Debates of Nov. 7th, 2001

Terrorism

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a qualified no.

We expect to get some indication. I personally would like to have this indication outside in the form of briefings rather than here in question period.

Could the finance minister give us some indication of how many organizations' assets have been seized, how many individuals' assets have been seized and what are the amounts?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we have a process in place in order to freeze assets. I can assure the hon. member that information that is brought to the government by government agencies or CSIS is evaluated.

If a decision is made by order in council to put them on the list, they will be put on the list.

Fragmentation Bombs

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we ask it to intervene to put a stop to the dropping of fragmentation bombs on Afghanistan, the government simply says that there are always innocent victims in wartime.

The Prime Minister heard this response frequently when he was promoting the Ottawa treaty to ban anti-personnel mines, and it has not stopped him from continuing.

Does the Prime Minister, an elder statesman, plan to use his influence fully on the international scene, as he did in the case of the Ottawa treaty to convince the coalition to stop using the fragmentation bombs?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, the minister of defence has said that these bombs are used against military targets and not against individuals.

This is completely different from anti-personnel mines. The problem is a very different one and, at the moment, these bombs are permitted under international agreements.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

So were anti-personnel mines, Mr. Speaker.

Although the government says they are for use against military targets, according to the UN, Afghan children have been the victims of them. I do not understand why the government remains insensitive. Of course there are innocent victims, but there is no need to make sure there are. Mustard gas, agent orange and chemical bombs have all been banned. Fragmentation bombs should meet the same fate.

We realize that, at times in history, war is unavoidable, but will the Prime Minister not admit that we can always choose our weapons?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just answered the question. This weapon is in use and has not been banned by the international bodies that look after such things.

The hon. member is suggesting it should be banned. I think this is something we could look at, but to be honest, I do not think we would succeed if we wanted to in the short term, because it is a very complicated matter.

What counts is that we make sure terrorism is beaten and the Taliban, who are protecting the terrorists, are—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Mercier.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois supports the Americans and the international coalition in the fight against terrorism.

However giving one's support does not mean giving a blank cheque. It means taking part in the debate and expressing one's views, one's way of seeing the situation. Unfortunately, this is not what the Prime Minister is doing.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that he is caving in, that he is letting them use cluster bombs and that he is abdicating his responsibility as a head of state?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to allowing the use of cluster bombs, Canada is not using cluster bombs. We are not involved in the bombing of Afghanistan. The United States is using them but they are lawful to use. They are not banned in the same way that anti-personnel landmines are banned.

One thing that Canada does pay attention to within the United Nations framework is the cleanup of any weaponry that is left. The whole point about anti-personnel landmines is that they are in the ground and they hurt people after the conflict is over.

No matter what the weaponry is, we want to make sure there is an appropriate cleanup so innocent civilians are not hurt afterward.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is known on the international scene as a leader in peacekeeping missions. It is not known for its active involvement in armed conflicts.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that, by not condemning the use of cluster bombs, he is not only denying the spirit of his anti-personnel landmines treaty, but he is also jeopardizing Canada's reputation?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this is a totally false statement. As the Minister of National Defence pointed out, these weapons are used by the U.S. army, not by Canadian soldiers. Moreover, as regards anti-personnel landmines, the Americans did not sign that treaty.

We will continue to try to promote the best possible causes. However, we must also be realistic. If tomorrow I were to ask the U.S. president to stop using these weapons, I doubt it would happen. We must work with the other UN member states to bring about changes, as the Minister of National Defence just said.

Candu Reactors

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, President Bush tells us that the al-Qaeda network is trying to purchase material for nuclear weapons. We already know that Canada's Candus provided the seeds for nuclear weapons in India and in Pakistan.

Now is the time to sunset Candu reactor sales, at least until we develop technology preventing their use in nuclear weapons production. Would the Prime Minister not agree?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have been selling Candus for a long time. It is the safest and the least polluting form of energy that we can have.

The member is referring to a problem that existed many years ago. At that time we stopped delivery to the government of India of anything in relation to the Candu. We have always acted responsibly.

