Debates of Sept. 17th, 2001

Attack on the United States

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, six days ago the most devastating attack ever against the free world rendered our world far less free. No longer are we free to fly without a credible fear of hijacking, no longer are we free to travel anywhere any time without extended delays at the border or security check-ins.

We are no longer free to presume that everyone who enters our country is here to pursue a better life. We are definitely no longer free to take for granted the role of our firefighters and police officers, some of whom from my region have gone to New York to help at the scene.

The United States has paid an enormous price for leading the free world. Thousands of people left for work last Tuesday worrying only about their job, the economy and family bills. Horror and death awaited so many who had no idea that they were at war. Thousands of family members wait and hope. Time is needed to mourn the dead and then the free world must act to protect the living.

The terrible tragedy and loss of life in New York has been called an attack on America, but Canada is far from immune to the virus of terrorism that is infecting the globe.

For the first time terrorism from the Middle East has drawn the blood of civilians in the United States. We have seen suicide attacks against civilian target groups in Israel, Egypt and in western Europe. We have even seen an Egyptian airliner take off from New York and then be driven into the sea by a suicidal pilot, again not that long ago. For some reason we thought we were safe in North America. Terrorism was viewed as a distant threat that was only raised by alarmists.

Today we realize that our security was an illusion. We were protected more by chance than by choice. Now, as Dick Cheney said yesterday, we would be absolute fools to not protect ourselves from the credible threat that we now know has always existed.

Canadians quickly understood that the threat against the United States could quickly find Canadian targets in range. I know that within hours of the attack at least one major Canadian company convened a meeting to discuss whether it might also be a target before continuing its Toronto operations. Simply remaining at work was now considered to pose enough risk that it was at least worthy of discussion at the highest levels.

Today Canadians are faced with a disturbing choice. We can defy the goals of the terrorists who resist constraints to our freedom, changes to our laws and stifling security measures. Alternatively, we can accept that our world has changed and our open and almost casual concept of national security is now a threat to our freedom and no longer its hallmark.

President Bush has repeatedly said that the United States is already at war, but this is a war where people are in fact the principal weapons. The men responsible for last Tuesday's tragedy brought only themselves to North America. Immigration would have found nothing in their bags or backgrounds to stop many from entering the country. Yet these men were the most dangerous of weapons, and efforts to keep them out of North America will be the top priority of U.S. law enforcement for the foreseeable future.

The restrictions on the U.S. border to Canada will likely be proportional to the laxness that Americans perceive in our entry requirements. With our country entirely dependent on the free movement of goods across the U.S. border, tougher border security could become the greatest trade barrier we have ever faced. If American plants cannot rely on Canadian shipments getting across the border on time, they will simply switch suppliers with immense consequences.

To prevent this hardship, Canada must demonstrate to the United States that it would be as hard or harder for a terrorist to get into Canada than to go directly to the United States. This inevitably requires changes to our immigration, refugee and visitor visa policies.

We know that the vast majority of immigrants and visitors to Canada come from countries where no realistic terrorist risk exists or has ever existed. We must make sure the current crisis does not restrict the flow of talent, skills and investment from new immigrants on whom we rely for so much of our growth. As well, we must not simply cut off Canadian citizens from their relatives abroad through the widespread denial of visitors permits.

We already have very restrictive visa rules when it comes to people who it is feared will stay and work in Canada. Among the targets of deportation in recent months was a Polish family who had come here, built a business, employed six people and never taken a dime from our social services. Their deportation, while devastating for the children involved, was also a loss for Canada as good, contributing business people were lost.

Conversely, a terrorist by the name of Ressam was never deported and would still be here were it not for U.S. border guards finding explosives in his trunk. We clearly need to change our focus.

It is more than apparent that air travel to Canada from overseas will need to be subject to meaningful security measures. The fact that people can arrive at Pearson airport without any documentation and claim refugee status is an indication of the level of security we impose overseas.

Clearly no one can now be allowed to board a plane bound for Canada without at least a cursory security check, and everyone will need documentation. We must now consider foreign airports as entry points into Canada and establish immigration security checkpoints, much like the United States has at Pearson airport today.

These measures will not make us safe. We cannot stop a determined person from getting to Canada or the United States, but at least it must be a robust and comprehensive effort.

The aftermath of the World Trade Center has brought into question the respect with which we treat our own emergency personnel. In many policy debates of late, firefighters and police officers have too often been treated as regular workers whose pay and pensions must be restricted because every other group of workers would expect the same.

In New York we saw that the job of police and fire crews is not like any other job. While people with other jobs fled down the stairs of the World Trade Center to safety, firefighters were racing up into harm's way and indeed their own deaths.

It is common to salute the bravery and sacrifice of firefighters and police at times of great crisis when their lives are lost in great numbers. I call on members of the House to demonstrate the same respect to the thousands of Canadians who have the courage to sign up to be the first at the scene of any disaster and whose willingness to risk all keeps the rest of us safe.

The attack on America touched every Canadian. We saw the trauma. We shared the fear. We shared the loss and we learned an important lesson. We learned that security that is taken for granted can be taken away.

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

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is not a bad thing to have a bit of laughter or the occasional less than sombre moment in a debate, but unfortunately this is a very solemn and sombre occasion.

I appreciate very much the comments of the member from Mississauga who just spoke, especially with regard to the way we treat police officers and firefighters. All emergency response personnel, whether ambulance drivers, firefighters, police officers or anyone who is a first responder, take upon themselves a job where they do not know what to expect when they get up in the morning. They volunteer to work diligently on our behalf and save lives if that may be, but they do not volunteer to lose their own.

