Debates of Sept. 17th, 2001

Attack on the United States

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really important question. I think every one of us in this place needs to address what we can do individually in our own community, such as talking to the young people in our schools and to community groups.

However, what we need to do is not make knee-jerk decisions. We need to know if we will make commitments and we have said that we will commit. In fact I wonder at times what people do not understand about the word yes. We have said we will support the Americans and that we will be shoulder to shoulder with them. Our Prime Minister made an extremely eloquent speech on Friday in this place to 100,000 Canadians. The message is clear: Canada will be there.

What we do not know as parliamentarians in this place is where there is. We do not yet know how we are to attack it because the investigations are not complete. All I am saying, which needs to be said to Canadians, is that we need to find ways where we do not have to put your sons and daughters in harm's way, because I do not believe that this is a traditional war like the wars in which we have had to take part in the past.

This is a very complex situation that requires some very strategic planning on how we can attack the root causes and get rid of terrorism throughout the entire world. Canadians will understand that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Mississauga West for his speech. He has touched on a number of important points.

I too want to extend condolences and prayers on behalf of the people of Dewdney--Alouette in British Columbia. I had the opportunity to live and work in the United States for a year. My father was born in the state of New York. It is with a heavy heart that I join in to offer my condolences as well.

I want to quickly touch on one point that my colleague mentioned, which is that we need to walk the walk and not just talk here tonight. It is my sincere hope and wish that we can move together in a non-partisan way in the House, with the resolve that will be necessary not just for this day but for the many months ahead, to come together with co-ordinated action to pay the price for our freedoms.

A past generation did that and there are leaders here in this place today who must be solid in their resolve to act on behalf of the people of our nation and our world to work to solve this issue. It is my hope that we will be able to do that. I commend my colleague for his wise comments tonight.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the hon. member and just leave members with one brief thought if I may. The organization that we are dealing with has bases throughout the world. Just to give an example of how complex it is, it is a conglomerate of groups spread throughout the world, operating as a network with global reach, with a presence in Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, Tianjin in China, Pakistan and Bangladesh. The list goes on and on. There are 30 or 40 countries involved. It is a very complex issue. I know that my government will attack it, along with the American government, as best as possible.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Laval Centre. I therefore plan to speak for about ten minutes, after which I will be ready to answer questions for about five minutes.

It is customary for parliamentarians to begin a speech by saying that they are very pleased to be taking part in the debate. Unfortunately, this evening, at the stage we are at, and I am not referring to time but to feelings, I am not prepared to say that I am very happy to be taking part in this debate. It is an unprecedented tragedy.

I will explain what I mean. My riding borders on the states of New York and Vermont. I have many friends who are politicians in the state of New York. I have met on several occasions with Senator Hillary Clinton. I have also met with the other senator, Mr. Schumer, as well as with members of Congress, including Mr. McHugh. I am also very friendly with the mayor of Plattsburgh, Dan Stewart. I think that he is a good friend of the member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve.

I think that during the last Gay Pride parade, Mr. Stewart rode in the car of the mayor of Montreal, Pierre Bourque. There are therefore many close connections and friendships between my riding and the State of New York.

I would like to tell those listening how I heard about the event. I arrived at my office around 8.30 or 8.45 on this particular Tuesday morning. I had a call from someone telling me that an airplane had crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center.

My first reaction was to ask whether it was an attack or an accident. I thought it was an attack. I turned on the television to watch CNN and the various news networks: everything was live. At that point, we saw the second plane hit the second tower. There was no longer any doubt; this was really an attack.

I immediately tried to reach my friends by telephone. People will understand that it is not easy to reach a senator. However, I was able to reach my friend in Plattsburgh and immediately offered him my condolences. I also offered the assistance of the riding of Saint-Jean. I told him to ask for whatever he needed and we would do everything we could to help.

The first paragraph of the motion before us reads as follows:

That this House express its sorrow and horror at the senseless and vicious attack--

We cannot oppose that. We will act collectively, together with the 301 members. I think a lot of members have offered the American government their deepest sympathies during the course of the day.

Not just the American government is involved. We offer our condolences to the President, but for those who have friends in New York City and the state of New York, Governor Pataki comes to mind. I think it is important to say individually “We are so sorry about what has happened. We want to help you”. It is important to say it too, altogether, here, this evening.

