Debates of Oct. 5th, 2001

Foreign Affairs

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is simply that the events of September 11 have altered the situation. Canada's reputation is very positive in the world, as is that of the Prime Minister. However, the burden is considerably greater because of the events of September 11.

If we want to continue to play such an important role, we must recognize that the burden will be greater.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs' courageous observation that we can no longer afford to live up to our commitments raises many questions, and even concerns.

What means does the minister propose in order to deal with the new realities that he has identified?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, first, the member should recognize that we had already made a start, even prior to September 11.

We are one of the few governments that have increased their military and international development assistance budgets.

This is the approach we need to take. However, we are already on this path, we have already expressed our intention to increase our support, and we will continue.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister that a number of the changes he is proposing will take time, and that the struggle to correct the imbalance between countries will also take time.

However, in the meantime, Canada can quickly step up its international assistance, particularly in Afghanistan, but also in many other countries.

Does the minister have any specific measures in mind to meet the needs in the near future?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the minister responsible for international assistance, has already announced our support to the tune of $6 million for Afghanistan.

Also, in the region, there was a major announcement of almost half a billion dollars in assistance for Pakistan, to convert Pakistan's debt to CIDA.

So, we are already in the process of announcing our support in a very troubled region.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Richard Goldstone, who was the chief prosecutor of the UN war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, said this week that it would be tragic indeed if the major democracies were now to become outlaws in the face of the tragic events in New York City and Washington on September 11.

He called for full adherence by the nations of the world to the provisions of international humanitarian law. He stated that the sanctioning of the assassination of suspected war criminals and unlawful attacks on innocent civilians would clearly be in violation of international law. Is that the position of the Government of Canada?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the invocation of article 5 by NATO, as well as the adoption of resolutions by the security council of the United Nations, together with article 51 of the charter of the United Nations, give the ability to respond on a military basis in self-defence to the United States and its allies in this situation.

That is the legal basis in international law for any such intervention. The European Union, Canada and most other countries around the world support that position.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister recently stated on Larry King Live , or perhaps it was at a Liberal fundraiser, that Canada would participate in a U.S. led military strike on Afghanistan if asked.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs assure the House that parliament will be recalled next week, if necessary, to debate and vote before any Canadian troops are asked to participate in a U.S. led military strike?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking about a hypothetical situation. I have been working in co-operation with all House leaders on the functioning of parliament. We have had good relations in that regard.

Although it is an unlikely proposition, should there be anything involving military deployment I would endeavour to have a parliamentary debate as soon as parliament is reconvened, possibly as early as the first evening, but again it is hypothetical.

Terrorism

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the FBI, the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency briefed the U.S. congress that militants linked to bin Laden will probably attack American targets in the near future. The expected targets include natural gas lines and power plants. Natural gas, electrical power, sir, that is Canada's business. Those energy targets may well be in Canada.

Has the Government of Canada been briefed by those American security agencies about energy related threats that might impact Canada? If that information about Canada is being given to the U.S. congress, why is it being kept from the Canadian parliament?

[David Collenette, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, consistently the Prime Minister, the solicitor general and other ministers have emphasized the point that in the parliamentary system of government discussions of this nature are on the floor of the House in general terms, but when it comes to security information it is kept privileged for the very reasons that it is sensitive and it deals with national security.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the case with Larry King and that is not the case with the mother of parliaments in the United Kingdom.

My question is about the Export Development Corporation and potential terrorist connections. When the EDC decides to become involved in an international transaction, does it specifically inquire into all of the sources of funding and into the background of all participants in those transactions that it insures? Could the minister say categorically now that there has been no involvement by the EDC in any transaction involving a potential terrorist group? Is that matter being investigated now and will, in the British parliament--

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister for International Trade.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I could not say if the EDC has had any transactions when the leader over there was in the government. Maybe over the years there have been under the previous government. However, I can say that we have made sure that EDC works very closely with the foreign affairs department and that it very closely follows our risk assessments and analyses all over the world, all the time, so I--

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

So the answer is no.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

I think the leader should give me the opportunity to give him an answer, if he is interested in it, instead of just scoring political--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Athabasca.

National Security

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated:

Something troubles me about this perimeter talk, because I believe it's a short form for something, but I don't quite know what it's short form for.

A survey shows that 81% of Canadians believe that a secure perimeter is necessary. What part of secure perimeter does this minister not understand?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, if he wants to talk surveys we will talk 7%.

I understand why people will respond to a question that has to do with their sense of security, because people do feel insecure as a result of the events of September 11.

The problem we need to deal with, though, is much more contained than the opposition would suggest that it is. We need to deal on a practical, step by step basis with the government of the United States, as it is our border with that other country, in order to solve any real or perceived problems that exist. That does not--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Athabasca.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister calls a security perimeter simplistic. He says he does not want to turn over the keys to sovereignty. There is no sovereignty without security. Why is this minister wimping out on the idea of a secure perimeter?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to wimp out on the idea of a country. What Canada wants and what Canada deserves is for our people to live in safety and security. Our government is intent on ensuring that we take every measure that is necessary to ensure that our people feel secure behind our borders.

I can assure the hon. member that if we satisfy Canadians that they are living in safety and security, we will probably be able to satisfy the government of the United States as well that people in Canada are no great risk to them.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that a security perimeter was a simplistic idea.

In an interview given to the National Post , however, he said that Canada could not afford to be outside any future American security perimeter. For his part, Canada's ambassador to Washington says he is discussing the perimeter issue with the U.S. government. It is confusing to say the least.

While we may agree with the minister that the short term solution does not lie in this security perimeter, will he admit that the objective should be to make the continent safe without hampering trade?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, that is our objective.

In fact, there are two objectives: first, to reassure Canadians that they are safe in their country, Canada; second, to ensure the free flow of trade between Canada and the United States.

These are the two objectives.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what seems to bother the minister about the idea of a security perimeter is that the discussions would involve Mexico.

But Canada has everything to gain in seeing the discussions go from bilateral to multilateral.

How can Canada claim to be a partner of Mexico and the United States in NAFTA and, in the same breath, exclude one of its partners, Mexico, from crucial discussions concerning security and trade in North America?