? We do not know. What was Canada's role before the war? The government has kept very quiet so far. We are still waiting for the documents. This is not very credible, unless we are given evidence to the contrary. We are still waiting for the information.

Much emphasis has been put on Russia, and Canada also wants to play an important role. Canada is an aggressor in Kosovo. It is, therefore, certain that a third party will have to step in, before an end to this conflict can be reached, hopefully.

Yesterday, the President of Libya was putting in his two cents worth. Canada can play an important diplomatic role, but not with the Serbs. This is impossible. We are one of the aggressors in Kosovo, so a third party needs to be called in, and that third party is Russia.

We also need to wonder what sort of ceasefire there will be, in the near future, or so I hope. What sort of peace treaty will there be? There are many differing opinions here in this House, as well as on the international scene. Will there be a protectorate? Will the be an accord similar to the Rambouillet accord? In the schedule appended to the Rambouillet agreement, it was set out that three years after its signing, the Kosovars would be asked about their future. Would they opt for independence, autonomy or a protectorate? The Serbs refused, because they consider Kosovo part of Yugoslavia, and they would never let it go. Autonomy within Yugoslavia is one thing. Independence, never.

The Rambouillet agreement contained an important element, which, rightly or wrongly, offended the Serbs, and which was the fact that three years later a referendum would be held and the Kosovars would decide their future. This may be a fine thing in the Canadian context, it is very democratic, but, in the Balkan context, it is another matter.

The whole picture needs reassessing. There is a lot of improvisation going on. Everyone recognizes that a tragedy is unfolding in Kosovo. As the conflict continues, peace plans are being proposed. Measures that are not really applicable are being advanced. There is talk of ground troops and then there is talk that there will not be any. There is a significant lack of planning.

We hope that things will be resolved very quickly. Here in Ottawa, today, the weather is fine, the sun is shining. In Kosovo and in Yugoslavia the roads, bridges, houses, water supply and electrical systems are all destroyed. If the war lasts another two or three months, what will happen to the 750,000 Kosovar refugees in Albania? Winter will come. Will they spend winter in little tents? The country is destroyed.

We need to find a peace agreement very soon. We must propose effective means and be credible in our proposals.

[Kosovo, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks of slaughter, rape and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

This information comes, I hope, from sources other than the media. Such actions alone would probably justify sending ground in ground troops.

Could the Prime Minister share with members of the House the information he has on these atrocities? This would not put anyone's life on the line, and might actually save lives. Could the Prime Minister share with members of the House his sources of information on the atrocities in Kosovo?

[Kosovo, April 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, you see, he has still not answered the question.

It is now one month since we have been at war, and there has been no real debate, no real information session. It is a war of improvization. We have gone from 6 planes to 18, and perhaps more. One month of war, no information, no consultation, no vote.

Can the minister tell us whether the information we raised yesterday falls into the category of national security, yes or no? Can he answer? It is easy. Is it, or is it not, a national security issue?