Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was forces.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Nepean—Carleton (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2008, with 36% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Conflict Diamonds Act October 18th, 2001

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-402, an act to prohibit the importation of conflict diamonds into Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce into the House the conflict diamonds act, an act to prohibit the importation of conflict diamonds into Canada.

Specifically the bill would prohibit the importation of rough diamonds and jewellery containing diamonds from countries that do not have a system of import and export controls.

This is an important issue and it deserves more public debate in Canada. I hope my bill will add to the important global discussions currently taking place through the Kimberley process.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Supply October 15th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very kind and generous comments. We do not disagree too often in the defence committee, but from time to time there are a few points on which we part company.

With respect to the issue of the committees being involved, I think this motion would have been just fine if it had stuck with the first paragraph dealing with condemnation of the terrorist attacks and support for the Canadian forces involved. What rankled somewhat was the implication in the second paragraph that somehow these committees were not doing their jobs.

I think the hon. member knows that we have been working hard on the issue of operational readiness of the Canadian forces in the past. Everyone agreed at the steering committee as well that we should pursue the issue of the study of counterterrorism. I think there is a lot of agreement there.

However, I would not want to leave members with the impression that we should be involved on a day to day basis with respect to the operational issues that confront the government. I do not think that is the role of committees. The role of committees is to develop longer term, mid range or long range policies that will help the government deal with the operational issues at some point in the future and the larger issues that loom on the horizon.

Supply October 15th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have an opportunity to address the House on the aftermath of the attacks of September 11. I think it is important to once again reflect on the magnitude of the monstrous crime that was committed. Over 5,000 lives were lost: mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, small children, aunts, uncles and grandparents, all were lost to humanity.

Once again my thoughts go to the heroism of the emergency workers, the firefighters and the police that were involved. I do not think we will ever forget those images as long as we live. It is worth mentioning that these attacks were not simply on the United States but on all free and democratic societies that value human rights and human life. The World Trade Center was not just a symbol of the financial power of New York and the United States but a symbol of the global village we live in. The 60 or so nationalities represented among the dead are a testament to that.

With respect to the motion before us, I do not think anyone disagrees with the first part of the motion. I think we all support what the hon. member for Calgary Centre has said in the motion. However, I must say that I was disappointed and concerned about the fact that the hon. member for Calgary Centre did not bother to consult with the chairs of either the foreign affairs committee or the defence committee. As chair of the defence committee I would have thought that the hon. member would have taken the time to perhaps give me a call and ask what the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs is doing.

Let me tell the House what our committee is doing. It is involved very extensively right now with a study of counterterrorism. We are looking at some of the long range or mid range issues that flow from the whole issue of counterterrorism in terms of the potential role of special forces, Canada's emergency preparedness from the standpoint of critical infrastructure, and the whole issue of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare and our level of preparedness in that area. In terms of responding to terrorist threats internationally, there is the whole issue of long range lift capability.

These are some of the issues we expect to deal with in the coming weeks and months and I expect that as well we will be able to put together a report on these issues for the House to consider. I am hoping very much that the government will take that report very seriously, because what we have been doing on the issue of counterterrorism relates as well to the whole issue of military preparedness and the operational readiness of the Canadian forces, which is something we have been studying for a number of months.

Getting back to the terrorist attacks on the United States, there has been a lot of discussion both nationally and internationally on the proper response to these attacks. Of course we are now engaged in a military confrontation with terrorism that is part of a multi-faceted and multi-dimensional campaign to rid the world of this terrible scourge. As a direct result of this campaign there has been some criticism among peace groups that the military assault currently taking place is both illegal and immoral.

First, the decision to commence hostilities against a foe is by any measure the most important decision that a government or a leader is called upon to make. To put the lives of the armed forces in harm's way, that potential life or death decision, speaks to the most important role any state has, that is, to protect the lives of its citizens. The decision is one that in my view must be taken with the utmost care and must, at least in a democratic society, meet significant moral and legal criteria. It is my view that the responses of the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have met the test of being both moral and legal. It is important to keep in mind as well that the terrorists we are fighting are not bound by any such considerations or restrictions.

Let me briefly review for the House some of the events that have occurred thus far in terms of the international community's response.

