Debates of Sept. 25th, 2001

Supply

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the entire world is gripped by the events of the last couple of weeks and how we were all horrified. Every one of us will remember for the rest of our lives where we were, who we spoke with first and these kinds of things. This was a world changing event.

Although you and I, Mr. Speaker, were here in 1991 when the gulf war occurred, and it certainly was a frightening time as well, it seems to me that this is perhaps the culmination of many of those events. We are able to have the privilege to be here in this country as well as the responsibility, and not just to participate in take note debates. This is a whole lot bigger than just that. The world has changed permanently because of what happened and because of the events in New York a couple of weeks ago. I do believe that take note debates just will not be good enough.

If we look at what is going on in the United States, George W. Bush is not just saying “let us take note” of something. This parliament should be seized with what we can actually do rather than just taking note, and what we do here is vote. That is part of our job and our responsibility.

My colleague just said how important it is. If we are calling on the military to do its job, then so should we be doing our job, and our job is to vote on and participate in this. Whether the government thinks it has all the answers or does not need a whole lot of input is immaterial right now. It is absolutely immaterial.

If I were on the government side, I would want to know that I had the safety, the security and the blessing of all hon. members of the House because in numbers is that strength with which we are all able to go forward.

If we just look at the idea that we do not really need to vote on it, and the minister this morning said we do not really know if the House of Commons will be sitting at such a time, that is just inane. Surely we could think ahead on something. So much of what has happened over the last couple of weeks is due to us thinking ahead a little bit, but not a whole lot. We have had clues. We had ideas as to what could happen in some of these attacks. No one could have guessed it would happen on that day or in that way, but we should all sharpen up and be ready “in the event of”, because there are enough clues coming forward. It is no surprise now that something will happen.

My colleague talked about this amazing initiative that he has undertaken and will continue to participate in, the peace forum. What a great idea that is: to look at diplomatic ways to ensure that military force will be used only as a last resort.

The government, especially in the United States yesterday, talked about the wisdom of economic sanctions or cutting off the taps of amazing amounts of profit flowing to these groups. That is a good thing, to look at economic freeze out and the diplomatic moves we can make, but it seems to me that it is evident and inevitable that sooner or later there will have to be some use of military force. Why is the government not thinking ahead on this thing, saying that if such and such happens then let us be ready and let us have the umbrella, strength and protection of this place to be able to move forward and move forward agreed on how important it is?

In regard to the idea of take note debates like we saw last Monday, where it was not voted on, the Alliance then brought forward a motion which I thought was very good. On Tuesday it was voted on but defeated. We just have to wonder how forward looking the House of Commons is.

When I said earlier that voting is what we do here, that is part of our job and our responsibility. A vote is nothing more than standing up and being counted on something. People participate like that in elections. In the House people participate like that on behalf of their constituents.

I am amazed when I talk to people on the streets or in coffee shops or whatever. Everyone is horrified.

A common question we are being asked is what we will do about it. The government says it is taking action. We try to appreciate that in the fullest sense of the word. Receiving an endorsement from parliament for any kind of action is the number one step. I do not know for what reasons that is not happening,

During the gulf war crisis the member who spoke before me and I were both here at the time. We remember it as a very frightening time. He alluded to the fact that we talked about it several times in the House of Commons.

On October 23, 1990, the House passed a motion condemning Kuwait. On November 28 and 29 the second motion was brought forward. War was declared on January 16, the very evening I was to give my speech. It was a huge shock for the entire world that war had been declared. Later that week the second motion was passed

Partisanship politics is so ridiculous and unnecessary at a time like this. It is sad to watch. My colleague talked about the forum and quoted from the Globe and Mail where it said, and I agree 100%, that “we must talk to each other”.

In this place we talk through each other, we talk past each other, or we make some grandiose statement thinking that was wonderful and maybe we will be on the news tonight. We must talk to each other, not just in this place but at home and on the news.

We must talk to each other, those of us in Canada with those in the United States. It could have easily happened here and we are afraid to say that it might because they will not strike the same place twice in the same manner. We need to be thinking ahead.

When we get our brains together and begin to really talk to each other, that will be the most important message that comes out of this. Let us look at Mayor Giuliani of New York and the amazing turnaround in that man's life over the last six months. What is he doing? He is talking to people. He is at ground zero holding press conferences and keeping people up to date. He has done a marvellous job, simply because he is talking to people. That more than anything else will be the lesson we need to learn from this.

If this was an important issue to parliament in the past it should be important again. In 1994 the special joint committee on Canada's defence policy issued a report entitled “Security in a changing world”. Is that not a prophetic title? We have a changing world now or a changed world, and we need security to the maximum. There were recommendations made concerning the role of parliament. At page 58 the committee noted:

At the time of the Gulf War, for example, the government of the day introduced and debated a motion regarding the deployment of our forces to the combat theatre.

Not a whole lot has changed in the ensuing years in terms of how important that committee report was under a Liberal government. We need to make sure that we are together on the deployment of forces. The government would be very wise not to spurn this. We need to come before parliament. We need the strength and security of all of us working together in a non-partisan way.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton North mentioned a question within the context of her fine address in which she asked what we were doing about it. No matter where one lived in Canada what happened on September 11 affected people in different ways. In the Toronto Star there was a section which showed people at one of the ports of entry in my constituency, North Portal, where the golf course has different holes on different sides of the border.

