Debates of Oct. 15th, 2001

Supply

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as the member spoke I just made a few notes here. I am sure I am missing some.

This issue deals with immigration aspects. It deals with the ministers of immigration, customs and revenue. It deals with health. It deals with the military. It deals with the Minister of Transport. To deal with these in isolation is wrong.

Yes, the committees have met. We have met for an hour with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He has agreed to come back and I am sure he will come back. The Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot help us to understand the aspects of transportation, immigration, customs and revenue and all of these things.

The motion has an amendment in it. If the member read the amendment or listened to the amendment today it states that the committees can meet separately but it would also not rule out the fact that we could meet together. The advantage of these committees meeting together is that we could all contribute and share ideas.

The member should not be concerned. These are good ideas which should alleviate his concerns. It is only appropriate and it would happen in any other walk of life.

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

Mr. Speaker, to add a further point to the comments made by my colleague in the coalition, the amendment very clearly states that the committees will meet frequently and it opens the possibility of committees meeting jointly. The hon. member is not accurate in saying that somehow this would tie the hands of the committees, government or personnel by binding them to meet jointly. They can continue, as the member has alluded to. They have met and we are hoping they will meet more frequently.

We are living in heightened times, certainly emergency times in many instances. The purpose and the motive behind the motion is to ensure we are doing everything possible, everything that should be and is expected of us in this time of heightened awareness of terrorism in the country. It would include of course having the committees meet together where there would be specific references to justice, health, immigration or defence. All these committees can on occasion meet together and I think that has now been made very clear.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the first speaker raised the concern that our proposal was based upon the gulf war. Well the gulf war strategy worked. I do not understand why will the Liberals not accept a strategy that works. To question it does not make sense to me because it is a proven strategy. It worked and was very successful. Everyone learned more and everyone won.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will split my time with the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton. I would like the Chair to notify me two minutes before the end of my 10 minutes.

We keep saying that democracy and freedom are fundamental values in which Canadians sincerely believe, and which our government vigorously defends. These values were attacked on September 11.

As a member of this House, I appreciate every opportunity that we have to express our views on issues that are of interest to our society. Since we came back, since these attacks took place, we have had the opportunity to express our sorrow in light of these events, and also our views as to what our government should do.

Today, members of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Canadian Alliance Party or the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative caucus coalition—I no longer know how to identify them—are back with a motion whose content looks like déjà vu.

It is said that the opposition has so little to contribute that it must come back with issues that have already been dealt with the House since September 11.

Here is an example. The first part of the motion asks:

That this House reaffirm its condemnation of the terrorist attacks against our NATO ally—

But since September 17, the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers and almost every member in the House have repeatedly condemned these attacks and they have discussed these events on several occasions.

The second part of the motion provides that this House:

—affirm its support for Canada's courageous men and women in the Canadian forces who are responding to defend freedom and democracy—

Again, the Prime Minister made a statement to that effect. So did the Minister of National Defence. Since the beginning of October, most ministers and members of parliament have stressed the efforts of our people, of our men and women in the Canadian forces, and their role in this situation. That part of the motion is also unnecessary.

The third part almost questions the role of the House. It provides that this House hereby order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to sit jointly to hold frequent meetings.

I think we have to distinguish between the executive and legislative branches. Also, the Prime Minister already announced the creation of a committee that is known as a war committee, where all of these departments and others are represented, specifically tasked to co-ordinate and better target the actions of the Government of Canada in the fight against terrorism, and to improve the protection of Canadian citizens. Therefore, this motion comes a bit too late. It is as though they wanted to kill time.

However, on the issue of striking certain committees, I would also like to remind members of the House, and opposition members in particular, that the House of Commons already has a set of standing committees. I quote:

Standing committees shall be ... empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House—

—to send for persons, papers and records—

When a witness has declined an invitation to appear, a committee may issue a summons to that witness by adopting a motion to that effect. If a proposed witness fails to appear when summoned, the committee may report the fact to the House. The House then takes any action it deems appropriate.

Another quote reads:

Committees are not empowered to summon members of the House of Commons. Should a member refuse to testify when requested to do so by a committee, the committee can report this to the House.

[Standing committees shall be... empowered] to sit jointly with other standing committees—

And another quote reads:

It is left to each standing committee to decide the extent to which it will exercise the powers granted to it by the House.