One of the first things the international community did was to pass resolution 1368 at the United Nations. The resolution talks about the need to bring to justice the perpetrators. It expresses sympathy and condolences to the victims, their families and the people of the United States of America. Most important, it also talks about recognizing the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the charter of the United Nations.

A couple of weeks later on September 28 the UN passed a comprehensive resolution, resolution 1373, which mapped out a strategy that states should employ to deal with the scourge of terrorism. Most important, it reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence as recognized by the charter of the United Nations and as reiterated in resolution 1368.

What does the United Nations charter have to say about attacks against a particular state? Article 51 of the UN charter states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

By virtue of that article the United States has a responsibility to contact the United Nations when it has been attacked and when it is in the process of taking action itself. That is precisely what the United States did on October 7.

In a letter dated October 7, 2001 from the permanent representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the president of the security council, Mr. John Negroponte enumerated all the reasons why the United States was responding and by doing so fully complied with article 51 of the United Nations charter.

A lot of people have talked about the role of the United Nations. Some people have said that the United Nations should be playing a greater role. I think the response of the United Nations was very clear in terms of some comments made by Kofi Annan in his statement of October 8. He said:

Immediately after the 11 September attacks on the United States, the United Nations Security Council expressed its determination to combat by all means threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. The Council also reaffirmed the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.The states concerned have set their military action in Afghanistan in that context.

The United Nations said very clearly that the United States has the right of self-defence. It is pursuing its interests on that basis. That is very important from the standpoint of the legal aspect of the United States' actions thus far.

There is a lot more I would like to say about this issue but time is limited. In terms of responding to these attacks, the United States has taken military action on the basis of a very serious military threat that exists within al-Qaeda. Some people have been thinking that perhaps al-Qaeda is a small group of terrorists who get together to plot these horrific actions. It is in fact a substantially large military organization that needs to be stopped. The military actions that the United States is taking along with Great Britain and Canada are in that respect absolutely necessary under the circumstances.

National Defence and Veterans Affairs October 4th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that last Tuesday the defence committee unanimously adopted a motion to produce a report on Canada's operational readiness as it relates to counterterrorism.

The committee will hear from a wide range of witnesses in such areas as special forces, intelligence gathering, emergency preparedness and the defence against nuclear, biological and chemical attacks.

The report will form part of the prebudget deliberations. Our first witness this afternoon will be the hon. Minister of National Defence. I will take this opportunity to thank all members of the committee.

National Defence September 28th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The minister will know that yesterday the Conference of Defence Associations released a report on the state of the Canadian military. Could the minister provide the House with his comments and observations on the report?

Csis September 24th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the solicitor general.

Last Thursday the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, perhaps inadvertently, distorted my position and that of Mr. David Harris, a former CSIS employee, on the matter of a foreign intelligence agency for Canada. Both Mr. Harris and I have called for a public discussion on Canada's future intelligence needs.

Could the solicitor general offer any comments with respect to the need for a more public dialogue on security and intelligence issues?

Foreign Affairs September 19th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for International Cooperation.

The headline on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen today claims that “1 million flee Afghanistan” and that officials are predicting a major disaster. What is Canada doing to avert a human catastrophe in Pakistan and Iran?

Attack on the United States September 17th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with the comments made by the hon. member. I think the government has clearly indicated that it is prepared to stand side by side with the Americans. The problem that has been identified quite clearly, I think, is that the enemy is, to say the least, rather elusive. As I mentioned, the enemy is spread over 35 countries.

We have had some success in this country in terms of detecting these cells and eliminating them, as have the British, the Americans, the Italians and the Germans. We have had some success in eliminating these cells for a short period of time. However, others have likely sprung up. I expect that the scope of what we will be involved in, which has certainly been mentioned in the past, will likely take us years. I expect that it will be a war waged on many fronts. What is clear and absolutely essential in all of this, and in some of the remarks I made I tried to indicate this very strongly, is basic intelligence.

As I indicated, in this country we should be looking at a new foreign intelligence agency. Canadians have done some very good work in the past in that whole area in terms of collecting intelligence, analyzing it, disseminating it and sharing it among the allies to good effect.

We have to look at a new organization that would provide us with new capabilities to battle this terrible evil. It would be an issue that might be looked at by one of the committees.