Our hearts immediately go out to those groups and their families. However more importantly, now that we are left with the result of this horrific event, what will we as a parliament do about it?

My question to the member is whether we have the resolve. This is not an easy task we have started upon. This is a hard and arduous trail. I do not think anyone in the House fully understands the extent and difficulty of the journey. Does the member think the government will have the clear resolve--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Mississauga East.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. There is no doubt in my mind that the government must resolve to fulfill its commitment to eradicating terrorism. We heard earlier from the former solicitor general who said the government has a responsibility. We have heard from the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister who said there will be a comprehensive plan in place to deal with terrorism. I think the collective will of the House will forge the right policies for the country.

There is no doubt in my mind that Canadians have had an illusion shattered in recent days and will demand and expect a robust response from their government and their parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will use the two minutes left to draw attention, as the hon. member alluded to earlier, to fire departments, police departments and emergency personnel.

In the community of New Ross where I live there was recently a severe accident involving a fire truck. Four firefighters were seriously injured. One of those who was seriously injured, Lionel Russell, just got out of the hospital. That is the type of contribution that ordinary citizens and volunteer firefighters make to society and to Canada every day of their lives. They get up in the morning and do not know what to expect that day, but are willing to take on the unexpected if it is called upon. We take that too much for granted.

It is time we looked at ways to not only combat terrorism, which is what the debate is about, but to support our police officers and volunteer firefighters at home.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is left to say to that comment but ditto? I could not agree more. I think the House will certainly find a way to ensure that our police officers and firefighters are suitably equipped to fight the ordeals and challenges that we face ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, on September 11 our attention, like that of many people around the world, was grabbed by events which were horrific. The images are seared into our memories for all time. Members will reflect on images of airplanes, buildings, fire and destruction. However it was not until we saw the people that we fully understood the horror that the terrorism had caused for many people.

Once the pictures were focused we saw images of people in windows seeking help and not knowing what to do. We saw images of people jumping out of buildings to avoid burning to death. There was no decision to make; it was a responsive reaction.

It was the images of people in the streets searching for their loved ones and trying to get a clue that started to sear into our memories just how devastating the big picture had been to real people. There are many people missing, most of whom will never be found. Most of those people will never have any more presence in the lives of their loved ones. Can members imagine having someone in their lives just cease to exist? It is a very painful experience, I am sure.

Today we are having a debate. Members have been very eloquent in expressing heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims and to our neighbours, the United States of America. They have made kind and encouraging comments about our relationship and the strength of our friendship and have given credit for leadership on all sides. Many good things have been said here that I think bode well for continued co-operation and good work between our countries.

The American people have also expressed their gratitude on many occasions for the support of the Canadian people during the crisis, whether for taking care of them when their planes had to land at Canadian airports or for other support we have given.

It is important for many members who speak here to be able to say we share the pain. We also share the values and want to protect them. This is the reason we are considering measured and appropriate responses.

I also want to bring special mention to the issue of public safety officers: firefighters, police officers, medics, paramedics and all the volunteers who come into a situation where there are no questions asked. They are trained and they respond instinctively. It is what they do.

We know that a lot of people lost their lives: maybe a couple of hundred firefighters, as many as a hundred police officers, and who knows how many others? It will be a long time before we know the full extent of it.

Public safety officers have had the very kind support of this place with regard to providing support for initiatives such as a public safety officers' compensation fund, for improving the pension accrual rates because the life expectancy of firefighters is not as good as the national average, to improving transportation of dangerous materials provisions so that there is a better protection of the environment and better opportunities for our public safety officers to safeguard themselves.

I am still very concerned. When there are searing fires, like the ones in New York and in the Pentagon in Washington, we do not know what happens to the air, such as toxicity created by toxic acids. However, people are still working there even as we speak, continuing and hoping to find survivors. This is the job they were trained to do. They continue to put their health at risk to do that job.

I also want to say a very special thanks to our public safety officers and all those members of the International Association of Firefighters who have been so good in keeping us informed when they visit us each year.

I took the opportunity to visit the web. I wanted to know more about Afghanistan. People were talking about Osama bin Laden, about terrorists, about the Taliban and a holy war. I did not know very much about the country.

Afghanistan is surrounded by Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Iran. It is about the size of the province of Ontario and has 25 million people. There is nothing terribly unusual about that except of that 25 million people, 42% are under 15 years of age. Only 2.7% are over 65 years of age.

The life expectancy of a person in Afghanistan is about 46 years of age compared to 82 years of age for a woman in Canada and 78 years for a man in Canada. Only about 4% of their land is arable. They are also are the largest producer of opium in the world.

When I think of those basic facts, I understand that it is an environment in which desperation can occur. It is an environment that I think also exists in a number of other countries around the world where terrorism has its roots.

Today we have talked about our condolences and about our commitment to our friend and neighbour the United States and our NATO allies. We have also talked about measured response and appropriate response.

People who have talked to me about this issue have talked with caution and concern about escalation and about biological or chemical warfare. We have not touched this yet in terms of terrorist activities. There is a real concern about that. I think it is one of the reasons why responsible governments have to be very careful to take a measured and appropriate response that does not necessarily follow the provisions of any arbitrariness of an eye for an eye or any other kind of arbitrary approach.

We are talking about a war on terrorism much like we talk about the war on drugs. It has no boundaries but it has characteristics. I believe we have the resources to identify many of the sources of these terrorist activities and to address them appropriately.

