Debates of Sept. 20th, 2001

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, I agree with the hon. member's comments. However, there are parts of his speech that I find difficult to understand, particularly when he says that a 14 year old cannot give his free and educated consent and that the age should be raised to 18, because this same hon. member, or the party that he represents, wants to lower the age to 10 in the Young Offenders Act.

It seems to me that there is a contradiction regarding the age of young people. If they are not old enough to give their consent, then they are not old enough to be treated as adults either. At some point, I would appreciate it if the hon. member could clarify this issue.

But there is another party that contradicts itself a lot. I believe the hon. member pointed this out in his speech, but I also wish to point it out and then ask a question. I am referring to the government party.

The government is holding serious debates on the work of an MP, how to improve the parliamentary rules to help MPs better serve their constituents, to have rules here in the House in order to do their jobs better, in fact all manner of good things. One day this week it was discussed in fact, but concretely I feel the government needs to demonstrate its good faith to us.

With the motion presented by the opposition party, the government could demonstrate to this House and to all those watching us as well that, indeed, it does want to raise the value of what MPs do. What the opposition is asking for is just to have the proper tools to do our work better. This is a highly complex bill, one that touches on all manner of things, and puts on equal footing certain values that should not be confused. For instance, in particular, child protection and animal protection. Putting the two together makes no sense.

There are some things that could be put through rapidly in order to get them applied equally promptly. Other things in the bill deserve more study and analysis.

Finally, my question to the hon. member is a very simple one. If the government were in favour of the motion and decided to break the bill up into two or three bills, if it divided its bill, does it think that the members of this House, both in government and in opposition, could do a better job, could ensure that the resulting bill or bills would be more in line with our constituents' expectations?

My question then is this: if the government were to split the bill, would it be acting on its claim of wishing to reform the system and enhancing the work of MPs?

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my thanks to the interpreters, without whose help I would not have been able to understand a word this member said since I am one of those very unfortunate unilingual Canadians.

I would like to address the questions which he has raised, first the question of age. That is a very good question because we are often falsely accused of wanting to treat children in the criminal system as if they were adults. That is not at all the intent of our legislation or of our policies.

The way it is now, youngsters who are 10 who commit a serious crime are simply sent back to their parents. Very often what they need is a serious intervention within our criminal system that says they will get counselling at the time, that they will go to a home for juveniles where they are taught social responsibility. All we are trying to do is to draw them into the loop for help so that they will not grow up to be true criminals after having learned more and more.

We also believe in this same context, though, that if youngsters, persons under 18, commit a serious crime such as murder, rape or major assault, they should be held accountable. I do not make apologies for that. I am not talking about 10 year olds. I am talking about those in the upper part of that range.

Second, the member asked the question about whether or not the government could act in good faith here. I really wish it would. Our legislative process would be greatly enhanced if all members of parliament were given true ability and authority in this place to represent their constituents and to represent their consciences.

For example, in committee today we had given notice of a motion to hold some ministers accountable in the present crisis. I was absolutely amazed to find that I was not permitted to make that motion. How was that done? On command, all the Liberals rose and left the committee even though it had not yet been adjourned. We lost quorum and therefore the chairman was not able to accept my motion. Those are bullying tactics.

The correct response would have been, let us let the man make his motion, debate it and let each individual there, without the coercion of party pressure, consider this, and if it is good vote for it and if not vote against it. Would our system not be improved if that happened?

The same thing should happen with this bill. I would love to see more free votes on government bills in this place. I know that there have been a number of them where members of the ruling party were not really with it, but they voted for the motion basically because of the pressure that was put on them. I am quite convinced that if we had more freedom in our respective parties to vote outside the party line we would be accepting amendments which would improve legislation.

I would also like us to actually have the capacity to defeat a bill without defeating the government because when I am voting on a bill I should be voting on the essence of what that bill is, not on whether or not there should be an election. That is a total mix-up, where we are not voting on what the issue is but on whether or not the government stands.

We absolutely need to have those reforms. We need to have that ability of a governing party, whichever it is, as right now it is the Liberals, and my answer to the question that the hon. member asked is a resounding yes. It would be very helpful. It would build good faith. It would enhance the reputation of our parliament among all of our citizens if the government would split the bill and allow us to deal with it properly. That is not being done now. We are being bullied instead of being allowed to do our work as parliamentarians.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise in part to say how much I enjoy the speeches from the member for Elk Island. He has a very soothing way of addressing the House of Commons. It is not unlike the late, great Mr. Dressup who just passed away recently. His oratorical style reminds me a bit of Mr. Dressup.

I would like to ask the member for his point of view on one subject. In his opening comments he spoke on the relative merits of the omnibus bill as a concept. Would he agree with me that the idea of the omnibus bill does have its place? For instance, in a case like Bill C-23 it was necessary to make the same change to a bunch of different bills all at once. In that case it was to make sure that same sex benefits were provided to gay and lesbian couples. This had to be corrected in a number of bills at the same time just for the sake of process.

However, would he also agree that when we try to put together an omnibus bill that is actually many different things rolled into one it then starts to resemble what we see in the financial sector, what they call tied selling? Someone goes into a bank asking for a mortgage and the lender says he can give him a rate of 6.5% if he moves over his car loan and takes out a credit card with that bank. That is tied selling. In other words, to get what he wants he will have to accept a bunch of things that he does not want.

Would he agree with me that this bill is tantamount to tied selling, which is illegal and for which measures are put into place so unscrupulous people cannot force things upon other people in that way? Would he see the comparison?

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from Winnipeg has made a very important point. Indeed, there are many times when legislation that affects a number of different acts is changed. It is then totally appropriate to list all of those acts in the same bill. It is not in that case truly an omnibus bill, although it is given that name, because it deals mostly with one subject. It just happens that many acts have to be changed in order to accommodate that legislative or policy change of the government.

However, what we are dealing with here, as he has indicated, is a very onerous mixture. It is a mixture of all sorts of things. I suppose it is comparable to taking all of the things that we might eat in a week, putting them all into a pot, mixing them all up and then heating it and saying “Here, eat this”. I do not think it would be very palatable. We would probably want to reject it and in fact we might after we eat it. That is how I feel about this omnibus bill.

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will now proceed to the next stage of debate where speeches will be limited to 10 minutes without questions or comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the progressive conservative democratic representative coalition. I echo some of the comments made by my colleague from Elk Island in his lengthy but very important introduction to the bill, as well as follow-up comments by my colleague from Winnipeg Centre.

We have seen this tactic employed by the government all too often in this place. An omnibus bill is placed before the House forcing members of parliament to vote against things that they support or do not support.

That is a very bad thing to do. It sends a message not only to members of parliament but to the people we represent that rather than working in the spirit of co-operation with honest give and take, being partisan is more important than doing the business of the nation in a way that would include others.

That is a shame. The people of our country are looking to us for leadership. We have been pitted against one another for far too long in this place because of the way the government has proceeded with pieces of legislation.

The government would be better served if it were to do just what my colleagues have said in debate and separate the bill into separate bills because there are very contentious issues for members of different parties. Many of us in opposition have made the point that we could support many of the items in the bill but cannot support others.

If the government were to proceed with goodwill and leadership, it would stop implementing this practice. That would be reflected in the will of the people as well. They would look to this place as a place where we are doing the nation's business in a less partisan way.

Members of the opposition can come up with some good ideas. Members of the government can come up with some good ideas that the opposition can support. It can go both ways and it needs to happen more often.

The government, with its majority, has the ability to lead in that area. We find ourselves asking for the tone to be changed, for the direction to be changed and for leadership to be shown. If the government were to lead in this way, the people would follow. It would be to its benefit and to the benefit of our nation.

I hope the practice of bringing in omnibus bills does not continue in this parliament. Omnibus bills are in many ways simply designed to put people in an awkward position.

Clause 13 would add subsection 164.2 to the act. It deals with the forfeiture of materials and equipment that would be seized from individuals who produce child pornography. This part of the bill is actually something that my colleague from Lethbridge brought forward in a private member's bill. He worked very hard to bring it forward and it was incorporated into the bill with some changes.

My Alliance colleague from Lethbridge is one who would not often blow his own horn, so to speak, so we need to do that for him tonight and congratulate him on his good work. Often as members we do not see the efforts of our good hard work that go into private members' business actually come to pass in the form of changing government legislation. The member from Lethbridge has been very effective and has helped to make a very important change to the bill.

At the same time, going back to an earlier comment I made, he will be placed in the awkward position of perhaps having to vote against the very bill that includes content from his own private member's bill which was included in the bill of the Minister of Justice. That is a shame. That is why we ask that these kinds of bills be separated into their subject areas so we can have an honest debate and questioning of the government and the government can show some leadership rather than the continued process we see over and over again.

Many of my colleagues have pointed to other specifics within the bill. Earlier today my colleague from the Bloc did a very good job of outlining the problems with regard to the gun registry and the impact that the bill will have on it. He indicated that this was simply not the right tool to use to get to a good goal and that the bill before us did not address the issue.

We debated Bill C-68, the gun registry legislation, long ago in this place. We know that has been a very costly piece of legislation and has not had the end effect. It is a laudable goal to reduce crimes committed by those who would use weapons in committing their offences, but the legislation does not have an impact on what it is intended to do. That is also a shame.

Those resources could have been put into other areas. The bill does not help to fix that problem. It only makes it worse in many of the ways that were pointed out by my colleagues earlier.

That is something we see over and over again. We have an opportunity now for the government to make some positive changes and to go in a direction that is needed for many reasons. Yet it fails to do so. We implore the government to change its attitude in the way it proceeds with legislation such as Bill C-15.

I will close by saying that I hope the comments made by members of the opposition this evening and earlier today will have an impact and an effect on the government and make it change its mind and its direction. Unfortunately many of us have been here long enough to know that raising good points, sound arguments and good ideas--

[An hon. member]

There is no guarantee.

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

The member is absolutely right. There is no guarantee that changes will be made. That is a shame because there is a wealth of information, resources and good ideas among all members of this place.

Why not implement those good ideas rather than simply looking to see where the idea came from before deciding whether or not it is a good idea? We would be better served by that kind of leadership in this place. Those of us who are in the opposition are working to bring these points to the attention of the government. We are working hard to present an alternative to the people of Canada and to the government .

We want to let Canadians know that we will provide that kind of change in direction because it will only happen when the group in power has the will to make those changes. We hope that will happen, particularly with the bill before us today.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite a sore throat from a cold, I hope that I will be able to use all the time available to me. If I do not make it to the end of my 10 minutes, it will certainly be because my voice has failed me and not because I have run out of ideas.

We have been debating this bill for some three hours now and every possible argument has been raised, but there is no harm in repeating them. Sometimes, it seems that the members on the opposite side--I am following up on something the member who spoke before me mentioned--also have good ideas. And, in a democratic system where we are all accountable to the public, it would not hurt to accept them in order to improve the situation.

It is a shame to see that we are repeating the same arguments on the basis of our own experience, while we do not see the other side changing. If one day a minister were to say “The opposition was right and I am going to change my approach”, even if the minister were not from my party, I would be the first to thank him publicly, even in my riding, because I think that that is the essence of democracy.

