Chris Alexander

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank our hon. colleague for his speech.

This bill is about measures to be taken here in Canada to fulfill our international obligations. We are talking about a treaty that is supposed to govern the behaviour of all countries, and we are talking about the kind of example we want to set for other countries.

Why does my hon. colleague consider any mention of Iran stigmatization? That nation definitely supports terrorism. According to the United Nations and the entire world, Iran wants to illegally acquire nuclear weapons. It is currently pursuing its nuclear ambitions, despite pressure and warnings from democratic countries around the world.

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for participating in this debate. We very much appreciate hearing the point of view of the member for Brossard—La Prairie when we manage to get one.

He wasted a lot of time criticizing us for waiting too long to introduce this bill in the House. We were not able to hear his thoughts about nuclear terrorism. So let us see.

What do he and his party think about the situation with Iran? Iran wants to develop a nuclear army and could represent the biggest threat we have seen thus far in the 21st century. Where does this bill fit in with international issues such as that?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House what lowers Canada's international standing. It is speeches like the one we just heard from the member opposite. We are debating nuclear terrorism here, an issue that everyone in the House, including members of his party, agree is one of great gravity: terrorism, where nuclear weapons might be delivered. Canada has international obligations. Canada has shown leadership on this issue.

Instead, the hon. member chose to talk about climate change, the environment, the Security Council, anything but the issue that is before the House. This is frustrating for our side, because when we have the chance to discuss these issues on which our security globally truly depends, we do not get a serious response from the other side.

Does the hon. member agree that nuclear terrorism is a threat to the world? Does he agree that the measures contained in the bill are necessary and indeed should be dealt with expeditiously? Does he agree that without these measures, we are talking about countries like Pakistan, Iran and others that might literally bring us to the brink of disaster because of nuclear terrorism?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side would like to congratulate the hon. member for Mount Royal on his excellent speech, on his support for this issue, on his continuing commitment to comprehensive measures supported by the whole international community, with leadership from Canada, to counter the fourfold threat represented by Iran, and to making the world a safer place, in this and other respects.

The debate today is about nuclear terrorism, and while we all agree there has been delay, deception and denial with regard to Iran's ambitions to have nuclear weapons, those three terms also apply to terrorism in a much broader context. Certainly before May 1, 2011, there was a lot of delay, deception and denial about the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, for which few, if any, official bodies in Pakistan have taken any responsibility, whatsoever, or shown any remorse.

Could the hon. member give us his personal view of how the international community has done on the macro level over the past 5 or 10 years in creating the legal frameworks and the political will to counter terrorism generally? Are we doing better? Are there still huge gaps? Do we actually find ourselves facing a greater and expanding threat, above and above Iran, globally on this front?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, on our side, we are very grateful for the NDP's previous support of this bill, support that was pointed out by the hon. member for Gatineau. She is right to focus on prevention.

Canada has always defended regimes that regulate the nuclear sector, including the Manhattan project a few decades ago, which had roots not far from here, in the Ottawa Valley.

Dozens of countries produce nuclear material, and some private interests have tried to sell it in central Asia and Africa, and possibly Pakistan, a country that has nuclear weapons. If a nuclear weapon were handed to the rank and file, who knows where it might end up; possibly Iran, since Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons and has harmful ties to terrorist groups around the world.

Does the member agree that these are concrete nuclear threats that countries like Canada might face?

[Nuclear Terrorism Act, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, humanity has seen, unfortunately, the use of nuclear weapons and we have seen terrorism, especially after 9/11. However, we have never seen the two used in conjunction and it is terrifying prospect.

Would the parliamentary secretary not agree that given our international obligations in this respect, given our leadership on disarmament, on issues of international peace and security and given that Canada produces and exports nuclear materials, this is one case, one bill where achieving the unanimous support of the House would be a very valuable signal. On our side, we could not, and most Canadians could not, see any reason why that unanimity would not be achieved?

[National Defence, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague can rest assured that the planes she mentioned, and perhaps others, have never before been subjected to such rigorous evaluation.

The evaluation is being carried out under the authority of a new secretariat that was given its mandate by the government itself and that reports to the House. This is unprecedented for the procurement of fighter jets for Canada.

Yes, we must make that distinction. There are two programs to develop a new aircraft with several partners.

Several hundreds of millions of dollars has already been spent, but not one cent has been spent to date to replace our CF-18s, no contract has been signed, and no decision about or analysis of the options has been made.

