Debates of Oct. 15th, 2001

Supply

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's words. To be frank, what came to my mind was that it was a canned speech supplied by the office of the Minister of National Defence. To say that the government has had a balanced and committed approach to the challenge, I would categorically disagree.

A committed and balanced approach in a leadership role would have indicated that the government would have recalled parliament immediately after the events of September 11, that it would have immediately taken certain measures to change things within the Ministry of Transport regarding the safety of aircraft, that we would have put our troops on some type of military footing expecting they could be committed to the operation. Most of all parliamentarians would have had an immediate debate in the House on whether or not we will commit our troops to war.

Does the hon. member think Canada should do what the government has done and that it has been correct in committing our troops to war without approval and parliamentary debate?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks which are my own, I believe the government has responded in a balanced, thoughtful, timely way. It has responded to the challenges as they have emerged. Parliament has had significant opportunity to debate the issue. Parliament has been kept informed as we have moved along. I believe the government has responded appropriately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for her comments.

I will put the same question to her to which I was very unsuccessful in getting an answer from her colleague just moments ago. It was a question I had to ask three times and to which I never did receive an answer. I received some personal insults from the member, but that is the cut and thrust of what goes on in this place sometimes.

I will ask my colleague from the governing party whether or not she will be standing in her place tonight when the PC/DR coalition's motion comes to a vote and showing by her actions that she supports the motion. Will she be voting yes to the motion tonight?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to reply as my colleague did before with ditto, but I do not want to get into the analogy of apple pie and motherhood. I do believe that this is a motion that addresses the concerns of all Canadians. As my colleague across the House has said, stay tuned, I think he will be pleased.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to advise the House that I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Prince Albert.

It is a pleasure to join in today's debate. Unfortunately as some other members have already stated, I do find the motion from the Conservative Party fairly innocuous. It is a bit of a motherhood statement, things we can basically all agree on, but it really gives us very little substance to debate. However it is before the House and I am prepared to debate it. The motion calls for several things and I will take them in order.

The first is that the House reaffirms its condemnation of the terrorist acts against our NATO ally the United States of America. Like many in this Chamber, I have gone on public record stating my abhorrence of the September 11 acts of terrorism. The horror we all felt at seeing these particular acts committed against a democratic nation will be etched in our minds forever.

Many have stated, and I agree, that our world has changed since that day. Some have said that the western world lost a sense of innocence. Others have said that there was no way for us to anticipate such an attack. Whatever our thoughts on this, all reasonable people would condemn these acts of terrorism and I would certainly urge the House to continue to do so.

The motion continues with support for Canada's courageous men and women in the Canadian armed forces who are responding to defend freedom and democracy in the international military coalition against terrorism. I am pleased to note that currently around 200 members of the armed forces live in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan, representing perhaps 200 families and many more people. I am honoured to represent them as their member of parliament because I know they in turn are proud to serve their country especially at this time of international crisis.

It is with pleasure therefore that I support the Canadian men and women who are moving to protect our freedoms. The commitment and challenges they face are enormous. We all recognize the challenges that are faced on the military side. Consider for a moment the challenges which they face at a personal level. On the home front with moms and dads away for extended periods of time, there are lots of changes in the family unit. Hockey games and dance recitals will be missed. Birthday parties and holiday events will only be celebrated through pictures and letters. We see these men and women make a commitment to this military effort which many of us do not have to face and I thank them for it.

I would offer a challenge for those of us who remain at home. Let us look around us and support those families who have a loved one on duty during this current conflict. Take a youngster to a hockey game. Support the moms and dads who tend the home front.

Since September 11 we as a nation have felt a stronger level of support for one another than for many years past, so let us not lose that sense of community. We are indeed our brother's keeper so let us reach out to those who need our support.

As a nation Canada has a long and proud military history. In the past we have done what other armies were not able to do. In many ways we became a nation during World War II when we first sent our finest and bravest to the front as a cohesive unit under Canadian authority.

Therefore I support the action of our armed forces being a part of this international coalition to fight terrorism. I must confess however that at the same time I feel this great pride in our armed forces, I am also somewhat concerned. I am concerned that the government has not given them the equipment necessary to perform their task in the most effective and safest manner possible.

