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.