John Bryden

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when I was a child I dreamed of travel. When I became a young man I did my very level best to travel. Unfortunately the world is a very large place and I just could not get to all the corners of the world that I wanted to get to, so I decided to do something that reflects my ethnic origin which is British. I decided I would try to go to Timbuktu.

Timbuktu is on the other side of the Sahara desert. Timbuktu has a symbolism among the English speaking people as the place that is as far away as anywhere can possibly be, so it was a great adventure.

I embarked on that voyage in my early twenties. I was a graduate student at the University of Leeds in the north of England. I persuaded another young man who had the equipment, the rucksacks, the tents and all the rest of it, to hitchhike across France into Africa and across the Sahara desert to Timbuktu.

The reason I begin with this story is that it was my first encounter and my most memorable encounter with Islam. What happened is we arrived in Algiers on the day before Christmas. On the day after Christmas we set out on our journey from Algiers, the city, and we hitchhiked across the Atlas mountains. We realized that it was an impossible journey as we did not have the equipment or the money and we did not have the knowledge that would see us across the Sahara desert for 1,000 miles to see Timbuktu.

On a memorable morning we were outside an oasis just on the other side of the Atlas mountains, not really an oasis, a village. We were just in the semi-desert area of the Sahara desert and we resolved to hitchhike the first vehicle that came out of the oasis that morning.

In fact, two vehicles came out. They were two trucks and they had some people of the desert in the truck. I hesitate to use the word Arab because that does not really describe them. It is what people understand them to be. There were two rural Algerians or partly rural Algerians in the truck. Anyway, they said “come with us”. They put us on the top of the trucks which were carrying sacks of grain and they turned south.

For the next five days we were looked after by that party of Algerians in those two trucks. They put us on the top of the sacks of grain and they gave us the jalabas and we rolled across the Sahara desert.

One cannot imagine what the Sahara desert is like. One can understand why the great religions were formed in this backdrop of the grand erg, as they call it there, the great zero, because it is the most spectacular scenery that one can possibly ever hope to see.

The only thing that has ever matched it has been the High Arctic because as we rolled on the top of these trucks we would look out across the arid land to the mountains, and what we would see is the mountains that were purple and green in the distance. We could see where the whole idea of paradise came from, people who saw around them the desert waste and then looked over to see the land of milk and honey in the distance, but of course those hills were arid hills.

Those people who took us on that voyage across the Sahara desert, they were desert people. What I learned from them was that Islam is a religion of great generosity. They never asked about our religion. They never asked about our culture. It was sufficient that these two strange young men, attired in a very strange way, were standing there at the edge of the desert by the road and that we were seeking their help. For days on end the hospitality was absolutely incredible.

In the evening what they would do is they would stop the trucks. They would cut a dry type of bush that they would gather wherever they could, and we would have a campfire in which they would put a great tin bowl and they would fill it with semolina which is the material that couscous is made out of. Each man would sit around, there were a total of eight of us, and we would share from the two bowls and we would eat together.

At night what would happen is they would roll the blankets on the desert floor and we would lie down like cord wood, all of us, myself and my friend and the others, and the last man on the end would roll the blanket on top. Lying out in the great Sahara desert and looking up at strange stars, it was an experience that was a defining moment in my life.

After that trip as my young family was growing up, when my wife and I wanted to take holidays occasionally we took separate holidays. She would go to Europe. I would go to North Africa. Over the years I visited Algeria again. I visited Morocco. I visited Tunis. I was actually thrown out of Libya at gunpoint, so I have mixed feelings about Mr. Khadafi, and then I went several times to Egypt.

All of this is to say that I have learned much about Islam. It is not definitive perhaps, but I have an emotional feeling for it because I realize and I learned that it is a religion of generosity. It is a religion that seeks to help the oppressed and puts that hand out, no questions asked.

I should add in passing that it gave me an understanding of the so-called Palestinian problem because among Muslims, I think around the globe, there is this desire to help people who are oppressed and there is this strong sense that the Palestinians have been wrongly done by and should deserve the support of Muslims around the world, but in saying that, there is nothing in my experience with the many Muslims I have met both at home here and in Africa that would ever suggest that violence is a part of what Islam is.

