Debates of Sept. 18th, 2001

Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps part of the problem is that government members are afraid. They are afraid that the opposition will ask the tough question of where the action plan is to address this issue. That is the problem.

If members would read Hansard when it comes out and look at what I actually said during my remarks, they would see I was merely echoing the concerns being expressed by millions of Canadians regarding the government's inaction. I support referring this issue to a committee.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member made a statement earlier today that cabinet had its first meeting on this issue today. That is not factually correct.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I hear the hon. member. This is a place where there is considerable serious debate. Let us try to keep it factual if at all possible.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I speak today for the people of Surrey Central regarding the calculated, tragic terrorist acts in the United States. I too wish to express my shock and extend my deepest condolences to all those who lost their loved ones. My heart, thoughts, sympathy and prayers are with the families and friends of the victims of these cowardly and atrocious acts. I also want to say in the clearest possible terms that I condemn terrorists and those who support them.

Today the Canadian Alliance motion asks the government to introduce anti-terrorist legislation similar in principle to the United Kingdom's terrorism act of 2000 that provides for the naming of terrorist organizations operating in Canada, banning fundraising activities and immediate ratification of the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, et cetera.

At this time of profound crisis we as a global village should pull together to show solidarity against acts of violence and hatred. There is a river of resolution flowing through the world. I call on people of all faiths and backgrounds to work together to put a stop to terrorist acts that have no place in our civilized society.

We have one thing in common around the globe: we are all humans. However we should also realize that the people who did this terrible act are criminals. The wind is knocked out of the human spirit but it will be up once we deal with those who caused it.

Hate is like a monster that controls the mind and body causing harm to others. The idea of dying for one's faith has been distorted by the evil ones. Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect, does not seem to be a true Muslim as he does not act like a Muslim. However mosques have been attacked. The people of the United States were not guilty because of the acts of Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma. He was not a Muslim either. This is not a religious thing and let us not make it into one.

Retaliation against a religion or a faith is not appropriate. Hatred is our true enemy. Some innocent American and Canadian Sikhs have been assaulted simply because they wear a turban, grow a beard and resemble pictures of bin Laden as shown on TV. Others have been assaulted because they appear to be from the Middle East.

Evil resides in the hearts of individuals, not in a nation or in a religion. Therefore let us look beyond a person's appearance and instead look into a person's soul.

As the days go by we will mourn the dead, but we will also find ways to make sure that no one will ever be allowed to suffer from such terrible acts. The recent acts of violence will only make us stronger and give us the resolve to protect democracy and freedom. We in the global village must bring about changes in our attitudes and policies and rethink the way that governments govern.

While thwarting terrorist activities immediately, a permanent and long term solution must be found. We must remember that terrorists are not born. They are made.

With fairer foreign policies and fewer double standards, many conflicts could have been prevented or resolved long ago. While we stand shoulder to shoulder with our American neighbours and allies we must remember that the countries in Central Asia around Afghanistan, which is the prime target, have fragile political, social and economic environments. Three of the region's countries are declared nuclear powers and some are undeclared.

There are many ethnic and religious conflicts in the region. Local support for military action may be limited and skin deep. Based on religion or ethnicity, there are chances of polarization or even civil wars. Many bitter wars have already been fought and many border disputes linger. Alternatives like diplomacy, intelligence, economic solutions, co-operation and understanding among nations should therefore be explored or used in combination with military action.

Here at home we must ensure that Canada will be neither a target for terrorism nor a launching pad for terror against others. Now more than ever we must work toward peace, preventive diplomacy, restoring hope, and reducing risk rather than increasing it.

This will mean improving Canada's immigration, justice, defence, intelligence, security and foreign policies and providing the relevant agencies the resources to effectively do their jobs. We do not need to have a crisis before the leadership acts.

On many occasions we in our party have stood alone in calling for an end to policies that allow fronts of terrorist organizations to raise funds and claim charitable status in Canada. Some of these terrorists may have found their targets through our country. Corruption in foreign nations continues. The government must change its cover up mentality and take appropriate action.

Canada's immigration policy must be effective and efficient. We should not be seen by organized criminals and terrorists as an easy haven. The charter of rights should not be able to be used as a crowbar by the world's terrorists and criminals. This undermines the quality of citizenship for which immigrants have fought so hard.

The government needs to begin by taking the advice of its own intelligence agencies more seriously and moving from there. Our intelligence sources and armed forces remain a shadow of their former selves, unable to back up our commitment to our grieving neighbours to the south. An annual report from CSIS indicates that funding cuts have seriously hurt its ability to adequately do its job. It is the priorities that I am questioning here.

This is a time when we need to come together to fight our common foe and not waste precious time bickering among ourselves. It is a time for action.