I would like to digress at this point, because this is the first opportunity I have had to speak since the sad events in the United States last week. I feel I must tell my relatives--my mother being American, half my relatives, cousins, live in the United States--and the American people that they have our deepest sympathies in light of these tragic events.

There has been talk about democracy. If there is one value which is fine and noble, one value worth fighting for, it is democracy. We must hang on to our democratic values.

I was spoiled. I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly in the time of René Lévesque. Everyone will agree that René Lévesque was a great democrat. He gave me many lessons in democracy. He sometimes called me to order because, during caucus meetings, what I was proposing was not, in his view, democratic. He was a man whose sense of democracy was ahead of his time.

Since coming here, I realize that democracy is often talked about. But when it comes to putting it into action, there seems to be a desire to forget it. I will give two examples.

Increasingly, the government is trying to govern through foundations. It takes taxpayers' money, gives it to the president of Bell Canada, for example, to administer the millennium scholarship fund. This money belongs to all taxpayers and is being managed by someone with no accountability to the House.

This is happening increasingly. I remember speaking about legislation on the environment. Someone was proposing a foundation for the environment. They do it increasingly. It is, in my opinion, inconsistent with democracy. It is contrary to democracy, because democracy happens here. This is where the decisions have to be made and it is here that the government must be accountable to the people for the money it has managed, that is not ours, but the people's.

There is more proof, the omnibus bill we are debating. It is totally undemocratic to include in legislation things that cannot be opposed.

Everyone has said that we would look pretty stupid opposing the protection of children against sexual abuse, for example. No one wants to oppose it.

We all agree with that part of the bill. I have eight grandchildren. If one of them were ever assaulted and someone were to tell me that I opposed legislation aimed at protecting children, I would hold a tremendous grudge against that person. It makes absolutely no sense to include such important provisions regarding the protection of children with the protection of animals.

Are we pressed for time in this parliament when we left early for our summer recess? Are we pressed for time? Why not split the bill in two? We could then pass more quickly the part dealing with the protection of children.

We are not necessarily against the protection of animals, but there is no consensus on that part of the bill. It has to be improved. It is the part that shocks me. I will not address every aspect of the bill because I think enough has been said already. The government should know that this bill makes no sense. Anything that has to do with the sexual exploitation of children in any way should be dealt with as quickly as possible. It is an urgent matter.

The bill has to be split. Everybody on this side, and probably on the other side as well, agrees with this part of the bill. If this is not a breach of democracy, I do not know what it is. Why include such an important issue with everything else that is in this bill?

There are three bills in here. If we want to do a good job, if we want to be accountable to voters, if we want to say that we have done all that we should have done to make the legislation as fair as possible to all taxpayers, then let us make three bills of the one. I will not say anything more on the part dealing with children.

People are concerned about the section on the protection of animals. I worked with a vet who was an eminent researcher, Dr. Louis Roland. He was one of the first to perform heart transplants in Quebec. He performed transplant operations on hogs, thus helping advance the science, which then allowed for human heart transplants.

When I worked with this doctor—I was responsible for animal health—I would visit farms to perform autopsies. I would like to ask the legislator. When I killed an animal or performed autopsies, I was not always in a proper laboratory, sometimes they were performed on a farm, sometimes even in a backyard. I had to determine what disease the animal had in order to give the others the appropriate medicine. I wonder if, under this new legislation, I would be considered a criminal.

In order to protect, in order for the legislation to achieve its goal, it is important to study it, in order to be able to achieve that goal, and not the opposite.

Many people are raising questions about animal protection, and they are right to do so. These are not necessarily people who wish to make martyrs of animals, but they are right to take the time to ask questions of legislators, in order to improve the legislation.

In closing, I completely support the bill. If the legislators are logical, they will split the bill. This would give us three nice bills to study and improve for all taxpayers.

[James Lunney, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hour is waxing on and we have heard a lot of discussion regarding the bill, but in case we have people tuning in at this late hour I will review some of the aspects of the bill that we are discussing.

It is a multifaceted bill, a broad brush touching on a wide range of issues in at least eight and possibly more different areas of law, many of them totally unrelated, as has been mentioned time and again by members on both sides of the House.

The omnibus bill covers measures such as adding offences and other measures that are intended to protect children from sexual exploitation, especially over the Internet. It would increase the maximum penalty for criminal harassment. It would make home invasions an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing. It would add the offence of disarming or attempting to disarm a police officer. It increases maximum penalties for animal cruelty offences. It would revise the application process to the Minister of Justice for miscarriages of justice. It would reform the process for preliminary inquiries and other criminal procedures. It would add administrative provisions to the Firearms Act and things as far fetched and wide ranging as making amendments to the National Defence Act and the National Capital Act.

As has been mentioned time and again in the House, for the government to bring forth such a wide ranging array of issues under one bill is not only unpalatable but many would argue that it violates the very basis of the democratic principle and spirit that the House purports to represent.

I believe there are many issues in the bill on which members would agree almost immediately. I will talk about some of those issues but there are other issues in the bill that are very controversial and that do need to be discussed.

I think many members on both sides of the House will have difficulty voting on the bill because it causes a fundamental conflict of interest in very clear issues that we can support and other issues that we cannot support. By lumping so many different and controversial issues together under one bill, the government has actually taken away the opportunity for members to represent their own integrity on the issues and also constituents we represent. I would like to talk about some of those issues. The new legislation would create an offence for luring a child by means of a computer system.

This is good stuff. I think all parties are in agreement that this type of luring of children is not acceptable. It is an offence to all of us that this technology, which has been a blessing and a help for communication purposes and for transmissions in many other ways in our society, has been used in such a demeaning manner to abuse our children.

However the legislation brings in penalties that are consistent with other levels of crime in determining the age of the victims and so on; 18 years old for prostitution and child pornography, sexual assault and incest or, where the accused is in a position of trust, sexual touching; 16 years old for abducting an unmarried child from his or her parents; 14 years old for sexual interference or invitation to sexual touching, bestiality in the person's presence, exposure or harbouring.

The bill would also create an offence for transmitting, making available or exporting child pornography through a computer system with a maximum penalty of 10 years. The bill would prohibit a person from intentionally accessing child pornography on the Internet with a maximum penalty of five years.

The material is not clear how the courts would determine whether someone had intentionally viewed child pornography or with what objectives the person had viewed it. There are some challenges in relation to this. Furthermore, it is not clear which websites the law would apply to.

For example, if a Canadian viewed a website based outside Canada, what jurisdiction, if any, would the courts have over the person?

This part of the bill has many very good and commendable aspects to it but we are sure it will create some problems in administration.

The maximum sentence for criminal harassment would be increased from 5 years to 10 years. We think this is a very commendable issue. I am sure there would be a broad consensus among all parties for bringing in tougher penalties for criminal harassment. In order to maintain a secure society, it is necessary that we tighten up in this area.

I think we all know persons who have been injured by criminal harassment and have not had the adequate protection of the law to this point. I am aware of people in my own riding who have been stalked, which has caused them tremendous fear. Some have been followed night after night or have been threatened but no action has been taken. The police have trouble pressing charges until an act is actually committed.

We therefore applaud changes that will toughen up the penalties for stalking and for criminal harassment.

The bill also deals with animal cruelty offences. Many people in my riding and elsewhere applaud the changes in terms of animal cruelty. We have all known of instances where animals are abused and most of us own pets. In my case, we have a large number of animals of various varieties on our hobby farm in British Columbia. We have horses, dogs and cats. We have had turkeys and other animals.

We have had cases of abuse in our community where animals have not been adequately cared for and where people have not adequately provided for food for their animals, where animals have been left chained for long periods of time and where animals have given birth but no one was in attendance. We do not need to go on with horror stories. We have seen instances where animals have been left in the fields with a calf partly birthed and crows having picked the eyes out of the calf and the young heifer is left there on the verge of death. These kinds of things cause a terrible angst in the community as people become aware of these issues. We need to see measures brought in to toughen up cruelty to animals, and most of us would support that.

There are problems with the legislation because of the way it is defined. There seems to be some confusion between animal welfare and animal rights. While these measures are applauded by people who have seen horrors and animal abuse, there are those who use animals in other traditional ways. From the beginning of recorded history, mankind has hunted animals and fished for food. Those who have been involved in the animal agriculture and animal husbandry are raising some very serious concerns as to how their treatment of animals will be perceived under this legislation.

In my riding people have called me to say that they want to see Bill C-15 passed because they have seen horrors in their communities of people who have been negligent in looking after their animals. They want to know why it has been held up. We have had to time and again explain to people that the way the legislation is written and the definitions leave big questions.

We do not take a lot of comfort from the notion that the justice minister has declared that when the bill is passed things will continue and that what was legal before will remain legal afterwards. With these definitions being as they are, we wonder whether her word will stand or, if she is replaced as justice minister and another justice minister takes her place, whether this will be interpreted in the same way, or will the minister be there to explain to the courts what was really meant when the language is as confusing or as loose as it is.

There are some very serious issues that need to be clarified on behalf of our agriculture community and those who are traditional hunters.

Examples were mentioned earlier of routine animal husbandry procedures, such as punching a tag in a cow's ear. This could be perceived under this legislation as causing injury. I believe the definition states that anything which causes pain to all animals having the capacity to feel pain, includes non-human vertebrates. We might wonder what a salmon feels when it is hooked on its way in to being caught and how we might interpret that.

I see that my time is winding up. As opposition members there are many aspects of the bill that we would like and which I would personally like to support. However, because of the confusing, contradictory and controversial areas that we cannot support, there is a conflict and we are not able to support the bill as it is written.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to know why we have spent one day on the amended motion. One really only has to see the content of Bill C-15, and one will immediately realize that something is not right.

Without going into the details about each of the elements, since they have already been discussed at length today, upon reading the omnibus bill, one will see that it creates a new offence to protect children against sexual exploitation, notably sexual exploitation through games or the use of the Internet.

The bill increases the maximum sentence in cases of criminal harassment. It makes home invasion an aggravating factor in sentencing. It creates an offence of disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer. It increases the penalties for offences related to cruelty to animals. New definitions are provided on this subject.

The bill codifies and clarifies the application process for ministerial review in cases of alleged miscarriage of justice. The bill confers certain powers to the minister. It reforms criminal procedure and modernizes it with respect to aspects related to preliminary inquiry procedures, disclosure of evidence, and case management and preliminary inquiries.

The bill sets out regulations for electronic documents and remote appearances. It outlines a complete system for pleas, private prosecutions, alternate juror selection, restrictions on the use of agents and it amends the Firearms Act using certain criminal code provisions.

Once we have seen that, we are entitled to move to the next question: is it unreasonable for the opposition to call for the Liberals to break up this bill? Is it unreasonable?

This is not just a question that involves the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative Party or the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative coalition. It is not a question that concerns a single political party. It is a matter of simple common sense. It is a matter of simple opposition common sense, some might say, because opposition members are the only ones who think this way.

What I have learned from the eloquent speech by the government House leader is that, when he was in opposition, he called for exactly the same thing from the Progressive Conservative government of the day, that is not to present omnibus bills like Bill C-15 we have before us at this time, so that the opposition, as well as the government MPs, might to do their jobs properly.