I will describe to the hon. member the fear of people in my constituency that has nine border crossings. I do not believe any other member's constituency has as many. If someone intends to escape from Canada and get by U.S. customs, the border patrol, the highway patrol and the county forces are notified. When it is the reverse and someone is coming back into Canada, many of these nine border crossings do not have an RCMP detachment for 25 or 30 miles and the RCMP may be at another scene. We have no means of stopping anyone. The people in my constituency are becoming very nervous about the border situation.

Would the hon. member not agree that national security goes beyond the deployment of troops, that it goes beyond other items within our society?

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. Military force should be used as a last resort, but there are many things that we could and should be doing before that.

Tightening our border crossings is essential. Part of the friendship we enjoy with the United States is free and full access back and forth. In times like these when there are people who live along those borders, it is essential to make sure that we have very strong and secure borders.

I noticed in today's newspaper that after its 1993 election victory the Liberal government cancelled a high level and high powered security agency that was to do something good and practical. When all a person needs to do when crossing a border is to sign up for tee time at the golf course through North Portal, surely there is more to it than that.

We need more than the minister responsible for CCRA ranting in the House about what a great job it is doing when people are living in fear near border crossings across our country. They are concerned about how easy it is to get into Canada and how difficult it is to get into the United States. We must work together on that.

That is something concrete the government could, should and must do to say that it has taken action by tightening up that border crossing. That is something the government can point to and be proud of when it says that it has at least made some difference and has taken some action in this regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to what my colleague from Edmonton North had to say. I have a great deal of admiration for her as she has had considerable experience in the House. She was elected in 1990 or 1991 and has taken part in numerous debates.

Essentially, my question is about the motion tabled by the Bloc Quebecois. Does she not believe that it is important for all members of the House, on a subject as critical as deciding to send men and women into a high-risk theatre of operations, to have an opportunity not only to debate the issue, but also to vote on it?

I would like to know from her if it is just as important, in her opinion, for Liberal backbenchers.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was elected in March 1989 in a byelection. I have been in the House almost 13 years now. A great deal of my speech was given to the fact that the reason we are here is to vote.

I do not mean that opposition members are here only to give endorsements or whatever. It is for government members as well to tell their people back home, if nothing else, that they did something: they acted on it and they voted. The reason we are sent to the House of Commons is to vote. That is the important point.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Roberval today introduced a motion which this House is debating as part of an emergency debate. I would like to show Quebecers, the people watching us today, why, on Tuesday, September 25, we are having a debate of such urgency with respect to a situation that has gone on for nearly two weeks now and why the Bloc Quebecois felt compelled to demand this debate in the House so that members, regardless of their affiliation, may vote on a situation of such importance.

I would like to reread the motion with the amendment by the member for Saint—Jean:

That this House urge the government, in any reprisals taken in reaction to the terrorist strikes in New York City on September 11, not to commit Canadian armed forces in any offensive action nor any financial resources until the House of Commons has been consulted and has voted on the matter.

The moment the House resumed sitting on September 17, the Bloc Quebecois drew to the attention of the Prime Minister the need for members, who are the representatives of the people, to have an opportunity to vote on such an important decision. Here again is the question my BQ colleague and member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie put to the Prime Minister during oral question period. It reads as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the House was consulted after the decision had been made or without a vote.

I ask the Prime Minister if they could do a little more, ensure that all parliamentarians exercise their responsibility, and have the House vote on the government's proposal when the time comes to make a commitment, even a military one.

This was the question put by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. The Prime Minister's answer reads as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons is consulted. The House of Commons speaks. The members of all parties may have their say, and a consensus is expressed at that point.

This is the procedure that has always been followed. I do not see why we should change it under the circumstances, but we will see. If it needs changing, we will change it.

On the strength of this statement by the Prime Minister, the representatives of the Bloc Quebecois have always thought that the Government of Canada supported it. In view of the urgency of the situation and regardless of the military and economic decisions Canada has had to make in the past, today we have a threat on our doorstep. From what the Prime Minister says, the terrorists could even be inside our country.

We are faced with an emergency situation. Canada's whole economic, democratic and parliamentary systems, not to mention provincial institutions in Quebec and in the other Canadian provinces, are jeopardized by unscrupulous people.

The situation is an urgent one and this is why the Bloc Quebecois wants members of this House to have a say. We represent constituents who every day have to put up with the problems posed by this major terrorist crisis. This crisis first affected our American neighbours but, as we can see on a daily basis, it is also affecting us from an economic point of view. There have been layoffs in the airline industry and we can see what is happening with the aircraft parts industry. There is a domino effect. We know what companies are going to announce Pratt & Whitney has already made such an announcement while Bombardier is rethinking its investment strategy.

We are finding out that this terrorist attack has a lot more impact than one would think on Canadian and Quebec industry. Therefore, it is only normal that constituents send messages to their members of parliament so that they can represent them in this House, ask questions and, more important make decisions and vote on the issues.

I agree with my colleagues that we are not here merely to make speeches. We are also here, and this includes both opposition and government members, to make decisions and to vote.

At this point I wish to inform the Chair that, from now on, all Bloc Quebecois members will share their time.

This is an urgent situation. On behalf of our constituents, we are asking for an emergency debate on two major types of action. The Bloc Quebecois is asking the government for a vote to be held on any military intervention that could endanger the lives of Quebecers and Canadians, and on any amount that could be spent on protection, armaments and required actions.

