Debates of Sept. 25th, 2001

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

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot.

Today, I want to speak to the motion put forward by the Bloc asking, and I quote:

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.

First, let me take this opportunity to extend my condolences to the families of the victims, to wish a speedy recovery to all those who were injured but managed to survive and to express my great regret to the American people who were affected by these evil acts perpetrated not only against their country but against all of us.

The government shares the views of all hon. members that the tragedy in the United States has been and is the immediate priority for the House. That is why the first order of business when the House returned on September 17 was a special debate on the tragedy in the United States, not just the debate after the adjournment hour, not just the so-called emergency evening debate, but in fact the government order of the House, which was followed by a vote.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the House leaders of all parties for agreeing to the format which eventually resulted in the vote and the transmission to the United States congress of the Hansard of that day, expressing our condolences, our heartfelt support and of course our commitment to eradicate terrorism. I would also like to thank my colleagues on the other side of the House.

The House debated the issue again on September 18 with an opposition day motion from the Canadian Alliance.

We had a special take note debate on September 20. Again, the opposition asked for, and which the government agreed, a special debate in the evening so that all hon. members could put on record their feelings, their thoughts of this historic moment. For the members who had not had the opportunity to express their condolences, this was another mechanism by which they could do so.

In total, 24 hours of debate took place and 85 different members of parliament spoke on September 17, 18 and 20.

Today's debate is the fourth on the U.S. tragedy in the first six days of sitting of the House since we returned after the summer recess. That does not include members' questions and statements under Standing Order 31, some of them as late as today, regarding this terrible tragedy.

In addition, I know that Canadians have been pleased that their members of parliament have been debating this issue in the House of Commons. Indeed, my constituents spoke to me about my own remarks when I was in my riding over the weekend. More particularly, I received a scroll signed by thousands of people, at the Rural Expo and International Plowing Match, in which Canadians expressed their wishes of sympathy and solidarity, which I intend to present to His Excellency the Ambassador of the United States of America.

The government's respect for parliament and the views of parliamentarians on foreign policy issues reflects its red book number one commitment to expand the rights of parliament and to debate major foreign policy initiatives.

We on the government side oppose today's motion because it, first, breaks with Canadian parliamentary practice and it deals with a hypothetical situation. Notwithstanding what has been said, there has been no troop deployment in a theatre of action as of yet, and there has been no request in that regard, as we all know.

I believe that it would set an unworkable precedent tying the hands of government when it comes to the timeliness and effectiveness of deployment of Canadian forces, whether in peace time or otherwise.

In the Canadian parliamentary system the responsibility for troop deployment lies with the government. Since 1950 there have been 50 peacekeeping operations of various sizes. In most cases parliament was not even consulted at all, and the previous government failed to allow any voice in the initial decision to deploy Canadian forces in the lead up to the 1991 gulf war. It is important for Conservative members of parliament to know this.

Second, it is important to point out that there was no parliamentary consultation about our entry into the Korean war. Even in 1939 there was no resolution declaring war on Nazi Germany.

Parliamentary approval was shown in 1939 through support for the Speech from the Throne and the defence estimates. It is a far cry from the consultations we are now carrying out.

Also, there was no vote and no consultation at all about the declaration of war against imperial Japan.

As I mentioned earlier, our government has changed all that. We changed the previous government's approach and other governments approaches too. We sought the views of parliamentarians on major policy issues.

We all remember the paper produced by the parliamentary committee in 1994 and 1995 concerning the role of our Canadian Armed Forces and our foreign policy. It was an excellent report. It was the role of this parliament and its committees. We have ensured that parliament has a voice.

We have had many special debates, which in parliamentary jargon are called take note debates. There was one as late as last Thursday. Were there to be a troop deployment, I commit myself today, on behalf of the Prime Minister and the government, to have such a debate again.

The question of combat troops outlined in today's motion is clearly hypothetical. As late as yesterday, Canada was not even formally requested by the United States, not even informally, for such a participation.

At the present time there is no UN, NATO or U.S. request to deploy Canadian troops to respond to the events of September 11.

As I said earlier, the Prime Minister promised, and I made the same commitment, that parliament would be consulted through debates in the House. I would also like to remind the House that, in the past, there was no vote on any of our peacekeeping missions.

Let me also add that today's motion by the Bloc is almost identical to the motion also put forward by the Bloc on April 19, 1999, concerning Kosovo.

So, things have not changed. The Bloc is reiterating what they said in 1999 and the government is answering the same way it did the first time around. Of course, this is a different parliament so, technically, this is the first time it has to deal with this issue. However, as I said before, we all realize that it is about the same issue.

