Debates of Sept. 17th, 2001

Attack on the United States

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us in the House are touched by this tragedy. I would like to extend my condolences to all those affected by this. I know that in Etobicoke--Lakeshore neighbours, friends and family are all joining together in their sorrow and sharing as a community. We pride ourselves on the fact that we are multicultural, multiracial and multi-religious and that we live together harmoniously.

I am touched also by the previous speaker's response. What concrete things would he like to see the government make available for community healing at this time?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, whether for technical or organizational reasons in the House, I did not unfortunately hear the hon. member's question. I wonder if she could repeat her question. I truly apologize for this.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will go right to my question. I am talking about community healing at this time. As communities get together to reflect on who they are as communities, what concrete suggestions can the member make to us as members to bring about community healing as we move forward?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult, in a debate like this one, to make specific recommendations.

The issue that concerns us today, including those communities that could eventually suffer reprisals, must be examined as a whole.

If the government action is properly targeted from the outset, if the conditions to broaden an international consensus are present, if what is done is largely condoned, if the protection of all the parties, including neighbouring communities and people who live in our region and who could suffer reprisals of one type or another, if all the government measures were based on collective decisions, not only from the House of Commons, but from all the countries and if everything that is done is accomplished with the deep conviction that it must be done and that it is fair, then we will minimize the inconveniences that could face some communities and groups, between countries or in any relationship during this exercise.

Caution, wisdom, the very broad consensus and the appropriateness of the actions that we take will minimize all the possible and unthinkable risks that could arise following deliberate actions.

I have no other comment to make. We all have work to do together and this is why we are having this debate. I hope that hon. members will give us a lot of information by expressing their views and telling us what they heard from their constituents as to how we should go about this issue.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Roberval a short question.

When he refers to small groups of terrorists, when we hear that there are more than 25 and perhaps as many as 50 places where they may exist, does this also include countries that help these groups form?

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is the purview of the House of Commons to determine what the real targets are for us at this point in time.

It is important to know that when I refer to small groups of terrorists, everything is relative. From what I can tell, we are not talking about entire populations. It was in contrast to entire populations that I referred to small groups of terrorists.

When we consider the scope of the response such as the one that will be undertaken, we need to understand that 50, 100 or 150 organized terrorists around the world would not be considered as very large groups, when we take into account the magnitude of the forces that will rally around NATO or UN countries, if the UN takes part.

Therefore it is important to be cautious, to make a safe and careful move and to spare, as much as possible, the people living in these countries that are involved, though not of their own free will.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my first words will be ones of compassion and sympathy for all who in New York or elsewhere mourn a death, or worse, the disappearance of a person, not knowing how that person died. They may not ever see the body or ever know the person's suffering.

I still get goose bumps as I think of the long minutes I lived through when I thought my youngest son was a prisoner of that tower of death, the World Trade Center. He was to work there on the morning of September 11.

I am moved by the almost unanimous condemnation by countries after the terrorist attack on New York and Washington. I know it does not come from the fact that over 5,000 of the dead were American. It comes instead from the feeling that this new instrument of war, because I think that is what the acts of the terrorists in New York and Washington amount to, was quickly perceived as a potential threat to absolutely any country in ways yet unsuspected, specifically, naturally, democracies.

We are in fact now seeing a new form of kamikaze terrorism. Not only are human beings agreeing to have their own death detonate the death of others, but they prepare long in advance with others to carry out a plan that extends the scope of their action by using technology against those they target.

Horrible as it was, the September 11, 2001, attack was frightening because of what it implies as well. This time commercial airlines were used to serve the purposes of the perpetrators. What will it be tomorrow?Will each new advance in science become in their hands a weapon against democracies and peoples? Does the missile defence shield not appear rather miserable under such circumstances?

As a number of speakers have already said, we have experienced a huge change. The United States has been struck a heavy blow, with the symbols of its economic and financial power collapsed into thousands of tons of blood-stained metal and concrete. The Pentagon, that symbol of military strength, experienced a fiery hit as well. The life of two huge metropolises was totally turned upside down and their services severely challenged. It was only with the contribution of volunteers that the problem could be dealt with, volunteers whose acts of bravery will not all gain recognition. In fact, on the contrary, some of them have been rewarded with death.

