House of Commons Hansard #79 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was united.

Topics

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:15 p.m.

The Speaker

On a point of order, the hon. member for Malpeque.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. I talked about the security--

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

The Speaker

It sounds like a bit of dispute but not a point of order. I sense there is a disagreement here but that is not a point of order. The hon. member for Provencher has the floor. Perhaps the matter will be cleared up in the course of the debate.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, I will let the record speak for itself.

On behalf of the people of Provencher, I want to offer our condolences and prayers to the victims and their families and to the thousands of ordinary people who have been affected by this terrible tragedy, including the many thousands upon thousands of frontline workers and volunteers.

I am very encouraged that the Prime Minister has affirmed that Canada will stand together with the United States, our neighbour, our friend and our ally at this time of crisis, and that we will support and assist the American people in every possible way.

Let us be firm in our resolve to deal effectively with these outlaws and criminals. Let not the suggestion come from this House that the Americans are somehow to blame for the terrible tragedy of September 11.

There will in the days, weeks and months to come be heightened security and talk of war. There will also be questions asking what can be done to prevent it from happening again, as we are starting to ask today.

I want to state at the onset that the concerns I raise are in fact raised in a spirit of co-operation and with a view to resolving this grave crisis so that we too can say at some date in the future that our efforts here were not in vain.

CSIS has been clear in respect of the threat of terrorism. In June 2000 its report said that terrorism in the years ahead was expected to become more violent, indiscriminant and unpredictable than in recent years.

In 1998 CSIS reports indicated that there may have been as many as 50 international terrorist organizations operating in Canada. Although the United States and the United Kingdom now have strict laws banning terrorist fundraising and other terrorist activity, Canada has failed to respond with appropriate legislation.

Through that lack of action, Canada has encouraged conditions that facilitate international terrorism. If we want to find root causes of terrorism, inaction on the part of democratic nations to respond to terrorism breeds more terrorism. The federal government must be firm and take steps to introduce specific and effective legislation as our British and American allies have done, legislation that would suppress Canadian terrorist networks that raise money to finance political violence around the world.

It is a thin excuse to say that the Americans had the legislation but it did not stop the attack. There may well be issues of resources or implementation, but at least the Americans have the framework to defend their nation. Canadians to date do not have the benefit of that legislation and even if we had the benefit of the legislation we do not have the resources and manpower committed to enforcing such a framework.

Many today have talked about the United Kingdom terrorism act of 2000 that came into force about half a year ago. The comprehensive measures included in the act, includes an extensive definition of terrorism. It includes new powers to seize suspected terrorist cash at borders, a new offence of inciting terrorist acts abroad from within the United Kingdom, specific offences related to training for terrorist activities and a number of other provisions.

As well, the Americans have taken firm legislative steps to deal with terrorism. They have the framework in place. We need to do exactly the same thing. The Americans and the British have recognized the serious problem the international community is facing and they are initiating their own solutions while unfortunately Canada sits on the sidelines.

Although Canada participated in the development of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel signed in 1994, the International convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings signed in 1997 and the International convention on the suppression of terrorist financing signed in 1999, Canada has yet to develop new legislation to permit it to give effect to these conventions and to ratify them. It is a failure that offers hope to international terrorism. The reason they have not been ratified is that Canada simply lacks the necessary legislation to implement these conventions.

Canada is obliged, pursuant to the suppression of terrorist financing convention, to make it a criminal offence to raise funds for terrorists. Bill C-16, the charities registration act, introduced last spring was the government's attempt to address this issue. However, does anyone believe that this response will do anything to stop terrorist groups from fundraising? Does the revocation of one's charitable status deter terrorists who are prepared to fly a modern jet into the side of a skyscraper? Is the revocation of their charitable number going to stop them? That is the legislative response of the government to date.

Extradition laws have also become a major security concern for Canadians since the decision of the supreme court on February 15, 2001. We all know the facts of that case involving a brutal triple murder by two Canadians of three Americans in Washington State. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the these murderers could not be returned to the United States unless the justice minister sought assurances that the death penalty could not apply to them.

The justice minister's own lawyers two days after arguing a refugee case, referred to the Burns and Rafay supreme court decision and said “strike down that law and you will create a safe haven in Canada for violent criminals”. Yet the Minister of Justice stood up on two occasions and indicated that I had misrepresented a judgment. Her own lawyers said one thing to the supreme court, the Minister of Justice said another to the House.

The Department of Justice has not said what it will do to stop potential murderers and of course international terrorists from coming to Canada.

If the criminals involved in the New York City and Washington attack on the U.S. made their way to Canada to avoid prosecution, the supreme court decision would prohibit the Canadian government from extraditing them on the grounds that according to the charter of the supreme court it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. What effect does this have on the legal system? What effect does this have on military concerns and what does it have on diplomatic issues?

These are the issues that we need to grapple with and resolve.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:30 p.m.

NDP

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the issue brought up by the hon. member from Manitoba that we definitely have to put more resources into such agencies as the military, CSIS and the RCMP. There will be no argument from me in that regard.

Even if we have legislation similar to the United States, the fact is it will not stop someone like Timothy McVeigh. He was not an immigrant. He was not someone of Middle Eastern descent. He was an American who was trained by the U.S. military. He had a grudge against the government and decided to act in a very despicable manner by bombing the Oklahoma City federal building. The people of Oklahoma understand all too well the emotions felt in Washington, Pennsylvania, New York and around the world.

