Debates of Sept. 25th, 2001

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, today's debate goes beyond the motion put forth by the Bloc Quebecois. It is about the very essence of why we are in the House from all parts of the country. We are here to debate and to vote on issues. That is what the House is all about.

In times of crisis like the events of the last couple of weeks Canadians are looking to the government for leadership. Canadians want their representatives to debate, to vote and to support the government on issues that would make us feel more secure. Take note debates are really an excuse for not having real debates in the House.

The government has a majority. What harm would debating and voting on issues in the House have on the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember what happened in the House since the September 11 attack. The first day the House resumed there was an emergency debate. It was opened by the Prime Minister, followed by all the leaders of the other opposition parties. That was then followed by members debating what happened.

The next day, with all credit to the official opposition, the opposition made it its opposition day to further talk about how we could deal with this international attack against terrorism. Members were given an opportunity to exchange views, to consult with one another and with different parties.

There was an opportunity again when the opposition asked for a take note debate to have input into what the Prime Minister should say to President Bush--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I believe it is time for me to give an opportunity to someone else to speak.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague very eloquently put forward some very valid points. She was about to refer to a comment by the member from whatever that organization is, the coalition. I am having trouble keeping track. I think she was about to refer to a comment attributed to the leader of the fifth party in the House, in 1990, which I will paraphrase. He said, during a debate in this place on a decision with regard to the gulf war, that we cannot wait for deliberative bodies to deliberate and act before taking action.

The hon. member made numerous references to the responsibility of the government of the day to act within the constitution to either deploy troops or make substantive decisions that were in the best interests of national security. That was then and this is now. I appreciate the fact that the person I am quoting was at the time under a different understanding of what his responsibilities were.

Let me say first of all that I have been saddened somewhat, as we all have been, by the events of the past two weeks, but particularly saddened, in addition to viewing the tragedy that we have all seen, by some of the reactions of people both in this place and in the media. There is one group in this place that I think has acted responsibly. I have criticized those members in the past for some of their policies and actions but I will not at this time. In fact I congratulate them today because I believe they are acting in the best interests of all Canadians when they use their use their role as members of an opposition party. They are the members of the Bloc Quebecois. It is perhaps a surprise to many of us that this has happened. We might have expected it from other sectors or other people in this place, but in reality their responsibility has been shown by questions in question period, by speeches in debate that focus on the real issues here, the issues that Canadians are concerned and frightened about. They have not all been lobs by any stretch. They have not simply issued a blank cheque supporting the Prime Minister or the government to do as he or it pleases and it is appropriate that they do not.

We all know that the image Canadians have of parliamentarians standing and voting on whether or not to send troops into war is an image that we hoped would never happen, even if we were to agree with it. This is indeed an unusual time in our history, a time when calm resolution is being displayed by our leader and by the leadership of the entire government. What is interesting is that there is now a sense in this debate that the government might act too hastily.

Up until now we have heard particularly from the official opposition that the government is not acting hastily enough, that somehow we should be doing what the Pakistanis and the Afghanis are doing and mustering our troops on the border of perhaps the United States, packed and ready to go. This sense that the government is not taking action is purely partisan politics. What is sad about it is that we are losing the benefit of celebrating what Canadians have done by focusing on debates such as the one today and on comments made by people in this place and in the media. Members should think back to what happened. We closed our skies and our airports virtually immediately.

On the day it happened, after I witnessed the tragedy on CNN and was as dumbfounded as everyone about what I saw, I had a meeting at the Credit Valley Hospital at 11 o'clock that morning and I thought that I might as well go because I had to do something.

I was absolutely astounded to see that the hospital was in full emergency planning mode. So was Etobicoke General Hospital. The reason is that there was a rumour, white hot, at 11 a.m. on September 11 that at least one of the planes being diverted to Pearson international was a hijacked aircraft that could turn into a bomb or a missile. What did they do? These people reacted instinctively, calmly and professionally to ensure that all of their staff were aware of the problem and were capable and ready to take action in case of an emergency, in case injured people showed up at the emergency department of Credit Valley Hospital or Etobicoke General. That is a responsible way to act. That was not led by a government. It was under the leadership of Wayne Fysse and his entire team at Credit Valley Hospital.