The public is still worried and angry. Anger often goes hand in hand with a desire for vengeance. As we know, however, vengeance, no matter how natural it may seem, is not desirable.

From now on, no country anywhere can consider itself protected from such a misfortune. That is why the United States is not alone in this. The members of NATO, including Canada, have agreed for the first time ever we are told, to implement their mechanism of military solidarity. Before that, however, as the secretary general of NATO has said, the U.S. needs to establish that the attack was indeed directed from outside the country. Each country can then decide what means it will contribute to this undertaking, which I hope will be a collective one.

United States President George Bush, having recently identified bin Laden as the prime suspect, has declared war against those responsible for these dreadful crimes and the countries that assist or shelter them. Yesterday he promised Americans and the world a crusade against evil.

The Bloc Quebecois supports the statement by NATO. If it is established to the satisfaction of NATO that article 5 could apply, we ask that any decision of reprisals by Canada be submitted for discussion and a vote by parliament. We have heard from the Prime Minister that this is not the usual way of doing things, but that could be changed.

In fact, this feeling is found among the public. I met a number of them on Sunday and they do not want there to be a blank cheque. They are concerned, and they do not want to be dragged into a war when they cannot foresee the outcome.

There are eleven international conventions on terrorism. The last two have not been ratified by Canada. The latest in particular addresses the criminalization of funding terrorism.

I hope that Canada would, after discussion in the House and in parliament, equip itself with the means set out in this convention. I personally was interested to see that the Canadian Alliance, while stressing the work done in Great Britain on the antiterrorism act, acknowledged the great work done by the UN, since the convention originated with the UN. Great Britain has ratified this convention.

As the hon. member mentioned, there will most certainly be a debate on security measures. There will also surely be agreements to fight terrorism and targeted military operations. However, this is not enough. We will have to review the Canadian foreign policy which, currently, is primarily based on trade, without being adequately related to human rights and without being adequately related, and far from it, to opposing not only the gap between rich and poor countries, but also to helping the economic development of poor countries.

While it is critical to respond without hesitation to this new form of attack that is dangerous for democracy, it will be hard to eradicate it. Let us be clear: the 27 or 28 terrorist organizations identified by the CIA throughout the world feed on the anger, despair and feeling of injustice felt by hundreds of millions of young people living in poor countries, not to mention all the Timothy McVeighs “made in USA”.

Therefore, it is not a spirit of vengeance alone that can best prevent a repeat of the terribly sad incident of September 11.

Moreover, we must refrain, as several have mentioned but it is worth repeating, from engaging into a war of civilization the consequences of which would be incalculable. Already, without bin Laden's responsibility being confirmed, the mere suspicions about him have triggered incidents of a racist nature. Even if bin Laden turns out to be the mastermind behind these acts of terrorism, we should, and I say all the more so, make a clear distinction between Arabs, Muslims who practise a religion based on peace, and the fundamentalist faction, which is hostile to democracy and to which bin Laden belongs.

I am proud to see that in Quebec the call for tolerance has been heard.

Finally, one cannot help but think that the dangerous and daring bright mind who devised the September 11 plan may have wanted to provoke the American giant in the hope of triggering a holy war that could in turn generate tremendous support for the soldiers of Allah. This act of provocation would then have achieved its purpose. The United States need allies like Canada, allies that keep a cool head while remaining unwavering in their determination.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join my colleagues and Canadians from coast to coast to convey my condolences for this terrible act of terrorism which took place last week on September 11 and claimed over 5,000 innocent lives. This is really tragic. I believe this is a higher percentage of casualties than the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor some 55 years ago.

I have received many messages of condolences from constituents in my riding of Brampton Centre who are very concerned. As a consequence I have a book of condolences in my riding where people can sign their names. They are supporting Canada and other countries that have condemned this act of terrorism.

I am pleased to report that three firefighters from Brampton have gone to New York to help firefighters there. I was really proud of them when they were on TV. I am sure the House joins me in supporting the Brampton firefighters for their work and showing appreciation for the duties they are performing to save lives in New York.

My question concerns her comments about the Muslim religion and the fanaticism aspect. I was born in Syria which is a Muslim country. I am the first and only Syrian born member of parliament. I never witnessed discrimination even though I was a Christian living in a Muslim country. To the contrary, we were called Armenian brothers.

