Debates of Oct. 15th, 2001

International Actions Against Terrorism

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to participate in this important take note debate. I know some of my colleagues in the House never expressed a need to feel positive about this debate. There are some very positive issues that need to be addressed and certainly there is a substantial amount of unified, shared common concern on all sides of the House that brings us together. Whatever can be done by the government, with the support of the opposition, now is the time for the government to do it. I do believe it has a substantial amount of support on this side.

I recall not too long ago, in 1999 to be exact, we in the House debated sending our troops to Yugoslavia to force an end to the human tragedy that was unfolding in Kosovo. Now two years later we are engaged in another take note debate, this time on international action against terrorism. What this indicates to me is that the cold war may be over but conflicts around the world continue. The enemy in this new conflict is a group of fanatics who in this case use religion to carry out their horrific deeds.

There is hardly anyone in the world who is not familiar with the events that have led to this war on terrorism. On September 11 we all watched in horror the tragic events in the United States when terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Thousands of innocent lives were lost including those of many Canadians. We all grieve with the families of those victims, along with our American friends and neighbours over these barbaric acts.

Canadians expect us as parliamentarians to put partisanship aside and develop a united front in the war against terrorism. This is an issue that involves first and foremost life and death, war and peace, freedom and security. The object of this war is clear: Terrorism and those who engage in such evil acts must be defeated. I believe Canadians support this moral objective, however, we know there are those who oppose the means by which we will achieve this end.

War is not something that any of us take lightly. Wars are often harshly fought. Wars produce victims and victors, and certainly those who will lose. Moreover, wars can be, from a civilian point of view, outright scary. However, in this war on terrorism, we cannot be afraid because to be afraid is to succumb to the enemy. We must be watchful and we must be mindful because we know not when the enemy will strike. If they strike before they are caught we must be prepared to deal with them effectively.

I had words with many of the retired military officers over that very issue. We need a unified effort to come together because if such a horrible incident were to take place in this country where we would personally suffer, we would be hard pressed to effectively deal with it without the help of our allies.

I would like to state here in the House that I fully support the government's decision to join with our American allies in this war against terrorism. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the brave men and women of our armed forces who have been called to duty to assist the American and British forces located in the Middle East in defence of peace, freedom and security. I join with Canadians in offering the armed forces my prayers and good wishes as they embark on this mission. I ask that God grant them His peace and guidance for a safe return to this country and to their families.

During this crucial time our thoughts turn to the families of those soldiers who are also called upon to make tremendous sacrifices while their loved ones participate in this mission. Our thoughts and our prayers are with them as well.

Our soldiers have given much of themselves in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo and many times they are not recognized for what they do. Now the country is calling upon them once more in a time of crisis to give again. We are grateful for their professionalism and their commitment. We know they will serve this country valiantly and, in so doing, make us proud.

This is a new type of war which our brave men and women in the Canadian forces will be involved in. As was evident during the events of September 11, these terrorists are fanatics who are so indifferent to the sanctity of human life that they consider it an honour to die for their cause, as misguided as their cause may be. They are well trained and in a sense they are well funded and somewhat organized. Their mission is to cause collateral damage when they attack and to strike fear. The war on terrorism will therefore not be easy. It is likely to be long and arduous, but it is just and it is necessary.

As has been stated on numerous occasions, the war being waged is not against the people of Afghanistan or against any religion. Unfortunately these terrorists have woven themselves among the legitimate Islamic religion and use this religion to justify their horrendous deeds. This is a war against terrorists and those who support and willingly harbour terrorist groups on their soil. They too must bear the consequences for their actions.

We in the House and Canadians near and far take pride in our military. Sadly though we cannot take pride in the equipment it is given to do its job. I know, after listening to the admiral of the Atlantic fleet, that, in spite of shortcomings with the equipment, it will do the maximum that equipment will allow it to do. I believe that is commitment in itself.

As a former defence critic for the Official Opposition, I remember hammering away at the government over the deep cuts that were made in military spending and in personnel. However the government chose to go the path it did and not fund the military. There is now another crisis that our military has on its hands and I believe it will stand up and meet that challenge.

We have some of the finest soldiers in the world and I believe they should be given the finest equipment to do their job. The events of September 11 and the current war being waged against terrorism should be a wake up call for this country and for this government, the opposition included, to the importance of maintaining a strong and viable military with proper military hardware.

I cannot help but ask the question: What if these attacks had happened in Canada? Would we have had the means to deal with them effectively and quickly apprehend those who might be planning further attacks? In other words, could we as a military entity pick up and get over to the Middle East or some other location in the world and do what has to be done to apprehend those responsible?

It is crucial now more than ever that the government undertake a commitment to increase personnel numbers and to rebuild our armed forces so we can send our soldiers off to war and have the confidence that the equipment they use will not fail nor will it embarrass them or the country.

I believe that if we are out to maintain our standing in NATO and if we wish to have some influence in the international community, we must devote more money to the military to improve its hardware and to recruit more soldiers.

As I indicated earlier, I fully support the government's decision to join the war on terrorism. This war is about peace, freedom and security. However, how can we speak of security in this country when we look at other problems that have cropped up, creating the uncertainty with which we are faced.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I know of no one among my friends and colleagues who was not deeply affected by the events of September 11.

Every one of us has etched on our memories those terrible images of skyscrapers collapsing in a cloud of smoke and dust, burying thousands of innocent people in an instant. So many families have suffered, and for them, life as they knew it will never be the same; innocent families have been completely shattered.

Economies around the world have also suffered because of the events of September 11. Tens of thousands of workers, in Canada and elsewhere, lost their jobs.

The repercussions from these attacks have surpassed our collective imagination. Nothing can replace all of those shattered lives. We can only hope that these lives were not lost in vain, and that we will have learned a valuable lesson from the tragic events of September 11.

Clearly, we must in no uncertain terms eradicate international terrorism, which respects neither human life, nor the law, nor the fundamental freedoms that are the very foundation of our collective life.

There is a very strong consensus here that we should go about eliminating international terrorism and the murderous violence and brutality that it represents. I think there is no dissension among us as to this.

During the several debates we have had on this question since September 11, many measures and initiatives have been discussed and debated at length. Our people have debated the state of our military preparedness, our security, details about what we should do about our security, about our military equipment and how we should or should not join the present initiative in Afghanistan. I will not spend the little time I have in discussing these events which have been debated at length by colleagues who have a far greater knowledge of these matters than I do. Rather I would like to project and look forward to the post-bin Laden era and look at the new world that we should be building after bin Laden and after the eradication of terrorism, which we hope will happen sooner than later.

I was quite young then but I recall the days after World War II. I recall the images of tremendous destruction in Europe and Germany being a rubble of concrete and steel after all the bombings. All parts of Europe were completely destroyed and millions of lives lost forever.

I recall that this prescient person, this visionary, General George Marshall, decided to convince the United States with the Marshall plan, which was then put into place. It was the foundation of the rebuilding of Europe, which now has flourished into a unity that we would never have guessed.

I suggest that in the new world after bin Laden we should really conceive of this new Marshall plan of the 21st century where we will put the accent on the have nots and on all those countries where poverty reigns and where all the causes of violence are.

General Dallaire in article on September 27 suggested that all the rich nations multiply their overseas aid by five times. He suggested that had we had this regime in place maybe the 800,000 people who were killed in Rwanda would still be alive today. He also suggested that those countries, where there is poverty and violence and where people live beyond a level of subsistence, could be better today, and justice and human rights would prevail.

I will conclude with these words by Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, which I read in an article. He said:

If we alter our basic freedom, our civil liberties, change the way we function as a democratic society, then we will have lost the war before it has begun.

I hope that we keep our civil liberties, that we think of a better and just world and that we start a new Marshall plan in the 21st century to eradicate the causes of violence in the world.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion which states that the committee take note of the international actions against terrorism. It is unfortunate that we have to address this issue at all, but the reality is such that we had the terrible and horrendous events of September 11. They drove home the reality of this international threat and therefore it is necessary that we have this debate.

Canadians have always been proud to make an international contribution from the Boer War at the end of the 19th century to this new war on terrorism at the beginning of the 21st century.

Among our finest moments of distinguished service during the second world war were Vimy Ridge, the liberation of Holland and Italy, and Canada's role in the landings at Normandy. Many historians believe that those terrible years were the time when Canada truly achieved nationhood.

While military capability and involvement are not the only measure of nationhood, it is the critical issue in the face of the kind of evil that Canadians face in our world. Whether it is the events of September 11, genocide based on ethnic or tribal hatreds, or even belligerent nations with philosophies contrary to our own, the dangers faced by our citizens at home and abroad have grown and not shrunk in recent years.

We are beginning to realize that international terrorism has consequences not only for people from far off lands but for our own families too. It is important to remember that among the many thousands of innocents who died at the World Trade Center were many Canadian mothers and fathers, sisters, brothers, sons and daughters.

It is also important to recognize that we are just as vulnerable in Canada to bioterrorism as the recent victims of anthrax in Florida and New York. Even on the Hill today alarms were raised, security forces were called and there were emergency responses on at least three different occasions.

Unfortunately we are vulnerable in a number of other areas too. National security and defence ought to be the number one priority for any national government. Unfortunately we have taken this priority less and less seriously since the end of the second world war, to the point that we are barely able to make a minor contribution to this new war effort.

It seems that our contribution to the current military coalition may not be sustainable for more than about six months. While we are proud of the dedicated crews of our warships, the pilots of our planes and the elite soldiers of our joint task force two who are being deployed, it seems plain that we have too little in the way of resources, both troops and equipment, to make the kind of contribution that should be expected of us.

Our navy is short about 400 technical personnel. We are sending one of only two supply ships, which means that we will forgo normal operations on one of our two coasts. Based on our experience with East Timor, our air relief operations may be extremely limited. Our aging Sea King helicopters may pose a greater threat to our pilots than to terrorists.

The time to begin to reinvest in our military is certainly now. We must invest in new supply ships, in replacing our older Hercules aircraft and in the immediate purchase, or lease if necessary, of new helicopters. We need to bring our troop strength up substantially, including beefing up our joint task force 2.

September 11 has exposed the many years of neglect our military has suffered. We need to reinvest in our military and to restore morale and funding. We need to supply our fighting soldiers with the very best of equipment.

The enemy we face in terrorism is a new and uncertain threat to Canada. We should all be aware of the chilling words of Osama bin Laden who said recently “We have thousands of young men who are as eager to die as Americans are eager to live”.

We are dealing with a ruthless and evil mindset. There is no reasoning with this type of mentality.

There are those in other nations of the world who have dealt with terrorism for decades. They have learned through bitter experience the brutality, the carnage and the horrendous atrocities unleashed by terrorist mindset. Perhaps we can learn from their experience.

I would like to quote former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who describes in his recent book

Fighting Terrorism: The Top Ten Measures for Fighting Terror.

First, on the international scene, sanctions should be imposed on suppliers of nuclear technology to terrorist states. We need to eliminate the supply of such things as laser triggers and enriched uranium from western nations, China, Russia, et cetera, to countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

We should also be more concerned about other potential weapons of mass destruction. For example, it is clearly possible to buy many biological warfare agents by mail order.

Second, diplomatic, economic and military sanctions should be imposed on terrorist states themselves. Canada has a been a participant in invoking this measure in the past. We need to join with the international community in isolating those nations that harbour and collaborate with terrorists.

Third, we need to neutralize terrorist enclaves. While the United States and our current international coalition are engaged at the present moment with Afghanistan, it is clear that much more will have to be done if we are to reduce the threat of terrorism and enhance the security of our citizens and our world.

Fourth, we need to freeze financial assets in the west of terrorist regimes and organizations. We encourage their governments to take steps in this regard, but there are many other terrorist organizations that must be added to the current list.

Fifth, we need to share intelligence. While the intelligence Canada possesses about various terrorist groups may be considered less than important because the groups may pose little threat to Canada or have seemed to in the past, the information may be extremely valuable to other countries that are attempting to protect their citizens, particularly our neighbour to the south. We should be assured that intelligence sharing with other nations will indeed benefit Canada as well.

Sixth, we need to revise our legislation to enable greater surveillance and action against organizations inciting violence, subject to periodic renewal. Such a proposal includes outlawing terrorist fundraising and fund transfers, investigating groups preaching terror and tighter immigration laws. In Canada this will require also the enforcement of such laws.

Seventh, we need to actively pursue terrorists. It is easy to do when we have the events of September 11 fresh in our minds. Will we be as committed a year or a decade from now? It has been said over and over that this will be a long war. It is a different kind of war and it certainly appears that is exactly what it will be.

Eighth, jailed terrorists should not be released. They need to serve their full sentences. The punishment must fit the crime.

Ninth, special forces should be trained to fight terrorism. Again we need to beef up our joint task force 2. We also need to ensure that security personnel at airports, borders, ports, public institutions and other potential targets are properly trained to prevent and defend against terror.

Tenth, we need to educate the public. We need to clearly describe terrorist threats, the immorality of what they are doing and the necessity of resisting them. Probably nothing will be as eloquent as the events we witnessed on September 11 in helping all our citizens understand and drive home the reality of this threat.

This is advice from the nation with the most experience in combating terrorism. We support the government's response to the call to join the international coalition. We wish our troops, our forces Godspeed, divine protection and a safe return.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the government's new anti-terrorism legislation that was tabled just this morning. We welcome this initiative and the debate. As we have declared in our national anthem, O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. We must now ensure that we fulfill that mandate to protect our citizens at home and abroad. We must take our place among the nations in resisting and defeating this virulent enemy.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues in saying this evening what a privilege it is to be participating in this debate and to have an opportunity, however late the hour in the House, to discuss with one another how we are to deal with the changed circumstances in the world in which we now live as a result of what happened in New York City on September 11.