I shudder to think that we might send troops into war zones with those old Sea King helicopters. Yes, the Sea Kings have served us well, but let us face the fact they are 40 years old. I am 50 and I know how I feel at times. We have all heard the horror stories of Sea Kings that have either not lifted off the ground or have gone down in some cases with a loss of life. I am told they need 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time. Is this really the best the government can do for our military?

In 1993 the Prime Minister campaigned to cancel the EH-101 contract put in place by the previous government. Here we are almost 10 years later and we are still using the Sea Kings and there are no new helicopters in sight. While I have a lot of pride for the members of our armed forces, I am ashamed of a government that has failed to best equip them to do their job.

When the real numbers are looked at since the government took power between 1993 and 1999 Canada's defence budget was reduced by 30%. My hon. colleagues in the Conservative Party must also share some of the blame as these cuts came on top of two successive defence budget cuts by the Conservatives in 1989 and 1991.

The net effect has been a reduction of our forces personnel by some 35%. The latest numbers tell us that we only have about 50,000 men and women in our regular forces and even less who are combat ready.

It is not just partisan rhetoric when we talk about budget shortfalls for our forces. We note that most of the 2000 budget increases will go toward pay increases and quality of life expenditures. While these are long overdue they do nothing to assist with equipment. The auditor general has stated that the equipment budget faces a potential shortfall of $30 billion by the year 2012.

The last part of the motion would order the Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and National Defence and Veterans Affairs to meet jointly to hold frequent meetings with ministers and officials of the government and the military. That is another nice bit of apple pie rhetoric. Perhaps we should also add the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to the list because of Canadian concerns that our lax immigration policy can allow terrorists to come into our country.

There is no question that we need to increase our communication levels in times of national and international crisis. It is also important that our citizens be kept up to date as to how their government is handling such a situation. There is sensitive information which cannot be passed along to the general public, but all Canadians would want me to say to those who are in our military and government that while we give them the power they should not abuse it to the detriment of our own personal civil liberties.

What I have noticed in the way our American neighbour has been handling the situation is the frequency of President Bush's television interviews and briefings to the general public. It is this up close and personal relationship of a leader to his people which helps to draw a country together in times of crisis. May I suggest that our Prime Minister and his cabinet do what they can to make the same thing happen in Canada.

Those who make our laws, especially those of us who are opposition MPs, should not be hearing of pending legislation in the newspapers long before it is tabled in the House. If the government cares about that it should show the courtesy of briefing all MPs long before legislation is tabled. The Prime Minister only shows his disdain for parliament when he makes decisions for all Canadians yet fails to consult and seek approval from those who represent them.

I offer my support for this motion and will closely review the legislation that the justice minister has brought before the House today. I applaud and commend these men and women in our armed forces who enter into conflict in an effort to ensure that elected officials and all Canadians have the right to speak freely. I can think of nothing greater than seeing these same rights and freedoms being extended to those living all around the world, for this is indeed a fight for freedom.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of the Sea Kings has come up often in the House. It is quite unfortunate that the commentary with regard to the condition of the Sea Kings serves no useful purpose other than to raise the anxiety of the families of those who have to fly them on behalf of Canadians.

I want to correct for the House the language that has been used very clearly. I confirmed moments ago with the Minister of National Defence and the staff that the statement of requiring 30 hours of maintenance for every one hour of flight is incorrect. In fact it is 30 man-hours per hour of flight. If there are six people servicing a Sea King and they work for a five hour period, that amounts to 30 man-hours.

I would also like to advise the House that the maintenance referred to is not rebuilding the engine or cleaning a carburetor. It includes refuelling, washing, touching up paint and general maintenance. The majority of the time on maintenance has to do with normal standard checking procedures that would be necessary even for brand new helicopters.

I wanted to clarify that for the member because the families of our servicemen and women who fly them should know the truth about the Sea Kings.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing I would say to my hon. colleague is that if he had a choice between having a brand new Porsche in his driveway and a 40 year old car that he has to take to the garage every time he uses it, which would he choose?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agreed with many of the things my colleague from the Alliance had to say, but there were a couple of things that disturbed me a bit. He said that the motion added little substance to the debate. Then he went on to make many very good points about the reason we need to be debating this issue.