I therefore support the motion and call on the government to act forcefully to oppose terrorism in every way possible. The government must help to focus our minds on finding solutions to the problem of terrorism. This is the time to act. This weak Liberal government without vision must act now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I greatly acknowledge the work of the hon. member in bringing to the attention of Canadians the reactionary measures we may have toward the Muslim, Arab and Islam communities in Canada. It is a disgrace.

We read the news this morning about a 15 year old boy who was attacked viciously because of who he was and what he looked like. That is something against which all parliamentarians should stand and say they will not accept in any way.

Given the premise and content of the motion before the House, would the hon. member agree to seek unanimity among all parliamentarians to keep this a non-partisan issue and give confidence to the Canadian public that we are working as a team and not playing partisan politics?

Would the member accept the recommendation of the other four parties in the House of Commons and advise that we withdraw the motion and introduce one that says the act of terrorism should be put to the committee for immediate study? He and other members of the justice committee are doing a good job in that respect. That is where this discussion should be and it should be put forward quickly.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. Regarding the first point he raised, it is important that we not look merely at appearance. We should look at the individuals who have been living in Canada, contributing to our economic prosperity and strengthening our social safety net and multicultural fabric. We should accept them as Canadians and look at their contribution, not attack them because of their appearance. That is absolutely wrong.

In the member's second point he mentioned his concern about the motion. This is a good motion because it asks the government to take immediate action. What we need in Canada is legislation which ensures that various agencies are involved. The government is working in co-operation with many other agencies around the world.

This is not a small thing affecting only a segment of the world's population. It affects each and every individual in the world. The economy, our way of life and many other things are factors. It is the responsibility of the government to uphold the law. It must make responsible and resourceful adjustments so that it can implement the law.

We are here to make laws. That is why millions of Canadians have sent us here. By way of the motion we are asking the government to introduce anti-terrorism legislation, something it should have done long ago. Prevention is always better than cure, but the government does not want a cure for these kinds of issues.

The motion asks not only for ratification but for the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. That is a very good point. If we do not know the people who are operating in Canada, how can we stop their actions?

The motion asks for a complete ban on fundraising activities. Funding is very important for terrorist activities. When terrorist organizations raise money in Canada they get tax free status. In other words, when Canadians pay taxes to the government, the government gives tax free charitable status to terrorist organizations for raising funds. Taxpayer money is used for sponsoring terrorist activities. That means terrorism is sponsored by the state. This should not happen.

There are many things to be done including the ratification of the treaty. I ask all members of all parties in the House for a co-operative rather than a confrontational approach. I urge all members to support the motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to comment on the debate. On behalf of the people of Selkirk--Interlake I extend condolences to the families of the victims in the United States.

I ask the hon. member whether this is a partisan or non-partisan issue. The idea of recognizing that there is a massive problem with terrorism and that something must be done about it is a non-partisan issue. All members of the House of Commons would agree with that. However finding solutions to the problem and determining what should be done cannot be achieved through non-partisan debate.

Would the member not agree that we need partisan debate in parliament to effectively deal with the issue, find solutions to it and determine a course of action?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very good comment. There is unanimity on the issue not only in the House but in other parliaments around the globe.

Our feelings must be translated into action. To do that we must have non-partisanship in the country and in parliament. That is why the motion which the Canadian Alliance put forward is non-partisan. I urge all members to look through the lens of issues rather than politics.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak to a matter brought to this place by one of the greatest tragedies in modern history. It will undoubtedly be the greatest matter of import dealt with in this parliament and by many of us during our time in this place.

The events of a week ago today hit all Canadians in various personal and emotional ways. My brother was in the World Trade Center the day before the attack. He was to stay in a hotel across the street from it that was destroyed. It brings to mind the role of fate and the randomness of this ferocious violence which has left at least 5,000 families with a great loss from which they will never fully recover.

In contemplating these events we sometimes speak glibly about the need to stand by the United States because it is our friend and trading partner. Both these things are true and both are good reasons to support it.

However there is a higher reason for us to stand by the United States. So often we Canadians seek to strengthen our sense of self by casting a critical eye on the imperfections of our American neighbour. Regrettably we have even heard murmurs of that old discontent throughout the past week in Canada and throughout the past day here in parliament.

However now is a moment, unlike any in our history, for all Canadians to set aside the habit of small mindedness and unashamedly affirm the nobility of the American experiment in democracy and liberty, values we hold in common.

The World Trade Center was perhaps the world's greatest symbol of economic liberty and free enterprise. It looked out on to the Statue of Liberty, a sight which itself has welcomed millions seeking the blessings of that freedom which we share.

The Pentagon is the great symbol of the American resolve to defend democracy, including our own. It stands within sight of the Lincoln Memorial which is itself across from the Capitol building, the temple of American democracy, which itself was another target. The Lincoln Memorial is a powerful testament to American resolve, to how tirelessly Americans will fight to maintain democracy and government of, by and for the people.

