Debates of Sept. 18th, 2001

Trade

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue and Secretary of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec)]

First, Mr. Speaker, since the tragic event we have heightened security at the border, which is to say more interviews, as well as using the technology we have such as passport and palm readers.

While facing this situation, we have to recognize that most of our economic interests are within North America. Therefore, we have to recognize that it has to keep going that way as well.

We need a balanced approach and we need to focus more on the question of perimeter, working of course with Transport Canada and the RCMP, but working as well in co-operation with the United States.

Cabinet Meetings

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been informed that the chief of staff of the Canadian forces, the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the commissioner of the RCMP attended this morning's cabinet meeting.

Given the volatility of public opinion since the attacks last Tuesday, will the Prime Minister tell the House what the nature of their appearance was?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no one appears before the cabinet.

When the cabinet meets, we sometimes invite senior government officials to brief the ministers on the situation within their departments. That is what happened this morning.

The Economy

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Dow Jones fell by almost 700 points and the crisis in the Untied States is putting us at the brink of recession in this country.

The minister knows we now have massive layoffs in the auto industry, the resource sector, the airline sector and many other sectors of the economy. We have now been more than 19 months without a budget.

Will the minister do two things: Will he bring in a package to immediately stimulate the Canadian economy to try to avoid a recession and will he make a promise in the House today to bring in a budget some time this fall?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, again, the hon. member knows that we are in the middle of a global slowdown. It is one that is affecting the United States, Latin America, Japan and Europe.

The fact is that Canada is very much part of this economy. That is why it was so important for us to get our balance sheet in order. That is why the debt reduction announcement of the day was so important.That is why it is important for us to have our taxes reduced.That is also why it is important to invest in research and development, education, health care and infrastructure.

Those are the things that were set out in the October statement. Those are the programs that we can guarantee the Canadian people will be protected. We will continue in that vein.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I would now like to deal with the point of order raised on June 12, 2001, by the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough relating to the use of the provisions of Standing Order 56.1. The hon. member stated in his argument that an abuse of process had occurred which was “tantamount to a breach of the rules and the intention and interpretation thereof” when, earlier that day, the government used Standing Order 56.1 to move a motion to which unanimous consent had been previously denied. The motion in question concerned the disposition of business for the final two sitting days prior to the summer adjournment, including the voting method to be followed on the last supply day of the period ending June 23, 2001.

I would like to thank the hon. the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for their contributions on this matter.

At that time I ruled that the terms of the motion would stand, having been adopted by the House some eight hours before the hon. member raised his point of order. However, I also indicated my intention to return to the House in the fall with a statement on the use of Standing Order 56.1 and I am now ready to address the House on this matter. House of Commons Procedure and Practice , at page 571, describes Standing Order 56. 1 as follows:

If, at any time during a sitting of the House, unanimous consent is denied for the presentation of a “routine motion”, a minister may request during Routine Proceedings that the Speaker put the motion. For that purpose, a “routine motion” refers to motions which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishment of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment. The motion, which is neither debatable nor amendable, is immediately put to the House by the Speaker. If 25 Members or more oppose the motion, it is deemed withdrawn; otherwise, it is adopted.

Standing Order 56.1 was adopted by the House in April 1991. At the time of its adoption concerns were raised about the implications of a rule that provides a mechanism for overriding the very unanimity of the unanimous consent mechanism that the House often uses to expedite its business. Speaker Fraser ruled on April 9, 1991, at page 19236 of the Debates :

However, this “over-ride” provision can operate, as the Chair understands it, only with respect to a certain very limited range of motions offered at a specific time in our daily agenda by a minister of the Crown...Based on the fact that we have similar procedures existing with respect to other types of motions and given the very limited application of the new proposal, the Chair cannot accede to the request...that paragraph 20 of the motion respecting the Standing Order amendments be ruled out of order.

It should be emphasized that at the time of its adoption it was envisioned that the standing order would be used for only so-called routine motions as defined in Standing Order 56.1(1)( b ).

Now let us examine how the rule has been used since its adoption 10 years ago. The government sought to use Standing Order 56.1 in 17 cases and failed in two instances.

Between 1991 and 1995 it was used six times to authorize committee travel. This falls squarely within the terms of the standing order. From 1995 to 1997 it was used on the following four occasions to arrange the sittings of the House: in March 1995 and April 1997, to suspend the sitting of the House for the sole purpose of a royal assent ceremony; in March 1995, to enable the House to sit over the weekend to consider government orders Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services, a bill already under time allocation; and in June 1995, to extend the sitting to consider government business beyond the extension already provided for under Standing Order 27(1).

Here again, these four examples illustrate the intended use of Standing Order 56.1 for routine purposes, that is, to enable the House to fix the times of its meetings or adjournments and to arrange its proceedings.

From 1997 there are signs of a disturbing trend in which Standing Order 56.1 was used, or attempted to be used, for the adoption of motions less readily identified or defined as routine. Let us review specific examples of this trend.

On December 1, 1997 the standing order was used for the first time to dispose of back to work legislation at all stages, Bill C-24, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services. In March 1999 the government attempted to use Standing Order 56.1 for back to work legislation on Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services. This attempt failed, as did a second attempt three days later. Eventually the legislation was dealt with under a special order after the government moved the same motion which it had placed on the order paper under government orders.