I think that everyone in the House and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois offer our condolences not only to the American people but to the inhabitants of New York City and the state of New York. It is an unprecedented drama.

This week my daughter attended one of my Bloc Quebecois cocktail parties, and I mentioned her. These people who hung on to the last thread of their life at the top of the World Trade Center were thinking of their family. It is important that the planet, that Canada, that Quebec, that the municipalities and that each riding send support to the Americans.

Sometimes they say it does not take the form of millions of dollars. Regardless, they did not need basic foodstuffs, because everyone was rushing in to offer what they could. Our gifts of blood they did not need. There were lineups at New York hospitals to contribute, to save the life of the people who were victims of these acts.

At such times, what people need, and it is a bit like in a family, if we say we are in the same family as the United States in North America, are comfort and support. I think that was there, and the second paragraph of the motion says it very well:

That it express its heartfelt condolences to the families of the victims and to the American people;

I have just said that we have done so, that everyone is doing so. I also have special thoughts for the rescue teams that tried to help the victims.

There were likely firefighters or police officers who entered the building and went up as many floors as they could to rescue people. Some cannot understand that. They have asked me "How could they, when they knew they were going to their death?" I am familiar with the various fire departments and police forces in my riding and I believe that these people will always put their lives at risk to save someone else. It is touching to realize that some people went up the stairs, since nothing else was operating, in order to try to help others, knowing that their lives were at risk, but that is what they did.

We must extend our condolences to the victims and their families, but I believe we must also pay tribute to the rescuers who made every effort to save people and lost their lives in the attempt. I believe that this needs to be brought to people's attention.

People died because they went up into the towers in attempt to help people out, even though they knew they were probably not going to live through it. As far as the first two paragraphs of the motion go, I am fine with them.

The last paragraph reads as follows:

That it 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 on these values and to defend civilization from any future terrorist attacks.

This is, in my opinion, where a slight problem comes in. Today during oral question period reference was made to this. I understand that the Prime Minister can respond very adequately on NATO article 5, which deals with great solidarity and which says that an attack against one of the members is an attack against all. NATO reacted very promptly. I think the very next day NATO secretary general Lord Robertson said: “Yes, it is an act of war; yes, the United States have been attacked; yes, we are all going to come to their defence”.

This is where things start to become a bit more complicated in this debate. If we look at the main wars which have taken place in the past 50 or perhaps 100 years, the aggressor was very clearly identified. During World War I, we saw very clearly the rise of the aggressor and his hegemonic desire for total military control.

There was also the attack on Pearl Harbor at the end of World War II, which I think was unprecedented. The nation responsible for this attack was easily identifiable. The same was true during the Korean War, when North Korea wanted to take over South Korean territory. The international community was forced to respond. The same thing happened during the gulf war. Saddam Hussein was very clearly identified. In the Balkans, it was the same: Milosevic was very clearly identified.

Now, we are facing an insidious aggressor. Much diplomacy will be required. The president of the United States quite correctly said that it would be a long war because we are not in a position to say that we are going to attack this individual or that nation directly.

This is the most difficult part of the resolution. As far as condolences, military intervention and the need to eradicate terrorism, the Bloc Quebecois is in complete agreement. We are going to support this resolution and, in the days and weeks to come, try to ensure that the debate is properly focused. Attacks on civilian populations must be avoided. Everyone has said so.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member correctly, he is suggesting that the potential military action contemplated in part by the invocation of article 5 of NATO would be inapplicable in this case in so far as no clear states are belligerents in this potential war.

I gather that is he is saying an armed struggle would not apply here in so far as there is no state against which to launch the struggle. However does the member not appreciate the principle for all U.S. policy, and I suspect NATO policy in this regard, which was articulated by President Bush last week? The president said he would make no distinction between states which sponsor terrorism or harbour terrorists and the terrorists themselves.

Does the member agree with the principle that states which sponsor, promote or harbour terrorism or terrorists are equally as culpable as the terrorists who live and operate within them? Should those states not themselves be held accountable by civilized and free nations of the world?

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. Indeed, a little more clarification is required.

Yes, I think he is right. We must also take action against nations that protect, finance and encourage terrorist acts. Now, as everyone knows, and I am taking Afghanistan as an example, the Afghani regime, the Taliban, strongly encourages the numerous terrorist camps within Afghanistan.

