Debates of Sept. 20th, 2001

Canada-U.S. Meeting

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Chair, I cannot help saying how profoundly disappointed I am in the performance of the government at this critical time. The government is behaving as if there is no crisis, no need for critical action, no urgency, and as if defending the status quo is the way to go. The drift goes on and the empty rhetoric goes on.

This is a rejection of the values held by Canadians and is an insult to our friends. Americans are increasingly tired of Canada not delivering. George Bush, speaking tonight to the American people, did not include Canada in his list of countries that are friends. This was not just an oversight. He was delivering a message.

On behalf of Canadians, and more specifically the people who live in my constituency of Vancouver Island North, I extend our deepest sympathies to our friends in the United States and families around the world who lost loved ones in the terrorist attack of September 11. We cannot pretend to know the depth of grief of those who lost loved ones but we can assure them of our thoughts and prayers.

Canadians and Americans have so much that unites us, including family ties, friendship, business ties and a long history of aiding and abetting each other in times of war.

I phoned my American brother. I call him that because he moved to the United States in the mid-1970s and now works and lives in St. Louis with his American wife and four American children. Despite the distance we remain close, as families do, and we are certainly not unique in having family in both countries.

My brother was watching the British parliament on television as it discussed the attack on America. He shared his concerns with me about the laxity of Canadian national security measures and how unsettling it is for his American friends and colleagues. Those friends and colleagues are intensely aware of who America's friends are and what they are saying. They have been especially impressed, once again, with the level of commitment expressed by Britain.

I have read a lot of 20th century military history. In our war against terrorism what we need is co-operation, solidarity, commitment and trust of the kind and nature demonstrated in the deep relations established between the administrations of Churchill and Roosevelt and their emissaries, that great Canadian William Stephenson, who worked with that great American, Bill Donovan, architect of the OSS, the forerunner of the CIA. It was World War II and the stakes were high.

The stakes are high now too.

I do believe that the government still does not get it. There is no room to excuse anything less than an all out commitment to stamp out terrorism and to create domestic security in Canada which meets our international responsibilities, not just for Canadians but for our friends and neighbours.

Canada's unique relationship with the United States, geographically, demographically and in trade, gives us some special responsibilities. Earlier this week the Canadian Alliance asked the government to enact some straightforward measures: naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in the country; a complete ban on fundraising activities in support of terrorism; immediate ratification of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism; the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training activities in Canada or inciting terrorists abroad; prompt extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism; and detention and deportation to their country of origin of any people illegally in Canada or failed refugee claimants who have been linked to terrorist organizations.

One might wonder why many of these measures have not already been adopted. I certainly do wonder why and the official opposition has been asking. These measures should not even require much debate. They must be done and they must be done swiftly.

This is my measure of the government's resolve. Two days ago the government closed ranks to vote against implementing these measures. Strong, concerted, co-operative anti-terrorism measures are a responsibility and commitment that Canada must make and they must be unequivocal. This is what is expected of a friend and this is what will be required to win this war on terrorism. Anything less is aiding and abetting those who would undermine the very foundations of our free and democratic society. There is no other higher priority for parliament and the Government of Canada.

I want to tell the House what U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell said this week:

Some nations need to be more vigilant against terrorism at their borders if they want their relationship with the U.S. to remain the same. We're going to make it clear to them that this will be a standard against which they are measured with respect to their relationship with the United States.

The world has changed and the government should recognize that.

What we must do is take a step back, look at where we are headed on passage of people and goods between Canada and the U.S. and make essential changes. We know that NAFTA and the free trade agreement have been in effect for a decade and have had a positive influence on trade, wealth creation and jobs in Canada and the U.S. We have a huge just in time industry with connections across the border. With hourly inventory levels for automotive components and other industries, we can imagine how a problem at the border can affect business confidence in those kinds of industries.

Uncertainties will certainly negatively impact our ability to trade freely. The U.S. ambassador and Canadian industry are saying that a perimeter security strategy is essential to ensure continued cross-border co-operation. The U.S. has expressed continuing concerns about security risks emanating from the Canadian jurisdiction. Prior to last week's tragedy, Canada was taking at best a gradual or incremental approach to addressing these concerns.

September 11 has telescoped the timeframe. Rather than silence from the government we need a commitment to a perimeter security strategy which will ensure that it is as hard or harder for a terrorist to get into Canada as it is to go directly to the United States. Canadians want to see these actions. Americans want this action.

On top of commitments regarding our armed forces support and other measures, this is just one of the commitments the Prime Minister must make to President Bush on Monday. Nothing less is acceptable.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin, ON]

Mr. Chairman, it is with sadness but hope that I participate in this special debate this evening, as parliamentarians from all parties continue to express their sympathy, empathy and support for our friends and neighbours in the United States of America in the wake of the tragedy of September 11.

This debate is being undertaken to assist our Prime Minister as he prepares to meet U.S. President Bush next Monday and as the world readies its response to the terrible terrorist attack on thousands of innocent victims in New York City and Washington, D.C. I would point out that this debate is a result of the government implementing even better measures than past governments allowed for members of parliament from all parties, whatever level of the bench, to participate actively in assisting government to devise appropriate policies as we move forward.

I expressed shock for and support of the constituents of my riding of Algoma--Manitoulin who can hardly believe the events that have unfolded before our very eyes. We also pay tribute to the firemen, police and other rescue workers who have worked tirelessly to find those who may have survived these tragic events. We can hardly count the loss of family, friends and work mates. Shock waves will be felt for years to come.

I must admit to a great sense of pride, having seen the outpouring of pity and support for stranded travellers who landed at different airports in Canada, to those who have participated in the numerous memorials, particularly the wonderful and very spiritual ceremony on Parliament Hill last Friday, to those who have given blood or money.

I would like to point out that there was a very nice letter from a former CFL player, J.C. Watts, who is now a U.S. congressman. In his letter he thanked Canada for its support at this very difficult time. I recommend this letter to the editor in the September 17 issue of the Globe and Mail .

I also want to acknowledge the calls and e-mails from constituents who have expressed a variety of views but certainly a consistent view of support for our American friends and neighbours. I thank Susan Hare, Art Blackledge, Keith Hobach, Wayne Van Sickle, Larry Killins, Dean Anderson, Sandra Saxson, Robyn Kaufman and many others for taking the time to contact me and to help me and all of us come to the best solution at this difficult time.

Our task tonight is to try to imagine the Prime Minister in his meeting next Monday with U.S. President Bush and his closest advisors. I am certain, after expressing again the empathy, sorrow and grief of Canadians, that he will want to get on to the very important business of what do we do next? I suspect he will consider very seriously ideas and comments such as follows.

First, that Canada as a full NATO partner, recognizes that an act against one of our partners is an act against ourselves. It is an act against all those who hold democracy and freedom among mankind's loftiest goals. The Prime Minister might consider and I am sure he will exhort President Bush to continue to take the necessary time to fully understand, as much as possible, the challenge ahead.

We all want to eradicate terrorism from the world. It has been with us a long time. The solutions will take a long time.

This is clearly not a traditional war with agreements, protocols and conventions. It is a war with no rules. It is a war with an unnamed and unknown, and where do we find such an enemy? As one U.S. official said “this is a marathon not a sprint”.

The Prime Minister might also want to exhort President Bush to resist the temptation to see this war against terrorism as an act needing revenge. Nor should this war be seen as a battle between good and evil. Nor should this war be seen as a battle among religions.