In June 1998, the government attempted to use Standing Order 56.1 to rescind a decision previously taken by the House concerning Standing Orders 57 and 78(3). The undertaking failed and members raised objections to this attempted use of the standing order. They argued that rescinding a unanimous decision of the House was not a routine motion and, as such, should not be permitted under this standing order. The Speaker allowed it, although he expressed misgivings, and he urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of Standing Order 56.1.

Far less problematic are the two occasions where Standing Order 56.1 was used to enable the House to schedule take note debates, in both cases providing for the House to sit beyond its normal hours: in February 1998 to debate Canada's participation in a possible military action in the Middle East, the gulf war; and in April 1999 to consider the situation in Kosovo. So long as we continue to respect the distinction between emergency debates under Standing Order 52 and take note debates, using Standing Order 56.1 for scheduling purposes does not appear to violate the spirit of the standing orders.

The government again used Standing Order 56.1 in June 2001 to dispose of all stages of Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act.

Finally, on June 12, 2001, the government, under Standing Order 56.1, moved a motion to dispose of business over the following two sitting days. In this instance the motion provided for the disposition of third reading of Bill C-11, an act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger, and Bill C-24, an act to amend the criminal code (organized crime and law enforcement) and to make consequential amendments to other acts, and to dispose of Government Business No. 7, the summer adjournment motion.

In addition the motion provided that once a recorded division had been taken on the main estimates, all subsequent motions to concur in any vote or votes on the main estimates shall be deemed moved and seconded and the question deemed put and agreed to on division. The effect of this was that there was a single recorded division on the first of 190 opposed items standing on the order paper and the remainder were deemed agreed to on division.

At this point I would like to draw to members' attention the following reference at pages 571-2 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice :

On April 9, 1991, Speaker Fraser, while pointing out that the range of motions to which the proposed procedure would apply was very limited, also suggested that the new Standing Order was to be understood as another procedurally acceptable mechanism for limiting debate: "There are certain similarities also between the proposal and existing Standing Order 78 respecting time allocation in that both use a ladder-like type of approach depending upon the extent of agreement forthcoming to securing the right to propose the motion".

I would advise hon. members to be very cautious in their reading of this passage. In his ruling, Speaker Fraser drew a parallel between Standing Order 56.1, which requires a prior attempt to gain unanimous consent, and Standing Order 78, the time allocation rule, which requires notice or prior consultation. It seems doubtful to me, having read the ruling in its entirety, that Speaker Fraser really meant to suggest that Standing Order 56.1 was to be understood as another procedurally acceptable mechanism for limiting debate.

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House. It was not intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages, certainly not for bills that fall outside the range of those already contemplated in the standing order when “urgent or extraordinary occasions” arise. Standing Order 71 provides in such cases that a bill may be dealt with at more than one stage in a single day.

Likewise, a motion seeking to reverse a unanimous decision of the House is a serious undertaking and should in no way be viewed as a routine motion. It was never envisaged that Standing Order 56.1 would be used to override decisions that the House had taken by unanimous consent.

In the most recent use of Standing Order 56.1, a motion was adopted which provided for a recorded division on the first opposed item in the main estimates. However, all subsequent opposed items were then deemed moved and carried. The effect of the motion adopted pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 was to predetermine the results of all the votes following the first recorded division. It is clear to the Chair that this application of the standing order goes well beyond the original intent, that is, for the presentation of routine motions as defined in Standing Order 56.1.(1)( b ).

The standing order has never been used as a substitute for decisions which the House ought itself to make on substantive matters. In addition, if the House from time to time should agree by way of proceeding by unanimous consent as, for example, on the application of votes, one cannot assume that such agreements would automatically fall into the category of routine matters as defined in Standing Order 56.1.

As I previously indicated, I allowed the motion adopted on June 12, 2001, to go ahead because there were no objections raised at the time it was moved. By the time hon. members expressed concern to the Chair some eight hours later, the Chair saw no alternative but to proceed with the terms of the motion. However, to speak frankly, had the objection been raised in good time, I would have been inclined to rule the motion out of order. This situation serves again to remind members of the importance of raising matters of a procedural nature in a timely fashion.

In the three years since my predecessor urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of Standing Order 56.1, we have seen further evidence of a trend away from the original intent of this rule. This would seem all the more reason for the committee to consider the standing order at the earliest opportunity.

In the meantime, based on close examination of past precedents and the most recent use of Standing Order 56.1 as a tool to bypass the decision making functions of the House, I must advise the House that the motion adopted on June 12, 2001, will not be regarded as a precedent. I would urge all hon. members to be vigilant about the use of this mechanism for the Chair certainly intends to be watchful.

I want to thank all hon. members who intervened to raise this point before the House at this time.

Ways and Means

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83.1, I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act. I am also tabling a background document. I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Nanaimo for his excellent speech and for his strong words of encouragement coming from a spiritual nature, which is something which is rather rare and unusual in the House of Commons. I appreciate it and I know that there are many out there who do as well. Could the hon. member give me some indication of the public response to this particular episode that brought him to this particular speech?

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Wild Rose. It is interesting that subsequent to the times of national mourning that were held in Ottawa, in Washington and in other capitals around the world, a number of people called my office. They talked to me personally about their deep concern that the whole issue of spiritual values had not been raised at our own national service here in Ottawa.

