Monique Guay

[Armenian People, April 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the ethnic cleansing taking place in Kosovo at the present time is one more reminder that the 20th century will go down in history as a century of bloodshed, a century of atrocities, a century of genocides.

If such atrocities, such genocides, are to be avoided, humankind must acknowledge its responsibility, for each time crimes against humanity are committed, they are committed against each and every one of us, and by each and every one of us.

It is therefore unforgivable that this parliament has not yet acknowledged the Armenian genocide, the first genocide to take place in this century.

The Liberal Party's obstinate refusal to acknowledge this crime is shameful, but still worse, it puts a heavy responsibility on our shoulders, for refusing to acknowledge the first genocide of this century makes us bear part of the burden of, and responsibility for, those that followed.

The Bloc Quebecois recognizes the Armenian genocide, as does the Quebec National Assembly. The memory of this tragedy is a painful one, but it must be kept constantly in mind. Today, with the Armenians of Quebec, of Canada, and of the entire world—

[Kosovo, April 21st, 1999]

One more attempt from the government side to reassure us, Mr. Speaker, but we still lack an awful lot of information.

Can the minister commit to including representatives of the NGOs helping the Kosovo refugees in the government briefing sessions, so that we may know to whom the humanitarian aid is really going?

[Kosovo, April 21st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, according to some alarming rumours, a sizeable portion of the humanitarian aid sent to the Kosovar refugees is apparently being diverted to the black market by local gangsters.

According to these sources, this diversion might affect up to 70% of the aid being sent, and apparently certain humanitarian organizations have already moved out of some regions because of this major problem.

Could the Minister for International Co-operation bring us up to date on this extremely worrisome situation?

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government could certainly send troops without consulting the House. However, I think it would be ill-advised. The government would have a heavy price to pay for making decisions without consulting the members of this House. It would be undemocratic to send in troops without informing us. This kind of decision should be discussed and made in the House. Members have views they want to express. There are members from all over Canada who also have an opinion on the matter and who are certainly getting phone calls at their riding or Ottawa offices from people who take a stand and want to know what their member really thinks of this war, but who may not have all the information.

We have a role to play, and we should be allowed to play it in the House. Otherwise, what is the use of electing members of parliament? To act like a bunch of yes-men and women just supporting the government? That is not what we are here for. We are here to represent our constituents and vote on important issues like sending in troops to participate in the ongoing war in Kosovo.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

I think that in any parliament democracy must rule. What is happening in this parliament is worrisome for the future and the decisions that will have to be made, especially when we are asked to send in soldiers to defend the interests of people who are at war and in a desperate situation.

As I indicated in my speech, even opinion polls are in favour of sending troops. Therefore, I do not see why the government would not consult members from all parties. The House could reach a consensus, which would provide stronger moral support to our troops who would be deployed over there.

This is disappointing because we are here to represent the people. I represent every single constituent in the riding of Laurentides, and these people might have liked to see me take a stand here in this House on sending troops to Kosovo.

I sincerely hope, because I doubt the government's decision is final, that the government will make the right decision in letting us debate the issue in the House so that all parties can eventually vote on this decision.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to again rise to speak on this, our opposition day.

The war in Kosovo is now in its 26th day. Who would have believed that the conflict would have gone on this long? With NATO and all the new military technologies involved, we might have expected it to be over in a few days at most.

Unfortunately, we underestimated Milosevic and the Serbian government. In particular, we had not predicted how fast and efficient that government would be in its ethnic cleansing operations against the population of Kosovo.

The Bloc Quebecois has always regretted this war, and all war moreover, yet intervention in Kosovo was necessary, unfortunately. Necessary because Milosevic and the Serb army are engaged in literally depopulating Kosovo.

The latest figures on the massive exodus of the Kosovar population are terrifying. The UNHCR is now talking of some 400,000 Kosovar refugees in Albania, 150,000 in Macedonia, 75,000 in Montenegro, and 32,000 in Bosnia.

This is not taking into account the 260,000 Kosovars refugees within Kosovo itself, nor those who have taken refuge in the mountains. To date, NATO estimates that this war has claimed 3,200 lives. NATO also believes it has found 43 mass graves. This is not even taking into account the rapes, the physical atrocities and the psychological sufferings of an entire people.

For all of these reasons, all available resources must be deployed in order to relieve the sufferings and improve the living conditions of the Kosovar refugees in Bosnia, in Macedonia, in Albania and in Montenegro. It is therefore important to provide the High Commissioner for Refugees with all the humanitarian aid and logistical support appropriate.

To this end, we are still awaiting a clear response from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to the question I asked here in the House last week. Members will remember I asked her if the government was prepared to commit to using the $100 million set aside to take in the refugees here in order to provide additional support to the NGOs on location in the Balkans.

The minister responded at the time with banalities such as “the situation is stabilizing at the borders there”. However, according to the HCR, Macedonia alone expects an additional 100,000 refugees in the next few days. No need to point out that the needs are urgent in the various refugee camps.

