Debates of Oct. 15th, 2001

Divorce Act

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-400, an act to amend the Divorce Act (limits on rights of child access by sex offenders).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce what I will be calling Lisa's law.

The motivation for this is the visit of two young girls of five and six to Bowden prison to visit their father because of a court order. At that point, I never wanted that to happen again to any Canadian children. I feel these kids are psychological victims and are continuing to suffer because of that judgment.

I know that this will receive all party support. A great many members have talked to me about it. It is my pleasure to introduce it at this point.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Elections Act

[Janko Peric, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-401, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (proxy voting).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce my private member's bill, an item in the Canada Elections Act, proxy voting. The proposed amendments would permit eligible voters, who on polling day are unable to vote due to illness or accidents in their electoral district or who cannot meet special boundary requirements, to cast a ballot during a general election by appointing a proxy voter to vote on their behalf.

A similar provision existed previously, but was replaced by a special ballot for which voters must apply in advance of election day.

During the last federal election many of my constituents lost their right to vote because they were unexpectedly taken ill or were required to be away on business after the deadline for a special ballot had already passed.

I would encourage all members in the House to support this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present two more petitions from citizens of the Peterborough area who are keen to see VIA service re-established between Toronto and Peterborough. This petition has support in eight federal ridings, including Haliburton--Victoria--Brock.

The petitioners point to environmental advantages, reduction in greenhouse emissions, reduction in traffic congestion and accidents and an improvement in the business environment of the greater Toronto area.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Supply

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by thanking the Chair for its ruling on the point of order raised by the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough. I much appreciated its sensitivity.

I also wish to advise the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the Coalition member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley.

When it is decided to move a motion during an opposition day, various topics are examined and an effort made to raise something topical.

However, the day is going by quickly, and things are going on within our walls. Right now, things are going on outside, on the Hill. Is it fear? Is it madness? One way or another, it is linked with what happened on September 11.

It is becoming increasingly clear that parliament will be called upon to play a role. Parliament can be a victim too. However, strictly speaking, parliament, opposition members and the majority of government members are not being called upon by the governor in council, by the Prime Minister, to do anything.

Let us look at what happened last week, while the House was not sitting. It was decided to send men and women abroad. Let us proceed minister by minister, and considering what has happened today on the Hill. We hope and everybody hopes that it is not what we think, that it is not anthrax.

Members will recall that the Minister of Health came out of a cabinet meeting with a large smile on his face, to say “There is no problem”. He quoted a U.S. president. He himself is far from being a U.S. president; he is not even the leader of the Liberal Party yet. He said “The only thing that Canadians should fear is fear itself”.

I can assure you that, during question period, the minister changed his tune. It is this arrogance that is harmful. “Everything is under control”. This is not true. Members of parliament are not informed of what is going on.

Tomorrow, my colleague from the NPD will move a motion before the Standing Committee on Health. The Minister of Health should come and see us in committee so that we can find out what is really going on. What is the action plan of the Department of Health regarding the threat of bioterrorism? We are not living in a banana republic. We have a parliament, we are living in a democracy. We have sent 2,000 men and women abroad to fight for democracy. Should we not be practising what we preach? This is the Minister of Health. I tell you: he has changed his tune.

Furthermore, the immigration minister talked about the famous photo ID card, which will solve all problems. The landed immigrant photo ID card with a chip will not be in force before June of next year and perhaps even not before two years. One year. Two years. This is not planning. And, again, this measure was discussed and announced while parliament was not sitting.

Maybe we could speed up the process if parliament was involved. But the government does not want that.

As for the Minister of Transport, he says “No, we will not put armed personnel aboard airplanes; we are not in the United States”. His American colleague then says “Well, Reagan airport in Washington was just reopened. It could be a target. Could you see to it that there is an armed guard aboard that particular flight?” “Sure, no problem”.

What message does that send to terrorists? It means that they can take all other flights from Canada to the United States, all domestic flights, all flights to Europe, and they can be sure that there will not be any RCMP officers on board, except on the flight to Reagan Airport in Washington. It is a joke, a real joke. He changed his mind again. Why did he not discuss this at the transport committee?

The motion before us today calls for joint sittings of all committees dealing with matters that may be related to the events of September 11.