In fact one lady was so exercised about it that she was in tears for her nation. She felt that we had lost our spiritual foundation. I know that many Canadians deeply care about that. We Canadians are not necessarily a demonstrative people about our faith. However I do think that in times of great national tragedy those feelings come very close to the surface. It is appropriate for us as leaders to not only allow the free discussion of those questions that arise out of these national tragedies, but to somehow exercise some kind of moral and spiritual leadership that would give our people hope. If a nation does not have hope for its future, it will soon lose its direction very clearly.

I am sometimes concerned that we as a country have lost some of the direction for the future.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that one of the inhibitions to words of prayer and spiritual comfort and having a spiritual dimension to public ceremonies is the multi-religious background of our country.

As the member said, most Canadians do have a faith background. Could the member suggest some practical means of addressing this concern in a way that would be appropriate without losing the value of a spiritual dimension among our citizens during public exercises of mourning and remembrance?

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is always a danger for us in some sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Spiritually we probably have done that in this country when we try to be all things to all people. From a faith perspective we get to the lowest common denominator and we do not do anything.

That is very dangerous for us as a nation. I was very taken by the service in Washington, D.C., which had a multi-faith component to it. They were very sensitive to the various religious expressions. There is no reason we in this country who claim to have a cultural and ethnic mosaic could not have demonstrated that very visibly at the service in Ottawa where we could have had shared expressions by representatives from the various faiths.

At the local level I know that happened. It happened in my riding as well as across the country as people of various faith backgrounds got together. Again it is a question of us in leadership being bold enough to exercise leadership in this area. We should not be afraid to exercise spiritual leadership if we believe strongly in it. We should not be relegating it to the back rooms of our lives.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to notify you that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Pickering--Ajax--Uxbridge.

The tragedies in New York City and Washington this past September 11 have affected us to our very core. We have all been thunderstruck by the acts of fanaticism and violence that annihilated in the blink of an eye so many human beings, changing for ever the lives of the families and loved ones of thousands of innocent victims.

Today, foremost in our thoughts during this debate must be all the innocent victims who lost their lives so needlessly. There are thousands of families whose future will forever be marked by the loss of a father or mother, a sister or brother, a husband or wife, or some other loved one.

May these families who are experiencing such great sorrow, a sorrow that will remain forever in their lives, find the strength and courage to continue their lives with acceptance and peace.

There is a broad consensus, both here in this Chamber and among all democratic peoples, that the fanaticism and violence of terrorism have no place whatsoever in any society with a claim to being civilized.

Our political parties and political leaders in all countries of the democratic and free world join together, as we do, in extending deepest condolences and the solidarity of their support in the collective battle against international terrorism.

Now more than ever we must resolve to express through our future decisions and actions the values which we share of a deep and abiding belief in human rights, in the integrity and immeasurable worth of human life and the dignity of the individual.

There must be a response to the fanatical act of September 11, 2001, but it must be a response of the broadest possible coalition of freedom loving peoples and governments all over the world. This response will call for immense wisdom, patience and perseverance, both by the leaders of the United States and those of their friends and allies including Canada.

We must not let the immediate repulsion and emotions of September 11 provoke us into any hasty and fast conceived military actions which could plunge the world into a massive and prolonged conflict with impacts and consequences far beyond the international terrorist network and system we are determined to eradicate.

This is why we owe it to ourselves and to the respective peoples of the international coalition, of which we form part, to reflect not separately but in unison, joining the most judicious of our collective thoughts in decisions that will be firm yet wise and so carefully studied, planned and executed that their consequences will be confined to the goals we seek, namely the crippling and eradication of world terrorism.

We should not allow our immediate repulsion and emotions to lead us into decisions and actions which may in their process cause the loss of more innocent lives and destabilize the already delicate equilibrium of world peace, frail and inconsistent as it may be.

In joining democratic governments in making much needed decisions for the eradication of world terrorism, we must also renew our resolve and efforts in the promotion of social justice in a world where the disparities between rich and poor, north and south, are still a blot on the international conscience and indeed represent much of the root causes of conflict and violence throughout the world.

Today is not the occasion for strident calls for increased budgets or sudden drastic policy changes, not that these should not be considered in due time, but we should avoid the temptation of quick fixes and instant solutions without regard for the most thoughtful and judicious reflection and planning of a measured and careful collective response with its aftermath and consequences.

Perhaps we should reflect as well that for Canada there is a lesson in humility to be drawn in the aftermath of September 11. Even if our military budget and forces were to be enhanced we would still constitute a very small military player in a multi-national operation.

This is one more reason we must seek a more appropriate role for ourselves than a strictly military one. Even if we are a minor military actor we can play a major role on the moral front in influencing our allies toward a reasoned and judicious course of action backed by a large multi-national consensus.

Although senseless, the fanatical acts of violence we have experienced have one basic aim: to provoke and unleash a reaction so rapid and vengeful that it would show our technologically advanced and well organized democratic societies as being capable of the same power of destruction that was visited upon us last Tuesday.

Rather, let this be the moment in history when we reaffirm the strength in our bedrock values of peace, human dignity for every individual and reason. It is in times of major trials and upheavals that the intrinsic values of the human spirit reveal themselves. The present challenge will test the human spirit as decisively as at any previous crisis or crossroad in world history.