So, instead of bringing forward motions to set up new committees or new commissions, it would be better to ensure that members of parliament fully exercise the powers they already wield within existing committees.

However, we cannot ignore the current world crisis. No one could have imagined what has happened. Some would argue that it could have been prevented. Were there indicators that such acts could be carried out? Not many members in this House, especially in the opposition, are wondering how we can fight terrorism, why we have ended up in this situation, but mostly how we can prevent terrorism.

I think that one way to deal with terrorism would be to establish an international coalition against poverty. Canada could provide some leadership in this area. In the long term, the most serious problem that the international community will have to face to make this world a better one will be to eradicate poverty and promote social inclusion throughout the world.

This has become a matter of great urgency since, because of the terrorist attacks, growth will slow down in developing countries, which means that millions more will live in poverty and tens of thousands of children will die of malnutrition, disease and destitution.

There are over 39 million refugees on the planet today. That is more than Canada's population. Several millions of them have lived in refugee camps for years. And we can now add to that three to four million new refugees from Afghanistan.

Poverty in itself is not a direct source of conflict. However, extensive studies show that, even if ethnic diversity is usually blamed, civil wars have often been the result of various factors, poverty being a key factor. Countries that are torn by conflicts become havens for terrorists.

It is easier to turn the poorest people on the planet into terrorists when they have nothing to lose. One just has to look back in history to see how the communist movement took hold in certain countries. Most of these countries were facing difficulties.

There are also on this planet, more particularly in western countries, over 500 million people living a comfortable life, as opposed to over five billion people living in poverty. This means that wealth can be created but that it remains in the hands of a minority. It is not shared. Our common goal must be to eliminate poverty and to promote social justice so that all those who are marginalized can be integrated into our global economy and our global society.

Increasingly, I have come to think that Canada can play a leadership role in this area and probably take advantage of its membership in the G-8 to try to rekindle the discussion on James Tobin's famous proposal for a tax on financial transactions.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have an opportunity to address the House on the aftermath of the attacks of September 11. I think it is important to once again reflect on the magnitude of the monstrous crime that was committed. Over 5,000 lives were lost: mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, small children, aunts, uncles and grandparents, all were lost to humanity.

Once again my thoughts go to the heroism of the emergency workers, the firefighters and the police that were involved. I do not think we will ever forget those images as long as we live. It is worth mentioning that these attacks were not simply on the United States but on all free and democratic societies that value human rights and human life. The World Trade Center was not just a symbol of the financial power of New York and the United States but a symbol of the global village we live in. The 60 or so nationalities represented among the dead are a testament to that.

With respect to the motion before us, I do not think anyone disagrees with the first part of the motion. I think we all support what the hon. member for Calgary Centre has said in the motion. However, I must say that I was disappointed and concerned about the fact that the hon. member for Calgary Centre did not bother to consult with the chairs of either the foreign affairs committee or the defence committee. As chair of the defence committee I would have thought that the hon. member would have taken the time to perhaps give me a call and ask what the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs is doing.

Let me tell the House what our committee is doing. It is involved very extensively right now with a study of counterterrorism. We are looking at some of the long range or mid range issues that flow from the whole issue of counterterrorism in terms of the potential role of special forces, Canada's emergency preparedness from the standpoint of critical infrastructure, and the whole issue of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare and our level of preparedness in that area. In terms of responding to terrorist threats internationally, there is the whole issue of long range lift capability.

These are some of the issues we expect to deal with in the coming weeks and months and I expect that as well we will be able to put together a report on these issues for the House to consider. I am hoping very much that the government will take that report very seriously, because what we have been doing on the issue of counterterrorism relates as well to the whole issue of military preparedness and the operational readiness of the Canadian forces, which is something we have been studying for a number of months.

Getting back to the terrorist attacks on the United States, there has been a lot of discussion both nationally and internationally on the proper response to these attacks. Of course we are now engaged in a military confrontation with terrorism that is part of a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional campaign to rid the world of this terrible scourge. As a direct result of this campaign there has been some criticism among peace groups that the military assault currently taking place is both illegal and immoral.

First, the decision to commence hostilities against a foe is by any measure the most important decision that a government or a leader is called upon to make. To put the lives of the armed forces in harm's way, that potential life or death decision, speaks to the most important role any state has, that is, to protect the lives of its citizens. The decision is one that in my view must be taken with the utmost care and must, at least in a democratic society, meet significant moral and legal criteria. It is my view that the responses of the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have met the test of being both moral and legal. It is important to keep in mind as well that the terrorists we are fighting are not bound by any such considerations or restrictions.