I will introduce my comments with a few thoughts. The first is that I like other members of the House totally support the government's action in pursuing Osama bin Laden and the Taliban government that harbours him. If we did not take strong actions now, we would never be safe in the future in our country or anywhere else in the world.

I believe our actions are legal. I do not believe as some members of the House have suggested that what we are doing is illegal. Our actions conform to the wishes of the security council and of the United Nations itself. In acting as we are, we have world opinion with us and world legal sanction to do what we are doing.

As other members have said, our men and women in our armed service as they go out to defend the values of Canadians deserve our support, our congratulations and our gratitude for the work and the effort they will be making on our behalf.

The Canadian people support our actions. They are united as never before with our American partners on this continent. This weekend I happened to be walking in the country. As I walked down a small country road by a little river that was so Canadian in its nature and looked at the beautiful fall colours in the Ontario countryside, I saw a small bridge going over this river. At one end of the bridge was a Canadian flag and at the other end there was an American flag.

For me that bridge symbolized in many ways what the Canadian people are presently feeling in terms of their spiritual affinity to our colleagues and friends in the United States who have suffered as a result of what happened in New York City.

We in the House have to take the opportunity provided by this take note debate to reflect on what happened and to ask ourselves how we can ensure that our actions are designed so that it does not happen again.

Everyone has said that the world has changed since September 11. Yes, but then our response to terrorism surely must change as well or we will not be able to deal with this menace. Armed response is only a part, an essential and immediate part but only the beginning of what we must do. This is not the Korean war. It is not the gulf war. When we allocate our resources we must bear that in mind.

The Americans, to their credit under the leadership of Mr. Bush, have recognized this fact. That is why NATO's campaign is clearly restricted to the Taliban and not to the people of Afghanistan. It is why food aid for the population accompanies the destruction aimed at the Taliban and the terrorists. It is why Mr. Bush has initiated his imaginative and laudable campaign to raise money in the United States for Afghan children.

Let us imagine if we had applied these same principles in other places where conflict raises charges of terrorism, in the Middle East or in Sri Lanka, for example, or in the former gulf war. If we had taken steps to diffuse the grievances that give rise to and give support to terrorists and populations that live in terrible conditions, surely we must now double our efforts to find just and equitable political solutions to these conflicts if we are to eradicate terrorism in the long term.

As I watched Mr. Blair in his press conference this morning with Mr. Arafat, I saw a statesman in the world attempting to do just that. It seems to me that we as Canadians must find out where our niche is, where we can bring our assets to bear.

We have many assets besides our military of which we have spoken tonight and of which we will speak in the future with admiration. We are a country that provides its citizens of whatever origin with opportunities in life. In respect of international relations we have worked with other countries and civilizations in the same manner of openness, tolerance and respect that marks our domestic political environment.

We can bring this goodwill to bear in the diplomacy which will be essential if the coalition against terrorism is to hold. We can leverage the respect we have as peacekeepers in the struggle we must face in the coming months and years as we deal with the menace of terrorism.

We have an asset to which we often refer when talking of our comparative advantage in international trade: our population. I represent a riding where I am proud to say 12,000 people live. In Toronto Centre--Rosedale, in a place called St. James Town, some 57 languages are spoken. A multicultural society which speaks most of the languages of the world is found in Toronto. That is an asset in the multicultural and interdependent world in which we live, but surely today it is also an asset from a trade and other points of view.

How will we as a government find a way to use this asset in the new fight against terrorism, particularly in the crucial area of intelligence? If it is languages and cultural knowledge we require, will our armed forces, diplomatic corps and security services take advantage of what we have or will we waste this precious asset?

We must listen to the ideas of Canadian citizens. A constituent phoned me the other day and suggested we use some of our aid to drop radios into Afghanistan to enable the population there to understand what is going on in the world. Small radios cost something like $7 apiece. This might be a practical suggestion. We should be listening to the ideas of citizens to help bring better understanding to the fight before us.

I agree entirely with the observation of my colleague, Mr. Lincoln, who said we must look at the way Canadian aid is developed. If we are to address the root causes of terrorism, attempt to alleviate poverty, reduce oppression and bring good governance, we have many wonderful programs in CIDA and other Canadian government programs. However if this is to be expanded, and expanded it must be, we must find better, more efficient, more attractive and more culturally sensitive ways to bring these assets to bear so we truly can eradicate the conditions which give rise to terrorism.

Other members tonight have mentioned the introduction of the bill in the House this morning that deals with anti-terrorism measures. I would agree with many of them when I say we will be called upon to look at the bill to ensure it preserves the values and traditions of our society.

The Prime Minister was clear when he spoke to that this evening. He said he would be calling on the justice committee to bear the bill with great scrutiny. Those of us in the House who do not have the privilege of sitting on the justice committee will be equally vigilant in ensuring the bill respects and preserves our democratic values. These are the values we are called upon to preserve when we are elected to the House, as Mr. Lincoln said in his quotation from Senator Biden.

Much work has been done in the House which enables us to have a greater understanding of the issues we must now confront. My own committee, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, has recently reported on the Caucasus, the sanctions on Iraq, and other issues which enable us to have a better understanding of the world in which we live.

The challenge is that we must now adapt to changed circumstances. We must work together in ways we have not done before to increase our understanding and knowledge of the complexity of the world in which we live. We must make sure that understanding is informed by the values of our society as reflected by the constituents we have the privilege to represent.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I take part in this take note debate tonight at such a late time. I will point out that it is 11.10 p.m.

I arrived on Parliament Hill hardly an hour ago and I said to myself I could not refrain from taking part in this debate. Why? Every single one of us here has just spent a week or more in our riding, talking to our fellow citizens, our constituents, about an issue that has captivated the whole world, all of Quebec and Canada, in order to try to find out what our fellow citizens were thinking of this utterly incredible and as yet unexplained event.

There is one thing everybody agrees upon, namely that the events of September 11 are totally unacceptable, horrific and must assuredly be denounced.

They must be denounced because some groups in our society, terrorist groups, have decided to do grievous harm to our society and democratic societies as a whole, in directly attacking a democratic society which has fostered development throughout the world, a fact we should not forget. To a great extent the west has contributed to the development of a number of continents.

This is deplorable. We also heard a lot of reactions in our ridings regarding the military response.

We make no bones about it, they are justified, because they are based on a decision by the UN Security Council and because, once and for all, we had to send a message to the world saying that these atrocious crimes are totally unacceptable in our democratic societies. However, Quebecers are in favour of a civilized, humane and responsible response.

Public opinion polls show that in Quebec there is less support for military action that anywhere else in Canada. Yes, we want a military response, but many Quebecers do not want any future military response to be aimed directly at civil societies, civilians, men, women and even children who, as a number of parliamentarians told us, are first and foremost victims of poverty and despair.

Although right now we are in favour of a response and wish the best of luck to all the soldiers who will be taking part in the military action, we are not giving this government carte blanche to take action in future against countries other than Afghanistan.

We do not know where this war will take us. Where are we headed in this unprecedented fight? It is a non traditional war, one which citizens face as they go about their daily business. Caution is therefore required with respect to future military actions. Regular consultation of the House of Commons and of parliament is therefore now essential.

There are also diplomatic considerations. We must think about the future, which will be hard. We are already having to think about making the transition from a mechanism of war to a mechanism of peace. Diplomacy is still the best avenue. It is better than any weapon of war. We must leave the way clear for diplomacy and know when to make the transition from a mechanism of war to a mechanism of peace.

We must also remember that we must attack the very sources of terrorism. We must attack the terrorists themselves, not peaceful groups which, at a given moment in time, decide to defend a certain number of causes and, because they do not support certain views, certain responses, could be the targets of a witch hunt. The anti-terrorist strategy adopted by Canada in the coming months must be a prudent one.

There is also the whole issue of immigration. Better controls at the borders and greater control over immigration and the entry of refugees and immigrants should not lead to a form of exclusion. Canada and Quebec must continue to be a land of welcome with respect for freedoms and for those who wish to come to Quebec and to Canada to build a future for their family and their children.

Prudence is essential. The new immigration controls must not lead to exclusion and the creation of second class citizens.

There are also economic considerations. We would expect this government to put structures in place, so that those Quebecers and Canadians who lost their jobs following the September 11 events can regain hope. How many people working for companies such as Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney and in other sectors directly related to the aviation industry were affected by the September 11 events?

I want to mention another issue in this take note debate, namely social considerations. The September 11 events should not result in the government putting all citizens in the same basket. It is not true that the measures to be implemented by the Canadian government and the stands taken by some opposition parties directly target a specific community. I am thinking of the Arab or Muslim community.

It should be pointed out that our actions are taken in full consideration of these citizens. They do not target those members of our community who live responsibly, in all freedom, and who are not at all targeted by the actions of certain terrorists in the United States on September 11.

Yes, we support the current military action, but with respect for freedoms. I think this had to be said. This is the main thing I discovered during the past week in my riding. I met hundreds of citizens, who said they expected their political leaders and their government to act responsibly in future military action.

Civilians, men, women and children, must not be sacrificed to the events of September 11.

When we think of some legislation, we think of legislation against terrorism and of legislation on immigration. We also think about future military action. The public must not be forgotten in this. It is time to think of the days following the events of September 11. Canada must be committed to making peace, not war.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I join with other members of the House in condemning the attacks of September 11. These attacks were not just on the United States but on all free and civilized people around the world. They were an attack on the fundamental values of our society, the values of justice, freedom and tolerance.

I would like to presume on the House's time to reflect on the distinguished role that Canada has played in the past as a member of the international community when the fundamental values of our way of life and indeed our very existence have been threatened. We are all aware of this history. Much has been said tonight, but let us take a few minutes in this take note debate to reflect.

Perhaps the most important occasion was the second world war when, for a while, Canada stood alone with the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth against fascism and Nazism. In that conflict we were later joined by the Soviet Union and the United States of America, both of which made fundamental contributions to the allied victory.

During that war our enduring political and security alliance with the United States was first forged. The alliance was and still is based on shared geography and response to common peril, but also equally on kinship and shared values of democracy and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.

One of the most important and hopeful outcomes of the second world war was the founding of the United Nations in 1945. Canadians played an important role in the enterprise and we remember with pride the part we played. We have been well repaid for our efforts, because the United Nations has been fruitful. Only a few days ago we heard news of the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to the United Nations and its present secretary general. The United Nations charter, its many conventions and its treaties have provided us in the international community with agreed upon rules by which our world is organized and run.

In the 1950s, in the early days of the cold war when conflict erupted in the Korean peninsula, over 25,000 Canadians stood with other members of the United Nations command. Three hundred and twelve Canadians lost their lives and many more were wounded in that long and hard conflict.

Later in the 1950s Canadians were instrumental in the development and practice of peacekeeping, and as we all know it was during the Suez crisis in 1956 that our venerable Lester Pearson, then our secretary of state for external affairs and later our prime minister, suggested the creation of a force to separate the belligerents. For his role in creating the peacekeeping mission in Suez and for his contribution to world peace, Pearson was accorded the Nobel prize in 1957.

We are proud of the participation of Canada and Canada's armed forces in a long list of United Nations peace operations. We can name a few: Suez, Cyprus, the Golan Heights, Congo, Cambodia, Croatia, Central America, Bosnia, Rwanda, Haiti and East Timor. In fact, 50 years of experience in peacekeeping and our participation in 31 out of 38 completed UN missions have established an international reputation for Canada. This experience has taught us that the most important aspect of any peacekeeping mission is a long term plan designed to lead to a self-sustaining peace in the area of conflict.

Sometimes a conflict goes beyond the possibilities of peacekeeping and of the other tools of conflict prevention and conflict resolution open to the United Nations and to us. In 1990-91 we were faced with such a situation in Kuwait and the UN security council used the strongest measures envisaged by the charter, first implementing sanctions, then authorizing action against Iraq by a broad coalition of states including Canada and traditional allies.

The conflicts in the Balkans are yet another reference, after the breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, another great tragedy of our times. At that point Canada and other members of NATO acted forcefully to end atrocities.

Let us be absolutely clear: the perpetrators of the terrorist atrocities on September 11 and those who planned and supported their acts care little or nothing at all about the structure and shared vision of the United Nations. They care nothing at all about our beliefs in justice, peace and freedom. The attack on the United States was an attack on all of us.

We know well that the military response in self-defence is only part of the overall campaign. My constituents in Etobicoke--Lakeshore remind me of the Canadian tradition of standing with our allies against evil and inhumanity. The support of the women and men of the Canadian forces will play a vital role in the defence of Canada as part of the international response against terrorism.

It is clear that we must act. My constituents want their government to stand firmly behind the men and women of the Canadian forces. This support is visibly demonstrated by the government's unwavering commitment to improving the quality of life of its military personnel and to recruiting and retaining the right people.

The days ahead may be filled with uncertainty. The campaign against terror will likely be a long one, with no easy or quick solution. Our military contribution to the coalition efforts is a clear indication of the professional service our military can provide in what will be a difficult campaign.

I am sure that the thoughts of my constituents and the thoughts of many Canadians are with our Canadian forces personnel at this time as they prepare to join the fight against terrorism. Our thoughts should also be with their families who will be waiting at home for their safe return.

We have to act. We must act . Our government at this point is representing us well with the decisions that have been made thus far.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I have waited some time, with a fair amount of patience, to take part in this take note debate. A number of thoughts come to me concerning this debate, but I have to say that I gave some thought to not even participating in this form of debate in the House of Commons.