I appreciate the hon. member's comments. Above all else in connection with this fight against terrorism, we have to be smart about it. We have to ensure that we get to the root causes, that we eliminate the various cells that operate worldwide, get at the businesses, the front organizations that they have set up and make sure that we are in a position to ensure that no terrorist attack of the magnitude that we saw last week could be mounted. That certainly is something that Canadians and people worldwide never want to see again.

Attack on the United States September 17th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak in this debate tonight. I would like to begin my comments by congratulating the hon. member for Toronto Centre--Rosedale for his very thoughtful comments.

The enormity of the death and devastation, the horror and the barbarity of the last week, are almost beyond the capability of the human mind to absorb and understand. I am sure that none of us living today will ever forget the images that are now seared into our memories: the fireballs of death and destruction at the World Trade Center, the firefighters and police marching valiantly into that inferno, the billowing clouds of dust and debris as the towers collapsed, the crater left by the crash of the hijacked flight near Pittsburgh, and the destroyed sections of the Pentagon, a building that I visited three months ago. These unforgettable scenes mark a week of darkness and tragedy.

Like other members of the House, on behalf of my constituents in Nepean--Carleton I would like to extend my deepest condolences to President Bush, the government and the people of the United States and especially to the families and friends of all who lost their lives or who are listed as missing. We know that many of our fellow Canadians died.

Again, to the families of those who were lost I say that our thoughts and prayers are with each and every one of them. We grieve their loss together. I think a special tribute is due as well to the firefighters and police officers and other emergency workers who gave their lives in the line of duty trying to evacuate people from buildings and assist the injured. The depth of the courage and sacrifice by members of the New York fire department and the New York police department and other emergency workers defies description.

It is no exaggeration to say that these attacks were an assault on the civilized world. We have heard that said many times before. No less than 40 different nationalities are represented in the lists of the dead and missing: Americans, British, Canadians, Australians, Japanese, Germans, French, Taiwanese, people from around the globe. On any given day the world is on display in New York. Like London and Paris, New York is an international city. It truly belongs to the world. While the UN in midtown Manhattan tries to solve the world's problems, Wall Street, a few blocks away from the World Trade Center, is where the world comes together to do business. When the civilized world was attacked last Tuesday so too were the principles upon which it is based: the rule of law, constitutional government, individual liberty, freedom and democracy.

I believe the Prime Minister spoke for all Canadians last Friday at the memorial service on Parliament Hill when he addressed the following comments to U.S. Ambassador Cellucci. He said:

Generation after generation we have travelled many difficult miles together side by side. We have lived through many dark times, always firm in our shared resolve to vanquish any threat to freedom and justice and together with our allies we will defy and defeat the threat that terrorism poses to all civilized societies.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs has reinforced a clear and unambiguous message that we will work side by side with the government of the United States to bring to justice those responsible for these acts and to defend against any future attacks. The fact that NATO took the unprecedented action of invoking article 5 of the Washington treaty, that an attack against one is an attack against all, is an indication both of the gravity of the situation and the resolve among the NATO allies to defeat terrorism. That the UN general assembly, 189 countries, voted unanimously in support of a resolution condemning the attacks and authorizing measures against terrorists and countries that harbour them is further evidence, if any were needed, of the depth of international support for overcoming this terrible evil.

From time to time and all too often the world experiences what I would describe as pure evil. We saw pure evil in the Nazi death camps during the second world war. We saw it in Stalinist Russia. We saw it during the cultural revolution of Mao Tse-Tung. We saw it during the Rwandan genocide. In this country we saw it manifested quite clearly with the bombing of Air India flight 182. Regrettably I have seen the manifestations of pure evil in the various trips I have made to beleaguered Sierra Leone.

Last Tuesday via the images of live television, the world was witness to an act of pure evil of staggering proportions. For many of us, almost a full week after the events in New York and Washington the magnitude of this evil is still incomprehensible.

Many of my constituents were praying to God that the rescue efforts would yield success and that people would be found alive. I attended a memorial service last Wednesday at the Calvin Christian Reformed Church in Nepean, where people sought answers in scripture and collective prayer.

On Saturday I attended the regular mass at St. Patrick's in Fallowfield, where once again people sought God's wisdom in trying to understand these senseless acts of extreme violence and where the congregation rose to sing a beautiful rendition of God Bless America .

There is no doubt that these tragic events have moved people deeply and have put into perspective many of the trivial daily problems we all face.

Where do we go from here as a nation and as part of the international community?

