Debates of Sept. 25th, 2001

Terrorism

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to hear that, for we know we do have serious problems with our immigration documentation. Our documents are way too easy to forge.

Again, will the minister please give Canadians a reassurance that the government will act immediately to put a secure identity system in place?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, fraudulent documentation is something which many countries of the world are working with Canada to combat. We have experts internationally, our immigration control officers, and we have laboratories to look at documents, but one of the very important features that we have is in Bill C-11 which is presently before the Senate. Those who present a fraudulent document with an immigration application, once the bill is passed, will become inadmissible. That means they will not be allowed to enter Canada because they have presented fraudulent documentation. That is a very important provision.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Transport please tell the House what steps are being taken to screen explosives at airports to prevent terrorist attacks? How can we ensure that security measures are being maintained?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated a number of times, we are putting in measures on a frequent basis to deal with this very difficult problem of security at airports.

Today I announced that Transport Canada is purchasing advanced explosive detection systems as an aviation security measure. The purchase of this equipment is an important step forward and we have accelerated this process to respond to the current security situation as a result of the events of September 11.

Airline Industry

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know we are all deeply concerned about the thousands of layoffs coming at Air Canada and hope that the Minister of Transport will consider whether a handout to Air Canada is the most appropriate response.

Will the government consider a transitional income support plan to help the people losing their jobs in the airline and travel industries? Will the government consider alternatives to a direct handout to Air Canada, like interest free loans, cutting airport lease fees or entering into discussions with Nav Canada on reducing air navigation fees? Measures like these will help stabilize the airline industry in the long term and possibly reduce the cost to airline travellers.

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to assistance to the aviation industry, I have said on a number of occasions that we have to treat everyone fairly. We are looking at the situation. We are assessing the facts. We are meeting with the airlines. We want to make sure that before any taxpayer dollars are put forward the costs are indeed justified.

Terrorism

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last week the solicitor general gave us a very general, vague response to our concerns about bioterrorism. Today it is absolutely clear that the threat of a bioterrorist attack is greater than anyone ever imagined.

I would like to ask the government if it could give us some specific details today about what is being done to provide for a national comprehensive emergency preparedness plan, what is being done to train first responders and what steps are in place for a protocol to be followed by all regions in the event of a bioterrorist attack.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure my hon. colleague and Canadians that this government is moving forward on the chemical and biological front, moving in a responsible and prudent manner.

In fact my department issued a paper five months ago. That is to make sure that the first responders, including the police and fire and health officials, are in an appropriate position to handle issues like this.

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

Mr. Speaker, in speaking about terrorism yesterday, the Prime Minister told the Americans, “These people might be your neighbour. They have cells perhaps in Canada and there is no guarantee that we can stop that easily”. Yet last night the Prime Minister told his Liberal supporters that Canada will not be diverted from its overall agenda and the focus remains on health care, education and water safety.

Was the September 11 attack not enough to alter his agenda to move security to his number one immediate priority?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the government is the government. We will give security the priority it deserves. We are committed to that. However, there are other priorities in the government and we can do two things at the same time.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, here's Elsie.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has agreed to support President Bush and our allies against terrorism. A frigate and a supply ship left the port of Halifax last week.

While respecting national security, will the Prime Minister confirm before the House today that the ships are at sea as part of the Canadian forces contribution to the American war on terrorism, and will he also confirm that this was discussed with President Bush yesterday?

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence is holding consultations as we speak and the Prime Minister held consultations.

It is our not our policy to discuss operational developments in front of national television. I am sure the protection and the well-being of our Canadian forces should be uppermost in our minds. We do not discuss operational developments in front of national television.

National Defence

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the defence minister's numbers just do not add up. He said again in the House earlier today that the government could meet its white paper commitments of two squadrons of CF-18s to Norad and one wing to NATO. The fact is, at the same time a third of the CF-18s will be down for routine maintenance and even more out of commission due to repairs.

Could the minister explain to Canadians just how he can meet his white paper commitments when in fact the numbers just do not add up?

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is quoting from his source, the Ottawa Citizen , which is usually very misleading, which also are parts of his question. Our defence policy--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our current strength, quite different from the Ottawa Citizen , is actually 58,600 out of a commitment of 60,000. That is 98%. We are at 98% capacity in the Canadian forces and we are growing every day with our recruitment program.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member answered the wrong question. In fact I got my information from the minister earlier in the House today.

We cannot seem to get a straight answer from the minister even on something as basic as just the number of men and women we have serving in the forces. It seems hard to come up with the straight numbers.

Canada's white paper commitments do include two squadrons of F-18s to Norad and one wing to NATO. Considering repairs and maintenance, just how can we possibly meet those white paper commitments because the numbers simply do not add up?

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, 98.1% is what the current strength of the forces is and what our commitment to the white paper is.

We have more CF-18s now than we had during the gulf war. We have more trained pilots now than we had during the gulf war. That party should be praising the hard work of the Canadian forces, not denigrating it.

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

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, the government House leader told us that there would be consultation before troops were sent.

Two minutes later, the parliamentary secretary told us that there was no way that operations would be discussed.

Perhaps we might know if there are any representatives from the Liberal Party who are interested in informing members of the House of Commons? That is my first question for the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is asking a question about the involvement of parliamentarians.

A debate was held last Monday, a debate was held last Tuesday and a take note debate was held on Thursday. Today, there is a motion before the House moved by one of the member's colleagues, on the same subject.

The Prime Minister answered all of the questions. I, myself, on behalf of the government, stated that in the event that troops were to be deployed, which has not yet been done, of course, there would be a debate in the House.

I think that that is clear enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the government House leader, I would say yes, there has been debate, but what we want is a vote. That is what they themselves advocated in the past.

We would like an answer to the following question: did the boats that sailed from Halifax do so as part of the operations in support of the Americans or was this a routine operation? That is what the public and members of the House of Commons would like to know at this time.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about operational readiness of the Canadian forces. We are talking about deployments that are done on a normal basis as part of our NATO commitment.

We do not discuss operational deployments in the House of Commons or anywhere else where CNN wants to broadcast or give more locations or more information to terrorists who may be quite interested.