Surely with an issue of this magnitude and of this importance, we should not simply participate in a committee of the whole on a take note debate where every member of parliament, as long as members of parliament are willing to show up and speak up, can speak for 10 minutes and simply sit down, with no requirement for the minister of defence to speak, for the minister of transportation to speak or for the Prime Minister to speak. Surely this is a matter of much greater importance than that.

As it worked out, we were able to hear from the leaders of all the respective political parties and I applaud all of them. I did not agree with all of them, but I certainly applaud all of them for their contributions.

However, it is certainly disgraceful, perhaps even disdainful, that we do not look at this issue with more importance and take the opportunity to have a full fledged debate in the House of Commons. We have committed troops to war. We did not do that with a debate and a motion on behalf of the House of Commons. We did not use the parliamentary system in the way it was meant to be used.

There has been a lot of discussion about the events of September 11. In no way, shape or form have any parliamentarians spoken in favour or even partially in favour of what happened on September 11. Everyone in the House has raised that issue, many of them very poignantly, and everyone has been adamantly against that type of violence in the world. What has been missed is the interpretation of how Canada should react to those events and even how other countries in the world, especially the United States, have reacted to those events.

It was with some concern that I listened to the debate on our opposition day motion and did not hear support for it from the New Democratic Party. It was with profound regret that I realized the New Democratic Party had no intention of supporting our opposition day motion. For the benefit of people who are watching this debate at home, I would like to explain very briefly what that opposition day motion was. It is very important to the debate at hand here this evening.

The motion put forth today by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, from the PC/DR coalition, states:

That this House reaffirm its condemnation of the terrorist attacks against our NATO ally, the United States of America, on September 11, 2001, and affirm its support for Canada's courageous men and women in the Canadian Forces who are responding to defend freedom and democracy in the international military coalition against terrorism; and

That this House hereby order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to sit jointly to hold frequent meetings with ministers and officials of the government and the military.

This was amended to read “frequently, including joint meetings”.

There is nothing in the motion that would prevent any member of parliament or any member of any political party in the country from supporting it.

It is appalling that members of parliament chose to vote against that. We have committed troops to war. It is our job as parliamentarians to support them. We do not necessarily have to support the government in every action the government takes, but certainly we have to support our men and women in the Canadian military.

There were a number of issues that were brought up concerning this action. One of them was the fact that somehow our NATO allies, Britain, the United States, including Canada, were bombing civilians in Afghanistan. The way this was brought up, especially by the leader of the NDP, was as if those civilians were being targeted.

It needs to be noted here in the House, the record needs to be set straight, that no one is suggesting that innocent people do not get killed or injured in war. There is a huge difference as to whether or not that was the intent.

What happened on September 11 was a deliberate act of intent to murder innocent men, women and children. What has happened in Afghanistan, where perhaps civilians have been killed, was not intended. They were not the intended target. Certainly all members of the House should recognize that.

There was a lot of discussion on whether or not Canada, the United States, Britain and the rest of our NATO allies had the right to even respond to the events of September 11. I would suggest to members who question this that they should look at a number of precedents. First, they should look at article 5 in the NATO agreement. Second, they should look at article 51 in the UN agreement.

Article 51 in the UN agreement states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

This clearly gives any member country in the UN the right to self-defence and, more important, the right to act and react in self-defence.

I would suggest that there are a number of members of parliament who talked today in the discussion and debate in the House about article 51 in the UN charter, but it is obvious that they have never read it, just as they have never read article 5 of the NATO agreement; that is the part in the NATO agreement which states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

I would suggest that not only did the members who spoke against the opposition day motion today and who stood and voted against it in this House not understand the motion, but they did not understand their job as members of parliament. They did not know what article 5 of the NATO agreement and article 51 in the United Nations charter entailed. However they should have because they referred to them in their speeches in the House.

Although I do not agree that this is the way we should debate this issue, although I do not agree that we should be coming to the House of Commons after the fact that war has been declared and we have committed troops to the field, and I vehemently do not agree with that, I still chose to participate in the debate this evening because I thought there was the matter of setting the record straight on a number of issues.

A lot of members of parliament wanted to be on the record on this issue and I am one of them. I would hope in the future, however, that we have clear and open debate with opportunities to question ministers and, most important, the Prime Minister and that we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians in a session where questions can actually be answered.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Security Council recently adopted an unprecedented and most comprehensive anti-terrorism resolution wherein it determined that international terrorism constitutes “a threat to international peace and security”, a decision that the United Nations and its allies have construed as supporting legal authority action in Afghanistan.

While the military campaign may remind one of the aphorism that “while the guns roar, the muses, including the legal ones, are silent”, the centrepiece of the UN security council resolution effectively mandated a multi-faceted diplomatic and legal war on terrorism, one in which Canada is particularly well positioned to assume a leading international role.

The following initiatives comprise the essence of this juridical offensive, while identifying the diplomatic leadership role that Canada can play in an international counter-terrorism law and policy.

First, the security council has called on member states to sign and ratify the 12 international anti-terrorism conventions, including the two most recent conventions on the suppression of terrorism bombing and the suppression of terrorist financing. Canada has ratified 10 of these conventions and has now undertaken to ratify the last two.

Accordingly, it can take the lead in seeking to globalize this international legal arsenal, as it has done in leading the campaign for the ratification of an international criminal court. Moreover, ratification has not only juridical importance in underpinning the global counter-terrorism legal arsenal, but it sends a message that these countries have put themselves on the side of the international legal war against terrorism.

Second, the security council has called upon all member states to enact domestic legislation to implement these 12 international treaties so as to establish an international criminal justice system to combat terrorism. As Canada has now introduced such domestic anti-terrorism legislation to give effect to these treaties and is already spearheading the campaign for a global international justice system organized around the domestic implementation of the ICC treaty, it could equally spearhead an international campaign for domestic implementation of these 12 anti-terrorism conventions.

Third, the UN has called for the adoption of a comprehensive convention on international terrorism. Indeed I had occasion to recommend this initiative six years ago in my capacity then as special advisor to the then foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy in the course of the Paris ministerial conference on counter-terrorism. It was felt at the time, however, that such a convention might be difficult to craft from a legal point of view and difficult to adopt from a diplomatic point of view.

Now that the UN security council has recommended this initiative so as to underpin what secretary general Kofi Annan has called “the global legitimacy” of the war on terrorism and as the matter is now before the United Nations legal committee Canada could lend its expertise and experience to this drafting and diplomatic exercise.

Fourth, the security council decided that all states should prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism, which involves a network of initiatives, including: freezing without delay the funds and other financial assets and economic resources of those that commit or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts; criminalize the wilful provision or collection by any means of funds intended for the commission or facilitation of terrorist acts; and deregistering any charities or entities that provide support for the facilitation or commission of terrorist acts.

Again, as Canada is in the process of implementing these initiatives and as our finance minister serves as chair of the G-20, we are particularly well situated to lead and co-ordinate the international effort to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism in all its forms.

Fifth, the security council has recommended that states adopt comprehensive legislation to ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts is brought to justice and that such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws. As Canada has adopted model war crimes and crimes against humanity legislation, underpinned by the principle of universal jurisdiction, and has now introduce comprehensive anti-terrorism domestic legislation with rights protecting checks and balances, including charter protection, legislative oversight and judicial review, Canada is once again well placed to serve as an international model for this genre of comprehensive domestic anti-terrorism legislation consistent with rights based concerns.

Sixth, the United Nations has called upon member states to ensure that asylum seekers are not terrorists in disguise and that international refugee law is not used as a cover for international terrorism. At the same time, the right to political asylum must be safeguarded as a fundamental right, one that should not be undermined or diminished, and must remain a cornerstone of our international and domestic policy.

Accordingly, Canada's experience and expertise in refugee law and policy, in both appreciating the importance of the right to asylum while ensuring that it not be abused, and our learned appreciation of the weaknesses in our law enforcement system thus far, may commend the adoption of model initiatives that will improve and refine the screening, detection and exclusion of terrorists from claiming refugee status to begin with; ensure that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators of terrorist acts; ensure that those whose refugee claim has been denied because of their deemed affiliation to terrorism and against whom a deportation order has been issued, do not disappear into our system and in fact are brought to justice to begin with; and ensure that claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing a request for the extradition of alleged terrorists.

Seventh, the security council has called upon all member states to afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations and prosecutions of terrorist acts. As an exemplary member of more multilateral groupings than any other member in the international community, including NATO, the G-8, the Commonwealth, la Francophonie, APEC, the OAS, the OSCE and the like, Canada is uniquely positioned to help organize and expand the necessary international juridical initiatives.

Eighth, the UN security council has warned against the danger of terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction, with Secretary General Kofi Annan pointing out that a single attack involving a nuclear or biological weapon could kill millions of people.

Canada, as a country that has taken the lead in sponsoring and ratifying treaties to control and prohibit weapons of mass destruction, can take the lead in international efforts to implement these treaties; ensure closer co-operation among international organizations dealing with weapons of mass destruction; and work toward the enactment of tighter domestic legislation covering the export of goods and technologies used in their production.

Finally, one of the more important instruments in any counter-terrorism law and policy is the control of incitement to terrorism, the combating of the promotion of hatred and contempt against the targeted and demonized prospective victims. Indeed, it is particularly important for the international community in general, and for member states in particular, to begin to address the issue of how they will regulate incitement to terrorism, of how they will regulate the demonization of the other, which, as we saw in Rwanda, can take us down the road to genocide. In Bosnia, it took us down the road to ethnic cleansing.

As the Supreme Court of Canada put it in upholding the constitutionality of Canada's anti-hate legislation, “The Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers--it began with words”.

Canada, with its experience and expertise in combating incitement to hatred and with its proposed legislative initiatives to also eliminate hate on the Internet against prospective victims of terrorism as well as against any identifiable groups in Canada that may be unfairly discriminated against in our counter-terrorism effort, can play an important and significant role in developing this centerpiece of a counter-terrorism law and policy.

In a word, while Canada's contribution to the military effort may be a limited and modest one, its contribution to the legal and diplomatic war on terrorism can be a distinguished and distinguishable one.

[Howard Hilstrom, Canadian Alliance, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I am participating tonight in this take note debate on the action that parliament and the Government of Canada should be taking in regard to international terrorism. Certainly the events of September 11 have been described by many members and by people around the world as a horrific, terrible act of terrorism that everyone wishes had not taken place. The fact of the matter is that it did take place and we now have to deal with it.

I do not want to cover ground tonight in my comments that other members have covered. I will try to add something new and with a slightly different perspective.

This act of terrorism on September 11 was not the start of international terrorism. It is being debated as if all of a sudden there was this new event of international terrorism that happened and now we have to take this immediate strong action to do something about it.

The fact of the matter is that terrorism has been around as long as mankind has been around and terrorism by religious extremists in other countries has been in place in recent years and has been noted most accurately, I believe, in Europe, England and France for instance where they have been subject to these terrorist attacks that North America is now receiving.

I am a bit amazed that the Liberal government is only now taking the aggressive action to combat terrorism when it should have been taking action as the intelligence came in to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to CSIS, to our customs agencies and to the military. Instead, I assume this information was essentially ignored because we did not take the action necessary to deal with the terrorism crisis that we now find ourselves in.

The Canadian Alliance and myself will be supporting in full measure the government's efforts to pass the legislation and take the action required to now deal with the terrorism in which North America finds itself. Canadians could well be, and the likelihood is high that it will be, attacked by terrorist acts in the future.

Our current foreign affairs minister made a speech tonight and I would like to comment on a couple of his statements. While we support the government's action, we also have to illicit information and ensure that all ideas are explored.

One of his statements, which of course can be corrected from the Hansard record, was that safety and security was a priority as it has always been with regard to security for Canadians. When we see the military not having sufficient personnel, equipment or the resources to fully do the job, that is not always taking care of Canadian security as the minister indicated.

The minister's second statement was very interesting. He said that we are to destroy evil. This may be a bit of a euphemism but war is about killing our enemy. The United States has used that terminology and our Prime Minister has used that terminology. We are in a war.

In a war, deaths occur as we saw from the attack on the World Trade Center in the United States and which we may well see in Canada if a terrorist act is committed against us. When the foreign affairs minister talks about destroying evil, I assume he is going as far as to say that those who commit those acts should be destroyed.

At some point the government will have to deal with the idea of either extraditing a terrorist who has committed a murder or a killing in other countries, or dealing with a terrorist who killed inside Canada. If that happens, and I pray to God it does not, it will bring up the issue of capital punishment in Canada again. It may well be that in a war the Canadian population will strongly support the return of capital punishment for terrorist acts.

In the last couple of years as a member of parliament I have had the opportunity to speak to people in the constituency, some of whom gave very wise advice on the issues of Palestine and the Middle East and those seemingly intractable problems.

I have had occasion to speak to Pastor Henry Ozirney and to Pastor Glenn Miller of the New Life Baptist Church in Stonewall in my riding. I have talked to Barry Rasmussen of the Lutheran Church in my area. I have also spoken to Catholic priests and others over the years on moral issues. They have given me the background and confirmed that the issues of Palestine go back a long way, back to I suppose a common factor of the Prophet Abraham and how the lands of the Palestinians were seemingly interpreted to have been given to both the Muslim people and to the Jewish people. The conflict and dispute over that land continues to this very day and it has to be kept in context.

Osama bin Laden has said that until the issue of Palestine is settled and Arafat and the people of Palestine on the Arab side are fully satisfied there will be no peace for America, for the western world or for the Jews. In essence, what Osama bin Laden and terrorists like him are saying is that they will not be satisfied until every Jewish person and North American is dead. These are people we would call terrorists. It is not part of the Islamic religion. The Islamic congress has stated in its pamphlets that it hands out that the concept of holy war, even the phrase sacrum bellum, does not exist in Islam. I would hope the media and others forget about that particular concept.

