Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the House and to Canadians about the ongoing military conflict in Yugoslavia and to offer my remarks on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. This discussion is overdue and a substantive debate and vote is what Canadians deserve.
Members of the Canadian armed forces are taking part in a justified offensive action to end the slaughter and to return the basic rights of innocents in Kosovo. It is ironic that the Prime Minister and his government have had to be cajoled and shamed into consulting the elected representatives of Canadians with respect to Canada's participation in this conflict.
Before today, there have been two occasions when the government has asked members of this House to take note of the situation in Kosovo, on October 7, 1998 and on February 17, 1999. Both of these discussions were held under extraordinary rules; no motion was before the House for approval and a constitutional rule requiring the attendance of members was not observed. Parliament has never been asked to vote on this terrible matter in Kosovo.
War is not familiar to those of my generation. It is something I wanted to exist only in old film reels, yellowed newspapers and history books. Conflict in central Europe was something that was meant to be restricted to the archives or the annals of time. Sadly we find the atrocities of Kosovo dominating our mass media. We cannot ignore the lessons of history or shirk the Canadian tradition of service that we inherit.
I offer my support and that of my party to the women and men of the Canadian armed forces. They are courageously putting their lives on the line to restore peace and stability to the province of Kosovo.
Few of us here can properly appreciate or understand the commitment that our forces are making to end the terror of ethnic cleansing and racial murder in Yugoslavia. Our commitment to peace and safety of Canadians, our allies, the people of Kosovo demand that we cannot be neutral. Make no mistake about it, the Conservative Party supports Canada's NATO efforts thus far.
We must continue all efforts to seek solutions that would ensure that our soldiers and the people of Kosovo have a dignified way out of this horror. However, we now confront the reality that Canadians are facing the real possibility of battlefield deployment. Now is the time to consult before more Canadians are asked to put their lives at risk. Canadians have a proud record of international military service. It is imperative that we exercise proper judgment and discretion when sending our armed forces abroad.
It was a former Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, the leader of the Canadian government during the first world war, who said of a nation's military interventions “continuous consultation leading to concerted action”. After all, it was Borden who during the great war worked tirelessly to ensure that Canada had significant military and diplomatic influence during that most infamous period of instability. Borden's efforts secured Canada a seat at the Versailles treaty table. His leadership helped define Canada's place on the world stage.
This government could learn from Borden's actions and from the efforts of our former government. Through this conflict we have seen yet again the callous disregard this government has for parliament and the people of Canada.
It appears Canadian forces were called to action without a proper plan. While we as a party fully support Canada's military actions thus far, it is the method and the means with which the government made this commitment which is offensive to parliament and to the Canadian democratic principles.
The choices at times like this are never simple. Innocent people were being killed before the intervention, as they are now. All avenues other than intervention were tried and failed. The question then became whether the world was to stand back and allow actions tantamount to mass murder of a people, the forced expulsion of people from their ancient homes and a pattern of aggression that threatened the stability of a region, a region whose instability has plunged the world into war before. With stakes this high, this real, it was incumbent upon NATO and Canada to act.
Inaction can always be justified, and the world did justify it in Rwanda, in Burundi and elsewhere. This is a precedent of which we cannot be proud, either on humanitarian grounds or as for regional stability.
Nor is this a precedent which should bind our hands in circumstances where the prospects of successful intervention might be stronger. There is a question of state sovereignty, but as Mr. Milosevic has demonstrated, there are a multitude of ways to violate the sovereignty of one's neighbours and one's people.
At the end of the day the question became whether the alliance which had tried other means should simply stand back and let events take their murderous course. We cannot turn a blind eye when such inhumane suffering is inflicted on a people by their own government.
History has demonstrated that it would have been preferable to act under the broader mandate of the United Nations. Canadians deserve to know in great detail how Canada used its unique influence as a member of the security council and as a close friend and ally of the United States of America to advance that option.
In the early 1990s the previous government adopted a two track policy with respect to the crisis in the Persian Gulf, working for peace but preparing for hostilities if diplomacy failed. That record clearly shows that from the day Iraq invaded Kuwait, the former government engaged in extensive diplomatic efforts designed to find a peaceful solution to that crisis. Those efforts included wide consultation in that region and elsewhere, promotion of the importance of the UN as the instrument of the world's response, urging the prompt withdrawal by Iraq and counselling prudence on the part of our allies.
Everything the previous government did, it did knowing that international peace and order was its overriding objective. And we did not fear consultation with parliament.
The Prime Minister will recall that in 1990 and 1991 during the crisis in the gulf, the Progressive Conservative government placed before the House substantive motions for a vote. The Prime Minister has said in his remarks that our soldiers deserve the support and respect of Canadians and of parliament. Surely the best way to achieve that unanimity is through a vote in the House.
The Deputy Prime Minister has put forward an amendment to a motion before the House seeking that the House of Commons give approval to the government prior to any commitment of ground troops. I ask rhetorically, will the Prime Minister seek such approval if the need for ground troops arises in this conflict? Our foreign policy should not shrink from the world around us.
The crisis also raises questions about Canada's role and influence in international affairs. Sadly, under the Liberal government we are paying a price for the gradual deterioration in Canada's capacity to act internationally.
Unfortunately, Canada now has a government that is shirking its responsibilities and leadership. This has led to an erosion in Canada's stature abroad. This is what causes us to question the nature of its multilateral efforts in the context of the Kosovo conflict.