There is always money involved. We understood that quite clearly when the leader of the Bloc Quebecois put the question to the Prime Minister on September 17. There will be decisions made. As I explained earlier, even the Prime Minister raised the possibility of reviewing that practice, what was acceptable and in order.

The American congress voted on the amounts to be devoted to military strikes and interventions. Those who voted were elected representatives, our neighbours, those who were suffering through this terrible situation and who were victims of this brutal and inhumane attack. Nonetheless, this whole situation is happening on our doorstep, in the neighbouring country. I take this opportunity to express my most sincere sympathy

At this very instant we even think, the Prime Minister himself said it, that there could be terrorists on our own territory. It is not too late. History will determine if we were efficient and if we were taken seriously. More and more observers think that Canada is not being taken seriously because of the way it reacted to this crisis. However, history will be the judge of that.

Except we, as members of parliament representing our constituents, must make the right decisions for them. We must, and the Bloc Quebecois felt obligated to raise this debate, agree to this motion so that all the citizens of Quebec and of the rest of Canada fully realize that this is very important. In such a serious situation that may affect us, even within the borders of our provinces and of Canada, we should be able to make informed decisions. Most of all the members of parliament who the citizens have elected to represent them in the House should be able to vote on the issue.

It is the hand, the olive branch that the Bloc Quebecois is holding out to the Liberal government. We have acted quite responsibly and we have been able to respond by supporting the government when the time came to make some decisions in this crisis. In such serious situations that may affect the lives of Quebecers and Canadians who are in the military and who might be sent overseas during the strikes or that may affect the budgets, our citizens' money, perhaps it is time for the government to think about the important monetary decisions that imply major investments, sums of money that will be allocated to counter the effects of terrorism.

We are asking the government, both in the amendment and in the main motion, for a vote to be held in the House. That is not asking too much and it is reasonable, given the situation and the gravity of this crisis, that the government take another look at its approach. All the more so because when it was in opposition, the Liberal Party questioned the government's position in its interventions during the gulf crisis. An amendment was moved by the current Deputy Prime Minister, then in the opposition. This amendment referred to military support for operations in the gulf, and read as follows:

That this support shall not be interpreted as approval of the use of Canadian Forces for offensive action without further consultation with and approval by this House.

This was what the Deputy Prime Minister, then in the opposition, had to say. In his speech in support of his amendment, he said, and I quote:

Liberals insist that before Canadians are called upon to participate in any offensive action, such participation must first be brought before Parliament and voted on here in the way it was done at the time of the Korean conflict.

These were the terms used by the Deputy Prime Minister, an important and influential minister and an influential member of the Liberal Party. Why is the Liberal Party, which is now in power, applying a double standard at such a serious time? The Minister of National Defence went through Canada's involvement in all the conflicts worldwide. The fact remains that we are now facing an urgent situation following a serious attack perpetrated on our American neighbours which threatens us on our own territory.

This is a situation which is unique in the history of Canada and, obviously, of Quebec as well. It calls for unique action by parliamentarians and a vote in the House.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the Bloc for a very interesting speech. There is no question in my mind that I concur that these matters should be dealt with in the House of Commons. We should be given the opportunity to have our say and to vote on many aspects of the incidents stemming from the tragedy on September 11.

I would like the hon. member to expand on something he mentioned, which is the impact this catastrophic event has had on jobs. I speak of workers in the airline industry, the aerospace industry and even beyond those industries and into the hospitality industry as well as taxi drivers. The taxi driver who brought me here from the airport told me that he had three fares that day from 6 a.m. to 8 p.m. when I was picked up. These people do not have anything to fall back on in terms of EI or many of the other benefits that other workers might have if they found themselves temporarily unemployed.

Would the hon. member agree that one of the things we in the House should be contemplating is an emergency measures package for workers impacted by this catastrophic event with special emphasis on those workers who do not have access to EI? Would he see fit to temporarily amend the EI Act and use some of the overwhelming surplus in the EI fund to offset the impact that this catastrophic event is having on workers such as taxi drivers and part time employees in the hospitality industry?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to my colleague's question, I will give the example of Quebec, though any other region of Canada could be referred to.

In terms of avionics, aerospace and aeronautics, Quebec has become a major player. The Greater Montreal area is now considered to be, after Toulouse, the second largest focal point for this type of industry in the world.

Needless to say, the fact that Canadians and people around the world refuse to or are afraid of flying has tragic consequences on the industry as a whole, not only the travel industry, travel agencies and airline industries which are directly hit, but all those who support that industry, namely aircraft producers and manufacturers.

In the United States Boeing has made some important decisions. Bombardier will do the same in the days to come. They are going through a process of analysis. Of course, it also concerns companies manufacturing airplane parts and there are many in Canada.

In terms of the domino effect, the avionics industry is directly linked to international tourism. My colleague clearly understands that there are communities and territories which rely largely on international tourism, which is the case of Mont-Tremblant in Quebec and many other areas in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Such areas depend on great numbers of international tourists coming to our regions, and those people have cancelled their reservations throughout the hotel and restaurant network.

Because of the domino effect to which my colleague was referring, the taxi industry is also affected. It is a huge operation. Appropriate funds will have to be committed, because if we accept the complete annihilation of that part of the Canadian avionics industry, airlines and international tourism, the terrorists will have won. Though they may not have anticipated it, the terrorists must certainly be happy that their attacks have almost completely paralyzed the airlines industry as a whole and international tourism.