Today, is it unreasonable to ask the government to split this bill? Why would it not be made into three separate bills, because there really are three categories? Not three categories of offence, but three categories of functioning for the House to get its job done properly.

We have the category on which everyone agrees: child protection, increased sentences for sexual harassment, and a reform and modernization of the justice system to speed up trials. Everyone agrees on that. Why does the government not introduce a bill that includes these three? If that was what we had before us in the House today we would have passed it right away and it would be a fait accompli.

The second category, perhaps, is one on which the House is not unanimous, but we have heard talk of it, we have already discussed it, either in the House or private members bills, or on the Standing Committee on Justice, or in briefs from the Canadian Police Association or from lobbyists.

These issues are home invasions, which are an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. The bill also creates an offence of disarming, or attempting to disarm, a peace officer. Then there is the review process following a miscarriage of justice.

This is another category, not that we fully support everything that is included in that category, particularly as regards miscarriage of justice. I find it unacceptable that the Minister of Justice, in her great wisdom, can decide whether or not to compensate. This issue could have been dealt with quickly since we had already discussed it. This is the second category. Another bill would have been needed. We would have fully co-operated, since everyone knows the issues here. We know where we are headed. We are either for it or against it, but we know where we are headed and we know where we stand.

The last category is the one with a capital “P” for problematic, since it is the whole issue of firearms. Is there a more problematic issue right now than the registration of firearms? The Bloc Quebecois supported the principle of gun registration.

If we look at what is currently being done in the area of registration, I think we should be very careful with any amendment to this legislation, because it is not an easy thing to do. Let us be clear. Currently, there are over 100,000 firearms owners in Quebec who have problems with the Firearms Act, particularly as regards the procurement of ammunition.

We do not question the principle. We simply want to point out that this is a sensitive and complex issue. We do not want to mix this with the protection of children. Are we clear on this?

The other part deals with cruelty to animals. We support the principle that we must modernize the criminal code, which dates back a long, long time, as regards the issue of animal cruelty. We support the principle, but is it normal to include such a broad definition? Is it normal to tell a fisherman that he must make sure that his catches are indeed dead? He is being told that if he puts a fish in his boat when it is still alive, this amounts to cruelty to a vertebrate, since the fish is a vertebrate.

This is an important issue. We could easily have split Bill C-15 in three different parts to speed up its passage.

Why are we making such a request? Simply because we want the House to be able to make an informed decision when the time comes to vote on these important provisions of the criminal code.

First, the House must have all the information it needs to decide if it wants to pass this bill or not. This information will help members to do their job properly. When I say that, I mean that they must study the bill carefully and try not to forget anything.

Let us imagine for a moment that Bill C-15 is not split and that it goes to the justice committee as it is now. In the same day, the committee will hear hunters and fishers, psychologists who will talk about the protection of children, computer experts and police officers.

I know that Liberal members often play musical chairs in these committees. Three quarters of them do not follow the same committee regularly. What would they do in the clause by clause study other than say yes to everything, as the Minister of Justice would tell them to do? Is that the Liberal government's idea of enhancing the role of members of parliament? I do not think so.

I could go on for hours about this bill and explain how the government is going about it the wrong way. However since I have only a few minutes or a few seconds left, I would like to correct a statement made by the Liberal government. It said this morning that when it introduced this omnibus bill in June 2000, the opposition did not react.

I would invite the members opposite to examine Bill C-36 introduced in the 36th parliament and they will see that the whole issue of cruelty to animals was not included in that bill.

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I speak on behalf of constituents in the Saskatoon--Wanuskewin riding, but also on behalf of a good many people across our country who have great concerns about the very manner in which the bill is before us today. It has been mentioned countless times already. It is a very sad day. It shows us something of the dysfunction in our present parliamentary system. We need to be able to break these things up so we can get the best kind of legislation put into place for the good of the Canadian public.

As has been referred to before, the bill contains a number of virtually unrelated things, a real potluck of justice issues. There is no compelling reason that they have to be placed together in this manner. No satisfactory reasons have been provided to me as to why such things as provisions dealing with child luring and child pornography over the Internet, animal cruelty, amendments to the Firearms Act, criminal harassment, disarming a peace officer and criminal procedural reform have to be together.

Many of us would agree with a number of those topics, but there are some other things that we have concerns about in respect to others. It is fairly deceitful, and we could use stronger language, that a Liberal government would even want to do this when there is no compelling reason.

The various elements of the bill seem to have been grouped together deliberately in a tactical strategic manner in order to compel opposition members of all the parties here to raise concerns. It is not just the Canadian Alliance. The Bloc, the Progressive Conservative Party and the NDP have also raised concerns about Bill C-15 and its omnibus nature. The bill is designed to confuse the public, to obfuscate, to possibly embarrass members by obscuring the real reasons members may wish to hold up, slow down or vote against a piece of legislation. The public and members of parliament actually would agree with many things in the bigger bill. Certain of the topics we do agree with.

The process is less than transparent. It is sad for democracy that it has come forward in this rather deceptive manner.

Quite a number of members of Parliament live in rural ridings, and I am one of them. Thirty-five per cent of the population of the riding of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin lives in the rural part. Farmers, ranchers and others who use animals legitimately have voiced reasonable and serious concerns. Anyone looking at them would say that they have brought forward valid concerns, particularly those regarding some of the implications of the bill with regard to the cruelty provisions.

It really puts a member in a somewhat untenable position where he or she would appear to be voting against some good laws to protect children from dangerous predators. These are aspects that we would agree with and would want to have in place the sooner the better.

Placing animals and children in the same bill really demeans the value of human life. It puts them on the same level and it ought not to do so. It also prevents the House from fully considering the impact of the animal cruelty provisions. It does not allow for fine tuning so that no harm is done to those who make their livelihood from tagging, branding and handling animals in certain ways and that the provisions do not adversely affect the economic circumstances of many rural people of Canada including those in my riding of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin. With Bill C-15, there is a possible allowance for prosecuting these people under criminal law.

The Canadian Alliance does not condone animal abuse and would fully support the aim of a bill to increase penalties for those practising intentional animal cruelty. However we are opposed to substantive changes to the law that would change the definition of what constitutes a criminal offence in terms of animal cruelty.

The Minister of Justice tries to reassure us that she does not want to prohibit presently acceptable and legitimate activities in Canada in relation to the agriculture or fur industries. Why then does she not simply increase the penalties for practices that are already criminal offences and make that particularly clear in Bill C-15?

The manner in which she has gone about this breeds discouragement and discontent. It does not serve the Canadians well. It makes for a fair bit of cynicism in a populace where there is already a lower voter turnout. We need to be doing all that we can to heighten regard and respect for the Parliament of Canada.

The approach taken by the Liberal government to lawmaking shows a very callous disregard to the real needs of the public across Canada and to the constituents who expect us as individual members to serve their best interests in the House.

We have pleaded with the minister and the House leader to split off those provisions dealing with animal cruelty and amendments to the Firearms Act. Bloc members that supported the firearms provisions have concerns now as they are hearing from constituents across their province. That is all the more reason for some of that to be split off and provided for in a separate manner.

The very technique of bringing forward a motion to split the bill would accommodate the need to move those provisions that have broad consensus. We could move them forward quickly, get the protection for children and various other areas in respect to police and so on, and subject the others to a more rigorous and full debate for better legislation. That is what we are all wanting and hoping to come out of the House.

I want the public to know that we have asked for this time and again. Canadian Alliance members will find it necessary to vote against Bill C-15 because of some of the wrong elements we find in it.

We would like to do that in a show of collegiality. Unfortunately it would not be if there is no splitting of Bill C-15. Many of us in good conscience will not be able to support Bill C-15 unless at a late hour there will be some provision to split it so that we can end up with some better legislation for all Canadians as a result.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate. Many of the comments I would like to make have been made quite eloquently by previous speakers. However there are some points I would like to add in order to add clarity and in some cases to point out the contrast in the point of view of our caucus.

We believe there is a role for omnibus bills in the House of Commons. The very idea of having an omnibus bill is not in and of itself some affront to democracy.

There are times when using the omnibus bill as an instrument to achieve administrative tasks helps to speed up issues of social justice. Bill C-23, the same sex benefits legislation, was passed in the 36th parliament. We would have used the entire parliamentary session on that one subject had we been forced to go through the laborious process of debating each stage or every bill that had some reference to same sex benefits. By using the omnibus bill process we were able to implement those changes with one debate. I believe the public recognized that and appreciated what we were doing.

What we are dealing with today is quite a different matter. We are not dealing with one subject spread out over many different bills. We are dealing with many different and unique concepts within the realm of the criminal justice system. These are all quite separate issues which merit individual debate and which have complex circumstances surrounding them.

It is hard to justify using the instrument of the omnibus bill in dealing with these things. It makes one wonder and a bit suspect of why the government chose to fold all these together into one package.

Having heard many of the speakers today, I am ready to accept a bit of subterfuge on the government's part. It is a way of introducing through the back door subject matter or bills that it does not really want debated in the full light of day under the scrutiny of debate.

It puts members in a very awkward position. It does a disservice, not only to the issues which have merits of their own that warrant the full scrutiny of public debate, but also to the many Canadians who are waiting in many cases for years to have these issues dealt with by parliament.

The one example that everyone cites first is the luring of children on the Internet for the purposes of sexual exploitation. That has been around in the form of private members' bills since I came to parliament. Chris Axworthy, the former member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar, had a private member's bill dealing with that subject as early as 1989.

A significant number of Canadians flag this as a serious social problem and look to parliament to intervene by finally introducing some steps to put a stop to this terrible threatening practice to the nation's children. Those people have been waiting for a decade or more for some satisfaction, and now they are being held up again unnecessarily.

We all agree that if it were introduced as a separate bill we could have adopted it in one day with unanimous consent of the House. That is how the debate around that subject has matured and developed to the point where consensus has been reached. That is something we all agree we want.

The government then ties to that, attaches and suckers on to that, a number of things where frankly there is no agreement reached. In other words it is trying to sneak some things in through the back door, cashing in on our eager and genuine interest to have that one particular bill passed.

The analogy I would use, and I think others would use it, is that it is like tied selling. In the financial community there is an unethical practice called tied selling. If people want to finance mortgages through a mortgage broker.,the broker will not give them a good rate unless they also agree to do their car loans through that broker and put their credit card loans through that broker.

In other words the deal is packaged. In order for those people to get what they want, they will have to accept a bunch of things that they neither want nor need and are vehemently opposed to, as in the case of a number of opposition parties that have spoken against some of the other issues.

Another example where there is broad consensus across the country is that we would be eager to adopt and accept readily the issue of the laws dealing with crimes where people disarm police officers and execute crimes with weapons they have taken from them.

Members of the police association visited most members of parliament. I think they went away feeling that just about every member of parliament in the House committed to them that if and when that piece of legislation came forward it would have broad acceptance in the House.

That is one piece of legislation we could agree on. Again it could be dealt with tonight if there were the political will. That could be introduced and we all believe the country would be a better and safer place for it. Yet it is being held away from us. It is being deliberately kept out of arm's reach by the ruling party, by the Liberal government, so that it can force down our throats a bunch of things that we are not interested in, we do not want, and some people are vehemently opposed to.

