Debates of Oct. 15th, 2001

Supply

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe everyone is aware of the report tabled by the Canadian Defence Association called “Caught in the Middle”. It was prepared by approximately 600,000 retired personnel including colonels and generals. It stated that we have to put $1 billion in the budget every year for the next five years to stabilize our military and after that we have to put in more billions of dollars.

I say to the minister of defence that we will support him when he goes to cabinet and tells the Prime Minister that he needs billions of dollars for the military. We will support him fully on that, and I hope that is what he will do.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the defence critic for the Conservative Party to comment on the statement she made on the weekend that the Sea Kings were unsafe and that they would fall out of the sky. Could she clarify for Canadians, and particularly the families of those who will be flying the Sea Kings, that in fact that is not the case and these helicopters will not fall out of the sky?

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say they would fall out of the sky. It was a member of his party who said they would fall out of the sky. I have had major concerns with regard to the replacement of the Sea Kings ever since a pilot was killed just outside my riding of Saint John. Others as well have had a difficult time.

We have been informed in the last 48 hours that they have been working on the Sea Kings to make sure they are safe and sound. I pray, and I want everyone else to pray, that this is the way it will be for our Sea Kings until the pilots come home safely.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Beaches--East York who is also the Minister for International Cooperation. I rise to support the motion before us today but not all the rhetoric from the sponsors of the motion. The motion of the right hon. member for Calgary Centre is worthy of the support of the House.

Since the September 11 terrorist attacks, Canadians have been unwavering in their support for their greatest friend, their closest neighbour and their best ally.

This support has not only been in words but in deeds. Last week the Prime Minister reiterated Canada's commitment to the international coalition against terrorism. In so doing he joined a chorus of nations with a pledge to stand up to the evils of terrorism and to protect the values and the way of life of their people.

The Canadian forces are making a strong and meaningful contribution to this United States led coalition against terrorism. HMCS Halifax , which was serving with the NATO standing fleet in the Atlantic, is currently on its way to the gulf region. We are contributing a Canadian naval task group that will be comprised of two frigates, a destroyer, a supply ship and Sea King helicopters. Another frigate, HMCS Vancouver , will be integrated into a U.S. carrier battle group off the west coast.

Altogether six naval ships have been provided, twice as many as were provided at the time of the gulf conflict. In addition our air force will be providing surveillance and airlift support, three Hercules, two Aurora aircraft and one Polaris airbus. It will help deliver humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan, a role that is eminently suitable for Canada.

A component of our joint task force 2 to counter terrorism has been requested and will be participating. All together our commitment will include more than 2,000 members of the Canadian forces. These men and women have gained an international reputation as being among the most highly trained professional forces anywhere in the world. As they prepare to deploy on this new mission, their dedication and commitment should be an inspiration to all of us.

When the United States requested military assistance from Canada it did so knowing that the Canadian forces was highly interoperable with its own forces. Last month two of our frigates, the Charlottetown and the Winnipeg , returned from the gulf area where they had been helping enforce the United Nations embargo against Iraq over the past five years. There they operated as fully integrated members of the U.S. carrier battle groups.

The Canadian navy is able to attain a level of interoperability with the United States navy that is second to none. We have seen the importance of being able to operate seamlessly alongside our allies in the gulf and again in the Balkans. It will no doubt be critical to our success in the current campaign to combat terrorism.

Canada's military contribution to the coalition is not limited to the 2,000 men and women that are part of Operation Apollo.

As an active and committed member of NATO, Canada is also taking part in the collective fight led by the alliance in response to the attacks against the United States.

Following a decision by the North Atlantic Council, NATO has begun deploying five of its airborne warning and control systems aircraft, AWACS, from Europe to the United States. These aircraft will operate in support of NORAD, thereby freeing up United States aircraft to deploy elsewhere.

Canada is the third largest contributor to AWACS both in terms of personnel and funding. Over 120 members of the Canadian forces are currently serving with AWACS, many of whom will no doubt be an integral part of NATO's deployment. That is over and above the 2,000.

Canada's overall military contribution to the international coalition demonstrates our commitment to stand with our American friends and exercise our right to a collective self-defence that is preserved in article 51 of the United Nations charter.

However this is only part of the response to September 11. Over the past five weeks the government has taken decisive and practical measures to enhance our capacity to deal with the ongoing threat.

This morning the Minister of Justice tabled a legislative package that would strengthen our abilities to combat terrorism. An important component of the package involves amendments to the National Defence Act, particularly those that relate to the operations of the Communications Security Establishment known as CSE. The amendments would provide a means of authorizing the CSE to collect communications at the very moment when they have the most direct impact on Canada's interests, that is when terrorists or those who support them are communicating with someone in Canada.

This is a new authority that would be exercised within strict boundaries. However even within these boundaries it would allow us to enhance our intelligence gathering capacity as a contribution to the intelligence alliance we have had for a number of years with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

Domestically we are being proactive on a number of other fronts. The Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness continues to provide national leadership on the issue of critical infrastructure protection.

The Canadian forces have a nuclear, biological and chemical response team. It is capable of working with the RCMP as part of a joint response effort. It can give advice and technical assistance throughout the country at the provincial and municipal levels during a nuclear, biological or chemical emergency.

Joint task force 2, even though some of its personnel will be going overseas, continues to stand ready to respond quickly to any terrorist act that may take place on Canadian soil.