The energies of the House are best directed at considering how to respond to the U.S. tragedy, not through engaging in procedural wrangles.

I therefore urge all my hon. colleagues to vote against the motion brought forward by the Bloc.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, but I am not very proud of what I have heard.

Sending troops on peacekeeping missions throughout the world and sending troops to war are two different things. We realize that the decision process and the needs are not the same.

What the government House leader is telling us is that the government will decide as it has always done, without consulting the House.

I think it is important to point that out. In his own riding, he will have to answer to members of the armed forces, their families and concerned citizens who will be telling him: “Look, you cannot make such a decision without consulting us”.

So, does he intend to listen to what the people of his own riding have to say and to go along with their requests?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the question asked by the hon. member. She represents a riding close to mine, just a few kilometres away. Several of her constituents work in my riding; the reverse is true as well. Therfore, we both know quite well the residents of that area.

However, she should not try to make me say what I did not say. I never said that the government will be making a decision, and I quote “without consulting the House”. In fact, I said quite the opposite.

The hon. member might want to go over the official report of the House of Commons debates, in hansard , in due course. I know this is something she often does. She must find reading hansard as fascinating as I do. When she gets the chance to review today's debate, she might want to correct what she just said.

We do intend to consult the House if troops have to be sent out. Since we have yet to receive such a request, the government does not expect to have to make any decision soon. We have not reached that point yet, and we do not know if we ever will.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the House leader for his remarks. I only have two questions. I am sure he has done some research on this subject, or it has been done for him.

Is there any precedent in the Parliament of Canada for either house endorsing or granting a resolution or permission to the executive branch to engage in a military action? He mentioned the second world war and I am wondering about other actions such as the first world war, Korea, et cetera.

Would he be willing to entertain a general resolution of support for the executive in whatever decision that it needs to take similar to that recently passed in the U.S. congress. It did not take the power out of the hands of the legislature but allowed the legislature to support the executive in these military actions.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the second proposition in case I do not get around to the first one for reasons of time. In terms of a general resolution of whatever nature the McGrath committee report of 1985 permits the opposition to propose motions in the House on anything. The government does not automatically defeat these motions. As a matter of fact we supported a number of them.

If the hon. member across and his colleague want to indicate support for the government on any issue, which I wish they would at all times as a matter of general principle on this or any other issue, they are quite free to do so.

In terms of the consultation and votes in the past there have been a variety of forms. In the majority of cases there was no consultation at all. There were cases where parliament was recalled, an issue was mentioned in the throne speech and the House voted on the throne speech. That constituted a form of consultation. In other cases it had to do with voting under estimates of the defence department and so on. There were a variety of ways in which that has manifested itself in the past.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. government House leader's remarks with respect to the issue of consultation. There has been ample opportunity for members of the House of Commons on both sides to discuss this issue in detail and to put their condolences and remarks on record.

However with respect to actual consultation and input the Prime Minister referred in question period to the fact that he had read all the comments. That is speculative and it is a bit reminiscent of the conversations that he had with homeless people.

The government House leader will recall that in October 1990 there was a government order put before the House of Commons, in which he participated, where the House of Commons was asked specifically among other things about the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It went on to allow for a vote which is the exact request on this supply day.

Does the government House leader recall participating in that vote and will he give members a similar opportunity to do so?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to actual input. The comments of his leader last Thursday were input. Perhaps some members after reading the speech would consider that it was not much of an input, but I happen to think it was a meaningful contribution. I am sure the Prime Minister read what was said, as he said he did, and considered it for what it was worth.

As to the government order voted on, there was a government order last Monday that all parties voted on. I answered a question put by a member of the Alliance earlier today stating that the opposition is quite free to put through on opposition days any proposition before the House. Providing that there are voting days left in a supply period, propositions may be voted on whether they are for or against any issue that the government is involved in, including troop deployment.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a little liberty with the actual wording of the motion before the House today and talk about response rather than retaliation because I have been increasingly concerned about reports in the press about Canada's alleged lack of preparedness in the event that terrorists resort to chemical and biological warfare weapons.

As members may remember from earlier interventions that I have made in the past, I am in fact in a former life an expert in chemical and biological warfare weapons and their development. I wrote at one time what was considered the definitive book on the development of these weapons during the second world war. It came out in 1989 and still remains on the syllabus of most military academies across North America, if not across the world.

The reason it would be a Canadian that writes such a book is because Canada was the first to do experiments on the development of biological warfare weapons. The very first field trial to occur anywhere in the world occurred on Balsam Lake in Muskoka in 1940. It was conducted by Sir Frederick Banting who was the inventor of insulin.