Would my colleague comment on how she approaches the issue of Muslim fanaticism when the Muslim religion calls for peace and co-operation among all religions?

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member understood my comment about how important it was to remain prudent so as not to drive Muslims or those of Arab origin into the arms of terrorists, those who target democracy and who wish to establish religious regimes everywhere.

This is why we must also change our foreign policy. I am grateful to Colin Powell, for instance, for having said that the conflict in the Middle East had to be resolved. People must realize the extent to which the unresolved conflict in the Middle East, hundreds of thousands of young Palestinians living either in sealed off territories, or as refugees, provides fertile ground for extremism.

We must have security measures and, at the same time, know that we ourselves are going to precipitate matters if we do not, on the one hand, pay attention and, on the other, take action to create hope for those not interested in these solutions.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly enjoyed the speech by the member for Mercier, particularly the point she made with respect to a well targeted military response, if necessary, in order to get at the terrorists.

However, I would also like her to elaborate, as she did a bit during her speech, on what Canada's main role as a country should be in this regard.

Finally, given our history, are we not better equipped to contribute to diplomatic debates and to develop a global anti-terrorist strategy which is not limited to ensuring protection within our borders, to closing our borders, but to finding a way to eradicate terrorism at its source?

I ask the member for Mercier what she thinks of this position.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is no easy question. I believe that parliament as a whole will have to come up with the answer.

The answer that comes to my mind, however, is that we in Canada and in Quebec are in a very special situation in that we are the neighbours of the Americans and thus, in a way, liable to be affected by the fallout of this.

We can, however, take a critical distance from their suffering, while sharing it at the same time. In certain cases, and this is often true of Quebec, our attitude is closer to the European one, less Anglo-Saxon if I may say so.

I am sorry I cannot go on.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Unfortunately, the hon. member's time is up. The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg South. I join with my colleagues on all sides of the House in expressions of sorrow at the tragic loss of so many lives. Our hearts go out to the families and friends of those who became victims of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.

It is interesting to note that many of the people either confirmed dead or missing came from other countries in the world including Canada. While we do not know yet the numbers, we do know that many Canadians were involved in this tragic event.

Our condolences also go out to members of the Canadian armed forces who worked with people in the Pentagon. Many of their friends and associates also lost their lives.

We moved very quickly as the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces when this event came to our attention. One of the first things that needed to be done was to help in terms of accommodating many people who were on flights destined for the United States that had to be moved into Canadian air space.

Many of them were in Atlantic Canada and some even as far north and west as Whitehorse. When the planes landed suddenly there were over 30,000 people on the tarmac at airports who needed some assistance.

The Canadian forces helped to provide blankets and cots. Some of our housing was also made available for these people. The outpouring of support from Canadians to these people showed enormous good will.

From there we moved toward the area of humanitarian assistance. We took a number of medical and engineering people from our base in Petawawa and repositioned them in Trenton as part of our disaster assistance response team. We had several hundred people on call, ready to provide medical support, engineering support, debris clearing or whatever else was required.

We also made available three ships with humanitarian supplies which were put on high alert and positioned in the New York area. As it turned out they were not required. There was an outpouring of support from the immediate vicinity of New York and Washington. They felt they were able to handle the situation. I must say that the Pentagon expressed to Canada its deep appreciation for putting these humanitarian assistance personnel on high alert and for making them available. They are still available, if required.

With regard to our obligations in Norad, we are a partner with the United States in the defence and surveillance of our airspace over the continent. We have made additional CF-18 jet fighters available. They are part of that surveillance.

We have also engaged in numerous additional activities of intelligence and information sharing with the United States. The incoming chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in a discussion with our chief of defence staff yesterday expressed appreciation for the Canadian involvement at this very crucial stage.

The word war has been used a lot. It has been used in headlines and it has frightened many people. Those who use it are using it to demonstrate the seriousness by which we must take what has happened. Yes, we must be very serious about it. We must be very focused on the matter of terrorism. We must completely dedicate and commit ourselves to an intensive campaign against terrorism to rid the world of the organization of terrorism that is a threat to our way of life and to our free and democratic society.

I do not expect this campaign to be run by the conventional method of war. There may be aspects of conventional military operations involved, but ultimately it will take a different kind of effort in terms of weeding out the perpetrators of this violence and in terms of attacking their institutions, infrastructures, organizations, networks and cells which exist in many different countries of the world.