With today's motion, we are drawing, and rightly so, the attention of all members and Canadians to the courage and the dedication of the men and women in the Canadian forces.

As they sail from our harbours and take off from our runways they can be assured that the thoughts and prayers of all of us are with them and with their families.

Prime Minister Mackenzie King once said “If a great and clear call of duty comes, Canada will respond”. I say to the House today that the call of duty has come again. Canada will step up to the challenge as she has on so many occasions before.

I have no doubt in the long months ahead and through the difficult campaign that awaits us that members of the Canadian forces will do us proud. The responsibility they carry on behalf of all Canadians is enormous. Please join me in ensuring them of our support.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his presentation today. He knows that he has the full support of the official opposition with regard to Canada's commitment. It is a reasonable commitment, given what we have available in our forces. I congratulate the minister on that commitment.

I have a question regarding homeland defence. We know that there are only two supply ships in Canada. One will be sailing soon with the task force, which leaves only one supply ship for two coasts that are an awful long way apart. Could there be a problem resulting from that in terms of homeland defence?

Does the minister have any plans for putting in place on an urgent basis another supply ship so that we have one available off each coast in case a need arises?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments and his expression of support.

With respect to homeland defence, contrary to something I read in the newspaper the other day that about a third of our navy was involved, actually less than one-fifth of our navy is involved. We still have a substantial navy to protect our country and to patrol our waters.

The Canadian forces, particularly the chief of defence staff, has indicated that a supply ship can be provided and there will still be adequate protection within Canada. We must bear in mind that it is more than just the navy that will be part of homeland defence. We also have the army, which does not have a very large number of people involved in this particular mission at this point, the regular army, the regular reserves and other components of the air force. These forces serve for the protection of Canada as they have demonstrated in past natural disasters. In any possible disaster, natural or man-made, they would stand ready to serve the people of this country. The primary concern of the Canadian forces is to ensure the security of Canada and its people.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Minister for International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the debate on a motion that raises some very important points for our country's response to the current global situation.

The terrorist attacks in the United States were horrific acts which have changed our world forever. Canada has a role to play in fighting terrorism on many fronts. My heart goes out to the victims of the attacks.

The terrorist's objective is to destabilize and destroy by spreading fear not only at the national level, but at the individual level.

Consequently, our response to the global threat of terrorism must focus on the individual as well.

Human security must go beyond the traditional concept of physical security as a result of conflict.

My definition of human security includes the elimination of poverty, ensuring access to basic education and health services, the protection of children, the promotion and protection of human rights, the eradication of disease and the preservation of the environment.

These basic elements, which are at the very core of human security, are key development objectives. To achieve long term stability, we must address the root causes of conflict: poverty, economic disparity, exclusion and social injustice.

Terror and horror exist in other parts of the world and it has existed for a long time. In our fight against the fanatics who terrorized the American citizens, we must also wage a war against poverty. Young people or people who have absolutely no hope and are marginalized in our world are easy prey for fanatics and for those who would exploit them in different parts of the world where there is terrorism going on as we speak, such as in Sierra Leone, in our own hemisphere in Colombia and elsewhere.

It is important to remember that the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan did not begin on September 11. Before the terrorist attacks in the United States, millions of Afghan people were already leading lives of desperation, the legacy of 20 years of conflict and 3 years of severe and persistent drought. Millions of Afghan people had already fled their homes leaving behind their livelihood, their belongings and, in many cases, their hopes and dreams.

Canada has been there for Afghanistan. Over the past decade, working with multilateral institutions, Canadian non-governmental organizations and grassroots organizations, Canada has contributed nearly $150 million in assistance to the Afghan people, assistance that provided emergency food and shelter, that addressed the special needs of girls and women, that helped to rid the towns and countryside of deadly landmines, that helped to fight the spread of disease, that helped refugees and internally displaced people, that helped to educate children, especially girls, and that helped to plant the seeds of peace.

My department, the Canadian International Development Agency, has been helping CARE Canada organize community based schools in Afghanistan, educating over 10,000 children and over 40% of them are girls. In fact I am delighted to report that even in today's desperate situation some of these schools are still operating. This is one example of true partnerships with the people of Afghanistan, not outside interventions. Brave and dedicated Afghan women and men help in food distribution, teach the children, work in bakeries to feed their communities and risk their lives in the dangerous work of demining.

We are supporting ordinary people doing extraordinary things just to survive and give their communities a sense of hope. They are working for the future of Afghanistan and we are concerned about the safety and security of these humanitarian workers as well as that of the population.

Canada was there for Afghanistan before September 11 and, in the aftermath of those tragic events, we will continue to be there.

I would like now to briefly recap Canada's response to the current crisis in Afghanistan. Ours has been a measured response evolving as events unfold in and around Afghanistan. Most important, we have worked with our partners to identify the most strategic uses of Canadian assistance. I am proud to say that Canada was one of the first countries to respond to the crisis. On September 18 we contributed $1 million to the call of $6 million from the UNHCR, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

On September 29, following the meeting with UN secretary general Kofi Annan, the Prime Minister announced $5 million in addition to the initial $1 million. Once again these funds were targeted at the emerging needs of Afghan refugees in the region and internally displaced people within Afghanistan.