We will need spending and emergency budgets which, I hope, will urgently be voted by the House. As the Minister of National Defence said, the issue is a somewhat complex one because often parliament is not sitting. However, I am convinced that not a single member of parliament would refuse to participate in an emergency debate followed by a vote, even if parliament had to be called back to Ottawa to debate an emergency situation concerning all of Canada.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 14 days ago today some barbarians, some crackpots undertook and carried out the biggest terrorist attack in history. The shock is past, but the pain is still present. The shock is past, but the anger is still present. The shock is past, but emotions are still present.

When a close friend, a neighbour, a fellow member of the great family of western civilization is affected in this way, we cannot remain indifferent. No one here in this House is indifferent. All of us who have been democratically elected to represent the people of Quebec and Canada have a duty to speak our minds on the matter placed on the order paper by the Bloc Quebecois today.

As has been said many times, it is not just the U.S. that has been affected, but all of the so-called liberal democracies, liberal in the philosophical meaning of the word of course, have been attacked. The first response to this murderous attack, as democracies, is to show the strength of the democratic system, the power of the democratic system and the attraction of living within democratic societies because of their intrinsic values.

In the past certain people have thought they could take advantage of what they perceived to be the weakness of democracies. They saw them as weak and ready to crumble. They have paid dearly for this.

Now, we must not only make use of this crisis to continue our democratic practices but, I respectfully submit, we must also make use of the situation, of these troubled times, to improve our democratic institutions, to make them better, to ensure that the public, the nations of Quebec and Canada and their citizens may feel that they are involved in every decision that has to be taken.

One way of doing so is the one proposed today by the Bloc Quebecois, which is to ensure that parliament is even more closely associated with important decisions, with the fundamental and crucial decisions that will have to be reached here.

In the event of military action by the Canadian forces, the lives of young men and women from Quebec and Canada will be affected. Each of us in this House will have to carefully ponder the consequences of such a decision. There is no decision more important for an elected assembly in any country than the decision to send or not to send its young people to face the rigours and the dangers of a military conflict. That is the main reason it is necessary, essential and fundamental to involve the elected members of this House in such a decision.

What will and must be decided concerns not only the future of Quebec and Canada but also the future of the whole planet. Therefore, every member of this House ought to be involved in it. That is not only for the philosophical reasons I stated earlier but also for reasons of realpolitik .

The Prime Minister would have tremendous clout if, when he goes to meet with the leaders of the Commonwealth and those of the Francophonie, he had the support not only of cabinet and the Liberal Party, the government party in Canada, but also of this House.

Such support would give him much greater clout in the positions he would be called on to defend internationally. It would ensure that Canada is listened to even more than it is now, and God knows that it is not always listened to as much as some would claim.

By doing so, Canada would not be a leader, unfortunately, but it would only be following the normal and necessary course in a democratic society and institution. There are several examples.

There is the case of Argentina. There is also the case of France, where the prime minister, Lionel Jospin, stated that should it become necessary to make commitments on France's behalf, the executive could not make them without consulting the national assembly and the Senate.

In England, Tony Blair recalled parliament a few hours after the deadly attacks. After meeting with U.S. president George W. Bush, he travelled to Brussels to report to his colleagues, heads of state and heads of government, within the European Union. Upon returning to London, he asked to meet not only with members of the labour party, the governing party, but also with the leaders of the opposition parties.

This motion is based on the kind of common sense shown by the Liberals on this issue when they were in opposition. My colleague, the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel said it well. At that time, the current Deputy Prime Minister, then leader of the Liberal opposition in the House of Commons, insisted that the House vote before troops were sent to take part in the gulf war.

I urge all my colleagues in the House, particularly my Liberal colleagues with whom I have had the opportunity to exchange views and who are very concerned with the present situation, and rightly so, to support this motion.

This motion rises above any partisan considerations and is aimed at ensuring the broadest consensus possible with regard to Canada's response, that is the response of Quebecers and Canadians, to the murderous attacks in Washington and New York. We must show the whole world that a democracy such as the one we have in Quebec and in Canada is the strongest system of government and that it will resist the deadly attacks perpetrated against all democracies on September 11.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course I commend my colleague for his speech. Earlier we heard the Minister of National Defence say something really incredible. I do not know if he is going through or listening to the same things as we are since September 11, but he is talking about a hypothetical situation.

He is taking only one fact, that is whether military personnel are being sent to one specific location. This is the only hypothetical question. The Americans have already deployed military personnel. Yesterday, Great Britain also deployed military personnel.

I find it incredible that we are being told that the situation is hypothetical. We are not in a hypothetical situation. From what we are seeing, we are probably in a war.

I would therefore like to ask my colleague this question. The Argentine government has offered to co-operate with the United States, provided its participation in a military response is submitted to a vote in parliament.

There is also France. If there is a need to make commitments on behalf of France, they could not be made by the executive without consulting, of course, the national assembly and the Senate. Such major countries as France and Argentina believe it is necessary to have debates and votes on situations such as these.

What are we to think about Canada when the government only wants to have take note and consultative debates and does not want to hold a vote on such major issues?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the motion is to ask that the House not limit itself to take note debates, but to hold votes.

I would like to appeal one more time to our Liberal colleagues. I can see that the member for Scarborough is listening to me attentively. I had the opportunity to travel with him in Israel, where democracy is under attack. While we were there, there were terrorist attacks. We were able to observe the vitality of Israeli democracy.