This will not be a conflict against nations as it is a conflict against terrorism. We have to cut off the money supply. We have to cut off the process of recruitment through which these organizations and cells bring in young people and brainwash them. They become the kind of individuals whom we saw hijack planes and sacrifice their own lives in a suicidal way.

This will be a different kind of campaign, a different kind of war effort, if we wish to use that word. We need to be solidly there with our allies. It is not something that will be done overnight. As the President of the United States said, it is something that will take a long period of time. He has asked people to have patience. I know it is difficult to have patience when people are looking for quick action. We must with cool heads look at the appropriate action that needs to be taken to carry out this intensive campaign against terrorism.

There is no immediate threat to Canada that we are able to discern but we cannot be complacent. We must ensure, as the 1994 policy and white paper state, that we protect Canada and Canadians and protect our way of life and our values.

We do have a counterterrorism plan that comes under the jurisdiction of the solicitor general. The Canadian forces are part of that counterterrorism plan as are many other government departments and agencies at this level and at all levels.

We have a tactical unit called JTF2, joint task force two, which is a counterterrorism unit in the Canadian forces. We also have a response capability on weapons of mass destruction relating to chemical or biological agents. We have the intelligence services, the information gathering and analysis services that we provide together with our allies. These are all areas that are now part of any counterterrorism plan.

There is a new organization that we established this year called the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness which succeeded the old emergency measures organization. It is working in close contact with the federal emergency authority in the United States to help ensure that resources will be available if need be.

Security for Canadians is first and foremost working with our colleagues. Working with the United States in the defence of our continent is also part of our mission, as is contributing to international peace and security.

In that context we stand with our NATO allies who have indicated a willingness to invoke article 5, that an attack on one is an attack on all. We have to all stand together. We need to be consulted and be a part of the development of the plan that the United States is working on now, that we are all working on now.

At the end of the day we will provide the kind of resources that will be necessary so that Canada can take a very clear and frontline role in helping in this intensive campaign against terrorism.

We have very professional and dedicated people in the Canadian forces who are ready to be a part of that campaign effort. We have to be united in our resolve with the United States and our NATO allies. We need to stand by them and we need to work with every ounce of energy we have to fight terrorism in the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was somewhat disturbed to hear both in the minister's speech and in question period his statement that it is not likely to be a conventional war which we are facing. I do not know how the minister divines that. As he said in his latter statement, I presume it is because it is not going to be a conflict against nations but against terrorists and individuals.

However, this is in direct contradiction to the basic premise of this conflict as outlined by the president of the United States a week ago tomorrow when he said that no distinction will be made between nations that harbour or sponsor terrorists and the terrorists themselves. It is the policy of the United States in this matter that those countries, nations or states that harbour and sponsor terrorists are to be regarded as culpable as the terrorists themselves. That to me implies the very real possibility if not the likelihood of direct conventional warfare against one or more states should they continue to harbour and sponsor terrorist networks.

That leads me to this question. With the second lowest defence commitment in NATO, a defence commitment which is less than half of the average expenditure in NATO, 2% of GDP, how can Canada pretend to expect to meet the kinds of commitments we may be called upon by our allies to make?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat what I have said. Ultimately this campaign against terrorism is going to be won by means other than just conventional warfare. There may be some aspects of conventional warfare involved with this. There is no doubt that those who perpetrate this terrorism need to be found out and brought to justice, as well as those who harbour them. I agree with those words from the president of the United States.

However, the president has also indicated, as have many others, that this is not the same kind of conflict or war that we have experienced in the past. I think we have to be clear that this is going to take a very special kind of effort, with special resources and perhaps special people as part of the entire effort.

As for resources, for the last three years the government has been putting additional resources into the Canadian forces. Some $3 billion of additional money has been put into the forces. We have made it clear in the House and in throne speeches that we will make sure the Canadian forces gets the resources it needs to do the job. If the job is clearly going to be part of this counterterrorism campaign, and it is, as has been stated quite clearly, then we will have to ensure that the forces gets the resources it needs to do the job.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to offer sincere condolences, on behalf of myself and all the people in the riding of Repentigny, to the family and friends of the victims of the horrible terrorist attacks on New York and Washington. I also wish to add my voice to those calling for justice, speaking out against these terrible crimes, and wishing to see the guilty punished.