This is a bastardization of democracy as has been pointed out by other opposition members. It affronts basic democratic principles when the omnibus bill process is used in that way.

Another issue I very much want dealt with from my own personal point of view and the point of view of the riding I represent, an inner city core riding in downtown Winnipeg, is home invasion. We would finally have legislation, were this bill to ever get through, to deal with the relatively new issue of people being accosted and assaulted in their own homes by thugs.

This piece of legislation would contemplate dealing with that type of break and entry differently from a normal break and entry. That is valuable. That is important. That is necessary. Canadians want it. Canadians are eager for it. Again it is being denied to them so that the government can achieve other secondary purposes.

It makes us wonder if it is really worth it. The three things I have cited are of great importance and of great interest to Canadians. What is so special about the cruelty to animals bill, for instance, that is worth denying Canadians what they want in all these other important areas of criminal justice?

I have heard the subject raised. I am not from a farm background. I have a more difficult time grasping the concept. However, as I understand it, and perhaps people could correct me if I am mistaken, the bill would almost humanize animals to the point where the treatment of an animal would be the same as the treatment of a human being in terms of cruelty.

That is a huge leap which warrants debate. That is the type of debate which should take place independently in the House of Commons because it is a fundamental change in the way we view the world around us. It should not be bunched in with a bunch of other pieces of legislation.

For those reasons I too as an opposition member am critical of this use of omnibus legislation. I want to see legislation on child pornography on the Internet. I want to see home invasion legislation and I want to see the disarming of police officers specifically referred to in the criminal justice code. The other things I am not interested in. Let us hide them, separate them, deal with them quickly for everybody's best interest.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening for several hours now to this debate on the two motions, the amendment and the amendment to the amendment on the possibility of splitting Bill C-15, an omnibus bill.

It seems to me that there is a fairly strong consensus among those who have spoken so far. Unfortunately, the government members have been rather quiet, but it seems to me that a lot of common sense has been reiterated since the start, namely that a number of parts of the bill on which there is consensus in the House could be passed quickly.

There is consensus on the whole part on measures to improve the protection of children as there is on amendments to the criminal code on harassment. There is consensus on a series of provisions in the bill. The problem at the moment is that there is a much more thorny part, which concerns the rather vague definitions involving the section on the protection of animals. There are concerns and apprehensions about some of the definitions.

In order to do our job properly, we must spend some time there. Energy is required on it. Not everyone is convinced that the bill as worded in this part, although the objective is good, is well structured and will stand up to the many questions we receive from farmers and hunters and other groups.

The proposal of the opposition parties is fairly simple “If you want to move quickly, split the bill”. This would allow everyone to do their job properly.

I heard my colleague from Berthier--Montcalm say “Listen, when a bill like this ends up in committee, where on the same day, in the same week, such different questions will have to be studied requiring experts who will talk of controlling pornographic material on the Internet or of some other aspect such as police protection or of cruelty to animals, are the members going to be able to do a real and valid job?” We can assume it is unlikely.

For those who have not followed this closely and who are listening today, an omnibus bill is a catch-all bill into which one puts almost anything so that there are a few very controversial measures mixed in with some good ones. Then will tell those who do not support the entire bill “You did not want to support this major part of the bill which was so good for everyone”.

I see members in the House who said exactly the same thing when they were on this side. It seems that when one walks the twelve feet that separate us, one leaves a number of things behind forever. This contributes to the skepticism people feel towards our institutions and our work. It discredits what we do.

This is a wonderful opportunity and there is good faith on the part of opposition members. This week, on an issue which took up a lot of time, which is very important and which has been in the news for a week, we behaved responsibly. We co-operated with the government. We supported it.

Now it is the opposition parties who are appealing to the government. They are saying “Please, let us do our job. Split this bill. Let us quickly pass the parts we all agree on, and we will take the time to look at what is contentious”.

The Bloc Quebecois tends to be in favour of the bill. Our support is far from guaranteed. Unless changes in attitude, and in substance, are forthcoming, the government could find itself pretty isolated. I hope that there will be government members who will come to their senses and add their voices to ours so that members can do their job properly.

Since I have one minute left, I will conclude by saying that this is a responsible attitude on the part of the opposition parties, who are making an appeal to the government. We should pass the motion to split the bill. Let us quickly pass the part having to do with children, the part on which there is consensus, and examine in greater depth the rest of the bill, which is the subject of disagreement and debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 8.30 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, the House will now go into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering Motion No. 12, under government business.

House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 12, Ms. Bakopanos in the chair.

Canada-U.S. Meeting

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

moved:

That the Committee take note of the planned meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States,

Madam Chairman, earlier today some members of the House approached me with a very constructive suggestion, namely to have a debate in the House prior to the Prime Minister of Canada going to the United States on Monday to meet the American head of state and discuss the serious issue before us today.

Following this request—I take this opportunity to congratulate the House leaders of the opposition—I contacted a number of my colleagues and all the House leaders. Everyone agreed that it was a good idea and quite the thing to do.

What I would like tonight—it is my wish of course but it does not mean that it is the wish of everyone else here—is to be able to say that everyone of us will take part in this debate so that tomorrow our Prime Minister will be able to take with him Hansard , the Debates of the House of Commons when he goes to Washington on Monday and, fortified by our support and the reasonable and constructive position we will put forward this evening, say “Mr. President, not only do I believe such and such a thing, but parliamentarians in the House of Commons gave me such and such information and I have their support”.

I believe that this should be the approach guiding us tonight through the debate on the motion before us. It can be. Will it be so? Of course.The onus is on us to meet the challenge.

The motion before us this evening, its form, its context and the kind of debate we are holding were the subject matter of a unanimous motion moved in the House earlier today. This means that, at least at the beginning, there was a consensus on how to proceed to inform the Prime Minister of Canada of the House of Commons' wishes.

We had, a little earlier today—and we had it on two occasions because later we had to move an amendment to the original motion—twice at least this unanimous intent in the House, namely that we wanted to pass on to our Prime Minister the representations made to us by our constituents across Canada.

I hope this approach will guide us, our comments will be reasonable and we will then be able to forge ahead.

I take the opportunity to congratulate members who in recent days have seen fit, many times and in various ways, to raise issues that are important to Canadians. They have done so in ways that were generally reasonable and appropriate given the gravity of the situation. They were perhaps not always reasonable but I will not get into that.

I thank colleagues and citizens from across the country who joined us on Parliament Hill on September 14. Some 75,000 or 100,000 people strong, I am not sure how many, came to show Canada's deep affection for the citizens of the United States, our sympathy for the families of the people who died, and our resolve and strength as a nation to combat and rid the world of the terrible scourge of terrorism wherever it exists.

That was the statement made last Friday by all of us who were here. It was the statement made on Monday when we had an excellent debate in the House of Commons. At the end of the debate a motion of support expressing the sentiments of the duly elected representatives of the Canadian people was transmitted by the Speaker of the House to the United States Congress.

I congratulate House leaders of all parties for agreeing to the forum on Monday in addition to what we are doing this evening. It was equally constructive. I reiterate my appreciation to everyone involved.

Canadians and Americans share a long friendship based on the values of democracy and freedom. We share the northern end of the continent. We are allies in NATO, in North America and in our geography. Our alliances have been tested time and again, in times of war and through the long cold war confrontation. They have been tested continuously because we have lived near an undefended border all this time. Both sides have done particularly well in living up to the challenges two nations face when they live side by side.

Immediately after the tragic events of September 11 our Prime Minister left his official residence and came to Parliament Hill as a statement that we as Canadians would not be bullied, overcome or put in a position where we were not fully in control of this great country. He did so within minutes and I congratulate him for it. He immediately made a public appearance to pledge that Canada would stand by the United States.

On Monday he will visit President Bush in the White House to discuss how we can work together to forge a coalition, conduct a campaign against terrorism and protect the citizens of our two countries and indeed the entire world.

When the Prime Minister sits with President Bush it will be as the head of a sovereign ally. Canadians are in charge of Canada. Yes, we are allies of the United States and shall continue to be, but both countries stand side by side.

Canada and the United States have an extensive and close defence relationship. Our forces are capable of working with American military units across a broad spectrum of roles. They have done so before.

My colleague, Canada's foreign affairs minister, has stated that Canadian soldiers have fought before in the defence of liberty and that we have to stand for the principles that our country was founded on.

Yes, we will do our part, but the government is also clear that it will be Canada as a sovereign country and we as Canadians will decide our role. We will do that collectively. In fact, all of us speaking tonight in the House is a form of that. We are telling the Prime Minister and giving him the feelings of our fellow citizens so that he can express them as the leader of a sovereign nation to his counterpart in the United States.

I will conclude by saying something about who our foes are and who our foes are not. Our foe is not somebody else's religion. Our foe is not Islam. Our foe is not another religion. It is not another colour. It is not another language. That is wrong. It is wrong to think, if anyone does, and unfortunately a small group of people do here and there, that other religions, other faiths, other colours or other races could be the enemies of peace. They are not. That is not true. I believe that if all of us can give a strong statement, as many people did on Monday, to the effect that people of all races, colours and languages are united with all of us to make this country and world a better and more peaceful place then we will have accomplished something additional in this evening's debate.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Chair, I enter the debate this evening with an obvious concern and the worry most Canadians share at this time. The unfolding events since the terrorist attack on the United States last week have gripped the world. It is an anxiety ridden time. At each moment we await further developments in this escalating situation.

Last Tuesday the world stood transfixed, staring in disbelief at the television screen. Slack jawed, spellbound Canadians watched in living colour the unspeakable atrocities being committed live against the country's closest ally and de facto protector. This horrifying example of hate will be forever etched in our minds.

The Prime Minister has been invited by President Bush to meet with him in Washington next week. The meeting is probably the most important one the Prime Minister will ever have. He will no doubt be asked to define Canada's contribution to the anti-terrorist military campaign led by the United States and dubbed Operation Infinite Justice.

While the catastrophic events took place on American soil, it is now evident that no country or its citizens are immune from this terrorist scourge. In an article this morning, the former chief of strategic planning for Canada's spy agency, David Harris, issued a grave warning to Canada, saying a terrorist attack on Canada is imminent and adding that as far as Canada is concerned it is coming. The CSIS annual report alerted Canadians to the fact that 50 terrorist organizations are already established in Canada. Mr. Harris added that Canadians have been too relaxed for too long, thinking that terrorists will not strike here.

In contrast to the Canadian complacency, we saw in the person of British Prime Minister Tony Blair a swift and decisive individual providing strength and comfort in a time of crisis. Mr. Blair, leading a government that has led the way with tough anti-terrorism legislation, has made it absolutely clear that Britain will support the United States completely, including with military support if requested.

All the lethargy, inaction, procrastination and self-delusion will not make the problem go away. The Prime Minister has said he will tell President Bush not to make a sensational short term gesture. President Bush has already indicated that this will not be the case and the struggle we are in and the manner in which he will conduct himself will be of a protracted nature.