The September 11 attack was an act of terrorism committed by criminals. It was not a religious event and was not based on religion. The terrorists are misusing the Islamic religion and, if they need to, they will misuse the Christian and other religions. To them religion is not the issue. The death and destruction of our way of life is what this is all about.

We support the solutions the government is coming up with but the solutions must be of a two prong nature. First, we do have to work toward creating a better world. This would include humanitarian aid not only to Afghanistan but to other countries. It would also include addressing so-called social ills and trying to raise the well-being and living standards of people around the world. However, we also need physical security and physical security for Canada means having a fully staffed and competent military, and an intelligence gathering unit like CSIS that is fully equipped and ready and capable to do the job.

The issue of bioterrorism in Canada as it relates to agriculture is of utmost important. The reports that came out of the solicitor general's office indicated quite clearly that in fact Canada was not prepared for a bioterrorism act against our livestock industry or other agriculture industries. It is of utmost importance that the government have a plan for not only these massive military issues but also for the protection and the ability to contain bioterrorism in Canada.

In conclusion, I want to commend our armed forces men and women who are serving our country so well right now. I also would like to ensure that every member of the House in their November 11 statements and during their attendance at November 11 ceremonies say a special prayer for our armed forces overseas.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a slightly different approach and talk about some of our new best friends.

Any army that is going to war likes to know who its friends are and who are its enemies. Our new best friends, our allies, now support the so-called war against terrorism launched by the U.S. and Great Britain in Afghanistan.

Our allies in this cause seem to be something of a motley crew, a collection of former enemies, possibly future enemies, criminal organizations and sponsors of terrorist activities. This motley crew of allies is so diverse as to leave one wondering why they appear on our side at all. Indeed, why would one want them on one's side?

Among our new best friends is Syria. Before September 11 Syria was a sponsor of terrorism. It has housed and supported the Hamas and the PLO. It is a sworn enemy of Israel and by extension the U.S. and by extension the west. It does not believe in Israel's right to exist. For years it has been a leader in state sponsored terrorism. After September 11 Syria is now an ally. Before September 11 the U.S. actively campaigned against Syria having a seat. Now Syria will be at the table of the security council much to Israel's chagrin.

One diplomat said that Syria now represents the Arab world and, in a certain respect, the Islamic world in the security council. “It has thus become the interlocutor of the major powers” a western diplomat said.

Given that the council likes to make decisions unanimously, the powers will have to listen to Syria's point of view on the difference between terrorism and resistance. The diplomat also said that Syria would serve as an obstacle to any attempt at security council resolution to target radical anti-Israeli groups as part of the fight against terrorism.

Our other new best friend is Russia. It is widely acknowledged that Russia has many problems. One of those problems is in Chechnya. Will the U.S., Great Britain or indeed Canada speak forcefully about terrorism by or against the Chechnyans? My guess is that we will be mute and that is the deal. We will also be mute about the issues of concern to anyone with even a passing understanding of the area. For instance, did Russia acquire a veto on the Baltic admission to NATO? Before September 11, we were on the record of wanting a clear and transparent process and that Russian concerns should be minimal or irrelevant. Maybe the deal will be that Russia becomes part of NATO and the Baltic countries get forgotten.

I suppose, as Henry Kissinger would say, this is réal politique. China supports the war against terrorism but what is its price? Do we think that American and western criticism of China's treatment of minorities will be intensified or diminished after September 11? If people were members of the Falun Gong, of the Christian minority or citizens in Tibet or Taiwan would they feel more or less comfort after China became part of the coalition to fight against terrorism? My guess is that after September 11 China will feel that it has a much freer hand to deal with these issues because it knows that the U.S. will be preoccupied and the west has made a deal to mute its criticism.

What about the northern alliance? It appears that our new best friends will be expected to do the heavy lifting when the real fighting begins. I profess no expertise on matters pertaining to Afghan politics but I do recollect that the west, the U.S., sponsored the Taliban against the Russians in order to limit the Russian sphere of influence. At that time the northern alliance so-called sort of accepted the Russians in order to halt the spread of U.S. imperialism.

Ten years ago, Taliban members were the good guys, the Northern Alliance members were the bad guys and the Russians were the really bad guys. Now the Russians are the good guys, the Northern Alliance are the good guys and the Taliban are the bad guys. It is probably a good idea to clutch one's enemy close to one's breast and keep one's friends at arm's length.

A Russian captain who was involved in the war in Afghanistan said that everyone contemplating this should recall the words of Alexander the Great, who said:

You cannot conquer Persia, you can only pass through it.

The Russian captain also said:

The problem was never knowing who you were dealing with--who is on your side, who is a stranger.

If these are now our new best friends, what will it be like a year or five years from now? Bin Laden has chosen well.

Next door we have Pakistan. Prior to September 11, General Musharraf was a military dictator, having overthrown an elected government. Prior to September 11, Pakistan had a large international debt. After September 11, General Musharraf let allies land in his air space and had his debt reduced by something in the order of half a billion dollars U.S., while the irregularities of his coming to power were overlooked.

What cannot be overlooked is that bin Laden has a huge base of support in Pakistan. While not yet blessed with the joys of Taliban Islamism, a substantial percentage of the population is so virulently anti-American and anti-western that it actually supports and aids the Taliban. To really do a job on bin Laden's network, one should invade Pakistan. If Afghanistan is the last place to be militarily, according to our Russian former captain and now member of the Russian Duma, surely Pakistan is the last, last place one would want to be militarily. However, it is reasonable to suggest that if the action against the Taliban is successful the likely place of refuge for the Taliban will be Pakistan and therefore terrorism will continue, only from another location.

Another new best friend, actually an older friend, is Saudi Arabia, which has always in some respects been an ally of the United States. However, it has its own set of dynamics. Because bin Laden is a Saudi, although stripped of his citizenship, because all his financial wealth comes from Saudi Arabia, which is estimated to be somewhere between $25 million all the way up to $600 million, and frankly, who really knows, because Saudi Arabia is home to two of Islam's most holy sites and because bin Laden has had a great deal of success casting this as a war against the infidels, the House of Saud is in a very tricky position.

The House of Saud is an American invention. The deal is that we get secure oil supply and the House of Saud gets to run Saudi Arabia pretty much as it pleases, which may or may not include large amounts of graft and corruption, oppression of citizens and residents alike and massive amounts of wealth concentrated in a very few hands. It is not clear whether Saudi Arabia is directly or indirectly a bin Laden sponsor. What is clear is that his family made its money under the protection of the monarchy, that Saudi Arabia kicked him out and that he fled to the Sudan and then Afghanistan.

Refusal to allow the infidels to use Saudi soil for their war against terrorism is a tribute to bin Laden's success in casting the war as a religious one in which no government could allow the infidels so close to those holy sites. When the gulf war was on, Saudi Arabia's direct interests were affected and their embrace of the infidels was much warmer at that time.

What are we to conclude from our new best friends? Syria, our new friend, is a state sponsor of terrorism both before and after September 11. Russia is not an enemy, but there is a deal, similarly with China, probably a Faustian bargain.

The Northern Alliance was last year's enemy, it is this year's friend, and next year, who knows? Pakistan is extremely complex. Saudi Arabia is a neutral friend and not overly enthusiastic. My mother used to say that we are known by the company we keep. If that is so, this is quite a motley crew of our new best friends.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chairman, on September 11, following the infamous attacks in New York and Washington, President George W. Bush described those events as attacks on freedom itself. Tonight I propose to speak about the implications for freedom of the anti-terrorism legislation that the government is proposing and has put forward today.

This is legislation designed to deal with some extraordinary threats to our freedom. It does so, necessarily perhaps, by limiting some fundamental freedoms. In particular, from my own quick reading of the bill, I take note of six specific limitations on freedoms which I think ought to be taken very seriously by all of us.

The first of these is a restriction on freedom of association. It would be an offence under the law to participate in a terrorist group. There is also a restriction on the right to privacy. As well, there would be easier use of electronic surveillance against terrorist groups, which necessarily means not only surveillance of terrorist groups but also of those who are suspected, not necessarily accurately, of being members of such groups or of being participants in such groups.

To make this last point, I will read from some of the background material provided by the government.

We see that the new law would eliminate the need to demonstrate that electronic surveillance is a last resort in the investigation of terrorists. We see as well that the proposed legislation would extend the period of validity of wiretap authorization as issued by a superior court judge, and finally, the requirement to notify a target after surveillance has taken place could be delayed for up to three years rather than the one year currently specified in law.

We see as well that the right to a public trial would be limited to some degree through amendments to the Canada Evidence Act which would forbid public disclosure of information that is considered to be of national interest and that might come up in court.

As well, the right not to be detained without charges being laid would be infringed to some degree. The criminal code would be amended to create a new category of what is called preventive arrest. This would be done where it is deemed appropriate for people who are suspected terrorists.

Freedom of speech would be restricted to some degree, with restrictions on the use of Internet and telephones for the promotion of hate.

Finally, property rights would be restricted to some degree through civil forfeiture laws.

It may well be that these are justified restrictions on freedoms given the emergency circumstances with which we are presented. Rights are never absolute. I think we all understand this when we think of the homely phrase “my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins”.

Even in the United States where the bill of rights lays out the rights within it, subject to no restriction whatsoever, the practice has in fact been for the courts to find ways of defining restrictions into the definitions of these rights. For example, the right to freedom of speech was defined more narrowly by the creation by the courts of something known as speech acts, whereby a kind of speech is considered not to be speech but rather to be a kind of act and therefore not subject to protection under the bill of rights.

In Canada, section 1 of the charter of rights applies in this respect and provides limitations. If I may, I will read section 1 to the House to make this point. It states:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have stressed at great length that the new anti-terrorism act would conform to section 1 of the charter. I think what they are driving at is that insofar as the new anti-terrorism law restricts or would restrict individual freedoms it would do so only by placing reasonable limits prescribed within this law and doing so only to the extent that can be justified in a free and democratic society like Canada's.

However, this means that if they are to succeed in meeting the tests they are setting for themselves they must meet with what is known as the Oakes test. This is a test that was defined by the supreme court in a 1986 case, Regina v Oakes.

The standard of proof that the rights are being restricted in a manner that is not excessive is only the civil standard, that is to say, the balance of the probabilities must be in favour of the government should the government find itself in any kind of court proceeding where it is trying to demonstrate the constitutionality of one of these restrictions on rights. The balance of the probabilities essentially means that there has to be a better than 50% chance that the government is in fact justified. This is not a perfect test and it is certainly not a perfect protection for liberties.

Peter Hogg, the great constitutional scholar, says this is probably the only realistic test that is available to us, that is, the test applied by the civil law rather than the more restrictive test applied by the criminal law, but he does stress that it too has its dangers. To make this point, I would like to quote Peter Hogg, who states as follows:

--where the validity of a law turns on a finding of fact (for example, the existence of an emergency), that finding of fact need not be proved strictly by the government; it is sufficient that there be a “rational basis” for the finding.

Therefore we do see the potential for some restrictions that could in fact represent a genuine erosion of our overall freedoms and liberties, and after all, it is in protection of freedoms and liberties that we are trying to enact this legislation.

With all this being said, and remembering the extraordinary circumstances that we face today which justify this kind of legislation, it seems to me that there is an absolute need for a sunset clause in the legislation. We do believe that this emergency will pass in time, certainly that it has the potential to pass in time and that if it has not passed by the time that the sunset clause would take place or would kick in, it could be reenacted or some new version could be enacted that is perhaps a bit refined due to the experience we would have had in dealing with the law in practice and with the rights restrictions that it states in practice.

If, for example, the law were to say that this law would cease to be in force and effect after the passage of three years' time unless reenacted by parliament, I think that would be a very good idea. Instead we have in this legislation a review clause. Subclause 145(1) of the bill states:

“Within three years after this act receives royal assent, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this act shall be undertaken by such committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both houses of Parliament as may be designated or established by parliament for that purpose”.

Subclause 145(2) states:

“The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within a year after the review is undertaken pursuant to that subsection or within such further time as parliament may authorize, submit a report on the review to parliament, including a statement of any changes the committee recommends”.

All of which is well and good except for the fact that it imposes no sanctions should the government not arrange to have such a committee convened.

The problem we have is that in the past the government has failed, and failed regularly, to actually establish such committees and ensure such reviews when they have been called for. A perfectly good example is the Referendum Act. A review should have taken place by mid-June of 1995. In fact no review has taken place and we are now six years overdue. I worry that the same thing will happen here.

For this reason I strongly encourage the government to change the legislation and write in an actual sunset clause that will actually cause the legislation to cease to be in force and effect if no reenactment takes place. I think that would be a strong improvement to this law. I do urge the government to make that change.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the House for its unanimous consent to give us all an opportunity today to address this very serious matter in this take-note debate.

Since it is a take note debate on the actions of this government, this country and other countries in reaction to the horrors of September 11, I wish to convey to the government some of the concerns and thoughts that I have heard expressed from people whom I have been elected to represent in the House.

First, I have heard universal condemnation for the attacks of September 11 on the American eastern seaboard in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania and more recently through biological terrorism all over North America and perhaps elsewhere in the world. There is universal condemnation of that.

Second, I have heard that people want the perpetrators of these attacks brought to justice. That is again a nearly universal position and certainly a strong indication of the will to eradicate terrorism. Those are essentially the opinions that I have received.

I would say that in terms of what the government has done, the reaction is somewhat mixed. About 10% of the people to whom I have spoken believe we are going too far with the proposals. Another 20% or so are saying that we are not doing enough. About 60% to 70% are saying that they are generally okay with the direction that the government has taken so far in terms of military action, diplomatic action, financial action, legal action and the necessity for more intelligence to better cope with the terrorism threat.