It was no mistake that the forces of destruction chose these as their targets, for it is freedom and democracy that they fear and seek to destroy. It is these common values which we are now being called to defend.

As Andrew Coyne of the National Post recently wrote:

The men who destroyed the World Trade Centre are not moved by mere hatred of Israel, or even the United States: it is western civilization they hate, in all its forms, with all its values. The only way we could escape their wrath would be by abandoning those values, engaging in ever more craven acts of appeasement, until at last there was nothing left of us but self-loathing.

I was disturbed yesterday to hear a remark repeated at least half a dozen times in the House. Members of different parties said that the war in which we now find ourselves engaged that has been thrust upon us is not a conflict of good and evil. They said there are no clear, stark moral absolutes here and that we cannot apply normative moral objective categories such as good and evil to the conflict.

Members have said repeatedly that we must focus on the root causes of this ferocious act of terror. These root causes have been nebulously referred to as social inequity, the growing gap between rich and poor, and the uneven distribution of power in international institutions. This is folly.

Let me quote from my leader's speech yesterday when he said:

Root causes must be addressed, but it is sheer folly, let there be no mistake, when we say that the root cause of terrorism is the terrorists themselves. The hatred that moves them to massacre the innocent can never be negotiated with or reasoned with.

It is not a matter of shades of grey...This is not a time for moral ambiguity. It is a moment of moral clarity.

For those who would have us address the root causes, would they have stood in this place in the fall of 1939 when Poland was being attacked and invited us to contemplate the root causes of German aggression and Nazi anti-semitism, the humiliation of Germany in the Versailles treaty or the economic crisis in Weimar Germany, and to address the social and economic inequities as the root cause of Nazi terror? No, that is not what our predecessors in this place did. They called evil by its name and committed the nation and all its resources to its complete elimination and unequivocal surrender which cost great quantities of Canadian toil, treasure and blood.

I think that mindset is one which we must now adopt for ourselves at this time. We can have our international organizations and our north-south dialogues. We can address the need to improve living standards in other parts of the world, but that is not what this is about. The attack last week did not come from some nebulous voice of third world inequity. It came from deliberate, evil-minded, malicious killers who were motivated by hate, many of whom have never experienced the kind of poverty that is implied in this reference to root causes. Most of them were well off in some of the wealthiest countries in the world financed by a multimillionaire. This is not about economics. It is not about politics as we would normally understand it. It is about a boldfaced attack on all that we stand for as a western civilization.

If we do not start from that first principle, whatever policy response we have will be inadequate. That is my concern and that is what we have seen reflected, regrettably, in the weakness of response from this country's leadership to date. I hope that will change.

There is no obvious, clear, simple panacea to this. Pointing to the morally objective nature of this struggle between good and evil does not mean that we embrace simplistic solutions to this incredibly complex problem. On the contrary, the war on terrorism, and it is a war, will require a fight on so many different fronts, including the legislative front. We must do what we can in this parliament to ensure that the principal responsibility of the federal government is for the safety and security of Canadians and Canadian sovereignty. That is what part of our motion today calls for and that is why I am supporting it. I hope other parties and members will too.

We can change our laws but that of course will not stop the terrorists in their lairs in some 30 countries in which they operate and in the several countries that actively sponsor, support and harbour these people. I want to briefly turn my attention to this problem. What I picked up from the debate yesterday was the notion that all we have to do is some very targeted and limited covert action to remove a few of the most guilty hate mongers and terrorists. I heard that it need not be a broader conflict, that it need not involve conventional warfare conflict and that it need not be a state to state matter.

As the defence minister suggested, this is not a conflict between states. I disagree profoundly and it is folly if that is the basis of our action.

As the president of the United States said a week ago last night, he will make no distinction between those states that harbour and support the terrorists and the terrorists themselves. I support that principle of action because those states which make this kind of terror possible are equally culpable. The fury of the free world must be focused not just on the terrorists themselves but on those states and that does mean there will be military conflict of some sort.

It also means that as a free country, as one of the most blessed and wealthiest nations in the world, we have a profound moral obligation to do our duty, to do our share as Canadians have done before. However we are not in a position to do so now. Our military expenditures are less than half the average of NATO countries. We have the second lowest military expenditure in NATO. That means when our allies call upon us to do our share we are not in a position to do so.

I want to close with a call for all of us, the government in particular, to begin a massive reprioritization of the responsibilities of the federal government. Protecting sovereignty, peace and order are our first responsibilities. We must think deeply about changing our priorities so that we can do our share and fulfill our moral obligations in this fight against evil.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's passion at a time of real and present crisis as a result of what happened last week. However I am also concerned that the hon. member has fixed his entire debate and his views on how this issue can be best solved on the words of a very narrow and yet ill-defined motion.