Our recent $6 million commitment is on top of the $12 million in humanitarian assistance we already provided to Afghanistan this year. Canada's total contribution so far is $18 million in 2001.

The crisis is obviously affecting countries surrounding Afghanistan as well. Given the influx of the refugees into Pakistan, we have acted to lighten the burden on that country. On October 1 we announced that Canada would convert up to $447 million of the debt owed by Pakistan to the Canadian International Development Agency. This means that instead of making debt payments, Pakistan will be able to put the money into education and other social programs, some of which will benefit Afghan refugees as well.

Last night I returned from meetings in Geneva with Jakob Kellenberger, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Ruud Lubbers, the UN high commissioner for refugees. After reviewing the situation in and around Afghanistan, we discussed the most effective ways to help the population on the ground.

As we know, because of the unrelenting drought, crops have failed. Millions more people are now on the move and winter is fast approaching. That is a deadly combination that puts millions of people at extremely serious risk. Let me assure everyone that the government will continue to monitor the situation and work closely with the Red Cross movement and the United Nations.

Right now getting food into the country to those who need it most is paramount. That is why Canada will work with the UN and its World Food Program in particular to help with the logistics. We are already considering the next steps, including peace building activities, because humanitarian assistance should be now versus later. If we want peace to take hold, we must work for it now.

As a recognized leader in the field, Canada will pursue a wide range of peace building initiatives with our local partners at the same time as we help Afghan men and women rebuild their lives piece by piece. We must look ahead to the third phase of our assistance. In the event of the arrival of a representative, internationally recognized government in Afghanistan, Canada will, along with other members of the international community, look to support the Afghan people's long term transition, reconstruction and sustainable development effort. Future considerations will include setting up a transitional bilateral assistance program with Afghanistan.

Before September 11, Canada had been quietly supporting Afghanistan over the past decade. Once the cameras pack up and the world's attention is turned elsewhere, we will still be there responding to ongoing emergency needs, planting seeds for peace and looking for ways to help the Afghan people build a brighter future of hope for themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have two brief questions for the minister. First, will she be supporting the motion tonight in the House? Second, what concrete measures can she give and can she assure the House that the aid dollars she has indicated will go to Afghanistan will be directed to those who supply the aid in a way where it can be monitored so that it does not fall into the wrong hands, so to speak?

I know she mentioned briefly some of those details. Could she give us a little more specific detail as to what the government's plan is in that particular area?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as always when we provide programming in any country, whether it is on an emergency basis, a reconstruction basis or developmental programs, Canada always works with executing organizations, such as the Red Cross, OXFAM, UNICEF, as well as internationally renowned Canadian non-governmental organizations that work on the ground in partnership with the country with which we are working.

We make explicit contractual arrangements with organizations to do specific types of work. If we are working in the health field and providing health care, health services and rebuilding the health care system, we will work with organizations that have that kind of expertise. We would have a contractual arrangement and CIDA would pay out the money as the work is done. We monitor our programs very closely. That is an example of how we would conduct a program.

The same would apply in the areas of education, food supply and so on. We work on food emergency with the UN World Food Program, which again would receive some funding from us and we work very much in partnership with the multilateral organizations as well.

CIDA does not give money to governments. Certainly it does not recognize the Taliban and it never has. If or when a provisional government is established in Afghanistan, obviously it would be some time before we would be in a position to work with it on a bilateral level as it stabilizes. Even then we would still be working with partners on the ground as we have traditionally done and continue to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister, but first I will make a comment.

If we believe in a democratic country, which we consider Canada to be, and if, in 1989, it was a good thing for the Liberals in opposition to ask the government in office to hold a vote before sending our people off to war, it is still a good thing today.

Last week, the Prime Minister announced that our troops would be going to war, without recalling parliament in Ottawa. He therefore gave us no chance to vote democratically in this regard. He simply called cabinet to an emergency meeting last Tuesday.

I would like the minister's opinion. Does she agree with that? In 1989, was it improper for the leader of the Liberals at the time to ask the House for a vote? Was it not important? Should the Conservatives of the day have refused the request? Should we not today have the same respect as was given in 1989 and be given, we who have been democratically elected here to represent our ridings, the opportunity to vote before our men and women go off to war and to be given the respect we are due in the House?

[An hon. member]

Good question.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, we have had 35 hours of debate in the House before this decision was made. With respect, this parliament is probably one of the most active. I hope the hon. member was part of that debate. Today there will be ongoing debate on the reaction and I also hope the hon. member will participate. There has been ample time to participate on this issue.

I remind the member that it is not just the military action we have to look at. We sometimes forget that there are innocent people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and in other parts of the world. What I would like to talk about is the issue of eradicating violence in our system and around the world so we no longer have to deal with this kind of terrorism.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the resolution of my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party. I thank them for bringing it forward. Also, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Lakeland.

The climate of freedom is peace. In Canada we have become complacent about our freedoms and have taken our peace for granted. Others fought for that peace. Most of this generation did not, until now.

A few days ago our Prime Minister announced that Canadian forces would be deployed in support of our great ally, the United States of America, in the initiative against terrorism in Afghanistan. This commitment of courageous Canadian men and women is just. It is the right thing to do for several reasons.

First, it is our obligation to our allies, both in NATO and in a broader sense to all those nations who value liberty and security. It is of necessity that we stand with those who oppose terrorism and against those whose perverted fanaticism dehumanizes and imperils western civilization, and has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Those victims include hundreds who practise the true Muslim faith, a faith that values peace.