I would like to tell the Prime Minister that he may look for allies all over the world, but his best allies are those people around him and those who sit opposite him in the House. Those are the people who should be kept informed.

The best ally of the government is here in the House. Until the government realizes it, it simply will not work. Cabinet ministers are constantly improvising. They have no action plan. They are asking us to support them. The government members do not even know what is going on. We do not know what is going on. It changes from one week to the next. When a problem arises, they look into it. This is a piecemeal government with no vision, which controls everything. A handful of people control everything.

Yes, we are willing to support people who will be deployed in the Persian Gulf; that is not a problem. But the government should substantiate its position further if it wants more support from our side and from its own backbenchers, who are left in the dark. Even cabinet ministers do not know what is going on.

The motion presented today is simple. It is three pronged. First, it condemns terrorism; everybody agrees with that. We support that part of the motion. The second part calls for support for our servicemen and women. This is normal, we must stand together in these difficult times. Third, since we know the government, particularly the Prime Minister and his inner circle, use should be made of parliamentary committees.

That is what we are asking for, simply that parliament work and that the government make use of parliament. The people in my riding, my province and my country need to know that some people, men and women, are dealing with this country's urgent problems. That is not being done.

Moreover, this motion is votable. An opposition day is needed to corner the government and make it understand that we will vote on the subject. It will find all kinds of reasons to say “Oh, we do not like this or that part of the motion”. We are asking for a vote. A parliament expresses its will through votes, not through speeches such as the ones we will be hearing in tonight's debate.

We can imagine this government's lack of credibility in this parliament. It is being offered, on a silver platter, a vote on a simple motion that does not condemn the government. That could be done, and I am doing it now. We are telling it “Listen, we will have a vote; the House will stand together on this issue”. To this, the government answers “No, we will still have a debate tonight”. Two debates will be held during the same day.

The government is lacking both in credibility and efficiency. This is an allotted day and we have been debating this issue since 11 a.m. What opposition parties do is of no importance to the government. It says “We will have a debate, but no vote”.

A parliament needs to vote on things. It is as if we are told that we will be making legislation but without having an opportunity to vote for or against the bills. “You have debated it. Everyone is in agreement, so there will be no vote”. It does not work like that. It shows a total lack of respect. There are a few hours left in this debate. I hope things will work out and everyone will co-operate to ensure that all members on the government side and in opposition will vote in favour of this motion.

Between you and me, Mr. Speaker, instead of showing up at 7 p.m. or 7.15 p.m. to make a speech, the Prime Minister could have been in the House this morning, around 11 a.m., or this afternoon, at 3.15 p.m. or at 4.30 p.m. He would have been more than welcome. Why knock down a supply day dealing with the exact same issue that will be debated tonight? Why not make parliament more credible since we are actually doing something worthwhile? This may be a great opportunity to stand tall together and find out what is going on.

This is why I appreciate the comment made by the Chair. I just wanted to say it again because I think it is important. I refer to what my hon. colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has done and want to point out how open the Chair has been about the various circumstances and our concerns.

On the issue of bioterrorism--and I remind the House that I am the health critic for my party--I hope some government members will come before the committee to tell the public what is going on and that they will put aside their mockery and arrogance in the interest of co-operation and information.

I would like to take this opportunity to say that I hope the person who was reportedly infected—I hope she has not been—will recover very quickly. I think my colleagues of the House would agree to wish that what she has is minor, that this is not what we think. We wish her well and offer our moral support to all her family and her friends.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that we had a debate in the House on September 17 when the House resumed. Subsequently we have had at least three debates and opportunities for members to speak. Indeed all the leaders of the parties have made clear statements of the party positions. All the parties, save for the NDP, have been supportive of the government's actions and have supported the military action on the public record. Notwithstanding that, Canadians have also spoken clearly on that.

I am not sure where the member is coming from in saying that we need to do something here. In fact the motion before the House says that we condemn the terrorist atrocities and support our military. Talk about wishy-washy. If they really were serious about it, the wishy-washy members of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition would come up with a motion that was substantive.

My question has to do with the Reagan national airport issue. It was asked during question period. I am wondering whether the member was here during question period and whether he heard the answer and understands that no marshals have been authorized, yet if it is a requirement of the U.S. government that any aircraft going into Reagan national airport have marshals that we do enter into agreements and treaties with countries to conform to their requirements. The minister said we would permit Air Canada to have marshals if it wanted to resume service to Reagan national airport. Did the member hear the answer to that question?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the minister did not answer the question clearly. He said “If the Americans ask us. Perhaps; we do not know. We will wait to see what the United States asks us and then we will decide on our policy”. This is what the Liberals did.

