Grant McNally

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good motion as it addresses the concerns that the member brought up. It is my understanding that the government is supportive of this motion.

As I outlined in my speech, it is a concrete action that we can take together as members from different parties to show that we can come together, in a way that has not been done very often before, in this time of crisis and share information. That is a positive thing. It is my hope that all members will support the motion this evening.

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to join the debate on the important motion that the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition has brought forward in the House today.

I would again rebut the earlier comments of my colleague from the Alliance who said this was a motion of little substance. She said it was some kind of apple pie rhetoric. It is far from that. The motion gives us the opportunity to debate an important action that we can take together as members in the House.

I want to focus my comments very directly on the motion. I want to look at the second part of the motion because this is the part where many members today have taken issue. I will read the second part of the motion into the record:

That this House hereby order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to sit jointly to hold frequent meetings with ministers and officials of the government and the military.

That is a very important part of this motion. It is a part that has been dismissed by some members in the House as being motherhood or apple pie. I think it sends a message. It gives us an opportunity of a concrete step that can be taken. I think it can be endorsed by all members from all parties in this place and can provide the opportunity for us to have an outlet to share information.

Look at what is happening in the United States in the case of this crisis. Members of congress are being briefed on many of the details surrounding the responses of the United States, its military response and responses in other ways. Yet in many ways there continues to be a vacuum of information here.

We understand that there is certain information that cannot be shared. An idea was brought forward by the leader of our coalition who said why not bring the party leaders into the Privy Council for this period of time so they can be briefed with confidential information and bound by confidentiality. That would be a good thing. It would send a message to all Canadians that we are all members of the House working in a non-partisan way for a very important reason, which is to get on with dealing with the serious issues before us regarding the events surrounding September 11.

I reject the notion that this is simply an apple pie motion. The motion has been crafted in a way to elicit support from all members of the House, not just members of the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative coalition, but support from our colleagues from the Alliance, the Bloc, the NDP and the government.

I have not heard one argument today that has been a good argument to reject the motion before us. It would be our hope that tonight we would see members rise in support of this motion because it takes a concrete idea, moves it forward into practical application in a way that we can show Canadians that we are able to break down some of the partisan walls that have developed over the years in this place and to put in play something where we can come forward and have regular briefings of two different committees with government ministers and other officials of the government and the military.

I do not think it is a huge thing to ask. It should garner the support of all people in the House. It was with that intent that this motion was crafted in that way to break down those partisan walls.

As I have said in the House many times since September 11, it is time for us, as leaders of the nation in the face of the crisis before us in terms of the events of September 11, to start to do more than just talk. We must take action and show by our actions that we mean business. We must include all voices of all regions of the country by eliciting the support and the involvement of all members of parliament. We must share the information that can be shared. We must allay people's fears by sharing information about what our government is doing and what concrete steps we are planning to take.

The Minister of Transport outlined some details, and we are thankful for that. We think there is more that he and his department can do. They are taking steps and have made some announcements.

Other government departments have taken some concrete steps, but there needs to be more. There needs to be involvement of not only members of parliament, but the Canadian public.

When information goes unchecked, it can lead to misinformation. Why do we not take the opportunity to lead by example by supporting this motion and showing to the people of Canada that we have moved forward from a partisan divide, which we have so often here, to one where we are breaking down those walls in the best interests, not of our political parties but for our country? This way we can reflect on what people are telling us in the ridings we represent. We can bring their message to Ottawa where we can have an impact as a nation to address the concerns before us.

It is my belief that if we are able to support this motion tonight we will see a change in a small way, but it will be a concrete change. It will be a change that will provide more information sharing. There will be a coming together of two parliamentary committees where we can reaffirm our support for our military and the tragic events of September 11.

If we do that, we would then be able to take further steps in future days,weeks and months in this place. People across Canada are waiting for us to move to that model of governance in our nation, where it is not one team against the other, but where it is what is in the best interest of our country.

A crisis can bring opportunity. The opportunity before us now as members of parliament, as leaders of the nation, is to come together to find solutions and to stand for the freedoms that we have built this nation on so they will not go unchallenged by those who would attempt to use fear and tragic acts of violence to intimidate our freedoms in Canada.