We all know that the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Jews, and those of all faiths, believe in reaching their higher goals through peaceful means. It is only the extremists, the few in all societies sadly, who wish to impose their self-centered, selfish and greedy views on others.

I see terrorists, like criminals everywhere or like biker gangs or drug lords, as those who profit from destabilizing society. I see them more like a disease. We must use measures that are unusual but effective, for in their attempts to diminish law and order, they increase their control in profit. Decent people everywhere loathe such behaviour, regardless of race, colour, creed and religion.

The Prime Minister will no doubt say that Canada is prepared to stand “shoulder to shoulder with our U.S. neighbours and friends”. The free world must act decisively and firmly together to reduce or indeed eliminate the threat of terrorism everywhere, not just here at home.

In offering Canada's military strength, a military of which we are very proud, we recognize that the traditional big gun approach will not likely work. This is a time for precise, well-considered, multilateral action that is both firm, forceful and accurate.

I caution the unnecessary creation of martyrs among the terrorist leaders, which may not serve us well over the long term.

I would like to point out for my opposition friends, particularly the previous speaker, that Canada has taken much action already, action started long before the tragic events of last week, actions such as signing all 12 of the UN counter terrorism conventions and actions such as allocating $1.5 billion in the year 2000 budget for the RCMP, CSIS and other departments related to public safety.

The government introduced Bill C-16 weeks ago, which deals with charitable organization registration and money being flowed to terrorist groups. This bill would put an end to it.

I could go on about other measures taken by the government.

I would like to come to the end of my remarks by asking whether, in offering Canada's full support to whatever extent all of NATO and our U.S. neighbours in particular require, we should also look at this as an opportunity that within this cloud there is a silver lining to find a degree of global co-operation and co-ordination, which we have never reached, and that, in taking a little extra time to get it right, this might lead to international co-operation on scourges beyond terrorism, scourges such as poverty, disease, pollution and others.

When all is said and done, I believe Canada needs to be there with its counter-intelligence, expertise, military resources, diplomatic resources, humanitarian resources and whatever we can offer, all the while remaining fully sovereign when it comes to making decisions that affect our security and our people. Canada has and will continue to be a beacon of light in the world, a beacon of peace but one prepared as a nation to act.

God bless the world.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chairman, it is with a profound sense of sadness and deep concern for the future that I rise to participate in the debate this evening having just listened with a sense of foreboding and almost of despair to the speech of the president of the United States to the American congress.

We are asked tonight what is our advice to the Prime Minister as he journeys to Washington next week to meet with the president of the United States. What message should he bring on behalf of the people of Canada to the president at this incredibly important time, not just for the United States and for Canada, but indeed for the world?

The first message of course must be a message of deep condolence for the families and loved ones of those who have lost their lives, and the death toll tragically mounts ever higher day by day; support for those who were injured; a tribute and thanks to those who, in the face of such tremendous odds, continue the desperate search for survivors; a tribute to the firefighters, the police officers, the rescue workers; and a tribute to the amazing people of New York who have suffered such a terrible wound.

We also owe it to our friends in the United States to speak the truth about the implications of the course upon which they are now embarking. I believe from the bottom of my heart that the United States is embarking upon a course which is profoundly dangerous, which will cause the loss of many more innocent lives and which will take this planet into territory that is dangerous and destructive.

They have rejected the path of multilateralism, of working in solidarity with other nations through the umbrella of the United Nations and in respect of international law. No one in the House believes anything other than we must do everything we possibly can to bring the perpetrators of these terrible crimes to justice, these crimes against humanity.

The global community must resolve to do whatever we can within the framework of international law to bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. Yes, these are crimes against humanity and they must be responded to as crimes within the framework of global law enforcement, not in the context of war and retaliation.

The compelling evidence that apparently exists linking bin Laden, al-Qaeda and others must be brought before an international tribunal. It is quite true that the international criminal court does not yet exist, but surely it is not beyond the powers of the global community to create a respected international tribunal to weigh that evidence with care, just as we have created tribunals in the case of other terrible crimes.

President Bush said tonight to the people of America and the people of the world “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”

I say no to the president of the United States. We are not with him as he embarks upon this path of unilateral massive military assaults. We are certainly not with the terrorists. There is a third way which calls for respect for international law as we bring these perpetrators to justice.

President Bush went on to say that any nation which continues to harbour or support terrorism is a hostile regime. We all share the concern about those nations that harbour terrorists. The most recent state department list includes Cuba among the seven nations that the United States state department believes harbour terrorists.

What does this declaration by the president of the United States mean with respect to Cuba? What does it mean with respect to Iraq, another country on that list? How many more innocent lives will be taken? Half a million Iraqis including tens of thousands of innocent children have died as a direct result of the inhumane and genocidal sanctions on that country. Innocent civilians and the lives of Iraqi children are just as precious and as valuable as the lives of those office workers who perished in that terrible terrorist attack in New York.

The chair of the standing committee on foreign affairs is in the House tonight. I commend him for the comments that he made earlier this week during the course of this debate. I would appeal to the Prime Minister to heed his wisdom.

It is easy to strike out in retaliation. The United States has all the weapons it needs and these weapons are already on their way. However we must be very cautious that in doing so we are not creating more innocent victims. By what perverted logic can it be suggested that killing thousands of Afghanis who are fleeing from the terror of the Taliban will save any lives anywhere else in the world? How can anyone argue that? How can anyone not recognize that we will create more martyrs and more people who are absolutely determined to avenge these deaths? That is a threat to all of us.

I say to the Prime Minister, on behalf of the people of Canada, please plead with the president of the United States not to take us down this destructive, disastrous course to war and the death of many innocent civilians. We can only begin to imagine the consequences domestically as well in terms of civil liberties and the most fundamental human rights. It was Benjamin Franklin, a great American, who said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.

The course upon which the president is embarking would not only strip away liberty but would exacerbate the contempt for multilateralism in international law that we have already seen too much of from our neighbour. We cannot allow this to happen. I hope the Prime Minister will be listened to if he takes that message.

The president did not even mention Canada tonight. He mentioned many other countries but he was silent on Canada. It was quite shocking. We were a country that poured out our hearts, opened our homes and provided many rescuers.

I appeal to the Prime Minister to make it clear to the president of the United States that the solution he is now urging on the world is one that is doomed to kill many innocent people and it would take us on a path toward grave destruction and further away from peace. The choice is not the United States or terrorism. The choice is peace and respect for international law.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for what I thought was going to be a non-partisan opportunity to reflect on the very tragic events that occurred in the United States, the act of terrorism that not only affected the citizens of the United States but citizens from Canada and all over the world.

We should remember that the attack on the symbol of the United States, its strength and its free society, could have been an attack on Canada or on any other place in the free world. It could have also been an attack on the United Nations. As has been pointed out time and again, the act of terrorism was not a religious act, it was an act of violence against humanity.

We reflect this evening, in a non-partisan way, on what we can tell the Prime Minister to pass along to President Bush.

I understand concerns have been raised by those who are deeply concerned about terrorism about the position the Canadian government has taken. I am not able to give a chapter and verse defence of what we are or are not doing. The role of the opposition, quite frankly and quite appropriately, has been very well articulated, it is to ask those questions. Over the next number of weeks, if not months and years, those questions will be raised for the benefit of our citizens, and the government should attempt to answer them.