I would like to ask the member who read the motion and who asked me if I was here whether he can read. There are three parts in the motion; he has read two. There is a third major part, which deals with the work of parliament. Perhaps he should read the entire motion. He would understand that there is a major parliamentary aspect here.

We recognize that parliament is important. When my leader, now the coalition's leader, was a minister, when he was on the government side, he was not afraid to hold a vote, he was not afraid at all. Members know very well that parliament expresses its will by voting. The power of the legislator is to vote. This is important.

The member should stop reading the notes he was given, should stop saying that this is important, that there were so many debates. This is blabbering. I invite the hon. member to ask for a vote and to support the coalition's vote tonight.

If the government wanted to build an international coalition, it should have started by building one here, in this House.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have access to the report “Road Map for National Security”. A bipartisan independent commission was appointed by the United States to look at national security issues. The commission sat for over two years and presented a recommendation and report in January of this year.

When the events happened on September 11 the Americans were ready because they had someone independent from government researching whether or not their country was ready and what it had to do to be ready.

Does my hon. colleague from Richmond--Arthabaska believe that maybe what the committee should be doing is looking into the future as to Canada's readiness to deal with such issues?

[André Bachand, Progressive Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, this government has a piecemeal approach. People remember that the Prime Minister said in 1993 that he wanted to govern this way: bring him a problem and he will solve it or at least try to. What kind of vision is this?

We can give the government all the background we want. We can put forward any vision with supporting arguments. It has unfortunately shown up to now that it did not have the right ideas.

Here is another example concerning national security. How many calls have been made to municipalities and to provinces? The Minister of Health has said that the provinces had been consulted. I am not so sure. We did not hear much about this.

With the present anthrax scare in North America, what is the position of the government with Canada Post? Will we get information about this? Will various committees of the House be involved in finding solutions and informing the public?

That is where we should begin, I think. Once again, a government's best ally is its parliament.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, although I agree with the comments my colleague made on the lack of real debate, real decision making and the lack of sharing of information in the House, I want to deal with the issue of whether or not we should be supporting our troops as they head overseas.

This is the third time I have spoken in the House about deployment of Canadian soldiers, sailors and airmen into potentially dangerous situations. My maiden speech was on Bosnia. Two years ago I spoke on Kosovo and today I am speaking on Afghanistan.

The most significant decision we can make in the House of Commons is about sending our military into combat zones. We have to remember that every one of those 2,000 individuals being deployed is someone's child. In many cases they are leaving spouses and children at home. We have to ask ourselves, is the war on terrorism justified? Is it a just war? We have to ensure that the war into which we send our troops is a just war.

While the war on terrorism is like no other war in the past, it is a war nevertheless. War has evolved over the ages. The wars fought by the Romans were very different from the Napoleonic wars, as those wars differed from World War I which in turn differed from World War II.

In the past wars were fought by rules, by army against army and navy against navy, but on September 11 the rules changed. The cowards behind these terrorist attacks recognized that they had little chance of confronting the mighty American military so they attacked innocent civilians instead. Even with their attack on the Pentagon, the war machine of the United States, they had to use a plane full of innocent citizens to accomplish that task. That flight, American Airlines flight 77, had at least five children under the age of 12 aboard but the terrorists had no problem with murdering these children to carry out their objective, which was to kill as many people as possible.

So while we are at war with the terrorists, we are not fighting honourable soldiers who are prepared to fight and if necessary die for their country. We are at war with cowards intent on murdering as many innocent people as possible. Therefore, is this war just? Of course it is, because we are fighting a group of murdering criminals without honour who will continue to kill as many innocent civilians as possible.

As we prepare to send our troops to the combat zone we must recognize that the Americans and Britons have been there for weeks. For over one week they have been attacking the Taliban and al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan. There is little doubt that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda are behind the attacks. If there is any doubt one just needs to review the threat made by a spokesperson for the al-Qaeda over the weekend to anyone who takes an airplane or who works in a skyscraper. There is little question that the Taliban government in Afghanistan has aided and abetted al-Qaeda in its terrorist campaign. It has provided a safe haven for this group for years and acknowledges that it could turn over Osama bin Laden if it chose to. By refusing American demands to surrender bin Laden and others the Taliban has made itself a legitimate military target.