Does this justify an unprecedented bombing, of Kabul for instance? This is where we make certain distinctions. I am not saying that article 5 of NATO or of the North Atlantic Treaty ought not to be applied. It must, but with distinctions, because as I have said already, in various wars the aggressors have been clearly identified.

Here, they have not. It is certain that we are beginning to find leads to Osama bin Laden and so on. But would that justify, for example, the bombing of Kabul, because it houses a regime sympathetic to this terrorist leader?

This is where Canada, the Bloc Quebecois and all parties in this House have a role to play. The House of Commons must weigh the action of the government carefully. I would, moreover, point out that this was the object of my question this afternoon.

What are the government's intentions? According to the government, “We have U.S. assurances that they will need to go back to NATO and tell them "Here is the proof and here is what we suggest"”. Each of the member nations will then be free to act as it sees fit. Certainly, we are linked by the treaty, but it is equally certain that we will not be bombing civilian populations. The law of retaliation does not apply here.

Just because 5,000 civilians were killed in the United States, we are not going to kill 5,000 more in Afghanistan. That is not the purpose. This is, moreover, the reason President Bush has said the war will be a long one, because I believe he wants to go after the terrorists and not the totally innocent civilian population.

The terrorists did not make that distinction. I believe that we, as responsible members of this House, as parliamentarians, must make that distinction. We must not attack civilians. We must strike directly at the terrorists.

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

Mr. Speaker, these are tough questions we must ask. The very nature of the acts of the evil men who perpetrated them on America has forced all of us on to the horns of a moral dilemma. We must ask these tough questions and resolve in this place to come up with the answers. We must understand that when dealing with individuals who are willing to die for their cause we must consider doing the same.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a shift in public opinion.

Take the example of the war in the Balkans: many countries took part under the premise that there would be no loss of life for the forces fighting against evil.

I believe that this is changing today. Public opinion in Canada, the U.S. and around the world changed when people saw the images of those airplanes colliding into the towers causing so many civilian casualties. Today people are prepared to eradicate terrorism, to make them pay the price for the lives lost and I think that public opinion is justified on this point.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on September 11, a clap of thunder on a bright sunny day rocked our world into fear, anger, panic and pain. In an unimaginable act, terrorists struck with pin-point accuracy at the very symbols that provided us with the illusion of tranquility and security.

Can these horrible crimes, perpetrated by men against the emblems of our privileged society have any meaning? The answer to this question is not simple, because if we forget for a moment about the horror, and the fanaticism, and the madness of murder and hate, do we have the right to close our eyes on the misery of starving children, on the violence committed with no discrimination against vulnerable peoples, on the growing gap between the rich and poor?

Do we, as citizens, have some responsibility to bear in the succession of events? Are the “good” people really all on one side? Is the law of retaliation a fair and just response?

It was not by chance that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon took place on September 11, International Day of Peace. The terrorists' message is clear: peace is an illusion. We do not agree with this message, but it is important to analyse the meaning of what they did. The fact that this tragedy was the result of the brilliantly orchestrated action of fanatical commandos does not free us from the obligation to understand and take action to safeguard the values of freedom, justice and democracy, which are the hope of all peoples.

World opinion was unanimous in denouncing the perpetrators of these unprecedented tragedies: they must be held accountable and face the consequences of their actions.

Because terrorism is the negation of democracy, each of us seeks the introduction of appropriate measures to eradicate it, and return to the feeling of security we had before September 11. Is this realistic? No, it is not, any more than it is realistic to think that it is possible to eliminate the violence and madness in the heart of men. Although Canada can undoubtedly improve identity checks at its borders and facilitate the transmission of information necessary for the security of its citizens, it is important to always bear in mind the danger of a collective paranoia which would suspend our freedom.

Transforming a state into a bunker is to decide to turn in on oneself, to suffocate. Canada's reputation when it comes to respect for human rights and acceptance of others is exemplary on more than one count. In this difficult balance required between stepped-up border security and respect for freedom, human rights, refugee and humanitarian rights, we must listen to the voices of our fellow citizens, who believe in enriching our society through the contribution of new traditions, new ways of doing things and seeing the world.