A generation ago in this very House there were many debates about Canada's participation in World War II. The parliamentarians of that day took bold action when they moved forward. The cost was great but the price that was paid led to the freedoms that we have today. We must safeguard those freedoms that were won by those in the generation before us. They have given us so much so we can move forward as a nation and as a world to combat the terror before us and continue on as a free and great nation, contributing to that freedom around the world.

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I agreed with many of the things my colleague from the Alliance had to say, but there were a couple of things that disturbed me a bit. He said that the motion added little substance to the debate. Then he went on to make many very good points about the reason we need to be debating this issue.

He made some valuable contributions when he mentioned the impact this military action would have on the lives of individuals within his own riding and on the lives of the families affected. He made some very good points about that. He also went on to say that the motion is apple pie rhetoric and then went on to say that he would be supporting it.

I appreciate the member's support for the motion brought forward by the Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative coalition. How can he on the one hand support the motion and at the same time use rather inflammatory remarks about those that he agrees with?

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for her comments.

I will put the same question to her to which I was very unsuccessful in getting an answer from her colleague just moments ago. It was a question I had to ask three times and to which I never did receive an answer. I received some personal insults from the member, but that is the cut and thrust of what goes on in this place sometimes.

I will ask my colleague from the governing party whether or not she will be standing in her place tonight when the PC/DR coalition's motion comes to a vote and showing by her actions that she supports the motion. Will she be voting yes to the motion tonight?

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a simple question and it has been asked twice. I will try a third time. The member says she supports the first part of the motion. She indicates that this is a motherhood issue that we should all support but seems reluctant to indicate either a yes or a no.

Will she stand in her place tonight when we have the vote and support the motion? It is a simple and direct question which can be answered with a yes or a no.

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member alluded to her earlier speech in which she said we should support the military. I indicated that we support the military and she indicated that as well.

I do not think the hon. member directly answered my question so I will put it to her again. Will she be supporting the motion that the PC/DR coalition has brought to the House today, that the committees work on having joint meetings for informing members and the public about what is going on? Will the hon. member support the motion, yes or no?

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we on the opposition side support our armed forces and the great job they do. They perhaps do not have all the tools they could have to do their job even better, but we know they work hard.

I have one short question for my colleague. She asked us to support the military. We have indicated our support for the military. Will she be supporting the motion being debated before the House today that was put forward by the PC/DR coalition?

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have two brief questions for the minister. First, will she be supporting the motion tonight in the House? Second, what concrete measures can she give and can she assure the House that the aid dollars she has indicated will go to Afghanistan will be directed to those who supply the aid in a way where it can be monitored so that it does not fall into the wrong hands, so to speak?

I know she mentioned briefly some of those details. Could she give us a little more specific detail as to what the government's plan is in that particular area?

[International Actions Against Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I consider it an honour to be able to participate in this take note debate as well, with my colleagues from all parties.

I want to begin by once again offering my condolences to the people of the United States for the terrible incident that occurred on September 11, and I do that on behalf of the people of Dewdney--Alouette.

Some people often ask me where Dewdney--Alouette is or what province Iam. It is a riding in British Columbia just outside Vancouver which encompasses mainly the cities of Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Mission, Agassiz and Harrison Hot Springs. I have received a number of phone calls, e-mails and letters from people wishing to pass on their condolences to our good friends and neighbours in the United States. Therefore, I do that at the beginning.

I would also like to acknowledge something that does not happen too often in the House, and it happened earlier this evening. We passed an opposition supply day motion brought forward by members of the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative coalition. It was supported by almost all members of the House.

I would like to read the opposition motion brought forward by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, the leader of our coalition, into the record one last time. It states:

That this House reaffirm its condemnation of the terrorist attacks against our NATO ally, the United States of America, on September 11, 2001, and affirm its support for Canada's courageous men and women in the Canadian Forces who are responding to defend freedom and democracy in the international military coalition against terrorism; and

That this House order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to sit jointly to hold frequent meetings with ministers and officials of the government and the military.

That was a positive step and I think we demonstrated through our actions that we are able to come together in a non-partisan way to take a small step to show that we can work together in this place. I was encouraged by that.

I would also like to refer to a couple of comments made by the Prime Minister earlier in debate here in the House. I commend the Prime Minister for speaking in the House and for his presence during all the speeches of the leaders of the opposition parties. He said that we have no quarrel with Islam or with the people of Afghanistan, and I agree with him. He went on to say that our quarrel is against terrorists and those who would commit the acts of violence and horror that we witnessed on September 11.