Therefore, for over a week the Americans and Britons have destroyed much of Afghanistan's military infrastructure. Yes, there have been civilian casualties, including children. What is the difference between the hijackers murdering innocent civilians and children and the American military killing innocent civilians and children? The answer is simple. It is intent.

The terrorists intended to kill innocent children and civilians and they tried to kill as many of them as possible. On the other hand, the Americans have gone out of their way to avoid killing civilians and children. For the most part the American and British military have used precision, guided munitions.

Unfortunately, while this type of munitions may be accurate 99% of the time, it means that one bomb in a hundred will go astray. On the weekend one such bomb went astray because someone input one digit incorrectly on the guidance system. However, the reality is that allied personnel place themselves in greater danger by this means of attack, by using this type of munitions in an effort to avoid civilian casualties.

This is the difference. While the terrorists intend to kill as many civilians and innocent children as possible, allied military personnel do their utmost to avoid these types of casualties.

Now we have the Canadian military en route to join their allies. Some would say that we are ignoring Canadian values and traditions by sending our troops into war. They say we are abdicating our traditional role as peacekeepers, not fighters. While I, like most of the members in the House, am very proud of Canada's role of peacekeeping, it is wrong to suggest that Canada does not have a military tradition. Canada's soldiers, sailors and airmen have a proud tradition of honourable military battles. We have fought against tyranny for decades. We fought in many of the great battles or major wars in the last century. In World War I, World War II and Korea, Canadians fought bravely. In fact in the two world wars the United States fought for only a total of five years whereas Canadians fought for a total of ten years.

Could anyone in the House suggest that it was wrong to fight Hitler and his Nazis? Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent civilians and children and would have killed millions more had he not been stopped. Does anyone doubt that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda would kill millions if they had the means and the opportunity to do so? While peacekeeping is a noble pursuit, there must be peace to keep, and Canada has an honourable tradition of fighting against terrorism and tyranny and for democracy and peace.

In April 1999, Václav Havel, president of the Czech Republic, addressed the House. While speaking of the Kosovo conflict he stated:

This is probably the first war ever fought that is not being fought in the name of interests, but in the name of certain principles and values. If it is possible to say about a war that it is ethical, or that it is fought for ethical reasons, it is true of this war.

I believe that President Havel's remarks could also apply to this war on terrorism. This is not a war against a country. It is not a war against a religion. It is interesting that in the deployment of Canadian troops in Bosnia and Kosovo we were there to protect the Muslim civilians who were under attack. We went there because it was the right thing to do. It was the right thing to do then and it is the right thing to do now. This is a just war, a moral war and an ethical war.

While my Coalition colleagues and I support the use of Canada's military in this conflict, it is a shame that the state of our military preparedness has dropped to its current status. It is a shame that our country is not prepared for the terrorist activities that may happen on our own soil. While there is no doubt that our troops are first rate, the government's cuts to military budgets have made them less effective than they should be. Outdated equipment, much of it older than the soldiers using it, should be a concern. Lack of proper training should be another. While I am sure that Canada's military will represent this country well, it will be in spite of government policies and not because of them.

As Canada's military personnel depart for another campaign, it is important that they know they have the support of the people of Canada. The House can send them that message today and I encourage all members to do so.

The House needs to send another message today, not to our military but to the Canadian people. It is unfortunate that it took a horrific event like September 11 to get the government's attention, but it would appear that the government has finally woken up. I hope that everyone in the House is now aware that there are some people in the world who are intent on doing harm to us, to our friends and to our allies.

We will not let that happen again. We will be prepared and we will do what is necessary to protect our families, our friends and ourselves. We will fight evil wherever it exists and we will prevail, because we must.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member indicated she was planning to talk about the military side. She used the word war a fair bit. I know that there has been some debate about whether or not there is a war going on because on the other side of this there is not a country involved. In fact someone has characterized terrorism as more a matter for the police than for the military.

