Keith Martin

[Anti-terrorism Act, November 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Mount Royal on his eloquent interventions over the last month or so on the bill. They have been greatly appreciated by me and I am sure by many other members of the House as well as the public.

Bill C-36, the anti-terrorism act, seeks to amend a number of acts. This perhaps is the most important bill to have come before the House in the past 50 years. It is wide ranging and has a profound impact on the rights of Canadians, our sovereignty, access to information, transparency as well as a number of revenue issues. Each and every Canadian should be watching the bill very closely. It is a bill that deserves our outmost attention. The bill deserves to be debated at length and all questions pertaining it asked and answered.

Unfortunately the government took it upon itself to engage in closure. Of all the bills that have come to the House, this bill deserved closure the least because of its profound nature, because of the potential impact the bill could have on all Canadians and because of the need of Canadians from coast to coast to have their questions answered, which has not happened.

My party as well as the other opposition parties and indeed many government members have asked the government to put the brakes on the bill in terms of closure. We should have a longer debate, extend hours if we have to, but make sure the bill is debated thoroughly and that all questions are answered. That has not happened.

We are pleased that the government, although it defeated a supply day motion proposed by our party, did seek to include a number of suggestions in the bill. These include: the naming of all known international terrorist organizations operating in Canada; a complete ban on fundraising activities to support terrorism; the immediate ratification of the convention for the suppression of financing of terrorism; the creation of specific crimes for engaging in terrorist training and activities; and the extradition of foreign nationals charged with acts of terrorism. We can only compliment the government for supporting them.

I would say that the government has been tardy in the introduction of this bill. We knew full well that the country needed a proper anti-terrorism bill years ago. Indeed, we have been asking for one. Why did it take the events of September 11 for the government to suddenly put the gears of this institution in place and move forward on the bill? Why was it not done beforehand when we had more time? We could have extracted information from the best minds in the country to apply to the bill. It could have been a thoughtful bill, not a rushed one, a bill that would have been more effective.

As the member for Mount Royal said very eloquently, the bill lacks the appropriate oversight mechanisms that are essential given the powers that the bill gives to the government.

We have passed stage one in the war on terrorism. Stage one is what took place in Afghanistan. I submit that was the easiest part of the war on terrorism. The more difficult part is what is happening now. It involves how we root out and find those terrorists who have already situated themselves in other parts of the world, individuals who have proven by the events of September 11 that they are willing to kill themselves in an act of aggression against the west. How do we prevent those situations from happening again? How do we drain the swamp so that other individuals will not take that extreme step of wishing to kill themselves in pursuit of those acts which they believe in their hearts are for their cause?

Canada has an extraordinary opportunity to deal with part two, the most difficult aspect of the war on terrorism. Given the interactions, the memberships and the abilities many Canadians have, we as a country can build on the coalition that exists today to prevent a lot of these situations from happening.

We must deal with the issue of propaganda. Whether it is in Rwanda, Burundi, the former Yugoslavia or in Afghanistan, how they get a group of people to believe in these myths, particularly the terrorists, is that they are fed a steady diet of hateful, venal propaganda from the time they are small children until they are adults.

In time some of those individuals will take it upon themselves to engage in these extreme acts of terrorism. What we must do with our partners, and I underline the Muslim states in particular, is address, diffuse and ameliorate the propaganda and tell people the truth. We should not allow individuals to harbour and foment violence between one group and another. We must step in and diffuse it. If we allow this to happen, as we have seen time and again, we will be sowing the seeds of ethnic hatred and discontent, and ultimately bloodshed.

As I said before, we saw it in Yugoslavia in 1974. We saw it in Rwanda and in Afghanistan, and we will see it again in the future unless we prevent it. Our country has an opportunity to work with members of the coalition to do just that. Economically, we must also build bridges between members of the coalition.

A profound thing happened recently with the introduction of Russia as a decision making partner in NATO decisions. It was absolutely crucial to bring that country closer to the fold of the international neighbourhood. It enabled the potential threat of Russia to be diffused. Given its nuclear capabilities, we know the threat, while small, could be profound if it was ever acted upon.