Essentially, that means a majority say yes to military intervention, but not universal support and I recognize that. I have had letters and phone calls from people who would rather that we not participate in a military effort. However a majority of the people who have written me or called my office have indicated their support for Canada's military participation in the campaign against the ongoing terrorism.

There is a definite and resounding yes also to increased humanitarian aid, especially for the Afghan people and the Afghan refugees who are living under extreme conditions. There is no hesitation from almost any quarters. Again, that is close to universal approval for increased aid to the Afghan people from our government, our country and our people.

I would also indicate from discussions that I have had that there is overwhelming support for the continuation of our immigration policies. I distinguish between immigration and refugee. If I am to be faithful to what I have heard, I must indicate that there are serious concerns with our refugee process, not with the notion of us welcoming refugees but with the current way we handle that system, and I believe it is my responsibility to convey that to the government in this take-note debate.

On the matter of security measures, such as have been introduced today at first reading, there is some general support but some very strong words of caution that we not restrict unduly civil liberties.

That is what I have been hearing and I wish to convey that to the government in terms of take-note for the purposes of this debate.

I would also like to add some thoughts of my own. Terrorism is by its very nature unpredictable. We may wish to tighten security at the airports, at our ports and at our borders. That in and of itself is a good thing if only to prevent those who may be tempted to attempt similar types of terrorist acts or even to foil the efforts of others.

In that sense, it is appropriate that we increase our capacity to prevent. However, if we stop at that, we are seriously mistaken.

I had occasion on September 10 to speak at the 47th annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. I addressed the assembly in terms of whether parliaments around the world subject scientific advances to legislation and the regulatory framework. I had occasion to quote a fellow by the name of Bill Joy, and I will quote him again tonight. Bill Joy is a co-founder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems. He wrote a rather disturbing article in the April 2000 issue of Wired magazine, a piece titled “Why the future doesn't need us”. I will quote four very brief passages of the article because it would take too long, in time allowed, to quote it all. He said:

Accustomed to living with almost routine scientific breakthroughs, we have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies--robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology--pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once--but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control.

A little further on he says:

Perhaps it is always hard to see the bigger impact while you are in the vortex of a change. Failing to understand the consequences of our inventions while we are in the rapture of discovery and innovation seems to be a common fault of scientists and technologists; we have long been driven by the overarching desire to know that is the nature of science's quest, not stopping to notice that the progress to newer and more powerful technologies can take on a life of its own.

Later he states:

Unfortunately, as with nuclear technology, it is far easier to create destructive uses for nanotechnology than constructive ones. Nanotechnology has clear military and terrorist uses, and you need not be suicidal to release a massively destructive nanotechnological device--such devices can be built to be selectively destructive, affecting, for example, only a certain geographical area or a group of people who are genetically distinct.

Finally, he states:

In truth, we have had in hand for years clear warnings of the danger inherent in widespread knowledge of GNR technologies--

This is for genomics, robotics and nanotechnology.

--of the possibility of knowledge alone enabling mass destruction. But these warnings haven't been widely publicized; the public discussions have been clearly inadequate. There is no profit in publicizing the dangers.

As we progress scientifically, it behooves us all in our institutions, whatever they may be, to make sure that our scientific progress is limited as much as possible to the benefit of mankind of our human species and not to its destruction. I urge those in our government who have the responsibility for these institutions to make sure that they take great care of the use of the knowledge we are generating.

Another random thought, perhaps not that random, is that I encourage my colleagues in the House from all parties to keep in mind the concept of separation of church and state as we engage in these debates. I believe that it is an extremely sound principle and one of which we should not lose sight. I sense that on some occasions we have had a tendency to invoke God on either side of this issue. I urge my colleagues to be very careful in maintaining this principled separation of church and state.

Finally, these events will help us reaffirm the importance of government in our society and of public good. Profitability in and of itself is fine, but it cannot be the end-all of our society. It cannot be the driving force of humanism.

If there can be any good coming from these events of September 11, that might be indeed reaffirmation of this value that the common good is not to be valued less than profitability.

I would have liked to have gone on and perhaps invoked the notion that it might be time for nations around the world to consider a stand-alone UN military force, supported by these nations around the world so that it is not always at the bequest of nations to participate in efforts that may be required urgently. Perhaps I will have another occasion in the near future to debate that.

I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to put these thoughts to paper so that perhaps they can be useful in the days ahead.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I consider it an honour to be able to participate in this take note debate as well, with my colleagues from all parties.

I want to begin by once again offering my condolences to the people of the United States for the terrible incident that occurred on September 11, and I do that on behalf of the people of Dewdney--Alouette.

Some people often ask me where Dewdney--Alouette is or what province Iam. It is a riding in British Columbia just outside Vancouver which encompasses mainly the cities of Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Mission, Agassiz and Harrison Hot Springs. I have received a number of phone calls, e-mails and letters from people wishing to pass on their condolences to our good friends and neighbours in the United States. Therefore, I do that at the beginning.

I would also like to acknowledge something that does not happen too often in the House, and it happened earlier this evening. We passed an opposition supply day motion brought forward by members of the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative coalition. It was supported by almost all members of the House.

I would like to read the opposition motion brought forward by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, the leader of our coalition, into the record one last time. It states:

That this House reaffirm its condemnation of the terrorist attacks against our NATO ally, the United States of America, on September 11, 2001, and affirm its support for Canada's courageous men and women in the Canadian Forces who are responding to defend freedom and democracy in the international military coalition against terrorism; and

That this House order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to sit jointly to hold frequent meetings with ministers and officials of the government and the military.

That was a positive step and I think we demonstrated through our actions that we are able to come together in a non-partisan way to take a small step to show that we can work together in this place. I was encouraged by that.

I would also like to refer to a couple of comments made by the Prime Minister earlier in debate here in the House. I commend the Prime Minister for speaking in the House and for his presence during all the speeches of the leaders of the opposition parties. He said that we have no quarrel with Islam or with the people of Afghanistan, and I agree with him. He went on to say that our quarrel is against terrorists and those who would commit the acts of violence and horror that we witnessed on September 11.

The action of those terrorists was wrong, immoral and evil to the core. I do not think there is much debate about that.

I would like to frame the rest of my comments in the form of some questions that I would have for the government. I would also like to commend the government for bringing forward Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, which was introduced in the House today.

I am one who will often say to the government when it does something positive and comes up with a good idea, congratulations. It is my hope we will do more of that and that in turn the government members can support good ideas from the opposition benches.

A question I have for the immigration minister is this. What does the immigration minister plan to do to stop the flow of potential terrorists during the lag time before the maple leaf card comes on line in June and the months before it is fully implemented? How would this measure specifically deter terrorists from coming to Canada? I applaud her for the action. I have some follow up questions for her on that.

I have a question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. Why have the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister rejected out of hand the notion of an integrated security perimeter? It has been raised by others. Why are we not willing to consider, as a possibility, integrating our security perimeter with our friends from the United States? It raises implications for international trade, the movement of goods and people from our country to the United States and back the other way.

I also have a question for the Minister of Transport. Why would the minister reject the suggestion brought forward by our coalition and other members of the House to employ air marshals on domestic flights in Canada? We know that he has agreed to do so on flights which originate in Canada and go to Reagan National Airport in Washington because it is required that air marshals be on all flights that arrive at that destination.

I know the issue of intermittent reinforcement is the most powerful kind of reinforcement there is. Whether positive or negative, when individuals are unaware of when they will be rewarded or punished for an act, they are more likely to continue in a positive vein. In other words, if terrorists are on domestic flights and they know there are no air marshals on that flight, it will not be a deterrent. If they are aware there are air marshals, then they must consider that before taking action.

The idea of air marshals is a worthwhile notion to explore and the Minister of Transport should look seriously at that.

Why does the government and the Prime Minister reject the suggestion to bring leaders of opposition parties into the Privy Council to break down partisan walls and show real leadership? This was done by the Conservative government during the gulf war and it would be a good thing to do now.

Why does the Prime Minister reject the suggestion to give regular briefings in the House on important developments with regard to Canada's role in fighting terrorism? This has been done in the United States. Even after a security breach and concerns from the president, the practice continued because members of congress guaranteed to, in essence, to police themselves and make sure that the confidentiality of the information would not be breached.

When people are brought into confidence and they are trusted, their confidence and trust increases as well. I would put forward that if the government showed that kind of leadership there would be goodwill from all members of the House to participate in that. Would there be a risk for the government? Yes, there would be but at the same time the benefits would outweigh the risks in bringing along members from all parties into the discussion and by extension, the constituents they represent across the country.

Why do Canadians have to find out about commitments made by the government at party fundraisers or on CNN's Larry King Live ? That has happened a few times. Again, I point to the fact that the Prime Minister spoke in the House this evening. I appreciated that. This is a better place to bring forward information on the war on terrorism than at a party fundraiser or on an American news broadcast.

Why did the Prime Minister commit 2,000 of our military personnel to the war on terrorism without recalling parliament, where he would have received overwhelming support from all parties in a non-partisan display of unity? I support the commitment the government made. Our coalition supports that commitment. I would assert that the Prime Minister would have had overwhelming support, built trust and broken down walls in doing that. We could have shown by our actions that that would have been a good thing to do.

I appreciate the opportunity to raise these questions. I look forward to answers in days to come from the government.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Chairman, this past week members of parliament had an opportunity to work in their constituency offices and had an opportunity to have the input of their constituents, in addition to other communications. I think all members have received literally hundreds of communications about many of the issues that face us, and this process will continue.

Canadians should be comforted to know that the House has had probably close to 50 hours of debate since this terrorism attack first seized the world. Also committees have been working very extensively. The transport committee had the Minister of Transport before it. The finance committee had the Minister of Foreign Affairs before it. As well, he was before the foreign affairs committee with his officials. We had the defence minister before the defence committee, again with his officials.

Committees had the opportunity to have accessible to them all the information so that members of parliament would have all the tools necessary to keep themselves apprised of what was going on.

I am comforted by the fact that members have had an opportunity to speak and to inform themselves of the facts as they evolve.

I took the opportunity to look into a bit of background of the country of Afghanistan. Obviously, it is the focus of much of the discussion that is going on. I was fascinated by the facts.

Afghanistan is a country of some 25 million people, 42% of whom are under 25 years of age. It is a very young country. It is about the size of the province of Ontario. It has a birthrate of about 4.2 children per family, compared to Canada's 1.6 per family currently.

The life expectancy of an Afghan citizen is about 45 years of age, compared to a range of 76 to 82 years of age in Canada. A citizen in Afghanistan does not live very long.

Only about 10% of the land in Afghanistan is arable. It means they have very little ability to be able to grow food to feed themselves. Until recently, Afghanistan was the world's largest producer of opium and the proceeds obviously from the illicit drugs, and apparently they still have vast hordes of inventory of the poppies, have not gone to the people; they have gone for terrorism. That is one of the reasons that I am sure that the coalition of NATO allies first went after the money.

Tonight we are talking about the initiatives we have taken to address terrorism. It is important to know that the process to freeze and seize assets and to put the resources available to the terrorists out of their hands to the greatest extent possible, continues around the world with coalition allies.

One can imagine that it was a very difficult decision for the Prime Minister to make, in consultation with our NATO allies and also with parliament, through the communications which constantly go on here formally and informally, on a very special problem.

Last week, Mr. and Mrs. Alton in my constituency came to speak to me about peaceful and diplomatic approaches toward resolving this. It is fair to say that my constituents in Mississauga, and I suspect all Canadians, would much prefer peaceful and diplomatic solutions to very serious problems.

I wonder whether it is possible to imagine peaceful solutions to problems we had, for instance, with Iraq, with the gulf war and with Saddam Hussein. I wonder if peaceful solutions would have been an effective approach to the former Yugoslavian Kosovo and Slobodan Milosevic. I wonder now whether peaceful solutions would be appropriate with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

It is always appropriate to try. I believe that the governments of the coalition countries have decided that peaceful solutions will not protect and defend the rights and the freedoms that democracies enjoy around the world.

In making the decision to engage our military in the coalition forces, the Prime Minister announced an operation entitled Operation Apollo deploying over 2000 courageous men and women. I believe, based on the vote that we had earlier on an opposition day motion, that the House concurs on our support for our military. It is very important that we reaffirm our commitment to our men and women who are representing our country's interests.

At the same time, along with the hardware and other personnel, is the humanitarian side. As I mentioned earlier, Afghanistan is a poor country. It means that responsible countries have to understand that there are some three million refugees over there and probably another million people who are displaced. A lot of people are suffering. It is a poor country to start with.

What is going on right now, even though it is strategic in terms of dealing with military, communications and other targets, does affect innocent citizens, and that is regrettable.

However, what would happen if we were not to take action? The people who make those decisions today, on behalf of democracies around the world, have to make tough decisions. I believe that the House has shown its clear support for the military support we have given to the coalition.

The government also today tabled Bill C-36, an anti-terrorism act. This is yet another initiative on behalf of Canada.

I understand that in the United States both congress and the senate have passed legislation, in their respective bodies, on anti-terrorism activities. I understand that next week they will be meshing those because right now they do not fit together very neatly, but they will have to hammer that out before that law is established.

That raises an interesting question. Under this legislation, it will be a crime to participate in terrorist activities. It will also be a crime to finance terrorism. The legislation will fully and effectively implement the UN convention on terrorist financing, et cetera.

During a press conference on terrorism, the justice minister stated:

The measures we are introducing strike the right balance between civil liberties and national security, and signal our resolve to ensure that Canadians will not be paralyzed by acts of terrorism.