I think all our prayers are that the leadership around the civilized world will act in the most responsible and appropriate fashion on behalf of all democratic societies.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express appreciation to the member for Mississauga South for his speech and tell him and all members that the reaction of constituents and residents in my area of Winnipeg North Centre are very similar to his understanding and his interpretation.

For people everywhere, the images of the atrocities that occurred on September 11 are sealed forever in our minds and will continue to haunt us. Through this horrible week people everywhere have come to a new understanding and appreciation for firefighters, police officers and first responders who help citizens everywhere in times of emergency.

People everywhere have responded to this haunting image of horror, grief and pain with a real attempt to understand how this could happen and to seek solutions that are appropriate for the crimes committed.

One of my constituents wrote to me and said that she had never before written to a politician, but that the words of war that had come through our leaders and through the media had driven her to act and to speak out.

She said:

--I want our actions, as individuals and a country, to help bring about lasting justice for all people, in every country and for all people of every race and religion. Justice is hard to achieve when acts of retaliation and revenge perpetuate the cycle by killing innocent people.

Does member for Mississauga South share those sentiments? Has he heard them from his constituents and does he believe this is truly possible.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her kind comments. The communications I have received are quite reflective of what she has related to the House. People are concerned.

It would be naive to think that a proportionate, indiscriminate response simply to take lives would be acceptable to anyone or would be a solution to anything. In fact it would be a step backwards.

It is normal for people to have a rush of emotion and want to do something quickly. It is the anger, hurt and pain that makes thinking less clear than it should be. We communicate with our leadership. Americans communicate with their leadership. The congress and the senate have come together. They have provided the resources. However, there are people like Colin Powell who have put some insight into these activities and reminded us that terrorism did not start on September 11. Terrorism has been with us for many decades and we need to address it now, but we have to do it very carefully.

As we talk about it more and more, I think the leadership understands that the people do not want to share the stage with terrorists on the same level and be judged in the same way. We obviously want to defend ourselves, our countries, our people and our values. At the same time, taking appropriate action can only help if we can deal with the root cause of that terrorism. It may not simply be people like Osama bin Laden.

It is the cells and the thinking that they have created. It is possibly linked to things like the drug industry and the drug wars. Where is this money coming from? How do they finance these activities and why do people think they can get away with it?

Democratic principles, democracies as a whole, speaking together as one, which I think we will as we move through this difficult time, will demonstrate more and more to those who harbour feelings of terrorism that it is not acceptable behaviour in our civilized society. I am hoping we will make positive steps in addressing the evils of terrorism. Maybe one day our children will benefit from our work today.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the world awoke to the sight of horror on television as we witnessed the mass murder of thousands of people in the terrorist attacks in New York, Washington, D.C. and in the air over Pennsylvania. These attacks were not targeted simply at the World Trade Center or Pentagon office buildings. They took aim at democracy itself through the murder of thousands, including many Canadians.

Now is the time for all free nations to stand with the United States and to take resolute action against terrorism. Terrorists have declared war on the free world and the entire free world must in turn declare war on terrorism.

The response from the coalition of free nations must be, out of self-defence, a systemic and comprehensive war against all forms of international terrorism. We must not treat this horrible act as a mere crime that must end up in front of some international court of justice. We should treat these attacks as acts of war that require strong and resolute measures of self-defence.

Paul Wolfowitz, a U.S. deputy secretary of defence, has said that American plans are “not simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, and ending states who sponsor terrorism.” He is right. Canada must be strong, resolute and wholly united behind our American and NATO allies in seeking to destroy those who seek to destroy our way of life.

We must break the back of this international network of terror in all its guises and deprive its architects, executioners and sponsors of a safe harbour anywhere in this world. Canada should vow to commit all necessary resources to this accomplishment, whether diplomatic, economic or military.

In his 1995 book Fighting Terrorism , former Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu forecast that radical fundamentalism would be the “delivery system” of increasingly lethal terrorism. Tuesday they delivered to Manhattan two 198 ton bombs; fully fuelled aircraft. When they get nuclear weapons, Netanyahu said they would use them. Western policy must respond to a closing window of opportunity for pre-emption.

That, says Netanyahu, means not going after needles in haystacks, but against the haystacks themselves; the states that sustain terrorists. We should remember that the U.S. forces at Midway did not just destroy Japanese planes, they sank their aircraft carriers and won the war. Metaphorically speaking, certain supportive states are the terrorists' aircraft carriers.

President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have stressed three aspects of any retaliation. First, there is the need for a compelling dossier of evidence before it acts. Second, assemble as broad an international coalition of support as possible. Third, when the action comes it will be just the start of a “broad and sustained campaign”. I believe that Canada should commit its full support to all three of these goals and seek to play an active part in advancing and coalescing the free world's support for these three goals.

The government's motion we are debating today states that Canada “reaffirm its commitment to the humane values of a free and democratic society and its determination to bring to justice the perpetrators of this attack and to defend civilization from any future terrorist attack”.

While I certainly support this, I would like to offer six suggestions on how precisely we may proceed in this direction. In the days, weeks and years to come, Canada will need to take action to prevent and lessen the opportunities for such carnage to occur in the future.

These measures should include: first, reassessing and improving intelligence operations and capabilities so they provide an early warning to deter terrorist attacks; second, identifying terrorist organizations both at home and abroad and actively subverting their activities and very existence; third, reassessing and improving airport security and the integrity of aircraft cockpits; fourth, increasing citizen awareness of suspicious activities; fifth, restricting assistance and imposing sanctions against those countries harbouring terrorists; and sixth, investing in the promotion of democracy and the rule of law abroad.

As the transport critic for Canada's official opposition, I want to touch on four areas of transportation policy, specifically airline security, where Canada has work to be done in light of Tuesday's crime.