Those who elected us in our respective countries will expect from us decisiveness borne of deep reflection and wisdom, taking into account all consequences of our actions relating to innocent populations.

If increased planning, prudence and patience can mean a more confined operation centred on the prime objective of eradicating the nerve centres of the terrorist menace, this is a course we must favour over a new large scale military campaign with all the dangers it would pose to human lives and international stability.

It is my strong hope that the redress which must be sought be carried out under the sanction of the United Nations and the international consensus that it expresses and represents. We will be judged in this hour of trial by the manner in which we rise to the challenge.

Let us rise to the challenge with firmness but in a way which honours and respects the human condition and innocent populations, for what we decide today will mark our world perhaps for years to come.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday's horrific tragedy shook the United States, Canada and the entire world. On that day all of us became victims of acts of horrific cruelty, creating upheaval in public order for all of humanity.

The world we live in today is far different from the one we lived in only seven short days ago. The world changed on September 11, 2001, and it will never be the same again. Words will never be enough to express our sadness and support for those who have lost family members or friends. However, as well as extending our thoughts and prayers we also wish to express our determination to ensure that despite the tragic and murderous consequences of terrorism free societies will never give in to terrorist acts and the values we hold so dear will continue to prevail.

My riding of Scarborough--Agincourt is one of the most ethnically diverse in all of Canada. I represent people whose origins cover the face of the earth. Yesterday I received dozens of e-mails from constituents who wished to offer their thoughts on what happened and what should be done in light of these attacks.

Lister Tennant states:

The Canadian government as a member of NATO should use its influence and get the United States to exercise a cool head. The U.S. or NATO might be bombing a foreign country and killing innocent people while your real enemy is within the borders of the United States and Canada.

Joe Hostyn states:

Canada should support all anti-terrorist measures and actions including military support if required. We should also review all immigration policies and restructure them to make it much more difficult to establish terrorist cells of operation within our country. If it means restricting overall immigration, so be it.

Malcolm and Elizabeth Abdool state:

I hope that Canada would fully support the United States in the fight against international terrorism and trust that the necessary steps would be taken here in Canada to protect all Canadians. Thank you for the opportunity to give our input.

Erma Collins states:

I would not like Canada, despite NATO commitments, to participate in bombing Afghanistan or any other country. The west would then be the terrorists, taking the lives of innocent civilians. Someone ought to propose a new approach: sending relief supplies to poverty-stricken countries that breed terrorists. Violence (physical, economic, political, psychological) breeds violence. Of course, the individual perpetrators should be brought to justice.

The list goes on and on. We must remember that the attack on September 11 is not the work of Muslims or Arabs but of terrorists.

One thing that we must have in Canada is inclusion, acceptance and not just tolerance. I have heard people say that we should tolerate them because they are different. I have heard people say that we should look upon them as having a different colour of skin. One of the things that we must do in Canada is accept individuals as our neighbours. People in my riding of a different creed or colour have been made fun of and even attacked. That is not something to be supported and it should not be happening in Canada.

Could the hon. member share with us some thoughts and ideas on this issue and whether he had any similar actions occurring in his riding?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the short time I have left I will say that I share the thoughts of my colleague. We should certainly be very careful not to use the tragedy that has occurred as an excuse for highlighting or pinpointing any racial or religious groups in particular.

This is the time when we should resolve more than ever that we have a multi-racial society in Canada, as well as around the world, where respect for individuals, human rights and tolerance of everyone regardless of race, colour or creed is the paramount driving force in our societies and civilizations.

I therefore endorse my colleague's comments very decisively.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in every community across the country, wherever we may have been at around nine o'clock eastern standard time on September 11, none of us will ever forget that day of infamy.

On behalf of all the residents of my community I wish to express to the House of Commons our deep regret and sorrow regarding the victimization and death of so many and the act which brought it about. It is something we as a community collectively repudiate.

This evil knows no bounds. The modernity of evil has taken a new course but I think we all recognize that from evil also comes the power of good.

The member for Nanaimo--Cowichan talked a while ago about the spiritual dimension of this. I too could find no words, acts or gestures to compensate for our deep feelings of anger and sadness and our belief that Canadians share with the Americans in their tremendous sorrow. We have sought among ourselves that which is our only resolve: our faith.

Within minutes of hearing about the tragedy I called my wife. I wanted to make sure it was not really happening yet I knew we were blessed that it had not happened here in Canada. The call I made to my wife was one of love. I immediately followed it by saying the Holy Rosary, something I have rarely talked about but which I felt was important. At the same time I called my friends whom I have invited to the Hill to create a new impression of Islam and to talk about their feelings regarding the outrage that occurred.

On Friday I spent an interesting time with my colleague and friend, Councillor Dave Ryan of Pickering, speaking to Muslims about their faith. They told us they are about peace and that they do not tolerate or condone killing as it is against the Koran.

Most people, whether they wear a kaffiyeh, a yamulka, a pagri or simply wear their faith in their heart, know that the unspeakable acts of a week ago were the result of a very narrow but determined group of individuals bent on making themselves martyrs. To such people human life is of no consequence, whether their own or that of the innocents tragically murdered in one fell swoop last week.

I am not sure we can fully comprehend the dimension of the changes that will be required in our lives as a result of what transpired last week. In my comments earlier to one of the members I mentioned what had transpired some 19 years ago. Yesterday was the 19th anniversary of the massacre at Sabra and Shatila.