Similar initiatives must take place with respect to Muslim nations. Cleavage patterns are taking place within those countries and I think we now have the opportunity to ask the moderate Muslim states to intervene with other less moderate states, like Iraq, Syria and elements working in the Palestinian controlled territory, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, to work with those groups, diffuse those groups and to build bridges between moderates and, if necessary, go after and neutralize those terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

If we allow these cancers to live within our midst, then not only are we a target for terrorist activities but we also poison the ability of the vast majority of individuals who want peace from living peaceful, normal, integrated lives and becoming members of the international community. We should strike while the iron is hot. We have that opportunity now but it will not last. The coalition exists to deal with the situation in Afghanistan. We must build upon it and we must do it now.

We have a great chance to work with the American government. Individuals within congress would like to see a more international approach to foreign affairs but they need to be encouraged. I think our parliament should set up a formal working group with members of the American congress to work on issues of bilateral and multilateral importance. The Americans have a great untapped wealth of potential that is not being used for multilateral purposes. As Canadians and as the closest allies of the Americans, we can, should and must work with the American congress in those areas.

Although phase one of the war against terrorism has been largely accomplished, the more difficult aspect of phase two is before us today. Canada can play a role in dealing with hateful propaganda that is pushed out by some groups by hunting down terrorists with our partners, by integrating international police and foreign services to work against terrorism and to build bilateral and multilateral economic initiatives between countries that have formerly been at odds with each other. It is very difficult to hate the person with whom one is sitting at the table and working on economic initiatives. It is up to us to forge those connections. I am sure we will be successful at doing that in the future.

[Petitions, November 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Kind and 67 other people call upon parliament to enact an immediate moratorium on the cosmetic use of pesticides until such time as their use has been scientifically proven to be safe and the long term consequences of their application are known.

[The Acadians, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac for his excellent speech. I would also like to express my sympathy for the Acadians.

A grave injustice was committed to the Acadian population in this country from 1755 to 1763. Some 13,000 Acadians were removed to places as far away as Georgia and Massachusetts for reasons that were only known at the time. The motion calls for redress. It calls for an apology by the British government for those actions that took place some 250 years ago.

I stand corrected. The motion has been amended and it calls for a statement of what took place at that time. The original motion asked for an apology. I would like to deal with that issue.

We have no problem whatsoever in expressing our deepest and gravest sympathy for what took place in those dark days some 250 years ago. We disapprove of it and deplore it. We will ensure with every bone in our body that it will never happen again on our soil. As the member for Beauséjour--Petitcodiac mentioned, our sympathies go out to the Acadian population for what happened.

Acadians deserve our admiration for the manner in which they conducted themselves over the last 250 years. The Acadian population, with its rich culture and language, is some of the best of what this country has to offer. Acadians represent part of the great mosaic of Canada and represent an extremely important part of our nation.

Those who are separatists in the province of Quebec would do well to learn from the lessons of Acadian strength and dignity within Canada. Acadians are integral, essential, valued and honoured members of Canadian society. They are a group that has taught us much and continues to enrich Canada and Canadians from coast to coast. I say that as somebody from British Columbia.

The best way to redress past injustices is to invest in the future. It serves no purpose to look back hundreds of years in an effort to redress those injustices. However, it does justice to those who had atrocities committed against them. Today's society should learn from those injustices and act to ensure that they never ever happen again.

With our limited resources a wise and productive investment would be to use those resources to fight prejudice and discrimination and to ensure that past wrongs are neither repeated today nor in the future.

As was mentioned by the NDP member, I also want to bring to the attention of the House the plight of aboriginal people. Aboriginal people suffer grave injustices today within our communities. Rather than trying to redress past injustices, would it not be wiser to use the limited resources we have to upgrade, uplift and aid aboriginal people who occupy the lowest socioeconomic rungs in our society today? That would be a good use of our effort and our moneys, and a good way to build bridges between individuals.