He is absolutely right that we require the resources and the legislation to put a stop to this but that is not enough. Terrorist acts have been happening around the world forever. There were the ETA in Spain and the Red Brigade in Italy. There were terrorist acts in Germany and California. When I was growing up there was the Symbionese Liberation Army, et cetera. Every faction out there or a handful of people who have a grudge against a particular democracy or government will act in a very despicable way.

I grew up British Columbia where we had the Squamish Five that went against Litton factories. They blew up the factories because of their view of the world.

If we have the legislation and the resources, does the hon. member honestly believe that without looking at the root causes of terrorism and why it happens internally and externally that we can bring justice to the dead and peace to the living?

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, I for one will not stand here, ring my hands and say that if we pass legislation and provide the resources something might slip through. I understand that we do not live in a perfect world. I understand that as long as we are human there will always be problems like that.

I find it amazing that we are talking about people who have the moral values of an Adolf Hitler. We could talk about trying to understand the root causes of why Nazi aggression occurred then deal with it. Mr. Chamberlain tried to do exactly that and failed. We are dealing with exactly the same kind of people.

The form of war and the enemy may change, but evil does not change and the response of democratic nations to that evil can never change. It must be firm, it must be resolute, and we need to stand with our allies.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:30 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the last comment made by the member for Provencher. He said that the response of democratic nations must be the same and that we must respect our democratic traditions. Where is he coming from when he says we do not have to understand the root causes, that we do not have to understand where these things are and that we just have to smack them?

I totally disagree with his last statement about understanding where Hitler came from. One problem was that we did not understand where he came from so we did not stand up to him and deal with him in the right way.

I suggest to the member that what we need to do is to come together in the House to understand the root causes of terrorism, not who individual terrorists are. We can always get a few terrorists.

The member for Wild Rose would ride off with a posse and hang them all before there is a judge, or a jury or anyone else. This is not the way in which we will deal with the issue. This is not the way in which we will solve this problem. Those of us on this side of the House are anxious to make sure that we solve the problem, not create new ones.

Would the hon. member be willing to look at this with us and not go off on this rhetoric as if this was a simplistic solution to these problems? It is not simple. Would our hon. colleagues show some sophistication in this debate?

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Vic Toews Canadian Alliance Provencher, MB

Mr. Speaker, I have suggested certain approaches. I have indicated specifically from my portfolio's responsibility as a critic for justice that there are consistent failures by the government to deal firmly and effectively by putting a legislative framework in place. The government has failed to do that. Indeed the government, its members and its ministers continue to support the fundraising activities of terrorists.

If we had an appropriate legislative framework in place ministers could not go to fundraising activities for terrorists in search of delegates for a leadership. When I talk about firm and effective responses, the member has made certain assumptions. He has made certain statements that are simplistic. He obviously did not listen to what I was saying about a legislative response.

We can sit around and psychoanalyze all we want but our allies need us today. We have to be there for them.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Peter Goldring Canadian Alliance Edmonton Centre-East, AB

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Edmonton Centre-East I wish to express deepest sorrow and sympathies on behalf of my constituents for the tragic events that took place in the United States. Profound thanks should go out to all those who have helped and indeed still are helping in this tragedy: volunteers, firefighters, police, medical personnel, Salvation Army, Red Cross and many more.

Last week four hijacked airplanes caused death and destruction in the United States unparalleled in modern history. It is one matter for terrorists to attack in small isolated numbers with regrettable but few casualties, but it is a very different matter when the terrorists attack a democratic state in full force causing 5,000 innocent civilian deaths and crippling a major world city.

The president of the United States has stated that they will act against those who perpetrated these crimes and those who harbour them. This is the case with bin Laden who has found long term safe harbour in Afghanistan. The Taliban in Afghanistan to date has refused all requests for extradition of bin Laden for the bombing of the USS Cole in the Gulf of Aden where 17 U.S. sailors were killed. Bin Laden remains free in Afghanistan where he is even regarded as a hero.

Obviously the sheltering of terrorists from justice has emboldened them to commit more heinous crimes against humanity. Canada and many other countries have now joined in the call to act against world terrorism. We hope and pray that response yet to be directed will affect those truly guilty and will have the effect to halt terrorism expansion by placing the bar of terrorist personal human tolls very firmly high.

Whatever response by the world will undoubtedly cost lives of Canadians and other freedom loving peoples of the world who participate. The price of peace is lives lost in war and the price can be very high.

We must remember too that a terrorist is by birth a citizen of a country and a member of a particular faith. Canadians simply sharing a common heritage or religion should never be viewed in the same light. Let us remember that most Canadians came from somewhere else. The heritage of most Canadians is as immigrants fleeing terrorism, dictators and war. All Canadians are resolute against importing this distasteful element of mankind to Canada.

Recently I attended ceremonies commemorating and honouring 100 years of Islamic presence in Canada. Many here would be surprised to learn that the first dedicated Muslim house of worship in North America, let alone Canada, is located in Edmonton. The 63 year old mosque exists as an important part of Canadian and North American history.

Canada's multicultural mosaic and interfaith strength act as a cornerstone of the well-being of Canadian society. In the days after the horror of September 11 we have seen reactions around the world to increase airport security and the security of public buildings and institutions. For years we have been advised that our national defence resources were woefully inadequate, yet governments have done little. Now that there is a national need for a strong and well equipped military we are unprepared.

In Ottawa, on September 11, I saw how unprepared our government was to react to the horrendous events unfolding in the United States. At 10 a.m. I drove to Parliament Hill in my private car and I was not stopped by security. I passed a number of rental vans parked outside Centre Block. Public parliamentary tours continued uninterrupted as if nothing had been happening.

