Preston Manning

[Kosovo, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Prime Minister informed the House that Canada would be committing peacekeeping forces to Kosovo. The mission would be to enforce a peace agreement when it is reached with the Yugoslav government.

Since we are being asked to commit peacekeepers to Kosovo, is the government assuming that there will soon be a peace agreement to enforce there?

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for making this announcement in the House. It certainly does give members an opportunity to raise questions and comments. I have two questions for the Prime Minister with a bit of preamble.

First of all, I think the House has agreed that the three objectives that are being pursued in Yugoslavia are the moral objective of stopping the ethnic cleansing; the political objective of creating a safe home for the Kosovars in the region; and the military objective of damaging the Serbs' military capability to the point where they cannot practise ethnic cleansing and come to the negotiating table. I do not think there is much disagreement here on the overall goals.

My first question would be, could the Prime Minister perhaps elaborate a little bit further on how the particular creation of this peacekeeping force will enhance those goals in practical ways?

My second question is a follow-up to the debate we had in the House some weeks ago. I think there was general assent in the House to Canada's role in the air strikes that NATO was carrying on. There was a strong feeling, certainly in the House and I think in the country, that if Canada was to expand its role in any way, either through ground troops or perhaps even a naval blockade, that it would be very important to have a motion presented to the House to give the government a mandate to do whatever it was proposing to do and to have a vote on that motion. Canadians would then be clear on what authority was being given to the government. In that debate questions could be raised about how the creation of this peacekeeping force would achieve the ultimate objectives and also precisely would Canada have the capability to do what is being asked of it by NATO.

My second question would be, in light of the announcement that the Prime Minister has made, will he be bringing a motion to the House asking for a specific mandate to endorse this increase in our role in the Balkans?

[Kosovo, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. My question was about Russian supplies to Yugoslavia, not those from other countries.

A half-baked naval blockade and a half-baked peace proposal will not solve the Balkan crisis. If the peace initiative is our number one priority, why not make it the number one priority?

Why would the government agree to the announcement of this naval blockade at a time when the foreign minister is attempting to pursue the diplomatic initiative in Moscow?

[Kosovo, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the naval blockade is pursued, it will have to deal with vessels that refuse to be stopped and searched.

The Russian foreign minister has stated unequivocally that Russia will continue to ship oil to Yugoslavia no matter what.

What does NATO intend to do when it encounters a Russian ship attempting to run the blockade? Does the Prime Minister not fear, does the government fear, that such an incident would scuttle any attempt for peace through diplomatic means?

[Kosovo, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend NATO announced a partial naval blockade of Yugoslav ports. A Canadian ship, the HMCS Athabaskan , is now in command of a NATO standing fleet in the Atlantic and will likely play a key role in any blockade of petroleum supplies to the Serb army.

At the same time, on the diplomatic front the Prime Minister announced that the foreign minister is off to Moscow to promote a new peace proposal.

Does the government not see a contradiction in participating in a naval blockade that will affect Russian ships at the same time as it is pursuing a new diplomatic initiative in Moscow?

[Kosovo, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, surely we all agree that every effort must be made to bring Milosevic to the peace table. But the Milosevic regime has kept its own people in the dark, both with respect to its ruthless policies of ethnic cleansing and with respect to the peace initiatives that have come from NATO and the west.

What effort is being made by Canada and its allies to communicate to the Yugoslav people, as distinct from the Yugoslav government, the fact that there is a new peace proposal on the table?

[Kosovo, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that Canada had been involved in the development of this German peace plan for over a week. Obviously, therefore, Canada has a role in promoting this peace proposal.

What efforts has the Prime Minister himself undertaken to advance the German peace proposal, including within NATO where both the United States and the United Kingdom have expressed some reservations?

[Kosovo, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Russia today welcomed the German peace plan offering a 24 hour halt to the NATO air strikes if Yugoslav forces would withdraw from Kosovo. Certainly no one wants a repeat of the tragic accident that occurred yesterday.

What specific efforts have Canada and its allies undertaken to impress upon Milosevic the serious consequences of not accepting the latest peace offer?

[Kosovo, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we will give the defence minister a chance to be even more abundantly clear. If this has been discussed and considered, will he tell the House precisely what commitment of ground forces Canada is going to make to this international peace force under the German plan? And will the government bring forward a motion in this House asking for a votable commitment to that commitment?

[Kosovo, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on the very day of the Kosovo debate in this House, in response to a direct question, the Prime Minister categorically stated that the use of ground troops was not being considered, period. So the possibility was not debated. It was not on the table.

Suddenly we find out that this was actively being considered by the government at the time, in fact the week before. Why would the government withhold this information from the House if its desire is to get the support of the House for what it is doing in Kosovo?