Debates of Sept. 18th, 2001

Allotted Day--Anti-Terrorism Legislation

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is no consent. Resuming debate. Will the hon. member for Winnipeg--Transcona be splitting his time with his colleague from Burnaby--Douglas, who I see rising, or any other member of the New Democratic Party?

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not splitting my time and I have come to the end of my remarks.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Then we will proceed with the hon. member for Elk Island on questions and comments.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer some of the questions that members in the House have with respect to the motion. I think that their request to have this sent to a committee is embodied in the motion and the amendment. If they will vote for the amendment, it proposes to replace the words “to introduce” with “to send to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, no later than November 1, 2001 draft” anti-terrorism legislation. In other words, our motion does say we should get it to the committee and fairly fast. That is obviously due to the fact that we now are aware that there is considerable urgency to this issue.

There seems to be concern on the part of members of the House who are opposed to, or are giving an indication that they will probably vote against our motion regarding the six issues. I believe instead of facing it head on they are trying to talk around it and let the Liberal committee come up with legislation.

We have specifically stated six items here, each of which deals with terrorist activities. We are not talking about nice people. We are talking about terrorists. We are talking about the type of people who would do what was done last week in the United States. We are saying that it is time we dealt very harshly with these people. Our motion states very clearly that we want the government to create draft legislation which does not omit the specific points on how to deal with terrorism.

My intervention is more a comment than a question. I certainly would like the member to respond to why members suggest that they cannot support the motion. It gives the government clear direction on the type of legislation it should draft. The committee still has the power to amend it and the House still has the power at report stage to amend it and get on with the task at hand.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke accuses the government members, and I suppose perhaps myself by implication as well as others who do not agree with him, of not wanting to deal head on with the matters listed in the Alliance motion. We do want to deal with them. We want the committee to deal with them in a way that is not predetermined by the wording of a particular motion. That is the point.

The member says that it will just be dealt with by a Liberal committee. I hope this is not the case. The member is not demonstrating much confidence in the members of the Alliance on the justice committee and their ability to make a case for whatever arguments they feel they wish to bring to that committee.

We know that the committee is dominated by government members. The member's leader himself said that he hoped that this would be an issue on which members of the committee and the House could unite in solemn deliberation and reflection to come up with a solution we all think will help deal with the problem.

When it comes to this issue, I do not think the member should prejudge either the substance of what the committee should come up with or the quality of the process the committee might enter into.

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

Mr. Speaker, following up in that vein, I can certainly understand the concerns being expressed by the member for Elk Island. With all due respect, all too often in the past we have seen the government launch a study. The wording of the substitute proposed motion, if I can call it that, would be exactly that, to study the matter of anti-terrorism legislation. As I said, all too often in the past, even with a deadline imposed, a study constitutes a lot of things, and different things to different members, parties and people.

I agree that the motion as it exists, even as amended this morning, may be too restrictive. In that regard I am certainly concerned with the wording in some of the points contained in the motion and will be addressing that later. However, I am also concerned that if we accept this alternate motion, it basically leaves that wide open.

I wonder if the member for Winnipeg--Transcona could address that.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member means by the alternate motion, if he means the motion to refer the subject matter to committee.

It is not completely open in the sense that there is a date for reporting and not just referring the subject matter to the committee and the committee then decides if it does not want to deal with it. It will be difficult for the committee because there is also a sense of urgency in the country that we deal with Bill C-15 and that we get the anti-luring on the Internet laws passed and laws passed having to do with child pornography, home invasion and disarming a police officer. All of those are urgent on the agenda of the justice committee this fall and properly so. Members of the justice committee will have their work cut out for them to deal with those issues and to deal with this issue.

I am not sure whether to refer to the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough as a colleague of the hon. member, and I do not want to prejudice other arguments that may be coming tomorrow. I may refer to him as a geographical seatmate perhaps. In any event I am sure that the member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and other members of the justice committee as well as Liberal members on the committee are not going to allow this to become just another study. If they do, they will be properly judged by the Canadian people.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his comments on this motion and to take a very brief opportunity to raise some serious substantive concerns as well about the proposal made by the Alliance in its motion today.

