Debates of Sept. 18th, 2001

Terrorism

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, the Leader of the Opposition refused to give his agreement to a motion that would have had the support of all parties in the House, for no other reason than that he wished to score political points against the government.

We already have bills before parliament. We have signed all the international anti-terrorism agreements and, this morning, the Minister of Justice gave a speech in the House making it clear that the government was leading the way in terms of anti-terrorism measures.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is failing to meet its international obligations to fight terrorism. The Liberal government is ignoring two key international obligations: the suppression of terrorist bombings and the suppression of the financing of terrorists.

Why is the minister and the government compromising the safety and security of Canadians and our allies by ignoring these commitments?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday to the hon. member, we are not ignoring these commitments. We intend to ratify and implement both of the conventions he has mentioned.

As the Prime Minister has already pointed out, we are a leader in the fight against world terrorism. We have signed, ratified and implemented 10 of the UN conventions that lead the fight around this globe in relation to terrorism.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are outraged that terrorists in Canada are legally permitted to raise money for bombings abroad. The Liberal government refuses to implement the tough and comprehensive 1995 Ottawa declaration.

Why will the Liberal government not bring forward the necessary legislation to help our security services protect Canadians here and abroad?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, as I have made clear in the House, we intend to ratify and implement both the convention on terrorist bombing and the convention on the suppression of terrorist financing.

I could not have been plainer yesterday when I indicated that we would be introducing criminal law in the very near future to ensure that we could implement both those conventions.

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

Mr. Speaker, during yesterday's debate, the Prime Minister said that the world should prepare itself for a long struggle against terrorism, one in which patience and wisdom are essential. This is admittedly a responsible attitude.

To give the public a better idea of what to expect, will the Prime Minister tell us specifically how patience and wisdom will guide Canada's actions in the anti-terrorism fight now taking shape?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois for his responsible attitude in this connection.

Right now, we are in consultations with the United States government, with leaders of NATO nations and with other heads of government.

I had an opportunity to speak with a number of them, who called me seeking Canada's opinion. Everyone wants to find a solution to the terrible threat posed by international terrorism to our societies.

We must work together, but we must not allow those who committed last week's unacceptable and reprehensible deeds to go unpunished. We will help in the effort to find them and to bring them before the courts.

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

Mr. Speaker, as he came out of the cabinet meeting this morning, the Prime Minister announced he would be going to Washington next week to meet President Bush, an invitation that could not be better timed, on the heels of yesterday's debate.

When he meets the U.S. president, does the Prime Minister plan to stress the need for all countries, including the United States, to take his approach to terrorism, one based on patience, wisdom and responsibility?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is what the U.S. government is doing at the moment, because the attack occurred a week ago, and I think that up to now it has shown considerable control in the face of a situation of such gravity for Americans.

I intend to discuss a long term approach with the president, as I have done with other heads of government, and not try to do something sensational that could have disastrous effects over the long term for all the people in the world.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a question by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the Prime Minister did not shut the door to the possibility of changes in the role of the House of Commons in reaching decisions relating to the response to the acts of terrorism.

Given the significance of the decisions that will have to be made eventually, and given the necessity to reassure our fellow citizens, I am asking the Prime Minister whether he will commit to submitting to parliament, for debate and a vote, any major military, diplomatic or financial decision that will be made in connection with the events in the United States.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, under such circumstances we have always had debates in the House of Commons, and will continue to do so, but the government has to assume its responsibilities under all circumstances.

Obviously, when I speak to heads of government, I have to give them the Canadian government's position. I cannot always refer every decision to the House of Commons, but a debate such as the one held yesterday is very worthwhile. An oral question period such as we are having today, when carried out in a responsible manner as it is at the present time by the Bloc Quebecois, is very worthwhile.

We are going to continue to inform the opposition parties and the members of the government of the actions the government plans to take.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, continuing in a constructive manner, the prime minister of France has just stated that “If it becomes necessary to make commitments on behalf of France, these could naturally not be made by the executive without consulting the national assembly and the Senate”.