We cannot live in the past. Some would seek to do that. Some groups find it attractive to dwell on past injustices as a way to build bridges within a group of individuals to hold them together. Is dwelling on past injustices not a shallow way of building bridges between people and holding a group together? Is it not nobler and more productive to look into the future and ask how we can build a better, safer future for all?

How can we build bridges of tolerance and understanding? How can we ensure that our culture and language thrive? I submit to the people who would seek to separate from Canada that the greatest strength the francophone population has today is to stay within Canada. The greatest protection for the French language and the francophone culture today is to stay within Canada.

To separate from our nation is probably the greatest threat to the French language and North American French culture today. Those who choose to split parts of Canada, particularly Quebec, away from the country would do well to heed that lesson.

My other point is about history. There is no consistency in the manner in which history is taught in our country today. It is often factually flawed. It is not taught enough in our schools. Jack Granatstein who was the curator of the Canadian War Museum has spoken eloquently time and time again of the importance of history in Canada and the flawed manner in which it is being taught across the nation.

We would do well to work with provincial ministers of education to develop a core curriculum of history that is consistent, based on facts and taught from coast to coast. How can we move forward or live today without knowing where we came from? We do a grave injustice to the students of our country and indeed all Canadians if we do not give them a firm grounding in our history.

Every year we say never again as we quite appropriately commemorate the genocide and injustices that took place during the Holocaust in Europe against Jews and other minorities. Yet we have not learned our lesson. As we speak, the same atrocities that took place in Europe during the Holocaust and against the Acadian population from 1755 to 1762 are taking place today.

Genocide is taking place. People are being taken off their lands and murdered, be it in Zimbabwe, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi or Rwanda. This is happening time and time again as we speak. We wring our hands impotently and ask ourselves why we do not do something when blood is being shed. We have learned nothing from history.

There is one central point I will make in this speech. We must look at history. We must learn the lessons of history and we must act. Merely apologizing for what took place 50 or 250 years ago is not good enough. We do an injustice to those individuals if we do not learn from their tragedies, their plights and the atrocities committed against them. We must learn lessons, build solutions and act if we are to ensure such atrocities, brutality, human rights abuses and mass deportations do not occur again.

It is happening as we speak. We cannot allow it to continue to happen. I ask the government to work with the international community to redress past injustices. I ask the government to look into the future and build solutions in a multilateral way to prevent such injustices from occurring now and in the future.

[Foreign Affairs, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the time is up. The evidence is patently in front of us. Thousands of people will be murdered or will die unless we as part of the international community act. In fact, Mr. Mugabe as we speak is brutalizing the black population through beatings, rape and murder. He is intimidating them to vote for him in the next election.

One again, will the minister also seek an international ban on travel by Mr. Mugabe and his ministers and also prevent them from continuing to jail--

[Foreign Affairs, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as the world focuses on Afghanistan, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe has been allowed to literally get away with murder. Canada and the Commonwealth made a commitment through the Abuja accords to halt this reign of terror but Mr. Mugabe has failed to keep up with his end of the bargain.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs ask the Commonwealth to suspend Zimbabwe's membership and ask for a freeze on his personal assets?

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would not for a moment suggest tearing up the Vienna convention but what I would suggest is that we amend it.

The Vienna convention in the context of other international conventions particularly those governing human rights which would take precedence over the Vienna convention, does not protect an individual who commits indictable offences such as rape, assault or murder. They do not and should not. We must not allow a convention to be used and manipulated as a tool to hide and protect an individual who has committed a serious indictable offence in a country. I know the member understands that. I also know her commitment to the essence of the Vienna convention. I have no doubt she agrees with what I am saying.

The question is, how do we arrive at a situation where a convention is not going to stand in the way of justice? I would suggest that justice will prevail if we amend the Vienna convention and allow an impartial third party to investigate, hear and ultimately try individuals who are diplomats yet who have committed serious criminal acts in a foreign country. I believe an amendment to the Vienna convention would do just that.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with the member more that we need to be a compassionate society. We need to be compassionate, but we do not need to be a patsy. That is the difference.