The hon. member may want to clarify for the House how he sees the United Kingdom's terrorist act and give his interpretation of whether or not it involves the suppression of the rule of law. The determination of terrorism in countries we are currently dealing with, Israel being a good example of where there have been allegations of people who have been deemed terrorists, would effectively cut off our relationship with those countries.

I understand the member's commitment and his passion but I fail to see the reasoning in the motion he has put forward today.

Yesterday was the 19th anniversary of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. The hon. member probably has other examples that he would like to touch upon as they relate to issues of terrorism but he talked about World War II. I am interested in what the resolve of parliament was in World War II.

This is a modern evil which requires some time, patience and restraint. Will the hon. member show that restraint by modifying this resolution in favour of what other parties on this side of the House have been talking about this morning?

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to modify the motion. These are sound policy proposals gleaned from the legislation of several other democratic jurisdictions and would form the basis of a reference for the justice and human rights standing committee, which could then include the concerns such as those raised by the member and other potential remedies.

We have not brought this motion forward as a complete solution to any problem. We have brought it forward as the basis of some concrete legislative remedies. Instead of nebulous talk about addressing root causes, at least someone is bringing forward some specific ideas here. Let us give it to the members of the justice committee and let them determine it.

I keep hearing the point about being patient. Yes, we must act rationally and not emotionally. We must be deliberate and not chaotic in our response, but let there be no mistake about the urgency of this fight.

I want to quote George Will from an article he wrote last week. He said “the New York and Washington attacks were a minor overture to the cymbal-crash crescendo of violence our enemies are building toward”. He went on to say that when they get nuclear weapons they will use them, so western policy must respond to a closing window for pre-emption.

I could not agree more. That is the next step of these merchants of violence. It is the unthinkable. It is the unimaginable use of weapons of mass destruction. This is not something where the west can slowly, ponderously, in our typical Canadian way, wait and delay and procrastinate. There is urgency in this matter. We do not know how far these evil people are from getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction. It could be weeks, months or years but we must act as though it were a matter of great urgency.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments and some questions for the member who just made a good speech.

In his comments, he mentioned that it was a complex situation. Alliance members, however, are trying to come up with simple solutions to a very complex situation.

When they state that they are basing their motion on a text that is “similar in principle to the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act, 2000”, I would like to ask the member if this act contains the provision regarding the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism. As far as we know, the answer is no.

I would therefore like to ask him if their motion is modeled on a bill, and if it takes inspiration from it, or if they are simply tinkering with words from another country's legislation.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the motion is not legislation. It is simply, as all motions are, a statement of parliament's intent in a general sense in principle. It is not a replication of a statute in any other jurisdiction. It includes ideas that are included in U.K. statutes, as well as other anti-terrorism legislation.

As to the extradition of those who are found to be associated with terrorist organizations, I am sure that is the case in the United Kingdom. I will read from one of Canada's leading immigration lawyer's, Sergio Karas, who was quoted in the National Post last week as saying “We are the laughingstock of the world because of our incredibly high acceptance rate for refugee claimants”. He also said that there was an incredibly important need for us to deport people who are lawbreakers and associated with organizations of this nature.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for St. Paul's.

I stand here today with great sadness which I know I share with all of my colleagues on every side of the House. There is no doubt that the shock and disbelief that I and every other Canadian felt in this great tragedy was totally unbelievable. Even now I do not think I really grasp it and everything that will come from it. The world did change one week ago Tuesday and it will never, ever be the same for any one of us here again.

People in my riding of Guelph—Wellington phoned me expressing many feelings, but more than that they wanted to do something. It was a call to arms for them. They wanted to donate blood and my office helped to co-ordinate that. They wanted to give money to the Red Cross, a lot of money. Company after company wanted to donate money. The TD Bank, The Co-operators, a whole list of people, phoned my office to take part in drives. Sleeman's pledged to do a drive with John Sleeman matching the amount from that drive. The list goes on and on because my people wanted to do something. They wanted to help in any way.

Nurses, doctors, paramedics and lay people phoned asking for their names to be provided to foreign affairs. If needed, they would drive, fly, do anything necessary to get to New York and would do any job asked of them. That is the human spirit of all of this that is alive and well in my community, as well as in many other communities across Canada. That is what being Canadian is. That is who we are. We should not lose sight of who we are.

Today we are moving on to a phase as a result of this tragedy, part of which is the prevention of future attacks. The motion today deals with prevention. It absolutely has to be talked about and worked on and we as parliamentarians have to find better ways.

Make no mistake, this is not a simple thing. It is complex. It is a new world for all of us and it is a world that is changing so fast and so dramatically that it is difficult to keep up. It is difficult to know where we should go. As elected leaders we must lead and, as the Prime Minister of Canada said yesterday, we must stand with our neighbours. We must.