The first area is cockpit access. The U.S. department of transportation has formed a task force to examine this issue, including whether steel doors should be installed on aircraft as is done in Israel. We should carefully consider their recommendations with a view to implementing them here in Canada. The transport minister indicated his willingness to move in this direction today in question period and Canadians should be encouraged by this development.

The second policy area is the issue of air marshals. Both the United States and Israel have a program of air marshals who are armed and trained in the use of firearms on board aircraft and who travel randomly on selected flights. Air Canada has requested that a similar program be implemented here and we should encourage the government to carefully consider this request and whether or not it is feasible and in our best interest.

The third policy area is airport security itself. At Canadian airports only ticketed passengers may proceed beyond the security checkpoint. This system should be maintained for the future.

As part of the heightened security measures currently in effect passengers are not allowed to bring knives or knife-like objects, including pocket knives, scissors, nail files or knitting needles in their carry-on luggage. Unfortunately Transport Canada's website only mentions that these heightened security measures currently in effect will remain in force until further notice. We would encourage the government to make this ban permanent.

Airport security personnel are the linchpin of Canada's airport security system. This system needs examination particularly with respect to the salaries, qualifications and training of the personnel involved. In addition, all security personnel should be subject to criminal background checks.

Also Transport Canada is developing the regulatory framework for a Canadian explosives detection system, or EDS, which involves the screening of passengers and their belongings for explosives on flights leaving Canada. It should also be encouraged to continue its efforts and to consider expanding its program to cover selected domestic flights as well if not all of them.

Another area of security where the government's policy needs to be fleshed out is with regard to airline personnel and service contractors such as cleaners, caterers and baggage handlers who have access to airplanes. The system of granting security clearance to these people should be re-examined with a view to enhancing and tightening our standards.

The fourth and final area of airline security policy to be addressed is with regard to baggage security. It has long been a policy that a passenger must travel on the same flight as his or her bags. We need to examine the type of situations in which this does not happen to reduce the chance that such events might be exploited by terrorists.

In particular, the procedures involved in bumping airline passengers, the status of their baggage which might still be en route to the originally scheduled flight and the circumstances in which people fly standby require study to ensure policies lending to maximum security are in place.

The official opposition will raise these transportation and airline security needs in the days, weeks and months ahead both in the House and at the transportation committee.

The world changed on September 11 in another terrible act of infamy. Our response should be a sustained, aggressive response to international terrorism, its organizers, proponents, financiers and supporters. However let us not fool ourselves. The free world must act and rid the world of those who launched Tuesday's attack and act of war.

Some argue that we must not act and that we should let those who perpetrated Tuesday's evils escape the wrath they have earned. Those advancing this view are simply wrong.

In 1935 Mussolini invaded Abyssinia. The League of Nations said “You should not do it; it is wrong”, and then did nothing. In 1936 Hitler seized the Rhineland. The League of Nations said “You should not do it; it is wrong”, and then did nothing. If we tolerate terrorists such as those who organized, financed and supported Tuesday's attack remaining on this earth, we will continue to pay with blood.

Any reasonable student of history or of freedom, and any reasonable analyst of how the world truly works would come to only one conclusion: that the free world has an obligation to our children and all the children of the world to insist on civilization, to purge the world of its murderers and to restore stability so that they may all in the end live in peace.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Northumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly all of us need a moment to cry, a catharsis, and a release. In my riding I have a mother who does not know the whereabouts of her son who happened to be at ground zero in Manhattan. These criminal acts have touched all of us, some more directly than others, but the direct perpetrators of this crime are dead. We cannot exact a greater penalty on them.

I like the suggestions that the hon. member has brought forward about airport security but the greatest challenge for us as a free people is not with respect to more weapons or personnel, not with respect to revenge or retribution, not with respect to closing our borders to immigration and not to dwelling on the attributes of the U.S. anti-terrorism legislation which apparently did not work or help.

How do we who foster freedom of speech, religion, and thought deal with those who under the guise of freedom of religion inspire, finance and foster others to destroy our free society? How do we stop those who generate these ideas?

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Northumberland for the question. To borrow an often used phrase by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I reject the premise of the member's question. However the question is independent of the premise so therefore I can deal with both of them.

The premise of the question dealt with the fact that Canada should not necessarily rebuild its armed forces and not aggressively plan for peace through strength. If that is the approach of the hon. member then I suggest that he sit down with the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister who argued the exact opposite today in the House.

The question asked by the member deals with pluralism. How does one advance pluralism? This is the difficulty when we are dealing with people who do not accept the concept of pluralism, the idea that people can live with one another and respect each other's differences in mutually beneficial and respectful ways. Ultimately the world would go nowhere and we would continue to see the constant spread of violence.

How does one change that? That is a very difficult question with a lot of parts and I will not pretend to be an expert that can solve that problem. I do not know that anyone in this place can answer it, but we must continue to advance the argument in every arena that we find ourselves in such as the United Nations and NATO.

Every time we go on CNN or Newsworld we have a global audience. We are clipped around the world and we have a responsibility to keep on advocating pluralism, democracy, respect and freedom.

It is not because we advocate those things that people attack us. It is because people are just purely evil. As the last member for Calgary Southwest made mention, there are evil people in the world. We cannot change the value of life in their hearts and minds .

There are some people on the planet who believe that the world ends when they crash a plane into a building. The only way we can prevent those people from crashing a plane into the building in the first place is with capital punishment.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of my riding of Churchill I also wish to take this opportunity to extend condolences to all those who have been affected by the September 11 incident.