In the course of the war Canada went on to develop various types of germ and biological warfare weapons including the mass production of anthrax. This was done at Grosse-Ile downstream from Quebec City. The main research station was in Suffield, Alberta, where Canadians later in co-operation with the British and Americans developed various types of weapons including experiments with botulinus toxin, tuleremia, ricin and various other weapons. The reason for this was because during the second world war it was feared that the Nazis would employ chemical or biological warfare weapons but in fact they did not.

In the post-war period this research continued in Suffield and in various other parts of Canada and continues to this very day. The important point to bear in mind is that Canada not only began in this field before any other nation but it continues to be a major player in this form of research, the idea being that we have to know the weapons to develop the countermeasures.

Canadians have developed the most sophisticated automatic detection machine for determining whether biological warfare agents are in the atmosphere. We lead the world in this. It has been with a lot of concern that I read the newspaper and see reports suggesting that Canada has no expertise in this field, which is simply not true.

More important, because of my background and expertise in the history of the development of this kind of weaponry, the Minister of National Defence and the Solicitor General of Canada asked me in 1999 to consult with their officials and review the state of Canada's preparedness regarding the use of biological or chemical weapons by terrorists.

The two ministers put at my disposal experts from their ministries. I had a meeting that involved people from the solicitor general's office, the defence department and Emergency Preparedness Canada. There was a representative from the biological and defence review committee and there were others. They were very candid with me and they appreciated that they did not personally have the kind of expertise that I could bring to the table on this issue.

I produced a report that found there was a disconnect between Canada's expertise in the use of countermeasures against this type of weapon and the possibility of a civilian occurrence.

By 1999, I should explain, all western nations had become very alarmed about the possibility of a CBW terrorist threat. CBW stands for chemical biological warfare. The reason was because there was an attack with nerve gas in the Tokyo subway system in 1995 in which a few people were killed and a lot of people were injured. That event sent a chill around the world. It made all major western nations realize that they were probably very vulnerable to this type of attack and that the new age terrorists might resort to it.

The Americans immediately made a very major investment. I believe they are investing some $3 billion into trying to create security measures that could respond adequately to this type of attack. Canadians do not have $3 billion but, and this is great credit to the solicitor general and the Minister of National Defence, they are aware of the problem and immediately wanted to take measures to do something about it. I produced a report and the ministers acted upon that report.

In the two years intervening, much planning and much thought has gone into a co-ordinated response across the various departments that would be engaged: defence, the solicitor general's department, anti-terrorism, and Health Canada, because all of this of course relates to the control of dangerous biological agents. One of the outcomes was the creation of the office of critical infrastructure preparedness which was announced by the government earlier this year.

This is all to say that efforts have been put in motion. Just to demonstrate that I am not just talking through my hat, I would like to read a little bit from a letter that I received from the solicitor general on March 21, 2000. As he is familiar with me, he addressed me by my first name. The letter reads:

Dear John:

Thank you for your letter of February 18, 2000, informing me of the results of your meeting with Mr. Leonard Hill, First Secretary at United States Embassy here in Ottawa.

I appreciate and agree with your suggestion that this department host a Canada-United States round table on the issue of chemical and biological terrorism. In fact, I am happy to be able to report that we are holding a joint Canada-United States tabletop exercise here in Ottawa, April 18-19, 2000, under the auspices of the Canada-United States Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear (CBRN) Guidelines that were signed on May 26, 1999.

He goes on in the letter to say:

I should also point out that the CBRN Guidelines are designed to facilitate the provision of the type of assistance noted by Mr. Hill, should either of our countries be the target of a CBRN terrorist incident.

As you are probably aware, this will build on the extensive work on chemical and biological terrorism that we already engage in with the United States.

The point of this letter is that we are in very close contact with our major ally on this issue.

I just want to read a few excerpts from a confidential letter from the solicitor general that was sent to me on May 10, 2000. I cannot read it all to the House because it does deal with some details that he has asked me to keep in confidence. He said:

Thank you for your letter of April 4, 2000, requesting an update on progress towards co-ordinating the government's response to the threat of chemical and biological terrorism. Since we met on February 9, 2000, I am happy to be able to report that we have made progress in developing options for a strategy to strengthen national counter-terrorism response capability.

He goes on to talk about the various inter-departmental meetings that have been organized. The two key sentences I would like to read say:

The Department of National Defence now has a representative working full time with the counter-terrorism division of my ministry.