Notwithstanding that, I am surprised that the member did not comment on the broader picture of Afghanistan if in fact she wants to characterize this as a war on Afghanistan. I am surprised that she did not say that: there are 25 million people in Afghanistan, a country the size of Ontario; the life expectancy of an Afghani is about 46 years of age; the birth rate there is about four times higher than it is in Canada; less than 10% of the land is arable; Afghanistan is the world's largest producer of opium, or at least it was until it was recently shut down; and there is all this money that did not go to the people there but obviously went elsewhere.

These matters are a very important part of the job that has to be done by Canada, not just through the military but through taking care of and doing our share with regard to the innocent Afghani people and dealing surgically with the terrorists who are there. Perhaps the member would like to comment.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the motion today is about the openness of information sharing with the government and about how our government, through its committees, should be doing more to protect Canadians from acts of terrorism than what it appears to have been doing or has done.

The issue of the resettlement of Afghanistan and other areas that find themselves in this situation of impoverishment and criminal activity has to be an item in the future, but right now we cannot ignore the fact that we are in a war. He may not like the use of the term but I would suggest that it is appropriate. We are using military might to try to ferret out the terrorists. If we do not, then we will continue to be afraid in our country.

I think that what we are trying to show Canadians is that if the government would share information, if the government would show that it had some plan on how it would protect Canadians, if it would have an independent commission set up or committees put in place to deal with how we protect Canadians on our homeland as well as helping countries that find themselves in need of foreign aid, that would be fine. I think what Canadians are concerned about is that there seems to be a complete lack of planning and a complete lack of foresight on the part of the government in dealing with any of the problems, be they on the home front or in foreign affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a point for the hon. member. The issue as I see it is quite simply exactly this motion and I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence did not speak to this himself.

Because the government has not been forthcoming with information for members of parliament and the various committees of the House, we have had to put forth motions to force it to come forth with information. A prime example of this of course would be the fact that it committed troops to a war zone and did not recall parliament and debate that in the House, as was done in Britain and in other parliaments in the world.

My final point is that the NDP had a great showing of discussion here about the democratic process and a lot of talk about the UN, yet it failed to even mention article 51 of the United Nations charter, which gives any country under the charter the right to self-defence.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the concern Canadians have also expressed, at least in my riding, is in regard to the fact that the government seems to have completely ignored the role that parliament should be playing in this matter and in regard to the fact that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration are making announcements outside the House. It concerns Canadians that the Prime Minister might pick a fundraising dinner to make some kind of pronouncement when he should be doing it in the House of Commons with his colleagues.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, before saying anything about today's motion, I would like to inform you that I will split my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

I would like to take this opportunity—it is the first for me since September 11—to join in with all Canadians who condemn the September 11 terrorist attacks against our NATO ally, the United States. I would also like to congratulate our government and our Prime Minister for the wisdom and the control they have demonstrated in this context.

I would now like to make a few comments on the motion, particularly on the armed forces’ contribution to the fight against terrorism.

I am very proud to have the opportunity to address the House today to talk about the Canadian armed forces’ contribution to the fight against terrorism. Canada goes through a historic moment each time it sends its troops to participate in an international operation like this one.

By doing so, we unequivocally reaffirm our firm commitment to protect peace and security in the world as well as the values that define us as a country and as a community.

Indeed, need I remind members that the attack of September 11 was also an attack on freedom, justice and democracy, values that are dear to all Canadians.

Given the current situation, Canadians are in favour of sending Canadian troops to support the international community's efforts.

This desire to play a role in international affairs has become a tradition of which we can be proud, a tradition that is deeply rooted in our culture and that moulds our commitment. It is how we express our values and our interests abroad.

Canada has long had strong links to the international community through culture, economy and families.

As a great trading nation, we prosper in a stable international context, and any instability has a direct impact on us. Our security depends on peace and stability in the world, and it is in our interest to help maintain and restore them.

This is why Canada is a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and of the United Nations and why we belong to many other international organizations.

It is also why, during the 20th century, thousands of our fellow Canadians fought courageously and served their country, Canada, in the name of freedom and democracy.

During World War I, over 600,000 Canadians were directly involved in various battles, and 60,000 of them never came home. During those four years, our soldiers fought in some of the most horrible battles of the war. Ypres, the Somme, Vimy, Passchendaele, these are some of the names that have marked the history of our country forever.

The bravery and courage of these young Canadians have been recognized by our allies. Today, monuments honouring these soldiers stand tall in the middle of European battlefields.