I appeal to his sense of democracy. I have had the opportunity to discuss different subjects with him for many hours, including how democracies should react to such attacks. I appeal to him and to his colleagues to pressure the government to allow them to vote too. I know that they would like to vote on this. I know that Liberal members would like the opportunity to give their perspective. I know that they are as concerned and as worried as other members of the House. Before sending the finest young people of Quebec and Canada off to battlefields located thousands of kilometres away, I know that they will want to have their say.

So I hope that they are pressuring the government. I hope that they are pressuring their colleagues to have a chance to have their say. After all, they are members too. They are just as concerned as we are on this side.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier on his excellent presentation.

I would like to ask him this. A few speeches this morning also referred to it. Does he not consider it somewhat cynical on the part of this government that when it was in opposition, when the gulf war was declared, it hounded the Conservative Mulroney government daily with questions and statements to have a vote held in the House? The situation before us is quite similar.

Does he not find it cynical that this government, which was in opposition at the time, is beginning to dissociate itself from its stance on the importance of democracy, whereby members can vote on debates such as we are having today?

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the very question put to me by Nancy Wood, a CBC radio host in Montreal, just before I entered the House to take part in the debate.

I am not sure whether it is a good or a bad thing but I still have an ounce of idealism left in me and I dare to hope that the proper position, which the Liberals held in opposition in 1990, is the one held by the Liberal government in 2001.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to participate in this important debate. The hon. member for Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier has stated that while it does provide some difficulties for us all, there are those of us who consider parliament to be a very significant institution in our country where important matters of state get debated and voted on.

However I must take some distance from my colleague. I would like to outline why the motion is premature, hypothetical and absent of facts. The motion states:

That this House urge the government, in any reprisals taken in reaction to the terrorist strikes in New York City on September 11, not to commit Canadian armed forces in any offensive action until the House of Commons has been consulted and has voted on the matter.

This is a hypothetical motion. At this point in time we have not been asked to participate in any action whatsoever. Any hypothetical request is always a dangerous position to be in, particularly if ultimately we as a government have to make a decision.

There is also an absence of facts. Is there anyone in the Chamber who has a full grasp of the facts? I read media accounts, as do other members. I do not regard media accounts as facts. I have not been privy to any CSIS briefing or any military briefing which would enlighten me. Therefore I am in a similar position to all other members in the Chamber that I am not in possession of the facts.

Two weeks have passed since the crisis and there is a propensity to jump to conclusions. One of the conclusions is that Canada is a terrorist haven. The facts seem to be somewhat different, in that virtually all the terrorist activities to date originated in the United States. Nevertheless that seems to be a fixed conclusion by many members of the media.

Another fixed conclusion is that our refugee laws are lax. I witnessed a lawyer on television the other night who has several clients in jail on refugee related issues. He was expressing a great deal of frustration about having his clients in jail on what he considered an absence of clear and hard evidence of why they should be kept in jail. That did not seem to make much of a dent in the forgone conclusion that our refugee laws are lax.

We have been asked to engage in an armed response to this initiative. I ask hypothetically whether the armed response would also include intelligence gathering. Is intelligence gathering part of the armed forces response or is it not part of the armed forces response? Are we being asked to comment on that?

If we are being asked to comment on that, do we need a parliamentary resolution every time CSIS decides to engage in clandestine intelligence gathering activities both within our borders and outside our borders and in turn to share that material with other agencies?

We have seen a number of conclusions that our legislation is inadequate. Indeed there are gaps within our legislation which I believe the Minister of Justice will be addressing. We have been urged to adopt legislation similar to that of Great Britain and the United States. They are pieces of legislation that some might argue are quite draconian and made no difference on September 11.

Parliament is being urged to have a vote on this matter. As I said, I find the motion somewhat premature. We do not have a great deal of facts with which to work, and it is a hypothetical motion.

I would like to point out that parliament has not voted directly on any wartime resolution since World War II. We did not vote on resolutions regarding Korea. Resolutions regarding the gulf war had to do with resolutions of the United Nations rather than voting to go to war.

Parliament has many ways in which it can guide government. Take note debates are one of those ways. I heard hon. members opposite diminish the value of take note debates but I do not take that view. Take note debates are extremely important and give parliamentarians some opportunity to suggest to government various ways to think about specific issues.

We also have the opportunity to engage in debate on days like today where opposition parties get to set the agenda for the day.

There is of course scrutiny on a variety of committees and members get opportunities to make their voices heard before government.

Ultimately, there is the confidence vote to which every government is subject. If parliamentarians are absolutely convinced that the government is going in the wrong direction, then presumably they can move confidence in the government.

The last debate similar to this was on the Kosovo issue. The then leader of the Reform Party made six conditions for the deployment of troops, and they were somewhat instructive.

The first condition was that parliamentarians should be satisfied that there was a serious international threat and that diplomatic efforts to resolve it had failed. I would not argue that there is a serious international threat. I am not convinced, however, that diplomatic efforts are exhausted, although they do seem to be very close to being exhausted.

The second condition was that parliament should be satisfied that as far as possible there was multinational support for military action. Again, that condition, frankly, seems to be met, that there is international support for action, particularly in the NATO countries.

The third condition was that the government should be satisfied that there was a workable plan and strategy for military action. At this point in time, I do not believe that there is a workable plan and strategy for military action, so that in fact would not meet the condition.