I say all this in addressing the part of this motion that deals with the problem of intolerance in the context of this dreadful occurrence at the World Trade Centre, this terrorist act.

My experience in travel made me realize how much we are children of this world. Whether we are Hebrew, whether we are Christian, whether we are Hindu, whether we are Muslim, we are still people of this world and people of the same God, if you will, Mr. Speaker.

When we learn that kind of thing, we realize that Canada's strength is in the fact that so many people from various parts of the world have come to this land. While I had, shall we say, this enlarging experience because I travelled to a remote corner of the world, many Canadians do not have that opportunity.

In the last 25 years because there has been such an influx of people from all around the world of different races, of different ethnicities, of different religions, if you will, Mr. Speaker, I have great confidence, and indeed I believe I see it every day, that Canadians as a people have a level of understanding and compassion and tolerance for people who are different than them. It is the very essence of this country of Canada. It is the very essence of the charter of rights and freedoms.

When I come to this motion which suggests that there is a rising tide of intolerance, I hesitate because what I think we are really dealing with is natural fear that happens among any nation and any group of people when terrible crimes are committed, but I do not think for one moment that it is something we could characterize as a rising tide of intolerance.

I do not think it is something that is addressed by governments. I think of it as something that is addressed by parliament. We as members of parliament should lead the way and make sure that our hands are out there in our communities bringing people together in these troubled times to quiet the fears, because I believe absolutely that in the end Canadians are far stronger than any terrorists anywhere in the world.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Palliser for his excellent speech. I am sure everyone in the House would agree that any general bombing of civilians or attack on civilians would be the last thing we would want to do.

The American president made it very clear that it would be folly to allow this terrorist act to spread into any kind of war that could be argued as a war against people because of their ethnicity, their religion or whatever else.

Having said that, the member also said that these terrorists need to be brought to justice. His colleagues supported him on that, and we support that as well.

If we are to bring terrorists to justice what do we do when they are harboured by a foreign state? How can we bring these terrorists to justice when they are harboured by a foreign state without resorting to some form of military intervention or military violence?

In that context can I ask him whether or not he would agree that if the Americans or the allies or whomever go in and attempt to obtain these terrorists as a group and do the minimum amount of damage to civilians, this would be quite in keeping with their responsibilities.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand what has been said by the Bush administration and others, it is really not a question of a bombing action in the traditional sense of war between sovereign states. What appears to be talked about is essentially a military police action in which the perpetrators of terror are neutralized by armed force. That is what we seem to be talking about.

Given all that the member opposite has said, would he not agree that countries have a right to defend themselves when attacked, if the response is focused precisely on the perpetrators of terror and not on the general population of Afghanistan?

[Canadian Airline Industry, October 1st, 2001]

Madam Chairman, we are a prisoner of our own symbolism. The current Prime Minister is fond of recalling that he got his name as a novice member of parliament by moving a private member's bill that renamed the national airline carrier Air Canada. Since that time, Air Canada's jets have been like emissaries of the country worldwide. They are seen in airports everywhere and they say Canada. The reality is that no major nation in the G-7 can afford not to have a national airline and not to have a national air carrier whose planes are shown in the airports of the world.

It is more than just a symbolic thing. Symbols have a powerful impact on people's imaginations and the way they interact with one another. The Air Canada symbol helps us in world trade. It helps us in selling ourselves as a nation across the world. That may be small in numbers, but large in heart, large in expertise, large in much of what we have to offer to the world. Therefore, I do not feel that we really have any choice but to rescue Air Canada. We have gone far enough, shall we say, in losing Canadian but we certainly, as a nation, cannot lose our airline symbol.

There is a second reason why the government is obligated to rescue Air Canada. I speak of Air Canada and not the other airlines, even though I think that they would be entitled to claim help as well. We have to rescue Air Canada because the government, for the right reasons or the wrong reasons depending on how we look at it, is responsible for putting Air Canada in the very difficult position that it finds itself in the wake of this crisis.

What should have actually happened when Canadian was having difficulty, was market forces should have been allowed to operate and Canadian should have gone under. The government instead, wishing to protect the jobs of Canadian airline employees, forced Air Canada, indirectly perhaps, to undertake a merger.