I spoke to a tour guide who stated she was not aware of what was happening in the United States other than an explosion in an office building. No one had offered to advise her if she should advise members of her tour whether they were comfortable visiting and entering Canada's number one political building, just a couple of city blocks from the U.S. embassy, in light of what was unfolding in the United States.

I then went to the office of the Sergeant-at-Arms at 10.15 and received assurances that the Centre Block would be closed to public tours.

The public tours went on until 12 noon. At 10.30 the back of the East Block was closed due to the discovery of a suspicious package. At 11 o'clock the RCMP began to move people around the East Block away from the area. Even after the bomb disposal trucks left, the public still had full access to Parliament Hill.

It is to be noted at this point that at no time during this period was vehicle traffic restricted on Parliament Hill. By noon on September 11 all air traffic in the United States had been halted and planes were being diverted to Canada.

If terrorism were still in the air it was coming to Canada. It was only at 2 p.m., more than four hours after the crisis had begun to unfold, that the RCMP closed Parliament Hill to the public with barriers and were on guard duty.

The lessons to be learned in this security preparedness are many. On Parliament Hill the inability to act in the face of a grave threat to international security was all too apparent. Many persons, tourists and Hill staff alike were placed at risk.

The rapidly escalating crisis in New York and Washington certainly involved a risk to Parliament Hill, located just a couple of city blocks from the U.S. embassy. If we could not act quickly to make Parliament Hill safe, how could we make safe all of Canada's public buildings or their employees?

Public confidence is shattered by world events that involve threats to national interests. Public confidence needs to be restored through immediate and visible signs of security. Canada's armed forces should have been called out to assist in public protection when it was so obvious the RCMP did not have the personnel to sustain full guard duty.

High security is not an overreaction to these events. Rather it is a prudent exercise in the interests of public safety and confidence as well as to test the readiness of security potential. If we show hesitancy to provide immediate visible security for visitors and citizens of Canada when a dangerous event arises, we do not serve well our public confidence or public safety. If we have budgetarily stripped our security capabilities to the bone, inhibiting our forces in providing the security that Canadians expect, we have failed in our task of governing.

Over the next weeks and months we will be examining and re-examining many weaknesses in our national security network, be it ground, sea or air. We must learn from our mistakes and honestly reassess our weaknesses, then build and improve where needed.

Today we mourn and bury the dead. Today we stand together with Americans in sorrow, in reflection and in resolve. Today we also thank those who volunteered and those who served. Tomorrow we will act together to better protect our living.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB

Mr. Speaker, the comments that my colleague from Edmonton made were certainly true. He gave a good chronology of the day and some of the concerns that people have about it.

It seems to me a week later that we need to look forward. Rather than having legislation winding its way through the House, which as we know from experience seems to take a while, I am wondering if we could look at things that could be done almost immediately in the airline industry.

For those who are travelling worldwide, we would all feel a whole lot safer and it would be much more difficult for terrorists to be involved and do the things they do if we could just put some things in place.

I am wondering if my colleague from Edmonton would maybe comment on a few possibilities. I can think of some things that we could do immediately. We could refit the planes by law with vault-like doors to the pilot's cabin.

I have spoken to a couple of pilots over the last week. They said that would be difficult because of weight restrictions. However we have new fibre fabrics and epoxy resins. I know that there are all kinds of materials in place so that these things could be done almost immediately. Police have bullet proof vests. Surely there is a way to seal our pilots into their cabins.

Another thing we could do is have hidden cameras throughout the passenger compartment. Maybe that would be wise. Sleeping gas has also been talked about in case people need to be tranquilized when there is a crisis. Would the member like to comment on that?

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Peter Goldring Canadian Alliance Edmonton Centre-East, AB

Mr. Speaker, there are many things that we could do. Certainly we could do the mechanical improvements to improve the security of the area for the pilots. There are also electronic improvements that we could do too. Each plane has an autopilot and each plane has a registered course that it is entering on travelling across the country. Certainly there are electronic means that could fix and lock the plane to that course within relative degrees of what it is going on. With those improvements to it, a plane could have a relative amount of leeway and flexibility to climb and lower.

However, as we know from the films in the United States, these planes veered a full 90° and went into other major degree turns. If they had some alley on their original flight plan of some flexibility of 20 miles, to lock it into that, it would have solved the problem right there; the planes would not have been able to veer into those buildings.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

Mr. Speaker, I just have a quick question to follow up on that.

I know the member, having served with the military police, has quite a bit of experience with regard to security. Apparently the Israel airlines have had extremely high success in preventing hijackings and other problems on air flights. There are some things they do that are quite reasonable.

The member suggestion that flight patterns can be fixed electronically is good. I do not know if Israel airlines do that but we do know they have doors that lock and cannot be kicked in. Locked doors as we have them now simply keep honest people honest. They also have sky marshals in place and that has worked since 1993. They implemented these things after the second hijacking. They were determined hijackings would cease. Sky marshals and well preserved doors seem to be the key in that country.

I am curious as to why the government would not look at that and say why not. That is a simple thing we could do immediately that would look after our airlines in a better way. Would the hon. member comment on that.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Peter Goldring Canadian Alliance Edmonton Centre-East, AB

Mr. Speaker, we know of many things that can be done. What we could do immediately is certainly consult with other major countries on what they are doing and why it is successful for them.

One thing that can happen, and I think did happen, is that terrorists target the weakest link. They will find an airline or a country, and Canada may be next, that does not have these levels of protection built into their system.

What does work for Israel should be examined immediately. If there are other countries that have additional protection systems they should be examined as well. There is no reason why this cannot be done. Actually the question is why has this not been done by now. Certainly it can be done fairly rapidly and these modifications can be made fairly easily.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

10:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise at this late hour in the House but I believe this is an extraordinary and important debate and I am very happy to engage in it. I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Nepean--Carleton.