There have been many occasions around the world when this parliament has been gripped with issues of humanitarian concern. However we do not see the face that breeds the kind of indifference, despair and abject poverty that serves as a hotbed and a catalyst for people who see no option but to attack the west.

U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whom many in the House know as a longtime CIA critic, put it very well recently. His response to the tragedies was quoted in the New York Times on September 16. He observed:

--that Washington “was still worrying about intercontinental missiles when we had a wholly new set of threats, the fierce and unresolved Islamic antagonism over centuries of domination from the West”.

“We have to start all over again in what we think we're dealing with,” he said. “Perhaps organizations we had for another era will be able to do that. But it is more likely we'll have to create new institutions”.

We find ourselves here today debating a motion presented by the Canadian Alliance. We would all like to find the perfect elixir and magic solution that would create and ensure security for Canadians while at the same time addressing the roots of the antagonism that is meeting North America with deadly force.

However I am not sure the proposal by the Alliance would do that. It may in fact go in a different direction. The suppression of rights and labelling of suspicious individuals as potential terrorists may well result in people who object, for instance, to genetically modified foods being viewed as terrorists.

There are opportunities here. I read the United Nations prospective on human rights with respect to the United Kingdom's anti-terrorism legislation. Today's motion is not just an explanation of the U.K. legislation. More important, the Alliance motion calls for:

the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences; and

the detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations.

It is clear that two wrongs do not make a right. What the bill is proposing may be far too draconian. It may be the basis for a police state in which individuals can be arrested at will on a mere suspicion.

There is no doubt that Canadians expect us to do the right thing. However they also expect us not to act rashly. They expect us to provide legislation that is effective and meaningful but which distinguishes, to the extent that it is possible, between terrorists and those who simply hold a point of view which may not conform with the majority.

We must draw on the collective wisdom of the Moslem, Christian and other communities that have talked at great length about ensuring we do not make victims of those who are innocent, not just here in Canada but around the world.

For these reasons it is important for parliament not to act in a way that is precipitous and serves the short term needs of those who want revenge. Goodness knows, even President Bush has not acted that immediately.

I was surprised this morning to read in the paper that Canada had been a conduit for the government of Iran to send a message to the United States. Canada has a unique perspective in the world to have been able to bring together two countries that traditionally, in my lifetime at least, since 1978-79, have been hostile enemies. Canada served as a go between not for terrorism but for a rapprochement, to brings these countries together. That is significant.

The events of last week will not be resolved by quick knee-jerk reactions. I have heard the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and many colleagues on both sides of the House search for solutions. The solutions are there but they must be considered in the proper context.

This is a new type of evil. It has been modernized. Its presence has been felt here in North America for the first time. We are waking up to a reality of the world in a devastating and tragic way. Once the perpetrators are brought to justice we will still be left with the fundamentals: the seeds of oppression and the kinds of things Canadians would not want to see in their own backyards.

We want to ensure that people with differences of opinion have the opportunity to express and articulate their concerns in peaceful ways. We cannot emphasize enough the need to ensure that in the pursuit of justice we do not in any way, shape or form invite an injustice on people who are unsuspecting. I know that our Alliance colleagues on the other side of the House understand this principle as well.

We must act. The Prime Minister has said that will happen. However we must act internationally and not create our own form of continental barrier.

Ironically the Immigration Act that is before the House and Senate may be an opportunity to ensure we are more careful. If it only takes two or three individuals to disrupt the world, as we have seen, we have a lot of work to do. God willing, this parliament will get its act together and co-operate to ensure we address the root causes of this outrage and bring the perpetrators to justice. However at the end of the whole process we must honour and respect due process and the rule of law.

May God bless us all in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few things clear for the hon. member across the way. The motion calls for:

the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada;

It also calls for:

the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences;

It is difficult to understand on this side of the House, after talking with people in Canada since the act took place in the United States, why we would hesitate to deport known terrorists from the country after they have inflicted this type of damage on the citizens of other nations.

I hear cries for the protection of human rights. What about the protection of our citizens and the citizens of other nations? When it comes down to the crunch, will we choose human rights or human lives? I would much rather see police in Canada rounding up and deporting known terrorists than rounding up the families of the victims they have killed and taking them to the morgue. Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that those who committed these acts have no regard for human rights or human life. If that were the case last week's events would not have happened.

The hon. member talks about the ability to round people up. Those who committed these acts must be dealt with. I have emphasized that. However the people rounded up must be known terrorists who present a real and present danger to our country or to the world. They must not be individuals whom we merely suspect, as is the case with the United Kingdom's resolution.

I will point out for the hon. member's edification that the United Nations in its resolve said that the government should repeal the very measures the hon. member will support today. The United Nations human rights commission said the British government should repeal all provisions that are not in conformity with international treaties and standards, in particular emergency laws like the prevention of terrorism act which have a chilling effect on freedom of opinion and expression.

It has been said here enough: two wrongs do not make a right. Insh'allah , we will be guided by that which is right. We should be guided by principles of justice which ensure that, rather than trying to find quick and expedient fixes, we do something to combat this new reality.

As we know, the Americans were caught flat-footed last week. There is wide recognition among military and other observers that since the cold war ended we have been dealing with an entirely new threat that we have not wanted to acknowledge.