However, it is our obligation as well to stand against those whose sole purpose is to strike fear into the hearts of all of us and our friends. The presence of fear erodes the sense of freedom within us. At this time in our history, Canadians may well support numerous public policy initiatives that sacrifice personal liberty for public security.

The continued presence of a real terrorist threat compels us in the House to advocate for thoughtful changes that respond to these fears. What could be more important than safeguarding the domestic security of Canadians?

However our response to the terrorist threat to our freedom must not imperil that very freedom. We must not respond to a fear of losing our personal liberty by legislating it away. That truly would be a victory for terrorism. That is why it is so critical that we address the root cause of these threats in co-operation with and in support of our allies at its source, rather than simply reacting and responding to it domestically.

I recall another time in which the freedom of Canadians and all North Americans was threatened by fear. It was almost 39 years ago in 1962. I was eight years old. The principal told us that we had to go down to the basement of our school and that we had to lie down. He said it was just a drill, something about Cuba, something about a fallout. It made quite an impression. I suppose I never felt quite as safe after that day in my little country school.

Many Canadians share that memory of almost three decades ago. Unfortunately many Canadian children are forming the same memories today.

It has been almost four decades since the Cuban missile crisis and post-cold war period. Many of us were beginning to feel safe again until September 11. The horror, the insanity and the hatred of those violent acts has changed that. Those acts are based upon a belief system bent beyond straightening, a system that trains young boys to believe that the way to their God's right hand is the suicidal and merciless slaughter of the defenceless people they call infidels. Could there ever be a God like that?

How did we feel on September 11? Certainly we felt powerless, but Canadians responded. We offered help. We gave blood. We expressed genuine sympathy. Good for us, we cared. We shared the pain and fear and now we will share the burden. However we also feel guilty. Loudly we said that we were sorry it happened. Silently somewhere within us we were glad it was not us.

We must understand that it could have been us. We must understand that it may yet be us, as hard as that is to accept.

The government must accept the fact that its belated acceptance of our culpability as a soft touch for terrorists will not erase the hurt that the government has caused the country's reputation among our allies by its previous inaction. Nor will it change the fact that the same measures that it has lately trumpeted in response to its polling have been the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative proposals, which it dismissed as fearmongering just weeks or days ago. Neither this Prime Minister nor this government will likely be remembered for their foresight. Rather they may be remembered as those under whose watch our country let its guard down and, as a consequence, damaged our global reputation.

Although it is well understood that we have a diminished military, it is essential that we contribute to the campaign to extinguish the threat of terrorism at its source. Our allies may accept a lack of strength on our part but they will not accept, nor should Canadians accept, a lack of will. We support the government in its decision to demonstrate that Canadians have such a will.

John Stuart Mill once stated:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The ugliest is the man who thinks nothing is worth fighting and dying for, and lets men better and braver than himself protect him.

That would truly be an ugly thing.

What good can possibly come from this war or any war? Certainly, we pray for the safety of our men and women overseas and for the safety of our allies. We desire the apprehension of the guilty. We pray for the safety of innocent civilians. Let us understand that this is a conflict of beliefs. It is our willingness to defend our beliefs that gives the greatest proof to them as our beliefs.

Canadians believe in freedom. Canadians believe in equality. Canadians believe in standing up. Our heritage as a people is that we defend what we believe in.

All of us in the House hold those who fought for the freedoms that we have enjoyed in the past in the highest regard. We hold those who now risk their lives to regain those freedoms in equally high regard.

Canadians are not a boastful people. We are as proud of our nation as any people on this earth. We are proud to be lovers of peace. We are proud to be keepers of peace. However now, as we have before, we must also be proud to fight for peace.

We know that, as Martin Luther King Jr. once said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. The terrorist attacks of September 11 were the worst of injustices. The threat of more such atrocities destroys the climate of peace. That climate of peace is essential for freedom to survive.

We will not surrender our freedom. We will not stand idly by as peace is destroyed here at home or as peace is destroyed next door. That would be un-Canadian. We will do our part. That is truly the Canadian way.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member which has to do with some comments that the foreign affairs minister made I think last week. He said something to the effect that we could not just run to the bathroom and our NATO allies would come calling.

It seems to me that the foreign affairs minister is saying clearly to the government that we have to beef up security forces in this country. It also seems clear that he was saying that we had to beef up our foreign affairs department and our military, along with our other security forces.

Could the member respond to what the foreign affairs minister said, which I think was a strong statement? I would like his interpretation of it.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the contradiction between the position that has been taken publicly by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and many of his colleagues is apparent and it is growing more apparent to Canadians with every passing day. We on this side must compliment the Minister of Foreign Affairs for being more in touch with the views of Canadians on the security issues than many of his colleagues appear to be. He has decried the absence of a strong military capability. He has decried the absence of a strong defence and intelligence component to that capability. He has done so publicly and he has done so repeatedly.

I encourage the minister. I know he has onerous responsibilities now as the chair of the new committee. We all know a committee has the potential to be a cul de sac where ideas are lowered and then strangled to death. We want to make sure that is not the case with that particular committee. We want to make sure that the committee is able to influence in a positive way a reinvestment in the higher priority areas of government that have been so drastically ignored in the last number of years.