We should be celebrating that instead of all the sniping and political posturing that is going on in what I can only say is an unfortunate attempt to hold somebody on this side of the House, aka the Prime Minister, responsible for all of this.

A member opposite accused someone over here of blaming the United States. I have heard members on all sides and I have heard and read media reports that actually blame Canada, actually blame our immigration policies. Our immigration system is not perfect. In fact there are members of the House who sit, or did sit on the immigration committee when we brought in Bill C-11. I recall the complaints from the official opposition critic that the bill was too tough, that we were violating civil libertarian rights and that we were taking away the rights of people to appeal a deportation order just because they were found to be criminals. I heard members from all parties. I expect the former opposition critic for immigration had moved on to another committee, but I am sure these were orders coming out of central party command on what they should be doing in relation to the immigration bill.

If members have heard the latest media report, that bill has been delayed. Why? We held hearings right across Canada on the immigration bill to tell people that it was time we toughened up our immigration laws to ensure that people who are criminals and people who are under deportation orders are actually deported.

The hue and cry from the Canadian Bar Association, propagated in many cases by members opposite doing their jobs as critics which I respect, was quite remarkable. Now those same critics sit here and somehow say, as they do every day, that it is awful that our immigration system is the cause of all this. That is the implication. Do we really mean that when we look all of the immigrants in the eye? Some of them are in this very place. Do we not recognize that immigration is indeed what has built Canada?

Should we be shocked that there are terrorist cells within our borders? Could someone please name one country where that is not the case? I doubt that they can. From what I have seen, Osama bin Laden's network is in some 30 to 40 different countries, and that is only one terrorist group. Of course there will be people within such an open, democratic, welcoming country as Canada who are not here for the benefit of you and me, Madam Speaker, and who are not here to try to build a nation. They are here to further their own interests whatever they may be. Whether they are based on religious fanaticism or political fanaticism, the bottom line is that we know it is fanatical.

The sad thing here is that we are missing the point. There will be debates in this place throughout the entire process. It will be a long, drawn out process to eliminate terrorism and attack terrorism around the world.

I am confident that our government will do what is right. I just wish that we could, like the Americans have done, pull together as one great nation, as one great political entity so that we know where the enemy is. The enemy is terrorism. It is not over there, it is not over here. It is in fact terrorism and we are committed to stand with the Americans to eliminate it from the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague opposite, who said he heard members say this, that or the other. However, I think he forgot to answer the question that was put to him today as to whether or not he approves the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois, which simply says this: “Do you agree to consult the House of Commons before making any military decision, as your party has been asking in its program, the red book, since 1993?” That is precisely what the Liberals were asking that the Conservative government do when they were in opposition.

We are simply asking that the Liberal government not change its tune and apply the same principles. Is the hon. member in favour of democracy or not? That is the issue.

Bin Laden did not consult parliament. He did not consult any parliament. He decided, surrounded by a small group of fundamentalists, to send people here and there to carry out military actions.

Have we gotten to the point where the Prime Minister of Canada and his MPs would like to follow that example and send parachutists to one location and a small military group elsewhere on the sole basis of the Prime Minister's decision, without consulting parliament? I hope not. Are we or are we not a democracy? That is the question that is being asked today.

Members were elected democratically. Now, are they prepared to act democratically in this parliament, to respect the people by consulting those who represent the people in parliament? Are they prepared to consult the people before deciding to take any action whatsoever? It is that simple. The answer is yes or no.

We do not need speeches on what you heard over the last month or what happened over the last two weeks. Are you in favour of democracy, yes or no?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I am a democrat. I actually think the member is correct, that I did not answer the question because, Madam Speaker, you started telling me I was out of time, much to my surprise.