One of the most notable things about Canada and Quebec is the warm welcome we give those looking for a safer and more peaceful place in which to live. Our duty as modern and open democratic societies is to continue to help those fleeing dictatorial regimes and life-threatening situations. The manner in which we treat those who come to live with us will reflect our openness and generosity as a society.

I am confident, and I strongly hope, that despite the extremely difficult period that humankind is going through, Canada will still be able to set an example when it comes to respect for international conventions, particularly the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the international convention against torture.

The current situation must be of concern to future asylum seekers, who arrive in Canada in these troubled times in which international peace is being sorely tested.

We hope that these men and women wishing to live here will always be treated fairly, justly, generously and with the openness we are so proud of.

Khalil Gibran, the author of The Prophet , Lebanese by birth, wrote in a short volume published in French by Albin Michel in 1990 that crime is another word for need or symptom of disease.

In the aftermath of these attacks, one question remains unanswered: why? Why so much hate, why so much violence? At the heart of New York and Washington, the entire western world was hit. Could the misery and injustice to which millions are driven without hope be part of the answer? When life is little more than hunger, thirst, and watching one's loved ones become sick and die without any hope of light at the end of the tunnel, when life has been lived in a situation of war and oppression for so long, when a culprit appears to have been found, could anger, rage and revolt eventually take root in such circumstances and transform into deliberate acts mindless rage, where reality is wilder than fiction?

While globalization has made us believe in a thriving economy, it may be that the answers buried in the rubble of the twin towers talk about sharing, justice and generosity. Is it quixotic to believe that globalization, which is of an economic nature, could have a social dimension and that the right to feed oneself, to have a shelter, to learn and to grow become a concrete reality for all?

Will we collectively be able to make this societal choice?

No one knows what the days, the weeks and the months ahead will deliver. Let us hope that the anger will soon give way to wisdom.

The author of the Prophet also wrote “Hatred is a walking corpse. Who among us wishes to be a tomb?”

The September 11 incidents were a big bang that resonated across the whole world. Let us admit it. Democracy is fragile and today, more than ever before, this democracy will have the strength of our commitment to promote social equity, which reflects our responsibility toward the peoples of the world.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to be perplexed by the kind of comments such as the one I have just heard from the member. For instance, she asked at the outset of her speech in this context: is good only on one side? This implies a question that is filled with moral ambiguity and moral relativism.

In response to her rhetorical question, I propose that good is on the side of those who oppose the evil represented by these acts of terror and those who perpetrated them. It is that simple. There is good and evil at play in this combat. It is not jingoistic to suggest it. It is simply a question of absolute moral clarity. I am shocked that not every member can see this.

The member talked about root causes. We keep hearing this over and over again. Here we are facing the single greatest strategic security threat to the health and well-being of the people of the free world since the cold war and instead of a serious analysis of what drives it and how to prevent it and fight it, we hear about anger, rage, revolt, economic inequity. Many of the terrorists who perpetrated this were very wealthy people financed by at least one billionaire and probably by other very wealthy people involved in the Islamic movement. Some of the actual hijackers had graduate degrees from western universities. They were not struggling voices of economic depravity from the third world. They were people who represent a very insidious movement of radical Islamism, not all Muslims, but a radical Islamism which is predicated on anti-Semitism and a hatred for Liberal democracy.

Does the member not appreciate the real motives here and the moral clarity that stands in this conflict?

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having taken the time to listen to me. The question remains: is the good always on the same side? I do not think so. I believe that everywhere, regardless of the country to which we turn, there are people who are extremely sad about what is happening. In the current situation, which generates a tremendous amount of diversified but extremely strong emotions, there is a danger that these emotions may make us forget to take stock.

Let us not forget that when we drop bombs we do not only hurt the bad people. We sometimes bomb people who are just as innocent as those who were trapped in the towers. Mankind is struggling with a rather terrible issue. In the wake of these events, I think that we can probably move on the road to democracy and justice if men and women of goodwill are able to recognize that there is anger and hatred in their hearts.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I too agree with my colleague from Calgary. We are talking about good versus evil. There is such a thing. We need to be unbelievably aware of that and sensitive to it as well.

I would like to thank my colleague for her remarks. Although I may not agree with everything she said, we do need to come together in this Chamber with true resolve and no sense of partisanship whatsoever.