What has the Prime Minister of our country to offer? Indecisiveness is not on the table. As Lee Iacocca used to say, “Lead, follow or get out of the way”.

What Canadians are expecting is a clear commitment from the government that will put the safety and security of Canadians first. They want to see the government commitment to bringing in comprehensive anti-terrorism legislation. They want to see increased safety and security measures at our borders, at our airports and on our airlines.

They want to see increased resources put into our military, police and intelligence services, especially CSIS and the RCMP. They want to see a clear commitment from the government that it will stand by the United States every step of the way, including participating in military action if necessary, as is our obligation under article 5 of NATO.

This week Canadians learned everything the Prime Minister was not prepared to do or enact to fight terrorism. Tragically, we learned little about what he was prepared to do. He was not prepared to enact anti-terrorism legislation along the lines of that already in place in the United States and Britain. Despite all the evidence and argument proffered by the Canadian Alliance, the Prime Minister remained stubborn in his resolve not to rock the boat. When the Canadian Alliance presented the House with a motion asking the government to refer to committee draft legislation to deal with terrorism, the government refused it.

I do not know what part of our motion the government disagreed with. Was it against naming all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada? Was it against a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism or terrorist organizations? Was it against the immediate ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, signed by the government in 1999 but still not brought into force?

Was the government against the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting terrorists to act abroad from Canada? Was it against the prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism, even to countries like the United States where terrorists might face the death penalty?

Was it against the detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or of failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations so that an incident like the Ahmed Ressam case never happens again?

I do not know. All I know is that the government was so opposed to these ideas that it would not even send these proposals to committee in draft form.

One critical element that sustains this terrorist network is money. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service has repeatedly raised the warning flag about fundraising activities on our soil. As a signatory to the 1999 United Nations Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, Canada agreed to take steps to prevent and counteract, through appropriate domestic measures, the financing of terrorists and terrorist organizations, but little has happened since Canada signed this United Nations convention.

Instead, the government is satisfied with an existing piece of legislation that would deny charitable status to the groups deemed to be channelling money to terrorist organizations. In other words, we will not ban terrorist financing, we will just take away tax write-offs for terrorism. What a hollow and shameful response by Canada.

Rather than use the United States and the British anti-terrorist acts, Canada assumes that normal posture of “We will deal with it in the future”. Is it laziness, negligence or just plain hubris in the face of catastrophic consequences?

Similarly, the Prime Minister was not prepared to implement measures to ensure security at our borders, at our airlines or at our airports.

We have seen no proposals that deal with better screening of refugee claimants to weed out security risks. We have seen a dismissal of the American proposals for joint immigration and refugee policies with the United States, our so-called best friend and neighbour, and a secure North American perimeter.

Adding to the list, the Minister of Transport said he was not prepared to add sky marshals to our planes as the United States is implementing. It is too costly, I guess, until he adds up the cost, as a transportation analyst advocated, of having a commercial airliner ram into one of Canada's commercial high rise towers.

Nor will the Prime Minister and the government commit to doing what is necessary to restore the resources to the Department of National Defence, the RCMP, CSIS and other security agencies that have been brutally cut under the Liberal government.

There is no way that the Canadian forces, which have declined from 90,000 to 55,000 personnel under the government, would be capable of deploying the troops promised to NATO under the 1994 defence white paper if military action becomes necessary.

The RCMP has been slowly bleeding, while CSIS has been slashed, losing 40% of its staff under this government. How can we hope to track criminals and terrorists like Ahmed Ressam if we do not fund our police and intelligence services?

Accordingly, the Prime Minister continued on this path of identifying what he would not do by not pledging the support of our armed forces to the cause until asked. What will it take for the Prime Minister to tell Canadians what he will do to deal with this terrorist evil? A poll today shows that 81% of Canadians want us to participate in a military coalition against states that sponsor terrorism, but the Prime Minister will not tell the House whether he agrees with 81% of Canadians unless the president asks him first.

On this side of the House, we think Canada has a moral obligation to send military support if requested. By invoking article 5 of the NATO charter, Canada has agreed that the cowardly terrorist attack on the United States was an attack on Canada as well and we are obliged to assist with military forces if requested.

As the U.S. ambassador has said:

Canada has a military capability that has helped the United States, that has helped the world, and we would hope that they would help us now.

Canada has an obligation to act. We hope that when the Prime Minister meets President Bush he will commit Canada to concerted action against terrorism.

Today in Brussels, European justice and interior ministers approved urgent measures to combat terrorism, including much closer co-operation with Washington. The ministers agreed to adopt by December a common definition of terrorism and a Europe wide arrest warrant for suspects accused of serious crimes. They endorse proposals by the European commission executive that would harmonize police and judicial action and close loopholes that have hampered arrests and extradition processes across EU borders.

I quote the ministers:

We are determined to take the necessary steps to ensure that European citizens are provided with the highest level of security so that any future attacks are thwarted.

In other words, European ministers told citizens of the union what they were prepared to do, not what they would do.

It is the Prime Minister's turn. He will have the opportunity with President Bush next week. How is he prepared to help our best friends and neighbours? We know only too well what he will not do. That is not what Canadians or the president of the United States want to hear.

Mark Twain in defining courage and decisiveness said, “In the beginning of change, the patriot is a scared man, brave, hated and scorned. When the cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot”.

Will the Prime Minister go to Washington and stand now or will he join later?

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Chairman, this evening's debate will enable the Prime Minister to have a better idea of what the members of this House think the message to be passed to President Bush on Monday should be.

First, I am sure the Prime Minister will extend his condolences to the U.S. President on behalf of this House, all parliamentarians and the general public, and will assure him of the solidarity of the people of Canada and the people of Quebec toward the American people.

That said, the Prime Minister will have to remind the President that the terrorists attacked all democratic countries by attacking New York and Washington. This is something the Prime Minister has already said here in the House, as have all parliamentarians, and President Bush himself. It is important to establish this right at the beginning of the meeting, in order to see within what framework the response will take place, and what will be done after that, because more than retaliation will be necessary. This is the framework within which the meeting between the Prime Minister and the U.S. President must take place.

Canada will have to bring pressure to bear to make sure that the retaliation is effective. In order for this to be the case, a broad coalition will be necessary, the broadest possible. At the moment, there is the coalition within NATO. The ministers of foreign affairs and of defence of the European Union countries met today, thus expanding the coalition.

Steps must be taken to ensure that the coalition involves the United Nations, thus bringing in all the peoples of the world, because terrorism must not be viewed as involving only the western countries, the rich or the powerful countries, but rather all of the countries in the world.

We have seen what happened in the United States, but the first victims of terrorism are, above all, those who are suffering in Afghanistan every day under the Taliban. These are the ones who have lived under pressure and dictatorship for years. That is where it all starts.

The retaliation, therefore, must not be limited to the rich countries, but must involve all of the world's peoples, because terrorism affects all countries. Terrorism knows no nationality, no creed, no colour.

The same should go for democracy, and I am using the conditional because it is not so. It should have no nationality, no creed, no colour. As I was saying on Monday, we must be respectful of God and Allah, and not get them involved in the wars of men. We must not fall into the trap of the empire of the good against the empire of evil, of the good guys against the bad guys. This only serves the bin Ladens of this world. It is a fundamental mistake.

Our response must be effective and measured. Monday's motion said that those responsible must be brought to justice. In order to respond to this vicious attack, we must consider all the options. But under no circumstances should retaliation be directed at civil populations. We must never forget that the people of Afghanistan are not responsible for bin Laden's actions.

Democracy and freedom have nothing in common with ignorance, obscurantism and violence. The Prime Minister must make sure that the U.S. president takes into account certain fundamental elements based essentially on the attitude advocated by the Prime Minister himself, namely patience and wisdom.

I think this attitude must guide our actions at all times. We must remind the U.S. president that, when we talk about building the largest possible coalition, it means that we cannot give carte blanche to the United States, no more than to any other country. A coalition means that decisions are made collectively after taking all the time necessary to have an informed debate in order to consider all aspects. We must stay away from populist solutions, and easy solutions inspired by panic. We must not sacrifice the freedoms that we have here.

That would certainly suit those who attack freedom, civilization and democracy. Thinking that law and order will resolve everything means starting from scratch.

When I spoke of the need to bring the perpetrators to justice, that presupposes making every effort to ensure that an international court of justice could hear the case of the individual in question, whom everyone suspects to be Mr. bin Laden. If the strikes indeed represent an attack on the international community, should the tribunal not be an international one? If we want only countries which oppose extradition of the individuals charged to countries with the death penalty, a lot of European countries and Canada, there is a problem. If we want Arab countries to be part of the coalition, we have a problem.

At that point, the international tribunal could decide in an exemplary and democratic fashion, which does not fall into another dangerous trap in which we might end up with people who were the victims--I understand their legitimate anger, but it is not useful--a tribunal that is judge and jury, and carries out the sentence.

Madam Arbour, who is now with the Supreme Court, was the driving force behind the international criminal court. Milosevic is not being judged in Croatia, or Bosnia or Serbia but before the international court. Therein lies the strength of the sanctions taken against those who attack democracy and humanity.

Likewise, we must do everything to create--I know the court does not exist at the moment--an international criminal court that is ad hoc so long as the treaty on the international court of justice has not been ratified. We did this in Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia. I think this provides a lesson to all the dictators of the world, who want to play the same game as Milosevic or Pinochet. We saw, in the case of Pinochet, both Belgium and Spain levelling charges

Similarly, I think that, with the help of the Europeans, we must do everything possible to ensure that the guilty parties are brought before an international tribunal.

That having been said, despite all these conditions, the fact remains that as long as we do not address the basic causes underlying the development of terrorism--extreme poverty, oppression, dictatorships, the absence of democracy, despair, and loss of hope in the future--we will solve nothing. This is what children are facing daily in some regions of the world. They cannot imagine themselves alive in a few years' time. Thousands of the world's children die every day. It is this hopeless--if we do nothing--but explosive situation which gives rise to terrorism, fanaticism and religious fundamentalism, just as a mushroom will spring up in rot.

If we do not address these basic causes, we will perhaps succeed in doing something about bin Laden, but others like him will spring up. This is unfortunately the fact of the matter. We did this in 1991 with the gulf war. We went after Saddam Hussein. Who is now the leader of Iraq? Who is suffering in Iraq? Not Saddam Hussein. Right now, the Iraqi people are suffering and Saddam Hussein continues to reign, not just in Iraq but throughout the region.

So we would be deluding ourselves to think only of technical solutions, which would let us play hardball but which would ignore the heart of the problem, one that allows terrorism and fanaticism to take hold.

I will conclude by saying that I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to say to the U.S. President “When I take a decision on behalf of Canada with respect to any major intervention, I will take it as democratically as possible, with the support of the House of Commons”, which will mean a vote, which was what his party demanded at the time of the gulf war in 1991.

When one demands something while in opposition, one must be equal to those demands once in power.

This is what the Liberals called for in 1991 and this is what they must do now. The message will carry that much more weight and will strengthen the international coalition accordingly.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in this debate tonight. I agree in principle with the position of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois concerning the role of parliament.

I think our situation and our position have, changed. It is in the interest of Canada to have a situation where parliament will have an opportunity to vote on all major international commitments in the future.