He made some valuable contributions when he mentioned the impact this military action would have on the lives of individuals within his own riding and on the lives of the families affected. He made some very good points about that. He also went on to say that the motion is apple pie rhetoric and then went on to say that he would be supporting it.

I appreciate the member's support for the motion brought forward by the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition. How can he on the one hand support the motion and at the same time use rather inflammatory remarks about those that he agrees with?

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of esteem for my hon. colleague. I compare the substantive motion we in this party brought to the House a week after the events of September 11 which outlined point by point the things we felt the government needed to do.

We will support the motion because it is all good stuff. It has little substance and adds nothing more to the debate up to this time, but I believe my comments are accurate and valuable.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this matter. We were talking about the age of cars. Under the Liberal government we cannot really afford Porsches. It reminds me of the Cuban situation where they are driving 1957 Plymouths and so on.

We are dealing with a new type of war against a new, different and formidable enemy. There is no doubt that the enemy is eminently evil. Where should we be going at this stage with this type of war?

Much has been said over the last month and quite frankly a war of words will not win the war. This war will be won by action.

The Progressive Conservative Party understands the need for Canada to co-ordinate this war of action. We do not have the luxury in this war of having departments build their own little empires, barriers and not co-operating.

I heard no end of answers during the last session when we were talking about the Amodeo situation where departments were passing the buck. We cannot afford that. Departments have to work and co-operate, and the gist of the motion is to get everybody working on the same plan and strategy.

However, as soon as I read the intent of the motion I had problems with it because it seems the war involves just about every department of government. Can we ignore the area of immigration and refugees? We have approximately 26,000 people in Canada who are not supposed to be here and are subject to deportation orders. The government does not have the resources to know where they are or how to even track them down and get them out of the country. It is a serious matter.

We have heard about the Ressam situation. It is a very disturbing scenario. We knew he was a dangerous terrorist who was in our country. We decided we could not send him back to his home nation of Algeria because the Canadian way looked at the Algerian legal system and concluded it would not be compassionate. It would not be the Liberal way of dealing with somebody to send a dangerous person back to the country that should be dealing with him.

There is another important area. We are dealing with dangerous people in the war on terrorism. We need a strong and powerful intelligence agency in the country that has the tools and equipment to deal with it. That involves the solicitor general's branch.

Transportation has been the first target of the terrorists either directly or as a means of bringing about terror. How can we keep transportation out of the discussion?

We could refer to a lot of departments. The justice department deals with criminal law. We are talking about an omnibus bill brought forward by the justice minister to deal with acts of terrorism. The more one thinks about it, the more we are talking about every branch of government.

One would think that there are no barriers between government departments in the war on terrorism. However I am quite sure there are many. The Senate had a look at the whole area of terrorism in 1989. It found numerous examples of government departments working at odds with one another.

These obstacles must be eliminated. The barriers must be knocked down. One example is that CSIS had its own legislative definition of a security risk. The immigration department has another definition. Other departments have other definitions. This must stop.

If we brought together all the committees of the House to deal with the matter we would be bringing 301 MPs into the House of Commons to deal with it on an ongoing basis. The motion underscores something that is becoming obvious to me: We need a new special minister whose job is solely to co-ordinate the war on terrorism.

In all fairness, in the war against terrorism a lot of us must set aside our partisan ideology and points of view. There is a report that says the Bruce nuclear reactor does not comply with recognized international safety standards. My reading of the report suggests the reactor is way off the mark. Does that mean we should privatize the existing system as an alternative to public ownership of the Bruce nuclear reactor? Nonsense, that is not the problem. The challenge is to put in a good system and good management and make sure we get the results we want.

We have 26,000 people in the country who should not be here. Many of them are dangerous. They are the product of a poor immigration and refugee system. Should we privatize the immigration system because it has all these flaws?