That party suggests that we should adopt legislation similar in principle to the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000. When we look at some of the provisions of that draconian legislation, deep concerns have been raised about the potential for abuse of that legislation.

One of the prominent and respected labour backbenchers, the chair of the select committee on foreign affairs Donald Anderson, said that the legislation was trying to restore the divine right of kings. He pointed out that the legislation would in effect deny the right of British citizens or people who had fled from tyrannical regimes the opportunity to speak out against those regimes under this legislation. It is an extraordinary piece of legislation. Whether it is members of the Kurdish community speaking out against repression in Turkey or elsewhere, or whether it was those of us who spoke out against apartheid in South Africa or against the atrocities of the Indonesian government in East Timor, under the provisions of this legislation that the Alliance is so eager to embrace, we could be locked up. There are serious substantive concerns here.

I would remind the Speaker that one of the Canadian Alliance members of parliament from Calgary defined Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. Under this legislation that provision could be used to deport Nelson Mandela or another person fighting for liberation and human rights and freedom to their death in another country.

It is an assault on refugees. It is an assault on human rights. Certainly it should not guide this parliament in its work in attempting to respond to the very serious concerns that my colleague has addressed on the issue of terrorism.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby--Douglas did not really ask me a question but he did make a comment or two. He expressed concerns that I share.

Here again, the nature of the motion before us is to adopt in principle the legislation in the U.K. about which there are obviously many concerns without the committee having the opportunity to study it. There may be merit to some aspects of that legislation but there are obviously very real concerns about that legislation.

One of the things that concerns us throughout this debate, and not only on this issue but on the debate on Bill C-16 and others is, what is a terrorist? We know that there are people who have been regarded as terrorists by their national governments but have not been regarded as terrorists by the international community.

In anything that we do, there is a strong need to indicate the need for a definition of terrorism that does not include people like Nelson Mandela and others who may be engaged in legitimate forms of struggle against racism and oppression. That need certainly does not manifest itself in the rhetoric or the analysis of our colleagues in the Alliance.

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to lend my support to my colleague from Winnipeg--Transcona who is, by the way, a learned and very experienced member when it comes to committee work and the work of the House, so I think we have to pay some heed to his remarks and the suggestion that he is making to us today.

Have I decided how I will vote on this particular motion at the end of the day? No, not yet, because I want to give the benefit to the House and the opportunity for my colleagues in the House to debate this particular motion and possibly make the changes that would make it acceptable to the government side.

Quite frankly the suggestion made by the member for Winnipeg--Transcona is acceptable to the government side. We are prepared to meet what is the exact aim of the opposition party. I would suggest that their aim as indicated to us today is to move this issue to committee.

If we have any trust and faith in our colleagues on all sides of the House, the aim has been met with the suggested amendment. We move it to committee. We have a full and thorough discussion on the possibility of even having precise anti-terrorism legislation. Or do we do as the minister suggested and amend certain acts within certain ministries, which would make it possible to accomplish the same end that the Alliance Party has put forward? All we are asking for is reasonableness. Let us be reasonable, bring it before our colleagues on the committee and tell them to deal with the issues.

Here is my question for the member for Winnipeg--Transcona, given the sober second thought of the debate that has just occurred and the aim given by the opposition which would be accomplished by moving it to committee. I would ask if he could possibly bring forward his suggested amendment one more time for unanimous consent of the House.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have the opportunity to do that. I thank the hon. member for the suggestion.

One more time for good measure, I wonder if the Chair would seek unanimous consent of the House to have the motion now before the House withdrawn, and following that unanimous consent, for me to move a motion that the House mandate the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the matter of anti-terrorism legislation and report to the House no later than February 12, 2002.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the House give its consent to the member for Winnipeg—Transcona to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to follow my colleague on the justice committee, the member for Winnipeg--Transcona. I have no hesitation in calling him a colleague.

I will be splitting my time with my political proximity, the hon. member for Prince George--Peace River.

Perhaps an appropriate place to start is this issue of priorities. Suffice it to say that on the fatal morning of September 11 a lot of people's priorities changed. Some people's priorities inevitably change when they get married, have a child or a new job and I think that catastrophic event caused many of us to change our priorities.