The answer to the question is that I am not prepared to support the motion. That does not mean I am not a democrat. In fact it is the obligation of this government to govern. It is also the obligation, and there is clear precedent, to ensure that there are debates. If the hon. member is unhappy with my remarks, then that is his problem, not mine. It is my responsibility as an elected official, democratically elected in Mississauga West, to put my viewpoints forward on behalf of the people whom I represent, so that they understand what it is their representative is doing and saying in Ottawa. That is what I spoke about.

To suggest that at such a critical time we should turn the reins of power over to a vote in the House of Commons simply runs in the face of our Constitution which clearly vests the responsibility with the Prime Minister and the cabinet who indeed are the government. All of us can then decide whether or not we support the government. I can assure everyone that I will be supporting the government.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will try not to use as much rhetoric as the hon. member for Mississauga West. He said that he wishes all members of the House could have pulled together when this incident happened on September 11. We would have loved to. In the United States the Republicans, the Democrats, the house, the senate, the administration did because they knew in which direction they were heading. We have no idea to this day in which direction we are heading. If the Prime Minister and the government would like to tell us, we would love to be able to pull together and support it. Put it on the table, let us have a vote on it and we will support it.

The member stood up and said he trusts the government. My question is, why would I trust the government? What has the government done to date to make us trust it on this issue? What has the Prime Minister put in the store that I should trust him and the government to do?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are many things the government has done. The Prime Minister has remained focused. He has remained calm. He has remained in communication with the White House.

What he has not done is charged down the street with his bayonet fixed. He has not risen to the taunting and the political posturing that has been coming from the other side, and sadly, from some in the media. He is showing the kind of leadership that Canadians want. They want to know that he is calm and resolute. He has clearly said in this place and elsewhere in the media that he will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans to fight terrorism and we support that. I would have hoped that members opposite would have supported it as well.

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I wish to extend my condolences to the families and friends of the victims from my riding, from Quebec, Canada and the free and democratic world, following the September 11 attack.

For the benefit of our fellow citizens who are listening, the motion, as proposed and amended by the Bloc Quebecois, 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, or any financial resources, until the House of Commons has been consulted and has voted on the matter.

This is an unprecedented situation and it must be dealt with seriously. We have been and continue to be intensely affected by the attacks, despite the fact that we all wish to go on with our lives.

One has to admit that it is impossible to get through this crisis without debating the matter in this House, making decisions and holding a vote in the House. This analysis and these decisions are the responsibility of the whole House. That is democracy.

Duly elected representatives of the people have a duty to debate issues, question the government and vote on important questions like the one at hand as to whether the Canadian forces should take part in any offensive action.

The attacks of September 11 were directed against all democratic nations. The terrorists were clearly targeting our democratic symbols. We have such symbols here. We are living in a democracy and we must do everything in our power to keep it that way. This involved taking decisions following a debate and a vote in the House. That is democracy, our democracy, at work.

The terrorists wanted to destabilize and annihilate us. As a matter of fact, they wanted to destroy our liberty. It is that liberty that we have to maintain in a clear and explicit fashion. All democratic countries have to affirm this in an eloquent and unequivocal fashion.

It is our duty to confront terrorism and to do it on our own terms, through debates followed by a vote in the House. Our response has to be of a political, diplomatic, economic and social nature. A military intervention should not be the priority, not without having first clearly identified the perpetrators of these attacks.

More important we must not participate in any military operation that could put innocent lives in danger. We must not act like the terrorists.

Therefore, no decision should be made without having first been debated and voted on so as to clearly show that conflicts can only be settled through democratic means.

We practice democracy by debating in this House all decisions to be taken by government and then having a vote. The House of Commons, that is us, and decisions are made by the house as whole, and not by the executive. Our decisions must be representative of our constituents, well thought out, sober and justified. We must be sure of our actions before we act. We must not respond to fear with offensive military operations before a vote is held in the House of Commons.