I am raising these points because I have heard people from other parties suggest that the problems we have at airports are because we have private security people there. They say that making them all public servants would be the solution. That is not the solution. We need quality programs with good management and then we will get the results we want.

Another requirement in the war on terrorism is the need for resources. It is truly shameful to look at the results of years of neglect by the government in terms of our military, our immigration and refugee system and our intelligence community. It is an embarrassment for Canadians to be sending Sea Kings and other military relics into the combat zone. It is shameful that we only have about 250 or 260 special forces people trained to deal with hijacking and terrorist activities. It is even more shameful that a lot of them will be leaving Canada when they are badly needed at home.

To provide the resources without going back into a deficit situation, something I do not think most members want, the government will have to start looking at some of its sacred cows, programs that have limited benefits but use a lot of money. I will quickly list some of these.

First, we have spent $600 million on a gun registration system whose benefits are still arguable. We will spend another $100 million a year to administer the program once it is finally set up.

Second, there are mountains of interest groups who collect money from the government. We went through that last week with one of the ministers and the embarrassment that resulted from that.

Third, HRDC and the Department of Industry still believe welfare capitalism is the way to make the economy grow.

A lot of these sacred cows will have to be put to the side and the funds will have to be used for national security where they are needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raised the issue of the Sea Kings, as did the prior speaker. It is not helpful to our military personnel who fly the Sea Kings or to their families to continue to talk about them in that manner.

The member knows the Sea Kings have been totally retrofitted. He knows the U.S. has many Sea Kings it still uses. They are used for the president of the United States of America. When we see pictures of the helicopter landing at the White House, that is a Sea King. They can fly safely when they are properly maintained.

The member did not comment on the last part of the motion which calls for a joint foreign affairs-national defence committee to hold “frequent meetings with ministers and officials”. The House did so during the gulf war but this is quite a different matter. The current war may go on for an extended period of time, maybe even years.

Would the member have a problem with frequent meetings of a couple of standing committees on a matter which may not evolve as quickly as the gulf war?

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any objections to walls getting knocked down and committees working together for a common purpose. That is only common sense. However I made the point that we are getting into health areas. If there is a terrorist attack with anthrax the Minister of Health will get involved. If nuclear material or other things get into the situation we could have environmental repercussions.

I do not know where to stop or where to start. I seriously think we will need to consider a minister of homeland defence to co-ordinate activities and make sure we get a total co-ordinated effort.

In terms of the Sea Kings, I will mention another point since the member raised it. The former chief of staff would not fly on a Sea King while his troops were stationed in East Timor. He would not do it. He decided this on the basis that they were not safe. However I am not the person responsible for equipping our armed forces.

In terms of secrecy and so on, I accept that in this conflict the government should hold some things back. I was amazed to open the Globe and Mail today and see on the front page that the Department of Transport has announced to the whole country that it has not put baggage checking equipment on our airplanes. I find that disturbing. On the front page of a newspaper we are telling every terrorist in the country that we have a hole in our transportation security system.

The government will not answer questions in the House because of secrecy and security yet the Department of Transport leaks information on the front page of a national paper telling everyone we will not have baggage checking security until next spring. I find that amazing.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the hon. member for Prince Albert another opportunity to answer the question raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

The parliamentary secretary has stated in the House twice if not three times that it is somehow a mistake to criticize the government and the fact that it cancelled a helicopter contract and is forcing our men and women in the armed forces to fly choppers that are 38 years of age. He says this somehow heightens tension for their families and causes them aggravation and grief.

That is utter nonsense. The men and women who fly the choppers, their families and their extended families are only too happy to see the issue raised in the House of Commons. They are thanking God someone is finally saying something and trying to get them better gear.

Would the member for Prince Albert comment on that? The parliamentary secretary--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I know the hon. member for Prince Albert wants to respond and he will do so succinctly and briefly.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the government has been for the last three or four months. David Harris, former head of CSIS, has said we have major problems in the intelligence area. I think everyone in the House respects former general Lewis MacKenzie who has made a lot of disturbing comments about the state of our military and our defence. We do not need to take judicial notice of the fact that our military is in pretty sad shape. When I see what we are sending over to this combat arrangement I am quite embarrassed about it. We have 1960 Leopard tanks. We have--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During debate the member mentioned a CDS that refused to fly on a Sea King. That maligns all CDSs in the military. It is incumbent on the hon. member to--

[The Deputy Speaker]

Respectfully, this is not a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to join the debate on the important motion that the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition has brought forward in the House today.