When a small plane crashed in front of the White House six or seven years ago an hon. member pointed out that very little was done to respond to the new potential threat.

We are looking at the world from a very different perspective this week. It will take us a long time to break out of the mould. However I can assure the hon. member that we will do it in a way that is just. We will do it in a way that is not rash and that serves the ultimate interest of protecting innocent citizens. That is the responsibility of the government and we will act.

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

Mr. Speaker, Colin Powell has mentioned a gathering of the coalition against terrorism. He has said there are two groups within the coalition: those who offer rhetorical support, which amounts to words of support and encouragement only, and those who are willing to back up their words with military support and actions of that sort.

While I understand the need to consider our response, I am hoping the government will lead. The people of Canada will follow. There is wide support. The government has an opportunity to demonstrate leadership. I hope the government will take this into consideration and act swiftly. I encourage it to take concrete steps to support our closest friends and allies in the United States.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of this country has made that patently clear and obvious to anybody who has been here or who has witnessed what has happened.

I want to point out to the hon. member that we risk falling into the hands of the terrorists' ultimate agenda, not just of sowing fear but of ensuring that our stability as a nation and as a free loving, democratic people is imperiled because we overcorrect and because we institute things that are beyond what would be expected in a free and democratic society. We cannot lose sight of what they are attacking. They are attacking our values and we will not allow those values to be suppressed in order to sustain them. It does not make sense. They have to be measured and proper. We love freedom. We love democracy. Make no mistake, we will not let anybody destroy those views and those values, but we must ensure that the terrorist ultimately does not win in suppressing the rights that we value and cherish in Canada. Our mission is to bring them to other countries.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with an extremely heavy heart after listening to the debate over the last two days following the terrible tragedy.

As many members know, I am a 65 year old grandfather who spent the first half of his life being raised and educated in the United States. I took part in military service with pride. When I chose to move into another field of work, into education, it led me to come to Canada. When I left the United States it was with mixed feelings. However, a short time after I had arrived in Canada I knew I had made the right decision. I never dreamed for a moment that about 30 years later I would have the honour of standing in this House representing the people of my riding who chose me to come here.

I also never thought that I would be rising in this place to talk about the country from where I came, a country that I love, a country where my relatives, both in-laws and outlaws so to speak, live and where I have two grandchildren who reside two and a half hours from New York.

After I had phoned many of my relatives last week, I could not believe the hurt, the sadness and the deep rooted feelings in their hearts with regard to this particular incident. It is because of that I hurt pretty badly today for them, knowing they are going through a tragic thing. However, I want them to be comforted, at least from my perspective and that of others, that the 140,000 people who live in my riding are coming together collectively and praying for the victims and the rescue workers of this tragedy. They are asking all of us to come together in brotherhood to stamp out those who would do such an atrocious thing.

I have received a document from my brother who was a veteran of World War II. He became disabled recently because of the frozen feet he sustained during that war. He was caught in a trench for hours and hours along with most of his unit, pinned down under enemy fire. They did not know what their future would be but it was looking very grim. After about 14 or 15 hours, over the hill came relief. It was Canadian, American and allied troops in brotherhood who literally brought new life to him which enabled him to contact me this week.

That kind of brotherhood does not exist today. There was a call from my brother and others that the brotherhood of the two countries needs to be revitalized. He sent a document to me. He did not realize that the document he sent was two decades old. However, it was being distributed in the United States. He said that if I knew the fellow who made this speech, because he was from Canada, would I please contact him to thank him for his strong support for the kind of unity and brotherhood that is so essential.

The fellow of course was Gordon Sinclair. My brother did not realize he was deceased and had made the speech two decades ago. Is it not a shame that a document from Gordon Sinclair that is giving hope to so many Americans is 12 years old. However they are not hearing a whole lot today, which is sad. I do not know if I have the heart to tell them that the great speech about the need for the solid unity of brotherhood is 20 years old.

When I was talking to him he asked me if I would, when I go back to parliament, do what they have done in his land where the Democrats and Republicans have come together, linked in arms, with determination that this will come to an end, that it will be defeated and that we on this land will never have to fear it again. He asked me if we would work together co-operatively and join arms with everyone in the House of Commons with the determination that it takes to destroy the enemy who has done this vicious thing.

He then said another very strange thing. He asked me not to forget to pray for those individuals in other lands who are so full of hate that they are training and brainwashing their youth into thinking that the only solution is to destroy western civilization. They are holding up these young people who are being led into these things beyond their will. He illustrated that to me with the number of contacts he had regarding the Nazis who were brought up in that same fashion with murder and destruction, which is what he faced.

I have heard a lot of people in the House of Commons say that we should restrain our emotions and that we should not allow our emotions guide us. Well I am filled with emotion. I have a lot of sadness after hearing what I have heard over the last two days. The idea of coming together collectively and treating this episode in the manner of what it actually is, is being taken far too lightly. We need to think about that.

My anger is still alive. May God never turn my anger to hate. In 65 years that has never happened but the anger that swells up in me at times has produced some adrenalin that has created some action, and a lot of times for the good. There is nothing wrong with being angry but we must not let it turn to hate. We must remember the 15 year old who was attacked. We must encourage all the people we know to not go after the innocent people in this great land. They are not responsible. We cannot start making assumptions. We must come together believing that this evil thing that has happened can be stamped out and overpowered with good.