It is out of respect for our citizens that we must take steps, here in this House, in their name and according to their will. That is democracy and that is what the parliamentary process is all about. We must not change our way of life.

It is the same for parliamentary debates and votes. Changing our way of life and encroaching upon our freedoms would be like capitulating before the fanatical and murderous terrorists.

This is exactly what the terrorists want. We cannot yield to fear and panic. It is the same for parliament and the House of Commons as a decision making body.

Our decisions must be representative, reasoned, sensible and justified. We must be sure of our actions. We must not react to fear with a futile and destructive spirit of revenge.

Rather we should make sure our reaction to these barbaric acts reaffirm our will to safeguard our freedoms. We must show that our democratic parliamentary process is efficient and essential. How can we prove it? By confirming what we were elected for, namely to represent our constituents.

We represent the people in the House and they clearly want us to react to terrorist attacks by making a decision following a debate at the end of which a vote will have been taken in the House, while taking into account the concerns of our constituents and fellow citizens.

It is also with our constituents in mind that we should take appropriate and improved security measures. However, these measures must never impede our freedoms. Otherwise, terrorists could believe they managed to scare us and force us to react out of panic. It would be too much like their way of doing things. We have built democracy by acting with balance, in the spirit of duty and within the rule of law. We must continue to do so. We must make sure democracy is respected by showing that it is here to stay.

Our choices should not be based on considerations of security, but rather on society. We all agree that the perpetrators of these murderous attacks should be held accountable before the courts. In order to do so, all diplomatic, political, economic and social options should be put forward. Indeed, the military option should be considered, however, it should be set aside as long as possible.

Military action should be taken only after debate and a vote in the House of Commons. That is what our parliamentary system is all about. We debate, then we vote. This is democracy.

The House has to make sure the measures implemented in response to the attacks do not endanger the lives of innocent people. We should not follow in the steps of terrorists. We should rather show them that democracy and freedom have nothing to do with ignorance, obscurantism and violence. Obviously, an exclusively military response would not solve the terrorist threat.

No security measure, no army can defeat terrorists who have no respect whatsoever for human life. The government is looking into actions that will affect all Canadians. Theses actions are of utmost importance. What is at stake is the life of the Canadian people. It is a serious matter.

Our response should be unwavering, and we should respond through the democratic process. In our democracy, we must have consultations followed by a vote. True, our life should go on, but so should democracy. How can we make sure democracy goes on? By consulting with parliamentarians, by debating issues of concern for the public and all citizens, and by having votes in parliament. We are the people's representatives.

We agree that life should go on, but that implies protecting our freedoms. We protect them through a dutiful application of the democratic process in elections and consultations. Openness is at stake. It is normal for us to be free in our daily lives. Democracy is also something we take for granted. We will find the normal course of our life again if we can be sure the democratic process will still be there and will still be respected. Consultations and votes in parliament are part and parcel of our freedom of expression and representation.

Terrorist groups do not have this advantage. To the contrary, they have to trample over the basic rights of all societies. Unlike them, we respect the rights and freedoms of our fellow citizens. Consultation is an integral part of democracy. Voting on government decisions is a way of strengthening democracy. That should be our true response to terrorist attacks.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I think the member spoke very well, but I do have a problem.

I will ask everyone to picture this. The World Trade Center has been attacked and 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 people, who knows, have been murdered. President Bush asks the Prime Minister to come to an urgent meeting in Washington the next day to lay out a strategy and asks for military support. The Prime Minister tells the president to hold that thought because he has to go back to Ottawa in order to convene parliament and have a discussion with House members on whether or not Canada will participate and support its allies and friends. That is the preposterous nature of what is being proposed here.

The member said in his speech that we should debate whether we would deploy military forces in any action. I think he mentioned civilian risk and that there are degrees of that and no guarantee that people will not be hurt. The question for the member is whether he believes that perhaps this discussion should not be a discussion on a specific event such as the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington but rather should be a debate in the House.