Certainly the focus of this debate is on how Canada's immigration policies and priorities change. There are matters of internal security and the way in which government allocates resources to those vested with responsibility of enforcing internal security and to those in the policing community and national defence community who have a very important role to play in our society. How do they live up to those priorities? If we can bring the debate back to that focus I think we would be well served.

Looking at the opposition day motion, if I may comment briefly on the way in which it is worded, I have no difficulty with this forming the subject matter of the debate and forming somewhat the terms of reference for the justice committee, which will be tasked with the study. I would feel more comfortable if it included somewhere in the text the wording that the justice committee study these issues but not be limited exclusively to these issues.

I certainly interpret that we can read it in that fashion, because I would not want to see the justice committee in any way precluded from examining acts that may exist in other countries and from looking at other methods by which countries enforce and carry out their internal security matters and immigration policies. I believe that all of this in the broader context has to be on the table if we are to look at this in the most intelligent and most reasonable fashion.

Yesterday we saw many members, both collectively and individually, express their horror on the events of September 11. While the rescue workers are sorting through the concrete and shards of glass, trying to aid those whose lives have been shattered, I think we have to sort through some of the political rubble and rhetoric surrounding this issue. We have to look for real purpose to find some motivation in these events and give this study and issue our laser guided attention in trying to come up with some conclusions and make some sense of this, because this is something with which Canadians have collectively struggled. They ask how we can make some sense of this horrific act and move to the next stage, which is enforcing justice for those who were responsible, but perhaps equally and more important, how do we prevent matters like this from occurring?

We heard discussions about specific attempts to change the way that airport or airplane security is put in place. The opportunity we have before us with this supply day motion talks about a reference to the committee with the United Kingdom's terrorist act as a starting point. It then goes on to outline some of the elements of legislation that we should be looking at, such as the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. To some extent we have this information available to us now so we are partway there.

Should we be banning any form of participation in terrorism in Canada? On the face of it, yes, but then we have to delve deeper. What defines terrorism? What defines a legitimate form of protest? When does it cross that hazy line into activism that is bordering on violence or on civil disobedience and into activities that endanger people's lives, safety and security?

There are other elements like banning fundraising activities that support terrorism. We know that these activities are underway now in Canada. There is a bill currently before the other place that will hopefully address this, yet anyone who has looked at the legislation knows that it is insufficient. It simply says that charitable status is lost for engaging in that activity. In light of the horrific circumstances, it is really an insult to suggest that this would be the only repercussion from engaging in that type of activity.

We must go forward. The ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism is now merely a matter of Canada living up to its obligations, that is, fulfilling its word. There is detail before us on this convention, which was signed and adopted at the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1999.

Some of those elements that Canada penned and was a participant in must now be brought to fruition. We must give weight to this international convention. We must be prepared to co-operate fully with our international partners. We must be prepared to give the resources that are necessary to implement this convention in the country.

Creating specific crimes for engaging in terrorism is certainly something we have to do. We have to define it. We have to make that definition and give that definition weight by clearly enunciating that there will be ramifications, that there will be retribution, if you will, for engaging in terrorist acts.

The elements of our immigration policy with respect to extradition certainly have to be re-examined. There was a time in the early 1990s when there was contemplation of putting in place a super department for internal security which would bring together elements of immigration and internal security. Interestingly, at that time there was a great hue and cry from the Prime Minister, who was the leader of the opposition of the day. In essence he alluded to the fact that this would bring about some element of anti-immigration sentiment in the country.

The Prime Minister stated in 1993 that it would be a cynical and manipulative action if the Conservative government of the day were to move in any way in that direction. The Prime Minister went on to define the contemplation of this by stating that it would be unthinkable for a future Liberal government to continue to slot immigration with public security.

We are at that point now where we have to talk about this. We have to contemplate looking at immigration because it is so closely associated with this element of terrorism, this element of violence that can be perpetrated by those who come from away, from this massive global community we live in, over our international borders and carry out acts of horrific implications, either here or in close proximity, in the United States.

All of these issues have to be given great discussion and insight. Minute details have to be examined because the grave implications are clear. We know now what can happen. We need not look any further than last week's events to see the absolutely apocalyptic implications for not acting and not acting swiftly.