What gripped the world last week certainly was very powerful for all of us. We need to realize in a place such as this, in truly a house of power, how important it is for us to stand together with our American colleagues and also to realize the pain and suffering of many millions of Afghanis who are repressed, who are living a life of poverty and sadness and who are also victims of such an unbelievable regime. When we think about those people and retaliation and the repercussions that could come of this, our hearts go out and our prayers are with those people, those who were victims in New York last week, and those who were on planes. Many of us who spend so much of our lives on airplanes can only think of the horror that those people went through in their last moments.

We look not only at the act on New York City last week but the trigger effect it may have around the world as we go after terrorism. It is at such a frightening level.

I would like the member to comment briefly about the innocent Afghanis who are trying to get out of the country right now because they fear repercussions, and just exactly what we can do as a House here in Ottawa, Canada to really encourage, not just offer platitudes, but to encourage--

[The Speaker]

I must interrupt the hon. member for Edmonton North. The hon. member for Laval Centre, very briefly.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

It is going to be very hard, Mr. Speaker, to be very brief.

As we know, Canada has signed various international conventions on refugees. I am firmly convinced that Canada is going to respect its commitments, despite the critical situation we find ourselves in today. It seems clear to me, at any rate, that if Afghani citizens were to manage to get to Canada and claim refugee status, their applications would, I believe, be looked at in a very serious manner and from a new view of their situation.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to serve notice that I will be splitting my time.

I have been listening to much of the debate that began much earlier today. The debate has reflected very well on all members an all parties in the House. It shows that the House can do very well with less partisanship from time to time.

First, I want to express on behalf of my constituents of Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia sincere condolences to all the American people in the wake of last week's horrifying events. In particular, I want to extend sympathy to all the families who lost loved ones. That includes American families, Canadian families, British families and other families right around the world.

I want to say in particular to the United States of America and her people that our thoughts and prayers are with them at this extremely difficult time. Even though it is six days since that terrible event happened, many of us are still in shock. We are numbed by the magnitude of that horrific act. It is hard to believe that more than 5,000 people have died and that the huge famous landmarks in downtown Manhattan are no longer a part of reality.

I want to assure the American people that we will stand by them and support them at this difficult time. I am so pleased that our Prime Minister said very much the same thing. In fact he went beyond that in his moving speech last Friday. He indicated that our friendship with the Americans and the United States of America has no limits whatsoever and we will do whatever is necessary to help them in the days, the weeks, the months and yes, even the years ahead because this is going to be a long, long battle. We are not going to be able to get rid of the terrorists. The world will not be able to rid itself of the terrorists for a long time.

The Prime Minister noted that as a member of NATO, Canada along with its partners in NATO invoked article 5 which in effect says that an attack on one member is an attack on all members. By virtue of article 5, the terrorists attacked Canada as well. In fact they attacked civilization. They attacked democracies all around the world.

It is quite understandable in a time such as this that there is a clamour for a sharp response, an immediate response when people have lost their loved ones, people who are near and dear to them. It is understandable that some will seek blood, that they will seek revenge. In fact I caught an interview on CNN on the weekend in which a gentleman said, “Today we mourn, tomorrow we avenge”.

That is something I do not share completely. I certainly share the mourning, but when it comes to revenge, that is a different question. We have to be extremely measured in our response. We have to be disciplined. I can certainly understand people wanting blood and revenge. When someone is hurt, they react. That is a very human response.

As a country and as a people we have to be careful in our response. We have to be prudent. We do not want to make the same mistakes as the terrorists. Two wrongs do not make a right. We all know how violence begets violence. We do not want that. We do not want thousands of civilians caught up in some kind of conflagration where thousands of innocent people die. That is not what we want.

I am very pleased to note that a number of my constituents are advocating restraint.

I would like to share with hon. members excerpts from three e-mails I received. I would like to read short portions of those letters to indicate how these constituents feel.

The first one is from a woman who says she has never written to a politician before. She said:

The Canadian politicians that speak for me need to hear that, though I like most of the world have a difficult time understanding the events of the past week, I want our actions, as individuals and as 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.

Here is a short letter from a man in my riding. In part he said:

--the Canadian government must work to ensure that calm and considered action is taken that will not jeopardize or threaten the lives of innocent civilians in other countries. Yes, there must be justice. A terrible crime against innocent people was committed. But this is not war.