I believe the intent is clear. I am assured by the minister that every effort has been taken to provide that appropriate balance between the rights of the individual and the need for us to have security. I think we all are aware of the aspect that without security we have no sovereignty. I believe that security is very important, but at the same time it is important to care for the protection of individual rights and freedoms.

If our anti-terrorism legislation is not comparable to the terrorism legislation in other jurisdictions, then maybe Canada would deserve a title of being a haven for terrorists. It is important that we, as parliamentarians, do our utmost to ensure that Canada has comparable legislation.

Let me conclude by repeating what the Prime Minister said earlier in the House when he led off this debate. I thought it was a very important commitment and a very strong signal of Canada's resolve.

The Prime Minister stated that:

we must never forget that the ultimate goal of terrorists was not to capture us by the force of arms but by the force of terror. He said that they did not want to occupy Canada rather they wanted to shut Canada down. He went on to say that the government, the House and the nation would not let them.

[John M. Cummins, Canadian Alliance, Delta—South Richmond, BC]

Mr. Chairman, it is with great sadness and deep concern that I participate in the debate this evening. Our country, along with our great neighbour to the south, our friend, the United States of America, along with our ally, Great Britain, our mother country which provided the model for this parliament and other institutions of governance in this land, and indeed all of the western world are threatened by the perpetrators of the events of September 11.

Together we face an enemy like no other in the past, an enemy who has as his goal the destruction of our society, an enemy unencumbered by the constraints of nationhood and human dignity, an enemy who cares nothing for his own life let alone the thousands who died on September 11.

I support Canada's commitment to send the Canadian armed forces to serve in the coalition currently engaged in operations in Afghanistan directed at eliminating this hideous threat. It is never an easy decision to commit a nation to war, but commit we must to ensure the safety of our neighbourhoods and the continuance of our way of life. There has never been such a threat on our own shores.

The words of Chesterton never rang more true than now: “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him”. On behalf of my constituents and all Canadians, let me wish our troops Godspeed and a safe return to those they now leave behind.

The evil of September 11 was not an abstract ethereal cloud that somehow overcame people like a fog. It was an evil conceived in the minds of those who choose to see the lives of fellow human beings as nothing more than a means to an end. Bin Laden has willingly embraced murder in an effort to achieve his perverted vision of a society dedicated to God.

Time and time again the world has seen despots who justified their horrific action as God's work. We know the type and will not judge as guilty those who have a real understanding of the faith desecrated by the actions of a few evil men.

Leaders of all religions, Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Jew, Muslim and others, have condemned the acts of September 11 and we share their horror. In short, this is not a war against Islam. It is a war against a terrorist who has caused innocent people to be killed before and attempts to justify his unholy actions as God's work.

The Prime Minister's shoulder to shoulder pledge to support the Americans in the war against terrorism is, as respected columnist and commentator on military matters Peter Worthington noted “mostly rhetoric with some tokenism”.

Major General Lewis MacKenzie, who commanded UN soldiers during the siege of Sarajevo, said the federal government has failed to fund its military as required under the 1994 white paper on defence and that has left the country unable to contribute to an international effort against terrorism with anything less than a token force. He said “We are not capable of carrying out the very instructions that the Government of Canada has given the military”.

MacKenzie pointed out that even if Canada was asked to contribute a battle group of 1,200 or 1,400 soldiers “we would be unable to deliver it to any theatre of operations without American military support, making Canada a potential liability rather than an asset”. He said further “We would need a taxi to get us there. We don't have the strategic lift capability we would need to get anywhere and we don't have the infrastructure”.

As well, MacKenzie suggests that even if we could provide a couple of squadrons of CF-18s for “attacks on terrorist camps or the states that give them shelter...we would need the Americans to provide their in-flight refuelling capability to get them overseas”.

Another example of the shabby treatment our military has received from the government was raised by my colleague, the member for Edmonton Centre-East, who released a DND document last week which shows that the Sea King helicopters are probably no more than ballast on this trip because at temperatures of 35° Celsius and above the Sea King cannot fly and the temperatures at this time of the year in the Persian Gulf are often over 35° Celsius. Naval helicopters are the eyes and ears of their ships. Without them the lives of the personnel aboard the frigates are needlessly put at risk.

Our military has been sadly underfunded for years. In 1998 the auditor general advised parliament that while DND required almost $11 billion for equipment over the next five years the government had budgeted for little more than half that amount.

In a recent article, Scott Taylor of Esprit de Corps magazine wrote that since 1993 defence spending has been slashed by 23% to $9 billion. This represents only 1.1% of GDP and Canada ranks barely ahead of Luxembourg for the lowest expenditure among NATO's 19 nations.

Mr. Taylor notes that a year ago Lord Robertson, NATO secretary-general, warned that additional military spending was required Canada. He stated that “If our armed forces are to do the complex, difficult and dangerous jobs we assign them--and if they are to succeed in these jobs--it is the duty of each NATO ally to make needed improvements”.

Lord Robertson is not alone in his criticism. In 1997, British Falklands war hero Lieutenant-General Sir Hew Pike created a controversy when he claimed politically correct policies, none aimed at enhancing operational effectiveness, had badly eroded our forces' combat capability. He said “The Canadians have surrendered any claim to be a war fighting force”.

Scott Taylor says that in their efforts to recruit a 25% target of women into combat trades, the forces have been funding the feminization of standard army webbing and rucksacks and the design of a special combat bra. Meanwhile, essential supplies have become so short that during three years of peacekeeping in Bosnia new arrivals had to exchange kit with homeward bound soldiers.

Rather than acknowledge Sir Hew Pike's concerns, defence minister Art Eggleton rose in the House of Commons and arrogantly dismissed the valiant soldier with “Take a hike, Pike”.

Sergeant Tom Hoppe, a highly decorated Canadian soldier, took exception to this. “Pike is right”, Hoppe said. “When you've got the Defence Department more concerned with paying for sex-change operations than taking care of combat-stressed soldiers, and policy makers more concerned about regulating body piercing and hair tinting than about new armored vehicles, we've got a serious problem”.

In 1993, the Prime Minister said we could not afford what he called the Cadillac helicopter selected by the previous government for use aboard our naval frigates. He spent $500 million to cancel the contract and never did bother replacing the aging helicopters.

Somehow at this moment, with our navy going into a war zone, I would feel a lot easier if the navy had a Cadillac helicopter or two on those ships, and I bet our sailors would too.

When the Minister of Foreign Affairs said Canada faces a glaring inadequacy in its intelligence gathering, defence and foreign aid capabilities that is compromising the country's ability to meet overseas commitments or to live up to its international reputation and when he said that "You can't just sit at the G-8 table and then, when the bill comes, go to the washroom", he was really admitting what we all knew, that our military did not have the resources to do the job and Canada was getting by on a reputation earned decades ago, a refreshing admission. Finally, someone was being honest with Canadians and telling us the truth even when it made the government look as if it had not done its job. Leadership is not simply protecting one's behind: it is being honest with the people one is responsible for, the people one represents. At times like these, Canadians want to believe in their government.

That being said, it is easy to feel revulsion toward our leaders. Immediately after September 11, they told us there was not a problem. They were prepared to label as undemocratic anyone who questioned them. Now they have changed their position. They are going to protect us, perhaps, but it is they who dumbed down our military, RCMP, CSIS and the immigration and refugee determination board system.

The Prime Minister, defence minister, immigration minister, justice minister and solicitor general have a responsibility to us as Canadians. They have a responsibility to keep Canadians safe and to respond on our behalf against those who would endanger us. They have not done so. They have failed us.

Successive Liberal governments, from that of Lester Pearson to that of Pierre Trudeau, who failed to show up when our freedoms were being tested in World War II, have allowed this country's defence forces to deteriorate from their place of prominence in the great wars and Korean conflict to the point where we need to take a taxi to get to battle stations and our brave soldiers, sailors and air crew are put at risk by just showing up with obsolete equipment.

I said at the outset that we face an enemy like no other in our past, an enemy who places no value on human life, his or ours. Distant though the battles to which our troops are travelling may be, our safety here is dependent on their success. They are our heroes. We will keep them foremost in our thoughts and prayers.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this take note debate.

Many people have said it here this evening and in debates in the past several weeks, but indeed the world has changed dramatically since September 11. There are important decisions that have been made and important decisions that need to be made. I am pleased that in this debate and others that have taken place since September 11 parliament is having an opportunity on behalf of Canadians to provide input. It is important that we have these debates. It is important that we consider the options that are laid out before us and that we have an opportunity as parliamentarians, on behalf of Canadians, to have these types of discussions.

Over the last several weeks I have had an opportunity through letters, through attending events in my riding and through telephone conversations to talk to a large number of constituents about the events of September 11 and those things that have flowed from those events.

This past Saturday I had an opportunity to hold a town hall meeting in my riding with a number of constituents who came together to talk about the issues that we as parliamentarians are talking about here this evening. I want to take a moment to thank all of those constituents who participated not only in that town hall but who have provided their input to me regarding their views on what has taken place and on what we need to do as a government and as parliament to respond to those events.

I promised my constituents at that town hall that I would speak to the issues they raised and talk a little about them here this evening.

In essence, my constituents' input can be divided into two broad categories. First they identified what they felt were some important priorities that the government needed to be seized with, that we as parliamentarians needed to be seized with. Second, they also took the time to talk about some important principles needed to govern whatever specific actions we would undertake as a government and as a country.

In terms of government priorities, constituents classified things into three general categories. The first priority would be something that we called capture and justice. That is a direct result of the events of September 11. I believe we all remain shocked at what we saw happen that day. Our hearts continue to go out to the victims and to all of the people who are directly responding to that in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington. Constituents made it very clear that there is no justification for what took place, no political justification, no diplomatic justification, no righting of past wrongs. What we saw take place on September 11 was, simply put, a mass murder of 5,000 plus innocent people. My constituents and all Canadians, I believe, very strongly feel the need to seek out those who are responsible for this horrendous crime and to ensure that justice is done in this respect.

We talked about some of the things that have transpired since then in terms of bringing these perpetrators to justice. We talked about NATO and article 5. We talked about the integration of our security forces with those of the Americans and our other allies. We talked about the seizing of financial assets and the importance of that in terms of stopping acts of terrorism.

My constituents very clearly addressed the government's decision to commit our military forces to the coalition to work toward the capture of bin Laden, his organization and other terrorist organizations throughout the world. To be quite honest, although there was not an absolute unanimity, a very clear majority of constituents said that it is appropriate to commit the Canadian military to this endeavour.

In terms of continuing our priorities, the second one was the issue of personal security. There really is no more direct mandate for a government than to provide for the security of its citizens. It is critically important to ensure that our citizens are able to go about living their daily lives with a normal routine. To have anything other than that would mean a victory for the terrorists.

Constituents talked about the establishment of the security committee in cabinet and the $280 million of new funding that has been committed. Indeed, today we saw another step go forward with the tabling of new anti-terrorism legislation that will provide additional tools to ensure the security of individual Canadians.

As a third priority, constituents talked about the need to secure our borders. As the minister of immigration has said, we need to ensure that we firmly close the back door to illegal entries into Canada so that those whose past behaviour does not warrant them being accepted into Canada are kept out. It will ensure that we can keep open the front door to immigration for people who have over the history of the country come to Canada and added to the fabric of this nation.

Constituents also talk about the need to strengthen the interdiction and security at our borders not only for security reasons but obviously for economic reasons. We need integrity at our border.

Beyond priorities, constituents talked about the principles that we need to follow as a government. Simply put, there are three very important principles. First, although they recognize the need to work closely with Americans and with our allies, we need to do it in a way that does not sacrifice Canadian sovereignty.

Second, we need to remember clearly the need to strike the balance between collective security and individual rights, and that we should not destroy the very values that mark Canada as a democracy in our actions to defend it.

Third, we must remember that when we win the campaign against terrorism, and we will, we must be prepared to continue our historic efforts to address issues that contribute to the improvement and well-being of the lives of Canadians and indeed all citizens of the world.

Since September 11, Canadians and Canada have faced new and difficult challenges. I believe Canadians have done a good job in facing those challenges. I believe that parliament, through its debates and suggestions from all sides of the House, has done a good job. I believe the government is doing a good job in responding to the issues in terms of our military commitment, our new legislative initiatives and our new security initiatives.

There is much more to be done. There are many steps along the road to ensuring the security of our nation and to ensuring that we bring to justice those who perpetrated that very terrible crime. We will do these things and we will do them because we are united as a country and as a people. Canada is a great country and Canadians are a great people.

In closing, I will offer a refrain that God watch over our military personnel, the men and women who in the days ahead may find themselves in harm's way.

[Keith Martin, Canadian Alliance, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak to this particular issue. It has been over a month since September 11 and it is time that we discussed a number of issues that were largely overlooked in this situation.

The bombing taking place now in Afghanistan is perhaps the simplest of all the aspects in the war against terrorism. A much more complex challenge though is what we are faced with today. It is the challenge of how we combat urban terrorism.

The killings in New York City in actuality were a form of urban terrorism. We know that Osama bin Laden has been training up to 11,000 people in training camps in the Middle East and Afghanistan in particular, to spread throughout the world and kill people.

We know this from Ahmed Ressam who lived in Montreal for four years. We know this from those who were responsible for the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. We know these people were inserted into these countries to lie low as moles for months if not years until the call came, the call from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to engage in a holy jihad and kill innocent civilians in their objective, which is to drive western influence from the Middle East.

We must make no mistake about the fact that this is a war against individuals who have chosen not to sit at the negotiating table but to blow it up. Therefore there is no negotiating with these individuals and a military option is the only option.

However, in combating the scourge of urban terrorism we must be intelligent. It will be a long and complex battle and it will require our police forces, CSIS and the international community of mutuals.