I cannot help but comment on the member's statements. He seems to be implying that some members in the House are suggesting that the terrorists should go unpunished. I have to say that at no point in any of the discussions or during question period today did I hear a single member of the House state that the terrorists should go unpunished. Actually what I heard, and I am very proud to say it, was a decent, considerate discussion and debate on a very serious issue. There were no quick and inaccurate reactions. Therefore I am disappointed to have the hon. member say at this point that anyone suggested that.

If the hon. member feels that military strength is the answer, how does he explain the devastation that these terrorists were able to commit without that great military strength behind them when they hijacked and crashed the planes?

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the first issue, I did not accuse any member of the House of not being in favour of justice. I have received dozens of e-mails from Canadians. On the weekend I read a letter in the Globe and Mail . I have seen comments from university professors who are so enlightened in their ivory towers as to be so devoid of any sense of justice that they are actually advocating that nothing should be done and that any more blood spilled is immoral and wrong.

There are people advocating that view. I would encourage the hon. member to check with her staff on the spammed e-mail that is being received by every member of the House.

On the second issue regarding the military might of the United States and how it did not defend itself against this attack, we do not know. The investigation has not been completed. We have not heard the recordings from the black box. We have not had a full report from the secretary of state or from the secretary of defence in the United States. These things are still ongoing and being investigated. We may not be aware of the extent to which the attack was planned but thwarted. In time we will see what the--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. The hon. member was not watching when I was signalling him.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to express on behalf of the people of Langley and Abbotsford, British Columbia, our deepest and most sincere regrets and sympathy to the families of those who were murdered and those who were injured in the meaningless attack in the United States on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

We in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia are stunned by the horrible crimes of murder and destruction perpetrated by those with a callous disregard for human life. It is certain that my vote will support the Liberal government in actions that support strong legislation against organized crime, hijacking and the elimination of the threat of terrorism.

I want to direct the government's attention to an issue I have been speaking about in the House and acting on across the country for eight years now with little or no action from the House of Commons. The issue reflects upon Canada and I believe upon incidents such as this one. Although it may not be directly related to the September 11 issue, I know a lot of Canadians are thinking about it.

The issue is not a popular one in Canada but is one that I have probably more experience with than anyone in the House. It deals with the deportation of criminals and organized crime and trying to remove the people from Canada who should not be here.

I have been fighting to deport criminals from our country since 1993. The majority of the fight has been with the government's own administration. In some cases it has taken me as an intervener as much as two and a half years to be successful.

In fact I have found the government paying for all the costs of these criminals, including interpretation, legal aid, hearing costs, security, et cetera. I have seen criminals fail to win deportation hearings, only to be told by government officials to claim refugee status. They then proceed to refugee hearings which last up to two years or more and then fail to be deported even when they lose those refugee hearings.

All of this gives criminals around the world confidence that Canada is a haven for their activity. Those who target the United States know only too well that it is easy to get into Canada, then subsequently to the United States, and then to hide back in Canada again because our justice system becomes protection for them.

I have seen and talked to American criminals who have escaped their laws by coming to Canada claiming refugee status and getting hearings. For example, I have participated in hearings where one individual left Cuba, went to the United States in excess of four years, had warrants outstanding for his arrest by the FBI, fled the U.S. to Canada, rightfully lost his refugee claim only because of my intervention and, as I found out last week, is still in Canada.

Not only did the refugee board fail to retain this person after I informed them of the FBI warrants. It would not even retain him after he lost the refugee claim. Canada still harbours him and the refugee board to this day still refuses to give me information on the case even though I was the only intervener on behalf of victims.

In each of the cases I will talk about tonight in which I had personally intervened with these criminals I had been asked to intervene by victims of crime.

I have disclosed to the House ads that appeared in magazines from foreign countries which encourage persons to come to Canada under a sponsorship program even if they were criminals. I have one here which I will read. It is from a trade magazine from another country. It states:

Guaranteed immigration to Canada with the purchase of a Fleet Rent-a-Car franchise. Total investment of $50,000 Canadian, approximately $30,000 U.S. You are guaranteed immigration to Canada even with a criminal record. For information write 5950 Bathurst Street, Suite 1009, Toronto, Ontario, or phone--

It contains a certain number. Can anyone imagine the image? Individuals who want to get to the United States can ultimately do so because of the friendly border system between our two countries.

Can anyone imagine that if criminals can get to Canada and not be deported, they can stay, operate out of Canada, perpetrate a crime in the United States, come back to Canada and be relatively safe.

Is it any wonder why criminals from around the world basically laugh at our legal industry, our failed immigration system and our propensity to put as much value on the criminal as the victim's circumstances?

We in Langley and Abbotsford are participating in our country in productive ways. Our citizens have an excellent work ethic and we willingly contribute to healthy communities. We in my riding have three city councils headed by three able and capable mayors and councillors. We have four very respectable and determined members of our provincial government. The only flaw we seem to have in politics is when we get to the House of Commons and find that as much as we bring our issues from Langley--Abbotsford, they basically get ignored. This is the problem I hear from a lot of speakers in the House. It is not enough to say that we will side with the Americans on this issue. It is what will we do about it. Talk is cheap.

I could give once again a litany of cases I have fought to remove non-citizen criminals from Canada, to profile the problems of terrorists and drug dealers from other countries in Canada, to get our justice and prison system to protect the Canadian citizen better and to put victims of crime on at least an equal footing as that of the criminal, all this with minimal reaction from the government.