I must say that if the defence system against terrorism were the most up to date, with the most costly intelligence and surveillance equipment available and the most vigilant arms service capable of matching and reacting, the United States would not have been affected by this act of terrorism any more than the British are affected by the violence reaped upon it by the IRA or Israel being attacked in a terrorist fashion. The fact is, from what I understand and from what people in my constituency have been telling me, acts of terrorism are often not related at all to those provisions of capacity and how much we spend. They are related to how vigilant, how resolute and how committed we are to the values that we wish to protect.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that over the next few months, with the kind of vigilant questioning that is being brought to the floor and the follow up that will come from the government, we will be resolute and focused and we will take those actions that will convince our communities that we not only know the mechanisms that will protect us but also the values.

As I said this afternoon in an S. O. 31, Graham Green wrote something about the door of terrorism opening. He said that one of the most profound things that happens when the genie of terrorism opens the door is the terror and fear that we feel, that in the name of civilized society that we are incapable of acting or responding.

That is not the message we should send to the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister should take on behalf of Canadians to the president. We are capable of responding. The United States has been the bastion of freedom and the American way in which we in fact believe. Those values have been the greatest experienced in modern times. We will reaffirm that we are capable of responding. That is the first thing we should tell the president.

The second is how we respond. There are those who believe that the strategic response should be around the perimeter of North America or in fact the perimeter of Canada and the perimeter of the United States.

In this era of globalization, which is the prevailing trend, we are talking about breaking down boundaries. Europe is moving toward a common monetary system. We are attempting to allow capital to flow and to do things in a positive way so that capital and investment can start to eradicate poverty and start not only to export the values we believe in but in a real fashion create multilateral institutions that will not only serve the world well but will serve us well.

The third message we should give the president is that where the United States has been withdrawing from multilateral action the times beg for it because we cannot go backward. We must go forward.

We must reaffirm our faith in each other through multilateral entities. We must firm up the World Bank and the Organization for Economic and Co-operative Development, the OECD. We must work through the IMF, the American banking system and the Latin American banking system. We must develop mechanisms which make people start to understand, not in global terms that the WTO cannot work, is the enemy and we need acts of terrorism, not that dialogue and true grappling with the forces of poverty and extremism cannot be dealt with in the summit of the Americas, that we can work together to make multilateral institutions in keeping with globalization effective for the world. That is the message we have to give to the president.

To do that it seems to me there is some American experience. I refer to Franklin Delano Roosevelt who in his day had to respond to the situation. He described the epidemic of world lawlessness by saying that if it were a physical disease it would have to be quarantined and that those who did not support the quarantine would have to be brought into international accountability. He also said under different circumstances that America should walk softly but carry a big stick, and it was right then.

President John Kennedy said that in a thousand years when the history of civilized society was written we would not and should not be remembered for the political battles we won or lost but for the manner in which we contributed to human dignity and the freeing of the human spirit.

That is the litmus test against which we will be effective in combating terrorism by bringing everyone together and recognizing the total historical context within which we must operate. That historical context demands, indeed it cries out in this global community when so much can be lost so quickly, that we work together.

Those are the messages that my community and I are asking our Prime Minister to carry to President Bush.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks this evening.

I want to start by saying that I hope it is not too late for the Prime Minister to change the message that he has probably already decided that he will take to President Bush because, quite frankly, I feel that we are and have let down our greatest friends.

Somebody mentioned earlier this evening that in the president's address he did not even mention Canada as one of the countries that he considers to be a friend that stands up beside him. He used Great Britain on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean as his example of a great friend standing beside the United States. Quite frankly, I am embarrassed that has come to pass.

The message the Prime Minister must take to President Bush when he visits is that we are as committed to eradicating terrorism as is the United States of America. If people in the House honestly think that terrorism will disappear without a strong commitment, a strong, forceful action and the resolve to follow it through, they are daydreaming.

Terrorism has been with us for many years. It has gotten worse, not better, through negotiations and peaceful dialogue. Unless it is attacked with some force and some commitment it will continue to grow and permeate our society. The Prime Minister has to take to President Bush the strong commitment to go along the road to eradicate terrorism.

We have heard this weak resolve for perimeter security provisions, this weak resolve from the government to make any kind of commitment to work with the United States of America to protect the North American continent. This weak resolve, this lack of commitment will cost Canadians down the road because the Americans will shut us out. They will build a stronger and taller wall on the 49th parallel and Canada will be on the other side. Why? Because we have a government that thinks it can sit on the fence. We have a government that thinks it can play both sides against the middle. It cannot.

Canada has to decide whether to be in the game or to be left out of the game. It will be a decision that will impact upon the generations to come in our country. If the Americans cannot count on their neighbours to the north to be there every step of the way alongside them instead of trailing along behind, then they will move ahead without us.

I want to describe to the House my constituency. It lies on the 49th parallel. There is a big, wide arch that straddles the border. Canadians and Americans meet there several times a year. We meet January 1 to toast the new year. We meet on either July 1 or July 4 to remember the days when our countries came into being and to share the experience of free societies, of democratic countries. We share in that. On one side of the arch it says “Children of a common mother”, and on the other side it says “Brethren dwelling together in unity”. What that symbolizes is that we are more than neighbours and more than friends. We are a family, and it is time we started acting like a member of that family.

Being part of a family is unconditional. It is being there supporting the family when the times are good and when the times are bad. When family runs into trouble, we do not turn and walk in the other direction. We do not say that we are going out to the backyard for a smoke to decide which way we will support our family. That is the feeling I get from our government in the debate that we are having tonight, which is not even a debate.

I am insulted, quite frankly, that the executive branch of our government has not shown enough concern and taken more serious the event that happened in the United States, the effect it has had worldwide and the effect it has had on our country, that parliament would be excluded and we would have a committee of the whole to debate the issue in the wee hours of the night.

I find it insulting that we were not faced with a strong, open debate immediately following the event instead of almost a week later. I am horrified that Canada is showing such weak resolve in supporting our family south of the border.

The message I would like the Prime Minister to take is that Canada is family and that Canada will be there supporting the United States in every move it makes. I even think an apology is in order for the fact that we have allowed our defence and our national security organizations to be in such disorder and disarray that they do not have the ability to help out in any meaningful way.

We should just be grateful that this event did not happen on Canadian soil. Where would we be going for support if it had happened here in Canada? We can only hope that they would have been a little more gracious in coming alongside and supporting us immediately instead of wavering and taking their time in trying to decide in what manner they were going to help and to what degree.

I would like the Prime Minister to go to Washington, to President Bush and give him our wholehearted commitment without any conditions.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that at this late hour members have come together because of the concern over the meeting on Monday between President Bush and the Prime Minister, the importance of the meeting following on the tragedy of September 11 and the importance of it in terms of Canada-U.S. relations. Certainly the stakes are very high in terms of those relations in the future.

When I came into the House a few moments ago I heard the remarks by the member for South Surrey--White Rock--Langley and previous to that the member for Burnaby--Douglas who spoke on behalf of the NDP. They went in two different directions altogether. One said that we were not doing enough to support the United States at this time and the other said that we were going too far down the road leading to war.

The government takes a balanced approach to all this. The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that we stand shoulder to shoulder with our friend and ally, the United States, and in NATO and other parts of the world that join with us in the campaign against terrorism.