This is terrorism, make no mistake. This is a monster so evil that no one can comprehend the depth and limits that this can reach in any community in any country in the world. It just happened to be the United States, but it could be anywhere. Make no mistake about that. If it is not the U.S., is it Canada? Is it Finland? Is it China? Where?

There has to be a second part to this and that is a response. That again is indeed a tough question. So we move on to the question of future attacks and we move on to response.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that “this was not just an attack on the United States”, this was an attack on “the values and the beliefs of free and civilized people everywhere”. He said “The world has been attacked. The world must respond”.

We are part of that world. We must respond. This was an attack on our freedoms, on the ability to live peacefully, on the ability to live with everyone, all races, all nationalities, all religions. It was an attack on our freedom to speak, our freedom to voice our opinions, our freedom to gather with the like minded and to gather here today, which is enshrined in our Canadian constitution.

The one thing that we cannot do is govern by fear. We must look at this and we must act, but we must do as our cabinet and our Prime Minister have been doing, that is, work with the United States and many other countries to proceed into the future and on what our response will be. We will do this.

May I say I am glad that we have so much experience here. We have many people in the government who have been here a very long time and who have seen a great many things. This will afford us well in this new horrible street we are walking down. Make no mistake, the perpetrators must be brought to justice. They have to be, because if they are not what about next month? What about next year? Is there a guarantee? There are no guarantees. There are no guarantees either way. I am getting calls from my constituents. They are afraid. They do not know where we are going. They do not know what it means. Are we entering into war? Will there be loss of life? Will it mean that someone from Canada has to go to war, someone they know, someone's sons or daughters? What does it mean?

I do not have all those answers today, but will say that I believe, based on the calls I have been receiving from my constituents, that they know in their heart of hearts, although there is a broad range of opinions, that there has to be a response. It has to be controlled, it has to be done with a clear, level head, but there must be action and there must be prevention.

I believe there is agreement on that. The Prime Minister also said yesterday:

--this will be a long struggle with no easy solutions. Let us not deceive ourselves as to the nature of the threat that faces us and that this can be defeated easily or simply with one swift strike.

It will not. It is evil. We have looked evil in the face and it is awful.

The Prime Minister finished yesterday by saying:

If laws need to be changed they will be. If security has to be increased to protect Canadians it will be. We will remain vigilant--

We will, Mr. Speaker.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of people say they will remember where they were on September 11, 2001, but I think what we will remember most is the way we lived our lives before September 11 and how we lived afterward. The dramatic change that will take place is why I believe Canadians are turning to us as leaders, as parliamentarians, as their elected officials, for guidance and for some kind of signal that we are taking this matter seriously and that we want to make change in this country to make their lives safer. The motion that my party put forward today would do that.

The member opposite has just said that we must lead, that we must respond, that citizens are turning to us for advice. I would like to ask the member what is wrong with sending the message in this resolution that we have on the floor today. What is wrong with sending that message to Canadian citizens that the government and the leaders of the country are doing something to make their everyday lives safer? Why will she not support what we have put forward today?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to send the motion to committee. I have no problem with that. I think the motion has some narrowness to it but I certainly am prepared to send it there.

In fairness to the hon. member, I would say that he has missed a little bit of the point, which is what the Prime Minister said. Believe you me, my Prime Minister means this. If laws need to be changed they will be. If security has to be increased to protect Canadians it will be. We will act.

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

Mr. Speaker, to reiterate what my hon. colleague on the other side said, that if security needs to be reviewed or upgraded it will be, she is quite close to the transport minister, who yesterday said in the House that he does not want anyone to cancel their trips or their flights or their vacations. He wants Canadians to continue normally. However, one thing the travelling public is very concerned about is pre-boarding screening and the fact that no luggage on a domestic flight and no cargo on a domestic flight is ever X-rayed. Terrorists just have to check in baggage without worrying about pre-boarding screening. They could do the kind of damage that has already been done.

Would the member not accept the recommendation coming out, unfortunately due to the tragic events of September 11, to ask the transport minister to review aspects of pre-boarding screening?

For the information of members, customs agents receive a full year of intensive training before they do their job. Pre-boarding screeners in Canada receive 20 hours of training before they are allowed in front of X-ray machines at airports. That is completely unacceptable. Airports are now asking the government to accept complete responsibility for pre-boarding screening. A suggestion from our party is that all articles going onto an aircraft, including cargo and baggage, be X-rayed before that aircraft departs. Would she not agree with those recommendations?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member brought this up because this morning we had a discussion on this very issue at rural caucus about the findings in the transport minister's report. We do believe as a committee that it is important to investigate and to move on things that will make it safer for the public.

We have many mechanisms in place. Can they be better? Yes. Is there room for improvement? Yes. Will we? Yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, today as we look at the possible legislative remedies, it is imperative that we seek to examine the context and indeed the definitions. All last week we were numb. We said things like, it is unreal, it is a bad movie. We took calls from citizens trying to find reasons and solutions. Our big brother who sometimes was the recipient of our antipathy, who we felt sometimes bullied us or sometimes just ignored us, all of a sudden was clearly undeniably family. Suddenly American flags were on our lapels and in our windows. Our family member was under attack, as indeed was the world.