I would again rebut the earlier comments of my colleague from the Alliance who said this was a motion of little substance. She said it was some kind of apple pie rhetoric. It is far from that. The motion gives us the opportunity to debate an important action that we can take together as members in the House.

I want to focus my comments very directly on the motion. I want to look at the second part of the motion because this is the part where many members today have taken issue. I will read the second part of the motion into the record:

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.

That is a very important part of this motion. It is a part that has been dismissed by some members in the House as being motherhood or apple pie. I think it sends a message. It gives us an opportunity of a concrete step that can be taken. I think it can be endorsed by all members from all parties in this place and can provide the opportunity for us to have an outlet to share information.

Look at what is happening in the United States in the case of this crisis. Members of congress are being briefed on many of the details surrounding the responses of the United States, its military response and responses in other ways. Yet in many ways there continues to be a vacuum of information here.

We understand that there is certain information that cannot be shared. An idea was brought forward by the leader of our coalition who said why not bring the party leaders into the Privy Council for this period of time so they can be briefed with confidential information and bound by confidentiality. That would be a good thing. It would send a message to all Canadians that we are all members of the House working in a non-partisan way for a very important reason, which is to get on with dealing with the serious issues before us regarding the events surrounding September 11.

I reject the notion that this is simply an apple pie motion. The motion has been crafted in a way to elicit support from all members of the House, not just members of the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative coalition, but support from our colleagues from the Alliance, the Bloc, the NDP and the government.

I have not heard one argument today that has been a good argument to reject the motion before us. It would be our hope that tonight we would see members rise in support of this motion because it takes a concrete idea, moves it forward into practical application in a way that we can show Canadians that we are able to break down some of the partisan walls that have developed over the years in this place and to put in play something where we can come forward and have regular briefings of two different committees with government ministers and other officials of the government and the military.

I do not think it is a huge thing to ask. It should garner the support of all people in the House. It was with that intent that this motion was crafted in that way to break down those partisan walls.

As I have said in the House many times since September 11, it is time for us, as leaders of the nation in the face of the crisis before us in terms of the events of September 11, to start to do more than just talk. We must take action and show by our actions that we mean business. We must include all voices of all regions of the country by eliciting the support and the involvement of all members of parliament. We must share the information that can be shared. We must allay people's fears by sharing information about what our government is doing and what concrete steps we are planning to take.

The Minister of Transport outlined some details, and we are thankful for that. We think there is more that he and his department can do. They are taking steps and have made some announcements.

Other government departments have taken some concrete steps, but there needs to be more. There needs to be involvement of not only members of parliament, but the Canadian public.

When information goes unchecked, it can lead to misinformation. Why do we not take the opportunity to lead by example by supporting this motion and showing to the people of Canada that we have moved forward from a partisan divide, which we have so often here, to one where we are breaking down those walls in the best interests, not of our political parties but for our country? This way we can reflect on what people are telling us in the ridings we represent. We can bring their message to Ottawa where we can have an impact as a nation to address the concerns before us.

It is my belief that if we are able to support this motion tonight we will see a change in a small way, but it will be a concrete change. It will be a change that will provide more information sharing. There will be a coming together of two parliamentary committees where we can reaffirm our support for our military and the tragic events of September 11.

If we do that, we would then be able to take further steps in future days,weeks and months in this place. People across Canada are waiting for us to move to that model of governance in our nation, where it is not one team against the other, but where it is what is in the best interest of our country.

A crisis can bring opportunity. The opportunity before us now as members of parliament, as leaders of the nation, is to come together to find solutions and to stand for the freedoms that we have built this nation on so they will not go unchallenged by those who would attempt to use fear and tragic acts of violence to intimidate our freedoms in Canada.