The results of government inaction can be seen in any community in Canada and perhaps around the world. I would like to take a few minutes, in the event that the Liberals are carefully listening to this, to give some examples of particular cases I have worked on. It applies both ways at our borders.

Boujam Aai Inthavong, for instance, from Laos, helped murder a nice young 17 year old boy in my riding. He served three years for that crime. When he found out that I was looking for a deportation order and trying to make sure that the deportation order stuck to him, he was advised to apply for refugee status while in prison. He did that and he got refugee status to stay in Canada in a 15 minute hearing while he was in prison. Imagine the safety and security of our own nation, much less that of any other country where this fellow goes. That was the only situation I had been involved with where I finally ended up being successful in getting this fellow deported. However it took a lot of time, effort and heartache. The government should really listen to some of these stories and understand that the legislation needs to be changed.

A dangerous offender in my riding received a passport while he was in prison. Anyone giving a dangerous offender a passport knows full well that he is headed in one direction from my area, which is on the border, he is headed across the border. That is unacceptable to the people of British Columbia and I suspect the people right across this country. These are the kinds of things I am sure that Americans would find unacceptable. In fact in this particular case I talked to Americans about this. They wondered what in the blue blazes we were doing over here in Canada. They wanted to know why would we be willing to give a dangerous offender a passport and send him over there? I do not have answers for that sort of thing.

Another fellow I worked with came into Canada on a visitors visa. He became involved in an assault, a relatively minor crime, but to try to beat the deportation order he claimed refugee status. He failed on his refugee application but was not deported. He waited 90 days and filed again for refugee status. I fought that one all the time telling officials that they should incarcerate and deport. They never did and he is still in the country after two applications and now three.

My whole thesis on this issue was limited to the need to look at the harbouring of criminals in our country. It is not good for our country and it is not good for any other country. I hope the government listens to that advice tonight.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

I am pleased to comment, Mr. Speaker, because what often happens is we overreact to particular events and we try to figure out what we could have done to avoid the event. We may have to accept to some degree that we cannot literally address every single terrorist act that happens.

My colleague from Burnaby--Douglas and I were just talking about the different security measures they want to put in at airports and the confiscating of hairpins, paper clips and other such things right now. No one is objecting to those types of searches right now. For the most part everyone sees why it is being done. However in a week or two down the road we will have travellers asking why the heck we are taking so much time doing this. The rush will be on. Some business person will need to be somewhere or someone will not want to miss the plane and the panic will be on again.

The member and I were just talking about the security at the airport, how we are checked and everything comes off. We can go into the lounge or the restaurant where there are numerous knives, spoons and forks or whatever might be there. We could also be on the plane with a cracked or broken glass and something could happen. We will never be able to address every single terrorist act but we need to have some practical security processes put in place to maintain some form of security. However we will never be able to address every single issue.

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a great question. We cannot address every single issue, of course, but there are some very big, global issues that we have to look at in the country. My colleagues outlined foreign affairs issues, defence, transportation, CSIS and RCMP issues. We are now focused on issues of security whether they be internal or international.

The particular issue I brought up in the House is of concern right across the country. Having been involved in so many issues personally I know the system rather well. People are concerned about Canada's image internationally. It is a good image but it is also an image that we harbour criminals and criminals know that and tell everyone that. They advertise from other countries saying “Come into Canada if you are a criminal”. It does not give confidence south of the border I am sure. We had a free and wonderful border system between our two countries but the Americans must be saying “You guys have to clean up your act a bit here”. Our propensity to accept and retain people who are criminals and the potential for them to go south and harm Americans must be a concern to the American system.

In the case of the dangerous offender receiving a passport, that was a very big concern among the Americans I had talked to. It will not go away until the government stops saying that it is a racial issue or some other thing. It is not. It is a real issue in our country. The government has to clean up that part of the act and it would not take much.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member focused his presentation this evening on issues surrounding immigration. They all dealt pretty much with cases that he has worked on in his job as an MP at the constituency level and he detailed some of the information. Does he have any information that any one of those cases or any other case is directly related to the issue we are debating tonight which is the tragedy of the terrorist attack in New York?

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that question was asked of several people here. What we are trying to tell the government is that all these issues represent Canada. They in fact give an image of Canada. They open doors to Canada. Because it may not have happened in New York City as a direct result of that does not mean it cannot happen. We are trying to get the government to understand. I can tell by the question that the government does not have an understanding of what I am talking about. That is too bad and unfortunate for Canada.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga West.

The fact that the motion has the unanimous support of the House shows how deeply Canadians were moved by the tragedy that hit the United States of America and the strength of ties binding Canadians to Americans. The same can be said about the people in my riding.

What we saw and read in the media has shaken us all. In addition, as we learn daily from the list of the missing ones, we also learn that virtually no nation was spared with the collapse of the towers. The names of the victims range from the United States of America of course to places as far as Guyana, and the United Kingdom to Canada. People from all continents are missing. It can therefore be said that virtually no nationality in the world was spared the horrendous and devastating impact of the four hijacked planes.

At the same time, as a result of this apocalyptic event we have learned one very important lesson so aptly outlined last week in the Globe and Mail by Amos Oz, a poet of Jewish faith: namely the importance of distinguishing firmly and clearly, and keeping apart the Islamic world and culture from the terrorist phenomenon.

In his speech today the Prime Minister made the point very well when he said that we will not undermine the values we cherish, that we will continue to offer refuge to the persecuted and that we will support and respect Muslim Canadians as an integral part of our multicultural society.

