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.