My emotions have been comforted but, unfortunately, it has been through some knee-jerk reactions from the south. When President Bush called up 50,000 reservists that gave me some relief. The man is serious. He will put people and things into place to start immediate protection. I bless him for going to the site in New York City and reading from the scripture trying to bring comfort to those who put their faith in God. He tried to strengthen their faith by recognizing our differences and being willing to bring some comfort. Many of the 100,000 people assembled on the Hill looking for some kind of spiritual comfort, felt they came away empty.

Yes, we are told not to let fear guide us. However I have too many grandchildren not to be a little fearful. I want to have some security in my life when I leave this land knowing that their lives will not be filled with terror and evil.

We were willing to come together collectively to say, yes, we need to take some action. For Pete's sake, our border guards are crying out today, with the situation the way it is, for equipment.

They are calling me as we speak. I am getting e-mails from border guards all up and down the border asking for help. They are saying that they are underequipped and undermanned. Yet we see members rise in the House with rhetoric that everything is rosy. It is not rosy and we should start facing reality. We should start listening to the people who are on the frontlines and be thankful for them. We should listen to what they are saying.

If members want to comfort this grampa then they should adopt the motion and indicate to all Canadians and Americans that we are no longer prepared to support terrorism in any fashion. There are some excellent ideas here. It is not a matter of trampling on human rights. It is a matter of saying that terrorism will not get ground in this land. It will be snuffed out. I want to receive some confidence that it will happen. One should take away my emotions and give me some faith in not only God but in my country. We must be strong but united.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the intervention by my colleague from Wild Rose. I sensed a lot of emotion. In this context, I wish to address my remarks to the grandfather, in the hopes that they will also remain parliamentary.

The sixth proposal in the motion of the official opposition reads as follows:

the detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations.

I would like to speak in particular of the first group of people mentioned, that is, any person illegally in Canada, those who are said to be without papers, illegal immigrants. Detention means depriving people of their freedom. These illegal immigrants include children.

The convention on the rights of the child rejects the detention of children, with certain exceptions, and then for very short periods.

I would like my colleague from Wild Rose to tell me his views on the children who would effectively be imprisoned if this motion were adopted and implemented.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to comment on these kinds of questions. We are talking about the big picture of terrorism. We are talking about those who are directly linked to terrorists.

All Canadians are compassionate enough to understand that any time a small child is involved we have the common sense to take the right steps to look after his or her welfare. We will let all the love we have in us relate to the small child who has no say in his or her destiny.

The what if questions are difficult to answer. The legislation simply says in a very strong way that terrorism will not be tolerated in this land. It presents some of the things that we can do to make sure it does not get a foothold and ensures the safety of the innocent at every turn of the way.

However what I do not want is some kind of document put to a committee, sent away for study and research that we may or may not hear about two years down the road, and in the meantime we have another half a dozen terrorist events.

The particular event in the United States is not a criminal act. It is an act of war. Once we get that straight in our minds we will not treat this as a criminal case where some day those perpetrators will be brought into a courtroom where a judge will make some kind of a decision. It is beyond that.

It is an act of war and we must be prepared to do the necessary things to defend this country and its sovereignty as well as the North American continent. We must keep the compassion that is so necessary to defend the innocent, such as children who may get caught up in the idiotic world of adults.

I do not see that as difficult to do. It takes determination, unity and solid thinking but we cannot mush around with this as we have mushed around with so many other issues. We have not had any changes in the Young Offenders Act or the Immigration Act since we came here in 1993. Canadians will ask when we will make things change.

We should not let this one go. This is bigger than we are making it. That is not trying to instill fear but instilling encouragement in Canadians that we have leaders in the land who are determined that the safety and sovereignty of Canadians is a greater priority than some of the things we see going on today.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is also with a heavy heart that I address the House today. As many of my colleagues have already said, it is difficult to put into words the immense sorrow that has been caused due to the terrorist attacks carried out on the United States one week ago.

I wish to express my deepest condolences on behalf of myself, my family and the constituents of Surrey North to all the victims and their families and indeed to all the people of the United States.

At about 6:30 last Tuesday morning the phone rang at my home in Surrey, British Columbia. My wife answered it and it was my daughter calling from Vancouver. She had just turned on her radio and heard something about an aircraft crashing into the World Trade Center in New York.

I turned on the TV and sat there stunned at what I was seeing, columns of thick black smoke billowing from those two monoliths. Then came the video replays of the second aircraft smashing into the south tower.

Those of us who commute from the west coast do so on Boeing 767s more often than not. When I boarded flight 1138 on Sunday morning I realized that I would never look at a 767 in quite the same way again.

As the live coverage continued the north tower collapsed. I thought about the people trapped in that terrifying death plunge. My stomach knotted and I went numb.

There is only one time in my life that I can recall feeling what I was feeling during that brief moment which seemed like an eternity. That was nine years ago one month from today in a hospital emergency room when we were told that they were unable to resuscitate our son who had been stabbed. I never thought I could feel like that again, but that moment last Tuesday brought me as close as I ever want to get.

At some point during the following few minutes I came to another frightening realization. I had been so caught up in watching events unfold on television that I completely lost sight of the fact that my sister worked in Manhattan. About a very anxious hour later, just as I was leaving home for my office, the phone rang again. Thankfully it was my niece in Toronto calling to say that her mother, my sister, had managed to get a call out to let everybody know that she was all right.