The question for the member is whether in fact the motion should have said in the event that a situation occurs where our NATO allies or friends request military action, what are the rules under which the House would ask the government to guide it in its decision making so that we can in fact participate in a timely and constructive fashion?

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is an important question. As was done in France and Argentina, we want to vote before the fact on whether to deploy troops. What could be more democratic? We do not want only to debate, we want to vote as well.

In an emergency situation like the one the parliamentary secretary just referred to, and we are indeed in an emergency situation, we can plan what we want to do. It is important to debate the matter and vote on the different ways to commit Canadian forces, either by a deployment of troops or by the approval of an offensive action by the army.

It is also a question of the money that will be available, the financial means that will have to be introduced. We have to be able to debate the matter and to vote on it in the House of Commons.

As for the example given by the parliamentary secretary on the urgency of the situation, what do we do if something happens? We have seen what happened during the attacks.

We have to be ready. We hear it everywhere. Everybody is saying that we were not ready. The democratic world was not ready. The free world was not ready.

We have to talk about those things and have a vote to determine our priorities and exactly when Canadians will be ready to engage in an offensive action. Will they ever want to do so? I hope government members will be listening to Canadians and Quebecers.

It is important for the government to listen to these people. How can they get the attention of the government if not through their representatives? The Liberal members across the way were elected and are their representatives. They are not just members of the government. Every single one of them is a member of parliament, a representative of the people who elected them. If they do not listen to their representatives, what do they do? It is not for the executive power to make decisions as important as this one.

If, tomorrow morning there is an emergency, they have the authority to act. However they must not forget that parliament can be recalled on an emergency basis. The House of Commons can be called back at any time. We can debate and make a decision.

It is important that we keep up the fight to be able to vote in the House of Commons.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. On a decision like this, the government should consult the House and the issue should be debated at length. Every member of the House is entitled to be heard and every member should be heard, but I am at a loss as to how the motion would work.

The motion calls for the government to not commit the Canadian armed forces to any offensive action until the House of Commons has been consulted and a vote has been held. Would the deployment of four or five specialized persons call for a motion in the House, or the whole armed forces being sent to Afghanistan? Where do we draw the line?

As well, is the hon. member aware of any other democratic countries, based upon the Westminster model, that would require a vote in the House before the deployment of armed forces?

[Robert Lanctôt, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Madam Speaker, on the issue of whether to send one, two, three, four or five soldiers, or none, we must be careful. We should not become terrorists ourselves.

Let us not rush the debate. If the action was to be an offensive one, let us show how important democracy is. It is not up to one group of people, the executive, to decide. It is up to parliament, to the House of Commons. We are a democracy.

A vote has to be held. Numbers will not determine whether it is important or not. It is the offensive nature of the action—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but he has run out of time. The member for Matapédia--Matane.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Châteauguay, who just spoke, even though he took some time away from me. I think he spoke with so much energy and passion that it was worth it.

He conveyed very well the idea I wanted to start my speech with, which is that the Bloc motion is a simple matter of respect for democracy. I believe that parliament ought to be consulted and that each member be allowed to express in a vote the opinions and wishes of the people they represent.

As the hon. member for Châteauguay aptly pointed out that we represent the people. We must therefore make decisions on behalf of the people, and thus we must be consulted and have the right to vote.

In this debate, I also heard members say that our democracy ought to preach by example. I have heard this time and time again. If we really wish to preach by example, as others mentioned, it has to start here, in this parliament. It is here that we must show how democracy works and the government must allow the elected representatives to vote on the issue.

When I became aware with people all over the world of the events in New York on September 11, I was struck by the sheer magnitude of this tragedy. Thousands of men and women had their physical integrity denied or lost their lives.

It is easy to imagine the horror that filled their soul. Like many of us, I thought about those who watched on TV the death of their husband or wife, or friends.