Could the Prime Minister not take his inspiration from this attitude and profit from the strength parliament would give to him in the taking of the decisions that are going to be made in coming days?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have already had a consultation in the House of Commons, an entire day in which each member could express his or her point of view, and we will continue to do so in future.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said in the House that the death of innocent civilians was a price he was willing to pay to fight terrorism.

Where is the justice? Where is the logic in avenging the death of innocent civilians in the United States by killing innocent civilians in another part of the world? Does the Prime Minister not understand that adding to the body count plays directly into the hands of terrorists?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that, but I will repeat that no responsible government faced with a problem like that can give an absolute guarantee that no soldiers or civilians might lose their lives.

It is the nature of the struggle we face and we have to be responsible. I will not make an empty promise to the Canadian public like the leader of the NDP would like me to make.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that he is proud of Canada's role in creating the international criminal court, as well he should be, as well as Canadians are.

Slobodan Milosevic today is in prison and being tried for crimes against humanity. This is a positive, concrete example of international democratic institutions at work.

Last week's terrorist attacks are surely crimes against humanity, horrendous crimes. Will Canada once again show leadership by advocating a democratic international approach to defeating terrorism?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, if we could have the co-operation of those governmental authorities who have Mr. bin Laden within their jurisdiction to present him to a tribunal in The Hague or anywhere else, we would be happy to advocate that.

At the moment it seems rather difficult to offer that as a solution, however, but certainly it is consistent with the policy of the Government of Canada to seek to find orderly and judicial ways to resolve matters of international importance, including ensuring there is no impunity for international crime.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told me that he was “not aware at this time of a cell known to the police to be operating in Canada with the intention of carrying out terrorism in Canada or elsewhere”.

Jane's Intelligence Service states that al Qaeda cells have been identified in Canada. CSIS confirmed that a bin Laden-Canada connection is being investigated.

Are Jane's and CSIS wrong? If not, has the Prime Minister now been informed of the existence of bin Laden cells operating in Canada?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said outside the House and in the House that there is no link to any group in Canada with what happened in New York and Washington last week. That is what I said.

Of course we know that some people in Canada are constantly being investigated by the police and CSIS in Canada and that we do not comment on these individuals in the House of Commons.

We will let those who have the responsibility do their jobs. The best way for them to be efficient is to be able to do their jobs as they should be done.

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

Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister has admitted to the presence of terrorist cells in Canada, can he tell the House what concrete actions he plans to undertake to eradicate their presence from Canada, and when he plans to do so?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we have done our job in this area, and continue to do so. We have public officials and police officers constantly working on it.

With the permission of the House, I would like to read a message sent to me by Senator Kelly, who chaired House of Commons committees on terrorism on two occasions under the Conservatives, and on one occasion under the Liberals.

He writes as follows:

A great deal of improvement has taken place over the years since our first report, and the improvements have accelerated since the current minister took office as solicitor general. The minister has taken a deep interest in security matters, and made it his business early to gain a good understanding of--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Crowfoot.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, CSIS revealed today that several years ago it advised the government that were there 350 people and 50 organizations with direct ties to terrorism.

The Prime Minister has just suggested that luckily they were not tied to the events in the States. According to CSIS these groups and organizations are still here and operating in Canada.

My question is for the solicitor general. Why was action not taken to arrest and prosecute individuals supporting terrorism?

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware I said a number of times in the House that many countries such as the United States, Great Britain, Australia, France and this country are a great attraction to terrorists. When we have the economy we have in this country it is an attraction to terrorists.

We have security intelligence organizations like CSIS and the RCMP that work with their counterparts to make sure that this country remains a safe place to live.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, CSIS Director Ward Alcock warned the Senate committee studying terrorism that there were people living in Canada who had aided and abetted terrorists involved in the attack on the World Trade Center back in 1993.

Again I ask a question of the solicitor general. Why did the government not take action at that time?