The fourth condition was that parliament must be satisfied that any plan for military action was a well defined mission and was a clear definition of Canada's role. Without a workable plan and strategy, I do not see how we have a well defined mission or a clear definition of our role.

The fifth condition was that parliament must be satisfied that the role expected was within our fiscal and military capabilities. The question is: “What is being expected of us?”

The sixth condition was that parliament must be assured the command and control structure was satisfactory to Canada.

Basically conditions three through six have not been met in my mind. I go back to the original point that the motion is hypothetical and premature, and we clearly do not have a lot of facts. The greater likelihood is that this action will be far more clandestine and will be based on intelligence rather than overwhelming military might.

Certain members of the House, particularly the Privy Council will be briefed and some members of the Privy Council will be more briefed than others. Necessarily there will be a closing of the circle because we do not want to broadcast any activities that we might be engaged in.

I am sure that hon. members opposite, and indeed members in all parts of the House, would not want to be advertising what actions Canada would take.

We also have the issue of the unintended consequences of signalling a differentiation in resolve. If we take this vote now and the actions do not start for a month, two months or three months or if the actions go in a direction different from what we initially thought we were voting on, we may find ourselves in a very difficult and awkward position.

Finally, the issue is: Will this vote be binding on the government and, if so, how is it binding on the government?

My position on this motion is clearly that it is hypothetical, premature and that there is an absence of facts. I forgot to mention that I am splitting my time.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech of my hon. colleague across. The events of last week did two things to the people of Canada. First, it brought us all together in support of our neighbour's initiatives to the south. Second, it raised the issue of tolerance. Canadians have known for at least a century that this country is made up of immigrants and the one thing we do not want to do is repeat the mistakes of the past. Therefore, I, like all members of the House, promote tolerance at a time like this.

I would like to make some comments on the hon. member's comments on immigration. The House knows that I have raised immigration issues over this past year, certainly on issues of screening. Even if Bill C-11 was passed this very day, including what the government had said it would do to improve the situation, I believe there would be no improvement. Unless there is a will to put the time and effort into ensuring that we have the relevant data to properly screen the people coming into this country, we will keep making the same kinds of mistakes we are making today.

Even without the bill in place, there could be a rule that government put more money toward hiring more people. I am told that many of our overseas offices do not communicate with each other. In fact, in Canada our own departments do not communicate with each other. That has to change. CSIS, RCMP, other security agencies and national defence have to work together. Does my hon. colleague see screening as the focal issue when it comes to the security of this country?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked two questions: one with respect to the support for our U.S. brethren and the second with respect to tolerance in this country.

On the first question with respect to support for our U.S. brethren, at this point our response as a nation has been exemplary. In many ways Canadians have stood shoulder to shoulder with the citizens and the government of the United States.

The second question is with respect to tolerance and immigration issues. I believe our Canadian society has some difficult decisions to make, and we may actually make some wrong decisions.

When I listen to my answering machine in my constituency office, I am somewhat alarmed. It is a bit disturbing to hear some of those comments. I join with the Prime Minister in saying that I would turn my back on those constituents. These are not attitudes that build our society.

With respect to the issue of screening, the hon. member is probably right, that this will be where the rubber hits the road. These are very difficult things to do. People do not walk into this country with T 's painted on their foreheads saying “I am a terrorist”.

We do have differential data and resources to apply that data as well as assessment procedures. I know my hon. colleague has people come into his office where decisions have or have not been made by CSIS or by immigration officials, which leaves everyone scratching their head.

In light of these events, I am sure that there will be a differential attitude toward screening issues.

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member for Scarborough East comment on the following? After the September 11 strike, which I viewed as an attack on us, and after NATO changed the wording of article 5 to reflect that any attack on any member of NATO is an attack on all of NATO, how can the hon. member from the opposition describe the action which may be taken in the future as an offensive act?

How can the hon. member make this statement when we were attacked on September 11 and NATO said that an attack on one is an attack on all? Could the hon. member comment on the words offensive and defensive?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member pointing out the distinction between offensive and defensive. Clearly NATO is a defensive alliance. Article 5 was invoked, and we are creating a response. Where we go from there and how we move into an offensive response is probably up for some debate.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to reiterate that Canada is committed to the fight against international terrorism. I think we have clearly demonstrated our support both for the United States and the international community with regard to this issue.

The issue before the House is does parliament have a role in this. I think emphatically that, it does have a role. To demonstrate that I would like to review a few points.

Since the government came to power, it has placed a premium on consulting with and soliciting the views of members of the House, particularly where matters of military and defence issues are at stake. Many of us have participated as recently as last week in those debates. The government does not take lightly its prerogative to initiate military action and deploy members of the Canadian forces. It views the opportunity to discuss these issues in parliament as a crucial step when we are looking at decision making.

From Iraq to Kosovo to central Africa, members of all parties in the House have had the opportunity to voice their views on what Canada's response should be in the face of various international crises. I believe that is the way it should be, and that is the way it is.

At the same time, however, we must preserve the ability of any government to respond rapidly, once all views have been heard and the time to act is upon us. We must know when to set aside our partisan differences and speak with one voice as a nation. Our solidarity in support of decisions to deploy troops not only increases the legitimacy of our actions in the eyes of the Canadian public and in the international community, but it lets members of the Canadian forces know the people of Canada are behind them.

