Michel Gauthier

[Terrorism, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is also one other important point in the statement by President Bush in connection with foreign banks refusing to co-operate in this financial war against the terrorists. President Bush said these foreign banks would also be banned from the U.S. market.

I would like to know from the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions whether unco-operative foreign banks would be banned from carrying out transactions in Canada as well.

[Terrorism, September 24th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this morning President Bush announced that the assets of terrorists would be seized in the United States. No financial transactions would be possible.

I have a memo here from the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions of Canada. There is reference to co-operation in the area of information sharing. The banks are being asked to release information to the FBI investigators.

Since the announcement by U.S. president goes far beyond that, I am asking the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions whether we are going to go as far as the United States is, that is to block transactions and seize assets, or will we merely co-operate in investigations?

[Terrorism, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, given the speed of American action at the moment, what guarantee does the government have that its approach based on wisdom and patience will prevail and will have any merit, since, according to the Minister of National Defence, consultation is not necessary at this point?

[Terrorism, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Americans' impatience to act is increasingly apparent with the launch of Operation Infinite Justice.

Since American action could have some very serious consequences for Canadian and Quebec military personnel, can the Minister of National Defence tell us now whether he has received a formal request for military involvement from the United States?

[Points of Order, September 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be much briefer than the member who spoke before me. I simply wish to remind the House that section 62 of the Parliament of Canada Act provides that in order to receive financial benefits, a party must elect at least 12 members in a federal election.

Nowhere else does tradition depart from these provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act. We have checked and, to date, no new political party has been registered with the chief electoral officer. No one in this House may therefore request research funding or operating budgets when these are traditionally given to parties.

I am very sorry for the members sitting as independents, but the only way to be able to request resources is to do what has already been done in the past and to officially become Conservative members. However, to my knowledge, this has not been done so far either.

Since there is no new party called the Alliance PC Coalition, and since no Alliance members have become Conservatives, I therefore do not see the point of prolonging this debate. The Parliament of Canada Act is clear.

[Terrorism, September 18th, 2001]

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?

[Terrorism, September 18th, 2001]

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.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is the purview of the House of Commons to determine what the real targets are for us at this point in time.

It is important to know that when I refer to small groups of terrorists, everything is relative. From what I can tell, we are not talking about entire populations. It was in contrast to entire populations that I referred to small groups of terrorists.

When we consider the scope of the response such as the one that will be undertaken, we need to understand that 50, 100 or 150 organized terrorists around the world would not be considered as very large groups, when we take into account the magnitude of the forces that will rally around NATO or UN countries, if the UN takes part.

Therefore it is important to be cautious, to make a safe and careful move and to spare, as much as possible, the people living in these countries that are involved, though not of their own free will.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely difficult, in a debate like this one, to make specific recommendations.

The issue that concerns us today, including those communities that could eventually suffer reprisals, must be examined as a whole.

If the government action is properly targeted from the outset, if the conditions to broaden an international consensus are present, if what is done is largely condoned, if the protection of all the parties, including neighbouring communities and people who live in our region and who could suffer reprisals of one type or another, if all the government measures were based on collective decisions, not only from the House of Commons, but from all the countries and if everything that is done is accomplished with the deep conviction that it must be done and that it is fair, then we will minimize the inconveniences that could face some communities and groups, between countries or in any relationship during this exercise.

Caution, wisdom, the very broad consensus and the appropriateness of the actions that we take will minimize all the possible and unthinkable risks that could arise following deliberate actions.

I have no other comment to make. We all have work to do together and this is why we are having this debate. I hope that hon. members will give us a lot of information by expressing their views and telling us what they heard from their constituents as to how we should go about this issue.

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, whether for technical or organizational reasons in the House, I did not unfortunately hear the hon. member's question. I wonder if she could repeat her question. I truly apologize for this.