After the end of the cold war many countries cashed in their peace dividend. They took it for granted that they were secure. Countries stopped investing in their defence capabilities, but arguably none more so than this particular government. In this case I believe we are second only to Luxembourg from the bottom of the list of NATO countries that invest in their military. That record does not speak proudly to our heritage as a nation that stands up for the things we believe in. We have taken it for granted.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has noted that we take it for granted. I know he believes that. I only hope we can convince him and support him to convince his colleagues to feel the same way. It is true that in our history some of the most important components of government have been the security components and not just in wartime but in peacetime as well. Our defence, intelligence and foreign affairs agencies have all been vitally important. They have been seen as the first line of defence for us around the world.

It is critical that our foreign affairs and defence capabilities are such that we can stand up for Canadian values at home certainly, but at least as importantly abroad.

Members of the Canadian Alliance have been saying this for some time. It is with mixed emotions that I now see that a member of the government is adopting our position. In retrospect I wish he had adopted that position and publicly said so some years ago. I am pleased to see him speak up now. It is better late than never. I would say to any of my colleagues on the other side of the House, that it is better late than never they embrace the vision for the future of this country that we in this party have been advancing for a long time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will only take about a half a minute to actually deal with reality.

The member mentioned Luxembourg. Luxembourg spends $90 million on defence. It has no army, navy or air force. I believe it has a bit of anti-aircraft homeland defence. Luxembourg is a great place to visit which I would recommend to anyone.

In actual fact Luxembourg is the same size as the city of Oshawa and has about the same population. I do not know how it could possibly compare because Canada does spend $11.9 billion on its defence and it is the seventh largest in NATO. We should look at actual spending and $11.9 billion versus $90 million is hardly a comparison.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that he keeps bringing in something that is not a reality. Could we deal with the reality that Canada is the seventh largest spender in NATO?

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we are the second lowest in NATO. We are ahead of a country which is equivalent in size to the city of Oshawa as the member said, but that is nothing to take pride in. The reality is we used to be considerably higher. We used to invest as a nation in our own defence and security. We do not any more. The government is guilty of cashing in the peace dividend. It is guilty of taking our security for granted. The member opposite knows that and he should not try to make excuses for it.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the opposition day motion as the senior defence critic for the Canadian Alliance.

Our role in debate in the House and in what happens in this country is an important one. As the official opposition it is our job to point out the weaknesses in the government program. It is my role as the defence critic to point out the weaknesses in our defence department but also to point out the strengths; to say when we see the government headed in the right direction, but to make it clear as well when we think it is headed in the wrong direction or is simply not doing enough.

In that role, I will start by commending the government in the commitment it made to our allies on the war against terrorism. The commitment made in the announcement last week is very reasonable under the circumstances. In other words, with what Canada has available and with the state of our military, that commitment is a meaningful and substantial one. It is the best commitment Canada could make under the circumstances. I commend the government for evaluating what we have and do not have and making a very appropriate decision.

We have committed about 2,000 men and women, mostly from the navy but with a substantial contingent from the air force, in a way that will truly help our allies. I would like to express a show of support for the government. I fully support the government and what it has done in this case.

The motion condemns the attacks on our NATO ally. We have heard all kinds of statements of condemnation for what the terrorists have done. None of us can find the appropriate words which are strong enough to express how we feel about the attack not only on our friend and ally the United States, but also on democratic and free nations. I do not think there are words that can properly express that. Of course, we all feel the harm that was done by that attack. We see it as a great injustice. We all support whatever action is necessary to deal with the situation and to try to ensure that it does not happen again. We have to focus on bringing the people who committed that heinous act to justice and to ensure that it does not happen again. There is a lot that we should do and can do in that regard.

I have to say I was quite shocked by the statement of the Minister for International Cooperation. In answer to a question less than half an hour ago she made the shocking statement that if we would deal with poverty, then we would not have to fear terrorist attacks in the future. I was shocked by that statement.

In her role as a minister of the government, the minister ought to know by now that poverty has precious little to do with those terrorist attacks. Many of the terrorists come from very wealthy backgrounds. They have a lot of money. It has nothing to do with poverty. It has to do with evil. If the government does not recognize that it is evil pure and simple that has to be dealt with and if anyone in the government continues to make excuses that poverty has led to this, then we have no hope of dealing with it properly and effectively.

I call on the Prime Minister to make it clear to Canadians that he does not agree with the Minister for International Cooperation and that he does not believe that poverty is what led to this terrorist attack. It is important to hear that from the Prime Minister. I hope he will clarify that for Canadians before the end of the day.

The motion goes on to talk about support for the men and women in our forces, for the courage they have and for the great service they perform for our country. I stand here today and say I am so proud of the men and women who serve in our forces. I cannot state strongly enough how proud I am.

The men and women in our forces are excellent and do a great service on our behalf. They are willing to do whatever has to be done to protect Canada, the citizens of our country and our allies from these terrorist deeds and any kind of action against our country or the citizens of our country. I cannot express in strong enough terms the pride I feel. I thank them for what they have done in the past and for what they are doing for us right now in terms of protecting us in service to their country. I am proud of them and take pride in what they do.

Some of the best people in the world are in our forces. They are as good as any in the world. They are good people. They are well trained. At an individual level we would not find people that are better trained. There is a lack of training in larger group levels and that is something the government has to deal with but that is no reflection on the people themselves. I am proud that we have the best.