I do, however, hope that reflection and wisdom will be used in the reprisals. What is involved is not simple revenge against a people or a religion, but rather against terrorism. That is what the new faceless enemy is, one that knows no boundaries. A new kind of reprisal is required for a new kind of enemy, an enemy that is not a state but a state of mind.

Given that these terrorist attacks were committed by people who, if they lack a reason to live, have a number of reasons to die for their cause, I wish to ask the following question of the minister.

Do the Canadian government and the minister intend to attack the evil at its roots, in other words the inequalities of this world, and more specifically the poverty that exists in the world?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

I think it is a valid comment and a valid question, and yes, we have to look at many different aspects of this. What is it that attracts these young people to join these terrorist organizations, to sacrifice their lives and to become people who so hate our society or hate the United States? We have to look at this thing from top to bottom. We have to come to grips with a number of issues. I think there is a will and a determination to do all of that.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by adding my words to those of so many others and expressing condolences to the families and friends of those who lost their lives in the atrocities last week and to those who are continuing to struggle but may well die.

Last Tuesday was one of those days that will rest in our memories like few others. When we first heard about it and first saw the image of those buildings being attacked in that way will always be imprinted in our memory. There is an incredible numbness that comes out of the horror of an act like this is that is so huge and incomprehensible. Along with that there is fear and a desire to protect ourselves, a desire to not let people do this to us. There is also anger and a desire to strike out and get them, to get hold of them and punish them for what they did.

We are at war, but if we are at war it is not like any war we here have known before. It is not a war that we will watch on television like we did with the gulf war. It is not a war that is fought thousands of miles away, like the ones my parents experienced. It is a war where we are on the front lines. It is a war that will be fought in our airports, our schools, our communities and our shopping centres. We will experience something that others in other parts of the world have experienced already.

If it is a war, we have to win it. We cannot allow terrorists to win, who win by being free to do what they have done, but who also win if we sacrifice our lifestyle, if we give up our values and if we change who we are in order to protect ourselves from them. We must extract the price from them.

We also lose this war if we become like them. If we start to do what they do, not following the rule of law, not acting in accordance with our values and not looking for a way to solve whatever it is that is driving this, then we are in danger of becoming little better. We cannot adopt their techniques or tactics to solve this problem.

I have thought hard about this, as we all have. I have a huge faith in our public service and the government and the ability to do everything we can to bring solutions to each of the many little problems such as how our transportation system works or our border crossings, all of those kinds of things I have heard debated and discussed in the House today. I am sure that this debate will go on for a very long time.

I have also thought hard about an area that I spend a lot of time thinking about, which is information and communication technologies, the kind of framework or nervous system that globalization rides on. It is the connectedness that has allowed us to build a worldwide trading system and to connect with each other in ways that we never have before. It has also created the freedom of movement and some of the porousness that have put us at risk in this most recent circumstance.

Within that there are some areas we need to look at too. There are ways in which these tools and these networks can be used to better identify people and to track and follow people we are concerned about. However, there is a tradeoff here. It is a tradeoff between our individual privacy and our community's need to know.

This is a debate that the House needs to get engaged in. I do not know what the solution is. I do not know where the boundaries are, but I have a sense that in our desire to protect ourselves we have some tools here that will allow us to better understand what is happening and to better harden up our defences. However, we will be giving up something also.

I am a little disheartened at the rush by some. I saw Newt Gingrich on the TV last night talking about this being the time to get civil libertarians. However, I was also pleased that I did not see Colin Powell or Rumsfeld or the others buying into that argument. I think Newt Gingrich remains on the fringe. I know we will hear his theme, but I hope it does not become a central one.

There is something else here. I was trying to remember back to the spring when a round of suicide bombings started to take place in Israel. A young Palestinian man took a bomb into a crowd, but I forget the details, which is frightening in itself. We become so used to it that these things just sort of go away.

The young Palestinian exploded a bomb. He killed himself and some innocent people who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the aftermath of the bombing his father was interviewed in Palestine. The father talked about how proud he was of his son. I thought about how twisted up a person has to be inside to be proud of one's child killing himself and killing innocent people. We need to understand that too. We need to understand that and what is behind and underneath it.

