Debates of Oct. 15th, 2001

Supply

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion, as amended, carried.

Pursuant to order made earlier this day the House shall now resolve itself into a committee of the whole to consider the international actions against terrorism.

(House in committee of the whole--Mr. Milliken in the chair)

International Actions Against Terrorism

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That the Committee take note of the international actions against terrorism.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Chairman, a few weeks ago I led a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians to a place of horror, a grave for 6,000 innocent souls, a place called ground zero. It is impossible to look upon the ruins of the World Trade Center and not be moved, by disbelief, by sympathy for the victims, by outrage at the criminals and by a desire for righteous punishment, but above all by a firm resolve to stand up and be counted, to stand up for our people, for our values, for our way of life, and to send a clear message to the cowards in the shadows who planned this crime against humanity that their days of being able to run and hide are coming to an end.

If the attacks of September 11 are a shameful benchmark for the dark side of human nature, the deliberate and forceful manner in which Canada and the world have marshalled their resources against the forces of terror will be remembered as a proud benchmark of global courage and common purpose, from the wise and measured response of President George Bush, to NATO speaking as one, to the rapid formation of an unprecedented multinational and multi-ethnic coalition, a coalition in which the principal adversaries in the cold war, the United States, Russia and China, are now making common cause.

Here at home Canadians have been fully engaged and all governments have matched their engagement with helpful actions and proposals by mayors and the provincial premiers and with the around the clock work of public servants, for which they have the thanks of all Canadians.

Up to now we have had substantial debate in the House, more than 40 hours, and substantive discussions in our committees. Protecting innocent citizens against terrorism was a fundamental priority of civilized nations before the awful events of September 11. For our part, Canada had already pioneered ways of preventing terrorists from exploiting our country as a base of operation and attack, including the screening of air passengers abroad before they fly to Canada. Proposed changes to the Immigration Act and the Customs Act currently before parliament anticipated many of the security and economic concerns that have been given renewed prominence in recent days. I urge all parties to work together urgently to pass these bills.

Since September 11, our border crossings have been on a high state of alert and security measures were immediately increased at our airports, but in the days since then it has become clear that the scope of the threat that terror poses to our way of life has no parallel.

We in North America have been extraordinarily fortunate to live in peace, untouched by attack, but that has changed. Additional action is required from Canada and all nations, domestically and in concert with each other, for there to be a truly effective and truly global offensive against terrorism.

Accordingly I am pleased to update the House on the specific steps the government is taking as part of a comprehensive action plan on Canadian security, a plan whose goals are to protect Canadian citizens, keep our borders secure, protect our values, sustain our economy and defy the threat that terrorism poses to free and civilized nations everywhere.

Our action plan entails both immediate action and new legislation. It is measured and focused. It equips Canada to be an aggressive international partner in the coalition to destroy, root and branch, the shadow networks of supply, finance and penetration that allowed the terrorists to carry out the mass murder of September 11.

Above all our plan will reassure Canadians that even in the wake of September 11 we can live our lives on our terms, according to our values, not on terms dictated from the shadows.

However, as I told the NATO parliamentary assembly last week, we must be clear in our minds that this is a new kind of struggle against a new kind of enemy and we must not allow ourselves to be trapped by the rhetoric or experiences of past wars to define our tactics or measure our success. The twisted calculus of success for our adversaries is not territorial gain but the extent to which they can, through terror, rip at the very fibre of our societies, disrupt our economies and set community against community, faith against faith or citizen against citizen.

In this new struggle, conventional military power will, of course, play a role. I have authorized the execution of Operation Apollo, the largest deployment of Canadian armed forces since the Korean war, involving over 2,000 men and women.

Our naval ships, air transports and air surveillance planes have been assigned vital tasks in connection with the ongoing international military action that is being carried out against Osama bin Laden, his Al-Qaeda network and the renegade Taliban regime of Afghanistan which provides them safe harbour.

In joining this action, we have made it clear that we have no quarrel with Islam but with a cadre of extremists, whose goal is to terrify and disrupt nations, whose acts of mass murder have unjustly smeared a great world religion, Islam.

Nor do we have a quarrel with the people of Afghanistan. Indeed, there is a worldwide effort to provide assistance to the Afghan people. Our dispute is with the Taliban regime.

There is no more solemn decision for a Prime Minister than that of sending Canadians into military action.

I know that all members, and all Canadians, understand the gravity of this decision. And I have been moved by the strong words of support that I have heard from all sides of the House for the men and women of our armed forces and their families. I want to particularly thank the leaders of the opposition parties for their co-operation.

While the world is transfixed at this time by the images of military action, we must never forget that military action will only be a part of the struggle. Our enemies have no fixed home or address. So military action will only be effective in concert with precise and accurate information.

Moreover, Canadians rightly expect us to do more than just retaliate against acts of terror. They expect us to help prevent them from being carried out in the first place.

This will only be possible through the determination, ingenuity and common purpose of police and security forces and intelligence agencies around the world.

The challenge all nations face is to ensure that investigative agencies have the tools they need to accelerate their frontline efforts to protect citizens, frustrate terrorist schemes and ensure that terrorists are brought to justice.

In our action plan, we have already taken strong steps. We have approved new expenditures to support tougher security measures and enhanced investigation capacity.

Security is being stepped up at all border points: land, sea and air, and for all modes of transport, especially air travel.

The number of RCMP, immigration and customs officers at border points is being increased. State of the art security technologies are being quickly brought on line, both for use in detection and to facilitate information sharing.

Next week, we will announce new measures in the field of intelligence gathering and emergency planning.

Today, the Minister of Justice introduced new legislation to aid in our struggle against world wide terrorism.

Canada has traditionally fought terrorism through the criminal code. For such acts as hijacking, attacks on aircraft and murder, it is an important tool. Of course, it will remain available for prosecuting acts committed by terrorists.

But September 11 has shown us that we need an even stronger, more focused approach to our laws to find ways to incapacitate terrorist groups before they can attack by striking at their organization and financing.

Under this legislation, it will be a crime to participate in the terrorist activities of a terrorist group. It will also be a crime to finance terrorism. The legislation will fully and effectively implement the UN Convention on Terrorist Financing and UN Security Council Resolution 1373.

In developing this legislation, we have paid close attention to what other democratic countries are doing in the fight against terrorism.

It is important that we act in a way that is consistent with the approach of other democratic nations and in conformity with international law.This comprehensive package of legislation meets our international obligations.

A free and open society never lightly increases the powers of law enforcement authorities. Our challenge in developing this legislation has been to respond in a way that reflects and protects, for the long term, our core values of freedom, democracy and equality.

Canada is a free nation, a just nation, a nation of laws. It is also a land of immigrants, a place where people from almost every nation and faith on earth have come to find freedom, respect, harmony and a brighter future. These values are the very bricks and mortar of our society. Terrorism seeks to undermine the rule of law and the preservation of human rights. The real test of our values is how they guide us in times of crisis. Quite frankly, as a country we did not always pass that test in the past. We must be vigilant today to make sure that we do not repeat past mistakes.

As the minister of justice, it was my privilege to introduce the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am deeply committed to it. I believe that the legislation we have introduced today is essential to preserving those very values. In the drafting of the anti-terrorism act, we have taken great care to protect these rights and freedoms. It provides meaningful protection of individual rights through the inclusion of due process guarantees. It provides for a parliamentary review after three years to re-examine the necessity and effectiveness of these measures. I understand that today the minister said if it is needed earlier it will be earlier.

However, we all recognize that the legislation has of necessity been prepared quickly. Therefore, the role of the justice committees of the House and Senate in scrutinizing the bill will be of particular importance. It must examine the bill through the lens not only of public safety but also of individual rights.

I can assure the House that the government will pay close attention to the findings and recommendations of the committees. I want the committees to give the bill a thorough study, while obviously taking into account the need to pass legislation as quickly as possible.

Since September 11, some groups and individuals have been the target of racial and religious slurs and even violent attacks. There is no place for this behaviour in Canada.

The anti-terrorism bill contains measures that will strengthen the protection of religious freedom and counter hatred based on race, religion and ethnic prejudice.

We must never forget that the ultimate goal of terrorists is not to capture us by the force of arms but by the force of terror. They do not want to occupy Canada. They want to shut Canada down. This government, this House, this nation will not let them.

Even as we continue to take strong action to address the immediate security concerns of Canadians, we will also proceed with our longer term agenda to build a more prosperous, more inclusive Canada.

Canadians have never been a people to live life looking over our shoulders. Ours is an open, prosperous society. Our action plan is about doing what we have to do to allow Canadians to get on with their lives,secure in their safety and to allow our businesses to get back to business, secure in the knowledge that the flow of goods and services across our border with the United States, the anchor of Canadian prosperity, will continue unrestricted.

At home, our government will continue to follow economic and fiscal policies that will enable business and consumers to continue to make their plans with optimism and confidence. We will also work with our partners in the G-7 to ensure the stability of the global economy.

I would add that if we expect Canadians to get on with their lives, we must be an example to them by getting on with our job, the job of building our future.

The security of our country is dependent not only on the protection of our borders and our airports and not only on the power we give the law enforcement agencies. It is also dependent on the prosperity of our economy, the health of our environment, the inclusiveness of our society and the strength of our voice in the world.

On September 11, 2001, the world changed. A global struggle began, the first great struggle for justice of the 21st century. But if we face a new enemy, the role of Canada and the struggle ahead is not new. As always we have not picked this fight. As always Canada is on the side of justice and right.

In the struggle ahead there may be no unconditional surrender or victory parades. However, there will be countless victories, the quiet victories of everyday life, victories that in the end will be won by our reliance on the single most effective weapon that free and civilized nations have always had in our arsenal: the spirit of our citizens.

Our enemies have made a fatal miscalculation. They have mistaken our freedom for weakness. They have mistaken our openness and generosity for lack of spine. They have mistaken our values for a lack of resolve. They will be proven wrong on every count.

The road ahead will be long but our victory will be complete.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the Prime Minister for his thoughtful remarks. I also thank him and the government House leader for giving members of the House the opportunity in this debate to express their views regarding military action and support from Canada.

We have all acknowledged that the world changed on the morning of Tuesday, September 11. We have talked about it at length. We have talked about how terrorists transformed passenger planes into fuel laden bombs to attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The world changed again last Sunday, October 7, when many of us, with Thanksgiving dinners cooking in our kitchens, heard the news that American and British forces had begun bombing al-Qaeda and Taliban positions in Afghanistan. We then learned from our Prime Minister that he had committed Canadian forces to the coalition war effort in one of our largest deployments since Korea.

There is probably no more difficult decision for a prime minister or a government to make than to send their own citizens into harm's way. It was a difficult choice but the Prime Minister made the right decision. The official opposition stands with him in making it.

Since the beginning of the crisis the official opposition has spoken of the need to commit our forces and provide them with the resources they need to be able to do their jobs.

However this is only one of a number of areas where the Canadian Alliance has been at the forefront in suggesting things that need to be done. I have addressed and will continue to address other areas requiring action such as anti-terrorism legislation, resources for our armed services and security services, and humanitarian aid. Humanitarian aid cannot stop at the end of the conflict but must continue getting to refugees from Afghanistan and other places after the immediate part of the conflict is over.

Since September 11, we have all been trying to find legislative and political solutions so that such terrorist acts never occur again.

I am particularly proud of the work done by the official opposition, which has been proactive in suggesting concrete measures to fight terrorism. We have also strongly supported the government's tough decision to commit our armed forces to this war against terrorism. Canada is fighting for freedom alongside its American ally.

Our role, as the official opposition, is also to make our policies known and to encourage the government to adopt them. While we may not agree with the Liberals on the best means to strengthen our criminal legislation, to secure our borders and airports, to better fund our armed forces or to deal with those who abuse our immigration and refugee system, we will take a constructive approach to criticism. The war must not be fought between the parties represented in the House of Commons, but rather where terrorists are.

When the crisis began some people, including members of the government, said the war against terrorism would not be a conventional war. They said it would be war only in a metaphorical sense and that conventional forces would play a relatively small role. We learned on October 7 that these statements were far too simple.

Undoubtedly the war against terrorism will involve more than conventional military action. It will involve intelligence, police work, financial monitoring and humanitarian aid in a multi-faceted effort to eliminate the scourge of terrorism. We are confronting groups which operate on an international level, which are proficient at using weapons of war and which are trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Frozen bank accounts and good police work alone will not defeat such an enemy.

It is clear that conventional military forces will need to play an important role in eliminating the terrorist threat. Clearly the war against terrorism will involve military action. The question facing the House is what role Canada will play in what may be the defining struggle of the early 21st century.

The Prime Minister and the government, as we have already said, made the right choice in committing Canadian troops to the first phase of this military action. It is likely and possible that an even deeper military commitment will be required before the fight is finally won.

I will address two questions which have been asked in the media, around coffee tables and in the House since September 11. First, is a military response in Afghanistan justified morally and under international law? Second, should Canada be involved militarily or should we restrict our involvement in the war against terrorism to policing, humanitarian aid or peacekeeping operations?

Once I have addressed the question of the justness of the war and the necessity of Canadian participation I will examine a third area: the need to provide better resources to help our troops do the job. The official opposition believes the military action which commenced a week ago Sunday is a just and proportionate response to the events of September 11.