I thought about fathers and mothers who lost a daughter or a son. I thought about children who watched on TV the death of their mother or father.

While we watched this immense tragedy unfolding before our eyes, our first reactions were stupefaction, the disbelief that other human beings can do such a thing and destroy so many lives for a cause. I do not think any cause can justify such acts and the sacrifice of so many lives.

After these first two reactions, stupefaction and disbelief, the third one is probably anger, and that is what we witnessed. However anger is blind and it often makes us do things we cannot justify afterwards.

When anger subsides, we should look for causes. Why is mankind capable of such acts? How can people commit such crimes? I am not in any way tempted to justify these actions. They have never been acceptable and they never will be.

We should face the fact that this kind of action is not new. The attacks on September 11 have been more spectacular and dramatic than previous incidents throughout the world, but for decades our democratic societies have been the target of repeated terrorist attacks.

For decades, not one year has gone by without us seeing a new war being fought in some part of the world. With the new millennium, with the fall of the Berlin wall, the men and women who live on this planet had a new hope, the hope that mankind was heading toward a new era, an era of possible peace and prosperity for all.

If the 20th century gave us two world wars, my children, our children had the right to expect that mankind would have finally understood that war and violence lead nowhere.

Of course, we have the right to self-defence. The attacks of September 11 call for a response, not vengeance but a response.

Those responsible must pay the consequences. Democracies must take measures but they must not act blindly. As democrats, we must use all the means at our disposal to ensure that these kinds of actions do not happen again or at least to try to prevent them as much as possible.

Over the last few days, we heard many speeches in the House. However few members addressed the real causes of the tragedy of September 11.

The greatest tragedies are born of poverty and misery. Throughout the world, millions of human beings live in poverty, which creates the conditions that lead to dictatorships and terrorism.

Poverty exists even in our country. It may not be as apparent as in certain third world countries or fourth world countries, as some would say today, but it does exist.

There is a huge disparity between so-called industrialized countries and poor countries. There is a huge disparity between rich countries and poor countries, as well as between various regions of our country.

The Bloc Quebecois wants democracy to be respected. This is the sole objective of the motion introduced in the House today, that is the respect of democracy.

The people from Quebec have elected members to represent them in the House. These members represent the people of their ridings. It is this right to representation that we are requesting today through the motion that has been put before the House.

It is nothing but the right to represent our people and to present their views that we are asking the House today.

We do not accept the fact that Canada, as a democracy, can commit to an action without first having given parliament the chance to vote, without having consulted with its representatives.

We are only asking for the respect of our values, of the values of all Quebecers and all Canadians.

I want to reiterate that the democracies and the rich countries will have to share their wealth, to spend more in assistance to developing countries and to support the democratic nations around the world.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I want to contribute to the debate today because I think it is very important in light of what is being talked about and obviously in terms of what is happening in the world. We see the ramifications that are taking place and I think it is important that we in the House do in fact have the time to debate these very important issues.

I think it is fair to say that on September 11, 2001, the world changed, for Canada and for everyone. The September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the aborted hijacked plane in Pennsylvania were not just vicious attacks on the United States, our closest friend and ally, but rather they were cold hearted, calculated attacks on our way of life and upon democracy itself. They offended what the world and global community of just and democratic nations and law abiding and tolerant peoples hold dear and precious. We have to make sure that we understand fully that they call upon us to defend our most precious and cherished values and our freedoms. It is at this time that we do precisely that.

It is also fair to say that all Canadians have been profoundly affected by the nature and the scope of the attacks. One hundred thousand Canadians gathered to share their grief on Parliament Hill. As we know, that event was widely televised. Canadians from all across this great land of ours opened their hearts and their homes to over 30,000 passengers and crew from over 250 flights stranded in Canada on that terrible day. Canadian firemen and firewomen and relief workers are helping with the recovery and the rescue in New York City as we speak.