Most issues have been discussed and most things have been said in this debate. I think everyone in the House has been enormously touched by the tragedy that occurred in New York last week. Every one of us is united in desiring to convey to our American friends and Canadian victims and, as I learned tonight at dinner with colleagues of mine from around the world, Germans, French, Japanese, almost every nationality, including the nationality of the perpetrators of that terrible event, were represented in those buildings. That is why this issue touches us as deeply as it does.

It was not just an attack on the World Trade Center. It clearly was an attack that envisaged the World Trade Center because these terrorists wished to strike terror at the heart of the United States of America which is, and I agree with others who have spoken in this debate, the bulwark of democracy and our greatest friend and ally. However they also wished to strike terror into the hearts of us all because they wished to strike at a symbol where we all work and where we all assemble, and they used the basic instruments that we all use every day when we travel. Every member of the House gets on an airplane. The terrorists were very intelligent, clever people who chose the instrument of what is the very essence of modern society to strike at the essence of modern society.

In many ways the victims of this attack could have been any one of us. Many of our colleagues and many of my friends were in that building. My friend from Wild Rose told us that he came from the United States. He or his children might have been there. My mother was American. I might have been there in other circumstances. Any one of us in the House tonight might have been there.

We were touched by this tragedy because we recognized the nature of the commonality of humanity that was at stake in this tremendous tragedy. That is why it is so important to get to the bottom of this, to get it right and to make sure that our approach is right in dealing with this issue.

I think not only of the victims of the tragedy, the United States, but also of our colleagues in congress and in the administration. Many of us in the House tonight have many good friends in congress. I think of the tremendous responsibility that they have when they face the agonizing decisions that they will have to make to ensure that the way in which they respond to this event is one that will strike not just at individual terrorists but at terrorism itself.

That, it seems to me, is the way in which we have to analyze the issue. It is a much more complex and difficult issue because of that. When we turn our thoughts to the future we have to think of that. I know we will disagree. I listened tonight and sometimes the debate got a little hot. I listened to my colleagues ask why we are not doing more about this or doing more about that. I will come back to that.

We should and need to have that debate but it seems to me that we must first start from the premise the Prime Minister left with us today in his important speech to the House. He said something that I thought was extraordinarily important for us all to bear in mind at this time. He said that we must be committed to do what works in the long run, not what makes us feel good in the short run. Or, as put by a United States air force general who was cited by the leader of the NDP in the House today, “We must act on this event or we will invite more attacks, but we must not react excessively in a way that would put us on the same footing as the perpetrators of the attack” for, as I might add, we will breed a thirst for more revenge and more such actions that will cause us all to descend into the hell that the terrorists who committed that act wish us to descend into.

We are engaged in a war against terrorism, not just a war against individual terrorists. This means we cannot just stamp out cells of individuals and certain groups. In spite of the discussions we have had tonight, I would put myself on the side of those who believe that we must understand and deal with the root causes of terrorism: poverty, hopelessness, the desperation of innocent lives destroyed by conflicts in Asia, in Africa, in the Middle East, all too numerous to name in the House, which have been left unresolved for much too long.

An analogy which comes to mind is that of the IRA. All of us in the House understand and know what has taken place in Ireland. We know that for a long time the British, who are familiar with terrorism, dealt with the IRA. We cannot say that the British authorities were foolish people. They were very sophisticated. Yet there were still bombs going off. Terror and terrible events still occurred. It was only once a political solution was arrived at in Ireland that the majority of the population was able to say, “We will no longer tolerate this sort of activity” and came to understand that they could isolate those people.

I beg our friends in the Alliance on the other side of the House to understand that when we on this side speak about the root causes, it is not some sort of airy-fairy innocent thing we must deal with. We believe strongly that we must hit them and hit them hard but for God's sake let us hit them intelligently. Let us understand that if we do it the wrong way, we will be creating more problems. Let us deal with it the way it was dealt with in Ireland where there will be a political solution to these conflicts which will ensure that the population will rally around the solutions. Otherwise we are doomed to failure.

That is what we are asking for and that is what we need to do. We have to ask ourselves what we can do. We can do things.

I congratulate my colleague from the Conservative Party, the member for Cumberland--Colchester who has come up with an initiative for a peace conference involving the Middle East which I hope will take place in Halifax. The member for St. Paul's who is here with me tonight will be participating in that. I hope to have an opportunity to participate in it as well. It may be risky. We are inviting politicians from Israel, from the Palestinian authority to come together to discuss issues. In this climate this will be difficult but maybe with the will of God and the goodwill of some of us in this House we will be able to make a small change in the attitudes of people and bring about some changes.

We owe it to those who died in New York and those who are dying in that region today to take the risk and to do something. We can do it in this House if we reach out. Our parliamentary work will require it. There are committees to look at these issues. I certainly intend to urge my colleagues in the foreign affairs committee to look at these issues. In our work with our U.S. colleagues, we can encourage multilateral approaches rather than just unilateral approaches on their behalf. We can work in multilateral organizations, NATO, the OSCE, the IPU, all of those organizations which members in this House participate in.

The other thing we can do is work in this great country of ours. When the Prime Minister spoke on Friday he mentioned the nature of our society. I personally attended at a mosque in my riding on Friday. Just like my colleague on the other side who spoke of the mosque that is located in his riding, a Canadian Muslim came to me and said, “I am an individual. My identity is Canadian. I am a Canadian now. I don't wish to be tarred with this brush”.

When we speak about these issues in our dialogue here, we must ensure that people understand that individuals commit crimes. It is not communities, not societies and not religions.