We will be a part of that campaign and we will play a meaningful and significant role in it. We do it for a number of reasons. We do it first and foremost because it relates directly to the safety and security of Canadians, and really there is nothing more important than the safety and security of Canadians in all this.

Terrorism has taken on the ugliest form than we have ever seen. It exists in many different parts of the world. There are thousands of adherents of bin Laden and other terrorist organizations that are prepared to do the kinds of things that we saw in New York and Washington on September 11. We cannot allow that to continue. That becomes a threat not only to people in the United States but people in Canada and in other countries of the world. We cannot allow ourselves to be held hostage by people who would carry on these evil acts. We must take action and we must take action together to protect our own interests, safety and security.

There is no imminent threat to Canadians. We do have a counterterrorism plan but we do need to look at it again and look at various aspects of security in light of what happened on September 11 to ensure that we continue to protect the safety and security of all Canadians. We need to work with the United States and with our allies because this is an international problem. We need to be in concert together, standing shoulder to shoulder as the Prime Minister has said on more than one occasion.

I have said on numerous occasions that this will not be a conventional war. I think the president of the United States said words to that effect this evening. It will not be like World War II or Kosovo or the gulf war. This will be dealing with an enemy who is illusive, who operates in the shadows and who operates in many different countries of the world.

We need to build a coalition of countries that recognize the need to suppress terrorism. We need to convince those countries that harbour terrorists that they need to stop that kind of support, even if it is passive support. In a number of countries, even countries that we would not have expected to indicate their concern about this, have indicated a concern because they understand the threats to them. They understand just how hideous and evil the dimension of these operations have become.

This kind of conflict will not be a traditional war. Hopefully it will minimize the kind of military action that will be required. We need to look at all the different tools that we have at our disposal, everything from diplomatic to economic, to try to bring an end to this kind of terrorism.

Yes, there will be some military action. Some of it may even be of a conventional war nature. I hope not but it is possible that it may be. However it will take a long period of time and a concerted action by many countries in many different ways.

The United States has already pre-positioned some of its military forces into the Middle East area where many of the terrorist organizations exist, near Afghanistan, near the operation that is the headquarters of bin Laden. It is normal in times of crisis for military forces to move in such a fashion and pre-position. No decision has been made by the United States as to how this campaign will be carried out and whether these forces will be used in the numbers that it is massing. This is a pre-positioning. It is also quite obviously a tool to put pressure on the Taliban, to put pressure on Afghanistan to give up bin Laden. These methods and many other methods will be used in future.

The United States, as the leader of this endeavour, is still in a planning stage. The Americans have not asked anything specific of us with respect to this campaign on terrorism. They have asked some things of us in the stage between September 11 and now which we have delivered on. They asked us to put more of our jet fighter aircraft at the disposal of the NORAD system. That has been done. They have asked us to assist them in intelligence analysis and that has been done. They were grateful that when those incidents occurred on September 11 we were able to take a number of aircraft into our airspace and airports; over 200 aircraft and some 33,000 people. I must commend Canadians who showed great hospitality and understanding of the situation and reached out to the people who were part of those special landings that occurred in our country, particularly in the eastern part of Canada.

The things the United States has asked us to do we have delivered on. We have been there with the Americans and they have thanked us for what we have done. We have indicated to them, as the Prime Minister said, that we will be there, shoulder to shoulder. We will be there. They are our friends, our allies. They are family and we will be with them.

We do have a number of capabilities. We have capabilities in the Canadian forces that can be made available. They know what we have. They know what our assets are. They know what our personnel is. They know, in spite of the Alliance members who run down the Canadian forces, that we have people who are dedicated and professional and have served well in Kosovo. They were a major part of the operations in Kosovo. Two weeks ago we took our high tech, state of the art Coyote reconnaissance vehicles and their crews into Macedonia. We have a number of niche areas of capability.

As the United States comes through the planning stage it will then consult with Canada and our other allies to determine how we can work together, how we can provide our capabilities in a complementary way which can then be brought together in this campaign against terrorism.

However it should not be just a military campaign. In fact I hope that the military aspect of it, if it exists at all, will be a minor part of it. I hope that will be the case. We have to be prepared. We have to make our assets available. We are making our assets available. We are not saying they cannot have this or they cannot have that. They know what we are capable of doing. We certainly want to be with them and play a role, a front rank role in terms of assisting in this regard because it is in our own interests.

It is in our interests to ensure the safety and security of Canadians as well as freedom loving people in all parts of the world.

We will be there. We are fully committed. We have to be fully committed. This is an important campaign against terrorism. Canada will stand with the United States and its allies. Most important, we will do it for our own people to ensure their safety and security for now and in future.

[Art Hanger, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, God help us if such a terrorist act befalls Canada's civilian population. I know who would be there to help. The United States would be the first, and there would be no questions asked.

I would like to address one thing since this is the first opportunity that I have actually had to speak on this subject. I, along with my family and so many others in the community and across the country, have looked at that horrible event time and time again on television. I was not there to witness it firsthand but it has left an impact and impression on the lives of so many people. It has even changed the whole makeup of this parliament. Just seeing the events unfold on the soil of our American neighbours has driven issues we thought were important literally into insignificant bickering.

My thoughts have been with them and their families and so have my prayers. In our church we prayed for the families and the grief and the agony those people are suffering. We watched America pull together too. Their Congress came together in a unified fashion knowing that the battle was not just theirs. How many times have they admitted it was not just their battle but that they would fight this battle for everyone else?

I pay tribute to them, their Congress, their firefighters and their police officers and all of the emergency response teams they sent from all over the country to help, and their population for responding with such compassion. That is what I see in America. That is what I see this event doing down there.

It has also affected the lives of Canadians no differently than it has affected them. We have a shared community with the Americans, not just giving them lip service but a lot more than just being a neighbour to them over the border. We share a lot more than that.

I would not want to be in the Prime Minister's shoes on Monday. They are not going to play around with words, but what words could the Prime Minister actually bring? He is looking for advice. That meeting is going to define Canada's role in the war against terrorism. I pray that the Prime Minister will come to realize this country's need too, not just our neighbour's but this country's need, because if we cannot look after our own needs, we cannot look after the needs of our neighbour. He should address the issues of national security not only with words but place national security as this country's single highest priority and then go and take some action. He can still do it before he goes down there. Our allies expect it. So do the citizens of this country. They demand it.

I, along with most members in the House, seek a commitment from the Prime Minister today to advise our friends and allies that we will not just stand by waving the flag. How many times have we gone into situations where all we did was just wave the flag? This time more is being asked than to just wave the flag: to commit to sending our troops, to commit in bringing our intelligence community together in full force and our enforcement capabilities as well. That is short term and it would only be the beginning.

Our Prime Minister has a moral obligation to bring something else to the American table, to lead, to pre-empt any demand made of Canada by the president of the United States. In other words we would be there ready to help without even waiting to hear what the President had to say. This is what we have to offer and we will do everything in our power to do it.

Before leaving this country the Prime Minister of Canada should announce to the public, parliament and to our American friends that we will finance, equip, and recruit personnel to build up our armed forces, the RCMP, CSIS and enforcement agencies such as immigration and customs. We will do that. We will commit it.

I have to say I am ashamed when I think of the neglect every enforcement agency and our military have suffered over the past 10 years. It has been due to a lack of commitment, of underfunding, of politically correct policies. We can go down the list all the way to eliminating our spy agencies that existed after the second world war with no thought of ever reinvigorating or re-establishing such agencies.