A generation ago in this very House there were many debates about Canada's participation in World War II. The parliamentarians of that day took bold action when they moved forward. The cost was great but the price that was paid led to the freedoms that we have today. We must safeguard those freedoms that were won by those in the generation before us. They have given us so much so we can move forward as a nation and as a world to combat the terror before us and continue on as a free and great nation, contributing to that freedom around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a good point when he talked about the second part of the motion. The first two parts are fairly straightforward and I think will be embraced by the House as important statements for us to make.

The second part with regard to the joint meetings of the foreign affairs and national defence committees seems to be somewhat problematic or is trying to emulate something that was done back in 1993 with regard to the gulf war where there was some sort of joint committee which actually produced reports.

The motion is not sufficiently specific with regard to the undertakings of any joint committee. I find that problematic because it does not give sufficient direction from this place, and I am not sure why.

Would the movers of the motion be amenable to splitting the motion into two parts, being the two paragraphs that are before the House? I suspect that an amendment has already been made not allowing further amendments. However, if it were the will of the House to split it that might be helpful, in the event the member concurs that the second part of the motion lacks any specificity that would guide the committees.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a good motion as it addresses the concerns that the member brought up. It is my understanding that the government is supportive of this motion.

As I outlined in my speech, it is a concrete action that we can take together as members from different parties to show that we can come together, in a way that has not been done very often before, in this time of crisis and share information. That is a positive thing. It is my hope that all members will support the motion this evening.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague feel that it is not only time to have a joint committee structure put in place, but that it may be time for the committees to be given greater responsibilities and that the partisan nature of committees and government control be removed so that committees can operate freely and openly and have a meaningful role to play in the parliamentary system?

Is this perhaps a good time not only to address joint committee meetings, but also address making committees relevant?

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

I agree, Mr. Speaker, with my hon. colleague's comment that we can encourage committees to do good work. When we bring people together in a less partisan way, we exchange ideas and make recommendations and reports that actually can be implemented by the government.

So often we spend a lot of time on parliamentary committees and come to an agreement in a good working relationship with members from all parties. Then, as the report is being written, many times a group comes in from the government side and votes against all the things that the committee agreed on, thereby making a farce of the process.

Look at other models of government around the world and how their committees work, such as the United States. Their committee system works. Their committees have real power and the ability to make change. We have the same ability to do that here if there were a change in attitude and direction. I believe there is a willingness of all members of the House to engage in that kind of process within committees so that we can make concrete positive change.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I rise to talk about this awful subject.

When the terrorist attack first happened, a lot of people, including myself, said that things have changed dramatically and that the world will never be the same. As I came up to the Hill a few minutes ago I saw that the East Block was cordoned off with fire trucks and ambulances. Apparently there was another bioterrorism scare in the East Block, the second one today on the Hill. Mounted police are scanning the underside of all vehicles with mirrors as they come up the Hill. These are things that have never happened before. The world has certainly changed.

Last night, when I was scheduled to fly back to work, our plane was delayed because of a bioterrorism scare in Toronto. It held up all the planes across the country as Toronto is the hub for all the activity.

The September 11 attack has also had quite an impact on my own province of Nova Scotia. All air travel in Halifax as well as at a lot of other airports in Atlantic Canada was cancelled.

We now have scanners in our offices and we are scanned before we go into our offices. Visitors must go through scanners. Certainly everything we do now seems to be affected by terrorism.

As our leader of the coalition has said many times, it is really important for Canadians to know what is happening. We cannot tell Canadians that everything is okay, that everything is great and that we can carry on as we always did.

On the other hand, there is no reason to be fearful of everything but certainly many things we do in our everyday lives have changed. We need to address these issues. We need to help the public and parliament understand what is going on. It is really important that we all have the information with which to work.

As our leader said in his motion, we reaffirm the condemnation of terrorist attacks on our NATO ally, the Untied States of America, on September 11. The attacks were against the United States but they have certainly affected all of us and continue to affect us.

We should not be fearmongers but I really believe Canadians deserve to know exactly what is going on, what steps are being taken to protect them and what steps are being taken to bring the perpetrators of these acts to justice. I believe that Canadians are entitled to know what the government is doing on all these issues so they can better understand what we are doing and how to react themselves.