However the time to mourn is over. As President Bush noted when he ordered the U.S. flags back to full mast, now is the time to act, not in haste but with determination and resolve. That we will do in concert with our American friends. Let there be no doubt about it. Canada stands in solidarity and in sympathy with our American friend, our partner and our ally. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the U.S. in this campaign against terrorism. Together we will use all lawful means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, including extradition or prosecution of those suspected of terrorist crimes.

Last Friday the Minister of Foreign Affairs met with the secretary of state, Colin Powell. Yesterday our Prime Minister met with President Bush. They discussed how we can work together to forge the coalition and the campaign against terrorism and how we can work together to better protect the citizens of our two countries.

Our security in its broadest possible political, economic and military sense is inextricably linked to the United States. We can never forget that, not just because of NATO or NORAD, not just because we share a common border or the world's most important trading relationship, but our common values and political ideals bind us as well as our willingness to defend those very ideals.

The Prime Minister and our foreign affairs minister assured the president and Secretary of State Powell of the full support of the people of Canada and our government. As both Secretary Powell and President Bush noted, they never had any doubts about the commitment and the support of their brothers and sisters in Canada. Those are their words. Both said how touched they have been and appreciative they are of the actions and the solidarity of the people of Canada.

We, along with a broad coalition of countries, are now launched into a long campaign against terrorism. President Bush and our Prime Minister have both cautioned that there will be no quick and easy victory, that we must root out the evil that exists without creating a new army of dedicated extremists. That too we will do.

We must be precise and be prepared to use all of the tools at our disposal, diplomatic, legal and financial, as well as military resources, to combat this evil. Our answer must be sober, well judged and well thought through, but also resounding and resolute in its approach.

The discussions that our foreign affairs minister had with Secretary Powell on Friday and those that the Prime Minister had with President Bush yesterday indicate that the administration of the United States of America is clearly on the same wavelength as we here in Canada.

We stand, then, shoulder to shoulder with our American friends. They know that a variety of tools is necessary, that it is important to build a wide coalition of governments, that it is important not to act hastily but to act with great foresight and planning and the wisdom that requires.

They recognize that this campaign against terrorism involves diplomacy, intelligence and police work, and the preparations are methodical, both on their side as well as ours. We have given that kind of co-operation and will continue to do so in the best interests of not only the people of Canada and the United States but of freedom loving people wherever they exist in this world of ours.

The campaign has begun. The United Nations General Assembly and the UN Security Council have both underlined, in their forceful condemnations of these attacks, that the perpetrators of this terror and those who abet or harbour them will be held accountable, and justifiably so.

The United States of America together with Canada and other allies have moved to invoke article 5 of the NATO charter for the first time in the 52 year history of the alliance. This step indicates and underscores the iron resolve of all of our members of the NATO alliance to act individually and collectively in self defence against this evil in full compliance with the United Nations charter.

In addition, Canada and the United States of America share an extremely close defence relationship based on our common defence of the North American continent. Our forces are fully capable of working with American military units across a broad spectrum of roles. That we are prepared to do when we are asked to do so.

In his meeting with President Bush, the Prime Minister also focused on the vital necessity of forging a broad coalition against terrorism. The Prime Minister assured the president that Canada will support the United States of America in every way, using our special relationships in the Commonwealth and la Francophonie to rally as many countries as possible to the effort against this terrorism.

In that, Canada is well positioned. We have an historic and great tradition in these matters in terms of how we can help. We in Canada are prepared, and the Prime Minister has indicated thus, to follow through on that very important matter.

In the meetings with Secretary Powell and the Prime Minister there was a strong appreciation of how our two countries collaborate together and are ready in the combat against terrorism in North America. Canadian agencies, for example, such as the RCMP, CSIS and immigration, transport, and customs, enjoy already close and intense working relationships with our American counterparts in those areas.