A bill was introduced today and the bill must have the following components. It must involve powers for the RCMP and CSIS in terms of surveillance, in terms of being able to monitor Internet and telephone communications, and in terms of search and seizure provisions.

It will be a balancing act not only between our individual rights under the charter but also the right for us to be secure. It will be a difficult challenge but it is one that we must face. We will work with the Minister of Justice to accomplish this objective.

We also need to cut the financial underpinnings from those organizations, more than 27 of which operate in Canada today, that are responsible for raising and sending money to not only Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and the organizations that support them but to a wide variety of other terrorist organizations that have found Canada a haven for raising funds for terrorist activities abroad. We must give the financial institutions the tools to not only freeze but also seize the financial assets of these particular organizations.

We also need to secure our borders by ensuring that people coming to this country are true refugees and true immigrants and that those who are terrorists and criminals are kept out.

What is appalling is that individuals are allowed to fly into our airports and claim refugee status without any form of identification. They should be sent back to their country of origin. These individuals obviously got on a plane with identification but got off without it. Somewhere between boarding the plane and leaving it they destroyed their identification papers. Under those circumstances they should be sent home. They are not true refugees. They are economic refugees or other people trying to get into the country.

In another vein, we have an incredible opportunity. In my view we have not had an opportunity like this since World War II to bring peace and security to the international community.

In the building of the coalition that we are engaged in today who would have thought that we would be working with Pakistan, who would have thought that 1,000 American rangers would be deposited in Uzbekistan? We have the possibility of bringing together Russia and the west, Arab countries and the west, the CIS countries in the southern part of Russia and the west, Pakistan and the west, and to build bridges between Pakistan and India to try to resolve the conflict over Kashmir which is a deadly and potentially lethal one because both are nuclear capable.

We could do this by modelling it after World War II. After World War II the international community had a choice. It could have acted punitively against Germany but it chose to implement the Marshall plan which brought longstanding peace and security to Europe and enabled Germany to become a peaceful neighbour and a participant in the world.

We need to do that now. In doing so we would not have to deal with people like Osama bin Laden where only the military option is required. We would be able to deal with the masses of hopeless unemployed, usually men in the Middle East, where Osama bin Laden finds his shock troops. By improving the economic situation on the ground for these individuals it would prevent them from looking toward bin Laden and to look toward more peaceful ways in which to exercise their basic rights.

It would also involve the international community trying to offset the virulent propaganda that has fed these individuals from childhood. We know that one of the first things that happens in conflicts is that negative, hateful propaganda is used to turn a group of people against another. That is what has happened in these areas and what Osama bin Laden and his supporters did. They went into areas with a fertile ground of unemployed, hopeless individuals who only knew conflict and fed them a virulent message of hateful propaganda.

We must change that and the only way to change it is to introduce the truth about what the west has done, how it has helped Muslims and the marsh Arabs in southern Iraq, how it has tried to save the Kurds in northern Iraq, the Muslims in Kosovo and Bosnia, and its efforts to bring peace to the Sudan. We must let everyone know about these efforts that the west has supported.

We need to use new tools and build the bridges of diplomacy. There is also an enormous opportunity for rapprochement in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine.

As an international community we must tell the Palestinian authorities and the PLO that they must not allow Hamas and the Islamic jihad to engage in killings. It poisons the peace process. They must clean out the Palestinian authority of the corruption that exists within it.

On the other hand, the west, especially the U.S., must tell the Israelis that they must remove their settlements from Palestinian held territories, that they must acknowledge the presence of a Palestinian state that is independent and that they must work quickly toward the formation of borders for a free Palestinian state in the Middle East.

We must do that today. If we do not do that we cannot secure a long term peace in that area in the future. To secure that peace we would require a number of different economic and political avenues and diplomatic initiatives. Here at home we would require support for the military, the RCMP and CSIS. We would also need to give the financial institutions the tools to undercut and remove the financial underpinnings that support terrorist organizations.

This will be a long drawn out battle. It will not be won tomorrow. The most difficult aspect of the battle will not be the so-called war in Afghanistan. Our challenge will be to weed out the octopus of terrorist cells that exist all over the world. It will be difficult but by working with our neighbours and international security organizations we will be able to do it. There will be killings and there will be death but unfortunately that is the fact of life that we have today.

It is unfortunate that it has taken two years for the government to act. It knew this was going to happen and it knew these terrorist cells were operating. The writing was on the wall and it chose to ignore it.

Similarly, as my colleagues across the way in the House have mentioned, we need to support our military. Cuts and political indifference to the military have not enabled us to participate in the manner that we should.

In closing, we need to increase our military manpower to a minimum of 60,000. We need to increase the number of effective troops on the sharp edge and give them the equipment they need to do the job and to offset the rust out in our equipment that is occurring today.

In closing, I know all of us join in saying a prayer for our men and women in uniform half a world away. We wish them Godspeed. We pray that they will be protected. We will work hard to protect them, as well as the civilians in Canada, from being in harm's way.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak on this issue. It is my third time addressing the issue of international terrorism in the last month. I will put it into context at the beginning.

Terrorism is the intentional use of violence or threat of violence to communicate to a primary target a threat of future violence so that the primary target may be coerced into the desired behaviour or attitudes through intense fear or anxiety in connection with the anticipated or demand result.

Despite the problems and potential dangers, national sovereignty is still the basic element of international law and, thus, international law recognizes or reflects the fact that every country has the right to select its own government forms, to control its own domestic affairs and, within defined limits, deal with its own nationals as it will.

Therefore, terrorism reveals rather than denies one of the essential characteristics of international law. We cannot be coerced and cannot cower in fear. That would be a victory for the forces of international terrorism.

Generally international practice has been to treat terrorism on a functional basis through individual or specialized conventions. The primary threat of terrorism to international law is that it jeopardizes a fundamental rule of classic international law, that each state has a responsibility not only to allow its territory not to be used against another state as the basis for hostile operations. Yet terrorism also underscores the simple fact that violence is everywhere and indeed in many forms.

Ultimately terrorism must be judged in ethical, social and political terms. The term terrorism was coined to described a specific phase of the French revolution known as the reign of terror when the Jacobins initiated a campaign of repression in which at least 17,000 French citizens were guillotined and tortured. Terrorism was perceived as an unspeakable crime, the product of moral depravity or madness. Certainly the events of September 11 fit this definition.

From the beginning Canada has stood united with those forces that oppose terrorism and those who harbour terrorists. The Prime Minister stated on September 17 and it is something worth repeating. He stated:

So, let us be clear: this was not just an attack on the United States. These cold-blooded killers struck a blow at the values and beliefs of free and civilized people everywhere. The world has been attacked. The world must respond because we are at war against terrorism and Canada--as a nation founded on a belief in freedom, justice and tolerance--will be part of that response.

Over the last few weeks the Government of Canada has responded to the threat of international terrorism, from responding to the issues of financing terrorism to airport security issues, to the anti-terrorism plan embodied in the legislation presented to the House yesterday.

The four key objectives include: stop terrorists from getting into Canada and protect Canadians from terrorist acts; work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice and address the root causes of such hatred; bring forward tools to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists; and prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists and impacting on the Canadian economy. The government has also committed Canada militarily to the struggle against terrorism.

On Saturday evening I had the pleasure of attending the annual mess dinner of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders in Hamilton, the regiment that my late father served in during the second world war. I had the opportunity to talk with serving officers, retired officers and supporters of the regiment.

Canada has a long and proud military tradition. From the volunteers who went to South Africa during the Boer War to the battlefields of Europe during the great war, Canadians have heeded the call and responded in numbers disproportional to our general population. Those soldiers who fought in the Somme and at Vimy Ridge believed in Canada, believed that to have freedom and to preserve it, sacrifices had to be made.

It is true that Canada truly became a nation on the battlefield at Vimy Ridge in 1917. My father knew this when he enlisted in the Canadian army in the second world war. The tyranny of fascism and Nazism could not and did not go unchecked. Our young men and women stood in the path of tyranny and contributed significantly to its destruction. With the battle of the Falaise gap, Caen and the route through the Netherlands came a great personal sacrifice for those who participated in it. My father was no exception.

He instilled in me respect for our Canadian forces and the belief that freedom and democracy were worth protecting, and there could be no passive onlookers. My constituents reaffirm my father's view that now is the time to stand united in the face of terror.

The Minister of National Defence has told the House about the contributions of the Canadian forces: HMCS Halifax , HMCS Vancouver , a Canadian naval task force, surveillance and transport aircraft, a component of JTF2. Two thousand men and women are participating in the struggle. I believe that their willingness to serve and to protect Canadian freedoms is in keeping with the proud traditions of our military. Canada supports its courageous armed forces members. Canada and our forces stand with our allies.

On October 8, the Minister of National Defence stated:

I would also encourage all Canadians to pause for a few brief moments and turn their thoughts to the men and women of the Canadian Forces and their families. Because it is through their efforts, dedication, and commitment to our country that we will succeed in ensuring a safer world for our children. They carry an enormous responsibility on our behalf. I strongly urge you, all Canadians, to give them your support as they begin this campaign.

I do not believe that there is anyone in the House who does not support our forces. Some of us may disagree as to objectives. Some may disagree on how we have got to this point. However, I believe that every member of every party in this House supports our forces now that they are committed.

As a member of the standing committee on national defence, I believe that there are no stronger actions that we can show than supporting our men and women in this very difficult time.

When our forces are in combat, their safety is our number one concern. The terrorists hope that we will be divided, that our moral resolve will crack and that our commitment will be weak. Our answer must be unequivocal: United in the defence of a free and open society, we can only become prisoners of the events of September 11, if we let it.

Together, with our important and necessary measures, both on the political, diplomatic, financial and humanitarian fronts, our military contribution to this campaign will help ensure that Canadians and the interests and values that we truly believe in will in fact be successfully defended.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, it gives me mixed pleasure to rise today. I feel like the world series, that I am batting cleanup now in this debate. It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of my constituents of Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore. I believe this constituency will be sending more troops out than any other riding in Canada. Over 700 people from my riding will be severely affected by the decision of October 8.

Before I start my speech this morning, I would like to comment on the button that I am wearing today. It is a U.S. button made by two students at the Beaverbank-Monarch Drive Elementary School in Beaverbank, Nova Scotia. The students' names are Spencer and Jacob Dwyer.

After the events of September 11, these young children decided they had to do something to ease the pain of those people in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. They did not ask questions as to why. They did not look at the long term political answer as to what happened. All they knew was that something was wrong and that they had to help. These are children.

With the assistance of Mr. Terry Broadbent, the principal, the students, the teachers and staff of the school and the parents, these two young children designed the button and raised over $1,200 by selling them.

I salute Spencer and Jacob Dwyer, their families, the principal and all the students for their effort in recognizing that adults can learn so much from our youth. If that is a classic example of the youth we have in the country, I believe that Canada and the world will have a great future.

There are many challenges but I believe that we have a great opportunity to move forward using the example of these great children. I thank them very much as their representative in the House of Commons.

It is rather ironic that we have the hon. member for Oak Ridges here. He and myself have a bit of history together. His father was actually a liberator of Holland, the country in which I was born. My father was a Dutch POW during 1945 and was liberated by people such as his father, as was my brother. For that, I will always be grateful. My mother is watching television now in Vancouver, but my father has since passed on.

If it was not for the sacrifices of Canadians, Newfoundlanders and all allies, I certainly would not be a member of parliament today. It is something that I will hold dear. My father instilled in me the respect and admiration of our military men, women and their families and, of course, the great country of Canada.

We came here because of what a young military soldier said to my father. He said that they had come over because they had a job to do. It was as simple as that. My father always said they if that was what the Canadian military was like, then imagine what kind of country they had. So in 1956 the decision to move to Canada was not a very difficult one indeed.

There is a troubling issue in the House of Commons and I heard it throughout the speeches today, even in some speeches of members of my party. I feel very sad that my party and other political members on both sides of the House wish to play politics with this issue. It is absolutely unacceptable that, at a time when we should be unified, when we should be behind the Prime Minister and when we should be representing all Canadians, we are playing politics with this very serious issue.

I think Canadians can see through that clearly. I think they are very disappointed in us not being able to put our political differences aside, as we do for example in many of our committees.

If the Canadians could see us in the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, I believe they would see that we work very close and well together. We put our political differences aside and work toward the common goal of making it better for our armed forces personnel in terms of equipment, their livelihood and opportunities within the military, as well as for our veterans.

However, when we come in to this Chamber or we get before a camera or a reporter, we want to play politics with a very serious issue. Again, my party does that as well. I am disappointed in all of us for doing that.

I find this absolutely unacceptable. I think it will be a long time before Canadians forgive us for this.

I also wish to indicate that my assistant has a fiancé who is a navigator on the Sea Kings and will be flying over on Wednesday. My other assistant has a brother-in-law who is a navigator on the Sea Kings. It breaks their hearts to hear members of parliament criticize the role of the equipment that we have today.

There is no question that the Sea Kings need to be replaced. There is nobody in the House of Commons that wants them replaced more than I do, because I represent the Shearwater air base where those Sea Kings are located. It does us no good to call them rickety. It does us no good to say they will fall out of the sky. There are men and women attached to that equipment and they are very proud of the job they do. The maintenance people on those helicopters do a fabulous job. It does us no good to play politics in the House of Commons with the equipment these people operate. There is no question that the military requires more resources. I even believe that the Prime Minister knows that and I believe the resources will come.

However, we can achieve this goal for our military by working together, not separately. If we do that I believe we will have armed forces that not only are we proud of now but that we will be very proud of in the future. I believe that young people who wish to look at the military for a long term career may look at it in a more positive way than some of them do at this time.

That also includes care for our veterans. We need to care for those who fought during the wars, in the gulf war and in other areas of conflict. We need to look after their concerns and the concerns of their families in a better way.