Let me briefly review for the House some of the events that have occurred thus far in terms of the international community's response.

One of the first things the international community did was to pass resolution 1368 at the United Nations. The resolution talks about the need to bring to justice the perpetrators. It expresses sympathy and condolences to the victims, their families and the people of the United States of America. Most important, it also talks about recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the charter of the United Nations.

A couple of weeks later on September 28 the UN passed a comprehensive resolution, resolution 1373, which mapped out a strategy that states should employ to deal with the scourge of terrorism. Most important, it reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognized by the charter of the United Nations and as reiterated in resolution 1368.

What does the United Nations charter have to say about attacks against a particular state? Article 51 of the UN charter states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

By virtue of that article the United States has a responsibility to contact the United Nations when it has been attacked and when it is in the process of taking action itself. That is precisely what the United States did on October 7.

In a letter dated October 7, 2001 from the permanent representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the president of the security council, Mr. John Negroponte enumerated all the reasons why the United States was responding and by doing so fully complied with article 51 of the United Nations charter.

A lot of people have talked about the role of the United Nations. Some people have said that the United Nations should be playing a greater role. I think the response of the United Nations was very clear in terms of some comments made by Kofi Annan in his statement of October 8. He said:

Immediately after the 11 September attacks on the United States, the United Nations Security Council expressed its determination to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. The Council also reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.The states concerned have set their military action in Afghanistan in that context.

The United Nations said very clearly that the United States has the right of self-defence. It is pursuing its interests on that basis. That is very important from the standpoint of the legal aspect of the United States' actions thus far.

There is a lot more I would like to say about this issue but time is limited. In terms of responding to these attacks, the United States has taken military action on the basis of a very serious military threat that exists within al-Qaeda. Some people have been thinking that perhaps al-Qaeda is a small group of terrorists who get together to plot these horrific actions. It is in fact a substantially large military organization that needs to be stopped. The military actions that the United States is taking along with Great Britain and Canada are in that respect absolutely necessary under the circumstances.

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

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Nepean--Carleton mentioned the fact that the hon. leader of the PC Party did not get in touch with him, he being the chair of the veterans affairs committee and I being a member, before we brought forth today's motion.

I think that when the right hon. member for Calgary Centre brought forth the motion, it was not to be a political one. It was a motion to say that all those involved here must come together just as was done in the United States. When President Bush spoke, it should be noted that all the Democrats got up. They were all together. No one was condemning anyone else. They came together. We must bring all of our committees together that are dealing with this horrendous situation. They can work on and I am sure bring forth policies that are going to make our national security safer for all people.

I have great respect for the hon. member as chair of our veterans committee, I truly do. He works extremely hard. I feel that my colleague wants to do what is right for all Canadians. Does the hon. member not feel it is better to bring all representatives of those committees together so they can share all the information they have and then come forth with policies that are good for all people from coast to coast?

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very kind and generous comments. We do not disagree too often in the defence committee, but from time to time there are a few points on which we part company.

With respect to the issue of the committees being involved, I think this motion would have been just fine if it had stuck with the first paragraph dealing with condemnation of the terrorist attacks and support for the Canadian forces involved. What rankled somewhat was the implication in the second paragraph that somehow these committees were not doing their jobs.

I think the hon. member knows that we have been working hard on the issue of operational readiness of the Canadian forces in the past. Everyone agreed at the steering committee as well that we should pursue the issue of the study of counterterrorism. I think there is a lot of agreement there.

However, I would not want to leave members with the impression that we should be involved on a day to day basis with respect to the operational issues that confront the government. I do not think that is the role of committees. The role of committees is to develop longer term, mid range or long range policies that will help the government deal with the operational issues at some point in the future and the larger issues that loom on the horizon.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have taken part in a debate on the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks and I wish to express my deepest sympathy to the American people and to the families, friends and colleagues of those who died.

Violence is always unacceptable. It is all the more so when it is directed at civilians. This is true in the United States, and it is true elsewhere. We all agree that terrorism must be fought with close international co-operation. As has been repeatedly observed, democracy was attacked on September 11 and it is up to all democracies to rise up against terrorism.