We cannot forget that. Despite our huge investment in peacekeeping in the former Yugoslavia, Canada was not invited to be a member of the contact group negotiating with the various sides of the conflict in 1995.
In May 1995, when NATO bombed Bosnian Serb ammunition dumps in the vicinity of our peacekeepers, Canada was not advised of the situation in advance. Scores of Canadian soldiers were taken hostage in retaliation.
On the other hand, the policy of the former government was to work with the United Nations from the beginning to take more action both diplomatically and militarily. We firmly proclaimed our belief in collective security and responsibility in our commitment to help others. We did not follow the UN or NATO. We led them.
It is a sad spectacle when the current Prime Minister admitted in June 1995 in this House that Canada's international stature was so diminished under his leadership that the UN and NATO gave us no forewarning of air strikes in Bosnia.
A little over a year ago, the government was mounting the argument for Canadian participation in the military action against Iraq. The Minister of Foreign Affairs at that time admitted that Canada had not made any serious effort to achieve a consensus among the UN security council before such action because we ran the risk of establishing and defining a rift within the UN security council.
Pretending that problem did not exist was wrong and is highlighted today because that rift exists within the security council with respect to Kosovo.
This is further evidence that Canada has not maintained the political and diplomatic capability which was until recently a defining feature of Canada's role in the world.
It is still not clear, given the answers and the comments offered today by the Prime Minister, what diplomatic efforts the government undertook to resolve that rift.
When my party formed the government of Canada, we were successful in bringing the unique influence of Canada to play in order to carry out one of the mandates of the United Nations. Has the present government really fulfilled its role in persuading Washington, Moscow and Beijing to carry out one of the mandates of the United Nations?
How hard did the government try to use our unique position to persuade Washington, Moscow and then Beijing to achieve a UN mandate? Canadians have a right to know whether we mobilized our diplomatic and political influence with the same intensity in this case as we did so successfully in the gulf conflict.
When military action is proposed certain standards of conduct and criteria must be met. First, there should be clear political agreement on objectives.
Second, the scope of military action would have to be defined geographically and by capability. The government has deliberately chosen not to maintain the capability of the Canadian Armed Forces to live up to the roles we have traditionally played on the world stage.
Third, military action would have to be appropriate to the circumstances.
Fourth, the conditions that would precipitate a western military response would have to be clearly defined for all concerned in advance.
Finally, due regard must be given to the disengagement scenario prior to deeper involvement.
As for this last point, the Government of Canada must have known, when it agreed to air strikes against Serb targets, that ground troops could well be necessary if we are going to finish what it started. The use of ground troops is never a first option, yet perhaps a necessary one when the exercise of measured force is required.
The Prime Minister and the government should have been more frank and truthful with Canadians at this time.
Canadians and their elected representatives have been told that the objectives of the NATO operation are to halt the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, force the Yugoslav military and paramilitary forces returning to Kosovo to withdraw, enable the refugees to return home in safety and force the Yugoslavian government to accept the Rambouillet peace agreement along with the NATO peacekeeping force.
Canadians are left with questions about NATO strategy: its short term objectives, its long term objectives and how its success will be measured. When will the NATO bombing campaign end? What is the criteria for any potential decision to employ ground troops? These are but a few of the many questions that need to be answered by the Prime Minister and the government.
Recent reports from the BBC indicate that ground troops have been contemplated. A spokesman for the American state department suggested that NATO might put aside its reluctance to use ground troops in a military role in Kosovo. A spokesman for the minister of defence in London, General Sir Charles Guthrie, acknowledged that NATO planners had discussed sending in ground troops.
Yesterday, U.S. Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, defined victory as the removal of Serb troops and the return of Kosovar refugees with the protection of an international peacekeeping force. As for the political status of Kosovo, he said that partition was out of the question but that there still had to be autonomy at the very least and the question of independence would have to be determined at a later date. He also suggested that even if Mr. Milosevic was ready to return to the negotiating table, he was uncertain whether that was still an option given the charges against him of crimes against humanity.
This is the American view. What is the Canadian government's view on these important issues? Canadians deserve answers.
The government refused to recall parliament while major decisions affecting the deployment of Canadian soldiers were being made. Where have we come as a nation and a parliament if we cannot set aside time to properly debate ideas for action to stem this crisis in Yugoslavia, a crisis that grips the entire world? We have taken this path before. Why can we not do it now when the lives of so many may be at stake?
My final words and those of my party are for the Canadian and NATO personnel and their families and the people of Kosovo who are directly affected by this tragedy and this conflict. While we in Canada cannot fathom the depth of the courage of our military personnel or sufficiently comprehend the suffering of the Kosovars, we will work in unity to ensure that this conflict is brought to a just end. The efforts of our forces and the suffering of the people of Kosovo must not be in vain.
It has been said that the history of the Balkans always repeats itself. Thus far these repetitions have been nothing but bloody and tragic. However, we must not assume that reconciliation in this region is still impossible. It is incumbent upon all of us in this parliament to make sure that Canada helps to end that chilling cycle of catastrophic unrest. The people of Kosovo must be free from tyranny and allowed to live in peace and freedom.
There is an honourable heritage to uphold Canada's intervention and a moral obligation as a peace loving nation. The Conservative Party will support all legitimate efforts to seek enforcement of lasting peace in Kosovo.
I would like to move an amendment to the amendment moved by the Reform Party that would read as follows:
And in the interim, this House supports the existing commitment of Canada to the NATO action to resolve the continuing tragedy in Kosovo and requires the government to regularly consult and inform parliament respecting this commitment and any changes thereto.