The consequences of last week's tragedy points also to the possibility of different scenarios which could emerge in the months and years ahead. One would be the United States of America, alone or with NATO, developing the most sophisticated intelligence system in the world, acquiring the most lethal weapons, pursuing terrorism and terrorists wherever they may be and, in doing so, fighting terrorism as a western crusade.

The other scenario could be one that requires more time but would give better results in the long term: a global initiative that would include Russia and China, nations which have everything to gain from eradicating terrorism as well. The United Nations would seem to be the ideal institution to launch a concerted action so as to ensure the anti-terrorism is conducted globally or multilaterally to use another term.

The global action would require, among others, the deployment of diplomatic skills rather than a war. It would be an action aimed at removing the reasons for terrorism to exist. Peace, justice and equity would be the goals, beginning with the Middle East of course, conscious and motivated by the fact that violence only breeds violence, violence generates hatred and violence leads to vendettas and revenge. This vicious circle we all agree must be broken.

The leadership for the second scenario, more preferable to the first, one must admit, would have to come from prime ministers and presidents and from people like Kofi Annan. Such a scenario would require many nations, including the United States of America in particular, to regain confidence in the unique role of the United Nations.

The main objective is to find the root cause of hatred and racism and prejudice which at present are the main motivations which feed and give power to the terrorist movement.

War in the form commonly understood is not the right option. On the contrary, war when declared would give legitimacy to the opponent. War would give the opponent a legitimate status and the right to strike back. Declaring war is not the solution to the terrorism problem. It may provide short term emotional satisfaction to some, but it will not provide the solutions for the long term as advocated today in this Chamber by the Prime Minister. We must keep in mind that for every terrorist eliminated, such as Osama bin Laden, five more will readily emerge.

The media reported the fact that terrorism can count on substantive financial resources. If that is accurate, then surely there is a role to be played by the international banking community. The banking community could and should be called upon by governments to identify and freeze the bank accounts held by suspected terrorists. In this way the banking community would play a very useful role.

In summary, what lies ahead for the global community is the opportunity for creative diplomatic initiatives, for intensive police action, for the bringing to justice of the terrorists, for a creative role by the United Nations and, as was mentioned a moment ago, for a role by the banking community.

September 11, in generating the emotions it has, could generate in the future a number of creative measures and initiatives in restoring confidence and in strengthening the fabric of society and the relations of the global community. The emotions could lead to increased international co-operation and to the pursuit of justice. It could lead to the building of a better world on the ruins of September 11, a day we will never forget.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments tonight. I have been following the debate with some interest. I am sure every member who spoke in the House today and all who have remained late into the evening wish there were some other reason we were here tonight.

I join with my colleagues and all Canadians of good will in expressing my outrage at the horrific destruction that took place in New York and at the Pentagon this past week. It is something none of us will ever forget. As others have already said, Tuesday, September 11, 2001 is a day that many of us who are old enough to understand consequences will always remember. I would liken it to another date, as perhaps others have as well. On November 22, 1963 another event shook the world. Many of us remember where we were and what transpired at that time in our lives. It was a day when the values of the world changed.

Last week the atrocities that we saw, the death of people in New York, and the heroic intervention of the firefighters and policemen who tragically died were all things we were struck and impressed by.

The member painted two scenarios for us. He suggested that one scenario is the U.S. destroying terrorist cells through high tech means. The second is that somehow we would find the answers to all of our global problems and address the root causes of global hatred and racial tensions. Does the member really believe that solving the world's problems this way is an achievable goal in such a short time?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no, definitely not. That is why I emphasized the fact that this will be a slow and long term process of the kind that was advocated by the Prime Minister in the debate today.

Obviously there is no panacea but we must remember, and it seems quite clear to me, that in the pursuit of terrorism we have to deal with the root causes that feed terrorism and make it so devastating and active on the world scene. In order to do that we have to deal with the hatred on which they base their support. We have to find ways of reducing the tensions in all those countries in those parts of the world, beginning with the Middle East where violence and hatred have been so dominant and which probably do give the terrorist movement additional strength and additional raison d'être.

I have no illusions. It is not a solution that is a quick one. It will not be a pursuit that will happen overnight. We have to ask ourselves how we are going to uproot and remove the sources that lead to violence and hatred, vendetta and revenge rather than just believing that by killing the terrorists involved that we have resolved the problem. We have to bring them to justice. We have to strengthen our security system. We have to engage in very sophisticated diplomatic activities. We have to attempt to do our best in building a better world on what is emerging from the ruins in downtown New York.

The way of doing that is to empower the United Nations with a task that has the purpose of resolving the tensions that have led to the spread and the intensity of these horrific activities on the part of the terrorist movement.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin my remarks, on behalf of my family and all the people I represent in Mississauga, to say how sad we all are and how we share the feelings that have been expressed in this place, throughout this great land and all around the world about the tragedy we witnessed. One of the most incredible aspects, aside from the magnitude of what happened, was the fact that most of us actually witnessed it, if not instantly while it was happening, certainly shortly thereafter. We have seen it replayed numerous times over the past six days.

I was in my office waiting to go into a meeting. CNN was on the television. One building was burning and we were all listening to reports that a plane crash had occurred. Then literally out of the blue another one came along and slammed into the south tower. It did not seem real. It had to be a stunt. It had to be a movie or some kind of a trick. It just did not seem possible that an attack of that magnitude could take place.

I agree with many who have spoken about the significance and infamy of it. As my wife said when she called me, it is another one of those incidents that everyone will know exactly where they were and what they were doing when someone asks them 10, 15 and 20 years from now. It is like the assassination of President Kennedy and many other instances. It is an astounding human tragedy beyond description, beyond comprehension, beyond belief, but it is also reality.