The motion says that we want to show support for the men and women in the armed forces. The armed forces is our country's largest security force and it should be recognized.

I welcome the government's strong words of support for the military because looking at what has happened over the past 30 years, those strong words of support have not been there. There has been a lack of government commitment to the Canadian forces and our military for 30 years. That has a lot to do with the ever decreasing number of men and women serving in the forces and with the lack of commitment to our forces in terms of spending, up to date equipment and everything else.

If a government does not believe that we need a strong military, then surely it will not deliver one. That is what has happened for too many years. So it is refreshing to hear strong words of support from some ministers for the men and women serving in our forces and for the military itself. That is quite a turnaround by the government and a welcome one. I hope it is an indication of better things to come.

Seeing those words is a good first step but it is not enough. We have to see proper funding from the government. The defence minister always says that we spend more than all but seven of our NATO allies, but look at the size of those countries. They have populations of four million, five million, and less in most cases. What he has not said is that in terms of a percentage of gross domestic product, which is the measure of wealth in this country, the government spends the second lowest in NATO. On a per capita basis, which is another useful measure, we are way below average. A country as wealthy as Canada being way below average in terms of military spending is not acceptable. Spending money is not everything but it is a starting point.

As well as adding the money the political interference has to be taken out of the military. That political interference shows itself in many ways. Hiring has to be based on merit alone, where we hire the very best available and turn a blind eye to race, religion, gender and all of those other things. Political interference has taken us away from that in the past few years and that political interference has to be removed.

As well, political interference has to be taken out of procurement, out of purchasing equipment. We can all point to the example of the replacement of the Sea King helicopters. The political interference in that replacement process stems directly from the Prime Minister. This is political interference such as I have never seen before and everyone I have spoken to says they have not seen that kind of interference before. The government cancelled the former Conservative government's commitment to buy EH-101 helicopters to replace the search and rescue and marine helicopters. In cancelling the commitment it cancelled the best and most capable helicopter and the best value. That kind of interference has to stop.

I fully support the motion. I support the men and women serving in our military. I am proud of them and Canadians are proud of them. I support any movement on the part of the government to beef up our military so that the men and women who serve know they are going into dangerous situations with the best equipment the country can afford rather than what we have now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for Lakeland. He is doing an excellent job as defence critic. He is with the program, as the saying goes, in complimenting members of the Canadian armed forces. I commend him for that.

I want to allay some fears and misconceptions that may exist regarding the budget of the military. In the last three federal budgets the government has raised military spending by $3 billion to bring Canada up to seventh in NATO.

I know members do not want to hear it but if we talk about military spending in actual dollars Turkey spends $7.7 billion and Greece spends $3.3 billion. Luxembourg spends $90 million, as members have said. These are the barometers we are using.

Let us compare GDP, which is always nice if there is nothing else to compare to when looking for something to find fault with. The second in GDP is the United States. The U.S. has the largest military budget in the world at $343 billion. When comparing budgets and numbers we should bring it into real dollars.

Does the member recognize that Canada is seventh out of 19 NATO countries in military spending in actual dollars? Does he recognize that the military is the federal government's largest budget? Does he know that it is the largest employer in the federal government and the holder of the most assets?

The member may realize that people sometimes see the military as an easy area in which to make cuts, but he should recognize that the government has elevated military spending by $3 billion in the last three budgets.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The government must admit to the situation as it is and as the whole country knows it is. Until it says it has not committed enough and must do better there will be no hope of getting anywhere in terms of improving our military.

I wish the member would admit that we have not committed enough to the military. The most common measuring stick when talking about spending of this type is percentage of GDP. In this respect we are the second last of the NATO countries.

The member is so desperate to find a place where we stack up fairly well that he compares us to countries like Norway which has three million to four million people and Denmark which has five million to six million people. These are extremely small nations yet he compares our total military spending to theirs. It is a meaningless comparison.

Percentage of GDP is a completely valid measurement. Another interesting measurement is spending per capita. How much do we spend on the military for every man, woman and child in the country? Canada is well below average in that regard. By any meaningful measuring stick Canada has failed in its commitment to the military when it comes to spending.

I beg the hon. member to admit that. He should start by admitting that yes, we have not done as well as we could. I would not attack him for that. I would support him. He should then say we will do better and show how we will do better. This should include committing more money because we cannot do it without money. Money is not everything, but we need more money committed to our military and we need it quickly.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, would the member comment on the response from the parliamentary secretary who talked about how much the government is spending and how much extra it is spending? Is the government spending enough?

I hope September 11 was a wake up call for the government. How prepared are we to defend ourselves if we have to do so? How prepared are we to play our part in the international protection game to protect the countries we have always protected and need to protect in the future? Are we spending enough? Would the member comment on that?

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clearly no. The Government of Canada is not spending enough when it comes to our military. That point can be made in many ways.

The government's commitment was laid out in the 1994 white paper. It is not meeting its own commitment. We can start by that measuring stick. The government is falling well short in terms of the number of people and in terms of funding. It has reduced military spending by 30% in real terms. It put a bit back in but the figure of $3 billion is terribly exaggerated. We must have a meaningful increase in military spending along with other changes. I think Canadians would support that.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by pointing out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mercier.