Since it was also democracy that was attacked, we must all be above reproach democratically speaking. That is why, since the House returned, the Bloc Quebecois has repeatedly called for a vote in the House on any major military, diplomatic or financial decision, just as the Liberal Party of Canada did when it was in opposition.

It will be recalled that in 1990, during the gulf war, there was a debate involving the responsibilities of the Canadian government. Interestingly, the current leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the time.

The motion he moved read as follows:

That this House, noting that the Government of Iraq has not complied with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the invasion of Kuwait and the detention of third country nationals, supports the United Nations in its efforts to ensure compliance with Security Council resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions.

At the time, November 28, 1990, the now Deputy Prime Minister moved an amendment. This amendment read as follows:

—that this support shall not be interpreted as approval of the use of Canadian Forces for offensive action without further consultation without further consultation with and approval by this House.

The then critic for the Liberal Party of Canada, now 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.

Obviously, the motion by the current Deputy Prime Minister was put to a vote and rejected, and that of the current leader of the Progressive Conservative Party was put to a vote and passed.

It is interesting to see that, almost 11 years later, we find ourselves in a similar situation. The resolution of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Caucus Coalition also shows the relevance of involving parliamentarians in important decisions.

I will focus on the third part of the motion, which seems to be going along the same lines as what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying over the last few weeks, namely that the House should vote on any major decision concerning the fight against terrorism.

The third part of the motion reads as follows:

That this House hereby order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to sit jointly to hold frequent meetings with ministers and officials of the government and the military.

We think that this part of the motion, as well as the rest of it, if it were implemented, would be a step in the right direction. It seems to me that the Liberal government would be well advised to show some openness to really involving parliamentarians in the whole decision making process at this crucial time, which requires co-operation and co-ordination among all parties.

We will support this motion. Personally, I must say that I support the third part of the motion in particular. I hope that it can be implemented and that we will be able to pursue the debate so that the House and parliamentarians are indeed called upon to vote on all major decisions on the military, financial and diplomatic front.

It is clear that, when talking about close co-operation, one must refer to the United Nations and the UN charter. We think this is extremely important.

This issue has been debated a number of times. To be effective, this international coalition must, as much as possible and whenever appropriate, be placed under the auspices of the UN to avoid falling in the trap set by the terrorists, namely presenting this fight against terrorism as a war between cultures.

I believe it is critically important, especially in view of the fears created in the Muslim world by the air strikes in Afghanistan, that the UN be called upon to play an increasingly important role. Canada must lead the way to ensure the UN plays the role it should, especially if we are told, as was the case these past few days, that military retaliation might encompass countries other than Afghanistan.

We have said it over and over again but it bears repeating: It is not against Islam, it is not against the Arab world, it is against terrorism that we are at war. This is why the UN must be called upon to plan a much greater role than the U.S. government seems to be willing to consider for now.

This is also why it is essential for leaders in every circle in Canada and Quebec--I do mean every circle, not only political, but also social and religious circles--to remind people that in no way, shape or form should the attacks of September 11 be attributed to any given ethnic of religious group.

In this respect, I very much appreciated the statements by the Bloc Quebecois leader and the Quebec premier, especially when the Bloc Quebecois leader told the House that Allah or God should be left out of human conflicts and when the Quebec premier said “Let us not sow hatred where the terrorists could not sow death”.

Any act of intolerance must be denounced and condemned both by parliamentarians and those in our communities who are in a position to play a leading role and influence public opinion.

As was pointed out earlier--and the Bloc Quebecois agrees on this--the United States and their allies need to retaliate against these terrorist attacks, but their response has to be well targeted and not affect civilians unfairly.

After a week now of air strikes, we have every reason to be concerned about the impact on the civilian population, especially the people of Afghanistan. Drought conditions have existed there for five years now and an almost permanent state of war has been in effect for more than 20 years.

There are currently five million people at risk. In addition to supporting the Americans, we should make it a priority to help out the people affected by this world crisis. Let me remind the House that the people of Afghanistan did not elect the Taliban and did not invite the terrorists to seek refuge in their country.

So, it seems that Canada should be doing a lot more in terms of humanitarian assistance for the Afghan people. At $6 million, Canada's spending on these operations is totally laughable, compared to what Norway, a much smaller country in terms of population, is spending. I hope the government will announce more spending in the hours and the days to come.