When asked whether we are at war, we will pause. What does “at war” mean in 2001? I remember as a little girl sitting on my dad's lap and for the first time feeling the shrapnel in his neck that he had received in Holland as part of Canada's 30th Battery in World War II.

My father-in-law, who had been shot down in the English Channel years after the Battle of Britain this week asked for a copy of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so he could take it to the school where he will be speaking on Remembrance Day. He wants to explain about the fundamental freedoms that he had been fighting for, nation state to nation state. It is no longer that same kind of war.

When asked last week on CBC whether we were at war, Ursula Franklin, the renowned physicist and pacifist answered, “I don't think so”. She went on to explain however that peace is not the absence of war. She knew certainly that we are not at peace. Peace to Ursula is the presence of justice. Obvious to all of us now is the profound lack of justice. As Canadians we have an overwhelming sense of wanting things to be fair. We want justice to be done. We want to feel safe, but what will it take to allow us to feel safe now in the wake of the attack on America last week? The previous gradual transformation on the concept of security has taken a quantum leap.

Just last December, John Wright of the Library of Parliament in the paper “Conflict and Security in the Contemporary World” wrote:

Human security holds the safety and dignity of the individual to be the primary focus. It reflects the growing belief that guaranteeing the security of states does not necessarily lead to better security for people.

He wrote about the transformation of conflict. He stated:

New conflicts are based more on identities, values and beliefs than on territorial defence or aggression. They are often conducted by actors with few formal or material resources. This makes the conflicts intense and difficult to resolve because values are deeply held, not divisible, and difficult to bargain away. In addition, a lack of political infrastructure often makes building, maintaining, and enforcing agreements difficult.

The stunning magnitude of the terrorist acts of September 11 call into question our very definitions. In 1987 the Senate Special Committee on Terrorism and the Public Safety stated:

Terrorism is the threat of use of violent criminal techniques, in concert with political and psychological actions, by a clandestine or semi-clandestine armed political faction or group with the aim of creating a climate of fear and uncertainty, wherein the ultimate target (usually one or more governments) will be coerced or intimidated into conceding the terrorists their specific demands, or some political advantage.

On Saturday, Marcus Gee in the Globe and Mail revised that. He said:

Terrorism is a deliberate form of political or ideological warfare waged by fanatics with a disposition for unlimited violence. In the case of extreme religious terrorists, whether Islamic or Christian or Sikh, they are engaged in a holy war, a struggle for the fate of the world that justifies any amount of bloodshed.

No longer are there specific demands or just the threat of violence to a specific end. There is just hatred.

How could we have predicted this kind of planning and precision? Our definitions have changed for war, for terrorism. Our definition of peace will remain. We must seek justice. That is not vengeance or retribution. Old fashioned military aggression cannot be seen as an instrument of peace, but what do we do?

In 1996 Wolfgang Koerner at our Library of Parliament wrote in his paper “The Democratic Deterrent to Terrorism”:

In their attempt to deal with terrorism, democratic states are confronted with an unfortunate paradox. The very qualities that make democracies so vulnerable to terrorists are those that make them superior to other systems of government and so worth preserving.

He went on to say:

When dealing with responses to terrorism, the need for the following quickly comes to mind: the co-operative exchange of intelligence data; bilateral and multilateral legal agreements; increased security at countries' entry and exit points; information on the financing of terrorism; the training of specialized personnel for rescue operations; the extension of international law to cover acts of terrorism.

We must deal now with this problem in a comprehensive way. We know that we need more money and resources for deportation of people who have been refused Canadian citizenship, such as the millennium bomber. We now know when we go through the Tel Aviv airport that in opening our bags we have had a psychological assessment by someone who has been in an army and knows how to do that. That person is not a minimum wage worker relying on machines.

What should we do? What should Canada do?

On Sunday in St. Paul's I hosted two of my regular neighbourhood check-ups. We have divided the riding into 17 natural neighbourhoods. The two groups could not have been more different.

The citizens assembled at the Bradgate Arms felt strongly that Canada should be measured and smart about the next steps. They firmly disagreed with the group from our upper village who wanted to ensure that we would give unequivocal support to whatever the Americans wanted to do.

I thought about inclusive decision making and hoped that the best brains from around the world would be brought to the strategy.

The most poignant intervention came from my neighbour across the street, Rob Tyrie. He had been on the 40th floor of the World Trade Center. He lived through it. He knows it was real. He knows it was not just a bad movie. He wanted to make sure that all of us knew and that I would convey to all decision makers how real it was. He wants from us a solution for the next 100 years. He agreed with the Prime Minister's words yesterday: “We must be guided by a commitment to do what works in the long run, not by what makes us feel better in the short run”.