Much of the discussion has already touched on the issue of resource allocation, the issue of giving CSIS, our RCMP and our national defence agencies greater resources. There can be no denying that this is an area we have to pursue. Admittedly this is simplistic thinking, but simplistic as it may be, perhaps there is an admission from those who are currently in positions in those agencies. There is an outcry for greater tools, for greater resources to carry out the tasks that they are asked to enforce.

If we take this obligation seriously it is something that can happen quickly. We saw in the United States an immediate response from congress in allocating $20 billion toward a thorough examination of where the resources should go.

That could be the response of the government as well should it choose to move in that direction. That in the short term would provide some solace and some comfort for the areas in which we are clearly lacking.

There is a great need and again an opportunity with legislation before the House to make the changes necessary to immigration, the gatekeeper of the country. The majority of Canadians are looking to us now in this time of need to come forward with intelligent, thoughtful and decisive action. We have to take that obligation very seriously. In the justice committee and in the House we will have that task before us now and for some considerable time in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member just asked if this would exclude the committee's consideration of other possible motions. It is quite clear that this is not exclusionary. The several policy suggestions included in the motion would be the basis of legislation but not the legislation in toto. I wanted to make that comment. I do not think any one should be tempted to vote against this because they may have other ideas which they would like to contribute to the legislation.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member for Calgary Southeast putting that forward. The justice committee, by virtue of the way it is comprised, the way in which it views this issue and the way in which we all view this issue will take the broadest possible references. This is a good starting point. There are elements of it that cause a great deal of discomfort for some, but this is one of those occasions where we have to look beyond partisan interest. I am hopeful and I believe we are all hopeful that this was not an attempt to divide members of the House but to bring them together in a common purpose.

I am very much looking forward to getting down to business, rolling up our sleeves and coming forward with not only legislative initiatives but coming forward with real ideas and commitments that will be followed through. Words certainly will not be enough and they will ring in a very hollow and cynical way across the country if we do not respond in a meaningful way in very short order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from our coalition on his wise words and good speech.

Would he explore some of the details and practical implications that might be put in place, not only in legislation but things the government may want to move on immediately in the spirit of the co-operation we had in the House in the debate of yesterday, and that is concrete actions we can take to implement and address this war on terrorism.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, some of the things that could happen in fairly short order, given the situation with the surplus, is a return of personnel and budgets to agencies such as CSIS and national defence. We have to come up with a plan with respect to reservists and recruits in our armed forces.

I would suggest that airport security is an area where we can sharply focus our attention immediately. We know that because of the privatization of many airports, for example, there may be a need to put in place stricter guidelines for the hiring of security officers. There was a report yesterday of which all members of the House will be aware and which was alarming. There were dummy exercises in which people were asked to bring mock explosives through airport security. I am sure this caused incredible angst in the country, given the potential for disaster.

Those are short term solutions we should be looking at right away. We should be looking at the whole range of options and solutions, both short and long term. The information that is publicly available about terrorist organizations operating in our midst and a CSIS report indicates that the government has been advised.

In a newspaper account Chantale Lapalme, who is a spokesperson for CSIS, indicated that it was targeting 350 people, possible terrorists, within Canada today, plus 50 organizations. She stated quite rightly:

CSIS's role is to advise government. We advise government, so it would be up to government to take action

Those are certainly words I agree with. I would like to see the government now take the action that is necessary. We in this coalition and other opposition members are prepared to work with the government at the committee level and in the House, to address this pending crisis. If we do not, we do so at our collective peril and at our countrymen's peril.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, despite the topic, to address the opposition motion as put forward by the Canadian Alliance.

At the outset , I believe Canadians individually and collectively are struggling right now with the fallout from this horrendous terrorist attack, which obviously was launched against our very basic freedoms, our way of life and our society as we know it.

As a member of parliament, what I am hearing, and I think what all members of parliament are hearing, from constituents and Canadians at large is what to do. Where do we go? What does it mean? How have our lives changed? We all know that our lives will never be the same after the events of last Tuesday, only one short week ago. What does it all mean?

I spoke briefly yesterday during an intervention about the very real fear of war. Across the land we have all this talk of war. I spoke of a telephone conversation that I had with my young son who was back in my riding of Fort St. John in northern British Columbia. He asked what me this meant and what did all this talk of war mean to Canada, to Canadians and in particular to the young who might be called upon to fight a war? We have to recognize that. There is a great deal of concern.