I express my thanks to the member for Winnipeg Centre who recognized my difficult travel schedule tonight and gave me the opportunity to speak before he did, on this occasion only I am sure he would want me to say.

Everybody in the House agrees that terrorism must be fought and that it requires Canada to take its place with other allies against terrorism. The debate tonight is about two issues: first, what a country like Canada should do; and second, how a democracy like Canada should do it.

The Prime Minister will go to Washington on Monday. The Americans will have a series of demands. We know what some of them will be. They will ask him to stop money to terrorists, to stop movement by terrorists, to crack down on terrorist cells or activities in Canada, to extradite or deport people who are wanted for crimes and return them to the countries where they are wanted, and to declare no tolerance for nations or entities that support terrorism.

The country knows that the Prime Minister goes to Washington on Monday with the goodwill of Canadians but these are complex issues. As the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has just indicated, there are dimensions to some of the considerations Canada will have to take in the months and years to come that will be very complex.

The Prime Minister would have had much more authority in Washington on Monday speaking for Canada if he had consulted this parliament in detail before he went to Washington. In addition to responding to the President's demands, I would hope the Prime Minister would also make Canadian proposals.

I hope he would outline precisely what Canada is prepared to do militarily. I hope he would lead in establishing multilateral auspices as Canada led in causing the gulf conflict to be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. I would hope that he might propose initiatives that Canada might take with countries that are critical to this issue and countries where Canada has an unusual influence because of our association in the Commonwealth and la Francophonie, and our long association with international development. I hope he would set forth Canadian concerns about sovereignty and liberties which an international response simply has to consider.

Again, the Prime Minister would have much more authority in Washington had he discussed those proposals first, in detail, here in the Parliament of Canada. Instead, the government is shutting parliament and Canadians out. Compare the situation with that in the United States where Congress right now is actively acting to consider methods to improve security and where Congress is briefed regularly on security and intelligence matters. On the very first day of this crisis, this government should have put the committees of parliament to work so that our transport committee could look at ways in which our transport system could be made more secure and so that our immigration committee could have done a similar thing.

Sadly, all that elected representatives can do here is debate, a debate which the Prime Minister may or may not attend or pay attention to. There is a very sharp difference between the systems. Canadian legislators are allowed to talk. American legislators are encouraged to act. That is a difference that does not serve this democracy well.

Look at the deliberate confusion the government has created about terrorist cells in Canada. First the minister responsible said that he is not responsible, that it is the RCMP, that it is CSIS. Imagine Janet Reno having said that about the FBI at Waco.

When I asked the Prime Minister whether the al-Qaeda cells of bin Laden were or had been operating in Canada, he said he did not think so. CSIS said yes. The international journal Jane's said yes. The king of Jordan said yes. Then the government said the information was too sensitive to be trusted to the people of Canada and parliament.

The government does not seem to understand the concern and the anxiety of Canadians since these planes crashed on the Pentagon and into the twin towers in New York City.

Ordinary people died when they were going about their lives as usual. Throughout the country, ordinary people are now wondering which of their usual activities could now cost them their life.

They need reassurance. They need comfort, but they also want to be told the truth. They want to know the facts as they are. If terrorist cells are present in Canada, they want to know it. The government should be straightforward with those it represents.

In the aftermath of terrorism, we are trying to restore order to the world, but we also have an obligation to restore peace of mind to ordinary Canadians whose world has been turned upside down. Ordinary people were killed for doing ordinary things just the other day. That creates fear. We must create a peace of mind in the country.

How do we do that in democracies? We set out the facts. We do not hide them, as the government is hiding information about terrorist cells. We demonstrate active leadership. We have cabinet meetings, as the British did. We put legislators to work, as the Americans did. We initiate immediate action on issues that matter to people, as the European Union just did on border matters.

When we ask questions in this parliament, the government replies with scorn. Just yesterday when I asked a question, the Prime Minister belittled my experience in these matters. Well, I do have some experience in these matters. My diplomats were able to get American hostages out of Iran. I cast Canada's vote to have the gulf war conducted under United Nations' auspices. I was part of a government which made the leader of the NDP at that time a privy councillor so she could receive confidential briefings. The government could do that now to ensure that information was broadly shared in this parliament.

I briefed parliament and Canada regularly in detail day after day through the gulf war. The government could do that now if it cared about a consensus in this country.

There are others in the House with other experience who could help Canada now. There are Canadians outside the House whose experience Canada needs. There are millions more who are seized by a sudden fear and who wonder if the reason their government is so secretive is because it does not know what to do.

We hope the Prime Minister will come into the House tonight and tell parliamentarians first what he intends to tell the president of the United States on Monday. This is not about courtesy. This is about authority. If the Prime Minister is to speak with real authority for Canadians, he has to deal honestly and openly with Canadians. I sincerely hope, that he will do that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Chairman, I rise today to join with all Canadians who are still in a state of shock and who are trying to deal with the overwhelming feelings of anger, pain and rage that we all share.

In crafting a message for our Prime Minister to deliver to President Bush, I want to begin that by reaffirming that the New Democratic Party joins with citizens around the world in demanding that the perpetrators of the heinous crimes be tracked down and punished. However the NDP caucus also calls for reflection and restraint in our response.

Today I want to reinforce the plea that the same values that cause us to be outraged and repulsed by these acts of barbarity must guide us all as well, and particularly guide world leaders in their response. I believe that our Prime Minister, on behalf of all Canadians who share those sentiments, rose to the occasion and provided very sound counsel and advice in his immediate reaction to the tragedy.

In these extremely dangerous times it is essential that we reaffirm our commitment to pursuing peaceful solutions to the tensions and the hostilities that breed such mindless violence in the world.

In the immediate aftermath of the horrific death and destruction, people understandably were driven to demand instant, massive military retaliation to these terrorist atrocities. However, as freedom loving citizens have grasped the complexity and the magnitude of what happened, the imperative of a more measured response, a more multilateral response and a more informed response must form the basis of our actions.

“Not to respond would be unthinkable: It would diminish and demean American leadership and it would surely invite further attacks” wrote Charles G. Boyd, a retired air force general, in Wednesday's Washington Post . “But to react excessively or inaccurately” he wrote, “would put us on the same moral footing as the cowards who perpetrated yesterday's attack”.

Canadians know that we have a very special relationship with the United States of America and that we value that relationship with our neighbour to the south, but we also have a very special role internationally. If there was ever a time that both our neighbours to the south and the world needed to hear the voice of Canada, it is now.

Our neighbours were thrown into a state of shock last week. As the depth and the breadth of personal tragedies come to grip their collective soul, the cry for vengeance from many quarters will surely grow louder. As America's closest neighbour and friend, we owe it to them to listen and to support them but we also must give them the benefit of our understanding of the events. A true friend lends a guiding hand when someone is blinded by grief and rage.

The cry from America today and from around the world is that this can never be allowed to happen again. We must resolve to see that this can never happen again, but if we pursue the path of blind vengeance, the path of the clenched fist, we are guaranteeing that this will happen again. Military strikes, while they may satisfy an understandable desire for vengeance, will solve nothing if thousands or more innocent people are victimized in some other part of the world.

We are not advocating absolute pacifism or appeasement in the face of aggression. The international community must spare no effort to bring to justice all those responsible for these atrocities and to rid the world of the scourge of terrorism.

If the initial assumptions of culpability and inspiration about this attack are true and this is the latest gruesome chapter of an ever expanding cycle of violence that has already claimed cities, countries, and whole generations, then how does it increase our security to bomb countries into the stone age? In the case of Afghanistan someone else already beat us to it.

I would like to address the very disturbing developments over the course of the past week where visible minorities have been targeted by people looking for scapegoats both here in Canada and abroad. Other leaders have addressed the issue as well.

An ugly and horrifying incident occurred in the fire bombing of a mosque in Montreal. There was an incident even closer to home of an Arab youth who was beaten and put in the hospital in the city of Montreal.

The Canadian Council for Refugees, in a statement of September 14, wisely reminded us that many Canadians came to this country to escape from violence and persecution on the basis of religion, race and nationality.

Refugees and immigrants are as horrified as anyone by the events and they condemn this violence. Canadians need to work to ensure our country is a haven from hatred and any kind of discrimination.

In the coming days we will hear more arguments that we need to re-examine our immigration laws and policies. The NDP caucus firmly disagrees that we must harmonize our immigration with the United States. We also reject out of hand a perimeter concept of our international security obligations.

As we debate this issue, we invite all members of the House to remember that their words and their passion can excite and they can have very real repercussions on the many new Canadians and visible minorities that make up the diversity of this country. We call upon them to be responsible in their comments.

It is reassuring to us that so many voices have been heard, political leaders, community leaders and ordinary citizens, counselling against doing anything to create a backlash and to create prejudicial attitudes and actions directed toward innocent Canadians.

With this message let us extend that same concern and consideration to other countries, such as the U.S.A. If we are absolutely in agreement that we must stand against any scapegoating of innocent civilians in our own country, then surely the same consideration and concern has to be extended to innocent civilians around the world.

Canada must be a leader in searching out solutions other than an eye for an eye. We need to call upon our earlier traditions of having a more independent foreign policy. We need to always think in terms of multilateralism. We need to use our special relationship with the United States to represent all progressive and peace loving countries that want to build lasting solutions to the conditions that breed such horrendous violence.

We can surely do no better than to heed the words of John F. Kennedy when he stated that those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

I appreciate this opportunity to add our points of view for the Prime Minister as he communicates a Canadian message to the President of the United States.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Madam Chairman, on behalf of the residents of York North, I would like to offer my condolences to those who have lost loved ones in last week's tragedy.

I was comforted by the words of the Prime Minister when he rose in the House on September 17 to address the special House of Commons debate in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11. It is the message of that speech I hope he delivers when he meets with the president of the United States on Monday. In his speech the Prime Minister said we should let our actions be guided by a spirit of wisdom and perseverance and we must be guided by a commitment to do what works in the long run, not by what makes us feel better in the short run.

As we journey into the difficult weeks and months ahead, we must remember to hold and check the understandable desire to immediately retaliate with full force. We first need to investigate the identity and location of the terrorists. We need to isolate them and ensure no other innocent individuals will suffer the fate of those who perished in the World Trade Center, in the Pentagon and on the four passenger jets. I hope the Prime Minister is able to deliver to the American president a message of the crucial need for calm, reasoned thinking.

I have other thoughts to offer the Prime Minister as he prepares for his meeting in the United States but first I would like to share my experiences of last week with members of the House. On September 11 I was in Washington, D.C. attending a conference on child environmental health. I listened in horror as I heard the announcement that two hijacked airplanes had been flown into the World Trade Center towers. Shortly after this devastating news, the conference participants were told a third plane had been hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon not far from the conference site. The atmosphere was chilling and surreal. My first thought was now we know how people in strife filled regions of the world must feel.

We soon learned that a fourth passenger jet had been hijacked and was 20 minutes outside Washington. Later we were told it had crash landed in Pennsylvania.