I have another letter from a gentleman in my riding, who said in part:

We are committed to justice not revenge. Revenge will only continue the cycle of violence. Those who are powerful need to realize that when a finger is pointed out at someone 3 point back at you. A people who cherish freedom ought to know that others cannot be bullied into subservience. I could go on but it is crucial for our country and other NATO allies to help the Americans keep perspective not feed the emotionalizing of the situation.

Those are excerpts from three letters from constituents who I think are providing some sage advice, that is, we have to be very prudent in any response that we carry out as a people and as a country.

As I indicated earlier, I think this will be a long, tough fight. We are dealing with fanatics who are full of hate but clever, who are organized in decentralized cells that are very hard to detect and who of course are well financed.

It is worthwhile noting that warfare, if we want to call this war, has changed a lot over the last many decades. During the American civil war, which was less than 150 years ago, many a battle featured the armies lining up face to face. They had it out with each other. Many of the same elements were contained in the first world war. There were allied troops in trenches on one side and German soldiers in trenches only a few yards away, and they had it out.

War has changed a lot, although not all parts of it. Certainly the killing part has not changed, but the tactics, the strategy, have changed a lot. We have to recognize that. If we are to beat our enemy, if we are to defeat these terrorists, it may not take airplanes and it may not take bombs to get rid of them. It may take something entirely different. I am no expert on it but it could take a superior brand of intelligence to identify the terrorists and to determine the most appropriate response.

I was talking to one of my colleagues earlier today, the hon. member for Mississauga West. I do not know if he mentioned it in his speech but he mentioned to me that perhaps one way we should consider, and I know it has already been considered, is to get at their source of finances. That would cut off the money supply. If they do not have money, it may curtail their activities.

Let me say in closing that I think we have to be prudent. We have to be careful in our response. We have to do everything possible. We have to look at our legislation, help our agencies and do what we can, but we have to make sure that at the end of the day we do not sacrifice our values, that we do not sacrifice our own democracy.

If we cannot assemble in open places in our country, the terrorists win. If we cannot travel freely, the terrorists win. If we always have to be looking over our shoulder, the terrorists win. If I know Canadians well, we will not let terrorists win. In fact, they will not win.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments, but one subject in the debate that tends to get overlooked a lot is the aspect of our public service workers. As all members of parliament know, PSAC, representing many factions of our various unions and Union of Taxation employees are in a strike mandate with the federal government. When the September 11 events came on they cancelled all strike activities, all further debate on the subject and realized that their efforts should pay attention to the needs of all Canadians and, in fact, to the needs of all of our American cousins, for that matter.

I want to thank the hon. member for his comments that he read from constituents. Yes, it is sage advice. I admit as the religious person I am that the day of September 11 I harboured views of revenge and serious anger. I wanted anything short of extreme violence to get at these people.

That was a human response. That was my first response. However, there is a reality after careful reflection with my minister, my church, my family and especially my children, because the event that hit me the most out of all the things that happened in a very chaotic time was the day care in New Jersey where an awful lot of these WTC employees bring their children for the day: a fair number of those children had no parents to pick them up on the evening of September 11.

I was extremely saddened by that story. It hurts me today as the father of two young children to know that happened and it calls upon the House for all of us to somehow seek justice for the dead and peace for the living.

I want to ask the hon. member how he assumes that in some way we are able to achieve justice for the dead and peace for the living.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult question. Let me say that after events of this kind some of the best parts of human nature emerge and sometimes the worst parts of us show up as well.

I was extremely moved last Friday when an estimated 100,000 Canadians, most of them, I suppose, from Ottawa and the surrounding district, came to Parliament Hill to express their caring and their sympathy for the American people. I assume that in a crowd of that size there were people from all faiths.

I am sure that there were Islamic people, Catholics, Protestants, Jewish people, Unitarians, atheists, you name it. They came as human beings who felt they had to express something. They had to show that they really cared for their neighbours. At that particular moment last Friday I think that Canadians showed the very best of themselves and I am very proud of them.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member, and to be perfectly frank, I get a little nervous about the soft attitude that speech indicated.