He was extraordinarily convincing in his argument that the perpetrators had spent six years planning this assault on our civilized world. If it takes six years to ensure that it can never happen again, he will feel well served by our government and the coalition it is building. We must do what works, not what makes us feel better for a minute.

He wants us to make sure that we are not acting in hatred. He is begging us to protect our multicultural society where we will all feel safe and secure.

Rob had a co-worker with him in New York whose first name was Mazhar and his middle name Islam. Rob wants to make sure that his friend will not be a victim of backlash based on race.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday, the terrorists win when they export their hatred.

He asked for a national response to the trauma that we have all felt and that some like Rob and the 26 members of his team that were in Manhattan, four in the tower and 20 in harm's way, get appropriate help.

We as Canadians have developed great programs in post-traumatic stress syndrome because of the bravery of Romeo Dallaire. We need to make sure that these programs are available and all health professionals are taught how to recognize it and how to provide the best possible treatment for all victims of trauma and abuse.

Last night Ursula Franklin called upon me as a physician, someone who is trained in healing and well being. We should look upon our situation as an enormous injury, an infection. She wants us to help build up the antibodies, the antibodies of justice and caring.

We must cultivate the antibodies. We must work to create the body politic that resists infection. We need to find interventions that produce resistance. We need an effective immune system in every part of this tiny planet.

Hatred is virulent. It is learned. It is like an acquired affection. It should not be compared to a cancer. There is no gene for hatred.

We must commit to improving the caring, education and justice that will immunize the world against the collective weakness that allows terrorism to flourish. We must begin with our children, the children in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East, in Bosnia.

We must work to support good government around the world which is fair, transparent and takes people seriously. We must use our brains and our technology to deal with this modern lack of justice. We must remember as we seek a solution that will last 100 years, that we ensure that our sons and daughters and grandchildren will live to see it.

My son put it best: we are all just earthlings and we have to learn how to share this rock.

It is now the time for all like-minded nations to work together to make a safe planet for all of us. We must urgently move forward to effect worldwide the presence of justice, a true peace.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have noted the various speeches by the Liberal members. they talk about a single perpetrator, a perpetrator for the World Trade Center and the Pentagon attacks.

We are in a situation where terrorists who have not yet committed acts against Canada or the United States are planning and preparing. As a result we are looking at attacking all terrorism. Whether or not the act has been committed yet, they have done the preparation and they intend to commit the act. It would seem to me that is what legislation and our actions have to address.

Could the hon. member comment on whether she agrees that the scope is much larger than simply identifying the perpetrators of the WTC and the Pentagon attacks?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree. When we look at the consensus of opinion of what we have to do, we have to be able to get intelligent information about all perpetrators and all with those kinds of ideals and goals. It is important that we have the ability to track who is raising the money and where it is going.

It is important that we co-operate around the world in all of these ways. Some of the international agreements that we have signed have committed Canada to do that. When we look at the International convention for the suppression of financing of terrorism, when we look at the things that Canada has signed on to, it is important that we do this in an international way. As the Prime Minister said, if we need laws to be strengthened to get to that end, I hope that is something the justice committee will look at.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question. The member has been briefed by ministers and by the Prime Minister. She has quoted the Prime Minister quite often.

Back in the early 1980s there was an organization put together by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police called SERT, the Special Emergency Response Team. It was a full time RCMP staff squad designed to take out terrorists from airplanes, and buildings if they came in with explosives, a nuclear weapon or whatever. It cost millions of dollars to put SERT in place, but it was disbanded.

The government is saying that the RCMP has the primary responsibility for taking out terrorists, with the military being a backup. We have ended up with a situation where Canada does not have an emergency response team capable of taking out terrorists. We are talking about killing terrorists.

Would the member ensure that her ministers address this issue? Can we take action today if in downtown Ottawa a terrorist group were to set up and had a bomb ready to go off? Who would take care of that situation immediately? It will not be the emergency response teams of the Ottawa city police or the RCMP. I was on those squads and they are not capable of taking care of that situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer has two parts. One is that in the traditional tasks of SERT it would never presume that the person wanted to die. We have a very different situation.

I am interested. The member from Nepean who is presenting the proposal for a foreign intelligence gathering agency has an interesting concept. No longer will an organization that only has a mandate to do domestic work be effective in the world as we know it today.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Nanaimo--Cowichan. It has been one week ago today and how the world has changed.

I walked into a colleague's office in Ottawa. It was my first stop of the day and his assistant asked me if I heard what was happening in New York. As we watched the television he said that two planes had hit the World Trade Center. We immediately knew this was not a coincidence and that something was happening that no one had ever foreseen.