The events of September 11 were not merely criminal acts but acts of war. They deliberately targeted large numbers of civilians to advance a narrow cause. These acts of war apparently enjoy at least the tacit support of the Taliban regime of Afghanistan.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1368 of 2001, passed in the hours after the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, acknowledges that under article 51 of the UN charter the United States has the right to individual and collective self defence against the perpetrators of the attacks once it has identified the parties responsible. As the days went by it became more and more evident that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization, aided and abetted by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, was indeed behind the attacks.

Had the Taliban responded in the wake of September 11 by handing over Osama bin Laden and expelling his al-Qaeda terrorist organization from Afghanistan, perhaps the diplomatic and legal route alone would have been the best course to take. Perhaps we would be here debating the role of the International Court of Justice in The Hague rather than that of NATO. Perhaps we would be debating sending peacekeepers and international monitors into Afghanistan rather than the SAS and the Delta force.

The Taliban responded to pressure from the international community, including its former ally Pakistan, with deception and denial in the face of evidence that al-Qaeda orchestrated the murderous attacks. The Taliban gave bin Laden and his cohorts time to hide and secure themselves and perhaps plan further deadly terrorist attacks. To address the clear and present danger of further terrorist attacks against civilians the United States and its allies had little choice but to take military action against al-Qaeda and its Taliban hosts and sponsors.

The coalition must work to minimize civilian casualties as far as is possible. It is tragic that last week at least one bomb went astray and killed innocent civilians. We must work to rebuild a stable government and civil society in Afghanistan after the conflict has ended. It appears that the United States and the coalition is making every effort to hit military and terrorist targets and not civilians, and to get food and aid to the suffering Afghan population. This must continue.

Canada should play a bigger role in responding to the humanitarian dimension of the crisis. However if we do not take military action against the Taliban we will leave intact the greatest support network and training ground for global terrorism. It is not a matter of retaliation. It is a matter of self-defence to ensure the bases and their sponsors are eliminated.

Consequently, since it seems to us that this war is a just cause and that the means used are morally reasonable and in accordance with international law, there is no doubt in our minds, our military commitment is warranted and deserves our full support.

I will address another argument against the legitimacy of the war that I find particularly specious. Some have suggested that the attacks of September 11 while unfortunate were the inevitable results of American foreign policy and that further military action will only inflame the situation.

It is outrageous to suggest the attacks of September 11 were some kind of response to American foreign policies or to global trade agreements like the WTO. There is no moral equivalence, nor can there ever be, between terrorism and legitimate foreign policy.

It is ethically improper to compare diplomatic positions, trade deals or even legitimate military actions undertaken in accordance with international law to the bloodthirsty massacre of more than 5,000 innocent civilians.

We must also reject the views of the former president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. She and others in circumstances where the innocent are abused would never tolerate the blaming of the victim. It is ironic that a person who purports to speak against violence, particularly violence against the innocent, a person who quite rightly in other situations would utterly reject the notion that the abused are inviting the abuse, would now survey the slaughter of 6,000 innocent women and men and dare to blame the victims.

We all support freedom of speech, even the freedom of speech exercised by this individual. That freedom, incidentally, was paid for by the blood of Americans and Canadians in the first and second world wars.

With that same freedom we must stand and utterly reject these spurious, erroneous, incorrect and unintellectual suggestions. The expression of these kinds of views, though the freedom is there to express them, should never carry the legitimacy of government sponsorship and subsidies.

People around the world, including Canadians, may quite reasonably disagree with U.S. policies but we must never condone barbarism as a response. The September 11 massacre was not a political act. It certainly was not a religious act. It was an act of pure destruction. It was an attack on democracy and the ideas of freedom, justice and reason.

Osama bin Laden is a multi-millionaire whose millions of dollars would be far better spent helping his own people who live in poverty because of the destructive policies of the Taliban. They are instead being used to slaughter innocent thousands who believe in freedom of religion and all the freedoms that come with living in democratic nations which support the individual rights of others.

Osama bin Laden and his supporters are hijacking the historic religion of Islam. They are perverting and distorting its teachings to justify their murderous ideology, an ideology every bit the threat to the safety and security of the 21st century that communism and fascism were to the 20th.

No compromise or bargaining is possible with this kind of terrorism. We cannot split the difference. There is no halfway point between this type of good and evil. U.S. President George Bush asked every nation in the world to choose which side they are on. There is no middle ground here. To Canada's great credit and to the credit of the government we have chosen the side of freedom and civilization.

Canada's support for the American and coalition effort should not be limited to passive approval but should include active participation. Canada's participation in this military action is necessary to show solidarity with our allies. Some who recognize that the United States had to act militarily still question why Canada, a traditional peacekeeping nation, needed to be involved on a military level rather than limiting its participation to humanitarian aid and diplomatic measures.

However Canada, while a peacemaker, is not a neutral power. Canadians answered the call in the first and second world wars. Let us consider the first world war. With a population of eight million people, roughly half of whom were men, 625,000 men answered the call to combat.

Let us consider the second world war, the Korean war and the gulf war. Despite the fact that Canadian lives and interests were not directly at stake in any of these conflicts, Canadians were there. Assisting our allies and honouring our international obligations was reason enough then and it is reason enough now.

How could we fail to respond to an attack on North American soil that took, among others, Canadian lives? We are a founding member of the NATO alliance, the most successful military alliance in modern history. Article 5 of the NATO charter says that an attack on one is an attack on all. On September 11 NATO invoked this principle for the first time in its history and authorized a collective response to the attacks on the United States. When the United States asked for our assistance we had a moral obligation to provide it.

The Prime Minister was correct to answer yes when the United States asked for our support. The government made the right choice to engage in this action and we support our troops. However supporting our troops means more than words. We must also support them by giving them the tools they need to do a difficult job. They do not have the tools they should have. We must face this squarely with the facts clearly before us.

This is not a partisan commentary. This government and the government before it consistently cut and underfunded our military. This has taken place over a generation and not just over the last seven years, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has admitted. We have seen brutal cuts to defence over the last generation. While Canada's serving personnel are among the best trained and most dedicated and courageous in NATO, they do not have the resources or equipment to play certain vital roles in this combat.

Our forces are stretched so thin that it would be difficult to send troops to the Middle East, participate in further peacekeeping and defend the domestic front at the same time. It is unfortunate that due to the government's delays in replacing our helicopters we must send our navy equipped with aging Sea King helicopters that require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air. It is unfortunate that the one military unit which may have been able to make a significant contribution on the ground, the Canadian Airborne Regiment, was broken up by the government in a fit of political correctness.

Instead we have only the highly skilled but much smaller JTF2 unit to offer for potential ground action. It is unfortunate that our CF-18s were not equipped with the anti-missile systems that would have been needed in the early sorties over Afghanistan.

In the past few weeks and over the past year and a half or more when the Canadian Alliance has voiced its support and appreciation of our troops by raising the issue of underfunding and poor equipment, we have been accused by some in the government of insulting our serving men and women. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is the cut in resources to our armed forces over the years that has been an insult.

Before September 11 many would never have guessed that Canada would be engaged in military combat this year. We are now sending our forces into danger, and this is just one campaign in a war against terrorism which may go on for years.

Why are our armed forces in such poor shape? It is because in past years the government has cut the defence budget by some 30% in real terms. These are the simple facts. Over the past 10 years, with two different governments, the total number of military personnel has fallen from about 90,000 to less than 58,000. That is a 35% drop.

While the government claims the forces are more combat capable than they were 10 years ago, the facts tell another story. Some new equipment is beginning to arrive but it is not sufficient to restore the combat readiness of our forces to previous levels. A parade of former officers, the Conference of Defence Associations, the Royal Canadian Military Institute and the auditor general have all raised concerns about how the lack of resources has affected the combat capabilities of the Canadian forces. The auditor general has identified a potential funding shortfall in the equipment budget of $30 billion up to and including the year 2012. This must be addressed.

The government put new money into defence in the year 2000, a move it constantly trumpets as a great success. However it has been assessed by independent military experts as insufficient to address the broader crisis in the Canadian forces. If Canada is to be taken seriously in the international war against terrorism we must act at once to rebuild our military in a significant way.

We must be capable of meeting our commitments of the white paper of 1994. We must take the matter seriously because we are no longer at peace.

Even for peacetime purposes Canada's military funding has been inadequate. In the last election we called for an increase to the national defence base budget of $2 billion per year. A few weeks ago the Conference of Defence Associations, Canada's leading research and advocacy group on behalf of our military, said an extra $1 billion would be necessary to maintain the status quo let alone increase and improve the strength of our forces.

Now that we know we will need to restore the strength and morale of our forces in what may be a long military effort, we call on the government to commit to a budget that will give our military the resources and equipment it needs. We hope the government will heed this call, table the budget and table it soon. This is the minimum that will be required if we are to participate fully in the war against terrorism and live up to the 1994 white paper commitments of the government.

We have stood with the government today and supported its decision. We now ask it to show support for our troops by tabling a budget that provides them with the resources, equipment and manpower they will need to play an effective frontline role in the campaign against terrorism.

The Prime Minister alluded to our visit to ground zero. I have stood in the World Trade towers in years past while someone explained to me how they were able to resist large earthquakes. As we stood at ground zero we could hardly identify where the two proud towers had once stood. The hundreds of people working in the rubble that day did so slowly, methodically and quietly. They worked mainly without talking. While watching them we realized we were not only standing in a place where the heart of the city had literally been ripped out. We were standing in a massive graveyard.

We met with Canadian families who had lost loved ones. We talked with them privately and without media, which was appropriate. We heard stories of heartbreak; of fathers, brothers and loved ones who would never be seen again. In my own heart, and I believe in the hearts of the Prime Minister and other leaders who were there, a resolve was formed to do what had to be done so that never again could such an atrocity happen on either Canadian soil or the soil of our allies.

That is why we are committed to the actions we have spoken of today. That is why we are committed to the call for resources to the armed forces. That is why we are committed to analyzing the anti-terrorism legislation over the days ahead. It is for our freedom. It is for democracy itself.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Chairman, since September 11, the world has changed; everything has changed. The world is no longer the same, nor will it ever be the same again. We are facing consequences to date unsuspected. The shock waves have hit us, are still hitting us and will continue to hit us.

Foreign affairs, defence and security have become priorities not just in the House, but also in the press and among members of the general public. Our economy has been shaken and the full extent of the impact is still unknown.

Who could have foreseen on September 10 that Bombardier and Pratt & Whitney would find themselves in such a situation? Or that Swiss Air and Sabena would suspend flights for a few days? No one could have predicted this state of affairs.

Citizens are quite rightly preoccupied about their personal safety. In our societies, men and women are worried and their worries cannot be ignored.

We must also take note of the anti-American demonstrations in the Middle East and in Asia, which we do not approve of, but whose existence we cannot ignore, making the cohesion of the international coalition against terrorism all the more difficult.

I conclude from this brief overview that the UN is definitely the best placed to ensure a broad coalition of countries against terrorism, including, and especially in my view, the predominantly Muslim countries. But the UN is not sufficiently involved.

I wish to remind the House of a number of positions taken by the Bloc Quebecois in the House since the beginning of the crisis. We invoked, and still invoke, the need for a broad international coalition, as broad as possible, under the aegis of the United Nations.

The fight against terrorism must not be associated only with western nations, or with rich or powerful nations. Terrorism is a scourge affecting all countries. It has no nationality. Muslims or Arabs are not the enemy. Neither does democracy have a nationality.

We said, and we still maintain, that we must respond to terrorism efficiently and in a measured way and seek out those responsible for the attacks. Of course, before responding, we must review all options. We must make every possible effort to keep civilians from paying the price of the response.

The first victims of regimes such as that of the Talibans are the populations like the Afghans. Women and children are the first to suffer from those insane and inhumane regimes. We must not forget that. Democracy and freedom have nothing in common with ignorance, blackout, violence, religious fundamentalism and fanatic behaviour.

That is why we must uphold the necessity of an international justice system. Terrorist attacks are attacks on the international community; it should therefore logically be up to the international community to bring the perpetrators of such attacks before an international court of justice.

To date, the international community has given itself 12 treaties in order to fight terrorism, but the judicial aspect of the issue is not covered. There is no international court of justice. Terrorism must be added to the terms of reference of the future international criminal court.

However, the fact that this court does not exist should not preclude the establishment of an ad hoc court to judge the actions committed on September 11. It was done for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia.

The first international court probably was the one convened in Nuremberg. Victims of different countries and nationalities go together to judge those responsible for crimes committed during the second world war.

The casualties of the September 11 events were of various nationalities. Such a court could hear the cases in New York, at the UN building, an American territory which is neutral in the case of international agreements.

We must strive for an ad hoc tribunal that would judge those responsible for the attacks of September 11 if we want democratic countries and all nations to trust a tribunal that would be called upon to judge those responsible for these attacks and not consider, should the tribunal be strictly American, the United States, or Canada, to be judge and jury.

I believe that the biggest strength of our democracies is the unity among democratic nations as a whole. They must stand together and demand that those responsible be prosecuted by such a tribunal.

We must also address the root causes of terrorism. A military response is not enough, nor is it satisfying, albeit necessary. No army will be able to defeat suicide bombers. The threat of the death penalty is of no value against people who are willing to die for an unjustifiable cause.