I was with a group of young immigrant people in my riding the other morning. They were very nervous about what this means for them. We must assure them that they are part of our society and that they do not have to worry, that they are part of a proud community that rallies together.

We have built a society unique in the world. It is one which is respected around the world for its openness and tolerance and respect for others. We must ensure that our own rich, important, open and tolerant society is not among the victims of this terrible tragedy. When discussing the legislative framework which I have heard discussed tonight in the House, I ask my colleagues to bear this in mind.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

11 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Canadian Alliance Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member and count him as a friend, but I think that his remarks were very much based on folly, to continue to make reference, as his colleagues have done throughout the day, to the nebulous notion of root causes. For most Liberals, under the surface of every criminal lies a victim. Perhaps Osama bin Laden and his followers are somehow victims of the international system of liberal capitalism or something. I am not sure what it is. Perhaps the member could identify what he thinks are the root causes.

The member talked about poverty and economic inequity. The people who perpetrated these acts came from some of the wealthiest countries in the world, from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, from middle class, well educated families in Egypt. Most of it is apparently bankrolled by a billionaire, and perhaps by billionaires such as Saddam Hussein who control states. This is not some romantic revolt of the proletariat in the third world against the excesses of liberal democratic capitalism. Let us identify what it is.

I have a lot of respect for the member. We do not need to talk in nebulous terms. We can talk in specific terms about the cancer of radical militant Islamism; not Islam, not Muslims, but Islamism, which has three objectives. I would ask the member to comment on it. The three objectives are the destruction of Israel, the death of America, and the overthrow of Arab regimes in countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. That is what motivates them, not some nebulous concept of economic equity. Can the member not grasp that? And once he grasps it, does he not agree that there is really only one approach to address this, and that is with a resolute firmness and not by negotiating with people who seek the destruction of Israel and western civilization?

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

11 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I take the question in the sincerity with which it was posed by my colleague, whom I also respect.

Let me go back to my analogy of the IRA. No one on this or any side of the House accepted the criminality of the acts of the IRA, their bombings and killings of innocent people, but the fact of the matter was they got support in the population around them. There were a lot of people who believed that their motives were perhaps justified in spite of the fact that they may have disapproved of their acts.

When I say that we must go to the root causes of the issue, what I am saying is that we must remove from the people who live in the Muslim and Arab worlds the belief that it is worth supporting this type of act. We must remove from those people who have lived in refugee camps for 50 years, who have seen their children killed, their people living in squalor and dying, the belief that they have nothing to lose so why should they not support this type of activity.

If we do not address that, we will never manage to address the facts because there will always be a new criminal. This is often a debate that we on this side of the House have with our colleagues from the Alliance. When it comes to criminality in our own country, how do we deal with it? Do we just smack the criminal, or do we have a society in which the origins of criminality are addressed in a way in which we can get to these issues?

Surely this is not a foolish way to go about this. History teaches us that if we do not come to an understanding of where these problems are coming from, if we do not get to the root causes of them, we will suffer these issues over and over and over again. That is what we are asking for in the House.

I beg my colleagues on the other side of the House to work with us as Canadians to see what we can do to make a better world, to make sure this type of issue is not supported by other people in the world. That is what we want to try to do.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I will commence my question by similarly stating my respect for the hon. member and the compassionate, thoughtful and provocative remarks that he has provided to the House.

He spoke of the Northern Ireland example and the fact that the people of Great Britain have lived with terrorism for much longer arguably than we have in North America. I think it is knowledgeable to look at the examples around the world, and there are certainly many. Terrible atrocities have been going on for many years. Yet the political route is one that we have to pursue, one that we have pursued throughout the day.

The example in Northern Ireland is one we can draw from. It is the infiltration of those terrorist organizations that has perhaps given the greatest successes. When there was in many instances--

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Would the hon. member put his question directly. I asked him to put a short question. There are only five minutes for questions and comments and we have used up a good part of it already. I invite the hon. member to put his question at once.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, this is my direct question. Is this not one of these multifaceted approaches? Is there not one area we should be exploring further and that is giving additional resources, not just for infrastructure, not just for more war machinery but for the actual infiltration of these terrorist organizations, using knowledge to take out these root causes that he speaks of?

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Graham Liberal Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON

Mr. Speaker, absolutely there is no question. Probably all members of the House will be discussing that together. We need more resources. I agree with the member. We are not innocent in suggesting that there is some sort of air wand, that we can solve this by understanding root causes. There are evil people and they must be hunted down the way criminals are, in the way we are trying to find drug dealers, the essence of drugs and the sale of drugs. These issues will require more sophisticated policing and more sophisticated knowledge.

I agree in terms of what we should be doing about airplanes and protection. We travel on airplanes. I have never understood why the cockpits are open the way they are.

These are the issues we have to look at. Those are the practical issues. However I beg members of the House that we not just focus on those issues but also that we see whether there is not some way in which we can focus, if I can take us back to the Irish experience, on getting a political solution which would draw positively on political support for this type of activity in the general population.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

11:05 p.m.

Liberal

David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak in this debate tonight. I would like to begin my comments by congratulating the hon. member for Toronto Centre--Rosedale for his very thoughtful comments.

The enormity of the death and devastation, the horror and the barbarity of the last week, are almost beyond the capability of the human mind to absorb and understand. I am sure that none of us living today will ever forget the images that are now seared into our memories: the fireballs of death and destruction at the World Trade Center, the firefighters and police marching valiantly into that inferno, the billowing clouds of dust and debris as the towers collapsed, the crater left by the crash of the hijacked flight near Pittsburgh, and the destroyed sections of the Pentagon, a building that I visited three months ago. These unforgettable scenes mark a week of darkness and tragedy.