Let us look at the more recent disbandment of immigration tracker units that used to hunt down fugitives like this. That was in 1994. In 1995 there was the disbandment of the Airborne, a specialized unit known throughout the world that would take care of this kind of event. They would track down behind enemy lines culprits who would pull these kinds of stunts. The Airborne were well known throughout the world for their efficiency and their ability. That is Canada and it is gone just like that, in a breath. There was elimination of the ports police, a dedicated police force looking after our shores and ports, ferreting out contraband.

The most recent was the neglect to arm our military. We have no specialized ordnance attached to our planes. We shot it all off in Kosovo and we dropped all the iron bombs that we had, so we have nothing. It has never been replenished. Can we call that preparation?

It is shameful. The Prime Minister can take something of substance to the president of the U.S.A., but will he? He can offer certain assurances now that we are committed to beefing up our forces, but will he? The Prime Minister could advise President Bush and our allies that yes, we are serious about police and border security and while we are strengthening our enforcement levels, we invite the U.S. special agents to liaise directly with our intelligence community and our police, but will he?

That is the message the Prime Minister has to deliver for the short term, but will he? Now the Prime Minister must acknowledge a serious shortfall in our legislation and our policies, shortcomings which leave our country vulnerable and also compromise the security of our neighbours. This is what we need in our country: anti-terrorism legislation; immigration screening; effective extradition laws; refugee determination and deportation; and a unified security policy with the United States.

There is much the Prime Minister can do. If he takes any advice from this side of the House, he will be able to offer something more. A colleague earlier tonight stated, God bless America and God bless Canada. My prayer in addition to that of my colleague is yes, God bless America and yes, God bless Canada, but God forgive us as Canadians for not living up to our part of the bargain.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it is with a profound sense of sadness and pain that I rise to express my condolences to the American government and the American people, particularly to the families of the victims and their loved ones.

Words may ease the pain but they also dwarf the tragedy. As one who is a graduate of an American law school, who has taught and lived in the United States, who has family in the United States, and for whom many of my closest friends are Americans, this unspeakable tragedy was and is profoundly personal and familial, as it was profoundly human and neighbourly in a North American continental sense. In a word, we are all reminded that we are one human family and that this was an attack on that human family.

On the eve of the new millennium, various pundits and policy wonks at the time warned against millenarian cults that might use the fin de siècle for the commission of what they called apocalyptic acts of terrorism, but it took the transformative terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, not those of the millenarian cults but of the transnational super-terrorists to bring us Apocalypse Now , and to bring us Apocalypse Now not as film but as unprecedented horror in prime time, and with the tragic loss of life and innocence not so much a case of life, or more specifically mass murder, imitating art but in fact mocking it.

Any counterterrorism law and policy, therefore, be it that of any prospective anti-terrorist coalition or that of member states of the international community like Canada and the United States, will have to factor into their response the following constituent features or faces of this transnational apocalyptic terrorism, most of which found expression in this macabre terrorist assault, including the increasing lethal face of terrorism.

In the last few years we have seen a lessening incidence of acts of terrorism but we have seen: an increasing lethality in the nature of terrorism, most dramatically expressed in this macabre act of September 11; the increasing targeting of civilians in public places; and the increasing incidence of suicide bomber terrorism, associated with or underpinned by religious fanaticism.

This was not the terrorist hijacking of planes for political ends, as bad as that would be. It was a terrorist hijacking of planes for the sheer purpose of mass murder, driven by a mass hatred.

There is more: the sophistication of transnational communication, transportation and financial networks; the potential use of weapons of mass destruction; the teaching of contempt and demonizing of the other as a kind of standing incitement to terrorism against the demonized target; the vulnerability of open and technologically sophisticated societies like the United States and Canada; the explosion of internal ethnic and religious wars abroad and their attending acts of terrorism which may implode elsewhere and at home; and the continuing presence of state sponsored terrorism. In a word, the profile of this new existential threat may be, as the U.S. state department report on global patterns of terrorism put it:

--the transnational super-terrorist who benefits from modern communication and transportation, has global sources of funding, is trained and anchored in transnational networks, enjoys base and sanctuary in rogue or pariah states, is knowledgeable about modern explosives and is more difficult to track down and apprehend than members of old established groups or those sponsored by state terrorism.

As Ward Elcock, the director of CSIS, put it in his submission to the special committee of the Senate on security and intelligence on June 24, 1998, “The global terrorist threat today compared to 10 years ago is more complex, more extreme, more sophisticated, more diffuse, and more transnational. If the world is now a global village, the threat exists in every neighborhood”.

What is perhaps the most important and oft ignored dynamic in the development of a counterterrorism law and policy such as that we would recommend is combating the increasing blurring of the moral and juridical divides that have often blunted or blurred any effective anti-terrorism law and policy in these past years. I am referring to the repetition of the moral and legal shibboleth that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter, a moral relativism or false moral equivalence that effectively blurred the distinctions between legitimacy and illegitimacy or, more profoundly, the distinctions between good and evil.

Accordingly, the underlying basis for any counterterrorism law and policy is that this apocalyptic terrorism must be seen for what it is: not only the ultimate existential assault on human rights and human dignity in its slaughter of the innocents, but as an assault on democracies themselves and on the peace and security of humankind. The struggle against terrorism, therefore, must be seen as part of the larger struggle for the protection of democracy, for the protection of human rights and human dignity, for the protection of the human family.

The principles, then, that must guide us are: that one democracy's terrorist is another democracy's terrorist; that if terrorism is a global phenomenon, it requires a global response, as no country can fight terrorism alone nor should it be required to do so; and that if terrorism is indeed a war on democracies, then democracies must use all the democratic, diplomatic, juridical, financial and institutional means at their disposal in taking the war to the terrorists themselves, organized around a series of specific global and domestic initiatives as follows and which I would modestly recommend for consideration by the Prime Minister, if not that of the anti-terrorist coalition.

The initiatives are as follows. The first initiative, one that arises from the blurring of the moral and legal divides, as I indicated, is the need to build an international understanding of and support for a counterterrorism law and policy that is a priority on the larger human rights and democratic agenda, not just on the national security agenda. That must include not only the mobilizing of governments but the mobilizing also of parliaments as representatives of the public will. It would also include the mobilizing of civil society, which can give expression and advocacy to that public will.

Second, the legal arsenal to fight terrorism must be internationalized and institutionalized. For example, many countries have still not ratified the 13 issue specific international conventions to combat terrorism. Ratification has not only juridical importance in terms of countries implementing these international treaties as part of their domestic counterterrorism law and policy, but ratification sends an important psychological as well as juridical message that these countries have put themselves on the side of the democratic war against terrorism.

We can identify those that put themselves on the side of that war by whether they are in fact ratifying these international conventions against terrorism and implementing domestic legislation alongside them. That is a verifiable test of a counterterrorism law and policy that is juridical and prospectively effective.

Third, the international juridical initiatives for implementing and enforcing a counterterrorism law and policy need to be expanded and refined, particularly as acts of terrorism tend to involve more than one state. This includes not only the principle of extradite or prosecute as a corollary to the national and international commitment to deny base and sanctuary to terrorism and terrorists anywhere, but it also includes, for example, arrangements for mutual legal assistance treaties, MLATs as they are called, or the use of encryption, a process that allows where necessary lawful government access to data and communications in order to prevent or investigate acts of terrorism while at the same time protecting the privacy of legitimate communications.