Destroying bin Laden is one thing, destroying terrorism is another one all together. We must address its root causes, namely poverty, lack of democracy, dictatorship, and the crass ignorance which stems therefrom. These causes cannot in any way justify the kind of fanatism we have witnessed. However, we must realize that these causes are the fertile ground in which fanatism and terrorism flourish.

We attacked Saddam Hussein in 1991. We did not get rid of the Saddam Hussein problem in 1991. As long as we do not deal with the root causes, other forms of fanatism will emerge.

Such was the case in Germany after the first world war. This is what gave us Hitler. As long as international agreements prevent us from addressing these causes, fanaticism will rear its ugly head decade after decade. We must recognize this.

Therefore we are faced with a new international situation. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to work with the government--in a critical way, of course--in order to respond to the immediate concerns of the people, deal with immediate security problems both at home and abroad, and deal with the current crisis with a view to eventually getting back to normal.

Because this is just the beginning of a new international context, we must take it into account when contemplating the future. It concerns every country, every government, every people.

In response to the current situation, the government has introduced an anti-terrorism bill. We support the principle behind this bill. We need to balance the need to protect our civil liberties and security against trade imperatives. It may not be easy, but it is absolutely necessary. The best response to terrorism is the quality of our civil liberties. The best weapon against terrorism is the example democracy can set.

At first glance, there seems to be some flaws in the government bill. For example, in terms of access to information, the attorney general has the power to prohibit the release of information. Of course, I know that some information needs to be kept confidential. That is not what I am worried about. However, I think it would be better for the information commissioner, and not the attorney general, to determine what information is confidential. As judge and jury, the attorney general would create uncertainty--to say the least--or generate a great deal of distrust for any decision he might make. This would not be the case if the decisions were made by the information commissioner.

Our second concern about this bill is the three year review period it provides for. Without being denied, a number of our civil rights are being altered or diluted. Hence, it is our most basic duty in a democratic society to ensure that the legislation be reviewed every year.

There is also a flaw in the fight against money laundering. We have to be consistent in our approach and not sign special conventions with certain tax havens that make it easier to fund terrorist groups.

Nor is there a dialogue with the provinces, which are responsible for the administration of justice. The minister told us that she phoned provincial governments this morning. This is somewhat like saying “Listen to me on RDI or on Newsworld. I will be on the air in the next five minutes”. This is not consultation.

At this point, and I am not making a constitutional battle out of this, we need the greatest possible dialogue between the various stakeholders. There is a flaw in the process and there is still time to correct it.

As for our military commitment, there is the need to take part in a response against those responsible for these attacks and to provide logistical support, but above all humanitarian assistance. The role of the Canadian army must be clearly defined. We will never be the police of the planet and thank goodness for that.

So, we must define the role of the Canadian army before approving budgets. We can act quickly in terms of logistics and humanitarian assistance, but if we look at the longer term—and we should, because as the Prime Minister, President Bush and all the others have said, this war against terrorism will last more than a few months—we must define the role of the Canadian army in that context.

Humanitarian assistance, logistical support, participation in peacekeeping missions: these are the priorities that would allow the Canadian army to play a useful role at the world level. This means investing in equipment that is appropriate for the missions and priorities that we set for ourselves. There is no need for nuclear submarines. It might be better to invest in so-called smart ships or in versatile ships that can play a role in peacekeeping missions. This would also put our shipyards to work because, as we saw with the economic shock that we just experienced, everything is interrelated.

Another point is that the government should let parliament vote. We are told that the executive branch makes decisions. Of course. The executive branch make decisions and parliamentarians legislate. We vote here on any number of acts, on regulations—

[The Right Hon. Jean Chrétien]

We voted earlier.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I know we voted earlier, but I think that parliamentarians have a duty to make decisions on the sending of troops. The government has enjoyed very strong support.

In fact, this is the same Prime Minister who, in 1991, before troops were sent off during the gulf war, asked that parliament express its will by voting. I think the debates we are holding are certainly useful, but nothing precludes us from exercising our right to vote, as parliamentarians, to implement a proposal made by the government. This is exactly what the Liberal Party, which was the official opposition in 1991, was calling for. The Prime Minister was calling for the same thing. I see him smile, I understand him.

In the last few days, the possibility of strikes in countries other than Afghanistan has been raised. I believe that we must maintain this approach of patience and wisdom that the Prime Minister has told us about, that we must intervene only after the evidence has been deemed solid by the United Nations. There should be no haste. This is the time to have the United Nations play their leadership role in this broad international coalition.

We must draw conclusions from the September 11 events. We are certainly in favour of the broadest international coalition as possible, of an increased role for international justice tribunals. We must deal with the causes of terrorism, clarify the role of international institutions and increase humanitarian aid, which has been clearly inadequate to this day.

We said this before the events and this is all the truer since September 11: there are deficiencies in humanitarian aid. Without humanitarian aid, we are providing the ground that I was talking about earlier, in which fanatism and terrorism can flourish.

Involving the UN is very significant in such a context. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan received the Nobel peace prize a few days ago. I believe all parliamentarians will join me in congratulating him. The awarding of the Nobel prize to Mr. Annan increases the moral authority of the UN and their secretary general, an authority that will be reinforced.

Let us not forget the reasons for the creation of the UN at the end of the second world war to replace the League of Nations. Its aim was to fight war. I read from the preamble to the UN charter:

To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind.

There has been no third world war, but since 1945, there have been regional wars, wars of independence and wars of imperialist domination both in the east and in the west. These wars continue, and still today, there are regional wars, not only the war on terrorism, but wars being waged in Africa, Asia and South America.

In this context, we believe the UN has a vital role to play. Parliament must reiterate its support for the UN. We must all ensure that the UN plays the greatest role in this context of international crisis, a role in keeping with its mandate to co-ordinate.

I was disappointed today at the response the Prime Minister gave to a question from my colleague from Mercier “There is no question of the United Nations directing at this time”. I want that noted. It seems to me that Canada must push in this direction to ensure the United Nations plays this role of co-ordinator, bringing together as many countries as possible, aware all the while that some will intervene more directly in military terms, whereas others will intervene in other areas, including diplomatic and providing support for humanitarian aid or non governmental organizations.

The government must demonstrate leadership with respect to the role the United Nations will play in the future. The security council has the wherewithal and the mandate to intervene with the international coalition. We must demand that Ossama bin Laden be handed over to the UN for trial before a court, an international tribunal.

As I was saying earlier, let us establish ad hoc tribunals as was done for Rwanda, for the former Yugoslavia and, originally, in Nuremberg after World War II. The UN must be called upon to oversee the establishment of a new government in Afghanistan. Every one knows that the northern alliance does not offer the greatest guarantees of democracy. Mistakes were made in the past. To solve one problem, another problem was created.

It seems to me that President Bush was right last week when he talked about the role the UN will have to play once Afghanistan has been rid of the Taliban. But the UN and its member countries also have a role to play right now in terms of supporting international aid to the people of Afghanistan.

With the leadership of the United Nations, the international coalition will be able not only to solve the problem with the Taliban, but also to prevent the emergence of new terrorist cells by addressing the underlying causes of terrorism.

It is a win-win situation for the people of Canada and Quebec. It is a win-win situation for the governments that have to deal with such crises. It is a win-win situation for the people who are the first victims of such crises, particularly the people of Afghanistan, who will certainly benefit from the intervention of the largest possible coalition working on all fronts, not only in terms of military action but also in terms of humanitarian assistance and in terms of preparing the future of a country that has been rid of the Taliban.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Chairman, I will be dividing my time this evening with my colleague the member of parliament for Acadie--Bathurst.

When it comes to characterizing our reaction to the horrific attacks that took place in the United States on September 11, there is a sentiment which is shared by all members of the House and I believe overwhelmingly by all Canadians that bears repeating and that is that no cause, no grievance can ever justify the murderous crimes that took place on September 11. These were crimes that were carried out in the United States to be sure, but they were also crimes that were conducted against all humanity.

The greatest losses were suffered by our closest neighbours to the south, but it is also true that 60 nations lost citizens in those horrendous attacks on September 11. The magnitude and the heinous nature of those crimes threatened and destabilized the peace and security of the entire human family in every corner of the world.

Accordingly, there must be a strong, unequivocal and determined response to track down and punish the terrorists who committed those crimes against humanity. In bringing to justice those prepared to sacrifice their own lives to murder other citizens and wreak havoc around the world, let us be clear that the use of force may indeed be necessary. In the immediate aftermath of such grotesque violence, it is understandable that some would be driven to seek retaliation and revenge. Humankind has been plagued with this response from earliest times but surely we must and can learn. A violent response cannot become an end in itself.

While we oppose the violence that breeds violence, we recognize that force is sometimes required to stop in their tracks those hell bent to destroy lives. However, let us remember that if, how and when the decision to use force is made is critically important. In any use of force our moral and legal authority must be maintained.

That is one of the reasons that we, the New Democratic Party members of this House, have consistently argued that any decisions must be made under the auspices of the United Nations. Otherwise we descend into lawlessness and surely will be responsible for creating a new generation of terrorists, would-be martyrs and fanatics.

We must treat these mass murders as crimes against humanity for which there can be no justification. Those who brand those horrifying events as America's new war and argue that war is the appropriate response feed into the repugnant argument that somehow these terrorist acts were inevitable. We categorically reject that. With crimes against humanity, there can be no moral equivalency. Those who advocate war as the appropriate response fuel the morally reprehensible notion that somehow those terrorist acts can be characterized as payback for misguided foreign policies or collateral damage in theatres of operation. That cannot be permitted.

There is a growing international consensus against terrorism. This consensus we consistently advocate and will continue to try to persuade our government must be put to work in support of the role of the United Nations.

It is heartening, in fact it is a beacon of hope in these dark days that the UN secretary general and the United Nations itself have been singled out and awarded the Nobel peace prize.

Tonight we are embarked on a debate about international actions against terrorism. It strikes me and my colleagues that there is something a little ironic that this is a debate chosen and entitled by the government whose greatest failing in the response to the crisis that we face has been the failure to provide leadership to ensure a truly international response. One that is carried out within the rule of law is the response that characterizes both our Canadian reaction and the way in which we handle this crisis on a worldwide basis.

Let us for a moment remind ourselves of the words of Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the UN when he stated “If we are to prevent such crimes from being committed again, we must stay united as we seek to eliminate terrorism. In this struggle there is no alternative to international co-operation”. He went on to say that “the United Nations is uniquely positioned to serve as the forum for this”.

Earlier today, with heavy hearts, members of the New Democratic Party reluctantly were not able to support a motion brought forward by our colleagues in the Conservative caucus because a failure of that motion was the total omission of any kind of international response, any genuine global response to this world global crisis. As opposition parliamentarians, members of the New Democratic Party take seriously our role in improving the government response to this crisis in questioning, debating and putting forward alternatives and demanding accountability.

The government decision to commit Canadian troops to military engagement in Afghanistan without seeking the approval of the Canadian parliament and without ensuring that our forces would be operating under the auspices of the United Nations is not only wrong in principle but it is also tactically flawed. It is strategically unsound.

Ironically the Prime Minister made precisely those arguments in 1991. He stated one decade ago the extreme reluctance of the Liberal official opposition which he led at the time to give any nod of approval to a declaration of war. He was right. As quoted in the Toronto Star in mid-January 1991, he stated “I don't think this government has the moral authority to bring Canada into war today. The Prime Minister is rolling the dice with the lives of young women and men without giving a real chance to peace”.

I do not know what has changed when it comes to such a sound argument that was put forward at that time. We have concerns about the government's chosen path compromising the integrity and the safety of our forces by placing them in possible conflict with international law.

Make no mistake about it. These are difficult questions especially at a time of heightened national security and mass apprehension. But it is precisely at these times that we must rely on democratic debate, on our being prepared to air our differences, to demand accountability and to listen to the many sound arguments that are being put forward by a great many Canadians for the need to get on a clear international path based on the rule of law.

Some have said that questioning the government's direction somehow undermines support for our troops. I absolutely reject that idea. Questioning government direction cannot and must not be confused in any way with questioning our commitment to the men and women of the armed forces. We have unflinchingly supported and we will continue to support our soldiers, sailors and airmen as they respond to the call of duty to serve their country. We support their families in their desire and our desire to see their loved ones return safely to Canada.

Just as New Democratic members of parliament are unreserved in our support for the families and the military, we are absolutely in support of the fight against the stereotyping, the victimizing of Arab Canadians, Muslim Canadians and other visible minorities in the aftermath of this horrendous crisis.

I finish by saying that I too was absolutely moved by the experience of visiting New York City, but the thing that has seared my heart and soul forever is the pleading of the families of the Canadian victims who said that they did not want the senseless murderous deaths of their loved ones to be avenged by the victimization and the killing of other innocent civilians.

We need to keep that first and foremost in our minds as we figure out how to get on a path of genuine peace and security that will serve the world.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to rise in the House this evening to speak about the events of September 11, which rocked the world.

Today, Canada is no longer the same. This is clear today, in light of what happened on the Hill, and in Montreal and Toronto, and in light of people's terror.

I must say that what is happening in our country, in the United States and throughout the world is completely unacceptable. Shortly after the planes hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as soon as the media had reported the event, I am sure that the entire world was shaken. It was as though we were watching a movie; what was happening was unreal.