We also need to work harder to build a fairer, more secure world for everyone. As we all know, terrorism is not totally but primarily fed by injustice and poverty. I think Canada must take the lead and ensure that the globalization movement already under way is at the service of the people, which has not been the case, so far, as we saw, for instance during the summit in Quebec City.

Canada must provide the example in humanitarian aid. Canadian humanitarian aid is at the lowest level it has been in 30 years. We must be consistent. This consistency could begin today with an example of symbolic value in the Muslim world, namely, the lifting of sanctions against Iraq on everything not related to military products. It seems to me that in this regard Canada could score a few points and show itself to indeed be a leader, as it was a few decades ago, so Quebecers and Canadians can work toward making the world a better place to live.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to again make the comment in regard to having some concern with the enthusiasm for the second part of the motion with regard to the joint committee issue and the amendment which basically broadens attending committee, only from the standpoint that committees already have the authority and the right to have joint meetings at any time. In fact, we have on many occasions. I do not see how this is terribly relevant, but I am sure that the overriding mood will be with regard to the first part of the motion on condemnation of the terrorists and, second, support for our military.

However I think it is important to put on the record that we have had our ministers and their senior departmental officials at committee many times already. The Minister of Transport came before the transport committee. In fact the transport committee will be at Pearson airport this week to look at airline and airport security and safety in order to be able to report to Canadians.

We have had the Minister of Foreign Affairs before the foreign affairs committee and the finance committee. We have had the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration before committee. The Minister of National Defence has been before the defence committee. The RCMP and CSIS have already reported before committees. There has been substantial consultation for MPs and there have been opportunities to ask questions of virtually every minister and every departmental official related to the issue to ensure that all the information is on the table.

Canadians should be aware that MPs have been very active and involved. I hope the member will well understand that it would be very problematic to have joint meetings when in fact specific meetings, whether on a health issue or whatever, would be much more focused and probably much more helpful to committee members, by having meetings of the committee with the ministers who are available to committees at any time they are requested to be there.

Perhaps the member would like to comment on the efficacy or the effectiveness of having broad based joint meetings.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the majority in the House, the Liberal Party of Canada, support the elements of the motion, since they are already in effect, in their opinion. They talk of condemning the attacks, of expressing our support for the Canadian military and, finally, of encouraging committees to work with ministers. There are two ways of looking at this. Either they agree with that, and I see no reason why the Liberals would not vote for the motion in that case, or elements of the motion irritate them.

Up to now, I have not understood which, apart perhaps from the fact that they feel--this is a matter of perception--that to reaffirm these things and to insist that standing committees work with ministers are things that might be implicit criticism of what they do.

I have no problem reaffirming with the House the fact that we condemn the terrorist actions of September 11. We wish to pay tribute to the courage of the Canadian military. We think the committees, the ministers and all parliamentarians must work together until the House is called to vote on major decisions on military, financial and diplomatic questions relating to this fight against terrorism.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if there is still some time left at the end of my speech, I will share it with the member for Mississauga West.

I am pleased to speak today on the opposition motion of the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition. To start with, my comments will deal with the motion but they will mainly be a reflection on the tragic events.

For many of our compatriots, including Americans, the present times are very difficult. I support wholeheartedly the position of our government, which has decided to take an active part, within our means, in the eradication of terrorism.

I refer to eradication of terrorism and not to a war against Muslims, and even less to a clash of civilizations as some have already called this conflict. The expression clash of civilizations, which we often hear, comes from the title of a book written by an American academic, Samuel Huntington. According to him, the west has become a favourite target because of its behaviour, its materialism and because it has replaced old colonialism by a new form of colonialism by which it regularly intervenes in the culture of other countries. One can easily be seduced by this kind of theory, but the reality is quite different.

In order to try to understand the events of September 11, if it is at all possible to understand such an act of barbarism, one has to go back and, in this case, read history. As a matter of fact, history teaches us, among other things, that kamikazes do not commit suicide in the name of religion but rather for a cause, an ideology.

We only have to think about the ideology of Japanese kamikaze pilots, who were not Muslims, during the World War II, and closer to our time to the Tamils, who are not Muslims either, who act as human bombs and commit suicide to protest against the government of Sri Lanka.

We must understand, after analyzing the issue, that the present problem finds its source in Islam. The present war is not only a war between the west and fundamentalists like bin Laden, but also a religious war inside Islam itself. As North Americans, we tend to see in that a resurgence of the crusades. It is not at all the case. The answer is much closer to us, to our time.