If a criminal breaks the law, the object is to catch the criminal and bring him before the court to be dealt with. That is how criminal acts are handled: through the court. If this act were considered a criminal act, we would catch the perpetrators and bring them to a court of law and a judge would then make a decision with regard to their future. I think that would be a shame because this is much bigger than that. The Americans are absolutely right in stating it is an act of war. It is an act of war against the very basic freedoms that many of our forefathers, friends and family members died for not too long ago against other terrorists such as Adolf Hitler. I could name more.

We are taking this terribly lightly and it really bothers me that we do not treat this more like a cancer. We do not treat a few patients for cancer and say we will not do any more research or anything. We will simply treat those who get sick and if we all get it, that is too bad. It has to be treated in a different way. We must stamp out the cancer. We need to be firmer in our statements. We need to link arms together in brotherhood and say that this kind of thing will not happen in this society ever again and we will make every effort to see to it that it will not.

Will the member stand on his feet with more courage and conviction and say that this must cease in this land of the free? Yes or no.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course I want it to cease as much as the member for Wild Rose does. The question is how to do it. It may not take bombs. It may not take airplanes. It may take some different kind of technology altogether. If bin Laden is guilty I want him before the world court and charged with crimes against humanity as much as the member does.

The question is, how do we do it? We just simply cannot overreact for the sake of overreacting. We want the best possible response. We want a response that is effective. I want those people eliminated and I want them eliminated as quickly as possible. However, I have to realize and recognize that it will take time and a lot of clever strategy and clever tactics. It will also take patience. That is just the way it is in the modern world.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people I represent in the riding of Malpeque I too express sadness and condolences to the families who have had people killed or injured, to those who must work in very difficult circumstances and to those who are feeling stress as a result of these terrible acts.

There is no question that those who planned and worked to commit these acts of violence must be condemned and brought to justice one way or another. I support very strongly the resolution that the House:

--reaffirm its commitment to the humane values of free and democratic society and its determination to bring to justice the perpetrators of this attack on these values and to defend civilization from any future terrorist attacks.

Many members and many commentators have spoken of how the world changed on September 11. Yes, that is true; our world has changed. However, and I do not say this to in any way lessen the impact of the violence on September 11, terrorism has been increasingly prevalent on the global scene for a number of years. The calls for action are because this attack was closer to home. This, in all honesty, is what is focusing the world's attention on finding solutions to terrorism. Yes, the world has indeed changed, but terrorism is not new. It is merely closer to home.

As with any change, we can change for the better or for the worse. We must do much more than declare war on the perpetrators and “root them out”. Yes, we must do that but we must do much more. We must also find the root causes of terrorism and find some cures.

As a first step I agree with the position the Canadian government and NATO have taken. They have responded with a declaration that an attack on one represents an attack on all. That attack must be dealt with and dealt with aggressively. However we must go further.

The Prime Minister in his remarks today said that this will be a long struggle with no easy solutions and that we should be guided by what works in the long run, not by what makes us feel good.

What will it take to work in the long run? The former foreign affairs minister, Lloyd Axworthy, best summed up what we are dealing with today in an article in the Globe and Mail . I quote from that article in which he said:

Security threats today come less from military forces and increasingly from the international criminal, drug trafficker, political extremist, small arms vendor, warlord, or petty tyrant. These people are adept at using the modern tools of organization and intelligence gathering and know how to exploit global communications technology. They are well funded, often with superior resources to the enforcement agencies they confront. They are skilled at the techniques of infiltration and sabotage. And, they prey upon ordinary people. They are the underworld, the dark side of our global system.

The former minister of foreign affairs summed it up quite correctly in terms of what we are dealing with. We should understand that just one strike will not rid us of the problem. We must be much more intelligent than that. We will need to spend more resources than that. We will need to look at our own borders and look globally to get to the bottom of the problem. Beyond that, as I said earlier, we must find cures for the causes of terrorism.

The former minister of foreign affairs, Mr. Axworthy, made three points which I will put on the record. First, existing defences do not work. Military might as great as that of the United States did not prevent this attack. Second, all countries are in this together. This was demonstrated by NATO's pledge of support. Third, there must be closer co-operation and work within the community of nations to fight terrorism.

I agree with all these points. The government has long recognized that we must work toward developing new frameworks of international agreements. This is not just an American problem, a Canadian problem or a British problem. It is international. We must work together to define more clearly the responsibilities of governments and individuals on issues such as harbouring suspected terrorists and financing their activities.