In other words, we finally have synergy between the experts in the Department of National Defence on chemical and biological warfare and the solicitor general. He finally said:

The issue of funding remains a challenge and we are still seeking solutions.

That last sentence is important because I think we have come a long way, but one of the difficulties that I know these two ministers had, which they could not report to the House, was the difficulty of persuading their cabinet colleagues to put the money on the table as necessary to provide not the infrastructure, because we have that, but the basic equipment. We do not have enough out there to fully have the kind of protection that the CBW counterterrorism plan calls for.

Again, it is not cabinet's fault. I remind the House that up until the terribly tragic incident that occurred in New York, no one in the House was talking about the threat of chemical and biological terrorism. There were only a few of us who were even aware that the danger existed so it is not surprising that the funds were not available to these two ministers who, I have to stress, on their own initiative sought to build a program that would be at least in place. It is in place now, thank heavens, but they do need funding. They were not able to get it at the time and at a sufficient rate. I would dearly hope that while we as Canadians do not need the billions that the Americans are spending, a few million would do nicely.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to clarify something he said as he was finishing. He said that the reason this chemical biological warfare issue has not been addressed in the House of Commons was that the ministers did not have any leverage to get money to help fund the research into this.

Certainly in my mind the government should be aware that these dangers do exist in the world. As the government, and as part of the security and well-being of Canadians, whether or not it is a hotly debated topic on the floor of the House of Commons, it is still a realistic concern and a problem in the world, surely it should be addressing that and putting some resources into it.

Perhaps the member could clarify this. In his mind, is it not the duty of the government to protect Canadians regardless of whether it is a hot topic at the moment?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that the Prime Minister runs a cabinet that is relatively democratic. The reality is that a year or six months ago if I had made the speech I made just now in the House and suggested that the government should be spending millions of dollars on counterterrorism along the line of chemical and biological warfare weapons, I probably would have been laughed at in the House.

This threat has been around for the last 10 years. Most advanced nations of the world have been aware of it. The problem is that it seems like something out of fiction. It is very hard to persuade people in their normal walks of life that this is a genuine danger because it is a very arcane and unusual danger. I should add that it is a very improbable danger. It is not a high risk situation.

It is not surprising that the ministers concerned might have had some difficulty persuading their cabinet colleagues to put money on the table. Right now I do not think there is any argument that the money should be put on the table.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member, who is not a member of the executive of this government, if I would be right in saying that democracy would be greatly improved if a vote were to be taken after a debate on this most important issue.

Since he is not part of the executive, how does he feel about this unanimity on the opposition side? What does he think about the fact that all members are in favour of this motion?

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the fact that the American president has the right to order out the military of the United States, but he has to seek the approval of congress to maintain any kind of use of the military.

For a Canadian prime minister to order out troops initially, he still has to come back to parliament. I do not see where there is much difference between the Prime Minister's power in the way he would act in an emergency like this and that of the president of the United States.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my party's motion reads as follows:

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.

I agreed to participate in this debate because since September 11, our individual and collective, freedoms, economic as well as political, have been shattered. I remember several headlines in the newspapers. One in particular said that “On September 11, 2001 at 8:45 the face of the world changed”.

The world changed on that day and we still have trouble going back to the normal rhythm of our lives. We cannot forget that horror. The breath of the tragedy is almost undescribable and unfortunately we are also witness to what I would call an overdose of information in the media.

For two weeks now we have been seeing the same picture of the plane crashing into the second tower and hearing the noise it made. I have nightmares about it. I wake up and see that plane and hear that noise and still find it horrible.

We were convinced that no democracy was invincible but what strikes us is the fact that we never thought that such a horrible attack could happen on American soil. We were hoping never to see that in our lifetime. Since September 11, we have even had to change our vocabulary. We have had to change our collective conscience with regard to what is happening.

The motion we are presenting is totally fundamental in a democracy. Incidentally the Liberals tabled an amendment to the government's motion during the gulf war. I believe it was the member for Saint-Maurice who was then leader of the opposition, or maybe he had not yet assumed that position. However when the then Minister of external affairs tabled a motion the Liberals amended, what did that amendment say?

The amendment moved by the current Deputy Prime Minister said this:

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.

The current Deputy Prime Minister, who was then sitting on the opposition side, had this to say:

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.

This is just common sense. This amendment is common sense, it is consistent with democracy and with the rights of members. As representatives of Canadians and Quebecers, we have the right to vote on whatever our government will decide to do to support the fight against terrorism.

Unfortunately, we have to admit that the rules of the game are somewhat outdated. At the time the Conservatives did not see fit to accept the amendment moved by the Liberals, who were then in opposition.