I think we need to step back and reflect on what has happened. I must say that I was disappointed in our Prime Minister. I know that the decision to send our troops into battle was not an easy one for him. But I am disappointed that on Sunday he announced that our troops were heading off to combat, that he was going to hold an emergency cabinet meeting on Tuesday, but that parliament would not meet until October 15. I found that disappointing.

I was elected by the constituents of Acadie—Bathurst. I think that it is my role in this country, in this parliament, to rise and speak about what is going on in our country, and to be able to vote and be judged on my performance by my constituents.

As a parliamentarian in this democratic country, I should have the right to vote. I am disappointed in our Prime Minister because, in 1991, that is what he wanted from the Conservatives. He got what he wanted, for it was a sign of respect towards parliamentarians.

I would like to quote someone who made a speech in the House of Commons in 1991. I will read a few passages from the speech. It was given on January 15, 1991, at 12.20 p.m.:

We said that military action is premature. We said that military action at this moment is unwise. It is very dangerous for long-term security in the Middle East and for the viability of the UN.

I would like to say to the Prime Minister that it is very, very easy to start a war, but it is very difficult to stop a war.

I will not read the entire speech, but I will ready passages from it.

Military action, so soon after we decided to take the course of sanctions and embargo, endorses the view that military action can be an instrument of preference and of early resort and not, as it should be, of last resort.

Why this war? What are our national interests in this war? When I listened to the debate which took place in the United States Congress over the weekend, the Americans were not talking about the United Nations, as I said earlier. They were talking about American interests. Senators and members of the House of Representatives spoke and they were divided very closely on this issue. I am sure that, if there had been no ultimatum and if the president had not taken such a firm position, it is probable Congress would not have acquiesced to the resolution presented to it.

That person continued in the House on January 15, 1991, saying the following:

I say that the national interests of Canada are very different from the national interests of the United States.

And some members in the House applauded.

Our national interests have been peacekeeping, a voice for stability and a voice for independence in war, peace and stability.

Let me continue:

We have always said that embargoes, sanctions and diplomacy are preferable to bullets. We have to look back at what has happened in our history.

Then that person said the following:

When war broke out in Korea, we did get involved but under the flag of the United Nations. That is a basic distinction from the position now taken by the Prime Minister. The Security Council did not set up a United Nations contingent. It authorized countries to go to war with Iraq, but it did not ask any country to go to war with Iraq.

I continue with the quotations because I find them important in today's context. I think the person I am quoting recognizes the words that were said because that person is in the House today:

Let us give a chance to sanctions. Let us give a chance to the embargo. Let us give a chance to peace diplomacy. This is the role which the government should play now. I am afraid, however, that the government made commitments a long time ago and now has to pay the price. Canada's position is and must remain an independent one. If one day all these recourses should prove inadequate, if there must be a war, a war under the aegis of the United Nations, Canada will assume its responsibilities and support the United Nations.

Today, this would not be a war under the flag of the United Nations, but a war waged by an unknown number of countries, and Canada took the position in 1956 that we shall not be involved in a war if it is not under the flag of the United Nations.

I would like to congratulate the person who pronounced these words on January 15, 1991, because he was saying the same thing that the New Democratic Party is saying today. Perhaps he was closer to the NDP in those days; he has forgotten his beliefs and moved too far to the right. I am not sure what happened to that person, but he said:

—if it is not under the flag of the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat in English what I said in case some people did not understand.

This was a serious person addressing parliament in 1991. This person wanted everyone to understand, in both languages. So, this person repeated it in the other official language. I continue to quote:

We are opposed to this war at this moment. Canada has taken the position since 1956 that we shall not be involved in a war if it is not under the flag of the UN. It might be under the flag of a very friendly neighbour, but it will not be the flag of the UN. The time has not yet come for the UN to move in a war situation. Let us give peace a good chance.

This person is the leader of the Liberals, today's Prime Minister of Canada. I would like to congratulate him for his words in 1991.

But today, I cannot congratulate him, because the steps that have been taken in this war, if we can call it that, should have been taken under the aegis of the United Nations and not under the aegis of a country that will be victim, judge and executioner all at the same time. Give peace a chance. Give us a chance to solve the problem.

It is not easy for the New Democratic Party to be the only party in the House of Commons to oppose the government today. We are the only political party in Canada doing so. But we are doing what has to be done. Let me conclude by reading a short excerpt from the editorial published yesterday in L'Acadie nouvelle . Here is what Michel Duceppe had to say about the NDP leader:

When she says that bombing the poor will not help to eradicate terrorism, she is voicing what millions of Canadians will come to realize a bit too late. The fact that she is crying out in the desert says a lot about the political climate in our country.

Just like Ed Broadbent did before her, she hangs on. She knows that what she says will not help her in the opinion polls—because, you see, war does not take opinion polls into consideration—but she still stands her ground. This is what courage is all about, a notion that is being abandoned at a time where traditional parties would sell their souls to get more votes, if it were not already done.

I urge the Prime Minister of Canada to reconsider his decision, to reflect on what happened in 1991, to do some soul searching and to hold a vote in this House in order to give parliamentarians the opportunity, in keeping with our democratic traditions, to speak for Canadians and to do the right thing, which is to get involved under the aegis of the United Nations, not of the United States.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Chairman, I must point out that there was a vote today. I cannot comment on what parties do in the House, but the proceedings will show which parties supported Canada's action in the fight against terrorism.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition. I note that we all say our world changed on September 11 but sometimes people repeat phrases without really believing them.

The reality is that when those planes were driven deliberately into crowded buildings in North America with the deliberate purpose of killing as many innocent people as possible our world changed as surely as Japan's world changed at Hiroshima and eastern Europe's world changed when the Berlin wall came down.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 have marked Canadians forever. That day everything changed because since then we have no longer been able to believe in our invulnerability. That day terrorists stole our innocence. They took away the feeling we had in Canada that no matter what havoc was wreaked abroad, here in Canada and in North America we had nothing to fear, we were safe.

In a flash, the massacre in New York City and Washington showed us how poorly prepared we were to face the terrorist threat.

As a country and as individuals we are on uncharted ground. Until now we did not think how we might tell our children there might be anthrax in the mail. No government prepared a defence against passenger planes that might be used as weapons of mass murder and despite the warnings of our intelligence agencies, most Canadians and most members of parliament assumed that terrorists attacked other continents. That has changed now and our way of thinking must change also.

Our coalition believes that Canada must deal with two different basic changes. First is the new threat of a terrorist network that is disciplined, professional, absolutely ruthless, and a network about which far too little is known. When this country was called to conflict before we knew much more about the enemy. Today we do not know the motives, the conditions which formed these terrorists or the targets they might choose next.

Second is the assumption that terrible things do not happen in Canada, not in this wealthy, privileged and insulated society. We are thankfully still a long way from a war zone where every step is a hazard. We must not exaggerate the dangers which ordinary citizens face but neither can we deny the reality that Canada is less safe than we thought and that the underlying confidence of Canadians has been eroded by doubt and fear.

One of the reasons I plead so strongly with the government to be as open as possible with the people of Canada is because honest information is the only answer to doubt and fear. Secrecy feeds fear; facts fight fear.

I ask the government to trust the people, to trust this parliament, and to publish as much as it can about the threats to health and how Canadians can protect themselves. Assessments carried out by our intelligence agencies about the methods and the motives of terrorist groups that we know to be operating here should be made public.

Let me suggest to the Prime Minister why openness is so important now to this government's ability to lead the country. There is a sense among Canadians, who have supported the government in too many consecutive elections, that it has become disconnected from the country it governs. Its political success is due more, I regret to say, to the disarray on this side of the House than it is to any sense of purpose which Canadians draw from the government.

In a crisis such as this one the government needs more authority than that. It can count on the support of most of the members of the House in the hard measures it has to contemplate and propose but it also needs the confidence of a shocked and troubled people. The only way it can win that trust is to show trust itself and not hide the facts which Canadians need to know.

I am the only member in the opposition benches who sat in cabinet and decided whether our country should take up arms. As the Prime Minister said, it is the hardest and most serious of decisions which governments must take. It directly and profoundly affects the safety of our people and the reputation of our country. We learned a decade ago that governments in these circumstances need all the help they can get.

It is in this context that Canadians are now turning to their government, and rightly so. People as a whole want to be reassured, to be shown that the situation is under control and that every effort is being made to stop the terrorist threat today and tomorrow.

In a crisis situation, the government must play such a role quickly and unequivocally. It is its duty.

Therefore, I must voice my support for the government's decision to be actively involved in the international military coalition. I did so this morning by introducing a motion in the House in support of the involvement of Canadian forces in the efforts of the international military coalition. I am doing it again this evening.

Moreover, I applaud the efforts made by the government to finally bring in an anti-terrorism bill. In principle, this legislation is a good start. Of course, it will need to be properly scrutinized since in certain respects it could have an impact on our fundamental rights. But it is a useful tool, which should be supported as swiftly as possible.

However, in order to really reassure people, the governement must show that things are under control, that it has an action plan. It must keep the people informed so that they are not plagued by uncertainty.

Let me raise four areas where the government can do more than it appears to be doing. The first area concerns information and intelligence. The al-Qaeda network and its allies work beyond the range of the traditional intelligence services of Canada and our allies. We do not know enough about them and as things now stand we are not in a position to learn.

Over the last seven years the government has cut the budget of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service by 37%. Our intelligence agencies have little capacity to speak the languages or understand the cultures of the world in which these terrorists work, plan and recruit. Working with our allies we must repair that weakness urgently.

We have an advantage in this diverse and international country in that so many of our private citizens work in the languages and understand the cultures where we need help. I hope the Prime Minister would come to parliament and spell out funding and hiring initiatives for our intelligence agencies which would markedly improve our ability to understand how and why these terrorist networks have grown and how they might be broken.

As important as it is for us to secure our borders we must recognize that these terrorists are highly professional. They do not sneak in the back door. They use their skill, knowledge and wealth to come in the front door of countries like Canada. That is what happened with the pilots who turned the hijacked planes into weapons in the United States. We need the best intelligence to know about their networks.

The second area concerns traditional diplomacy. This morning I spoke about the need to enforce and enlarge our defence budgets. My colleague from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough has just handed me a relevant quotation from Winston Churchill from another time but the point is valid:

The Army is not like a limited liability company to be reconstructed, remodelled, liquidated and refloated from week to week as the money market fluctuates. It is not an inanimate thing, like a house to be pulled down, or structurally altered at the caprice of the owner; it is a living thing. If it is bullied, it sulks; if it is unhappy, it pines; if it is harried, it gets feverish; if it is sufficiently disturbed, it will wither and dwindle and almost die; and when it comes to this last serious condition, it is only revived by lots of time and lots of money.

That was true then; that is true now. What was also true then and now is an effective defence must be married to an effective diplomacy. I have written the foreign minister urging him to take initiatives within the Commonwealth where Canada's reputation is strong and whose other members include countries like Pakistan, Nigeria, India and others whose knowledge and co-operation would be invaluable to the coalition against the terrorist threat.

The same capacity exists in la Francophonie and in Canada's other connections with a world that may be more comfortable working with us than it is with a superpower or a former colonial power. I hope the Prime Minister would outline in detail what diplomatic steps Canada is taking.

The third area is domestic. We need tough and effective measures to stop terrorists if they get here precisely because they are so professional. The bill introduced by the Minister of Justice today is a step in that direction.

Now that airliners have become weapons the government will not be taken seriously and the public will not feel safe until the Prime Minister puts air marshals in Canadian skies.

Finally, we need to hear from the Prime Minister about Canada's plans for the period when the attacks have stopped in Afghanistan and when we have more knowledge and control of al-Qaeda and the other terrorist networks. Canada did not seem well prepared for the attacks.

Other nations led the response which we have now joined. However Canada has a unique role and responsibility in building the systems and standards that come after these attacks. That will involve a major commitment to international development, where Canada's contribution under the government has fallen from .49% of gross national product in 1994 to .25% this year.

This is an area in which Canada has a unique opportunity to lead. I would hope the Prime Minister would spell out the leadership he intends Canada to take.

We would all like to say to Canadians that we will soon emerge from this period of anger, sorrow and fear. We would like to tell them that Canada faces no direct threat, that the rest of the world will protect us from harm, but none of that is true or certain.

What is certain is that our public life, our political life, must change. We in politics must be more vigilant, must challenge the status quo and must shape opinion rather than simply trying not to run afoul of it. We must present a more coherent view of the world and of Canada's role in it. We must build support for our views and we must argue strenuously against views we think are wrongheaded. We must defend the Islamic faith against prejudice and attack and recognize that its worst enemy right now is the al-Qaeda network.

At a time when the United States of America has had the courage to lead, we must stand beside the United States, support her people, work with her government, share her risks and join in the responsibility to limit the suffering of the innocent Afghani people. To do less or to do differently at this moment in time would be to dishonour the tradition of Canada with which we have been entrusted.

As the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have both noted, party leaders 12 days ago visited the site called ground zero in New York City. The media pictures could not convey the silence and the size of the disruption, this inanimate pile of what had been so full of life, so full of energy.

A friend of my daughter had been staying near the site. She e-mailed that night to say “We all say we're fine, but we're not. None of us is fine”.