In 1939, Canada answered the call again. During World War II, one million Canadians joined the fight for freedom and democracy. They played a crucial role in the allies' victory.

From Hong Kong to Monte Cassino, from the ice cold waters of the Atlantic to the flooded polders of the Netherlands, in the skies over Great Britain and Germany, to the beaches of Dieppe and Normandy, some 43,000 lost their lives far from home—our country, Canada—and their loved ones.

Barely five years later, 26,000 Canadians volunteered to defend the values and ideals of the UN in Korea. Over 500 of them made the supreme sacrifice. Since then, Canada has not hesitated to take part in peace missions under the aegis of the UN or NATO.

In fact, during the past 50 years, over 100,000 Canadians have taken part in peacekeeping missions around the world. During this period, men and women of the Canadian armed forces have endured the difficult conditions of military life, including long separations and the difficult job of peacekeeping.

Through their commitment and devotion, they have maintained ceasefires, helped the warring parties find common ground, helped distribute humanitarian aid, rebuilt schools and hospitals and brought hope to thousands the world over, including in Asia, Europe, Africa and Central America.

I would also point out that Canadian forces have taken part as well in peacekeeping missions in Muslim countries or countries with a significant Muslim population. Here are a few examples.

Nearly 530 members of the Canadian forces helped monitor the ceasefire and withdrawal of troops along the Iran-Iraq border between 1988 and 1991. Over 2,700 members of the Canadian forces helped liberate Kuwait in 1990-91. Canada made a significant contribution to this, which included battleships, medical units, an infantry unit, CF-18 fighters and a flying tanker.

Between March and December 1999, the Canadian forces helped bring stability to Kosovo and an end to the brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing waged by Slobodan Milosevic, and so on.

In August 1999, the DART unit, the disaster assistance response team, went to Turkey to help Turkish authorities following the terrible earthquake there.

And today, there are members of the Canadian Forces in the Golan heights, between Israel and Syria, as part of the UN force observing the withdrawal operation. They are in the Sinai desert with the multinational force of observers. They are also part of the UN body overseeing the truce in Lebanon, Syria and Israel.

These examples speak for themselves. They show that Canada has a long tradition of supporting and helping Muslim peoples.

It is important to note that, because we must keep reminding everyone that the present campaign is not against Afghanistan or against Islam. Canada, like its allies, has only one purpose, which is to eradicate terrorism. I repeat: our sole purpose is to eradicate terrorism.

I urge all members of the House and all Canadians to affirm and reaffirm our support for the Canadian forces, for our men and our women who will take part in this campaign against terrorism and who are the proud heirs of a tradition built on the courage and sacrifices of those who wore the uniform before them.

Today they are about to celebrate this tradition by joining our allies in order to stand for liberty, democracy, and justice. I hope that we will give such support for our men and our women in the Canadian forces.

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

Mr. Speaker, we on the opposition side support our armed forces and the great job they do. They perhaps do not have all the tools they could have to do their job even better, but we know they work hard.

I have one short question for my colleague. She asked us to support the military. We have indicated our support for the military. Will she be supporting the motion being debated before the House today that was put forward by the PC/DR coalition?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion speaks for itself. First, I support men and women in the Canadian forces who will take part in this campaign to eradicate terrorism.

Second, standing committees of the House are already examining this issue. In my opinion, that speaks volumes. The motion is a bit like motherhood and apple pie.

Who could be against motherhood and apple pie?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member alluded to her earlier speech in which she said we should support the military. I indicated that we support the military and she indicated that as well.

I do not think the hon. member directly answered my question so I will put it to her again. Will she be supporting the motion that the PC/DR coalition has brought to the House today, that the committees work on having joint meetings for informing members and the public about what is going on? Will the hon. member support the motion, yes or no?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can only assume the hon. member was not listening to my response. First, I said that I have asked the House to support our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and brothers and sisters in the armed forces who will be participating in the campaign to eradicate terrorism.

The second part of the motion is already happening, as I stated. The standing committees are already meeting on these issues. They have been doing so and will continue to do so. Asking whether I will vote in favour is like asking if I support motherhood and apple pie.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a simple question and it has been asked twice. I will try a third time. The member says she supports the first part of the motion. She indicates that this is a motherhood issue that we should all support but seems reluctant to indicate either a yes or a no.