Therefore today, we should be dealing with reasonable, intelligent members who use their common sense and say, “When we were in opposition, we wanted a vote in parliament, so now that we are in power, we will lead by example”.

It feels like watching kids play, irresponsible individuals totally unable to change their minds because when they were in the opposition, they did not get their way.

I hope the Prime Minister will give it some thought and that his government will support this motion and give us the opportunity to have our say and debate the issue, should the executive he heads consider dragging us into a war.

We do not know against whom, where or for how long. We ask questions and, in the course of the same question period, we get conflicting answers from different ministers.

How do you expect the Canadian people to trust their representatives? How do you expect the Canadian people to find it worthwhile to have members of parliament and all that it entails to have people who sit here all day long trying to accomplish something?

Why do you think people believe that being involved in politics serves no purpose? Because their is only one person who is playing politics here; the Prime Minister is the only one who went to Washington, where he was asked for nothing, and came back here.

Of course, for the time being, he does not have to consult us because nothing was asked of him. If there was a request, what possible scenario could we be facing?

If the past is an indication of the future, it seems to me that the Liberals, when they were in opposition, had asked for something that made sense. Today, they should grant us that very same thing, but no, they will not.

I am concerned when the government leader rises in the House during oral question period to tell us not to worry because since the Prime Minister has been in office, his government has developed a new system and we now have a new procedure, a new process. There will be consultations.

This government does not know what consulting means. If we look at all the acts under which it has an obligation to consult, which make it mandatory for the government to consult the provinces and territories, we see that the ministers responsible do not meet with their agents, their counterparts in the provinces and territories, to consult them, seek their opinion or ask them how they see things, rather it informed them of the decisions it has made. This is the way every single minister operates. This is what happens in every single department.

We do not trust that we will be really consulted. This is the tragedy. Not only do we want to be consulted, but we want to have the right to vote because we represent the views of our constituents and they, at least some of them, are asking us not to go to war.

In Quebec, the polls are very clear: we have always seen things differently. While terrorism must be fought and ways will have to be found to put an end to it, this does not necessarily mean we have to go to war tomorrow morning.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, I too believe it is right to want to have a say, as parliamentarians, on the involvement of this Government, of Canadians who might be called upon to augment military forces in the Middle East.

We have been elected and we have a responsibility. We have been given the mandate to get involved in debates, knowing what our values are, what we are voting on and what the bills we pass are all about. The current government does not seem to want to consult us, when this is precisely what is expected of it.

The significance of this debate has to do with the vote that would be given to every political party, every member of parliament. The appalling tragedy of September 11 hit home and made us reflect.

The generation I belong to has not lived through a war, but my father's generation remembers only too well the bitter fruits of armed conflicts.

The World Trade Center and the Pentagon tragedy robbed us of our innocence and made us aware of how vulnerable we truly are.

Once we get over the horror and bewilderment caused by the attacks, we must avoid rushing into the retaliative actions that are being considered .

Even if the terrorists responsible for this attack did it on behalf of a particular people or religion, they were condemned by every legitimate representative of the Arabic and Islamic communities of the world. Today, every peace loving human being is in mourning.

If, today, every one of us is a little bit a victim, it is equally true that, as human beings, we too bear the responsibility of the sin that was committed. Which people, which religion, which cause has not had its extremists?

Human stupidity is not the exclusive purview of one colour, one language, one gender or one religion. Extremism can be found anywhere. It is blind and it strikes indiscriminately. It does not care about justice and innocent people.

The victims in New York are the innocent victims of hatred. It could have been anyone else, in any country of the world. It could have been our brothers, our sisters, or a relative. This is why we must stand together with the American people through these difficult times, but also with every other people of the world who is a victim of injustice.

What should we do then to counter these unconscionable and unjustified attacks? Should we retaliate by firing on a crowd? Of course not. Vengeance for the sake of vengeance would only increase the level of hate and jeopardize peace in the Middle East and in Asia. Should we deal with the root causes of this evil, that is the racism and the intolerance that are often latent in all kinds of conflicts? Force is not always the best of guides.

Some conflicts are lingering throughout the world, and we should look into them to try to find long term solutions. If they are not settled, they will prevent us from concentrating on fundamental problems that undermine any lasting peace in the world.

At the beginning of a new century, with instant communications, we can no longer put our heads in the sand and act as if we are not concerned because all this is happening elsewhere. The attack on New York proves the opposite.