It is our role as parliamentarians and the role of government to show some leadership on this issue. That is being reflected in the communications from our constituents.

Certainly myself and the coalition which I am pleased to represent are strongly supportive of the government stand that we must stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans because these attacks have been launched on all of us, against the free world, as it were. There is a need to stand strong and to make those commitments known. We support that.

We also have to recognize the fears out there and we have to address those fears in a very real way. I received one communication by e-mail from a teacher from Fort Nelson, up in the far reaches of my rural riding near the Yukon. Val Keeler wrote to me and said:

Dear Mr. Hill,

I feel I have a duty to let you know that as an educator I hear a great number of students' thoughts and fears about what the result of last Tuesday's bombings may bring.

Several thousand innocent victims have perished in the destruction of the World Trade Center this past Tuesday. Since then, events have unfolded very rapidly, and this unjustifiable tragedy now seems to be used as a blanket green light for war and blind hatred.

She goes on to list the concerns being expressed by the students at Northern Lights College in Fort Nelson. I think all members in this place are getting similar communication and correspondence right now. We have to address that.

While I have no desire to negate all the kind words expressing angst, sorrow and support for our neighbours to the south, clearly much more is needed than this. The free world needs a plan of how we will fight this new war of the 21st century, which has been thrust upon us. It is not something that we went looking for.

Yesterday under the guise of a vaguely worded government motion, Canadians were expecting the House and their representatives they sent here to seriously debate the horrendous attack on the United States, what threat this posed to Canada and what exactly we as parliamentarians were prepared to do to ensure that our nation and our way of life would be protected.

They expected and deserved an informed exchange on what had been done and what could be done to prevent such an atrocity from occurring in our cities. Instead, sadly, Canadians got exactly what President Bush has been calling for, a return to the way things were before the attack. Again I emphasize, despite the eloquent words of many members of the House, and I do not question for even a single moment how heartfelt those words were, there was little in the way of substance coming from the government in which Canadians could find comfort .

In democracy's darkest hour our government needed to provide the Canadians with a reassurance that it was not only concerned for their welfare but was prepared to act. More importantly they needed the Prime Minister to provide true leadership.

The government could have appeared before the House speaking with a united voice had the Prime Minister considered the attack on the United States important enough to recall the House or at the very least hold an emergency cabinet meeting. If this despicable barbaric act of war does not warrant such a meeting, I do not know what does.

In a true display of leadership, the prime minister of Britain, Tony Blair, did both. The citizens of the United Kingdom knew that their government was on the job and taking the attack against democracy seriously.

Our government held its first cabinet meeting today, exactly seven days after the attack and six days later than it should have.

One can only imagine what was discussed this morning, but I for one certainly hope that the debate around the cabinet table was more visionary than yesterday's in this Chamber. I would expect that the government would emerge with a plan of action as to how it would improve safety and security within our borders. I would also expect that the ministers of justice, defence, transport, immigration and the solicitor general were sufficiently prepared to fight for the additional resources. Members on both sides of the House have expressed that they need to do their jobs more effectively.

As a member of the PC/DR coalition, I am particularly concerned that the warnings and recommendations of CSIS, our national security agency, either go unheard at the cabinet table or worse are ignored by the cabinet altogether. CSIS has been warning “Like other democratic nations in the developed world, Canada is inherently vulnerable to acts of terrorism” and that “for a number of reasons Canada is an attractive venue for terrorists”. Those are not my words. Those are words from a CSIS report.

In its report to the solicitor general, CSIS went on to state that “many of the world's terrorist groups have a presence in Canada where they engage in a variety of activities in support of terrorism, including”, and it lists: logistical support such as obtaining weapons and equipment to be shipped abroad; attempts to establish operational support bases in Canada; fundraising; use of Canada as a base to arrange terrorist activities; and raising money through illegal activities.

I could go on but my point is this. CSIS is doing its job within its mandate and yet there is no appearance whatsoever that the government takes seriously the threats that CSIS identifies. I am not suggesting for a moment that there be an overreaction but a reaction would be appropriate.