I spoke with my sister on Tuesday evening. Her office is about a half hour's walk from ground zero. I spoke with her again the night before last and she told me that a relative of one of her co-workers was missing in the rubble. I went to the office and I suspect like most Canadians I was glued to the television for the rest of the day.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. The loss felt is very deep and personal to each and every one of us. Included among the casualties are several Canadians. As an elected member of parliament I offer my sincere condolences to those Canadian families directly affected by this senseless act of war.

I express my gratitude and pay tribute to the thousands of Canadians who have offered their help in the wake of the tragedy, from those who have given blood, to the rescue workers, doctors, nurses and emergency personnel that have aided in the rescue effort.

I want to mention members of the Vancouver urban search and rescue team. They finally received authorization to deploy to New York and were ready to go. My understanding is that there were two Canadian Forces C-130s in the air on the way to pick them up when for whatever reason U.S. authorities changed their minds and told them that they were not required. When I spoke with one of the team members I could sense the frustration and disappointment of not being able to go and help.

What is most troubling to me is that these were not simply acts of terrorism carried out against an individual nation. The attacks on the United States last week were an open declaration of war on all democracies worldwide. I would like to take a moment in the House, a symbol of Canadian freedom and democracy, to add my support to the government in taking resolute action against terrorism.

I take this opportunity to call on the Government of Canada and all Canadians to take action and lend whatever support and resources are necessary to eradicate terrorism and those who would threaten our free and democratic way of life.

As Canada's elected representatives we must ask many painful questions, not for political purposes but to ensure that everything is done to prevent such horrific tragedies as we have seen recently in the United States.

We must do this to send a signal around the world that Canadians are protectors of peace, freedom and democracy and that we will join the free world to help in relentlessly hunting down those who so viciously and in a cowardly way attack those foundations of the free world.

Some of the questions we need to ask are these. What will we need to do provide greater security at our borders and airports? How can we change our laws to prevent foreign terrorists from entering and living in Canada or using it as a fundraising centre? How much capacity do we have to offer Canadian military assistance to the United States and our NATO allies in forming an international coalition against terrorism and its sponsors?

At a very minimum I would urge the government to bring in long delayed anti-terrorism legislation in a manner that reflects the seriousness of the current situation.

A few years ago, a constituent of mine, Mr. Tara Singh Hayer, a respected Sikh newspaper publisher, was murdered in his driveway. A few years before that he had been shot at and was paralyzed. The most recent crime, his murder, remains unsolved, but extremists are implicated.

His daughter Rupinder spearheaded a 12,000 name petition in the Indo-Canadian community, calling on the government to tighten immigration laws and hunt down and deport terrorists hiding in Canada. To date nothing has been done.

Last year members of the Sri Lankan community in my constituency visited me. They were extremely critical of Bill C-16 in that it does not go anywhere near far enough to curb terrorism. They want support of terrorism to be made a crime. I have also had individuals from the Indo-Canadian community in my office who were extremely critical of Canada's immigration and refugee policies. These are members of the immigrant community themselves.

I am also compelled to speak of the need to stay united and focused against the enemy, those people who threaten our way of life through acts of terrorism.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

I feel it is necessary to remind all Canadians of the charter because at times like this some, and I repeat, some find it easy to feel anger against certain elements of our population. Let us not forget the lessons of the past when Japanese Canadians were detained and denied the freedoms outlined in the charter even though thousands of Canadians died during World War II to ensure that freedom and democracy could exist and that the charter could indeed be written and exercised in Canada.

This is why I am encouraging all Canadians to come together as a nation no matter what faith or religion they come from. We are Canadians first.

The reports of Muslim Canadians being harassed and made the targets of hate makes me sick. It is hard to believe that anyone could attribute the acts of barbarism carried out in the United States to any one particular faith. The perpetrators of these crimes are simply evil people who hide behind their religion as an excuse to perpetuate their evil.

To say the Muslim faith is responsible would be like saying that because Timothy McVeigh was a Christian all Christians were responsible for the bombing in Oklahoma City. I hope that all Canadians and people of the free world can appreciate this point and find tolerance in their hearts to work together. We must work together in order to eradicate our true enemy, those people who use terrorist tactics to take away our fundamental rights and freedoms.

In conclusion I can only reiterate the sentiment that has been expressed over and over: that speaking as one who understands the violent loss of a loved one, my thoughts and prayers are first and foremost with the victims and the families of these horrendous acts; that our resolve to wipe out terrorism has never been stronger; and finally, that as a strong nation united with our allies that uphold the cherished principles of freedom, democracy and justice, we can and will prevail against any evil that may try to take away from us our way of life.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague because his comments were eloquently put and I have to agree with many things that he said. However, I was a little bit disturbed by the previous speaker who was speaking of those of us in North America. I envisioned a wall around North America, but I am wondering about the rest of the people.

I read the motion that has been brought here today. The fifth point mentions “the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even if the charges are capital offences”.

I can relate stories of families that came to this country when their children were two or three years old and that, for whatever reason, perhaps ignorance, did not take out citizenship for the children. These children have grown to the ages of 30 or 40 and are committing capital offences. Therefore what we are doing today is exporting these people to the countries they came from even though these kids were raised and educated in Canada.