The government's approach to consulting members of the House regarding deployment of troops has been well documented. The government recognizes the importance of hearing from all sides when such important issues are at stake. It goes above and beyond its duty to solicit them. I would like to provide some examples of this.

The government has held innumerable consultations and debate, both in the House and at various committees on all aspects of foreign and defence policy issues. Going back as far as 1994, special emergency debates were held regarding Canada's current and future peacekeeping roles in Yugoslavia, Haiti and Rwanda.

One year later another series of debates were held on whether to extend the mission of the Canadian forces serving in UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. At that time the Minister of National Defence himself suggested that Canadian participation should periodically be reviewed thereby giving parliament the opportunity to consider our defence commitment at regular intervals. In fact the House has had innumerable opportunities to discuss our deployments in the Balkans right up to and including Canada's participation in NATO led air campaigns in Kosovo.

As many of us will remember, these consultations took many forms. The government held several debates on Canada's reaction and subsequent response to the humanitarian crisis that was breaking out in Kosovo. At the same time, the Standing Committees on National Defence and Veterans Affairs and Foreign Affairs and International Trade received numerous briefings from senior officials from various departments, even as those events were unfolding.

The value of debates and deliberations is not to be underestimated. I think there has been and continues to be the belief that a broad consensus emerges in the House which gives Canada the legitimacy it needs when the time comes to make the difficult decisions to intervene.

Let me reiterate that the government does not take lightly the decision to deploy Canadian troops in any mission. We value the input provided by members on all sides of the House as well as deliberations at the various committees. Being a member of the Standing Committee for National Defence and Veterans Affairs, the committee has been and continues to be seized by these issues, including the issue of readiness of the armed forces.

Those issues have come before the House on several occasions and each time the government has made it clear its commitment to preserving the vital role that parliament plays in times of crisis. That has been demonstrated both in words and in deeds.

Again, today we are reaffirming the position that has been taken by several ministers as well as the Prime Minister. The government is fully committed to consulting parliament on the situation as it unfolds before us.

As others have said, no decisions have been made by the United States nor has any request been made for formal Canadian forces participation in any operations.

We are all understandably very concerned about the horrific events that took place on September 11 and their aftermath. We have had the opportunity to express these concerns three times in the House since the House resumed. We saw the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs carry that message, the Prime Minister yesterday in his meeting with President Bush.

A resolution passed in parliament. We have had some references to the gulf war. Supporting the deployment of the Canadian troops during the gulf war was the measure taken in support of the various United Nations resolutions at that time. As the campaign on terrorism evolves, it may be necessary to consult parliament further on the issue of deploying Canadian troops much as the government did during the gulf war. However that time has not come. I would agree with my hon. colleague that it is hypothetical at this time. We have not yet been given a motion as to the specifics of what would be asked for.

Members of the House need only in my view look at history to be reassured of the role they play in contributing to the foreign policy of the nation. I believe that the role of parliament is to debate it and to make sure that members provide the necessary input for any future government actions.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to all the speeches made since this morning and I sense that the Liberal member, whom I know quite well, is somewhat receptive to the motion. While he could not directly support it, he seems to have left the door open.

This is the second week of debate. I wonder if he could explain to us why given the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves, the parliamentary committees that are the most appropriate venues to look at this issue, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Standing Committee on National Defence, were not convened by the government? Meanwhile, we are having a debate here today that was initiated by the Bloc Quebecois, an opposition party.

Does the hon. member find it normal that, contrary to what it said in its 1993 red book, the party in office is not getting parliamentary committees involved in the study and review of the current situation?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

First of all, Mr. Speaker, as you know, all parties get together to put forth names for the composition of those committees.

Having said that, let me say that the steering committee of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, of which I am a member, met last week. We discussed a number of issues with regard to the present crisis.

Even though formal appointment of members of the committee has not occurred, rather than being idle the members who currently reside on that committee met as a steering committee and had the opportunity to discuss a number of these issues. I know that a member of the Bloc was in attendance and I think there was an opportunity to look at some priority issues, not that they are binding, necessarily, on the future composition of the committee, but given the nature of the discussion I think it would be fairly safe to say that the intent and the direction the steering committee looked at would probably be simply endorsed, hopefully, because a number of the members of the steering committee, particularly on the side of the opposition, indicated that they would be back when the committees are formally comprised, I would suggest probably within the next few days or so.

However I think it is important to know that business has not stopped, at least in terms of the defence committee. The member's question was a very valuable one.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government member if it is not time to show these terrorists what a democracy is all about. We live in a democracy with a parliamentary system. Debates must be held, not just take note debates, but real debates that conclude with a vote.

Does the hon. member find it normal that the Bloc Quebecois has to use an opposition day to propose a motion to debate such an important issue? This should be a given in parliamentary system that is based on democracy? We are forced to use this day to present such a motion in order to have a debate followed by a vote on this most important matter.

When we see the deployments currently being made all over the world by the United States and Great Britain we have no choice but to say “There must be a vote in the House of Commons”.

These are the comments I wanted to make. I would like to hear those of the hon. member. It is important that all of us, as members of parliament, have an opportunity to vote on the issue.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a misunderstanding that somehow the Canadian forces are standing still until parliament or the government makes a decision. In fact that is not the case at all, whether it is the deployment of CF-18s, our discussion with the Americans through Norad, the work at NATO with regard to article 5 or the deployment of frigates.