The action of those terrorists was wrong, immoral and evil to the core. I do not think there is much debate about that.

I would like to frame the rest of my comments in the form of some questions that I would have for the government. I would also like to commend the government for bringing forward Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism bill, which was introduced in the House today.

I am one who will often say to the government when it does something positive and comes up with a good idea, congratulations. It is my hope we will do more of that and that in turn the government members can support good ideas from the opposition benches.

A question I have for the immigration minister is this. What does the immigration minister plan to do to stop the flow of potential terrorists during the lag time before the maple leaf card comes on line in June and the months before it is fully implemented? How would this measure specifically deter terrorists from coming to Canada? I applaud her for the action. I have some follow up questions for her on that.

I have a question for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. Why have the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister rejected out of hand the notion of an integrated security perimeter? It has been raised by others. Why are we not willing to consider, as a possibility, integrating our security perimeter with our friends from the United States? It raises implications for international trade, the movement of goods and people from our country to the United States and back the other way.

I also have a question for the Minister of Transport. Why would the minister reject the suggestion brought forward by our coalition and other members of the House to employ air marshals on domestic flights in Canada? We know that he has agreed to do so on flights which originate in Canada and go to Reagan National Airport in Washington because it is required that air marshals be on all flights that arrive at that destination.

I know the issue of intermittent reinforcement is the most powerful kind of reinforcement there is. Whether positive or negative, when individuals are unaware of when they will be rewarded or punished for an act, they are more likely to continue in a positive vein. In other words, if terrorists are on domestic flights and they know there are no air marshals on that flight, it will not be a deterrent. If they are aware there are air marshals, then they must consider that before taking action.

The idea of air marshals is a worthwhile notion to explore and the Minister of Transport should look seriously at that.

Why does the government and the Prime Minister reject the suggestion to bring leaders of opposition parties into the Privy Council to break down partisan walls and show real leadership? This was done by the Conservative government during the gulf war and it would be a good thing to do now.

Why does the Prime Minister reject the suggestion to give regular briefings in the House on important developments with regard to Canada's role in fighting terrorism? This has been done in the United States. Even after a security breach and concerns from the president, the practice continued because members of congress guaranteed to, in essence, to police themselves and make sure that the confidentiality of the information would not be breached.

When people are brought into confidence and they are trusted, their confidence and trust increases as well. I would put forward that if the government showed that kind of leadership there would be goodwill from all members of the House to participate in that. Would there be a risk for the government? Yes, there would be but at the same time the benefits would outweigh the risks in bringing along members from all parties into the discussion and by extension, the constituents they represent across the country.

Why do Canadians have to find out about commitments made by the government at party fundraisers or on CNN's Larry King Live ? That has happened a few times. Again, I point to the fact that the Prime Minister spoke in the House this evening. I appreciated that. This is a better place to bring forward information on the war on terrorism than at a party fundraiser or on an American news broadcast.

Why did the Prime Minister commit 2,000 of our military personnel to the war on terrorism without recalling parliament, where he would have received overwhelming support from all parties in a non-partisan display of unity? I support the commitment the government made. Our coalition supports that commitment. I would assert that the Prime Minister would have had overwhelming support, built trust and broken down walls in doing that. We could have shown by our actions that that would have been a good thing to do.

I appreciate the opportunity to raise these questions. I look forward to answers in days to come from the government.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, October 5th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from our coalition for his speech. This is a technical housekeeping bill. Yet, as I have indicated in the House since we have returned, it surprises me that the government would proceed with its legislative agenda as though nothing had changed on September 11. It is surprising, given the fact that we need to pay attention to some very serious legislation dealing with terrorism and additional funding for the RCMP.

Also, in the area of foreign affairs there is a conflict between what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying in comparison to other ministers of the crown. My colleague asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs in question period today why he was putting our trade at risk by ruling out of hand the notion of border security. The minister stated on September 11 that indeed the world had changed.

The House closed for 35 minutes yesterday because the government could not bring forward a bill. It did not have anything to say for 35 minutes. That is shocking. I could not believe that we adjourned the House for 35 minutes, given the serious events that have taken place. The government by its actions is showing that it is sleeping.

Does my colleague share the same surprise that I have with the government's inaction in these major areas and that it is proceeding with its legislative agenda as if nothing has changed?