Well, Madam Chairman, we are not fine, but we are strong. There are reasons we believe in free and orderly and modern societies. Part of our response must be to put panic aside and deny the terrorists the psychological victory they seek. We must demonstrate that free societies can recover quickly from the most brutal shock and organize ourselves to assert the civilized values that were so deliberately challenged. In meeting that challenge this House stands united.

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Chairman, it is now just over a month since the September 11 attacks. New York's mayor, Rudy Giuliani, said last week that sometimes it feels like yesterday, sometimes it feels like a year ago. I think many of us will share that sentiment, but however devastating the impact of those attacks, time did not stop on that day. The world has responded comprehensively, definitively and in solidarity.

Canada too has responded. We are a peaceful country, but as I have said before, make no mistake, we will do whatever we must in order to defend the rights of our citizens to live in security, in peace and in freedom.

Previous generations of Canadians fought for that right at Vimy Ridge, in Normandy, and in Korea.

They have also protected that right in other countries for nearly 50 years through peacekeeping missions.

Today a new generation is called upon to defend our values, but this time it is against the scourge of terrorism.

It is time for us to stand up for what we believe in. Haile Selassie, who led the Ethiopians in their struggle against fascist invaders in the 1930s, once remarked:

Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.

It is not easy to understand why people would crash an aircraft into civilian buildings, taking their own lives and the lives of thousands of innocent victims. It is not easy to understand why people would dedicate their lives to hatred and destruction.

Terrorists, though, do not deal in rationality but in violence. They do not want to negotiate or discuss. The al-Qaeda network most certainly does not seek to promote the peaceful values and teachings of the Islamic faith. They want to kill. They want to destroy.

How do we defeat terrorism? There is no simple answer to that question nor will there be a quick solution.

We have said clearly that the international fight against terrorism involves several aspects.

Military action, which means exercising our inherent right to self-defence under article 51 of the UN charter, is one of them.

We have also of course activated article 5 of NATO, which is directly linked to the UN charter. Implementing the collective defence clause of the NATO charter is an historic event. This measure is a testimonial to solidarity in the face of terror. It is an affirmation that countries stand together side by side in strength and determination.

Canada is doing its part in international skies and waters and here at home in Canada. Our government has recently announced a $280 million anti-terrorism plan with an extensive package of new national security measures. Some of these have been announced in recent days by various ministers and we will continue to hear more as the initiatives are readied to be announced.

So far, these measures include, for example, increasing the number of customs officers, purchasing new airport security equipment and allocating new resources to police and intelligence agencies for anti-terrorist work.

My colleagues, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Canada, have now introduced the anti-terrorism act containing a series of measures that we have already heard much about in the debate today.

Canada has already taken steps in accordance with security council resolution 1373 to starve terrorists of their sources of funding.

We have implemented regulations under the United Nations Act to prevent anyone from dealing with goods belonging to terrorists, effectively freezing their assets.

However, there is much more work to do. The safety and security of our citizens must remain the top priority of the government, as it has always been.

We must also note the humanitarian aspect of this campaign against terrorism. On September 29, the Prime Minister announced that Canada would provide $5 million in humanitarian assistance for Afghan refugees and displaced people in the region.

One million dollars had already been promised on September 18. These contributions are in addition to the $150 million already provided by Canada in humanitarian assistance over the last ten years.

The needs of the Afghan people, with its more than three million refugees living in neighbouring countries and perhaps as many as one million internally displaced persons, will no doubt grow and will require further support during the coming months.

Canada must remain vigilant during the coming weeks and months, but we must also get on with our lives. We must go on with our work and our school, get on airplanes, go out with our families and go about our daily business. Not to do so, to alter our way of life, would be tantamount to a victory for the terrorists.

As we speak, members of our armed forces are preparing themselves for their mission to strike back against international terrorism. Speaking in Montreal last week, I stated that the decision to send Canadian soldiers into dangerous terrain has been taken by this government with the utmost gravity. No one ever wanted to see this day, but then no one ever wanted to see a day like September 11 either.

Now we have had to take that decision to commit military forces. We have done so in support of our allies, in support of what is right and in support of what must be done, because when we strip away the mask from Osama bin Laden what we find is the face of evil. Civilized societies have learned many times before that there is only one way to deal with evil. We cannot reason with it, we cannot negotiate with it and we cannot buy time to find a better solution. The only way to deal with evil is to strike at its root, to destroy it and to move on.

I hope that this House will join together in expressing its pride in the men and women of our armed forces and give them our thoughts and our prayers, along with our applause.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to speak this evening about this terrible subject that has changed our lives from the time it happened on September 11.

All of us know that this war against terrorism has to be fought and it has to be won. We need to make it very clear that it is a war against terrorism. It is not a war against the Muslim religion or against any religion. It is a war against people who do such evil as we saw on September 11.

I once visited Islamabad and talked to Muslim scholars at the university. We asked them how terrorism fits within the Koran and within their religion. After many hours of talking about this issue, it was very clear that anybody can interpret any book any way they want if they want to put forth a cause as we have seen with Osama bin Laden. This is not about religious and we need to make that very clear.

That moment in history has changed all of us. I was in the U.S. when it happened. I was amazed at how the American people responded. I was amazed at the number of people lining up at blood donor clinics, giving donations and holding candlelight vigils on the same evening the incident happened. The response was overwhelming and one that could not have been imagined by the terrorists who killed themselves and the innocent people earlier that day.

We must also give our condolences to all the people who lost their lives, all the families who have been affected and all the memories that are there. We need to give the government our full support. It is important that we come together as a nation to fight terrorism and wipe out these terrorist groups.

While I was thinking about what I was going to say in the debate I jotted down some comments of what I think terrorists are like. First, I do not think they are of any particular nationality or religion. They have no real conscience about who they are killing. Someone like Osama bin Laden is not a religious cleric. He is a cult leader. He has nothing but bad in his heart.

I then thought back to my visits to Bosnia, Kosovo and Kashmir, all of those visits in a war situation. One of the things I did in a lot of those places was to go into schools and ask kids what they thought about the war. Eight year old kids could tell me about the hate they had for this religion or that group of people or whatever. That level of hate was built into them. We in North America do not understand that sort of thing. We have to counter that feeling that is built right into these little kids.

I have 16 pages of notes written by 10 year olds about what it is like to be in war. Some of the kids would tell me tales about 1942. Some of the Serb kids even told me about what it was like when they were attacked by the Ottomans back in 1589. We have to understand that level of hate and that is partly what we are dealing with.

I also must bring to the House the message that I got from my riding about this whole issue, and it is important that we focus on that. My constituents told me that the CBC town hall meeting was not representative of Canadians. They told me they did not think that way. They have responses about the Prime Minister. They feel his response was somewhat lackadaisical and insincere.

When the war started last Sunday I could not help but notice that we listened to Bush on television, then to Tony Blair, then to Chirac, then to Schroeder and finally, two hours later, we heard our Prime Minister tell us what we were going to do.

I and many of my constituents were very disappointed by that sort of reaction.

We have been told over and over again that we need to deal with the immigration system. When I was in the camps in Macedonia we put refugees onto planes without even checking their health or their background. If we even bring one terrorist into our country, it is not worth it. We have to check them out. We value and welcome those refugees to our country but we need to make sure they are legitimate.

We obviously need better training at the U.S. border and at our airports. Our military has declined to a point where many Canadians are wondering if we are really sending these people to do a mission for which they will be proud and one which they can do. The problem is not that they are not good people or well trained. The problem is that their equipment is just not there.

This is a time when I want to be united. I want to support the government on this sort of thing. I have travelled for over 30 years around the world. Canada has slipped dramatically. We have to be conscious of that. Our profile is not what it was and we need to work on that. This is an opportunity for us to do that.

Let me read sections of a letter I received from a senior flight attendant on the Delta flight that left London on its way to Atlanta but which was diverted to Gander, Newfoundland. I thought the letter probably summed up some of the best of what Canadians are and how we can work together.

At 11 a.m. on September 11 the Delta flight got the message that it needed to land immediately and that U.S. airspace was closed. The flight was diverted to Gander, Newfoundland and 40 minutes later it landed. Fifty-three international flights landed at Gander.

The Delta flight landed in Gander at 11 a.m. At 6 p.m. the passengers and crew were told they would overnight on the plane, that they would be able to get off at 11 o'clock the next morning and that they would be held somewhere in Newfoundland. They were then taken from there to Lewisporte which is 45 kilometres from Gander. I think this is important because this is really what it is all about. These people were then taken to the community hall where bunks were set up with various kinds of mattresses and so on.

The following is a description of their stay. During the days the passengers were given a choice of excursion trips. Some people went on boat cruises on lakes and harbours. Some went to see forests. Local bakeries stayed open to make fresh bread for guests. Food was prepared. They had their laundry done in the laundromat. People brought in special baking and so on . When the passengers got back on board their flight two days later it was like they had been on a cruise. Everybody knew everybody else by their name. They were swapping stories of their stay and impressing each other with what a great time they had. It was mind-boggling.

Just to summarize what happened on that flight, one of the passengers got on the PA and said “I'm taking up contributions to set up a scholarship in Lewisporte”. They collected $20,000, which was then matched by one of the passengers. A scholarship has not been set up for a high school student in that town.

That is a true Canadian story which makes all of us feel good. It is the sort of thing we have to put forward as we deal with this terrible crisis that we are in now. We need to work together.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the question of Canada's military contribution to the campaign against international terrorism.

One of the most significant issues that has arisen in the weeks since September 11 is that of our bilateral relationship with our American allies. Almost every aspect of this most complex of relationships has been somehow engaged in the aftermath of the attacks on the United States last month. Among the most important is that of our bilateral military relationship.

In speaking to the motion before us, therefore, I will discuss the issues against the background of this excellent relationship, one that has served us so well for so many years.

We know quite well just how extensive the links we share with the United States are. Our cultures, while not homogeneous, are closely linked. Our economies are interdependent. We share a common border. And there is a constant flow of Americans and Canadians across this border, as our neighbours venture north to see the sights from Quebec City to Peggy's Cove to western Canada, as we venture south seeking a taste of the American way of life from Florida to New Orleans to New York.

In addition to cultural, economic and personal connections, there is our military connection. Simply put, the United States is our most important ally and defence partner.

To give members an idea of how well established our military relationship is, consider that our two countries currently share over 80 treaty level defence agreements, more than 250 memoranda of understanding between the two defence departments and approximately 145 bilateral fora in which defence matters are discussed.

Members should also consider that there are 600 Canadian Forces personnel currently serving in the U.S., mostly in Norad related assignments. As well, over 20,000 defence related visits to the United States are conducted annually by the Canadian government and industry representatives.

In addition to the agreements governing our defence relations, there are, as I mentioned, a number of bilateral defence fora. Among them is the Canada-U.S. permanent joint board on defence. Established in 1940, it is the highest level bilateral defence and security board. It provides a vital forum for co-ordinating our many bilateral agreements, addressing areas of common concern and fostering interoperability between our forces.

Another important forum is the North American Aerospace Defence Command known as Norad. For over 40 years Norad has provided Canada and the United States with effective aerospace defence capabilities. Norad benefits from a binational American-Canadian command. With a Canadian officer as the deputy commander in chief, Norad provides a concrete example of how well our personnel work with the U.S. side by side.

Another way in which our two countries' militaries work seamlessly together is through the provision of joint training opportunities. By promoting interoperability, these arrangements help foster exactly the kind of operational effectiveness the current coalition effort requires. Joint exercises are held regularly both here in Canada and at American military facilities.

With ties as extensive as these, it is not surprising that Canada acted quickly to assist the United States after the horrific events of September 11 took place.

Three Canadian warships were put on a heightened state of readiness to deliver humanitarian aid, including medical supplies, transportation and communications equipment into U.S. ports had they been called for or needed.

At the same time, members of the disaster assistance response team were put on active alert in Trenton, Ontario. They were prepared to move to New York by road if necessary.

During and immediately following the events, Norad increased its alert readiness measures. In response, we put additional CF-18s at the disposal of Norad to patrol North American airspace.

Meanwhile Canadian forces personnel were recalled to their bases and put on high alert. This provided a visible signal to Canadians that we were engaged and prepared to deal with the developing situation.

The Canadian forces also responded quickly to the demands that the rerouted planes placed on communities across our country and worked closely with local airports, Transport Canada, Red Cross workers and countless volunteers. At the same time members of the Canadian forces were assisting local authorities in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Manitoba to accommodate thousands of displaced travellers.

Organizing the assistance relief was a significant undertaking. The federal government's new Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness played a key co-ordinating role. Within hours of the attack, officials compiled an inventory of resources available in Canada for humanitarian assistance to the United States. This information was communicated to their counterparts at the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency.

They also worked closely with the provincial emergency measures organization and the private sector to assist in co-ordinating the support and resources necessary to help local authorities accommodate the air travellers that were stranded in Canada.

These actions demonstrate just how able and ready the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces are to respond when called upon. And their actions did not stop there.

On October 8 the Minister of National Defence announced further Canadian military support to the United States led campaign against terrorism. Our objective is to make an effective and meaningful contribution to the overall military campaign and to ensure that Canadians, their interests and values are defended and that this lengthy campaign is a success.