Like other members of the House, on behalf of my constituents in Nepean--Carleton I would like to extend my deepest condolences to President Bush, the government and the people of the United States and especially to the families and friends of all who lost their lives or who are listed as missing. We know that many of our fellow Canadians died.

Again, to the families of those who were lost I say that our thoughts and prayers are with each and every one of them. We grieve their loss together. I think a special tribute is due as well to the firefighters and police officers and other emergency workers who gave their lives in the line of duty trying to evacuate people from buildings and assist the injured. The depth of the courage and sacrifice by members of the New York fire department and the New York police department and other emergency workers defies description.

It is no exaggeration to say that these attacks were an assault on the civilized world. We have heard that said many times before. No less than 40 different nationalities are represented in the lists of the dead and missing: Americans, British, Canadians, Australians, Japanese, Germans, French, Taiwanese, people from around the globe. On any given day the world is on display in New York. Like London and Paris, New York is an international city. It truly belongs to the world. While the UN in midtown Manhattan tries to solve the world's problems, Wall Street, a few blocks away from the World Trade Center, is where the world comes together to do business. When the civilized world was attacked last Tuesday so too were the principles upon which it is based: the rule of law, constitutional government, individual liberty, freedom and democracy.

I believe the Prime Minister spoke for all Canadians last Friday at the memorial service on Parliament Hill when he addressed the following comments to U.S. Ambassador Cellucci. He said:

Generation after generation we have travelled many difficult miles together side by side. We have lived through many dark times, always firm in our shared resolve to vanquish any threat to freedom and justice and together with our allies we will defy and defeat the threat that terrorism poses to all civilized societies.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has reinforced a clear and unambiguous message that we will work side by side with the government of the United States to bring to justice those responsible for these acts and to defend against any future attacks. The fact that NATO took the unprecedented action of invoking article 5 of the Washington treaty, that an attack against one is an attack against all, is an indication both of the gravity of the situation and the resolve among the NATO allies to defeat terrorism. That the UN general assembly, 189 countries, voted unanimously in support of a resolution condemning the attacks and authorizing measures against terrorists and countries that harbour them is further evidence, if any were needed, of the depth of international support for overcoming this terrible evil.

From time to time and all too often the world experiences what I would describe as pure evil. We saw pure evil in the Nazi death camps during the second world war. We saw it in Stalinist Russia. We saw it during the cultural revolution of Mao Tse-Tung. We saw it during the Rwandan genocide. In this country we saw it manifested quite clearly with the bombing of Air India flight 182. Regrettably I have seen the manifestations of pure evil in the various trips I have made to beleaguered Sierra Leone.

Last Tuesday via the images of live television, the world was witness to an act of pure evil of staggering proportions. For many of us, almost a full week after the events in New York and Washington the magnitude of this evil is still incomprehensible.

Many of my constituents were praying to God that the rescue efforts would yield success and that people would be found alive. I attended a memorial service last Wednesday at the Calvin Christian Reformed Church in Nepean, where people sought answers in scripture and collective prayer.

On Saturday I attended the regular mass at St. Patrick's in Fallowfield, where once again people sought God's wisdom in trying to understand these senseless acts of extreme violence and where the congregation rose to sing a beautiful rendition of God Bless America .

There is no doubt that these tragic events have moved people deeply and have put into perspective many of the trivial daily problems we all face.

Where do we go from here as a nation and as part of the international community?

Our government has made the clear choice to stand beside the government and people of the United States and to support it in the war against terrorism. I believe that is our only choice. Let us be clear: not only do we have to bring the perpetrators of these acts of terror to justice, but we must also work to ensure that no terrorist organization will ever be in a position to mount an attack of this nature on innocent people. We owe that much and more to the victims of these attacks. We must destroy the sanctuaries of the terrorists. We must expose their friends and supporters. We must dismantle whatever financial arrangements they have. We must confiscate their assets. We must attack them from within and from without.

How this new war on terrorism will actually unfold we do not know. The truth is that very few people really know. It has been suggested that it may be fought on a variety of levels, through diplomatic and intelligence channels and political and economic pressure. Perhaps psychological warfare will be employed in some measure and some sort of military action is certainly likely. That may take the form of conventional warfare or special operations. Inevitably basic police work to ferret out terrorist organizations worldwide will be required.

The United States has yet to define what sorts of resources and assets may be needed, but I think we can all appreciate that there will likely be a price to be paid. To the extent that it is possible we must try to ensure a measured, calibrated and precise response, one that does not create a whole generation of suicide bombers. We must not overreact to the great and heinous crime that was perpetrated on the civilized world, but neither should we underreact. Terrorism must be defeated.

Any war must start with a knowledge of the enemy, with basic intelligence. As we know, the prime suspect is Osama bin Laden, the charismatic leader of the organization al-Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden is 44 years of age, the son of a Saudi construction tycoon who rebuilt the cities of Mecca and Medina. We know that his personal fortune, largely inherited, is between $280 million and $300 million U.S.

We know that the membership of al-Qaeda is estimated at between 3,000 and 5,000 men. There are no female members. We know that it fights alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan against the northern alliance and is designated the 055 Brigade. We know that they have camps in Khowst, Hazrat Amir Mawia, Kabul, Jalalabad, Kumar and Quandahar and depots in Tora Bora and Liza.

We know that their organization is spread over 35 countries and involves front organizations, banks through which money flows, as well as businesses ranging from real estate, hotels, diamonds and even fish.