We are taking the time necessary for due diligence, to ensure oversight and transparency and that we get the right aircraft and value for taxpayers' money. The current Auditor General has already said that our government is taking steps in the right direction and there have been other very positive comments on the success of these seven points so far. We will wait for the options analysis, hopefully later this year, and for the completion of the seven points.

[National Defence, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that we would never mislead her. Everything I have to say tonight is the truth and shows what we are doing to replace the Royal Canadian Air Force's CF-18 fleet.

The new story of the replacement program, which is already well known throughout the country, begins in the spring of 2012 with the Auditor General's report.

He gave a detailed report. It has been discussed in this place. It made a particular point about full life-cycle costs for the F-35 and the need to calculate them properly to make sure they were full life-cycle costs, not a practice previously undertaken either for fighter jets or other acquisitions in National Defence. We accepted that recommendation immediately.

However, we went beyond it and put together a seven-point plan that included action on that recommendation but represented a restart of this program, a program that had not really begun because money had not been spent to buy a new aircraft to replace the CF-18. We were still some years away from an actual acquisition.

We froze funding on the acquisition. We established the seven-point plan.

We established a secretariat to complete the work that the government has to do as part of this new plan. This is not just any kind of secretariat with a few employees. It is led by a number of ministers and has a governance committee led by very reputable deputy ministers from the public service of Canada. To some extent, it resembles the secretariat that successfully ran the program to replace our naval ships.

Then surprise, surprise, the work done already by the secretariat has borne fruit. I am not going to give all the credit to public servants serving the Government of Canada now because there are independent experts who are taking part in the work of this governance committee: Denis Desautels, a former Auditor General of Canada, very distinguished; and Dr. Kenneth Norrie, a former university president.

The House knows very well what their work has achieved so far. In December, two ministers presented some of that work: the DND annual report on costs; the KPMG independent review of those costs, including the forward-looking cost estimate framework; as well as an Industry Canada update on the industrial opportunities already accruing to Canada through the joint strike fighter program, of which we remain a member.

There has been a lot of rhetoric, and a lot of misinformation has been spread about the costs. They now cover a 42-year life-cycle. They still represent the 65 F-35s, which are candidate aircraft for the acquisition. However, the costs have in effect not changed. KPMG and DND confirm the acquisition would be about $9 billion, and the running costs about $1 billion a year.

What do we have to do next? Obviously, under the seven points, an options analysis still needs to be done. That is detailed work taking place in the secretariat. We are going to leave to them the task of carrying that work forward. It is going to relate to a full range of choices and outline the advantages and disadvantages of each choice. We set aside the statement of requirements for the fighter aircraft that had been previously used. We are going to assess—

[Tamil Heritage Month, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, over the past several weeks I had the great pleasure of attending several Thai Pongal celebrations, including in my home riding of Ajax—Pickering where the Durham Tamil Association and the Tamil Cultural and Academic Society of Durham did a great job showcasing the talents of many Canadians of Tamil heritage.

With Canada now home to the largest Tamil diaspora outside South Asia, I was proud that Tamil Heritage Month was officially launched throughout the GTA on January 9. This great initiative began in my home region of Durham with declarations by the City of Pickering, Town of Ajax, Town of Whitby, City of Oshawa and the cities of Toronto, Brampton and Markham soon afterward.

At Thai Pongal, Tamil Canadians give thanks for a bountiful harvest and abundant blessings. They leave the past behind and open themselves to the new. Unfortunately, for four long years since the end of a protracted conflict, the government of Sri Lanka has failed to live up to this spirit. There has been no serious reconciliation and no accountability for alleged war crimes and mass killings. Even basic rights continue to be denied to Sri Lankan Tamils. With the recent impeachment of Chief Justice Shirani Bandaranayake, the Sri Lankan government has shown a gross disregard for the rule of law.

I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing all Tamil Canadians a great Tamil Heritage Month and a happy Thai Pongal.

[Conflict in Mali, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, our view on this side of the House is that the concept of time for these groups should be that their time is over. That should be our message from all sides of the House, and certainly from all capitals.

However, let us clarify the question of what kind of mission this is. We have had some confusion about peacekeeping missions and combat missions. There are roughly 80,000 troops on UN peacekeeping missions at the moment. There are, what colleagues in the NDP neglect to mention, over a hundred thousand troops still in NATO missions. Canada has about a thousand in the most important of those missions. Does the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood agree that this mission is neither of those?

It is certainly not a NATO mission and given its mandate, it is certainly not a UN peacekeeping mission. It is a pseudo sui generis combat mission led by Africans but with strong French participation, because France has troops based in Africa. That formula has worked so far, and so long as it continues to work, we in Canada should not be questioning it.