I wish I could embrace some of the members' ideas because we do need to look at change and we do need to learn from the incident in every aspect of our lives. However we must also recognize, as our Prime Minister has said, that we will not live in fear. The president of the United States has said it as well. For us to live in fear, for us to cloak ourselves in security that is beyond the imagination of Canadians is to say to the terrorists “Okay, you win”. We cannot let them win. We must find solutions.

I have heard members today describe the War Measures Act as a solution that should somehow be reactivated, not necessarily in the same way that it was. However while they were talking about the experience under then Prime Minister Trudeau, and some members I realize did not and would not agree with what happened then while others would, they seemed to imply that that should be a template with which we fix this. I am sorry to disagree because I want to find a solution as much as anyone. I want to stand shoulder to shoulder with our American cousins and friends. I want to bring an end, just like everyone in this place, to terrorism in the world. But the FLQ crisis, as tragic as it was, was isolated. Certainly they had difficulty finding the cells; they had difficulty finding the place where Mr. Cross was being held, but it was achievable.

What bothers me about this situation is we are dealing with a monster with tentacles that reach into dozens of countries. It has money that is beyond the financial capability of most countries in the world. It has the ability to inflict terror and damage around the world.

On a local level in Mississauga, I would like to tell the House what I did on Thursday. I was awake most of the night thinking about and replaying what I had seen. I was trying to think what I could do as an individual, as an MP, as a citizen of Mississauga and Canada. There is a place in our community just outside of my riding in the city of Mississauga called Palestine House. Some months ago there was an act of vandalism against the building and the people in it. Some people spray painted swastikas and hate slogans on the building.

At that time there was press coverage about it. There was a lot of discussion. Politicians and I, the mayor and others, were coming around trying to console and trying to understand. Something incredible happened that I will never forget. Rabbi Larry Englander, the rabbi from the Solel Synagogue in my riding, showed up with a cheque from the synagogue to present to the leaders of Palestine House to help them clean up the graffiti on their building. The message from that was that we would not allow that kind of terrorism and that kind of fanaticism to infiltrate the quality of our life here in Canada.

When I arrived at Palestine House on Thursday there was a lot of excitement that an MP was coming to see them. They were pretty upset. There is a school there and people work there. Those people were pretty upset and pretty tense. They escorted me into the back room and I was quite surprised to walk into the middle of a meeting between the leaders of that community and two members of Peel regional police. I asked why the police were there and was told they had had complaints from their children at the school that they were being intimidated and they refused to go school. There apparently had been an incident of some form of violence, of shoving, all related to the tragedy that we all watched on CNN.

That is not Canadian. That is not my Canada. I do not think it is the Canada of any person in this place. That is exactly the kind of incident that we have to strive to stop from taking over the debate in this particular issue.

My good friend, the member for Davenport, made a suggestion that I indeed intended to make and I will repeat it in the hope that this will perhaps add some weight to it, that is, we should be fighting fire with fire and attacking their financial capability. They must have money in bank accounts throughout the world, money that gets funnelled into weapons. Who paid for the $30,000 in flight instruction, in cash? Who paid for the one way airline tickets? Somebody is transferring money around.

We heard questioners in the House today asking if we were prepared to commit military action. What we are talking about there is soldiers on the ground. We were being questioned as to whether we are prepared to send our men and women into harm's way to fight an enemy that is so different from anything any of us have ever experienced before.

I have heard members talk about watching Pearl Harbor and about the trauma of living through World War II. I was born in 1947 so I can only go by what I learned in history, but this is nothing like the experience of World War II, where we could identify an enemy. We knew where they were coming from. It was a terrible, cataclysmic period in our world history but at least we could get a handle on who we were fighting.

I fear that if we stand up in this place and talk the talk we had better be prepared to walk the walk, and walking the walk means sending people walking right into the heart of Taliban country, right into Afghanistan, and two nations, Great Britain and Russia, will testify about what a mistake they made by going into what turned out to be their very own Vietnam.

In my view what we need to do is somehow answer the questions of who we are we fighting and how we can fight them. What are the techniques that we can use? We need to do it united. It does not mean that we are any less committed to fighting and ending terrorism. It just means that we have to recognize that the capabilities these people have are so incredible that they go beyond sending a platoon of soldiers to certain death in a faraway land.

I believe that the leaders in the United States understand that. They have been through it. I believe that our government understands it. It is my sincere hope that we will continue to join with the United States to put an end to terrorism throughout the world, but to do it in a way that will be effective and make sense.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to say it is a pleasure, but it is not a pleasure to rise in the House tonight to be involved in the debate and to pose a question to the member for Mississauga West.

Before I do that, I would like to add to others the condolences and prayers of the citizens of Lethbridge in southern Alberta for the victims of this horrific crime, for their families and friends around the world as well as here in Canada, and to offer their support to the rescue workers who are working so hard to find survivors in that awful mess that once was New York. I was a volunteer firefighter for many years. I have seen some horrific things but I cannot imagine what these people are facing as they go through this disaster.

At the memorial service in Lethbridge on Friday, held in conjunction with the one in Ottawa, during the ceremony the firefighters present were called away to answer a call. I know from experience that when that call comes how focused firefighters become on the task at hand when the call comes in and how they will not stray from getting to where they are needed.

The member gave us a lot of scenarios about the world and how we need to get to the root cause of terrorism. My question for the member is about what he is telling his constituents that he and his government will do to put at ease the minds of children and families in this country. That threat exists. We can go after the root cause and we can try to change culture and society, but in the interim what is he prepared to ask his government to do to make everyone in the country feel safer?