Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette.
I am pleased to take part in this debate on the motion moved by the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative caucus coalition for their opposition day.
As might be expected, terrorism is once again at the heart of this debate. The topic is as much in the news as ever and it is obvious that the events of September 11 have had a considerable impact on the daily lives of the public not just in North America, but throughout the world. There is no doubt about the motion's relevance.
First of all, I wish to reaffirm that the Bloc Quebecois and the people of Quebec condemn unconditionally the attacks which took place on September 11. Furthermore, by deciding that article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty applied, a priori, to the terrorist attacks on the United States, NATO decided to implement a mechanism of military solidarity according to which an attack against one member is considered an attack against all. Of course, we already had a moral obligation to support our neighbours to the south in our anti-terrorist crusade. Now, NATO's political initiative has made this a legal obligation as well.
Our support of the United States should not be unswerving and unconditional; we should not grovel before the Americans and accept measures imposed on us unilaterally which are contrary to the system of values on which our society is built.
This caveat is entirely justified because, last Thursday, when he announced new airport security measures, the Minister of Transport perhaps went a bit too far with his statement that Canadians were prepared to make concessions with respect to their freedoms in exchange for greater security. Furthermore, on this same occasion, the minister repeated that he rejected the idea of law enforcement officers in the skies, saying that he felt that the tightening of airport security measures was enough. One day later, the same minister finally gave in to the pressure from Washington and announced that there would be armed RCMP officers on Air Canada flights headed for the American capital.
It may perhaps be useful to remind the Minister of Transport, and indeed the entire government, that following the attacks, the Prime Minister told the House that there was no question of taking measures contrary to the values Canadians hold dear.
Notwithstanding the respect we have for Americans, we must acknowledge that our values differ from theirs. Or at least the values of Quebecers differ from those of Americans. As an example, the October 9 issue of La Presse described Tom Ridge, the newly appointed head of the United States Department of Homeland Security, as being the new key figure in the American fight against terrorism. The paper portrayed him as a fierce supporter of the death penalty who is regularly criticized by civil rights groups that reproach him for his sometimes zealous methods and heavy-handed repression of protests. This speaks volumes.
What is more, the CIA has already announced that it too will be less scrupulous when it comes to respecting rights and freedoms in its investigations. We understand that Americans have been shaken to the core by the September 11 attacks, and that they wish to avoid a repeat of the tragedy.
However, are we to sacrifice our own democratic values because of this? We would change from a constitutional state to a police state. The answer is a categorical no. By reacting in such a way, we concede victory to terrorists. Our way of life cannot be dictated in any way by a handful of fanatics who hold western values in contempt.
In 1982 Canada created a charter of rights and freedoms that recognizes the rule of law. Indeed, section 8 of the charter guarantees a right to protection against abusive searches or seizures.
In a 1988 ruling written by Justice La Forest, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled:
The restraints imposed on government to pry into the lives of the citizen go to the essence of a democratic state.
Although the current context justifies putting certain extraordinary measures in place, the solutions chosen must ensure a balance between security and individuals' right to minimal intrusion by the state into their private lives. Measures taken to calm the feeling of panic experienced by the public could in the long term do more harm than good.
I do not want to be too negative, but there is the saying that man will do what man will do. Human nature being what it is, abuse does not need much encouragement. No more than a little is needed. I am not saying anyone is acting in bad faith, but it is clear that the events of September 11 could serve as an excellent pretext for certain groups to call for increased powers and funding.
We are aware that there is no miracle cure for terrorism. It is no simple virus a good antibiotic can knock out. However, shooting wildly all over the place is not an appropriate solution. This sort of behaviour simply raises public anxiety and just about totally discredits the administration of justice.
On the other hand, the Bloc Quebecois feels that intelligence services and police forces should focus on the groups that are a real threat to our society and our security, instead of harassing peaceful groups that protest democratically to voice their opposition to government policies.
Moreover, the information gathered during these investigations should regularly be transmitted to decision makers in positions of authority, rather than get lost in the bureaucratic maze, as often seems to be the case.
Finally, adding to these two possible solutions anti-terrorist legislation that, for example, criminalized certain acts, such as funding activities and plotting leading to such terrorist acts, would be a step in the right direction. All this could be done with a minimum of intrusion by the state in people's lives.
In short, there is no doubt as to whether or not we must condemn the September 11 terrorist attacks. We have not stopped condemning them and we will continue to do so.
However, as for the support that we should give to the United States to fight against this scourge, we must not let Washington unilaterally impose rules that go against the fundamental principles of our democracy.
In order to do that, the government will have to show much stronger leadership than it has so far. Make no mistake about it: right now, the government's strategy has much more to do with improvisation than with careful planning.
Essentially, we must not panic. To do so would be tantamount to conceding victory to terrorists. Public security is not necessarily at greater risk than it was before September 11.
Moreover, these events have made us realize that we are vulnerable. Therefore, we must act intelligently and show good judgment to take actions that will be effective and beneficial in the long term, while imposing a minimum of constraints.