This extreme violence, this intolerance and this fanaticism have their origins in Saudi Arabia at the end of the 18th century. It is Wahhabism, a political and religious movement that bears the name of its founder, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. This movement is based on the principle of one god whose instructions must be followed blindly. Wahhabites are known for their rigid moral standards. They condemn music, poetry, tobacco and alcohol. Their goal is to create other states that adhere to their puritanism. It is the most extreme form of fundamentalism. It should be noted that all the September 11 kamikaze belonged to that group.

Bin Laden, who was born in Saudi Arabia, is a Wahhabi. Those responsible for the assassination of President Sadat in Egypt were Wahhabis. Those responsible for the attacks against tourists in Luxor, Egypt were also Wahhabis. In Algeria, this political and religious movement is responsible for over 100,000 deaths. Moreover, it should be noted that all those killed in Algeria were Muslims.

The same thing is happening in Kashmir, where the Wahhabis kill Hindus. It is also the same thing in Chechnya. There is always a common denominator and that common denominator is Wahhabism.

So what must the western world do? What must Canada do? Currently, there are over six million Muslims in the United States, and theirs is the fastest growing religion. According to some sources, 80% of mosques are under the control of Wahhabi imams and these mosques are funded by Saudi Arabia. Moreover, whether in the United States or elsewhere, the vast majority of these imams preach extremism. This is certainly not to say that the Muslims who go to these mosques all accept the views of their imams.

But the fact remains that we must act. So, what are we to do? What action should we take? The issue is much more serious, much deeper than bin Laden himself. The first question to ask ourselves is how to help Muslim groups resist fundamentalism. The United States undoubtedly have to do some thinking, considering who they supported in Pakistan and in Afghanistan during the cold war with the former Soviet Union.

Second, if bin Laden were to disappear somehow, would this mean the end of the bombardments and the climate of terror? The answer is obvious. Could it mean the end of Wahhabism? Surely not. So, who are we going to discuss and negotiate with?

Professor Seyyed Vali Reza Nash of the political science department of the University of California at San Diego, the author of a book on the extremists in Pakistan, believes that Saudi Arabia alone is capable of resolving this impasse.

In conclusion, although engaged in this necessary fight against terrorism, Canada must try as well to play the role of peacemaker, facilitator, be it within the UN or other bodies. Canada must help Islam find a solution, because, in the long term, the solution has to come from Islam.

I conclude by reiterating my full support for and solidarity with our Canadian forces, who are coming to the defence of liberty and democracy as part of an international military coalition. I will be pleased to support the opposition motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's statement. I would like to know more about his feelings on Saudi Arabia being part of the solution, if I heard him right, to the problem that exists within the Islam community. I wonder if he could expand on that a little for the House and explain to us the connections among Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and the other areas that are in conflict in regard to the Muslim faith and Islam.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is very complex and the solutions do not come easily.

We must remember that around 1979, during the east-west cold war, the former Soviet Union with its president, Mr. Brezhnev, decided to invade Afghanistan. One reason for this decision was an attempt to have access to the Arabian Sea. At the time, the Soviet Union had access to the North Sea, which is blocked by ice in winter, and to the Black Sea, where traffic is controlled by Turkey.

So in order to have a military base so they could establish a fleet on the Arabian Sea the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and failed.

However, to offset the Soviet attack on Afghanistan, mercenaries arrived from Saudi Arabia and some of the Maghreb states. They were all Wahhabis. This is one reason for the tinder box in this part of the world, especially in Afghanistan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very quick question for the hon. member opposite. He has displayed a unique and very historical understanding of the situation in the Middle East and in Afghanistan in particular.

I am wondering if he would agree that there may be a unique opportunity for us at this time to call upon members of the Islamic and Muslim communities who have a distinct understanding of the situation there. If we are to try to infiltrate terrorist cells both at home and abroad, we will need that type of specific and very specialized knowledge. With the new budget that will be allotted by the solicitor general's department, I am wondering if this is something we should be doing, that is, recruiting CSIS agents from within the Islamic-Muslim community.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I think the hon. member is completely right. If we want to do a great job we need to understand that part of the world properly. The only way to understand that part of the world is to understand the vision of these people, not through the eyes of North Americans but through the eyes of the people who have the knowledge.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 6.34 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Deputy Speaker]

The next question is on the main motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.