Fourth, it is crucial that intelligence gathering be refined and that information on terrorism and terrorists be shared so that one may not only build the evidentiary links which both law enforcement and courts require, which information, I regret to say, is still not even shared among allies and fellow democracies themselves, but which shared information is not only important in an evidentiary sense, it can pre-empt and prevent the terrorist acts to begin with.

Fifth, states must take seriously the characterization of terrorist fundraising, as the 1996 Paris ministerial conference on anti-terrorist fundraising put it, as “the soft neuralgic point of democracies”, and therefore states must take the necessary steps to counteract through appropriate domestic and international means the financing of terrorists and terrorist organizations, the whole in implementation of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

Sixth, there is a need for democracies to adhere to, invoke and apply those foundational principles of international law as basis and justification for any counterterrorism law and policy. This includes, for example, the characterization of terrorism as a Nuremberg crime, not only as a violent act but as an international atrocity of the first order, akin to a crime against humanity.

It includes the characterization of terrorists as hostis humanis generis , the enemies of humankind, thereby underpinning what should be for all of us a zero tolerance policy respecting the combating of terrorism from whatever quarter and for whatever purpose.

Any military action must equally be anchored in foundational international humanitarian law principles respecting the use of force in armed conflict, the protection of civilians and the doctrines of necessity and proportionality in any responsive military action. Any domestic law and policy must ensure that the rule of law is not in the interests of a counterterrorism law and policy just as an effective counterterrorism law and policy is not blunted by its over-attention to technical detail.

Finally, every state must review its domestic legal regime with a view to filling in the domestic gaps in law and policy. For example, does the domestic legal regime here in Canada properly address the evolving and dynamic nature of this terrorist existential threat as I described above? Do we need special domestic laws or perhaps a countrywide counterterrorism law such as exists in the U.S. and U.K. but improved upon? Would such special laws possibly--

[The Chairman]

I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but I have tried to exercise some generosity and I also know that a number of members are waiting and 12 o'clock is fast approaching. The Chair will not be able to entertain any motions to extend the sitting. I must ask for the speaker's co-operation.

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

Mr. Chairman, we all agree that the horrendous events of September 11 represent a sad and shocking wake up call to a reality we should have been better prepared for. It was a reality and a threat that has been there for many years in warnings we received and events that we have seen in other parts of the world, events that we have now seen within our own borders.

The first message that our Prime Minister should deliver is our shared grief and condolences to the people who have lost a loved one: a sister, a brother, a mother, a father, a son, a daughter, a neighbour or a colleague. Indeed I spoke to someone tonight who knows of at least seven co-workers who died and five more who are unaccounted for at the World Trade Center.

President Bush's remarks have been referred to tonight. I will make reference to something that the president said in his remarks about the response of the American people to the tragedy. He said that they have seen the state of the union and the endurance of rescuers working past exhaustion. They have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, and the saying of prayers in English, Hebrew and Arabic. They have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own, and perhaps that refers to us. As we know, many Canadians have grieved.

We have seen the demonstrations where thousands of Canadians have gathered. Over one hundred thousand gathered on the lawns of our parliament. We even had a service today, as members of parliament gathered to mourn the loss of our close neighbours in the United States.

As we discuss how the Prime Minister should respond, I must reiterate that the Canadian Alliance has been calling upon the government to address issues of border security, the integrity of our immigration and refugee systems and the need for more resources for our military. We have been calling on the government to bring in a strong and stringent response: terrorism legislation modelled after the British terrorism act.

For example, if Canada needs an order to deal with this event, we need to take it seriously. We must adopt similar legislation, legislation that will name and ban terrorist organizations, that will prohibit fundraising for these groups wherever they are, on Canadian soil or overseas. We need legislation similar to the U.S. anti-terrorism legislation, an effective death penalty act, of 1996. We need legislation that will identify and ban terrorist organizations and all of their fundraising and support activities on Canadian soil, not a mere taking away of their tax exempt status. Heaven help us if this is considered a significant response to the threat.

Legislation is needed to change our laws regarding the detention and deportation of suspected terrorists. Terrorism knows no borders. We cannot allow Canada to become a safe haven for those who would rely on the humanitarian compassion of Canadian laws to avoid justice in their own countries or in countries where they commit their crimes.

This week NATO invoked article 5 of the charter and Canada joined with our allies in declaring that this attack on the United States was also an attack on us, the first such declaration in the 50 year history of NATO. It is not just an American struggle; it is a struggle of all free nations of the world. It means that Canada must mobilize with reasonable and augmented resources.

The Prime Minister's message should be that Canada will commit to: toughening up our borders; scrutinizing our immigration policies and procedures; weeding out bogus refugee claims; prosecuting persons who commit crimes while their refugee or immigration status is pending; and extraditing those with proven terrorist links and those who commit crimes in other jurisdictions and then seek refuge within our borders.

We need to commit to tightening up the North American perimeter by improving our entry and exit security. Our walls must be reinforced.

If we do not take measures to increase our security, I fear what will happen to our borders. The U.S. is certainly going to be scrutinizing it closer. I fear for what will happen to our own citizens trying to cross the border and for international trade that we depend on so much.

Canada achieved a level and a standard of living that until recently has been second to none. Our reputation as the most fortunate people on earth has been an attraction for terrorists and others who want to take advantage of our liberty. However, our standard of living, our economy and the secure and peaceful society that we have become accustomed to has sadly been eroded.

We have an obligation to protect our heritage. We sing “O Canada, we stand on guard for thee” as we did today at the memorial service. It is time that the government and members of parliament on all sides take this responsibility more seriously.

The Prime Minister needs to demonstrate, and we as parties need to unite and agree, that we will do what it takes to secure our borders and protect our citizens. The Prime Minister's message to the president should say that he has a mandate from all members to increase defence spending, as well as RCMP and CSIS funding, so that these organizations can fulfill the role that they are required to do on our behalf.

We need to acknowledge that we have taken our security for granted and have relied too much on the vigilance of our neighbour to protect our interests. Our failure to do due vigilance has also exposed our neighbour to hostile forces that have abused our generosity. Our message needs to be that we will commit to renewed vigour and vigilance.

Canada has played a role both in the development of the convention on safety of the United Nations and associated personnel and the international convention for the suppression of terrorist bombings. We need to follow through on our commitments.

Canada needs to say that we will take our international obligations seriously as well as our obligation to protect the security of our citizens, to our neighbours and to our role of standing with our allies against international terrorism wherever it is found.

Finally, I believe it is unfortunate that the hour is late and some of our colleagues may not get a chance to speak tonight. It is unfortunate that colleagues who have waited a long time to speak will unfortunately be denied that because there is no opportunity to extend the debate tonight.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Toronto Centre—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak tonight as I spoke on Monday night. However, after sitting in and listening to the debate, this is an opportunity for us to gather as a family in the House to hear one another's reflections on this very important matter. However, I thought this debate was to be about what message we would like the Prime Minister to carry on behalf of the people of Canada to the president of the United States.

I had the opportunity of hearing the president speak this evening, like many members of the House. I was impressed by his words and by the extraordinary enthusiasm expressed by our colleagues, the members of congress, senators and congressmen. Many are personally known by the members of this House. We have worked with them, and respect them. We have looked to them for their wisdom to help resolve what is an extraordinary, complicated and difficult issue for us all to deal with.