People are seeing their whole retirement investments and their RRSPs collapse before their very eyes. Because of some of the things that have happened, some of their investments have deteriorated badly just in the last little while.

On the other hand, I do not think we should be totally focusing on this. We should be focusing on positive steps that Canada can take. Canada is in a unique position to take steps to help in a lot of different ways that perhaps other countries cannot.

There has never been any connection between the Palestinians or Israelis and the terrorist act of September 11 in the United States. The only connection has been to Osama bin Laden who said that there will never be peace in the western world and that there will never be peace in the United States until there is peace in the Middle East between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

I think Canada can play a role in taking that excuse away from Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists who use that conflict, that ongoing difference, as an excuse for terrorism. It is not a justifiable reason. It makes no sense, and we cannot make sense of terrorism, but it is used as an excuse. I think Canada can help address those issues by helping the Palestinians and the Israelis to come to terms, find common ground and resolve their differences. I believe the will is there to do it. The hurdles are huge and the problems are almost insurmountable but they must be overcome.

Osama bin Laden has drawn that conflict into the argument even though the Palestinians and the Israelis are not associated with the terrorism at all.

However, by dragging them into it, it is incumbent upon us and the rest of the world to help resolve that issue now, not only that one but others that give the terrorists an excuse.

Canada is in a unique position to help. That was made clear by the Palestinian diplomats and the Israeli diplomats to Canada when they agreed to a very modest peace forum that was proposed here by parliamentarians.

We had invited parliamentarians from the Palestinian legislative council and parliamentarians from the Israeli knesset to come and meet with Canadian parliamentarians to discuss an appropriate or possible role for Canada. That modest peace forum was supposed to start today but because of the September 11 incidents, the volatile situation and many other aspects in the Middle East, they were not able to come today. However we are all working together now to try to establish a new date as soon as we can.

The Israeli knesset changed its dates of operation and opening. In fact today is the first day the Israeli knesset is sitting. It was not supposed to be today but because of September 11 it rearranged its opening day schedule which happened to coincide with our forum. Also, due to the volatility and uncertainty of travel arrangements and everything that is happening in the Middle East, we did delay it but we will not delay it very long as everyone is committed to finding a new date.

I want to wind up by saying that we certainly want the House and the government to reaffirm their condemnation of the terrorist acts. It is important for all the committees to work together. We have a great deal of strength. We have 301 members of parliament with different backgrounds and from different parts of the country. They come from different trades, different professions and different areas of expertise. We should be calling on the abilities of all 301 members of parliament to help find our way through this.

We have not seen the end of this at all. No one can predict where this will go, what the reaction to the retaliation will be, whether there will be more retaliation, which other countries will be involved and so on.

As our motion calls for, we urge the government to allow the committees to come together and to work together frequently so that everyone has a share in this and can contribute to developing the policy of the United States in this very troublesome time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am becoming a little concerned about the insinuation that is being attributed to the second part of the motion, which is that the standing committees on foreign affairs and national defence hold joint meetings with officials and ministers, et cetera.

The fact is that committees have been operating. In fact, ministers have met with their respective committees.

The Minister of Transport was before the transport committee to talk about important issues like airline and airport safety. The Minister of National Defence and all his staff were before the national defence committee. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was before the foreign affairs committee. The Minister of Health has already dealt very quickly with other aspects. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been before that particular committee.

The House has been working. The committees have been working.

The genesis of this particular part of the motion comes from something that happened during the gulf war where parliament did establish a couple of joint committees that met on a daily basis with the military.

The membership should clearly understand or maybe admit that this is not a war against another country that will be over in a period of time. This is a campaign against global terrorism that could take years.

Although I think everyone can agree with the first paragraph, which is, first, to condemn the terrorists and second, to support our military, the lack of specifics about these committees meeting frequently with military and ministers and tying up these people over an indefinite period of time, which could be years, gives me great concern.

I hope the member could at least put on the record what the intent is so that should I vote in favour of this I understand what the intent of a very wishy-washy second part is.