I am sure we will get a hold of Osama bin Laden and others, but that is not the solution. It is part of the solution, but it will not end this. Everybody who has been talking about this in the last few days has remained fixed on this problem and has made that point over and over again. We have to understand and address what is underneath this if we are to have the peaceful society that we want.

I was pleased today when listening to the debate and the speeches by members from all sides of the House. I was pleased to hear that we were talking not just about hardening up but also about understanding and trying to deal with this in a responsible fashion.

I was pleased with the Prime Minister's speech. I will end by quoting something he said which I think is just so important. He said that our actions will be ruled by resolve, but not fear.

He said that if laws need to be changed they will be. If security has to be increased to protect Canadians it will be. We will remain vigilant, but we will not give in to the temptation, in a rush to increase security, to undermine the values that we cherish and which have made Canada a beacon of hope, freedom and tolerance to the world. We will not be stampeded in the hope, vain and ultimately self-defeating, that we can make Canada a fortress against the world.

We have created something here that is beautiful and that shows how people can get along. Hopefully we can be part of the solution to this problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the hon. member's remarks and say that I appreciate what he had to say in terms of his sympathy toward the victims of this horrific event. I thank him for that.

I want to get down to some reality. As the hon. member and you, Mr. Speaker, may know, I have a son in the United States army. He is sergeant of a military unit. I talked to my son by phone at length last night. The army is on full high alert, which means that in a matter of minutes the army could be on its way to any destination anywhere, even in its own land, with the full backing of all resources, equipment and everything necessary to carry out a mission of almost any type. The army is ready, competent and willing.

His mother and I are on pins and needles. He is our son. Could Canadian parents have the same confidence in their military that I have in regard to what is going on in the United States in preparing these young people for an event which none of us want to see happen, but which very well might likely happen under the circumstances? Can Canadian parents rest at ease that their soldiers, their sailors, their boys and girls, will be safe in their duties they may be required to perform?

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can imagine how worrisome that is for the hon. member and his family. As it is, when we talk about going to war most of us are at an age where we would not normally be drafted or brought into a war. We really are talking about whether we are willing to spend the lives of our children. I think that Canadians are saying they are willing to do whatever is necessary to stop this.

Is the Canadian army as big, strong, fast and powerful as the army of the largest country in the world, the richest country in the world, a country ten times our size? No, it is not.

However, is it sharp? Is it equipped? Is it smart? Can it do the job it is called upon to do? Yes, I am confident it can.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg South for his sincere commentary and the previous speaker in this debate, the Minister of National Defence, for informing the House on some of the steps the Canadian military has taken in response to this tragedy and his congratulatory note for those volunteers in Canada, particularly those people in Halifax, Nova Scotia who opened their hearts and homes to travellers from the United States and across the world who were diverted to our port.

I have some very quick questions for the hon. member. With respect to resources and the reaction of the Canadian armed forces, we know that the American forces have called up 50,000 reservists, ironically almost the total number of those in our armed forces. Will there be a similar involvement of Canadian reservists? This question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.

As well, I would remind the hon. member that there are other outstanding issues of readiness which we have to deal with. One of those is the outstanding issue of the helicopter procurement project which is yet to be resolved.

Finally, with respect to those who are interested in volunteering for the Canadian armed forces, will they be--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Winnipeg South.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I am not going to attempt to answer the question that was directed to the Minister of National Defence.

It is unfortunate if we allow this debate to slip back into a bunch of debates which we will have in the normal course of business because this is a very different situation. We will do what needs to be done in whatever way we are asked to and are able to serve. We will not put people in harm's way without the resources or the equipment they need.

I will end with one thing. It is from the Prime Minister's speech. I do not often do this but I was quite taken by some of the things he said today. He said that we have never been a bystander in the struggle for justice in the world, that we will stand with Americans, as neighbours, as friends, as family, that we will stand with our allies and that we will do what we must to defeat terrorism. He also said to let our actions be guided by a spirit of wisdom and perseverance, by our values and our way of life.

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, a number of members have indicated their enthusiasm in participating in this debate. If the House is willing to consider it, I would like to extend the hours tonight by offering the following motion:

That the House shall sit until 10 p.m. this day to consider government orders, government business No. 10.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?