The Canadian forces are becoming an integral part of the overall international campaign. A Canadian frigate, the HMCS Halifax and some 230 personnel have been directed to the Arabian gulf. A Canadian naval task group will be deployed from Halifax. The task group will comprise two frigates, one of which will be the HMCS Halifax , a destroyer, a supply ship and six Sea King helicopters. An additional frigate from the west coast, the HMCS Vancouver , will also integrate into a U.S. carrier battle group. The air force will deploy surveillance and airlift support to the region. Humanitarian assistance will also be provided to the Afghan people. As well, a component of our specialist force, joint task force 2, will contribute to the overall effort. In total, some 2,000 Canadian forces men and women will participate in the operation.

The government has underscored that this will be a long campaign. As the Prime Minister has said, it will be fought on many fronts, not only military but also humanitarian, financial, legislative and diplomatic, on as many fronts perhaps as there are varied and complementary dimensions to our bilateral relationship with our American friends. Only by working together can we ensure the long term security of both our countries.

In closing, I would like to echo the call made by others to be mindful of the difficult challenges facing the many Canadian forces members participating in this campaign as well as those challenges facing their families at home. We have every confidence that they will do us proud as our country stands united with the United States and our other allies.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it is my duty to take part in this debate. This evening, my party and myself would have liked to have a debate that would have ended with a vote on the participation of the Canadian forces, on the participation of men and women from Quebec and the rest of Canada in the American response, a response which we would like to see more closely co-ordinated by the United Nations.

This evening, I would have liked us to have a vote to express our commitment, because 2,000 men and women, Quebecers and Canadians, are leaving or have already left to go and play some unknown role in the American response in Afghanistan. It may seem like an ordinary measure, resolution or recommendation by the House. But in fact, the government made that decision, even though it is parliament that should have assumed this responsibility, and a serious one at that.

We are living in times that, just two months ago, we would never have imagined. We are living in times when the territories of the United States and Canada are no longer what we always thought they were, that is inviolable. We are living in times when fundamentalism has generated dormant cells, that is groups of men--there are no women--joined by an objective born of and structured in a disorganized fashion in all the countries where no security measures were able to prevent them from settling. These groups are currently a threat about which parliaments may get agitated, but they are there.

Do these groups have claims? In one of his most recent television appearances, bin Laden claimed to want to avenge the death of millions of children following the sanctions against Iraq. The figure was really too high, but it is nevertheless the reality. Bin Laden never cared about these children before. Similarly, he had never shown any concern for the Palestinian cause, but he now supports the Palestinians in their extremely difficult fight to regain their territory.

What does he want? He wants the attention of the millions of young people in Arab countries, in Muslim countries, who have no hope and see the endless humiliation of the constantly revived defeat of the Palestinians in sealed off territories. Bin Laden is politicking.

This man, who is being protected by the Taliban, wants the Sharia, as applied by the fundamentalist government that we see at work in Afghanistan, to become the norm in as many places as possible.

The Taliban government makes women live in cages. Women are denied access to health care. Young girls are not entitled to education or to health care. Finally, women have no other function than to reproduce.

You saw, as I did, on the weekend, the terrible picture--not just among the Taliban, but among the Afghani of the north, those who could replace the Taliban, if we are not careful--of donkeys bearing men and their children, while the women, women in their cage wearing long white robes, walk beside the man and their children.

I speak as a woman and a mother this evening. I would have liked to vote on a motion. As much as the war disgusts me, I understand why countries like Canada react. If Quebec were a country, something I keenly want, I would want it to react too, not out of vengeance, but out of a need to say that what happened in New York City and Washington, the September 11 attacks, are totally unacceptable.

I am not saying the United States and the west are perfect. I am not saying that the situation in the Middle East--or Near East--the situation of the Palestinians enclosed in an ever smaller space in their territories is acceptable. I am not saying the sanctions against Iraq, which cause the death of thousands of children each month, are acceptable.

Those who instigated these demented attacks in New York City and Washington had no claims. Their aim was to bring down a democratic government. What they want is a fundamentalist government on a world scale. We cannot agree to that.

We must, however, make sure that it is not just through security measures, anti-terrorist legislation and strikes that we will fight this seriously, but rather by ensuring that there is hope that this world will become less unfair and less illegal. And this will require the House to take draconian measures.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it is certainly no exaggeration to say that the events of September 11 changed the way we look at the world. Terrorism has existed for decades, yet it remained for most of us something we watched on television, something elusive and distant.

The events of September 11 changed all of that in a moment. Terrorism has certainly touched our souls. Canadian lives were lost. Our mourning for them and all the victims continues.

I had at least one constituent fortunate to survive the attacks in New York City on that day. I would like to thank the rescue workers at ground zero and in Washington, D.C. for their determination.

United in our sympathy and concern for the situation, the local community acted in the best traditions of charity and human solidarity. Money was donated in staggering amounts. Planes were diverted to the Hamilton airport, a mirror of the situation in airports across the country. Our hospitals stood ready to accept victims. Blood donations were described as overwhelming, with donors lining up for hours to do their part for those in need.

However, there have been indefensible and senseless acts in my local area as well. Local mosques and Muslims have been targeted for abuse and a sickening attack on a local Hindu temple demonstrated the level of ignorance which was deeply shocking.

In fact, locally people pulled together to support one another in an outpouring of generosity. It was clear that there was no place for this behaviour in Canada. Local building trades will donate their efforts to the construction of a new temple and residents are working to make sure that those affected feel safe and accepted.

It is clear that our perception of the world around us has changed. The question, and what we are discussing this evening, is where do we go from here?

While protecting citizens from terrorism is a fundamental priority and the safety and security of Canadians is a top priority, the process of eradicating terrorism starts at the local level. It started immediately after the attacks and it will continue until we rid the world of this savagery and hatred. I was heartened to see my community united, not just in grief but in resolve and rising to this challenge.

The challenge for western governments, like Canada, is to reduce the space in which terrorists can operate by promoting effective international co-operation between police and intelligence services. We must stop terrorism. All nations must ensure that they have the necessary investigative powers. At the same time, we must support the development of economic, legal and political institutions which cannot only contain and channel dissent, but give individuals a real stake in defending democracy and social justice.

It is a major challenge to which the world's leading industrial nations must respond in a co-ordinated and effective fashion. Canada has a key role to play in this respect and will continue to do so. We have played that role.

The reality of international terrorism demands a comprehensive approach from the government. We have acted on many fronts. We have acted on the legislative front with new legislation introduced this morning by the Minister of Justice. We have acted on the security front at airports and at our borders. We have acted on the financial front, freezing the assets of terrorist groups as a vital step in eliminating their capacity for activity. We have acted on the military front with our most significant contribution since the Korean War, and we join our allies in addressing this aspect of the conflict. I know all members will join with me in supporting our military personnel as they go off and fight terrorism.

We must act as well on the diplomatic front, working with our allies to keep the all important lines of communication open for constructive, positive action between nations. Canada can play an important role here with groups such as la Francophonie and the Commonwealth. We are uniquely positioned to act against terrorism. We have the internal diversity and strength to draw upon our actions moving forward. Our objective must be to guarantee our continued security and stability.

There must be a level of predictability, for without it we have no viable economic foundation for the functioning of civil society, for the freedom that makes Canada such an attractive place to live. The freedoms of religion, assembly or movement, for example, presupposes this very stability.

Living with a sense of security and safety is a necessary first step in getting back to the business of the nation and defeating those elements in the world which seek to undermine our freedom. That is why I am supportive of the government's measures against terrorism.

Law-abiding Canadians have nothing to fear from our specific actions which are designed to root out terrorists and other criminals. Terrorists want to shut down the country. They will not. Our actions, the actions of this parliament, must allow Canadians to get on with their lives.

Terrorists have attempted to smear the Muslim religion. They will not. Islam is about peace; it is not about violence. Terrorists have attempted to pit community against community, faith against faith. They will not succeed.

We as parliamentarians must unite, as Canadians are doing right across the land. We must come together to work and protect our way of life, to ensure that freedom, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to practice our faith, the freedom that we have enjoyed as a result of the Canadians who gave their lives in wars that have come before us, is protected. That is why the government has come forward with a legislative package. That is why we will continue to work to eradicate terrorism. We will continue to ensure that Canadians can play a leading role in the fight against terrorism.

As a government, as parliamentarians, we must ensure that we can protect our way of life. We must ensure that we continue to protect the strong foundation that we have in the country, a foundation which will allow us to continue to build our future for generations to come.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it is indeed an honour and a privilege for me to rise in my place and debate the issue now before the house.

As members of the House may or may not be aware, my riding of Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke is the home of Area Support Unit Petawawa, formerly base Petawawa, which was a fully occupied army base in Canada's most populous province until it was downgraded to an area support unit, with the base commander being reduced in rank from colonel to lieutenant colonel. Until 1995 it was also home to the Canadian Airborne Regiment.

Canadians know that when it comes to defence policy, there are two topics the Liberal government is afraid to talk about: helicopters and the Canadian Airborne Regiment. However, the sweep of history in the events of September 11 have overtaken the government and it is time to revisit both of these issues, as they are intertwined.

In the case of the helicopters, the political decision to cancel the EH-101, at great cost to the Canadian taxpayer in the $600 million to $700 million range, and then to finally purchase an off the shelf version, the Cormorant, which is the same helicopter without the industrial spinoff for Canadian industry, for $500 million to 600 million, has to be one of the best examples of what has gone wrong with defence procurement policy since 1993. The purchase of the Cormorant is the admission that the decision to cancel the EH-101 contract was wrong. Hopefully needless deaths can be avoided by retiring the 40-year old Sea King helicopters that should have been scrapped with the Chinook helicopters years ago.

Now it is time to look at the other great mistake of Liberal government defence policy in concert with the helicopter scandal, that is, the decision to disband the Canadian Airborne Regiment.

In committee on October 12 the Minister of National Defence stated several things that cannot go unchallenged. The minister made reference to helicopters being used to deliver troops, or what is referred to as being air mobile, with the inference that helicopters make the airborne obsolete. That might have been partially true if Canada had opted to purchase a helicopter like the Black Hawk, which is what, as the Minister of National Defence made reference to, makes the U.S. forces more air mobile with the use of helicopters.

For the record, the Americans still operate with a parachute battalion, refusing to put all their eggs in the helicopter basket. This decision was made with a failed helicopter attempt in mind, the one to rescue the American hostages seized by Iranians in 1980 during the American hostage crisis in the dying days of the Jimmy Carter presidency and the loss of life of American soldiers when their helicopters crashed in the desert.

Currently, the helicopter that would be available to deliver troops to Afghanistan is the Griffon.

If Canada is committing the entire complement of our domestic specialist task force, Joint Task Force 2, or JTF2, that could translate to 250 troops. A Griffon can transport eight soldiers, though this number may be less with full kit. So 31 helicopters would be needed if our involvement is to be on the ground with our allies in Afghanistan.

Choppers cannot fly from Canada all the way over there, so each Griffon would have to be individually disassembled, loaded into a Hercules transport plane, one per trip, flown to a base within mission range and then individually reassembled. This would have to be done 31 times. These 250 troops would also require at minimum 93 support staff. This preparation would take weeks.

Now compare this to sending in the airborne, which would require four C-130 Hercules transports, which carry 50 soldiers per plane. This would be accomplished with 16 support staff.

Best of all, in less than 48 hours, as Hercs can refuel in the air and fly non-stop, troops would be in and on the ground, shoulder to shoulder with our American allies, as opposed to weeks later using the Griffons.

I purposely omitted the reliability of the aging C-130 Hercules aircraft though out of a fleet of 32 planes it should be easier to put four in the air than engage the entire fleet to transport the disassembled Griffon helicopters to Asia. It should be obvious to anyone listening that the reason Canada did not commit with the British is that we have nothing to commit for that type of contribution.

The minister has used the term which we hear so often, for reasons of security, to hide the fact that we will have to rely on others to make a contribution on the ground.

The Minister of National Defence was not being entirely clear with the Canadian public as he danced around the question in committee in responding to my comments about the need for a unit like the Canadian airborne. A cold and hard critical analysis of the facts is required. There is a need for a public debate on this issue as we all have a stake in the outcome.

I would like to talk about CSAS, the Canadian special air service. The minister stated that there was no longer a need for an airborne regiment. However there is a need for a general purpose quick response light infantry for deployment in Canada's interests at home and abroad. Such a formation must have an air assault and air transportable capability with sufficient mechanization in armament to fight and sufficient logistics to maintain it. Elements of such a force should be parachute capable and be able to be transported by war fighting combat helicopters and land vehicles like the LAV.

The Minister of National Defence stated that these capabilities exist in our armed forces. Now is the time to put this force together and play a role in current or possible land operations. The SSF or special service force which was a pre-1994 light brigade had all of these capabilities. The SSF was a parachute battalion with very limited sustainment capabilities but the brigade as a whole had all the combat, combat support and combat service support to allow it to be fully operationally capable and sustainable.

It is time to put on the table a discussion that revolves around the formation in the Canadian armed forces of a specialized regiment with air capability. I propose that the minister base the regiment at CFB Petawawa and call it the Canadian special air service. This group would share a number of equivalencies with the British SAS and the U.S. delta force.

The forming of the CSAS would be in direct response to the need for a highly specialized unit within the Canadian armed forces. Its role would include the defence of Canada and domestic operations such as responding to the threat of terrorist attacks. It would train regularly in anti-terrorist measures. This group would represent a body of men and women that would effectively increase the size of the army component of the Canadian armed forces at a time when our troops are seriously overtasked.