There is a great deal we know about Osama bin Laden. I expect that in the weeks and months ahead we are going to learn an awful lot more about him and his terrorist organization. That work will be done largely by both police and intelligence organizations co-operating worldwide.

Canada has played an important role in the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence over the years. This was done through foreign affairs, military intelligence, the communications security establishment, the Privy Council Office and CSIS. In recent years our foreign intelligence contribution has largely focused on communications intercepts which regrettably have not provided quality intelligence information for the relevant authorities. That is the case not just here in Canada but in many other countries as well.

As we saw, the terrorists involved in last Tuesday's act stayed under the radar. They were not detected. More and more intelligence agencies are realizing that human source intelligence is indispensable in tracking the whereabouts and activities of terrorists.

Where does that leave us in terms of Canada's contribution? Although I have a lot of views on various aspects of this issue, I would like to leave the House with one suggestion that I believe deserves serious examination.

Perhaps we should look closely at a proposal that had been advanced in the past, that of creating a separate foreign intelligence agency for Canada. Such an agency could serve many purposes, not the least of which would be intelligence gathering relating to counterterrorism.

Canada is the only G-8 country without a foreign intelligence agency. Some excellent work has been done in this area by Mr. Alistair Hensler, a former assistant director of CSIS. If members are looking for more information on the subject, I would refer them to an excellent article that appeared in the winter of 1995 issue of the periodical Canadian Foreign Policy .

As the Prime Minister said earlier today, this parliament has a role in shaping a firm and just global response to an unprecedented global threat. Let us all rise to that daunting challenge.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Deborah Grey Canadian Alliance Edmonton North, AB

Mr. Speaker, again I agree with much of what my colleague has said. These are difficult days and although we can assume that maybe we will get back to some sense of normalcy, I really do not think that we will go back to the way things were.

I do not think my colleague was here in 1991 in January when the gulf war was declared. I remember that I was ready to come into the Chamber and speak on that and war was declared right before I was due to speak. The impact that has on any person, let alone the images that he was just referring to, which we will never, ever forget, those things have been etched on our minds. Also there are the people who are trying to do the rescue efforts right now. It is such a difficult time. We realize that this is monumental in history, that we are here for such a time as this, to be debating this and also to stand firm with our colleagues in the United States.

Although the circumstances were certainly different in 1991 when we went to the gulf war, we know that there was something identifiable. We know that there were targets that we were after. I am wondering if I could get a commitment from my colleague in the government to realize that even in that gulf war in 1991, Canada was willing to act as quickly as possible, as forcibly as possible, to help the United States and the allied countries to stand for democracy. So we must be willing now to do exactly the same to eradicate this terrorism. We must remember that if it is not Osama bin Laden then there may be 15 other people to stand in his place. How do we eradicate that, not by jumping to the gun in terms of avenging but by realizing that this may be long term. Even as we were willing to stand shoulder to shoulder in the gulf war in 1991, so we must be willing to do it now, 10 years later.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

11:20 p.m.

Liberal

David Pratt Liberal Nepean—Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the comments made by the hon. member. I think the government has clearly indicated that it is prepared to stand side by side with the Americans. The problem that has been identified quite clearly, I think, is that the enemy is, to say the least, rather elusive. As I mentioned, the enemy is spread over 35 countries.

We have had some success in this country in terms of detecting these cells and eliminating them, as have the British, the Americans, the Italians and the Germans. We have had some success in eliminating these cells for a short period of time. However, others have likely sprung up. I expect that the scope of what we will be involved in, which has certainly been mentioned in the past, will likely take us years. I expect that it will be a war waged on many fronts. What is clear and absolutely essential in all of this, and in some of the remarks I made I tried to indicate this very strongly, is basic intelligence.

As I indicated, in this country we should be looking at a new foreign intelligence agency. Canadians have done some very good work in the past in that whole area in terms of collecting intelligence, analyzing it, disseminating it and sharing it among the allies to good effect.

We have to look at a new organization that would provide us with new capabilities to battle this terrible evil. It would be an issue that might be looked at by one of the committees.

I appreciate the hon. member's comments. Above all else in connection with this fight against terrorism, we have to be smart about it. We have to ensure that we get to the root causes, that we eliminate the various cells that operate worldwide, get at the businesses, the front organizations that they have set up and make sure that we are in a position to ensure that no terrorist attack of the magnitude that we saw last week could be mounted. That certainly is something that Canadians and people worldwide never want to see again.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

11:25 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the gravity of the debate we are holding this evening, and I want television viewers to know we have been debating this matter since 11 o'clock this morning.

There have been a number of different opinions, and MPs from all parties have taken part in the debate. I believe that all of them have had three things in common.

I am certain that no one, regardless of political affiliation, can support an act of terrorism. No ideological, social or personal convictions can justify actions as extreme as those taken on September 11.

I am sure as well that everyone believes those actions must be punished. We also believe that we have a duty of solidarity toward the United States, because what happened there could have happened in any of the world's major cities. There is, of course, a symbolism, a situation characteristic of the U.S., but terrorism is a reality that concerns all states.

When I was preparing to deliver this speech, I reread the latest CSIS report. This is likely the organization that is most aware of the realities of espionage, counter-espionage and intelligence gathering. The report stated as follows:

There are more international terrorist groups in Canada than in any other country in the world, except the United States.

This report indicates that there are some 50 terrorist groups in Canada known to the Canadian Security Information Service. This is something that concerns us.

In an issue of the RCMP Gazette written in 1996, not current, but I think it is relevant, it says that seven terrorist attacks occurred in Canada between 1982 and 1996. They included hostage takings in embassies, a booby trapped car, the assassination of the publisher of an Indian newspaper in Vancouver, in short, there is a list of them.

