Debates of Sept. 25th, 2001

Terrorism

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister responded when the question was posed about the 19 terrorists. Yesterday there was follow-up. When the president set out 27 institutions or individuals and said that the United States would proceed to freeze their assets, Canada proceeded forthwith and those assets are now frozen.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate that action.

One of the terrorist groups banned by President Bush is the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria. Convicted terrorist Ahmed Ressam was, when in Montreal, part of a large group of thieves which financed the actions of this group in Canada.

Has the government frozen or seized the assets of this group, and if not, what is it waiting for?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the action being called for by the Leader of the Opposition is one taken by the financial institution or bank in question. This bank or institution deals directly with the RCMP, that is how it is done.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

That is not an action, Mr. Speaker.

The Prime Minister surprised opposition members yesterday when he told reporters in Washington that we were blocking legislation currently before the House that would ratify the international convention on terrorist financing. In fact, last week the government voted against the Canadian Alliance when we moved to ratify the convention.

Bill C-16 does not ban terrorist fundraising. It only takes away their tax receipts. To which bill currently before the House is the Prime Minister referring? Which bill will fulfill Canada's commitments under the international convention? Which bill was the Prime Minister talking about?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House when the government House leader stood up and asked for the unanimous consent of all members to support a government motion to do that very thing and the opposition voted against it and said no.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that was a watered down motion.

Yesterday's rapid response to bin Laden by President Bush is to be commended. Despite years of rhetoric from this government and this minister, there is still no bill before parliament that ratifies either the convention against the financing of terrorists or the suppression of terrorist bombings. Will the minister immediately introduce comprehensive, anti-terrorist legislation?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I have made it plain that the government will take all necessary steps to ratify and implement both the UN convention on terrorist bombing and the UN convention on the suppression of terrorist financing. We will do that as quickly as possible. I call upon the opposition to ensure that this legislation receives speedy passage through the House.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for years and now she has more rhetoric.

Yesterday, President Bush froze the finances of 27 groups that are connected to bin Laden. Our own security services have warned that some of these dangerous groups are operating here in Canada.

Will the minister take immediate steps to specifically name and legally ban these terrorist organizations from using Canada to organize international murder?

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to how we go about implementing the UN convention on the suppression of terrorist financing, we are considering both a definition for terrorist organizations and the addition of a list of designated organizations that would be defined as terrorist organizations.

Prime Minister

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

Mr. Speaker, since the September 11 attacks, the Bloc Quebecois has, for the most part, supported the Prime Minister because he has acted responsibly in this House and before the public.

Following his meeting with President Bush yesterday, the Prime Minister committed a faux pas, a major blunder.

Does the Prime Minister realize that by, reporting his discussions with President Bush to a partisan gathering at a fundraising event rather than to parliament, he was not behaving as a head of state?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had a speech to make and I used the opportunity. It was very important to speak to the financial community because, if we want this international crisis not to affect Canadians too strongly, we must rebuild the confidence of the business community, following discussions with the president.

The president himself gave a speech a few days ago calling on the financial community to not lose faith and to believe as we do in Canada that our economy in the medium and long term, is in very good shape.

It was my duty to call on the business community to maintain its confidence in Canadian institutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, British Prime Minister Tony Blair met President Bush last week. Aware of the importance of this meeting, he immediately called all his counterparts in the European Union on his return and met all the members of all British parties.

By behaving as he did, was the Prime Minister of Canada not derelict in his duty and lacking in respect for parliament and the members who represent the people here?

I have no problem with his meeting business people, but I argue that he should have come here and reported to parliament and then met with partisans.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the British and Canadian parliamentary systems differ. The British Prime Minister meets the House of Commons once a week for 15 minutes.

Here, the Prime Minister is in the House three or four times a week for an hour, and each party leader and member can question him on national television and before the press.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should realize that it is not the number of times that he is here that counts, but the quality of his comments.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, Oh!

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

The Prime Minister's decision to report on his meeting with president Bush to a partisan assembly rather than to parliament speaks volumes about what he thinks of the value of that meeting.

How can the Prime Minister, the senior statesman among G-7 leaders, behave in such a partisan fashion after a meeting with the President of the United States, instead of acting like a leader of world stature who is respectful of democracy and of this parliament?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke on Canadian television when I replied to the questions of the media in Washington.

A few minutes later, when I was with President Bush, he did not answer questions. After breakfast, I made myself available to the Canadian and American media and I gave an account of the meeting. I knew that I would be in the House of Commons at 2 p.m. today to answer the questions of the opposition on my meeting with President Bush.

I notice that since the beginning of oral question period, I have not been asked a single question on the substance of the meeting.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, Oh!

[An hon. member]

There is no substance.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister himself said there is no substance. We are still looking for that substance.

[An hon. member]

Yes indeed.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Will the Prime Minister admit that he would have had much more credibility if he had come before President Bush with the unanimous support of this parliament, rather than appear with only the support of his cabinet, whose members are all appointed by him?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the Parliament of Canada held a debate on the events of September 11 as soon as it resumed its business. We had a debate on the very first day that parliament sat and every member had an opportunity to speak.

Before I travelled to the United States we had a special debate during which hon. members expressed their opinions. I read each and every one of the speeches before meeting with the president, so as to be aware of the opinion of all those who spoke.

Terrorism

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP remains adamant that the terrorist attacks were crimes against humanity and therefore must be dealt with through a UN sponsored international court or tribunal. The Bloc is clear about the importance of a UN role. The Tories now seem to agree that the courts and democratic institutions must be part of the solution.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Did he put the case to President Bush for a UN sponsored international court proceeding as the first line of attack against terrorism?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the UN has two special courts in the Hague: one in relation to crimes in Rwanda and the other in relation to the former Yugoslavia. It has not established another special court for terrorism. If it does we will support it but it has not done that at the moment.

The United Nations Security Council passed a resolution on September 12 giving authority to the United States to act according to the attack it faced the day before.