I did not think that the debate tonight would be as partisan as it has been. I am disappointed by some of the remarks from my colleagues across the floor who have chosen to speak about the inadequacies of the policies of the government rather than what message the Prime Minister should be taking to the president of the United States.

I agree with my colleagues across the floor, particularly my colleague who spoke so eloquently about her riding, which is linked to that of the United States. This may be of some amusement to members of the House, but in some respects my riding of Toronto Centre--Rosedale is also a border riding. It is on Lake Ontario and across the lake is Rochester. I have as much a border riding as many others.

I agree with all members of the House that the first message that we want the Prime Minister to take to the president of the United States is that we are a North American family. First and foremost that is what we are.

My mother was American and my father Canadian. If things had been different, I would have been on the other side of the border. I might have been in that other house, if I had been lucky enough to be elected by my citizens to represent them, as I consider it the greatest privilege of my life to represent the citizens of my riding in this House.

We are a family. As members of a family, we have a right to speak frankly to the other members of the family and tell them what we believe and how we want them to behave.

I listened to the president of the United States tonight and I was impressed by his sincerity and determination to deal with the immediate causes of terrorism. I am impressed by the statements of determination expressed by my colleagues from the other side to ensure that our society will be protected by strengthening our systems of defence, our police forces and our immigration policies.

I call upon all members to be loyal and to stand shoulder to shoulder and support the United States at this time. If we do not support the United States, we are not supporting ourselves because we are all under attack. As the president stated tonight in his speech before congress, some 60 nations of peoples were represented in that building that was attacked. As stated by my colleague from Mount Royal, all humanity was attacked in those buildings.

What are we as members of the House trying to come to grips with? How do we extend beyond the immediacy of the message that we must deal with this and talk to what is the only superpower in the world, the greatest power on the face of the planet? The United States clearly has the military power to annihilate any enemy of any kind. There is no question about that.

I listened to an American admiral on television this morning. He was a very wise man who said there was no military response to the issue. He said there is only a limited military capability to deal with terrorism because terrorists disappear into the night.

This is a personal reflection, but I read with interest an article my son wrote on the front page of this morning's National Post about consultations he had with Mr. bin Laden's people in Pakistan.

My son happens to be in Pakistan. I am concerned about him. Anybody would be whose own flesh and blood was on the frontline in these circumstances. He is there because he believes that in a free and democratic society he has a duty to write about the complexities of the issues and allow our citizens to understand what they are about.

They are not just about immediate strikes because, as we read in his article, Mr. bin Laden, the rebels, the terrorists and the people of Afghanistan have many caves they can go into.

As the admiral said on television this morning, we do not have the immediate technical information or intelligence to know exactly where to strike. My colleague the defence critic, whom I respect a great deal, knows that as well as I do.

It is not an immediate strike that we need to tell our American colleagues about. They know how to do that. They have a greater intelligence and military capacity than we do. They are the greatest power in the world.

The message our Prime Minister needs to convey to the U.S. president is the one he gave to the House when we had this debate on Monday. He said we must have a commitment to do in the long run that which will be effective, not to do in the short run that which will give us a sense we have accomplished something but which would in reality be counterproductive.

That is what we are here tonight to debate. That is why I was so pleased to sit and listen to the debate by my colleague from Mount Royal, a gentleman who has spent his life in academics as well as practical law. He is a learned person known for his interest in human rights throughout the world. As many in the House may know, he has argued in favour of the Palestinians in the Israeli supreme court. He set out for us tonight a vision of a world governed by laws and not by violence, a world in which we could maintain the rule of law together.

Our Prime Minister owes it to the Canadian people not only to go to the president of the United States and say “yes, we are with you”, as is suggested by our colleagues in the Alliance. I would ask our colleagues in the Alliance not to tell the Prime Minister to go to the president of the United States and say that we are inadequate and have not done enough. That is untrue and unfair, and it is partisanship at a time when it is inappropriate to be partisan.

We owe it to our colleagues and fellow citizens to urge the Prime Minister to take to the president of the United States a vision of a world which is multilateral, a world in which the United States could be not only the strongest power in the world but a true beacon of liberty.

In this vision the U.S. could share its advantages with the world and help enrich it. It would not just destroy the civilizations of its enemies but share with them the wealth it has been able to create. It could help make a better world in which all could participate.

Surely that is what Canada is all about. The other day I went to the local mosque in my riding. Somali people and Muslims from all over were there. Many came to up me and said their identity was Canadian. Many such young people have come to me and said they believed they were Canadians and that we were creating, at least in Toronto which is the area I know, a tolerant society that was multicultural, multifaceted and multidimensional.

Surely at this time of crisis we need to listen to the voices of people who tell us that the world and its problems are multifaceted and multidimensional and require a multilateral and sophisticated approach.

My colleagues in the Alliance and I need to strengthen our defences. Yes, we must stand clearly against terrorism. However, we must surely go beyond that. We must reach out to others. We must create conditions in the world where terrorism will be defeated not because people have been killed but because people realized a better life was available to them. That is what I want our Prime Minister to say when he talks to the president of the United States.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the purpose of tonight's debate is to advise the Prime Minister of Canada in view of his upcoming meeting with President Bush on Monday.

I prepared these notes before hearing the speech made by the president of the United States to both the congress and the senate. I listened to it with great interest. I will listene to it again and read it, but tonight, it is with a heightened sense of urgency that I call on the Prime Minister of Canada to raise on Monday many of the issues that were discussed in the House and many of the conclusions that were formulated.

First, we cannot speak to this issue without saying how shocked we all were by this unspeakable tragedy that we all witnessed, through television, on September 11.

It is a new form of attack against any country. It is a form of crime in which individuals agree to have their own death detonate the death of others.

This is not new in history, but this time they are using technology against their human targets. They used commercial airliners to hit specific targets in a way that would make them collapse. They hit both the economic and financial heart of the United States, as well as its military power, when the Pentagon went up in flames.

No country is protected from this new tool of war. I think that, aside from the deep sympathy generated by such tragedy, this explains why the United States are extended so much sympathy and can be at the forefront of a great coalition that will hopefully rally the whole world against this new kind of terrorism which, we are told, is based on a religious ideal that is shared only by a small minority and is not embraced by all Islamists, far from it.

Yet, despite what I have just said and despite the coalition that is emerging, I think that, with all the diplomacy he can muster and with all his experience, the Prime Minister of Canada will have to make clear on Monday that a coalition implies that allies will be listened to.

We need close co-ordination between all countries, and not only is proof required that the operations were masterminded from outside the United States, but NATO countries will have to go and get mandates from their own people, as they all want to do.

France, for example, said that it would go through it's parliament. There would have to be a vote in parliament before French troops are sent in a military action. Other countries could do the same.

We have to go even further than that and Prime Minister Chrétien recognized it in this House. We have to go through the United Nations, because we need to go beyond NATO. We are far from what we have seen in Kosovo or Iraq. The “enemy” that we have been presented with, and is still not clearly defined, is vague and multi-headed. He has many supporters and to be able to attack him with any efficiency, we need the co-operation not only of the usual NATO countries but preferably of all countries around the world.

Once again, for that reason, the United States have to be able to count on full allies. From a good number of them, they cannot expect a blank cheque. That does not mean that all those countries do not strongly support the war against terrorism, against this new form of terrorism, but they will do it in a democratic way. We cannot trample on democracy to save democracy.