I agree with all those who spoke this morning that, since September 11, things have changed and are continuing to change at a rather astonishing pace. We have witnessed the entire range of human emotions. In the days since September 11, we have seen the worst and the best of humankind. One month after the attacks, we are still trying to find the most measured course of action. That course of action must also be as humane as possible.

The day of the attack brought images of people in despair, people who were disorganized and could never have imagined what was happening to them. This was followed by a shift toward rage and a desire for revenge. Two or three weeks later, when the attacks on Afghanistan began, the response was a bit more tempered.

Now, we are at another crossroads. After eight or nine days of intensive bombing of Afghanistan, I think that it is time to take stock in the House of Commons.

The motion before us contains three main elements. First the House reaffirms its condemnation of the terrorist attacks against our NATO ally, the United States, on September 11. We have been hearing this condemnation for a month now; people have continually denounced these attacks, which I think will probably have the distinction of being one of the most heinous crimes ever committed. Fifty or 100 years from now, I am sure that the world will still be talking about the fateful date of September 11.

We condemn these terrorist attacks but, as I mentioned, we are now at a crossroads; we are trying to refocus our response. There are still some matters of concern. The situation is evolving and now there is increasing talk of bioterrorism, with cases involving anthrax multiplying in the United States and elsewhere.

The September 11 catastrophe was like a detonator and the world is realizing that the impact could turn out to be greater than it thought. That is why I think it important that we consider a motion such as the one before us today so that we can refocus our response.

The second element of the motion mentions courageous Canadians. I would add that there are certainly some very courageous Quebecers in the contingent going to Afghanistan or to the region.

I would also like to add my voice to those who say that Canada is up to the job that is being asked of it. I have no doubt that the Minister of National Defence is in contact with the American Secretary of Defence. The latter is certainly not about to ask Canada to offer up its entire naval fleet, air force and land forces, as he knows that this is something we could not do.

I do not wish to sound like a hawk, but when something like the events of September 11 happens, we come to the realization that our military is sadly lacking. In parliamentary committee, the minister answered me that Canada's defence budget is the sixth or seventh largest of all 19 NATO allies. However, this is not how a country's efforts are measured. Participation is measured by the percentage of GDP spent on defence.

From this perspective, Canada is second last in the class. Only Luxembourg invests less than we do in national defence. All of the other countries invest more. They may have smaller budgets than Canada's budget; if their economy is smaller than Canada's, then obviously their budget will likewise be smaller. In other words, there may be countries smaller than ours that will invest proportionally more than Canada.

However, the troops we are deploying abroad are setting out with the capabilities at their disposal. It is essentially a naval support operation, the way things look. As for the battle group, we would not want to discuss it too much, since indeed, it involves assault and gorilla troops that will enter without warning. It would be difficult to say how many people we are sending, because that would be akin to revealing our game plan to the terrorists. I understand the government's reluctance about this, but it must be said that the contribution being asked is not a huge one. We are being told that these men and women are being sent to defend democracy.

This is true and perhaps it is time Canadians and Quebecers realized that, considering such events, it is important to invest a little more money, so that if another event takes place, we will not be unprepared as is now the case. So, the Bloc Quebecois supports the second part.

Let us now talk about the importance of convening committees. As far as we are concerned, this is a first step but, as the government knows, we are asking for more than this. Canada is about to send 2,000 troops to an extremely dangerous theatre of operations, yet no vote will be held in the House. We know how our democracy works: there is the executive branch, which is the cabinet; then there is the legislative branch represented by us members of the House of Commons; and finally there is the judicial branch. Right now, everything is strictly in the hands of the executive branch.

The government will tell us that we are allowed to debate the issues, but the role of a member of parliament is not merely to debate, but also to vote. We represent the public in the House and we listen to what the public is saying. People tell us that they want this or that. In the current context, many are talking to us about what is going on. We do not want to merely come here and talk about what is going on. We want to take a stand for our constituents: we want to vote.

I am very pleased that we are having a debate, but this debate will not end with a vote. This evening we will vote on a motion, but we would rather vote on the sending of troops, of naval forces. Statements made in the past by Liberal members were very clear.

At the time, the Deputy Prime Minister said “Liberals insist that before Canadians are called upon to participate in any offensive action, such participation must first be brought before parliament and voted on here in the way it was done at the time of the Korean conflict”. It is clear that when it formed the opposition, the Liberal Party wanted the same thing that we want.

The 1993 red book says:

A Liberal government will also expand the rights of Parliament to debate major Canadian foreign policy initiatives, such as the deployment of peacekeepers--

We are in the process of deploying 2,000 troops. We can express our opinion, but we cannot vote.

A similar statement is found in the 1997 red book:

An independent, effective Canadian foreign policy cannot be achieved without the active participation of Canadians, through public and non-governmental organizations. Under this Liberal government, Parliament and committees of Parliament are offering Canadians more opportunities than ever before to participate in the formulation of foreign policy.

Clearly, we would like a vote to be held. Clearly, we support the three elements of the motion before us.

The troops have not yet left, they are getting ready. What we really want is a vote in the House. I do not see what the government is afraid of, it already has a majority in the House. It already has the support of almost all of the opposition parties. On the whole, we agree with the government's approach until now, as regards the commitment. Why not go that extra step by saying “We are listening, we are allowing debate, and now we will ask you to vote on this”?