At this time when we need a form of energy that is not polluting, I maintain that the Candu is safe. It is the best way to have energy without polluting any place in the world.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, domestically the government is prepared to adopt draconian measures to fight terrorism. Internationally, are we going to turn a blind eye to a lethal potential threat that Canada could be visiting on the world?

Individuals suspected of selling more than one kilo of weapons grade uranium on the black market have been arrested in Turkey. This uranium may have come from eastern Europe. Eastern Europe is another favoured market for Candus.

What is the government going to do to ensure that our nuclear technology is not ending up in the black market world of terrorists?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we signed all the treaties in relation to the protection of waste and so on. There is an international organization that overlooks all of these activities and Canada subscribes to it. We participate in that. If there is any fault anywhere, we have done it, in India and I think we did it once in Argentina. The policy of the Canadian government on security and safety in this matter has been well established for a long time.

Bank of Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, the independence of the Bank of Canada is based on the principle that the government will not interfere in setting monetary policy.

Yesterday, the Minister of Finance violated this convention by announcing publicly the measures that he felt the bank should take. At a time when the minister should be working to build the confidence of Canadians in their institutions, why is he undermining the Bank of Canada's independence in this way?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, all that I said was that monetary policy and fiscal policy work much better when they work together, toward an objective.

The example to follow is the one we have today. The example to avoid is the situation that existed in 1990, when his government was in office.

The Economy

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, when asked about the record low Canadian dollar, the finance minister responds that although the Canadian dollar is doing badly compared to the U.S. dollar, it is actually doing well compared to other currencies. The minister is wrong. This year the Canadian dollar has lost 11% against the Mexican peso, has lost 2.5% against the Russian ruble, has lost 6% against the Argentine peso and has lost 4% against the British pound.

If the fundamentals are strong, why is the Canadian dollar doing worse than pesos, rubles and pounds, for goodness sake? Why is he passing the buck on the Canadian dollar?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I honestly do not know what to say.

First of all, the hon. member has just stood up and has essentially said that what we should do is emulate the monetary policy in Mexico where interest rates are fluctuating between 14% and 16%, and then his example of the kind of economy to follow is Argentina. Only a Tory would think that.

Immigration

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the immigration minister is once again creating a false impression. Access to information documents show that her own officials have warned her that thousands of people should not have got into Canada without documentation, yet she repeats every day that everyone who is a security concern is detained. This is simply not true.

I would like the minister to tell the House, if arrivals have destroyed their documents, how can an immigration official be expected to work out whether they are a security concern?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, many people who are fleeing dictatorial regimes simply cannot get documents. They bring what information they have. Others have to resort to humanitarian smuggling in order to flee countries for their lives. They often do so in the middle of the night.

A valid document is a passport or a travel document. Other bits of information such as birth certificates and driver's licences are not considered valid documents but do help us to identify who people are.

[Ted White, Canadian Alliance, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the 50% of refugee claimants who show up without documents and say the magic R word, are asked a few questions, fingerprinted, given a medicare form and a legal aid phone number. Then they are released and sent to the welfare office. However, 20% or more of them then disappear without a trace.

Why does the minister ignore the experience, the wisdom, the advice of her own officials? Why does she not really put security into the process and detain the people who are a security risk?

[Elinor Caplan, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we do detain those who are a security risk.

I would ask the member, if he has any evidence or advice that he has seen that I have not, perhaps he would like to table it. I would like to see it because the premise of his question is quite wrong.

I would also say to him very clearly that the statistics he is quoting are wrong. Ninety-seven per cent of people mail in their forms. Some 77% of refugee claimants work at the very first opportunity. Canada's acceptance rates are consistent with those of other countries in the world that have refugee determination.

Softwood Lumber

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister for International Trade told Le Devoir that his long term objective for softwood lumber was a return to free trade.

In this context, what is the minister's short term objective?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister for International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of consistency, I have exactly the same objective, which is of course free trade for softwood lumber.