Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the House for its unanimous consent to give us all an opportunity today to address this very serious matter in this take-note debate.
Since it is a take note debate on the actions of this government, this country and other countries in reaction to the horrors of September 11, I wish to convey to the government some of the concerns and thoughts that I have heard expressed from people whom I have been elected to represent in the House.
First, I have heard universal condemnation for the attacks of September 11 on the American eastern seaboard in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania and more recently through biological terrorism all over North America and perhaps elsewhere in the world. There is universal condemnation of that.
Second, I have heard that people want the perpetrators of these attacks brought to justice. That is again a nearly universal position and certainly a strong indication of the will to eradicate terrorism. Those are essentially the opinions that I have received.
I would say that in terms of what the government has done, the reaction is somewhat mixed. About 10% of the people to whom I have spoken believe we are going too far with the proposals. Another 20% or so are saying that we are not doing enough. About 60% to 70% are saying that they are generally okay with the direction that the government has taken so far in terms of military action, diplomatic action, financial action, legal action and the necessity for more intelligence to better cope with the terrorism threat.
Essentially, that means a majority say yes to military intervention, but not universal support and I recognize that. I have had letters and phone calls from people who would rather that we not participate in a military effort. However a majority of the people who have written me or called my office have indicated their support for Canada's military participation in the campaign against the ongoing terrorism.
There is a definite and resounding yes also to increased humanitarian aid, especially for the Afghan people and the Afghan refugees who are living under extreme conditions. There is no hesitation from almost any quarters. Again, that is close to universal approval for increased aid to the Afghan people from our government, our country and our people.
I would also indicate from discussions that I have had that there is overwhelming support for the continuation of our immigration policies. I distinguish between immigration and refugee. If I am to be faithful to what I have heard, I must indicate that there are serious concerns with our refugee process, not with the notion of us welcoming refugees but with the current way we handle that system, and I believe it is my responsibility to convey that to the government in this take-note debate.
On the matter of security measures, such as have been introduced today at first reading, there is some general support but some very strong words of caution that we not restrict unduly civil liberties.
That is what I have been hearing and I wish to convey that to the government in terms of take-note for the purposes of this debate.
I would also like to add some thoughts of my own. Terrorism is by its very nature unpredictable. We may wish to tighten security at the airports, at our ports and at our borders. That in and of itself is a good thing if only to prevent those who may be tempted to attempt similar types of terrorist acts or even to foil the efforts of others.
In that sense, it is appropriate that we increase our capacity to prevent. However, if we stop at that, we are seriously mistaken.
I had occasion on September 10 to speak at the 47th annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. I addressed the assembly in terms of whether parliaments around the world subject scientific advances to legislation and the regulatory framework. I had occasion to quote a fellow by the name of Bill Joy, and I will quote him again tonight. Bill Joy is a co-founder and chief scientist of Sun Microsystems. He wrote a rather disturbing article in the April 2000 issue of Wired magazine, a piece titled “Why the future doesn't need us”. I will quote four very brief passages of the article because it would take too long, in time allowed, to quote it all. He said:
Accustomed to living with almost routine scientific breakthroughs, we have yet to come to terms with the fact that the most compelling 21st-century technologies--robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology--pose a different threat than the technologies that have come before. Specifically, robots, engineered organisms, and nanobots share a dangerous amplifying factor: They can self-replicate. A bomb is blown up only once--but one bot can become many, and quickly get out of control.
A little further on he says:
Perhaps it is always hard to see the bigger impact while you are in the vortex of a change. Failing to understand the consequences of our inventions while we are in the rapture of discovery and innovation seems to be a common fault of scientists and technologists; we have long been driven by the overarching desire to know that is the nature of science's quest, not stopping to notice that the progress to newer and more powerful technologies can take on a life of its own.
Later he states:
Unfortunately, as with nuclear technology, it is far easier to create destructive uses for nanotechnology than constructive ones. Nanotechnology has clear military and terrorist uses, and you need not be suicidal to release a massively destructive nanotechnological device--such devices can be built to be selectively destructive, affecting, for example, only a certain geographical area or a group of people who are genetically distinct.
Finally, he states:
In truth, we have had in hand for years clear warnings of the danger inherent in widespread knowledge of GNR technologies--
This is for genomics, robotics and nanotechnology.
--of the possibility of knowledge alone enabling mass destruction. But these warnings haven't been widely publicized; the public discussions have been clearly inadequate. There is no profit in publicizing the dangers.
As we progress scientifically, it behooves us all in our institutions, whatever they may be, to make sure that our scientific progress is limited as much as possible to the benefit of mankind of our human species and not to its destruction. I urge those in our government who have the responsibility for these institutions to make sure that they take great care of the use of the knowledge we are generating.
Another random thought, perhaps not that random, is that I encourage my colleagues in the House from all parties to keep in mind the concept of separation of church and state as we engage in these debates. I believe that it is an extremely sound principle and one of which we should not lose sight. I sense that on some occasions we have had a tendency to invoke God on either side of this issue. I urge my colleagues to be very careful in maintaining this principled separation of church and state.
Finally, these events will help us reaffirm the importance of government in our society and of public good. Profitability in and of itself is fine, but it cannot be the end-all of our society. It cannot be the driving force of humanism.
If there can be any good coming from these events of September 11, that might be indeed reaffirmation of this value that the common good is not to be valued less than profitability.
I would have liked to have gone on and perhaps invoked the notion that it might be time for nations around the world to consider a stand-alone UN military force, supported by these nations around the world so that it is not always at the bequest of nations to participate in efforts that may be required urgently. Perhaps I will have another occasion in the near future to debate that.
I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to put these thoughts to paper so that perhaps they can be useful in the days ahead.