Indeed, members of the Immigration and Refugee Board have said just this year that more than 90% of the individuals who come in front of the board claiming refugee status are actually economic refugees. In fact, one of them said that less than 1% were true refugees in the sense that they are defined in international conventions.

We want to ensure a system where true refugees are indeed allowed into Canada. If we do not allow in true refugees, but we allow in economic refugees, we are actually violating our international responsibilities. We are doing an enormous injustice to the vast number of people who do need our protection, who are true refugees and must be brought into Canada.

To deal with the facts again, 40% of the individuals claiming refugee status come from the United States and have been staying there. Why are we accepting as refugees in Canada people who have been living in the United States who are not allowed to stay there any more? Does that not seem simply passing strange?

I would totally agree with the hon. member that if individuals have to come to this country and they do not have any identification papers, there are circumstances that will account for it. We are completely in accordance with that.

What we do not agree with is when people get on planes, and most of the people claiming refugee status actually come by plane through Pearson International Airport or through Vancouver, and those individuals have documentation when they enter the plane but they destroy it when they leave the plane. That is a serious problem. The vast majority of those individuals are not true refugees.

I would suggest that the member speak to the minister of immigration and to the members on the Immigration and Refugee Board. Listen to what they have to say and act upon their constructive suggestions. That will enable us to have an immigration system that allows true refugees into Canada, not false ones.

[Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, November 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, may I add my voice to that of my colleague and thank all those who were elected in 1988 for their sacrifice to the country. It is not a joke. It is honestly said.

Bill C-35 is a very important bill because it has wide ranging implications and ramifications for a number of issues, including foreign policy, diplomatic immunity, immigration, international organizations and such. In regard to the debate that has gone on so far, I want to say that the Vienna convention is necessary not only to protect our diplomats in doing their jobs but to protect those who do the job internationally. However, it does not protect against individuals who hide behind diplomatic immunity and commit indictable offences.

The Vienna convention, in spirit if not in word, does not protect us against individuals who are willing to commit, as my colleague mentioned, murder, rape, theft and the destruction of private property, to knowingly do that and hide behind the Vienna convention and the diplomatic immunity that it affords. That is why we have concerns with the bill and the extension of that immunity.

What we would like to see is the government working with opposition parties to proffer an international solution. We would like to see that for those individuals who are criminals hiding under a diplomatic cloak there is an avenue through which they can be brought to justice, so that they are not immune from justice and above the law, so that indeed, under the common principles that we share as part of the international community, these individuals who do commit crimes, be it in Canada or in another country, be it our own diplomats or those from another nation, will be met with the common law that we share.

There are opportunities, as my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party mentioned. One of the things that can be done is to have the crimes of those who acquire diplomatic immunity made public and transparent. Another option, perhaps under the Hague, is to have a group of two or three judges sent to a country where there are allegations of a diplomat committing an indictable offence. They would preside over a hearing and a court under common international law and the norms of international laws that the international community supports.

Why would we do that? It would ensure that individual diplomats would not be used as scapegoats or unfairly treated by the country in which they are working. It would ensure that their work would not be compromised by virtue of being used or set up by the leaders of the country they are working in. Yet it would provide the civilians of that country with protection against the small number of individuals like the Russian diplomat who killed a Canadian woman here in Ottawa while he was drunk. Now there is no protection from those individuals.

That is something the Minister of Foreign Affairs can take up. It is something he can bring up at the United Nations. I suggest to the government that there would be widespread support in the international community for ensuring that in regard to those people who are criminals hiding behind diplomatic immunity there is a fair and transparent avenue through which they can be brought to justice. That is what we are talking about. Indeed, if the minister would do that I am sure that he would find a great deal of support across party lines.

On the issue of immigration, we brought up the fact that a very small number of individuals coming into the country are criminals. Some of them do come to this country feigning refugee status. Our current system is not able to ensure that we have a steel sieve, as I call it, that enables true immigrants, law abiding immigrants and true refugees to enter Canada but keeps out those individuals who are criminals. We do not have that and my party has been asking for it for a very long time. Can it be done? Absolutely, but it requires a commitment on the part of the minister and the government.