Take for example what happened at the world conference against racism which took place in South Africa last August under the aegis of the UN. The conference bogged down on semantic issues between the actors involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

It is evidence that as long as there is no peace in the Middle East, more people like bin Laden will be ready to die for their cause.

The American tragedy has had a much greater impact than all those forgotten conflicts occurring elsewhere in the world. Naturally, the immediate cause of last Tuesday's attacks is the escalation of violence in the Middle East. However the deeper cause is the despair and frustration which breed hatred.

If we are so directly affected by those attacks, it is because, for the first time, they happened on our continent. I say for the first time because it was in fact the first time such a tragedy happened after a long and well orchestrated preparation. The problem will never be solved with a simple show of power.

Yesterday, after a meeting with the president of the United States, the Prime Minister of Canada said that the president did not ask Canada for military support. However, he added: “If they need us, we will be there”. Yet, to resort to armed forces without trying to get to the root of this terrorism will only postpone the solution to this problem. Even worse, it could make things worse.

This morning, professor Albert Legault of Laval university wrote that the fight against terrorism is first and foremost a matter for the police and intelligence services. That is why we are asking the government to consult parliament before calling on the armed forces.

Thousands of Quebecers and Canadians have sent letters and e-mails to members of this House to let them know about their fears and concerns. Here are a few examples.

“With acts of pure vengeance, do we not run the risk of provoking an escalation of violence?”

“How can we be sure that this operation to which Canada could be associated will eradicate all terrorist groups?”

“If Canada totally aligns its policy on the American one, won't Canada also become a target for terrorists?”

“If we bring about a general mobilization of forces in Middle East countries, will we not create ideal conditions for a regional war elsewhere?”

On the morning of September 11, 2001, the west woke up to a brutal reality. The horrendous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have proven that a great terrorist threat hangs over the world, just as some people have been saying for many years, but we called them prophets of doom.

The government must be prudent and, for the time being, focus its efforts on the security of our citizens while preventing terrorists from using Canada to prepare attacks on the United States.

As to the roots of the present problem, it is time that we get out of our comfort and indifference. Let us try to achieve a lasting resolution to all the regional conflicts on the planet. Let us promote justice and solidarity among the nations. This is why we want the government to approach the problems differently in the House.

When we want a real dialogue, discussions have to be forced by the opposition. It should rather be up to the government to question all the members of the House, to consult with the leaders of the various opposition parties, raise the issues, including the negotiations underway with the United States and the other countries.

The open and democratic thing to do would be to let parliamentarians participate in this debate, a debate that can be described as urgent and life changing for many Quebecers and Canadians, should we be called up or called out on service.

I hope that we will see a change in the attitude of this government and that we, parliamentarians, will be able to vote on an eventual participation.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Québec for her speech. Naturally, women are often quicker to develop an awareness.

In the coming weeks and months, every one of us, each parliamentarian will be personally approached by peace groups or concerned individuals who do not necessarily long for a war and who wish we would respond in a different manner.

In fact, President Bush already started, through economic measures, by freezing the money of some terrorist groups in order to prevent them from proliferating , and our Prime Minister said he would do the same.

Is my colleague not worried to see the very democracy of parliament, indeed our rights as elected members of this place once again compromised because the government will not let us debate in the House the possibility of sending out troops to war?

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague for her question. As the government House leader said earlier, debating is allowed, but what we are asking for is to vote on the involvement of Canada in the counterattack that is being prepared by the Americans. I believe that the members of all the opposition parties would like to have a say on this decision--

[An hon. member]

Before it is made.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

--before it is made. We know that that is not what the government seems to be saying on the question as to whether parliamentarians will be allowed to vote in the House on the issues and on Canada's participation.

Effectively, as my colleague said, this will have an impact on the people. If many Canadians and Quebecers are called on to participate in battles, all parliamentarians should be able to respond in a responsible manner to the people in general to find out how Quebec and Canada will be involved and what these people will decide with respect to the involvement of their children. It is usually the young who go to war and they are often involved in deadly battles.

If parliament would allow us to get involved in a responsible manner, this would make us very happy. I sincerely hope that the government will change its position and find it urgent not only to let the House discuss the matter, but also to let it vote on the issue.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleague for her excellent speech and her very accurate and precise representation. However, I wonder if she does not have the impression she is talking to the deaf when addressing the party across the way. This party, as we know, sings two different tunes: one during election campaigns and another when it is in power.

There is no lack of examples. Suffice it to say that in order to win the election the government promised to scrap the GST. After the election, it forgot all about that promise.