The conference had 400 participants from all around the world. Strangers from different races, countries, religions and cultures reached out as one human being to another in support of each other. The conference organizers from the Canadian Institute of Child Health, the American Child Environmental Health Network, Environment Canada, Health Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency worked together as a professional, effective, compassionate team. They ensured the needs of the conference delegates were met by setting up medical attention and counselling services, providing phone service to call loved ones, finding accommodations and so on. They are to be commended. Through the efforts of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Environment Canada, two buses were sent from Canada to bring the 57 Canadians attending the conference home.

During the tense hours that followed the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, I observed two things I will never forget: first, we are all interconnected; second, people seek to affirm their humanity in the midst of calamity. Strangers started up conversations as though they were long lost friends. People held one another trying to provide comfort. We talked about our families. I think the most often asked question was, “Have you contacted your family yet?”

After the attacks, I acquired a roommate who had been evacuated from her hotel. She is from Kathmandu, Nepal. Nepal is close to the heart of the proposed conflict. I wonder if she was able to get home safely to her two small children and husband. I wonder how safe she and her family will be over the coming months. I also met a doctor from Georgia who is concerned about creating good legislation to protect children's health in his country's newfound democracy. I met a researcher of Southeast Asian descent now living and teaching in Auckland, New Zealand. These are only a few of the people I shared those tense days with.

My daughter was travelling in central Australia. She said there were others in her group who were worried about the safety of relatives in New York and Washington.

A woman my daughter befriended on her trip to the outback is from Ireland. She had a sister flying out of New York on the morning of the attack on the World Trade Center. The world is such a small place.

The people of the world are interconnected. Regardless of nationality, religion or race, our humanity holds us together. It is our humanity we will continue to affirm even in the face of terrorism. This is the other message I hope the Prime Minister will deliver to the American president.

While terrorism is a disease, a pox on the face of humanity, terrorism must not make the Canadian people fearful. We must continue to assert our humanity even in the midst of barbarous acts, and as the Prime Minister has said, by reaffirming the fundamental values of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I urge all members of the House and all Canadians who are watching tonight not to let the terrorists win by allowing ourselves to fall prey to fear and intolerance.

I have received phone calls in my constituency office which trouble me. They trouble me because they demonstrate hatred toward Muslims and other minorities. I am greatly disturbed that Canadians of Muslim descent have been assaulted.

As the Prime Minister has said in the House, immigration is central to the Canadian experience and identity. We have welcomed people from all corners of the globe, all nationalities, colours and religions. We do this because as Canadians we understand that all people of the world are interconnected and because we value our common humanity.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Chairman, it has been 10 days since that terrible terrorist attack on New York and Washington. It has been an emotional roller coaster ride for all of us, for Canadians across the country and for people around the world. Many people still live in trepidation and fear thinking about what has happened and what might happen.

For us in the House of Commons it is time to get back to work. This week we have been back at the business of governing. As the official opposition it is our role to ask the tough questions of government about this issue. It is our role to show support in areas where we see strength and to point out weakness in areas where we see weakness. That is our job and I intend to do my part in fulfilling that role.

The first priority of the federal government is to protect the safety and security of Canadians and our country. When we combine this thought with the fact that the Canadian forces is the largest single security force in Canada, what would we expect to find? We would expect to find a top notch force, a large force, well funded, well equipped, with the people well trained. We would expect to find the best people possible. Would we expect anything less from one of the wealthiest countries in the world? Would we expect anything less from a country with such a proud military tradition? I think not.

Canadians should be prepared to do their part. Canada of all countries should be prepared to do its part to prevent terrorist attacks and to be able to respond effectively to terrorist attacks when they happen. We should be prepared to work with our allies, our friends, and to protect our friends when they need our help. Our national anthem says “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee”. How effective has the government of this country been in that regard?

It is important for all of us to think about what our armed forces do for us. We expect the military to defend against attack, whether it is a terrorist attack or some type of military attack. We depend on our allies to help us. We know we will help our allies should the attack be on them. We expect our forces to meet commitments to our allies through NATO, probably the greatest alliance in military history, and through NORAD, the North American alliance.

We expect our military to meet certain United Nations commitments and they have done so, to protect our sovereignty, especially in our northern waters and northern islands, to deal with any civil unrest there might be in the country, to deal with natural disasters, to provide search and rescue in cases where their help is necessary and to provide disaster relief. We expect a lot from the men and women serving in our forces.

I do not think we spend a lot of time thinking about what our forces really should provide. Why is that? I suggest that part of the reason is that the government does not really believe we need a strong national defence, and it shows.

How often do we hear the government even pay lip service by saying that we need a strong national defence, that our men and women serve well? How many times have we heard the Prime Minister really express pride in our forces and say how important they are to us, say what they do for us, or commend personally one of our best for an act of bravery?

When I think of that, I think immediately of the men and women who served in Bosnia and Croatia in the Medak pocket. They served so bravely that France gave commendations to the whole unit. We expect that Canada and the Prime Minister would show the same kind of support and recognition for bravery and a job well done.

It has not happened. Seven years later it has not happened. That does not really show a commitment to our national defence and the men and women who serve so well.

The recognition cannot be only lip service. The recognition that we need a strong national defence is important but we need more than that. The first responsibility of the federal government is the safety and security of our citizens and our nation.

When we look at our largest security force what do we see? As I have said, we would expect to find a large, well funded, well equipped, well trained force with the best people we can find. What do we find? We do not have a large force. When the Liberal government took office 90,000 men and women were serving in our forces. There are now 55,000. According to the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, the number will drop to 42,000 within two or three years if the trend continues. That is a halving of our forces.

We expect the forces to be well funded. What is the reality? In the last nine years funding to national defence has been cut by 30% in real terms. Is that the commitment we would expect for the largest security force in our country?

We would expect our forces to be well equipped. The auditor general says that if things continue the way they are we will have a $30 billion deficit in equipment by 2012. We all know the state of our equipment now. The Sea Kings are 40 years old. We could go through the list of outdated and obsolete equipment. Ammunition is not readily available. Armaments that we would expect to be there are not.

We would expect to have well trained men and women and in some cases we do. Some of the best men and women in the world serve in our forces. In some cases they are among the best trained. However training is lacking in certain areas. We have not seen brigade level training since this government took office yet we have a commitment to deliver a trained brigade to our NATO allies. Training is lacking in many areas.

As I said, we would expect to find the best people possible. I reiterate again that some of the best people in the world serve in our forces but that is changing because we do not choose people based on merit alone. We no longer choose only the best people. Instead we have let the whole regime of political correctness find its way into our forces. We are choosing based on a group or a gender rather than simply choosing the very best people for the job. While we do have excellent people in our forces, even that is changing.

If one were to look at the state our forces are in right now there is one example that tells it best. Two or three weeks ago Canada was asked by our NATO allies to deliver help to Macedonia. NATO told Canada what it expected from us. What did Canada do? What could we do with the people and equipment we have? All we could deliver was 200 people. Those 200 people went from a NATO commitment in Bosnia to the new NATO commitment in Macedonia. That is like paying off one credit card account with another credit card. That is the state of our forces today but it is not because of the men and women who serve.

Since September 11 we in the official opposition have stated that we are prepared to participate in the war on terrorism within the limits of our capability. There should be no doubt that last week's attack was against Canadians. Forty-five to seventy-five of the casualties were Canadian.

Article 5 of the NATO agreement says that if any ally is attacked it is considered to be an attack on the rest. One of our allies was attacked and that is considered to be an attack on Canada. We must respond and there must be no doubt in our response. Our allies must know that. I am counting on the government to provide that response and to provide it soon.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Chairman, after 10 horrible emotional days, there is much for the Prime Minister to say to President Bush.

Canadians have wept many tears during these dreadful days. We grieve for the terrible tragic loss of so many lives. We grieve for the pain and horror of families and friends of victims in the U.S., Canada and other countries. We grieve deeply for the shattered peace of a great nation. We have tried to reach out to Americans and others affected by this evil attack. If there is one thing Canadians are saying to Americans it is that they are not alone.

We have conveyed this message in many ways. Some have phoned, written letters or signed books of condolence. Some have travelled to New York and Washington to offer assistance. Hundreds opened their homes to stranded travellers and thousands volunteered at emergency shelters for those guests. Hundreds of thousands stood in silent vigil on the national day of mourning last Friday and millions have prayed and will continue to do so.

The sense of solidarity is especially strong in Halifax. In 1917, after Halifax was levelled by the largest man-made explosion prior to World War II, great amounts of assistance came from Boston, New York and the entire U.S. northeast. We have not forgotten that and never will.

There is so much more that Canadians want to say to our friends to the south. We share their grief. We share their anger. We share their determination that terrorism must end and we are determined to play our part in ending it.

This was not just an offence against Americans. It displayed a fundamental lack of human decency, a lack of the most basic level of respect for human rights. It was an offence against all humanity.

What did the perpetrators of this horrendous attack think they would gain? Was it revenge? What is to be gained by revenge if it simply provokes a violent response and a spiral of violence? Did they think the American people would collapse in fear and concede defeat? If so, they do not know the Americans we know.

Sure, we have had our quibbles with U.S. policies from time to time, just as there are differences within families, but the Americans are fundamentally good people and they are resilient. To some their strength may appear to be their material wealth or technology but they should not be mistaken. The strength of America is in the character of its people. It is in the ideals and principles upon which their nation was founded, a foundation that cannot be shaken.

The fires of last week forged in Americans a steely new resolve, a resolve that will astonish their enemies. There will be no gain to those who caused the horror. Their cause, whatever it may be, will not be advanced.

What can the world gain from this? What can we learn so that so many lives shall not have been lost in vain? To answer these questions we must first reflect on our basic principles, the tenets of civilized society. We must recommit to the human values of free and democratic society. We must recommit to the bedrock beliefs and values of our two nations. We must resolve to demonstrate respect for our fellow citizens regardless of their religion or ethnic origin. We must be beacons of hope in a world of despair.

Our objective must be to bring to justice the perpetrators of this attack. The campaign will demand a patient and resilient determination. It will be a long struggle, not a short war. We who shall wage this campaign must make careful choices, for it is like a long and multi-level chess game. At stake is the future of the world. Our resolve must therefore include the patience to look well beyond our next move. We must be disciplined in keeping our goal in mind. Our objective, let us remember, is to eliminate terrorism.

Will our response be the wild fury of a chainsaw or the precision of laser surgery? As Dr. Janice Stein said in last Saturday's Globe and Mail :

The use of a blunt military instrument may provide momentary psychological satisfaction to outraged and frightened publics, but it will have little real effect on those who have committed these crimes or may be planning others in the future.

In fact she argues that the wrong choice would be counterproductive and the number of terrorists would multiply as a direct result. Canada must therefore bring its influence to bear on these decisions and must be a voice of reason.

However let us make no mistake: We will stand beside our southern neighbours, our greatest friends, shoulder to shoulder in this long struggle. The Prime Minister should tell the president we will work with the United States to defend civilization from future terrorist attacks.

Our world changed last Tuesday and there will be changes ahead, but let us remember that the openness that makes us vulnerable is the freedom that makes us strong. We will need to take steps to increase our security but we must also preserve our liberty. We shall have the courage to live our lives. We will hug our loved ones more often and treasure the gift of life more dearly, but we shall go on. We shall not surrender to the tyranny of terror.