We need appropriate checks and balances at the exit point from which they are coming. We need to differentiate between true and false refugees. We need proper background checks on individuals who are coming in through the usual immigration process.

Individuals who come to this country by plane claiming to be refugees and who do not have identification should be sent back home unless they have a very good excuse for why they do not have identification upon landing at places such as Pearson international airport.

Surely those individuals from other countries had identification when they boarded the plane. They could not have entered the plane without identification. Why do we accept individuals who claim refugee status and do not have any kind of identification? That should not be allowed, with very few exceptions.

I am sure the public would be flabbergasted to know that 40% of individuals claiming refugee status come from the United States. Why are we accepting individuals claiming refugee status who have been living in the United States? I raise this issue not because we are against individuals who claim refugee status but because we are trying to streamline the process so that people who are true refugees can get access into Canada.

The failure of the government to have an adequate refugee assessment policy hurts those individuals who are true refugees trying to get into Canada because either their lives are at stake or they are being persecuted. Above all else, we do a grave injustice to those individuals when we do not fix and get our house in order.

In my office, and I am sure in the offices of many of our colleagues, we are continually confronted by numerous individuals who would be superb immigrants to Canada and would make enormous contributions but numerous obstacles are put in their way. In fact many are sent home.

I am an immigrant and I am beyond being extraordinarily grateful for what Canada has given me. It breaks my heart to see individuals who can make effective contributions, who are working and can work but cannot stay in Canada after they have been here a while.

It is unbelievable that we have a system which does not allow these individuals to stay. Our country needs a larger immigrant population but needs to ensure that the population represents people who can make an effective contribution and integrate into Canadian society and that we truly allow real refugees into Canada.

Heaven knows there are enough of them in the world who need our embrace and protection. We must not allow individuals in who are criminals, false refugees or economic refugees masquerading as refugees.

We are a party to a number of international organizations and we have been signatory to many international treaties. While the treaties are superb on paper they have not prevented numerous tragic, gross violations of the basic rights those treaties purport to support. I am talking about Sierra Leone, Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Sudan, Zimbabwe, East Timor, Burma, and the list goes on. It is a serious problem that the treaties do not have any teeth as they are unable to back up what is on paper with effective action.

Our country needs to take a number of actions with the international community. It needs to assess and determine with our counterparts how to put teeth into these treaties. How can we ensure that treaties will be backed up by action, punitive if necessary, when they are not upheld? What is a piece of paper if there is no consequence to not adhering to it? That is a serious problem and that is the failure of many treaties that we have today.

Another thing we need to look at is how and why we are members of so many organizations. If our participation in an organization is effective then we should participate. We should at least ask whether or not our participation in an organization is worthy, whether that organization is effective, and whether the actions and responsibilities of that organization can be merged with another, thereby saving money, limited resources and indeed our effect.

Umpteen organizations work on the same types of issues all over the world all of the time. The problem is that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing and we do not get commitments from all the countries. We tend to have hodgepodge fractured activities, be it the environment or foreign policy.

If September 11 demonstrated anything it shone a bright light on our strengths but more so on our flaws. What it has shown is that we have been living in a bit of a Pollyannaish world over the last nine to ten years. We have been thinking that we were making enormous strides internationally, living up to our defence policy commitments internationally and doing very well economically.

The reality is that Canada has been punching far below its weight for a long time. No one, particularly the government, is looking at a critical analysis of defence, foreign policy, immigration and economic competitiveness which needs to be looked at if Canada is to be competitive internationally and do its part. The hard questions of Canada's role in the world are not being asked. Nor are they being answered other than with the usual rhetorical flourish.

We have to ask those tough questions. We have to find the answers and we have to act on them. Can we? Absolutely. We have an extraordinary wealth of talent within the House as well as across Canada. We have an extraordinary number of individuals that can make effective contributions to answering those questions.