The Liberals promised to drop the helicopter project, but after the election they bought helicopters at an even higher price. When they wanted to defeat the Clark government, they promised to eliminate the 18 cent tax on gas, but after the election they raised it by 65 cents.

This party has always sung two different tunes. It did the same on the copyright issue and on economic and cultural matters. It says one thing during the election campaign and another once elected. Members have mentioned it in this case and my colleague also said so when she stated that when they were in the opposition, the Liberals had promised, asked and begged the government to consult the House before making a decision on the use of our armed forces or on any military action.

As soon as they took power, they did the exact opposite of what they had promised. They suddenly hid the red book under the table as if it did not exist anymore. Promises are made to win elections. For the rest, the government does not care about Canadians, parliament and members of parliament. It does as they wish.

That is what surprises me and this is what I want to ask my colleague about. Is she not surprised that Liberal members from Quebec, especially those like the member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord who have gone to the other side, who switched parties in order to have an influence from within, to have a strong voice and defend the interests of Quebec and its population, have nothing to say? They catch the Liberal members' disease the minute they join them and they lose their tongues and change their speech. Is the hon. member not surprised to see that once again?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I still have to ask the member for Québec to be brief in her answer.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, briefly, I am not at all surprised. Whenever federal members from Quebec are elected, whether Liberal or Conservative, they soon forget what they had promised Quebecers, which was to be their mouthpieces and to defend Quebec's interests.

In this debate, we should pressure the government. The Liberals are currently in power. Members should bring pressure to bear so that there can be a real debate followed by a vote on this urgent matter.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mississauga West. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion today. Canada has a long and proud history of helping the global community defend peace, freedom and democracy. We have always been committed to working alongside our allies in creating a stable international environment. We will continue to work with our allies in the new struggle against terrorism.

We also have a strong tradition of consultation in the House. In times of conflict over the years we have come to the House to consult each other, debate and discuss the deployment of Canadian forces to troubled regions around the world.

Since 1994 in matters of defence and foreign policy the government has demonstrated its commitment to consultation time and again. This has been true with respect to Kosovo, the Central African Republic, Somalia, Haiti, Zaire, the Balkans and others. The list goes on.

In the last session of parliament we had an emergency debate on Kosovo. The debate began around 10 o'clock and went on into the early hours of the morning because we wanted to hear from each and every member on all sides of the House.

As the full implications of the terrorist attacks of September 11 continue to unfold we must be mindful of our responsibility and our promise to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States and our allies, and we are mindful.

As we have said many times over the past two weeks, this was not just an attack on the United States but an attack on all civilized nations. In one of his first speeches to the American people President Bush said it was an attack not just on Americans but on democracy and freedom loving people everywhere.

The same message was reiterated a day or so later by Prime Minister Blair of the United Kingdom. It is the same message that was conveyed by our Prime Minister last Monday.

We stand by our allies and strongly support the decision to invoke article 5 of the NATO charter. We reaffirm our commitment to the alliance and to the principles of freedom and democracy that guide us.

The United States, as we all know, is working to develop an appropriate and strong response to the attacks. However it is still in the planning stages. It is still in the process of determining how the war on terrorism should be handled.

Before acting Canada must first know the details of the American plan and the approach of our other allies. As the Prime Minister stated yesterday and as was reported on the news, the U.S. has not indicated what its needs are. It has not yet asked Canada for a contribution. When it does we will assess what our contribution can and will be.

At this time a plan to debate and vote on any future deployment of Canadian forces would be purely hypothetical and, I would submit, premature. In the weeks and months ahead we will work closely with the United States and our allies to determine how Canada might best contribute. I reiterate that the U.S. is still formulating its plan.

As was said in last week's debate on the issue, we do not expect the campaign to be run by conventional methods of war because this is not a conventional war. People may ask what the difference is. War is war, after all. What is conventional and what is unconventional? There is a distinction to be made.

Almost immediately after the attacks on September 11, parallels and analogies were drawn to the attack on Pearl Harbor. President Bush was urged at the time to respond immediately in the same way the Americans responded to the Pearl Harbor attack.

However let us be absolutely clear: this is very different from Pearl Harbor. When Admiral Yamamoto attacked the U.S. fleet President Franklin Roosevelt knew exactly who the enemy was and where the enemy was to be found. We are still determining who the enemy is and where the enemy is situated.

As we have heard from many reports around the world, there are perhaps 40 to 60 countries which harbour terrorists and in which terrorist cells exist. It is not just one nation against another.

This unconventional war will require the collaboration and assistance of countries all over the world. We must be prepared for a sustained, intensive and concentrated effort that uses all the tools at our command including diplomatic, military and economic ones. That is why it is unconventional.