God bless Canada. God bless America. God bless the human family.

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

Madam Speaker, I do appreciate this first step in the right direction. It was important to open up a period of discussion. We already had a first discussion on Monday, and it is equally important that we continue this discussion. Yet we will have to go a little further.

In a democracy, it is important to discuss, but it is also important to decide. When I say that it is important to decide, it seems to me that parliament must not only be consulted, but that it must also make decisions. Again, we do appreciate this first step this evening, but we will have to go a little further.

My area is national defence. I do not want to talk about it for too long, because I spent part of the afternoon looking at what could be put at our disposal by the Canadian army. Unfortunately, it is pretty limited.

I looked at all three forces: land, air and maritime. Next week, when the U.S. president will ask the Prime Minister what contribution he can make to a military response, I am afraid that the Prime Minister of Canada will not have much to offer.

I will touch briefly on the land forces. We know that the 3rd battalion of the Royal 22nd Regiment left this week to go to Bosnia to take over from another battalion from the Atlantic provinces.

There are problems, because it is not a big battalion. It has about 1,700 troops. When we only have 1,700 troops to cover a country like Bosnia, we cannot remove any of these troops, because they would not be able to do a good job.

So, we have very few army troops available, unless we decide to renege on some of our international commitments, or to withdraw our troops in Bosnia to send them elsewhere. This is another issue. And Bosnia is not the only place. We also have troops in the Golan Heights and others in Macedonia, where they are currently trying to restore peace and strengthen this ever fragile peace.

We must think about the impact of a sudden withdrawal of these troops if we were to send them to the Middle East together with American troops. This will be very difficult if not impossible.

I was a little reluctant this week to make a private members' statement, because I had trained with them in Valcartier. I was not sure if the government would send its troops overseas or try to keep them here to post them somewhere else.

I think Canadians were right to go overseas and to meet NATO's commitment to consolidate peace in that part of the world where peace is not fully restored and where troops are required to separate the belligerent sides.

There is another problem with the land forces. They are presently involved in some missions. Indeed, we are now left with the PPCLI, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, in the west. And I salute these people, because they went to my riding to help us during the ice storm; they gave us a great hand.

Consequently, there is only a portion of the army left in Canada. The other one, the RCR, is already coming back from Bosnia, and the 22e Régiment, which is the other portion from Quebec, is gone overseas to uphold NATO treaties.

We cannot tell people out of the blue “You are going to the Middle East”. The people who went to Bosnia—I trained with them for a week—were trained for four or five months. Training in Valcartier was ideal for them. The climate and the environment are about the same as in Bosnia. So it was perfect for them.

However, sending troops to the Middle East is totally different. They should get some training. As far as the army is concerned, I see that it will be totally impossible to deploy troops and send them there.

Let us now look at the air forces. On that side, there are about 500 aircraft in Canada that will be allocated to 13 squadrons.

Some aircraft must be ruled out immediately. Some are made for patrol, search and rescue. We are referring among others to the Labradors, the Griffons or the Sea Kings. It would never come to mind to send Sea Kings over there.

We hear the government say that the Sea Kings are great, but it must be said that for every hour in the air, a Sea King needs 30 hours of maintenance before it can be sent back on mission. It would be far from beneficial to send them over there.

I think that what the U.S. president is most interested in is the F-18s. There again, there is a problem: we have 122 of them, but only 80 are airworthy. Just imagine, the armed forces have reached the stage where they are using the term “cannibalize”. The military will mothball some 40 F-18s, in order to remove some components from them and install them on others. There is a problem.

Moreover, these aircraft are old and should be upgraded. We have not reached that point. We have only a dozen of them that are able to carry laser-guided bombs, which is the new technology. So we have little to offer.

We have commitments to NORAD because in co-operation with our American friends, we are protecting all of North America. F-18s regularly take off from Bagotville or Cold Lake to patrol the Far North, often because of the intrusion of Russian planes. If we did away with our air fleet to send it out to the Middle East, we would leave America with very little protection, and we cannot do that. Our participation in the air is therefore very limited.

As far as the naval force is concerned, it is even worse. We cannot do much with our fleet. Not at all. The only thing that we could do would be to send a few destroyers to take care of reconnaissance patrols to try and control shipping in the Persian Gulf. That is just about all we can do.

There are also two replenishment tankers that we could send. However, if we did that, we would curtail our own fleet's work for coastal surveillance, because this is what they are used for. There is one in Halifax, on the Atlantic, and the other one is on the Pacific, based in Esquimalt. Our participation is therefore very restricted also, as far as the naval fleet is concerned.

President Bush might be a bit disappointed by the Canadian participation in future military action. But military retaliation is not the only solution. That is what everybody is saying. I think we must be very cautious, on this score.

I have just been listening to the president's speech, a few minutes ago. They tell me he has just finished. It was a pretty bellicose speech, probably in response to U.S. public opinion. In my opinion, if the Prime Minister feels he is a good friend of the U.S. president, he will need to speak frankly to him.

He needs to tell him “Listen now, I do not think that the law of retaliation, the law of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, can apply”. I said on Monday and I say again today: we cannot tell these regimes “5,000 civilians were killed in New York, so we are going to kill 5,000 of your civilians”. This would be playing exactly the same game as the people who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

If the Prime Minister is the president's friend, he needs to tell him that his military retaliation must be very prudent. I think they are going to get into a far longer war. It is not a matter of a strike lasting two or three weeks, then it is all over and we go back home, as we did the other times. I have also said that this is a totally different war. The U.S. president needs to understand that a military response is important yes, but that it is not the only possibility.

Returning to the matter of democratic values, the Prime Minister must tell the president “I am interested in having a vote in the House”. In order to commit the Canadian army to joining with the U.S. army, if this is possible, a vote must be held in the House.

I also agree there must be an international tribunal, for the reasons that the Bloc Quebecois leader has already explained very well.

Let the Prime Minister travel to Washington next week, let him speak with his American friend, let him offer condolences from the people of Canada and Quebec, and let him tell the president “We are prepared to co-operate in many things, but unfortunately anything on the military side will be very limited”. I think he needs to be spoken to frankly in this way.

The government may be reaping what it has sown, in other words we now have few means of contributing to any participation with the U.S. army because of our budget cuts.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Chairman, tonight in the House we stand as all citizens of the globe who reacted in horror and revulsion to the events of September 11.

The folly of the attack against the U.S. government and the American people challenges our ability to understand. Our first thoughts go to the many innocent people who lost their lives. We address our most sincere condolences to all those who lost a loved one or were injured during these attacks.

As the Prime Minister said, this attack targeted the world. Forty countries, including Canada, died last Tuesday. As individuals, we feel the pain of being powerless to turn the clock back, helpless in the face of overwhelming tragedy.

Our ties to our American friends and neighbours reflect the many shared values which we hold dear: freedom, democracy, respect for life and for the rule of law, to name but a few. We share with them a common border and the world's most important trading relationship. We are inextricably linked to the United States and we will continue to demonstrate our solidarity with our neighbours.

Canada is a country that stands for tolerance and for freedom, but also for civilized discussion of differing points of view, for peoples of all lands and all beliefs have been welcomed to a country of unparalleled peace, liberty and prosperity. We are a nation of immigrants.

The shameless attack on innocent lives is the antithesis of what it means to be Canadian. These attacks remind all of us of the importance of the values for which our country stands and the need for all of us to work hard to protect our interests and project our values.

We are reminded that terrorism is an ever present threat to the tranquility of our lives and to peace and security everywhere, to the safety and security of men, women and children of all faiths, of all nationalities, of all regions. Victims of terrorist acts are innocent civilians.

Terrorism knows no international boundaries. Terrorists have no respect, either for the rule of law or for international standards; they do not believe in peaceful discussion and negotiation as tools for dispute settlement or attaining political goals.

If we are to overcome this tragedy, rebuild and regain our confidence, then we need to ensure that the global community works together. We need to ensure that the commitments that have been made by countries to act against terrorism are not just words but in fact are translated into action.

In various regional and multilateral forums, including the United Nations, the global community has agreed on important principles in the fight against terrorism, including the denial of support and sanctuary for terrorists, the establishment of an international legal network against terrorism through universal adherence to the international conventions against terrorism and international co-operation and co-ordination at the policy and at the practical level.

In this regard, Canada has been at the forefront of international action on terrorism. From strengthening these legal measures at our disposal at the UN to chairing the negotiations on the two most recent counterterrorism conventions, Canadian leadership and Canadian ideas are evident throughout the legal framework that has been developed internationally.

In addition to multilateral solutions to combat terrorism, we co-operate on a range of counterterrorism issues with other countries on a bilateral basis and, in particular, with the United States.

Since the 1998 joint declaration on counterterrorism, our two countries have built a level of co-operation that is unparalleled in the world, including on issues such as information exchange on threats, planning for the management of terrorist incidents affecting both countries and counterterrorism research and development.

Unfortunately, the tragedy of September 11 shows that even that is not enough. We must not allow terrorists to undermine the rights, values and principles we cherish.

Last week the North Atlantic Council of NATO issued a statement saying that if it is determined that this attack was dictated or directed from abroad, it shall be regarded as an armed attack against all member states of NATO. This would be the very first time in its 52 year history that the members of this defensive alliance have taken such a step. Canada will act in solidarity with our allies in response to this terrorist act.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday in the House, this is a struggle against terrorism. It is not a struggle against any community or faith. We are all Canadians. We are all taught tolerance. Every one of us condemns terrorism and every one of us is prepared to act on those values.

As we choose our responses, even while we grapple with grief, anger and emotions, we must never stoop to the level of the terrorists nor substantiate their hatreds by singling out Canadians simply for their religious or ethnic backgrounds.

When I, like many of us, read about Islamic centres burned or children and women insulted on the streets of Canada because of what they wear or who they are, I, like all of us, am deeply chagrined. However, I also felt very proud this week when I listened to the Prime Minister on Monday because he expressed exactly my sentiments when he said:

We...will not give in to the temptation in a rush to increase security to undermine the values that we cherish and which have made Canada a beacon of hope, freedom and tolerance in the world.

We will not be stampeded in the hope, vain and ultimately self-defeating, that we can make Canada a fortress against the world.

He went on to say that immigration, as I said earlier, is central to the Canadian experience and identity. We have welcomed people from all corners of the globe, all nationalities, all colours and all religions. This is who we are. Let there be no doubt: we will allow no one to force us to sacrifice our values or tradition under the pressure of urgent circumstances. We will continue to welcome people from the whole world. We will continue to offer refuge to the persecuted.

I think that those words were so well said on Monday that they bear saying again tonight.

Every one of us must reflect on what kind of world we want to live in, what kind of world we want for our children and our families. We must support our allies in this war against terrorism. We must support the efforts of the justice system, we must protect ourselves against acts of blind terror and, finally, we must not let ourselves get lured into the trap of hate and over-reaction.

We have all suffered one way or the other, and we must heal our wounds. We should focus on the memory of our neighbours who died and work toward ensuring that such a thing never happens again.

The rule of law and the right of people everywhere to live in peace without fear of violence must be preserved.