At the present time we do not have a formal request. The nature of how Canada will respond obviously will be framed by the nature of the request and the motion which I am sure may then be before the House.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in my name and on behalf of men, women and children of Laurentides, I wish to address my first words to the families who lost a loved one, a friend, a colleague, a boss. To all those who survived these tragic events, I express my sincere condolences and I assure them that my thoughts and prayers are with them.

Having said that, as representatives of the people in our respective ridings, we rise in the House on behalf of our constituents. This has never been truer.

I always considered myself as a woman who speaks and lives with words like “peace”, “tolerance”, and “openness to others”. However, since September 11, I discovered that I could use a language tinged with anger and fury. Within a moment, I had thoughts that I normally would never have had.

One must not be distracted by acts of extremists such as those we witnessed. We must push to the limits our will to build a peaceful world. There we will find all the signification of this motion proposed by my colleague from Roberval. I will read it to the benefit of my constituents:

That this House urge the government, in any reprisals taken in reaction to the terrorist strikes in New York City on September 11, not to commit Canadian armed forces in any offensive action until the House of Commons has been consulted and has voted on the matter.

Why should parliament vote on this issue? We have the government's reaction and I hope that, at the end of the day, we will have been able to convince it to support our motion. Democracy itself is at stake here.

When a political party is forced to use its opposition day to convince the government that a vote should be held before Canadian armed forces are committed in any action, it means that something is very wrong in parliament. When the government is incapable of making the commitment we are asking it to make because it is afraid that it may not have enough time, it means that something is wrong.

Over the last eight years, the House of Commons has been recalled to deal with issues far less important than this one. I remember sitting during a weekend to deal with issues such as jobs, salaries, labour negotiations and back to work legislation. To say now that there would be hesitation to recall the House to deal with an issue as important as sending Canadian troops to war is absolutely ridiculous. I cannot believe it, and neither can my fellow citizens.

I will tell the House what happened in my riding last weekend. Like all members, I must attend certain events in my riding on weekends. Last weekend I attended a function in a residence for the elderly, which was celebrating 25 years of operation. The residence provides social housing to senior citizens. I sat at the same table as the director of the residence, a woman, who told me that I had to do something, that I could not let our soldiers be sent to war like that.

Another woman sitting at our table said “My son is in the army and I do not want to see him go to war without us knowing exactly what is going to happen. You are my representative and it is your responsibility to decide and to vote”.

What am I supposed to say to her? That the government will make its decisions unilaterally without consulting us? It makes no sense, especially on a policy issue. We must not let that happen. As elected representatives, we have to face the situation.

This is a fundamental issue. If we have to raise the question of a vote in the House on the commitment of armed forces in a war against Afghanistan or some other country and I think opposition parties agree on this then I am at a loss.

Let me remind the House a few facts. In the 1993 red book, we could read this:

We will continue to support democracy and respect for human rights worldwide and will provide for a more open foreign policy-making process.

A Liberal government will also expand the rights of Parliament to debate major Canadian foreign policy initiatives—

I think this is quite clear and it is not precisely what is happening right now. Here is another quotation, this time from the 1997 red book:

An independent, effective Canadian foreign policy cannot be achieved without the active participation of Canadians, through public and non-governmental organizations.

It speaks for itself.

I would not like to see our troops sent over without knowing what their specific role will be. We know very well that our military do not have numbers that compare with American, French, or British troops. We should be realistic about this and do what we can with what we have.

Right now, I would not like and I would not accept that Canadian troops be sent over there as cannon fodder. We must not allow this to happen. We must absolutely know how they will be used and what their role will be. As we know, our armed forces have been evolving more to take on a preventative role, acting as peacekeepers, and involved in foreign aid. Our armed forces are not offensive. They could very well be but they have not evolved that way. We have not been involved in a war for I do not know how many years.

We must know exactly what role is expected of our Canadian forces and we must reach a decision together with the people we represent. They want to be consulted. If people elect representatives to parliament, it is so that they can speak on their behalf.

Up to now I have seen myself as the voice of the riding of Laurentides and I want to continue being the voice of voters in my area. This holds true for all of us here in this Chamber, no matter which party we belong to.

In spite of our differences of opinion on some issues, on an issue as important as a war, it is imperative that we be the true voice of our fellow citizens.

As I said earlier, people in Laurentides are extremely concerned, and rightly so. Certainly, if the government were to agree to our motion and vote for it, it would act in a true democratic spirit and with great open mindedness. It would show all of us here in this Chamber, who represent five different parties, that democracy is alive and well in this parliament as it is in other parliaments.

I would like our position to be taken into account. I want the debate to be peaceful and for everyone to have a say when the time comes for us to make a decision as important as sending Canadian troops, our young men and women, to the front. We will have to make this decision together, based on what our fellow citizens have told us.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that, right now, the Bloc Quebecois is calling on our fellow citizens in Quebec and indeed across Canada. This motion we have put forward aims at protecting our democracy.

How can we protect our democracy? When we have representatives, as we do to in the House of Commons, it is a matter of standing up and debating what the government can do. People have to understand to what the word “executive” refers. It refers to the Prime Minister and his ministers. Would they be the ones deciding? No, that is not what democracy is all about.

The current international threat of terrorist activity prompts me to ask a very important question. I would like the hon. member to tell us: How could we get the people who are at home, all the people in Quebec, in my riding of Châteauguay and across Canada, to take immediate action to convince government members that our motion is essential to protect democracy and ought therefore be supported?