When will the minister be announcing that this $100 million will go to refugees in the Balkans? It is a matter of life and death, and the money is available here and now.

I would hope that the minister and the government will show compassion as soon as possible, before it is too late.

It is very clear that we are now facing new realities and that the NATO forces should reassess their strategies in this war.

That is where the problem lies. The Government of Canada's haughty attitude toward the members of this parliament, drawn, it must be said, from the Liberal leader's arrogant treatment of the opposition members, prevents us from having a clear picture of the situation in the Balkans. This deplorable attitude is reflected in this government's lack of transparency in releasing information on this war.

As a member of this House democratically elected by the people of the riding of Laurentides, I am very frustrated by the Prime Minister's refusal to allow a debate followed by a vote on the possibility of sending Canadian troops in the Balkan region or on any other initiative, whether military or diplomatic.

Yet, according to an Angus Reid poll, 59% of Canadians would be willing to support the deployment of ground troops, and 61% would agree to the involvement of Canadian soldiers in this ground operation, if it became necessary.

Why is the government still stubbornly refusing to allow a vote on this issue here in the House? Considering the Angus Reid poll results, it would be in the best interests of the government to vote on this issue. The government would then come out stronger in its support, as would the Canadian democratic system.

Let us remember the Gulf war in 1991. At that time, Liberals were in the opposition. Despite the three votes taken in the House of Commons about that war, the hon. member for Shawinigan had openly criticized the government for its lack of willingness to fulfil its duty of having a consultation and a debate.

Eight years later, the Liberal government is trampling not only on Canadian democracy, but also on its own ideas. Even Yves Fortier, the former Canadian ambassador to the UN, publicly blamed the Prime Minister for his lack of transparency regarding Canadian positions and actions in the Kosovo crisis.

Since the beginning of the war in the Balkans, the government has been providing information on the conflict in dribbles. It is time the government stopped acting that way. Quebeckers and Canadians as well as members of parliament have a right to know the different military or diplomatic options to which the Canadian government and NATO are giving priority.

To this day, the Bloc Quebecois and other opposition parties have all supported the decisions of the government, but this does not mean that the Bloc Quebecois is ready to sign a blank cheque. We demand a substantial debate followed by a vote, to allow members of parliament to take a just and informed decision on the opportunity to send ground troops to Kosovo.

Why such lack of transparency compared to other governments? Germany has voted twice on the advisability of air strikes in Kosovo.

The United States will also vote on the granting of additional funding requested by the Pentagon to increase the American participation in Kosovo. The Hungarian parliament also voted to allow NATO aircraft to fly over its territory. The Czech Republic voted on the same issue. What is the Canadian government waiting for to show the same openness?

The lack of democracy created by the silence of the Liberal government could have a negative impact on the consensus we now have in this House. Indeed, how are we expected to be able to assess NATO's diplomatic or military initiatives if the government does not think of providing us with adequate information, which would encourage this House to debate and vote on these initiatives?

Eventually, the Bloc Quebecois might be forced to raise serious concerns on the advisability of those initiatives, which could bring the present consensus to an end.

In 1991, during the gulf war, members of the House received excellent information on the state of the conflict and governmental initiatives but this time we are better informed on the crisis in Kosovo by the medias. This is not right.

In closing, I remind all members of the House that the Bloc Quebecois is deeply disturbed by the atrocities and ethnic cleansing activities directed against Kosovars. To put a stop to such atrocities, all diplomatic and military alternatives, including sending ground troops to Kosovo, must be debated in this House and approved through a vote. What is at stake is the health of our democratic system, the legitimacy of this government, and perhaps even the survival of a people.

I would like to conclude with a short poem written by a pupil at the École des Ursulines de Québec. Her name is Sarah-Émilie Mercier. Her poem is about peace, and I will read it now:

Why does peace elude mankind? Why not put our hate behind? With fighting and poverty all round the earth Peace has retreated for all it is worth And though I seek it near and far It has become like a distant star What is so hard to comprehend? Love one another, and wars will all end.

[Kosovo, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, is it not the duty of NATO countries to prevent genocide rather than to discover after the fact that there has been genocide. In this connection, what do they intend to do to follow up on the serious indications that there has been genocide in Kosovo?

[Kosovo, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, while the Kosovo Albanians are being kept within the country because the Serbs have mined the roads leading to Albania, 43 mass graves have apparently been discovered, additional proof that the ethnic cleansing is turning into genocide.

Since the Serbs have mined the exit routes from Kosovo to Albania, in order to force the Albanians to remain in Kosovo, does Canada not fear that the objective of this operation is to purely and simply eliminate this trapped population?

[Reform Of International Organizations, April 19th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on Motion No. 338, which was moved by colleague from the Reform Party.

The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should convene in 1998 a meeting of “like-minded nations” in order to develop a multilateral plan of action to reform international organizations (e.g. International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations) so that they can identify the precursors of conflict and establish multilateral, conflict prevention initiatives.