CSIS needs adequate resources and an effective mandate to expand the work which it has already undertaken. The reality is that we are being confronted with a new breed of terrorist, and we are all in agreement on that, one without purpose and ignores what we previously believed were conventional boundaries. They are high tech and determined, and we need to ensure that our intelligence agencies are capable of operating at their level. CSIS also needs the ability to monitor terrorists at the source, not only within our boundaries. The mandate of CSIS should be changed to allow international intelligence gathering including the use of foreign operatives when deemed necessary.

The motion before the House this morning will go a long way to strengthening the role of CSIS and the protection of our way of life. In Canada it should be illegal to belong to a terrorist organization. It should be illegal to engage in terrorist training within our borders. It should be illegal to raise funds on their behalf. To simply remove charitable status from terrorist organizations is an extremely weak response to such a serious threat.

I have reservations about suggestion five in the motion, that we promptly extradite foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism. Many colleagues from various parties have raised this concern as well. The wording of this suggestion is vague and leaves open to interpretation who is doing the charging and who determines what is an act of terrorism. There are countries in the world where Canada and United States support dissident factions that are fighting against oppressive and corrupt governments. Obviously this fighting of corruption and oppression would be considered terrorist by the ruling powers in those countries. I would not want to see Canada forced to return allies to those countries to face death or torture for their actions.

I would prefer to see the suggestion removed from the motion and have Canada focus on preventing the entry of known terrorists, as identified by CSIS, than spend millions of dollars tracking them within our borders.

The past week has been a difficult time for all Canadians. Given our close ties to our American neighbours, Canadians need assurances from their government that action will be taken and that resources will be committed to the fight against this new evil.

It is time for the government to announce its intentions and to provide the leadership that Canadians deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed with the remarks made by the hon. member because many of the things that he said about the actions that were taken or were not taken immediately after the tragedy in the United States were not factually correct.

The Prime Minister was in fact on the phones with his ministers, wherever they were, not unlike President Bush whose cabinet was in many different places. Our Minister of Transport acted immediately. I will not go through the long litany and the long list of things that the people of Canada, the Government of Canada and members of parliament did this week. That is not the point.

The point is that yesterday, immediately on the first day back, we had an emergency debate. Today we respect, honour and celebrate the opposition day motion on dealing with this problem in a very precise and active way.

I said this morning that I supported the idea of the right hon. leader of the progressive conservative-democratic representative coalition that all parliamentarians should get involved in the debate. However, taking cheap shots at our side of the House is not the way that we will resolve and come together on the issue.

The hon. member can disagree with me but this is a period of time where we could emulate the example of our neighbours to the south and work together. That is what Canadians want.

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

Mr. Speaker, I deeply respect my hon. colleague's opinion, but in this instance I do not believe for a moment that what I was doing was taking cheap political shots.

I was expressing some very real heartfelt concerns expressed to members on both sides of the House about what was the government's plan, because we have not seen it.

It is fine for him to say that yesterday we had an emergency debate, however yesterday's reconvening of parliament hardly constituted an emergency. It has been on the books for months. That is the government's idea of pointing to this and saying that it has done something, that it has had a debate in the House of Commons.

Yesterday's debate was necessary and I supported it as part of the grieving process. All members had an opportunity up until midnight last night to express the grief, the sorrow, and the angst that their constituents are feeling. That is our job. However our job is also to point out that the government does not have an action plan. If it does, it certainly has not been communicating it, not during question period and not during debate.

As I pointed out in my speech, at the very least and at the very most, the young people of Canada are looking to the government for an explanation of what all these words of war mean because we are not getting the answers. Not yet.

Following today's cabinet meeting I am very hopeful because backbenchers on the Liberal side as well as the opposition members should be asking the same question of the cabinet, of the government and of the Prime Minister. What does it mean for Canada and for Canadians?

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that it is his job to be informed. Unfortunately he demonstrated in his remarks that he was ill-informed. It is his job to get the facts straight. Unfortunately his facts were incorrect.

I hoped that the debate today, and especially that of yesterday, would not deteriorate to what it is becoming: a big session between the opposition and the government. Why do we not try to work together either in here or through our House leaders, to find a resolve to get this matter to committee?