On Wednesday, as you know, Mr. Chairman, our troops will be leaving from the port of Halifax and I will have the pleasure of being on the stand with many other dignitaries to say goodbye to many of my friends and neighbours and to many of my colleagues in the armed forces personnel. It will be a sad day because they will be leaving behind their children and their loved ones. That is never easy, but I can assure the House as one of their representatives that I am extremely proud of the fact that the men and women and families who will be left behind will also be doing a service for their country. They know that democracy is not a spectator sport. We all have to pull our weight.

I encourage all Canadians who are watching now or who will listen to this debate in the future to really respect and understand what the families are going through. I believe if we do that we will make the job of those men and women overseas even easier. Knowing that they do not have to look over their shoulder or worry about the concerns of their families, they can do the job that we have asked them to do. We as Canadians should have the fortitude to give all the care, comfort and resources that these families require. I believe if we do that their job will be much easier in the long run.

In terms of the proposed terrorism act, there is no question that this is a good time to discuss it. It has obviously been moved ahead more quickly because of September 11. There are some suggestions that I and other members of our party have made in terms of the terrorism act. The first thing we have asked for is that airport security be handled by the government. It we go to the Ottawa airport we will see that airport security is controlled by the airlines. That has to change. The government looks after customs. The government looks after policing. The government should look after pre-boarding screening as well and take it away from the control of the airlines. We also notice that the airlines are asking for that as well. I encourage the government to move on that very quickly.

Also there is the aspect of the Shearwater air base that I represent. There is a plan afoot for DND to divest itself of 1,100 acres. Part of that 1,100 acres is an extended long runway which is used for Hercules and bomber aircraft, jet fighters, et cetera. I think it would be prudent for the government to hold off on that divestiture until we get a clear picture of the world situation in months or years to come.

I have asked the chief of the defence staff and the minister of defence to look at that issue. They have said that they would take it under advisement. I hope that they will hold off on any kind of divestiture right now, including the ultimate service delivery of the supply chain, until we get a clear picture of what is required of our military. I believe it would be a prudent move if the government did indeed do that.

In terms of terrorism, there is a phrase has been used over and over. I would like to repeat it: “You don't protect your civil rights by abandoning your civil rights”.

We have a charter that has made this one of the best countries in the world to live in. There is no question that we need to review immigration. There is no question that the aspect of money laundering should be looked at immediately. However, I encourage the government and all politicians to look for advice outside parliament. There are many people throughout the country and throughout the world who can give us very good advice. I would encourage all of us, especially those in cabinet and the government, to seek out that advice so that we can put the best laws in place, not only to protect our citizens but to protect their rights as well.

There are two people who I have not mentioned yet in the debate, but they are to be commended for their outstanding work. Under their command the forces will be ready on Wednesday and will be flying the colours of Canada very proudly. The first is Colonel Joseph Hincke, the commander of Shearwater air base. With all we have heard about the effects of the Sea Kings, Colonel Hincke has done an outstanding job of preparing his troops and preparing the families for when the troops eventually leave the home base and go overseas for an extended period of time. Colonel Hincke has my deepest admiration and respect.

Above all there is one gentleman who is actually from Dartmouth. It is rather ironic now that he is the admiral of the fleet on the east coast. He is Admiral Bruce MacLean. He is one of the most outstanding Canadians ever. He has focused on the troops and on the families. He is focused getting his troops ready and he definitely lives by the navy slogan, aye, ready, aye. That is a proud example of what we have produced in the country in terms of military personnel. He is an outstanding and very fine gentleman.

I am proud to call both of these men my friends and I look forward to meeting them on Wednesday and congratulating them on the efforts and preparedness they have contributed to our military.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents. I urge all politicians of all parties to put the politics aside, work for what is best for the country, for the world and for our military men and women, and I say Godspeed to their families. Also, I pray for all the poor children around the world who are suffering in these attacks. Children should never be involved in war but they are always a casualty.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chairman, I am glad my colleague mentioned the issue of and the concern about unity in parliament, because the main effort behind my speech tonight is to present a viewpoint where we in fact can be unified against this common enemy.

The one point I would like to make tonight, or at 1.30 in the morning now, is that we are involved in not one but two campaigns against terrorism. The battle we are fighting is on two fronts, not one. Every party, every member of the House of Commons and most Canadians can support at least some elements of one of those campaigns. For me that is quite uplifting, because originally on September 11 I was worried and distressed when we were presented with the clear and present danger for Canada and for the world that we could not come together. However, with this understanding I can see that we are all working together in condemnation of terrorism and for a solution.

What are these two campaigns, these two fronts that we are fighting on, these two battles that we must win? The first one is simple: Murders were committed and the murderers are still at large. These murderers are adults. They have the same free choice we all have and they choose to murder.

As we do with all murderers in Canada, we will leave no stone unturned until they are caught and brought to justice, and just as it is illegal in Canada to harbour criminals, anyone who harbours these criminals will be committing an offence. I have not heard anyone in Canada suggest that we do not pursue murderers. In this we are united. It is only on the methods of capture that we have different views.

However, even in this we are united in many goals. Every member of the House of Commons wants to do what is possible to avoid innocent civilian casualties. Every member of the House agrees that we are not attacking any religion or any country. We are only disabling the weapons of two small groups of people in Afghanistan, the terrorists and another small group that forms the totalitarian Taliban regime, which is hiding these terrorists and oppressing the Afghan people.

We all agree that this task will take all the tools available, not just enforcement assets. It will include new anti-terrorism legislation, vigilance at our borders, enhanced intelligence operations and strengthened security forces and abilities but all with careful regard to any ramifications for our human rights.

Finally, we all agree to the international aspect and its importance. Terrorism occurs in most countries in the world, which is why we all appreciate this great international effort whereby NATO and the United Nations came on side right at the beginning and one of the largest coalitions in the world was built to fight the battle of terrorism.

That is the first battle we are engaged in and must win: to catch the murderers and their terrorist co-conspirators around the world.

The second front, the second battle, is to ensure that once these terrorists are caught and brought to justice and their training camps destroyed, we will try to reduce the chances of this ever happening again. We must try to change a world that can create so much hate that people would give their lives to massacre others.

How would we do this? We would do it by reducing the environments that breed terrorism. What are these environments? What are these root causes? The poverty of refugee camps and those who have nothing to lose is one of them. We are working on this and have done so for decades with foreign aid and organizations, trying to help people around the world. We have to continue to do that and to do more.

That is not all, because as we know some of these terrorists who took part in this event were quite wealthy. Therefore, we have to work to reduce the lack of education. We have to work to promote different views and problem solving. We have to work to eliminate religious intolerance in the world. We have to work to create a world where there is an interdependence of economies, where everyone is participating in the economy and everyone benefits from its success.

We do not know what all the causes are. That is why I am encouraging us to spend more resources and do indepth study of what breeds terrorism. Then, after study, we can strategically target our humanitarian aid so that we can use some of it in advance and not have to use it in the aftermath of a terrible tragedy.

I hope with this new understanding that we have these two campaigns and that we can all support at least one element of one of these campaigns that we are all fighting together a common enemy. In this respect, I am very proud of my constituents in the Yukon.

I was on an open line show for an hour last week and heard a wide diversity of opinion. No one was in agreement. Many were for peaceful solutions while others were for military solutions and strategies. There is a great divergence and no common understanding. What I was proud of was that as people talked no one tried to preclude other people from making their contribution to solving this problem.

The last thing I would like to speak about tonight is peace. It is noted how much Canadians love peace. Why not? We have a beautiful country and environment in which to raise our families, but, I might add, none more beautiful than my own in the Yukon. As the great Canadian poet Robert Service put it, “It's the beauty that fills me with wonder. It's the stillness that fills me with peace.”

Why would anyone want to leave Canada to go to war against terrorism or anything else? No one would. That is why Canadians do everything in their power to achieve peace. For years Canadians and their organizations have reached out to the poor of the world to combat poverty that creates strife. If that does not work, we try to discuss, mediate, arbitrate or negotiate the problem away.

If battles are engaged, we try to get between the adversaries as we have done so many times as peacekeepers all over the world. If that does not work, if Canadians or other peace loving people are murdered and terrorists infiltrate our soil, we are fearless in battle to regain peace.

Just as we are the Canadians who fought for peace at Dieppe, Hong Kong, Holland, Ortona, Korea and Normandy, we will engage in this campaign against terrorism on both these fronts and we will win. We will regain the peace that Canadians love so much for our children and their children.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it is quite spooky here tonight. After almost 25 years in family practice attending to sick patients or getting up in the middle of the night to pronounce somebody dead, I guess we are all here tonight because we are worried that this debate is about life and death.

I think we all know, having visited the knesset, that those are the kinds of debates held in other parliaments around the world but are not debates we often do here.

One of the most important things about being a member of parliament is that sometimes we have to talk about things of which we know very little. When I spoke on September 18 I was worried about the events of September 11. I wondered what would happen. I talked a little about how my father and my father-in-law had gone to war so that my sons who are now 18 and 20 would not have to.

We worried about having peace. In the 50 years since the second world war, we hoped we could continue to use the rule of law, to use our sense of justice around the world and that there would be a way to solve our problems other than through military action.

On thanksgiving Sunday while I was putting the turkey in the oven and being grateful for being in Canada, I was upset to hear that the war on terrorism had begun. It was numbing to think of what it meant to Canada, a country of peacemakers. It was an extraordinarily difficult week in the riding, as the hon. member for Yukon has said. Canadians are worried. They were worried when they looked at the Globe and Mail this morning and saw the headline stating “Ottawa backs U.S. all the way”.

As we often find, however, when we get into the text is that it is not what the minister said. What I think people want to know is whether there is a way to sort out the next steps.

It has been said that the difference between a politician and a statesman is that the politician is making decisions for the next election while a statesman is making decisions for the next generation.

What I have heard very loudly over this last week is that we want to ensure that the Prime Minister of Canada gets to be a statesman and that this is not a coalition where one nation makes all the decisions, particularly as we look forward to what must be the next steps.

Last Thursday was a most difficult evening. In compulsory civics courses now in grade 10 we have some making a difference course that I have done with all the grade 10s in the riding. We had a dinner planned for months for the best 20 essays in the riding about these wonderful students' views of citizens, about apathy and about the role of the citizen and the role of the elected representative. I had asked Ursula Franklin to come and talk to them, who I think has done some of the most amazing thinking and writing on the role of the citizen. Last week she was seriously wearing her pacifist hat. She made all of us think a little differently. She was someone about to win the Lester B. Pearson award for peace. She was concerned I think that 50 years of work could be for naught if we did not try to make sure that the next steps out of this were back under the umbrella of the United Nations.

She reminded us of the important work of Lester Pearson, of George Ignatieff and all Canadians who have worked so hard.

I was reminded of Beijing. Whenever there were things too difficult to handle, a subcommittee would be struck and Canada would be asked to chair it.

I was reminded of the number of ways to look at things. It was an interesting challenge for me to report back to my wonderful staff who seemed to all have degrees in peace and conflict studies. They wanted to know why the scientists were pacifists and if it because there was no evidence that this worked? They wanted to know how to find smart ways of going about the next chapter and how to make sure that whatever we did would not take away the important role of the UN in the future.

When Kofi Annan and the United Nations won the Nobel Prize last Friday, it did not seem ironic. It seemed like a very purposeful decision of the Norwegians to make sure that people would not forget the UN at this time.

Ursula Franklin asked me questions that I could not answer. I was asked if this had happened to China or to India, if the Pudong highrises opposite Shanghai or if the Taj Mahal had been hit, would we be writing blank cheques or giving carte blanche for the people in self-defence?

I have a feeling that we would want a serious role for the security council and I think that we would want to get this back on the rails as soon as we possibly could.

There are many things to look forward to in the next chapter. It is imperative that we have the best brains involved when coming to this decision. It is really important that people understand that culture. We cannot demand that someone be handed over on a silver platter, when that is not the way people in that culture work to save face. Sometimes, with a certain persuasion, accidents happen. There are many ways that people have organized to make sure terrorists can be rooted out.

I want to make sure that the foreign policy which is articulated in these next chapters, particularly by the United States, is indeed a foreign policy. We have some concern that at times foreign policy, which is merely for domestic consumption, is not the best in the long term.

Ursula Franklin said to me “If you have a friend that drinks too much, do you just pour them another drink?” What do we do with people who actually need to work together in the best possible coalitions?

I want to make sure, as we move forward, that we have the ability to set a course that is for the next generation and indeed for the next 100 years.

Today, at the finance committee hearings, there was a fantastic American who chose to live in Canada 10 years ago. She implored me to make sure that we maintained our perfect culture. She said she did not come here for the weather. She came here for the extraordinary sense of community, and she has lived it. She felt it was the greatest gift that she could give to her kids and to herself.

We want to make sure that we move forward in this next chapter with the kind of thoughtfulness that the people like Lester Pearson would want us to do.

As we move into this time together, I hope that we ensure the legacy of the work that Canada has done for the UN. It is imperative that we think of what the next steps are and how to make sure that we are on track.

I hope that domestically we will use our brains, in terms of the kind of information technology it takes to track the money and do the preparedness. I want to make sure that Health Canada and the physicians of Canada get together so that we can prepare a response.

I hope the Government of Canada can show the very best kind of friendship to our American colleagues. A true friend will help them move into the next chapter and embrace the United Nations in a way that we know they should.

[The Chairman]

There being no more members wishing to speak, pursuant to order made earlier today, the House adjourns and I now leave the chair.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being two o'clock, the House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock later today, pursuant to Standing Order 24 (1).

(The House adjourned at 2 a.m.)