This is very nicely put, but the Bloc Quebecois must point out right away that it will vote against Motion No. 338. Let us have a closer look together at the motion.

First it says, and I quote:

—the government should convene in 1998 a meeting of 'like-minded nations' in order to develop a multilateral plan of action—

Members will agree with me that “like-minded nations” is a very vague and general concept. According to the logic of the motion, it would appear that the Reform Party is trying to create some level of separation, which we in the Bloc Quebecois find unacceptable, between industrialized countries, otherwise known as “like-minded nations”, and developing countries.

This is clearly undemocratic and paternalistic. How dare the Reform Party exclude developing countries out of hand from the drafting of such a multilateral plan of action?

The reform proposed by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca would directly affect poor countries since for the most part conflicts are taking place in developing countries.

Any reform aimed at significantly changing the role of international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the United Nations must be carried out in consultation with the countries affected.

In fact, I would like to remind the Reform Party that the main aim of organizations such as the World Bank or the United Nations is to help developing countries.

Therefore, why exclude poor countries from this reform? They are the primary beneficiaries of the assistance provided by these organizations. It is important to consult these countries before undertaking any reform, so as to be aware of their needs and concerns, and have an accurate idea of the reality of the people affected by poverty or conflicts. This only makes sense.

Any reform must be undertaken in partnership with international organizations and governments, the people affected and NGOs in the field. We have a lot to learn from them. But the Reform Party is advocating unilateral action by industrialized countries. The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this way of doing things.

With its delusions of grandeur, the Reform Party wants to reform everything. But before trying to reform everything on this planet, it should start right here, in the Canadian government's own back yard. Believe me, there are lots of weeds in that back yard.

Since the Liberals came to office in 1993, CIDA's budget for international assistance has been reduced by almost 30%. Yet, more than 1.3 billion people are living in abject poverty, barely surviving on less than a dollar a day. Every day, 34,000 children die from malnutrition and disease.

Before the Liberals took office, Canada was seen as a leader in development aid. Now, because of the Liberals' poor record in this field, Canada's image and reputation have been tarnished.

Canada is, in fact, no longer one of the top donors to the developing countries. It has now dropped from fifth to eleventh.

Betty Plewes, the president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Council for International Development, the CCIC, a coalition of 100 major Canadian organizations active in the development filed, stated as follows:

The aid to development program has been more affected by deficit cutting measures than other federal programs.

This is proof that Canada could very well, within the very near future, no longer be on the list of the most generous and most committed members of the international donor community. This government is so irresponsible that it has reached the stage of neglecting the true human values.

In the last budget, the government added $50 million to its international aid budget, out of a total CIDA budget of just under $2 billion.

The Minister of Finance claims to thus be taking a step toward attaining the objective of devoting 7% of the GDP to development aid. Yet all this does is to just barely allow it to keep up. At the rate it is going, the federal government will not attain that objective before the fourth millennium.

The international aid budget is a perfect example of the distortion between Liberal rhetoric and the reality of facts and figures.

I hope that this brief analysis will enable the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to realize that it would be advisable, and preferable, to look to what is going on in here in Canada before trying to revolutionize the entire world. Before trying to create new international structures, let us concentrate on better adapting the institutions we already have to the new political, social and economic realities of our day.

Motion No. 338 by the Reform Party is all the more incomprehensible when one looks at the May 1995 final report by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, “From Bretton Woods to Halifax and Beyond: Towards a 21st Summit for the 21st Century Challenge”. This was a unanimous report addressing issues of international financial institutions reforms for the agenda of the June 1995 G-7 Halifax summit.

At page 14 of the executive summary, it states:

Ultimately the world's peoples through their representatives need to have a democratic voice in the changes affecting global economic security and development.

The Reform Party supported this statement, because it supported this report. So, what is behind this sudden change in direction? Could we say improvisation?

I invite the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to read the very instructive report on the renewal and reform of the institutions responsible for international economics, including the IMF and the World Bank. Had he read this report, the member would probably not have presented his motion, because it raises the concerns the member refers to in his motion.

In closing, I would remind you that the Bloc Quebecois has always had a concern for the operation of international agencies, such as the UN, the IMF and the World Bank. They have repeatedly proven their role in the maintenance of world order.

That said, nothing is perfect. Political, social and economic change occurs on our planet at a tremendous rate and these institutions must keep up with the changes. However, if the developing countries are to be denied a say in the reform of these institutions, as the Reform Party is proposing, the Bloc Quebecois must oppose Motion No. 338.

The world balance is precarious enough at the moment. There is therefore no question of heightening the reality of excluding the developing countries. Globalization is not only economic, but social and human as well.

[Kosovo, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, given that European Union members have already pledged to sign a solidarity pact for the Balkans which will include trade agreements and economic assistance totalling at least 250 million Euros to promote political stability in the countries of the region, can the Prime Minister tell us if Canadian assistance to rebuild Kosovo will be provided separately, or if Canada as a member of the OSCE intends to become a party to the larger pact proposed by the European Union?