Indeed, those of us who have some knowledge of how business operates would have argued very strongly that the better thing for Air Canada and the airline industry would have been to let the market forces have their way. That is a terribly harsh thing to say when we are talking about people's jobs and livelihoods. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Air Canada is less able to withstand the events of September 11, because of the fact that it acquired Canadian, than it would have been if Canadian had been allowed to perish economically, as would normally happen.

To me the question of rescuing Air Canada is academic. How we do it is the subject of other people's speeches here. I feel very strongly that what is more effective than any rescue or any valid bailout, is to get the passengers back on Air Canada, get the travelling public back up in the air. I am concerned because the government has been very unwilling to take a position on airline security.

Some of the debate tonight was about the fact the government would bring in better technology to beef up security at airports, bomb sniffing machines and that kind of thing. However, the tragedy that occurred on September 11 and the reason why people are not flying is not because of airport security. It is aircraft security that has everyone frightened. Nothing changed on September 11 with respect to airport security. Airports have always been at risk by terrorists.

It goes back to the bombings of which I think the first was 1968. It was an airplane hijacking but not with the intent of a suicide flight into a ground target. In imaginations of people, they have this picture about what must have occurred on these aircrafts when people realized they were destined on a suicide mission. That is quite different than a normal hijacking where people on the aircraft might have had some hope of survival.

Actually I have nightmares about this. I think people across the land and across North America, if not the world, occasionally have dreams of this horrible situation in which they find themselves trapped in an aircraft that is on a mission of destruction and death.

If the government wants to get people flying again, it needs to take a strong line on aircraft security as soon as possible. The reality is Madam Speaker, that the Americans have moved very quickly in this regard. We cannot, as a country with a national carrier, not follow suit.

I was watching the news this evening and Peter Jennings was interviewing various people who were talking about the fact that Washington national airport will not open until it gets sky marshals in place and gets various other security provisions in place. The reality is that if the Americans do that with their aircraft, it is extremely unlikely, as a matter of fact it is not likely at all, that American aircraft flying out of Canada will not have sky marshals on them when they go to the United States. Similarly, it is extremely unlikely that the Americans will allow Air Canada aircraft to land in Washington or New York unless they have an equivalent level of security. I suggest that equivalent level of security would be sky marshals.

Some members on the opposite side, and on this side for that matter, might find it extremely hard to hear me, of all people, talking about the idea that our airlines should carry armed guards because I deplore the free use of firearms. I am not a hunter and I have no argument against hunters. However I certainly have a very large argument against the proliferation of weapons in the United States in the possession of civilians.

In this instance, if we are going to get Canadians back on to Air Canada as quickly as possible, we have to make a strong statement that at least for the short term until other security measures are in place that are just as strong, we have to do it. If we do not do it, I can assure the House that in my area of the province of Ontario people will simply go to Buffalo if they feel they can get an airplane that is safer. I do not think the government will have any choice because if the Americans bring in this level of security, Air Canada and any other carrier going into the United States from Canada will have to follow suit.

One might ask why the transport minister has not come out with this decision if it is so logical? I would suggest that it is one of the strengths and weaknesses of the Canadian parliamentary and cabinet system that this country, because of the cabinet system, can act very decisively. Once a decision is made in cabinet things move very quickly. On the other hand, to make sure that ministers do not go on expeditions solo, usually when there is the necessity of making a very important decision in their portfolios, they seek cabinet consensus. I would suggest to the House that when cabinet meets tomorrow this very subject of the security of aircraft will be high on the agenda.

It is certainly a very serious thing we have been faced with as a result of the terrible tragedy in New York. However the last thing we, as Canada, want to do to give any support to these terrorists, is to allow Air Canada to crash as a result of a terrorist act by these extreme groups like we saw in New York. Air Canada is a symbol of Canada. We have to maintain that symbol one way or another. If it involves a rescue package that is one thing. If it involves peace and security that is another. One way or another we have to preserve Air Canada.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition is fond of claiming that backbench government MPs are afraid to criticize government bills that are before the House. We have just had an example of an opposition member making it very difficult for a backbench MP on the government side to express his criticism of legislation. What I have to say is important. It is important to this piece of legislation and it is important to the entire House. I hope that I can continue without these continual interruptions because I do not use printed text and I do not use notes and it is very difficult with interruptions to maintain one's line of thought.