One of the first things we need to do is to conduct a review of our defence and foreign affairs policies. The review of defence and foreign affairs policies must go hand in hand because defence is merely the arm of our foreign policy. If we do not know where we are going from a foreign policy perspective, we do not know where we are going from a defence perspective and we cannot arm and outfit our soldiers to meet our needs effectively.

Where is Canada's niche in the world? What can we do? Is it as a player as it was during and after World War II when it had the fourth largest military in the world? Or, is it to take the other extreme and completely back away from its international obligations and set up a wall around the country? I hope the latter is not the case. Somewhere in between is the balance that we have to strike. Somewhere in between are the effective questions that must be answered.

What is our role in the world? We need to ask ourselves what organizations we will participate in. What are our obligations under NATO? Will we live up to them? We must live up to our NATO obligations, but we also have an incredible role to play internationally in being a peacemaker in a new world order or a new foreign policy that makes the 21st century safer. We can strike while the iron is hot.

The reason I say that is that we have built a coalition. We are a member of a coalition to defeat terrorism. In the construction of this coalition we are partners with groups such as Pakistan, members of the Arab world and others that we had never imagined before. There is an opportunity to work with these groups to ameliorate some of the large challenges that exist today in the world such as Kashmir, Palestine, Israel and the divide between the west and the Arab world. All those issues must be addressed.

If we walk away from this coalition after the so-called war in Afghanistan is won, which is not the end of the issue of terrorism at all, we will have missed an unbelievable opportunity to make the world a safer place. Our country can play an extraordinary role in that for many reasons.

We do not have a history of colonialism. We are respected internationally as a fair player. We do not move the goalposts around in the middle of a game. We sit as a divide between the Far East and Europe, between the north and the south, between the United States and the rest of the world. That is a role and opportunity that no other country in the world has. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs, our government and the House can work together to address those challenges in a pragmatic way.

One of the things we need to do on the Kashmir situation is to set up a dialogue between President Musharraf and the prime minister of India. That can be done now in conjunction with the developments in Afghanistan.

We need to work with the Americans and put pressure on the Israeli government to recognize a Palestinian state. Israel must stop building new settlements in Palestinian territory. It must remove those settlements from Palestinian territory forthwith in an effective plan, much as it did in the Sinai when it was setting up a peace agreement with Egypt. Large settlements were removed. So it can be done.

Along with the international community we must say to the Palestinian authority that it must apprehend, arrest and ensure that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups stop the killing of innocent Israeli civilians. The Palestinian authority must clean up its act. The corruption must be routed out. If it is not the economic taps should be turned off. We can enter into a dialogue and bring moderate Israelis and moderate Palestinians together to engage in economic and social co-operation.

We need to look at our economic situation. We have seen a significant slide in our dollar. The slide in our dollar represents many things, but one thing it represents is a tolerance to allow our competitiveness to be held artificially high by allowing our dollar to decline rather than dealing with the roots of competitiveness: education, a lower tax structure, the removal of rules and regulations, and others.

If those questions are addressed we will have an opportunity to ensure that Canada will become economically competitive once again. We owe this to Canadians. If we do not do this we will be left behind.

Unfortunately the government has chosen to paper over cracks and holes in the problems of our country rather than fill them in. It has not sought out the best minds and the best practices in our country and abroad to deal with our problems. If it did that then we would have a country to be proud of. We would have a country that was competitive economically and internationally. We would have a nation that could be at the table as a fair and equal player in the challenges facing us today and tomorrow.

[National Defence, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem; there is no plan. It is all right to have money, but the strategic studies group has said that apart from having the money we have to know where the money will go and have a plan to address it. Again, this group and others have said very clearly that Canada needs a plan to address homeland security. There is no plan.

Will the Minister of National Defence, not later but now, do the right thing and start to implement a thorough review of our homeland security defences for all Canadians out there who need it?

[National Defence, November 9th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government has presided over the gutting of our military establishment since 1993. The Centre for Military and Strategic Studies said that the 1994 white paper is “outmoded and does not address the security challenges of our country today”.

My questions is simple. Will the Minister of National Defence engage in a thorough, sweeping and public review of our defence and security systems immediately?