I had the privilege of being the guest of 3RCR battle group from CFB Petawawa during Operation Palladium in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I can personally attest to the professional job of the men and women who proudly wear in public the uniform of a member of the Canadian armed forces.

The majority of the Canadian peacekeepers are not navy or air force. They are army and that is where the government should focus a rebuilding effort within our military. The Canadian government spent a peace dividend that never existed. The events of September 11 have demonstrated the need to never relax our vigilance against those who oppose our enjoyment of peace and democracy.

All this shows how important our armed forces are to Canadian sovereignty, international esteem, influence and our commitment to democracy at home and abroad.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Chairman, this debate is no pleasure for me. It is a crucial debate that is needed. It is about Canada's involvement in an armed conflict, but there is no joy in it for me. I would prefer to participate in debates on such issues as health care, taxes and even poverty.

I am not a pacifist or a promoter of violence. Violence is a primitive form of settling accounts. It has been necessary at times in the past when there was no other choice. Fighting the Nazis in World War II is a good example of that although different policies and strategies in the 1920s and 1930s might have thwarted the Nazis and averted that terrible war.

The use of violence and killing people to settle disputes has a sorry record. The last century was filled with wars, both big and small. If war were what it is cracked up to be, peace would have broken out years ago. Unfortunately that is not what happened in countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, the Middle East, Rwanda, Algeria, Uganda, Angola, Sri Lanka, and sadly the list goes on.

The September 11 attacks on the cities of New York and Washington require a military response. A full range of responses is required but military action is necessary. It should not be driven by the need for retribution as nothing will mitigate the pain of losing 6,000 innocent lives.

The military is required to get at the government in Kabul which is responsible for supporting the terrorists who carried out the September 11 attacks. The Taliban government needs to be brought down as swiftly as possible. Its repression of women alone is enough cause for its removal, but its complicity in hiding Osama bin Laden and his gang of evildoers makes its removal imperative, and the sooner the better.

This is not only important for western democracy but for Arab and Muslim countries as well. Afghanistan is out of sync with its neighbours and the whole world. A way must be found to help it join the family of nations. Canadians understand this and that is why they strongly support our involvement in the current campaign.

Our Prime Minister understands this. He has shown that he is in tune with the Canadian people. He understands better than anyone that now is the time for commitment and strong leadership. This is exactly what the Prime Minister has provided since September 11. I am comforted that he is in charge. We can count on his experience and innate ability to lead.

Canadians should not enter this military campaign against terrorism with their minds and eyes closed. We should not believe for a moment that soldiers, sailors and airmen can do the whole job alone. The fight against terrorism will be a protracted one and will require work not only on the military front but also on better security of our borders, bolstering homeland defences against bioterrorism, intensifying diplomatic efforts and cutting off sources of funds to the terrorists. Work on all these fronts is critical because this is not a conventional conflict.

This is not a shootout at the O.K. Corral where the last one standing is declared the winner. This is a different kind of campaign where we see little of the enemy who hides in caves or goes unnoticed in large crowds. Moreover the enemy might be very well educated and trained in the latest technologies. This enemy may carry oppressive outdated values but knows how to use 21st century weapons.

Worse still, the enemy is full of hate and is on a mission. That mission may well be to remove the presence of westerners from Arab lands or from all Muslim lands. Let there be no doubt that we are up against a fanatical movement.

We should also state clearly that this is not a fight against Islam. The vast majority of Muslims around the world make it clear that Osama bin Laden does not speak for them. He is a terrorist who embraces a twisted fundamentalism, and that is not what Islam is about.

During a crisis people become worried about their country's security and what the future might bring. It is quite normal for men and women to rally around the flag and express a love of country. That is expected as we have our own values to uphold and we have a duty to support our friends and allies.

That is not to say we should not be asking questions. In a time of crisis we need more than ever to ask questions. We owe it to ourselves, to our friends and to the people of the world. We must not forget that we live in a democracy and that a democracy without questions, discussions and debate is not a democracy at all. That is why we are here tonight in the highest court of the land debating the most important issues to face Canadians in several years.

We should not be afraid to ask tough questions. It is a sign of democratic strength. It is a sign that we want to learn more and prepare for what is ahead of us.

Our justice minister brought in the government's anti-terrorism bill today. It would give Canada more tools to fight terrorism. However I want parliament to examine the bill and make possible improvements. We owe it to Canadians.

Our former foreign minister, Lloyd Axworthy, wrote an excellent article a week ago in the Globe and Mail . He raised pointed questions about how the use of force would reduce the terrorist threat, the consequences of the broader goal of instituting an international legal order and what Canada might offer beyond our commitment to provide military personnel in the fight against terrorism. He also raised questions about an international strategy involving diplomatic humanitarian and financial efforts, how Canada might fit into those efforts and how effective our voice might be in devising a strategy of that kind. Mr. Axworthy is asking the right kinds of questions.

Without compromising our own security or jeopardizing any military operation Canadians must have the information to fully understand what is being asked of them. They must have the opportunity to participate in the ongoing debate. They must be made to feel that they are full partners in the fight against terrorism. Our government is ready to provide the leadership that it has done since September 11. The Canadian people must be brought along in solidarity with those people who have the awesome responsibility of executing the national will.

As we debate the issues that come along we will have our ups and downs and that comes with the territory. I say that we should hold on to our seats. People may ask some unpleasant questions and that too comes with the territory. I say to let that be as we need tough questions.

It may make us feel uncomfortable or wonder about the loyalty of those raising some of the questions but this is a necessary part of democracy. Everything must be on the table and nothing should be spared. That is a robust democracy.

Let there be no doubt that nothing justified the heinous attacks on the cities of New York and Washington on September 11. We put the terrorists on notice that we are coming after them and their destruction is our goal. After that is over we must get at what is behind this terrorism and how to help effect changes that will make the planet a safer place to live and bring dignity to the lives of millions who are homeless and starving.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you on keeping very good time and I certainly will keep within the time limits myself. This is a take note debate on international actions against terrorism and the previous speaker says it is a crucial debate. In fact I do not think it is a very crucial debate at all. If it were a crucial debate there would be more than about 10 people in the House. This is a little gabfest in a very large room.

I would like to see more international action against terrorism. I would like to know why it is not the United Nations leading this international war against terrorism and why it is basically the United States, ostensibly under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; it is NATO, with 19 countries and only 1 of them Muslim, versus the United Nations, with 189 countries and many of them Muslim. I think we would have a far better buy-in for dealing with the terrorists and bringing them to justice if we had the auspices of the United Nations in the forefront.

It is my contention as well, despite listening to the remarks of the member for Nepean--Carleton many hours ago during the earlier debate, that it is not clear that the U.S. led strikes have the framework of international law. The member for Nepean--Carleton told us many things about the relationship between the United Nations and the United States, except that one of the first things the United States did after September 11 was to quickly pay up its more than $500 million in arrears to the United Nations plus another $300 million in interest: hush money or perhaps hush-up money for it to then get on with the job it wanted to do, ostensibly under the auspices of NATO.

Of course the perpetrators need to be brought to justice. It should be done under an international tribunal.

I do not think there is an adjective strong enough to describe why parliament was not reconvened when this war was called a week ago yesterday; perhaps the words incredulous or unbelievable could describe it. Lloyd Axworthy, to whom the previous speaker referred, made the noteworthy comment in the Globe and Mail that in fact parliament should have been recalled immediately. I think it is a sad commentary that it was not.

A humanitarian disaster is unfolding in Afghanistan as desperate refugees face starvation and death as they flee the terror of both the Taliban and the U.S. and U.K. bombs.

Canadians need to be vigilant here at home to protect against unwarranted attacks on basic civil liberties and human rights. I hope the anti-terrorism bill will do the job the government obviously feels it can do. We will see in the days ahead whether it can.

We in this party condemn as strongly as anyone else the events of September 11 and we call for justice to be done before an international tribunal with strong participation from Muslims and Muslim countries.

We support our military unequivocally as our troops undertake this mission assigned to them. We wish them a safe home and the support of their families while they are away. I say that as the member who represents 15 Wing in Moose Jaw, which is now the NATO flight training centre in Canada.

This is a take note, no vote debate, but I submit that votes must be held before further military adventures are embarked upon in other countries, as has been alluded to in recent days.

Closer to home, as many other speakers have noted, we have to fight against the rising tide of intolerance and racism. We have to contribute much more generously than we have until now to an international humanitarian campaign to assist Afghani refugees.

On that point I note that in recent days a letter signed by representatives of Catholic, United, Anglican, Lutheran, Mennonite and Quaker churches argued for more international aid as an example of the type of measure that will eradicate terrorism in the long term.

The essential non-military character of the struggle against terrorism must be restored, according to that letter from the churches.

All member countries of the United Nations need to ratify the treaty that establishes the International Criminal Court.

We want the government to provide security for Canadians and a comprehensive review of security measures to meet the legitimate security concerns while respecting civil rights and liberties.

Political parties and Canadians who support the military action are trusting the military of the U.S. and the United Kingdom to strike only terrorist targets. As celebrated author John Le Carré wrote in the Globe and Mail last Saturday, we are all hoping that Osama bin Laden will be “blown to smithereens by one of those clever bombs that we keep reading about that kill terrorists in caves but don't break the crockery”. Le Carré says America is longing for “more friends and fewer enemies” but that as a result of its action what it “is storing up for itself...is yet more enemies”.

Ten years ago, Le Carré says, he went around the world at the end of the cold war talking about the unprecedented chance to transform the global community, but there was no Marshall Plan, no programs for ideological young people to go off on and create a better world. Instead what we have seen over the last 10 years is a world where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The moment has passed and will not come again for a long time, according to John Le Carré.

Senator Douglas Roche said that bringing perpetrators to justice is a worthy goal but does not justify killing innocent people and destroying the infrastructure of a country that already had one million refugees before the bombing ever began. He went on to say that “militarism” is not an answer to terrorism.

Some people say that we should bomb the Taliban and send bin Laden back to the Stone Age. It is to laugh at when we look at the pictures of Afghanistan. That country is already in the Stone Age. One of the biggest and most hilarious news stories of last week came several days after the bombing began, when the United States was declaring that it now had air supremacy over Afghanistan, a country whose main source of transportation appears to be donkeys, according to the news media and the pictures we see on television.

Murray Dobbin says that not only is continuous bombing of Afghanistan a pitiful response to unforgivable carnage, but it is certain to make things worse.

Canada could play an important role in the long term struggle against terrorism, but only by rejecting U.S. unilateralism and making every effort to force a genuine international response through the United Nations. With every bomb that falls, that opportunity slips further and further away.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chairman, September 11 was a horrific day that shook the world as we knew it. On that day we all became victims of acts of horrific cruelty aimed at creating upheaval in public order and in all of humanity. The world of today is a world that is totally different from the one we lived in before September 11. The acts of that day were the acts of cowards, acts of cowardice against an unarmed populace.

There are over 5,000 people dead or missing in New York, ground zero. Many countries lost citizens that day. Mothers lost their sons. Fathers lost their daughters. Wives lost their husbands, husbands their wives and children their parents. Hundreds of firemen and police officers responding to the call also lost their lives.

We ask who is at fault. The evidence with which we are presented points to a handful of individuals led by Osama bin Laden and his network of al-Qaeda. Requests to hand over bin Laden were made to the Afghani regime, the Taliban, a regime that oppresses all human rights. It constantly refused to do so. The United Nations has constantly asked for Osama bin Laden to be handed over to face justice and the Taliban regime has constantly refused. Unfortunately, the rest of the world has no option but to exercise other means in order to bring this terrorist to justice.

This is not a struggle of the west versus the east. This is not a fight against Islam. This is a struggle of democracy against terrorism, of freedom against oppression. This is a struggle of all who cherish and respect a life of peace, justice, equality and freedom, against a regime of oppression.

It was not long ago that the Taliban was forcing non-Muslims to wear distinctive clothes in Afghanistan, just like Hitler forced the Jews to wear the Star of David in 1940. The Taliban blew up statues of Buddha that were many centuries old. This outraged the rest of the Muslim world. A few of us spoke up against these acts. However, many stood by and watched.

The struggle is one that requires us to move cautiously in order to have a positive outcome. All of us in the world will have to work together to bring justice to these terrorists. However, we also need vigilance here at home. We need to make sure that our nation stands together, strong and ready to defy these terrorists and their way of thinking. We have to stand shoulder to shoulder, irrespective of sex, religion, colour or creed, to make sure we do not let these terrorists overcome our way of life.

I will at this point examine what the government has done in response to this emergency. I could go on and on. We launched Operation Apollo, deploying 2,000 courageous men and women in the Canadian navy and armed forces in that part of the world. We have Canadian humanitarian aid to the Afghanistan people. We have legal initiatives such as the bill the minister proposed today.

However, I want to speak not about that but about something else. In our country there are those who say that this mess was created by the people, by “immigrants who brought this with them”. At this point, as a member of parliament for one of the most ethnically diverse ridings in Canada, I would like to examine four very simple words: accept, embrace, celebrate and respect. We have to accept each other as Canadians. We have to accept our neighbours, the people down the street, regardless of what country they come from, what language they speak and what they wear. We have to accept them and walk beside them. We have to embrace our fellow Canadians, irrespective of the colour of their skin, what religion they belong to and what church, mosque or gurdwara they attend. We have to celebrate our differences.