That line of thought deals with the fact that what we are talking about here is legislation that basically requires nuclear production authorities to set up regimes whereby nuclear waste will be properly disposed of, and moreover, that financial instruments will be in place to ensure that this is done in a responsible fashion. What is missing is that there is not the level of transparency on the part of AECL and the other corporations that are affected by this document that we as parliamentarians and all Canadians must have. I will give the House an example.

What this legislation proposes is that these authorities, AECL or whomever, are required, after this legislation passes, to submit proposals, studies first and foremost that deal with the disposal of nuclear waste or that may involve collection on site or the deposit of the nuclear waste in deep geologic formations. Once those studies are prepared and they are required to consider the risks and primarily the socioeconomic impacts, this legislation, just for starters, does not specify the kinds of risks that these authorities are supposed to be assessing. We do not know whether it is long term environmental risk they have to report on. There is no parameter explaining what AECL or any of these authorities have to describe. The study is produced and then submitted to the minister. The minister decides whether or not the study is adequate.

There is no legislative requirement for the minister to release that study. Because AECL is outside the Access to Information Act there is no requirement for AECL to release the study. So we have a situation where the minister will make a crucial decision and we have no right in legislation to see the basis on which he makes that decision. Once the minister has given approval to whatever process is proposed to him, not until three years later does the organization that is depositing the nuclear waste in a geologic formation or wherever, not until three years later does the corporation, be it AECL or whomever, have to do a report to the minister on the progress with respect to the deposition of nuclear waste under whatever plan is going forward. Even that report is inadequate because the report says that the corporation is required to give the minister a summary of its activities respecting nuclear waste and its social, cultural and economic impacts on the nearby communities where the waste is deposited.

Mr. Speaker, the requirement says nothing about an environmental assessment, nothing about scientific impact. There is no requirement in that report after three years to the minister to tell the minister what the environmental or scientific consequences are of whatever choice of nuclear waste disposal we are talking about.

The public has access to that report but it is not going to be an adequate document to tell us whether or not in the decision to bury nuclear waste underneath Sudbury or wherever else in the world that nuclear waste is leaching into the environment. It does not make a requirement that tests have to be taken.

In my view it is totally inadequate to give this kind of authority to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, any crown corporation or any corporation whatsoever that is engaged in an activity that has a profound effect on public safety and on the environment, without a reasonable level of legislated scrutiny.

At the very least I think that whenever this government does come around to reviewing the Access to Information Act, there is no more eloquent an example of why crown corporations like AECL ought to be under the Access to Information Act. However, that does not deal with the other corporations affected by this act, so I really think that the committee, when it comes to review this legislation, needs to put in proper instruments of transparency and accountability.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, September 27th, 2001]

With due respect to my colleague opposite, the remarks I will be making will I think engage the attention of all members because I would like to think they are of some importance.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill. The problem of nuclear waste cleanup in the United States is a $100 billion problem. Throughout the cold war period the Americans and their production of weapons grade nuclear fuel caused enormous damage to the environment, particularly in the western states. It has become a very serious problem in the United States. I think the bill correctly addresses the issue that if we are going to have nuclear power we have to put money up front to control nuclear waste.

However, I do believe this bill is seriously flawed. It has a flaw in it that I think must be attended to in committee. I will certainly support the bill in principle but it has to be attended to.

Mr. Speaker, as you know I have a certain passing interest in access to information. You will know that crown corporations like Atomic Energy of Canada Limited are outside the Access to Information Act. None of us can see any of the documentation or any of the information that internally travels within this crown corporation. The reason why that is important is that in my view there are not enough provisions in the legislation for the kind of transparency we must have in order to ensure that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the other corporations affected by this act will indeed proceed with nuclear waste disposal and treatment in a manner that is consistent with environmental protection and using the best scientific instruments possible and the best scientific knowledge possible.

Something as important as the deep burial of nuclear waste is something that needs to be tracked effectively by the public at large, by parliament, not just by, shall we say, relatively incomplete reports to the minister. Let me explain in detail.

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, September 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for calling quorum because it guaranteed that there will be an audience in the Chamber for the remarks I am about to make.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

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.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

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.

[Supply, September 25th, 2001]

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.