Other parliaments are setting the example. France is now saying that before sending troops, they will definitely ask the National Assembly to decide if they will go or not, and how many will be sent.

Yes, the world has changed. Yes, we are at a crossroads. The Bloc Quebecois has said yes to the three elements on three occasions. We would probably say yes to this motion 38 times. I think that if the government were to tell us that there would be a vote prior to sending troops, the Bloc Quebecois would support that. These people are going to be putting their lives at risk and this decision has an economic, political and military impact. The House of Commons must decide on whether or not we will be sending troops, and if so, how many. We must take part in this decision.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the PC/DR motion. I hope that the government will listen to reason and allow the House of Commons to vote on our participation in this international conflict before the troops leave.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the horror of the events that took place in New York and Washington on September 11 has shaken not only the western world, but the whole world.

For North Americans, Americans, Quebecers and Canadians, these events marked the end of a belief, the belief that our own territory was unassailable and impregnable. I say “our territory”, because Montreal is just 500 kilometres away from New York. A number of Quebecers were affected by these events. Indeed, over 120 of them were in New York to prepare an event called Quebec's spring. Instead of working on the first floor of the World Trade Center, these people could have been on the 80th floor. So, they were directly affected.

As time goes by, we are becoming increasingly aware of the scope of the crisis that has been triggered and, more than ever, we must recognize that the fight against terrorism must be an international effort and that the UN must play a key role in it.

The Bloc Quebecois made a number of statements to the effect that a response, which should be targeted and which should spare military personnel, must not be dictated by revenge. The UN security council gave its approval, but only for Afghanistan. The Bloc Quebecois said that this operation must not be an act of vengeance and must not pit one civilization against another, whether Arab or Muslim.

The fight against terrorism concerns everyone and it leaves no country indifferent. This is primarily true of democracies, but also of all countries. And this is why there is a commitment, albeit one that varies from country to country.

Security measures are indeed required, but we must not sacrifice freedom in the name of freedom. Yes, we do need anti-terrorism legislation based on the international conventions that we have already signed and that we will have to ratify and, yes, targeted strikes are also necessary. However, we would completely miss the boat and we would be seriously mistaken if we thought that this is enough.

We must use the situation to understand the extent to which the growing disparity between the have and have not countries plays into the hands of those who reject democracy and freedom, human rights and the rights of women. If we are to continue to defend a world of rights and freedoms, we must make sure that that does not mean poverty for some and wealth for others, because that will not work.

We must use the situation to express the importance in globalization, in trade policy, in Canadian foreign affairs policy. The new Minister of Foreign Affairs wanted to focus more on trade, but he now, I think, understands that this is not possible. We must, I say, focus on the fact that the millions of young people living without hope, often in Arab or Muslim countries, will be a fertile breeding ground for terrorism if they do not receive a strong signal, if they do not have hope of development and of schooling, health and culture, culture that is drawn on their own rich deep cultural heritage.

We must do more than just pay tribute to the courage of the young men and women setting out. It is necessary because nothing is certain. However, if their sacrifices, should there be any, are not to be in vain, we, for our part, must do everything in our power to ensure that this world is less unfair, that it is a place where there can truly be conditions conducive to the development of democracy and of equal rights for women, to children's education and health.

I do not think that it was mere coincidence that the first countries to stand side by side with the United States were Great Britain, with its labour, social democrat government, and France, another social democrat government, which also has a long tradition of defending rights and freedoms, and whose prime minister and president said that there was no question of supporting anything but this campaign targeting Afghanistan. Also on side was Germany, another nation with a social democrat government.

This is interesting because it is a matter of concern today, after all these years of thinking that the only use of the Canadian army, which includes many Quebecers, would be to participate in peacekeeping missions and disaster relief or humanitarian assistance to civilians. But we have come to the sudden troubling realization that it could be called upon to take part in yet another sort of mission.

A point I wish to reiterate has to do with the UN's role, which includes proclaiming and ensuring that justice means international justice. That is why the Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly called on the government to commit to ensuring that bin Laden, who has pretty much admitted his responsibility—that is my understanding anyway—is tried before an international court.

Citizens from a great many countries lost their lives at the World Trade Center. The terrorists' action is international in nature. It is of a sort to be of concern to all democratic nations.

It is essential that the international criminal court to be formed be asked to deal with crimes of terrorism but, until that court is formed, a special international tribunal must be created, under the aegis of the UN, through the security council, to hear those responsible for this terrible attack and their accomplices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague, the member for Mercier, for whom I have a lot of respect. We work together on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I have to say I see a serious contradiction in her position. She says it is vital that the UN play the lead role, that there be an international court to bring those responsible for the attacks and crimes against humanity of September 11 to justice. And yet she says that the Bloc supports the motion and, worse, that the Bloc supports the American and British strikes.

She speaks of a targeted campaign. But she knows full well it is not a targeted campaign. There are a lot of innocent victims, like the UN mine clearance workers, and those killed by another bomb; they speak of computer error.

How many innocent victims are there? How long will the United States take the law into its own hands, with Britain, of course, and a few other countries, including Canada? But they are not the United Nations. The U.S. did not show the UN the evidence they showed NATO.

I therefore ask the member for Mercier how the Bloc can support American strikes when it knows they create more innocent victims and more martyrs while failing to bring the guilty to justice?