Terrorism is therefore an incontrovertible fact in international life. Anyone interested in public life, whatever its responsibilities, cannot but be aware of it.

I would like to distance myself especially from the remarks made by the members of the Canadian Alliance. This is not a debate of good and evil. This is not the reality. Of course we do not support terrorism, I repeat, we do not agree with the very specific way chosen to put ideas across, but it is not a question of good and evil. There are terrorists on American soil.

Threats have already been made to American national security from within. However much we may support the United States, it is not beyond reproach from the international community. I repeat, this has nothing to do with terrorism.

Where I ally myself closely with the government is in our desire, if we are to discuss the fight against terrorism intelligently, for a comprehensive view of the situation. I was reading an article by a knowledgeable chap, Jocelyn Coulon of the Lester B. Pearson Centre for Peacekeeping, with its headquarters in Halifax, who is responsible for the institution's Montreal satellite. He pointed out that the resolution of terrorism requires an understanding of the various regional conflicts.

There is a link between the events at the World Trade Center, which, for the second time in its history, was attacked, the first time being in 1993, and then on September 11, and what is going on in the Middle East. There is a link between the events at the World Trade Center and the more or less successful dialogue between northern and southern countries. There is a link between the events at the World Trade Center and the reform of the United Nations.

When one is a terrorist and is prepared to lay down one's life for a cause, however extreme, it is because one does not believe that the existing international mechanisms offer a means of resolving conflicts. In this sense, I am in complete agreement with all the members, particularly those on the government side, who have reminded us that for there to be any intelligent discussion of the fight against terrorism, there must be a global policy for international relations and for what goes on throughout the world

The United States must also be reminded that it was late with its contribution to the United Nations. We must recall that the Americans are not very open to the idea of reforming the permanent security council, that they rejected the Kyoto protocol. We must recall that President Bush wanted out of the 1972 IBM treaty. In his speech to the nation, President Bush quite rightly asked that international justice hand over the main suspect identified so far. However these same Americans have not signed the treaty creating the International Court of Justice.

Once again, I repeat, because on such a topic one must choose one's words carefully, that this does not justify terrorism, but it does guard us, I hope, from the somewhat simplistic reasoning of those who, like people in the middle ages, want there to be good guys and bad guys, lightness or darkness, the crusades or peace. This is not how it works.

Of course, in trying to understand terrorism, we must understand the extremely complex universe of technologies. The Senate of Canada, the other chamber, has on three occasions examined the issue of terrorism.

In its latest report, which I was reading this afternoon, it reminded us that 1.5 million Canadians work abroad, either in import-export firms, in the world of diplomacy or in embassies. Forty thousand Canadians on average travel for various reasons. This is the primary base for terrorism. Terrorism is able to expand through globalization, because people travel. The more open a nation we are in our economy and in the mobility of individuals, the more vulnerable we are to terrorism. This goes without saying.

As unlikely as it may seem, it is not because the United States did not invest resources in the fight against terrorism. The hon. member for Mercier told us that the Americans have invested billions of dollars in the fight against terrorism. There are at least 40 special units at headquarters and in the various army corps and these units are very well trained to get involved in those areas of the world where there are tensions.

Eleven conventions were signed by various countries to collectively fight terrorism. The example of NATO was mentioned a number of times.There is something peculiar about NATO in that, for the first time since its creation, it will invoke article 5, which is a clause of mutual assistance in case of an aggression against one member. That clause was not used during the gulf war in 1990-91 when the father of the current U.S. president was leading the coalition. Neither was it used during the Cuban crisis or during the invasion of Czechoslovakia.

This is to say that, in the eyes of the international community, things are so serious that it feels the need to consider that all partners, NATO now has 19 members with the inclusion of Poland, Hungary and the former Czech republic, feel that, for all intents and purposes, they are at war.

I will conclude by saying that I am among those who believe that we must support the United States, but under two conditions. We must work globally on the causes of terrorism. This means that we must fight poverty, reform multilateral institutions and launch a true north-south dialogue. There will also have to be convincing and conclusive evidence as to who is behind these terrorist attacks.

If these two conditions are met, then Canada is duty-bound to show solidarity. In fact, the premier of Quebec also pointed this out and he has offered to the state and to the city of New York all the social health resources that are available in Quebec.

I will conclude by offering my condolences to all the families affected and by quoting President Kennedy who said, in reference to Canada's relation with the United States, that geography had made us neighbours, while history had made us friends.

Attack on the United StatesGovernment Orders

11:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. Although I have been here all evening listening to the debate I will not have the opportunity to speak to the issue. There are a great number of members who want to rise on debate and unfortunately I was not at the top of the list.

On behalf of my constituents of Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, I wish to express our sympathies to our friends and neighbours in the United States, Canada and other countries around the world that suffered through this tragedy.

I agree with those who say that these terrorists must be brought to justice as quickly as possible. I also support those who say that we as Canadians must take action more than just through our verbal actions. We must take the actions as were talked about today by the Prime Minister. All of us in the House of Commons must come together and do this as quickly as possible. If there are laws that need to be changed, then let us change them and get this done as quickly as we can.

I also support those who say that we must strike at the root causes of terrorism, that we must do that as a group collectively and internationally. We cannot take action on the one hand of striking without striking intelligently. I do agree with those individuals.

What does the hon. member feel that individual Canadians can do specifically to help this cause? I listened to the debate today. Members talked about how we could collectively do something as a nation and work together, but what can individual Canadians themselves do? A number of people have called my offices and have asked what they can do as an individual Canadian to help in this cause.