No two countries work more closely in ensuring the safety of their citizens. President Bush and Secretary of State Powell were appreciative of how our security services and police are playing their full role in this crisis. I think it is worthy that the House from time to time recognize the great work that our people do in this regard, our security people, our police services, at whatever level and in whatever capacity. It is a great service they provide, not only for the safety and security of our communities, our neighbourhoods, our towns, cities and villages, but also in this trying time they provide the kind of co-operation that is required, important and needed.

We will do more. The House is well aware of the legislation we have been working on in the area of immigration and to permit ratification of the convention on financing of terrorism. We have other legislation ready to permit ratification of the convention on terrorist bombings, for example. These instruments will guide our way forward. We welcome the appointment of Governor Ridge as homeland defence secretary. The Prime Minister indicated to the president our desire to invite the secretary to Ottawa as soon as possible after his confirmation. This will allow us to deepen our sense of security and our sense of co-operation with him in that very important role.

We know that President Bush and Secretary Powell, without prodding, understood the potential damage to our economies if our borders were to become sealed and why it is important that we work together to ensure that our border remains a model for the world.

A fluid but secure border is critical to our economies. Again, that is very well understood and we will be working very hard in the next little while to ensure that it carries on. If we do not do that, then those evil terrorists win. We must look at how to find a common approach to enhancing security at the border while still facilitating the vital flows between our two countries that are critical to our economies but always guided by the principle that Canadians are guided by Canadian law and Americans are guided by American law. That is a strong division and a strong and sacrosanct principle. That is something we will carry on with.

Canada's alliances have always been freely entered into as befits a strong and sovereign nation such as Canada, a sovereign nation that has never hid behind an isolationist or pacifist sentiment; a sovereign nation that has made common cause in war and peace with our fellow democracies to defend our peace and security and the values we cherish as a multicultural democratic society and a free people. We do so again, always in compliance with international law.

Since 1993 we have had the practice of consulting parliament before we involve Canadian forces in military operations and we will continue to observe this practice. In the aftermath of the crisis the government has kept parliament fully abreast of the situation. On Monday, September 17, the House debated a special motion on the tragedy. This included discussion of efforts at NATO to respond collectively through the invocation of article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

On Tuesday the House debated the strategy during the opposition day as well, including what took place on September 11, and had a special take note debate last Thursday on the Prime Minister's meeting with the President of the United States.

The events of September 11 constitute a horrific crime, in fact countless crimes. Canada must act in concert with others using all lawful means to bring those responsible to justice. Before we discuss the possibility of participating in military action let me underline that we have had no request to date from the United States for a Canadian contingent and that no decision has been taken by our government yet to deploy Canadian units in the campaign against terrorism.

We would want to consult with parliament before any such deployment would take place. However it stands to reason that there will be circumstances where the government will want to maintain flexibility, obviously to respond quickly to emergency situations.

As we ponder whether there is a role that Canada might be able to play in this campaign, I am sure that parliament will want to provide our ally, the United States of America, with all the assistance that is appropriate. I am convinced as well that the House will want to do what is necessary to protect Canada.

The United States was not the only victim in the attack on September 11. We too have suffered a great loss. Hundreds of citizens from Canada and other countries died on that day as well and there are thousands of families across the world who have suffered.

What I am saying is this. This is a horrific time for us to be going through. I think the Parliament of Canada understands that. Certainly the government understands fully that this is a time of great sorrow but also a time where we have to act in concert with our American allies, and that we will do.

I think the last couple of days have shown that again and again in terms of the bilateral meetings that took place between our Prime Minister and President Bush. It also was underscored when our foreign affairs minister met with the secretary of state to again forge the links that have existed so historically and traditionally between Canada and the United States, to again reassert the great values that we hold in common and that we share as sovereign nations, to say that we will stand by our American brothers and sisters as they would by us and that we will do so in the best interests of Canada and in the best interests of the people of Canada. By extension when we do that, when we stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends and allies in support, we will provide them with the kinds of requirements necessary to ensure that in fact we underscore our commitment to them.

At the end of all of this, my point is simple. The Canadian government will stand with the Americans in this very important matter.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)