Will she stand in her place tonight when we have the vote and support the motion? It is a simple and direct question which can be answered with a yes or a no.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my family has told me I am not a simple person but a difficult person.

My answer on both occasions to the same question was quite clear. It seems there is only confusion in the mind of the member who has now asked the question three times.

I will repeat myself a third time. I hope the hon. member will listen carefully. Perhaps it will dissipate the clouds that seem to be floating between his two ears.

First, I asked that the House and Canadians indicate support for our men and women in the Canadian forces who will be participating in the campaign to eradicate terrorism. They have done so.

Second, the second part of the motion is already taking place. It is a fait accompli. I repeat once again that it is like asking if I am in favour of motherhood and apple pie. Perhaps I should say it in Italian. The member does not seem to understand my response in either official language. I am a mother, so I am obviously in favour of motherhood. I like dessert, so I guess I like apple pie.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to stand in support of the motion moved today by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, just as I am pleased to support the government's firm condemnation of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, its resolve to stand up in the face of terror, and as the Prime Minister said on Thanksgiving weekend, its refusal to be dictated to from the shadows as well as its balanced, integrated and timely responses to the emerging challenges.

Indeed we stand squarely with our friends and allies in our determination to rid the world of the plague of international terrorism. In keeping with this commitment, the Canadian forces are now a fully involved and integral part of the international campaign with ships, aircraft and personnel ready to join it outside North America.

As many men and women in the forces prepare themselves for this latest mission, the motion we address here today leads me to speak to a commendable record of support of the Canadian forces by this government.

From its basis in the policy of maintaining a multi-purpose combat capable force capable of defending Canada and North America in co-operation with the United States and contributing to international peace and security, to the injection over the past several years of more than $3 billion into defence spending, the government has successfully sought ways to support the Canadian forces and ensure their ability to carry out the missions they are assigned. Reform, renewal and modernization and new investment have been intently and successfully pursued.

Among other things, the minister and his team have advanced recruitment and retention goals, taken critical quality of life initiatives, improved leadership and education programs and largely implemented an ambitious capital program.

Like most professional militaries in competitive societies, the Canadian forces face the challenge of attracting and retaining skilled people. Months before the attack on the United States, the forces launched a massive public campaign to recruit new people to the military. They have been making progress in doing exactly that. The Canadian forces have also been working hard on quality of life initiatives for the past several years, significantly improving the working and living conditions of personnel and their families. I know this has been an important priority of the current Minister of National Defence and with the government's support, it has enjoyed considerable success.

They have improved pay and allowances, accommodation and support for military families and have undertaken major health care reforms. The Canadian forces have also been working to maintain and build upon their proud tradition of strong and effective leadership. They are enhancing officer education and training through a broad set of initiatives as well as offering new opportunities for all members of the Canadian forces through various learning initiatives.

Improved education, training and skills development are essential if the Canadian forces are to meet future challenges. But the forces also need the tools to do the job we ask of them so the Canadian forces have been working to acquire new equipment and to upgrade what they already have.

The air force's fleet of CF-18 fighters and Aurora maritime patrol aircraft are being upgraded. New search and rescue helicopters are being delivered. The navy, which already has state of the art frigates and destroyers, is acquiring new submarines. The army is benefiting from sophisticated armoured vehicles such as the Coyote and the LAV III, both built right here in Canada. New communications systems, improved combat clothing and associated equipment are being developed. They are also investigating options to improve global deployability such as strategic air, sea lift and air to air refueling capabilities.

All these initiatives will work to deepen and strengthen the foundation of our armed forces and enable them to make the most of the tasks they are assigned by the government, including this very difficult struggle against terrorism.

Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence have clearly stated that this campaign will be fought on a broad front. It will include not only a military dimension, but also humanitarian, financial, legislative, diplomatic and domestic security initiatives and intelligence. The government is working hard on all fronts to win the struggle and to maintain the safety and security of all Canadians. This is an unequivocal priority.

Throughout this effort however long it may last, the Canadian forces will be doing their part both at home and abroad. The forces are filled with talented, dedicated and courageous professionals, men and women who are ready to be part of that campaign effort. Let us support them and their families in every way we can and keep them in our thoughts and prayers over the coming months. It will not be an easy time.