On the question of new legislation, if that were the answer how could we explain the fact that the United States already has anti-terrorist legislation which quite obviously did not work? The answer in Canada is not necessarily legislation. It is dealing with terrorism before it gets here. It is dealing with the root causes.

As to the last point, Canada is a multi-ethnic and tolerant country. We welcome people from around the world. We will not build a wall around ourselves. The key to fighting terrorism is to attack both those who carry it out and those who support people who believe they can find a political solution through violence.

That is where we must move. We must work internationally. Yes, we must deal aggressively in the first instance, but we must also work internationally through intelligence, better security and trying to find cures for the causes of terrorism around the world.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech on the root causes of terrorism and how we need to address it. Let us look at some of the causes of terrorism.

How about countries that freely allow money to be raised to support terrorist activities? How about countries that refuse to deport known terrorists because they might face the death penalty in the country where they are to be deported? How about countries like that? I believe Canada falls into that example, and to me that is one of the root causes of terrorism.

We have allowed these organizations to exist in Canada. It is a known fact. There are reports of organizations that raise money here. Every organization from the northern Irish to the Kurds has fundraising organizations in Canada, but the current government and politicians and governments before it have been too afraid to enact legislation to stop it.

Would the hon. member support extradition of a known terrorist to another country to face charges?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member well knows there is legislation on the books to deal with some of these problems. If the opposition party were sometimes a little more co-operative, some of the legislation might have gone through before now. The fact of the matter is yes, there is legislation on the books.

The Prime Minister earlier today said something along the lines that we do not assist anyone by increasing hatred around the world. We have laws in our land and expect people when they come to our country, whether they are visitors or Canadian citizens, to abide by the laws of our land. We are very proud of ourselves as a multicultural society.

We do not want to start doing away with our tolerance and values because of these terrorist acts. We must promote our tolerance and values. That is what we should be doing and we should be doing it aggressively.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the level of emotion is difficult and raw for all of us here. I also know how important it is to exact some sort of revenge for this. When this kind of terrorist activity goes unchecked it continues unabated and escalates.

As I said in my earlier remarks, it is important to realize what could be sparked by this in terms of retaliation and the repercussions that could be felt worldwide.

The discussion here is centering around whether it is important to avenge what has happened not just to our American friends and cousins but to the Canadians who were lost in the tragedy. We are also discussing whoever else and whatever country may be affected next. That is what we need to look at.

We talk about anti-terrorist legislation and how important it is. The Americans have pretty good legislation and yet we saw how easy it was for terrorists to break through that barrier, make a mockery of the entire FAA security system and board planes.

We need to think very carefully. Many of our constituents are concerned about the issue. In the Edmonton North area that I represent there is a large Arabic and Muslim population, including the Canadian-Arab Friendship Society, and they are every bit as concerned about this issue.

The question the government needs to answer, to which I invite my colleague to respond, is this. We know something must be done. How can we stand here and say, as my colleague just said, that we are multicultural? We know that, but what will we do so that we are not harbouring terrorists or encouraging other countries to do the same?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, of course it is important that we avenge these acts but what is the best way to do it? There must be a short term and a long term strategy. We cannot be blinded by our emotions right now, which seem to be just to get even. We must look at the root causes of the problem and be sure that we solve it over the long term.

I will point out another thing. The member talked about legislation in the United States. I said in my remarks that it did not work but it goes further than that. Maybe I should not say this but I will. The Americans need to look at their own security in their airports. Ours are far better than those of the United States, there is no question about it.

A friend of mine went through Boston's Logan Airport yesterday. They did not turn on his computer. They did not check his briefcase. They did not turn on his cellphone. One cannot go through a Canadian airport like that. To a certain extent the Americans need to look at themselves in terms of their own security at their airports. However we must do much more than that.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Centre-East.

I am a little surprised at the comment I heard coming from the member that somehow the Americans are to blame for the horrible attack on the World Trade Center because their security was not secure enough.

It concerns me that we are shifting the blame onto our ally at a time when we should be standing strong with them and saying that their country and people have been the strongest defenders of democracy and freedom in the world. To suggest that our allies are responsible for the attack is disgusting.

On behalf of the people of Provencher--