Canadians come from different parts of the world. We are all different. In Toronto 57% of the GTA are people who have arrived in the last 50 years. In Toronto 57% of the population consists of distinctive national minorities. We celebrate each other. Walking from one street to another a person can have a Chinese dinner and then top it off with a Greek coffee, or have Hindu food at the Bombay Palace and then have a Turkish coffee up the street.

We must respect each other. It is wrong to simply tolerate people. We must respect each other and ensure that we Canadians live shoulder to shoulder.

There are those who hear these words and understand them and there are those who do not. If they cannot accept the four simple words embrace, celebrate, respect and accept, then they have absolutely no place in our Canadian family. This Canadian family of ours that was built by wave after wave after wave of immigrants does not tolerate people who say it is those coming into Canada who bring terrorism with them. I for one cannot accept that and I will not be a party to it.

I will close with two thoughts from two of my constituents who are of south Asian descent. One is Nuriya Hashimi, who wrote to me:

I hate the bombing that went on in the U. S. of A. I am very upset that so many people suffered in New York.

I hate the Taliban regime and bin Laden. They are using Islam as a reason to oppress people and kill them. Islamic people are not murderers.

I wish to thank U.S.A. and other countries that are trying to help the innocent Afghani people in Afghanistan and in Karachi, in Pakistan.

Another of my constituents, Mrs. Pamela Soodeen, wrote to me:

I strongly believe this important issue must be debated in Parliament. First and foremost Canadians are peacekeepers--we don't go out and make war. Our role in this fight against terrorism should be considered thoughtfully and carefully. I am very concerned about the reports that this fight might go on for decades. What are we letting ourselves in for?

In closing, I want to reiterate those four simple words that I want my colleagues to take with them to their constituents: accept, embrace, celebrate and respect. If we do not have that, we will have what happened in Hamilton, as my colleague said, the burning of a Hindu temple. We cannot afford that. We must accept, embrace, celebrate and respect all Canadians from all walks of life whether they came here yesterday or one or two centuries ago.

Canada, this great country of ours, has four pillars: the two founding nations, French and English; the most ever respected founding nation, the native Indians; and the last and most important pillar which is the engine that keeps our country going today, the immigrants who have come to our country in the last 50 years. They are the people that make Toronto great, the people that make up 57% of the GTA in Toronto, the people of ethnic minorities who have arrived on our shores in the last 50 years.

Those are the people we need to make feel welcome. Those are the people, especially those coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Islamic nations, whom we have to reach out to and say that this is not a war against Islam. This is a war against terrorism. We are all in this together. We are fighting terrorism. There are no differences between the two ethnicities or cultures and/or religions.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise this evening on behalf of the coalition as well as the people of Dauphin--Swan River to take part in this debate.

This is the time for supporting all of our men and women in uniform and their families, our armed forces, our law enforcement and security agencies like the RCMP and CSIS. This battle is fought internationally and on the home front.

I would like to talk about the issues of home front security. As the critic for the PC/DR coalition on citizenship and immigration I would like to preface my statements with these comments. Canada is a land of immigrants. Canada was built by immigrants. Canada's future will be dependent on our immigration policies of today as well as tomorrow. I believe that we need to continue an open door policy to immigration welcoming both the fortunate and the unfortunate to our country.

Screening at the front door only makes the country more secure. I have suggested this to the minister over the last year. What a reverse on her part when she just recently agreed to finance screening proposals.

In our debate about terrorists we all need to separate the legal immigrants and refugees whom this country needs, from the illegal asylum seekers whom we do not need. It takes years to process the applications of legal immigrants or refugees, unlike asylum seekers who are really queue jumpers. This is very unfair. As an immigrant myself, I believe these illegal and fraudulent asylum seekers give all legal immigrants in the country a bad name. This is the time to separate the two issues, otherwise as we have seen, there will be potential backlash. There is no doubt Canada cannot tolerate new racism. Let us learn from the lessons of our history.

This week is citizenship week. The theme is “Canada, we all belong”. How appropriate. Canadians need to come together as one family as we celebrate our multicultural makeup. We also need to plug the holes in our immigration system if our country is to be secure from terrorism.

Let me make a few comments on the new maple leaf card the immigration minister proposed. The new maple leaf card will replace the IMM 1000, the current document which permanent residents carry as identification. The IMM 1000 is a paper document and is susceptible to duplication.

The maple leaf card is said to be tamper resistant and contains information as to the identity of the person and other vital information. It will also have a photo of the person it belongs to on it. This is a good move. The card has been in the works for more than 10 years. Opposition parties have asked for it to be approved, which it was last year, but it was put on hold due to lack of funds to implement it. This card is for permanent residents. I need to say that again. This card is for permanent residents, not refugee claimants and asylum seekers. This card will be for use similar to the green card issued to permanent residents of the United States.

My question for the minister is, how will this new card help screen out the potential terrorists and asylum seekers?

Let me make some comments about the front end screening of refugee claimants. Both CSIS and the RCMP have repeatedly told the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that this type of screening is impossible without adequate staff and international co-operation. All the high tech machinery in the world will not be able to screen a refugee claimant who does not have any identification on their person when they come to Canada. That is precisely the point. The people who apply for refugee status are usually the ones who have no identification on them. For some reason they seem to be able to get on an aircraft at the point of departure with identification but by the time they reach Canada their identification has somehow disappeared.

CIC has the capacity now to screen individuals as they come into Canada but do not employ it. Immigration officials at the point of entry decide if individuals are eligible to apply for refugee status, then refer those who qualify to the Immigration and Refugee Board. According to a 1997 auditor general's report, more than 99% of those who apply are deemed eligible.

Hours after the air strikes began in Afghanistan, 50 people arrived in Toronto claiming to be refugees. Some were alleged to be Afghani and Pakistani nationals, according to the media reports quoting immigration official sources. Some did not have any identification yet were all deemed eligible to apply for refugee status and released into Canada. The fact that they did not have IDs should have been enough reason to detain these individuals until their identity could be discovered.

Recently a Pakistani national arrived in B.C. with an obviously doctored passport and travel documents. This is a breach of Canadian law. However, this person was deemed eligible and released into Canada on a refugee claim. No one can board an international flight without identification and in some cases, travel documents. The fact that people continue to arrive in Canada without such documentation should be grounds for immediate detention.

Canada should be seeking to remove those individuals from recognized UN refugee camps rather than taking those who show up at our doors. The average legitimate refugee cannot afford the cost of travelling to Canada. Canada has a proud tradition of taking in those in need of help and we should continue to do so.

I would like to make some comments about targeting security risks through detention. In 2000-01 some 8,790 persons were detained for an average of 16 days under the Immigration Act as their identity was in question upon entry. In 2000 the minister personally approved 3,989 otherwise inadmissible individuals, most hardened criminals, to enter and remain in Canada for a period of time. These 3,989 people were obvious security risks to Canada as without a permit from the minister they could not enter Canada. With no entry or exit data kept on persons coming to or leaving Canada, it is impossible to tell if those who are ordered out actually leave.

In terms of increasing removals, the current Immigration Act allows for removal or deportation from Canada. As I said, without entry or exit data it is impossible for CIC or anyone else to know precisely how many persons are in Canada illegally. In fact, it was estimated that about 200,000 foreign nationals are in this country.

The minister made note of more than 8,600 persons deported from Canada in 2000. What she did not say is that there are more than 15,000 unaccounted for deportees and her department has no idea where these people are. In fact, today the department indicated that there are warrants written for 27,000 foreign nationals who should not even be here. Removal or deportation would be much easier if there were better systems for tracking the whereabouts of individuals claiming refugee status or those seeking permanent residency. In other words, the home front certainly needs a lot of work and improvement.

I would like to make a couple of other comments about the government's reluctance to use sky marshals. There is no guarantee that all ground inspections will prevent terrorists from boarding our airlines. There are two provisions the government must consider if the travelling public, including politicians, are to feel secure in the air. One is to secure the cockpit area with bulletproof doors and the other is to have undercover air marshals on board. Certainly we could use the $850 million the government spent on the long gun registration scheme, which is an utter failure, to pay for this implementation.

In closing, fighting terrorism begins at home. We must plug all the holes. We need to secure our borders, welcome those who around the world are seeking a better life and keep away those who wish to do us harm.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to speak in support of our Canadian forces, the men and women who courageously work on our behalf at home and abroad. They are very much in our minds today as many of them prepare for participation in the military response to the events of September 11.

The military contributions being made by Canada to the campaign to eradicate international terrorism raise other thoughts, particularly for the members of the House who dedicate significant portions of their time and attention to questions of defence and security.

In forming my own thoughts in recent weeks, I have considered the same range of policy, programs and other issues that others here today have already spoken of.

One thing that has forcibly struck me and sticks in my mind is the underscored significance of the government's commitment to maintaining multipurpose, combat prepared forces equipped to perform a wide range of missions alongside our allies.

I have also been impressed with the relevance of these circumstances and of the wide range of initiatives undertaken by the government in support of our Canadian armed forces.

Over the past decade, for example, the government has shown its commitment to acquiring the equipment necessary to enable men and women of our forces to perform the complex and varied defence tasks expected of them. For starters, through 1999 and 2000 federal budgets and through supplementary funding, the government has reinvested more than $3 billion over a period of four years. However, like anything else, it is not enough and it is not just about money. It is also about spending this money very wisely. This is being done by targeting resources in key areas, including modernization.

Prompted by some startling headlines on this subject in recent months, it is worth emphasizing here that thanks to major investments in equipment the Canadian forces are better equipped now than they were a decade ago. Allow me to illustrate with several key examples from each of the navy, land and air forces.

The navy has four updated and modernized tribal class destroyers. One of our destroyers, the HMCS Iroquois , will be the central command and control vessel for the Canadian task force group being deployed as part of our Operation Apollo.

The Canadian forces also possess 12 modern patrol frigates equipped with high tech sensors and radars, as well as complex and capable weapon systems. They operate regularly as fully integrated members of the U.S. carrier battle groups.

Two of our frigates will also be deployed to Operation Apollo alongside U.S. warships, a fact that attests to the capability and expertise of our crews here in Canada.

Four Victoria class submarines that will replace the three 1960 vintage Oberon class submarines will be capable of conducting a more complex operation with fewer personnel and less maintenance than their predecessors.

Recent equipment acquisitions for the troops have focused on acquiring more deployable and operational mobile equipment, including the fast and manoeuverable Coyote reconnaissance vehicles and the LAV III armoured personnel carriers. This equipment is considered by our allies to be worldclass and both of these vehicles are built right here in Canada.

The high tech Coyotes and their well trained crews won rave reviews for their work in Kosovo and most recently in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

The army has also acquired the tactical command, control and communications system and a number of other pieces of equipment, such as upgraded Leopard tanks and new, versatile personal clothing and protective equipment.

All of this helps our soldiers do the job the government is asking of them.

With regard to our air forces, the government has also taken significant steps to ensure they have the equipment they need to do the job.

In addition to acquiring 15 new Cormorant search and rescue helicopters, the first two of which arrived in Canada just days ago, the government has announced modernization programs for both the CF-18 fighters and the Aurora marine patrol aircraft, two of which we will be deploying shortly to the Middle East.

The modernization of our Aurora long range patrol aircraft with state of the art main computers and enhanced navigation and communication systems, will enhance the CF-18's ability to carry out coastal patrols and surveillance activities.

Similarly, the government's incremental modernization project currently being implemented on the CF-18 aircraft will provide for a range of leading edge upgrades, including new radar, radios, a night vision imaging system, a helmet mounted sight system and weapons management on computer.

These investments will build on earlier ones in precision-guided munitions and targeting pods that our pilots employed with great skill as part of Canada's contribution to the NATO led air command over the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999.

As for replacing the Sea King helicopters, the government has indicated very clearly in the House that the marine helicopter project is the number one equipment priority for the Canadian forces. These will be combat capable helicopters able to work hand-in-glove with our worldclass frigates.

Taken together, these equipment modernization efforts, combined with investments in education, training and the quality of life of the men and women in the military and their families, will help ensure that the Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence are a force to be contended with.

Looking back, we can see that Canadian forces have adapted well to the demands of the post-cold war world. They have responded to the diverse assignments, including search and rescue operations, Arctic and maritime sovereignty patrols, year 2000 contingency planning, assistance to Canadians during ice storms and flooding, support of law enforcement agencies and a broad spectrum of international operations.

Defence will continue to pursue, as called on by the NATO defence capabilities initiative, innovative ways to invest defence dollars through pooling of resources and strategic partnerships with our allies. The men and women of the Canadian forces will continue to respond to the call to defend our country and our allies.

It is very clear that the men and women of the Canadian forces are the top individuals in the world. They put their lives on the line to defend this country, to protect our citizens and to serve our nation well. We must be very proud of the military and we must make sure that they are well supplied and they are able to carry out those functions in the best possible fashion.

I salute our soldiers of the past, our soldiers of the present and our soldiers who will be serving this country in a short time in the future. All Canadians must be very sure that first, they will defend our country as well as anyone; and second, we can be proud that they will defend our country with the greatest integrity there is.