The United States were attacked in an exceptionally underhanded and barbaric manner. We must admit that, in Canada and the United States and other countries, internal security measures were not as good as we thought they were. I think this is the case in this instance; we have seen it in different ways and we have to admit that it is the same in the United States.

We will then have to, first of all—it has started here and in the United States—implement security measures, pass anti-terrorism legislation and ratify anti-terrorism conventions. There are two that Canada has not ratified, but it has said it intends to do so. Why? For example, to cut off the funding of these organizations.

However, we know this is not so simple, because as soon as they can benefit from the non-transparency of financial transactions, we can expect that they will be able to get funding from various sources.

So I get back to my argument. There must be close co-ordination in security measures, in legislation and also in a strike, in a response—I think there must be a response, a targeted and specific one. The Prime Minister said we should move forward prudently. I think this word is necessary.

I can only add that whatever action we take will be taken with the steely resolve to win. Otherwise the very foundations of democracy are threatened. All these measures will not succeed; even this whole war which is being declared will not reach its goals.

My party has said so, but it is not alone; today in a survey, 68% of Quebecers said that instead of military action they wanted to understand the root causes and find a peaceful way to deal with what is more than a conflict, to find how to resolve the situation.

It is easy to overlook as being a root cause the fact that these fanatics can easily recruit allies among the millions of people, especially young men, who live in poverty, have no education and no hope.

No security measure, no defence measure, no war measure will ever replace the true hope we must give them. In a way, this event must make us think. It might be too early to ask the Americans to do that, because they are still in shock, but it is something they will have to come to and I am quite sure that in certain spheres they are very close to doing it.

If we are serious about preserving freedom and democracy, we will not be able to do it on the cheap.

[The Chairman]

The last time slot comprising of 10 minutes, due largely because of the co-operation among members who have been here for quite a while, will be split as follows: the member for Edmonton Southwest will begin with a three minute slot; the member for Renfrew--Nipissing--Pembroke will follow with the same; and the member for Yukon will have an equal amount of time. The debate will be closed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Chairman, my thanks for allowing me this opportunity to make a few remarks tonight.

This is a very personal issue for me because many of my friends and relatives are American, and to see those attacks on that day was especially horrific for me. I remember my grandmother, who was in California, often talking about the impact of Pearl Harbor on her generation. In my view, this is something that goes beyond that.

On behalf of the people in Edmonton Southwest, I offer my deepest sympathies and prayers for all those who were touched by the attacks. In fact, we were all touched by them.

To get to the specifics of this debate about what advice our Prime Minister should offer, it has been said that we should stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends and allies, and we have to do this. However, we have to do this with more than just words. We have to do it through our deeds. My worry is that, in this whole situation, relations between our two countries may have been harmed by the debate that has taken place here.

Comments made by some parliamentarians as to the lack of support that we seem to be giving to our American friends have shocked me. I would except the Minister of Foreign Affairs when I say that. There were also some comments about our need to address the root causes or that we had to think rationally.

Consider what the president has done. He has thought rationally. He has been deliberate. He has not reacted in a knee-jerk way. He has been deliberately collecting intelligence on the groups that have perpetrated these deeds.

There was talk about addressing the root causes and somehow if we were pacifists in the face of this type of aggression and if we redistributed the wealth, this would solve matters. That is an issue that we all want to see happen, but will this multi-millionaire terrorist who is supposedly behind these acts be pacified by redistribution of wealth? Pacifism in the face of this type of terror will only further matters.

There was talk about scapegoating. The president and the Prime Minister both talked about this. The president stood in a mosque in the United States and talked about American values and about upholding them. I applaud him for that.

I could go on about the specifics of introducing anti-terrorist legislation, about protecting our frontiers and borders and about giving our army police and security forces the resources that they need so that they can both protect Canada and help our allies in their time of need.

Beyond anything, we have to recognize that this struggle is a moral struggle. It is a battle of good and evil. There is a path of terror and a path of hope. There is a path of cowardice and a path of courage. There is a path that leads toward enslavement and a path that leads toward freedom.

In my view, if we do not recognize this struggle as a moral struggle, those people will have died in vain. This struggle will not simply be one with international agreements or with ratifying this treaty or that treaty by words. It requires a determined and a thoughtful world to truly win this struggle.

[Cheryl Gallant, Canadian Alliance, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the message the Prime Minister must take to Washington is that whatever happens the U.S. and its allies must maintain the moral high ground. Our Prime Minister should commit to assisting in helping to build the global coalition to fight terrorism.

The Minister of National Defence mentioned that there may be military involvement. Canada must ensure that there is unequivocal evidence on who exactly the perpetrators are of the attack on America to maintain the moral high ground necessary to prosecute the terrorists and to continue to root them out.

Canadians need to know that in going into the meeting the Prime Minister will clearly state what Canada's objectives are, both from a military and from a political standpoint. Yes, it will be a broad mission but it will have specific objectives. While the pressure from the U.S. must be assessed very carefully we must uphold our NATO commitments.

We must know who is responsible for the attack if measures are going to be taken in retaliation. What are their strengths? What are their weaknesses? Where are they for sure? What is their infrastructure? What is the likely response from the countries who are harbouring the terrorists and from the terrorists themselves?

We must know the answers to these questions so that we can have a mechanism in place to respond accordingly. The response to the terrorists must be a blended response, one from our national, provincial and municipal police forces. The terrorist activities must be identified before they begin to unfold.

Even before Canada becomes militarily involved, we must take steps to mitigate against any recurrence immediately. Intelligence agencies must determine the extent of the terrorist network in Canada and translate that information into an implementable campaign.

Conjuring up support during this emotional timeframe is easy but maintaining it will become controversial. In the long term, a much broader look at security at our borders and at our refugee laws must be taken because they not only allow terrorists through but they tend to attract them.

Over the last 10 years, the government has permitted the safety of Canadians to go adrift. The misplaced priorities of the government have left our professional, committed, very well trained armed forces shorthanded and ill equipped. It is time for the government to put Canadians first and until then Her Majesty's loyal opposition will fight for Canadians.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chairman, I will make two quick points with the first being some feedback from a couple of my constituents who have a fear of the ramifications of war, a fear of the creation of more terrorists by harming innocent citizens and the great advantages of peace in solving the problems of the world.

On Tuesday, September 11, the world was unveiled to a great new dark beast, a complex beast that requires complex solutions and a beast that lives in cells in many countries of the world and stealthily moves between them undetected. I hope the Prime Minister can sift out of these three days of debate the wisdom required to come up with the complex and correct solution to deal with that beast.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Chairman, I want to close by saying that we have had three debates already this week on this topic and we will and certainly should have more. We will be engaging parliament as committees will be engaging Canadians.

In terms of what form our response takes, we have heard discussions on that tonight. We have heard discussions on the where, the when and the how of our response. However the message the Prime Minister can take to the president of the United States is that we need no debate on the why of our response. We are responding and we will respond with resolve because justice and liberty were attacked and those fundamental values for all democracies, including Canada, need and will be defended.

I thank my colleagues and I thank the opposition for suggesting the debate this evening. I assure the House that as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister I have taken note of the themes and messages in tonight's debate and I will be reporting those directly to the Prime Minister prior to his meeting with the president of the United States.

[The Chairman]

It being midnight, pursuant to a standing order made earlier today the committee will rise and I will leave the chair.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)