I assure the House that Canada will not rush into decisions concerning our response without thorough and balanced consideration. We have been faced with an outrageous and egregious act of terrorism. We are angry but we must not let our anger affect our judgment. The government will not issue a carte blanche.

However at the end of the day the government will provide the resources necessary to allow Canada to play a clear and significant role in helping the United States and our other allies in the intensive campaign against terrorism. We must remember that this is a war against terrorism around the world.

We have a team of professional and dedicated people in the Canadian forces who stand ready to be part of any international coalition against terrorism. We should use this opportunity to say how proud we are of our armed forces.

There is a saying among soldiers that when interpreting instructions one should think about what the commander wants to accomplish and then carry out the instructions in a manner that would best effect the mission. At the same time the soldier does not consult the superior officer at every step. In the long run he or she is responsible for meeting the expectations of the commander and accomplishing the goals of the mission.

We can apply this analogy to our government. We have listened to the citizens of the country and they have given us our mandate. We debated last Monday. We debated last Tuesday on an opposition day. We debated last Thursday. What has been so wonderful is that we have given all members of the House an opportunity to voice not just their own opinions but those of their constituents. The list has been so long that not every member has had an opportunity to speak. With motions such as the one put forward today by the Bloc we can continue to consult with our constituents and give their views to the House.

However let us face it. It is up to the government to make the difficult decisions that will allow us to accomplish our mission. They will not be simple decisions. They will be difficult decisions and they will be made after consultations. To make them we must remain flexible. We must be able to react quickly and effectively yet prudently, and we must choose wisely from different options and avenues.

On the subject of flexibility, members must understand that there are times when we must act immediately. Can one imagine recalling the House simply to note that there had been an attack and to ask whether we should let American planes or international flights land? There are times when one must act quickly because time is of the essence. We will not always be able to call everyone together to decide these things and micromanage what is important.

While we maintain our commitment to ongoing parliamentary consultations in the face of this and future conflicts, we must always weigh that commitment with our responsibility to our friends and allies.

Our Prime Minister met yesterday with the president of the United States. During that joint meeting he reiterated to President Bush that we are neighbours, friends and family. I know many members of the House who have friends, family and relatives in the United States.

The Prime Minister said we would work together with the United States to build a coalition to defend against terrorism. He emphasized that Canadians support the struggle. He told Mr. Bush quite unequivocally that when the U.S. needs us we will be there, and we will.

We will continue to consult the House but we will also act responsibly and decisively. We will honour our commitments to our NATO allies and to our Norad partners. We will stand by our allies and we will not let the evil forces of terrorism win.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I support the motion. However I believe that it is an academic discussion. Ex-military people like General Mackenzie have said that we are unable to provide any direct contribution in terms of a combat role should that happen. Another ex-military person said that all we can do is to put three frigates in with the American fleet. We do not have the capacity to get involved in a combat role. In that sense the debate is academic.

I wish we were debating the measures we need to take so that we will not be caught with our pants down the next time around. There have been many years of neglect, decline and drift by the government with respect to national security and our military, and we are paying the price for it today.

What are some of the things we can do in the interim besides what my colleague on the other side has mentioned? We should be starting tough anti-terrorism measures in Canada. We should see what is feasible and what can be implemented. We should also be seriously looking at, from an economic and social standpoint, what we can do with our perimeter to keep dangerous people out of North America and to limit this risk.

The government has the majority and it controls the agenda. Why could it not strike a committee that would actually look at anti-terrorism measures without a precondition that we have to get total unanimous consent from the House?

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. The important thing about the government and the reason I am so proud to be a member of the government is that it likes to act on consensus. That was one of the things we said in our Speech from Throne, that we want to consult with Canadians, listen to the debate and the things that our colleagues on the opposite side have to say.

It is surprising that the hon. member on the opposite side asked why we do not strike a committee to look at anti-terrorism. Last week the government House leader stood and suggested that we do exactly that, and it was the opposition party that refused to give unanimous consent.

The hon. member talked about conditions. The official opposition's motion about working on anti-terrorism legislation was full of preconditions. A war against terrorism requires a multi-facetted approach. It requires many things such as diplomacy, a look at the economy and possible military action. However all these things must be looked at carefully.

We cannot act alone. This is not a war against one particular country. It is not a conventional war. Canada needs to play a pivotal role and ensure that we talk to our international allies and our partners to discuss how best we can work together to combat terrorism. That is the key thing we need to attack, not other countries. We must work together to combat terrorists wherever they may be.