As events unfolded, work ground to a standstill. We heard that people had started to evacuate the Centre Block. Other people working on the Hill left for home, not sure how vulnerable we might be in the capital of Canada, just to the north of what had happened in New York.

Then the second tower of the World Trade Center collapsed like something in a movie. We knew that thousands of innocent lives had been snuffed out in the span of just a few seconds.

When I was much younger, my husband was mowing the lawn on a long June night. I went to bed and when I woke up the next morning he was not in bed. I found him outside, dead of a heart attack. I have some idea of the grief and the shock that some of the people last week experienced, but what happened to my husband was an act of nature, something that is at least comprehensible.

What happened to thousands of people in New York city, including Canadians, had no comprehensible reason. It was a simple act of slaughter of innocent people driven by hatred and a love of destruction. That is something completely incomprehensible to us, to the families, to the loved ones and friends of the people who are not with us today but who were alive just a week ago.

Since that time I have visited the U.S. embassy in Ottawa and saw the whole front of its metal railing stuffed with masses of flowers, cards, posters, candles, and messages of condolences, concern, sympathy and prayers. They were reaching out to the people who were affected by this terrible tragedy in New York, including Canadians reaching out to their friends and their neighbours across the border.

I have had, as have other members of parliament, an outpouring of e-mails and calls from people asking how they can help, what they can do, how they can make sense of and contribute toward rectifying this terrible situation. People are groping for some kind of meaning and some kind of focus after a tragedy that was never before contemplated.

Canadians are also concerned about what can happen in the future. What does this mean for the future? Will the people who have no morality, no human feeling, who caused the death of these innocent people, stop at this or will there be other targets and deaths?

People have concerns about our security system. Canadians do not want to be vulnerable. We do not want to be at risk. We want to know that people in charge of our safety are doing their jobs and that we can trust them to look after our interests. Unfortunately what we know has not been very reassuring.

Here are some of the troubling facts that have been reported recently. A secret CSIS report, compiled in May, shows that terrorist groups from around the world are extremely active in Canada. It lists by name and description the organizations in this country and how they are operating within Canada's borders. It states that these groups are raising money for their activities on Canadian soil.

The report describes the Algerian national who was arrested in December 1999 trying to cross from Canada into the U.S. in a car carrying enough explosives to blow up a large building. It also states that there is evidence supplied by the French police and by Interpol that money is leaving Canada and going to terrorist bases in Algeria.

It speaks of a retired immigration official who worked for 31 years with immigration and was one of 10 elite immigration control officers in the world who says that our immigration officials never got their act together. He also claims that groups known internationally for heroin trafficking and links to companies with operations in Canada have shipped missile technology and biological warfare components from Canada to North Korea, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran. However, the study that detailed all this was terminated in 1997 with an order to destroy all the files.

Last February, Canada signed the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism, but as of yet we have passed no law to actually put that agreement into effect.

There are other troubling circumstances that have come to our attention. A program on CBC radio last Saturday called The House , featured the vice-president of the Canadian Association for Security Intelligence Studies,who served at senior levels of the public service for 34 years dealing with international relations and intelligence matters. He said that about a year ago and very quietly our Canadian government decided to export crypto analytical equipment to foreign buyers.

This is highly technical machinery for encoding and protecting information which we handed over to terrorists. It would allow them to communicate secretly and therefore allow them to carry out operations such as what happened one week ago, with success. He also stated that we have been making a series of errors and that Canada for far too long has been sitting on institutions that are basically second World War II institutions, cold war institutions. Now is the time to rethink them.

There was also a comment made by Major General Lewis MacKenzie who served in the gulf war. He stated that the federal government had failed to fund the military and had left the country unable to contribute anything to this crisis other than a token force.

The inadequacy of Canada's security system has been known for some time. Our motion today helps the House take the leadership that our country needs at this critical hour. It addresses the protection of the public in a thoughtful, practical and effective way.

All speakers in the House have said that we value democracy, freedom, peace, order and good government. When we value things we protect them. They are important to us and we mean business. Now is not the time to equivocate and falter; now is the time to act. I urge members of the House to support the motion before us today.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was very moved by the comments of the member from the Canadian Alliance. She made some very good ones. I was very interested in listening to all the speeches, but I have to express myself and offer my comments as well.

I have listened to this entire debate while following what has been going on in the United States of America. When this barbaric act unfolded it was not republicans versus democrats. It was not a political issue. As much as I am encouraged and moved by some of the stories I am hearing, I certainly do not want to see it politicized.

I will explain what I am referring to. The member made a comment that nothing was being done. That is unfair because Canada did sign the international convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. Bill C-16 exists and we owe it to Canadians to make clear at least that Bill C-16 addresses that issue directly.

It is also very important to indicate that $1.5 billion in additional moneys was added. I am reaching out to the members of the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party, urging them that we do not politicize this system but that we put our heads together and move forward on it.