Our government has made the clear choice to stand beside the government and people of the United States and to support it in the war against terrorism. I believe that is our only choice. Let us be clear: not only do we have to bring the perpetrators of these acts of terror to justice, but we must also work to ensure that no terrorist organization will ever be in a position to mount an attack of this nature on innocent people. We owe that much and more to the victims of these attacks. We must destroy the sanctuaries of the terrorists. We must expose their friends and supporters. We must dismantle whatever financial arrangements they have. We must confiscate their assets. We must attack them from within and from without.

How this new war on terrorism will actually unfold we do not know. The truth is that very few people really know. It has been suggested that it may be fought on a variety of levels, through diplomatic and intelligence channels and political and economic pressure. Perhaps psychological warfare will be employed in some measure and some sort of military action is certainly likely. That may take the form of conventional warfare or special operations. Inevitably basic police work to ferret out terrorist organizations worldwide will be required.

The United States has yet to define what sorts of resources and assets may be needed, but I think we can all appreciate that there will likely be a price to be paid. To the extent that it is possible we must try to ensure a measured, calibrated and precise response, one that does not create a whole generation of suicide bombers. We must not overreact to the great and heinous crime that was perpetrated on the civilized world, but neither should we underreact. Terrorism must be defeated.

Any war must start with a knowledge of the enemy, with basic intelligence. As we know, the prime suspect is Osama bin Laden, the charismatic leader of the organization al-Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden is 44 years of age, the son of a Saudi construction tycoon who rebuilt the cities of Mecca and Medina. We know that his personal fortune, largely inherited, is between $280 million and $300 million U.S.

We know that the membership of al-Qaeda is estimated at between 3,000 and 5,000 men. There are no female members. We know that it fights alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan against the northern alliance and is designated the 055 Brigade. We know that they have camps in Khowst, Hazrat Amir Mawia, Kabul, Jalalabad, Kumar and Quandahar and depots in Tora Bora and Liza.

We know that their organization is spread over 35 countries and involves front organizations, banks through which money flows, as well as businesses ranging from real estate, hotels, diamonds and even fish.

There is a great deal we know about Osama bin Laden. I expect that in the weeks and months ahead we are going to learn an awful lot more about him and his terrorist organization. That work will be done largely by both police and intelligence organizations co-operating worldwide.

Canada has played an important role in the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence over the years. This was done through foreign affairs, military intelligence, the communications security establishment, the Privy Council Office and CSIS. In recent years our foreign intelligence contribution has largely focused on communications intercepts which regrettably have not provided quality intelligence information for the relevant authorities. That is the case not just here in Canada but in many other countries as well.

As we saw, the terrorists involved in last Tuesday's act stayed under the radar. They were not detected. More and more intelligence agencies are realizing that human source intelligence is indispensable in tracking the whereabouts and activities of terrorists.

Where does that leave us in terms of Canada's contribution? Although I have a lot of views on various aspects of this issue, I would like to leave the House with one suggestion that I believe deserves serious examination.

Perhaps we should look closely at a proposal that had been advanced in the past, that of creating a separate foreign intelligence agency for Canada. Such an agency could serve many purposes, not the least of which would be intelligence gathering relating to counterterrorism.

Canada is the only G-8 country without a foreign intelligence agency. Some excellent work has been done in this area by Mr. Alistair Hensler, a former assistant director of CSIS. If members are looking for more information on the subject, I would refer them to an excellent article that appeared in the winter of 1995 issue of the periodical Canadian Foreign Policy .

As the Prime Minister said earlier today, this parliament has a role in shaping a firm and just global response to an unprecedented global threat. Let us all rise to that daunting challenge.

Terrorism September 17th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, with the images of live television seared forever in our memories, last Tuesday we witnessed one of the most horrific acts against a civilian population in the history of humankind.

The Prime Minister expressed very well our collective horror and revulsion in condemning these barbaric attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

With over 40 nationalities listed in the ranks of the dead and missing, this was truly an attack upon the civilized world. To President Bush and the people in government of the United States, we extend our profound and deepest sympathies. To the families and relatives of those who have been killed or are listed as missing, our thoughts and prayers are with them as they seek God's wisdom in trying to understand and cope with their loss.

Canada will stand together with the United States to vanquish terrorism. Together with our allies we must summon the resources and the resolve to do what is necessary to rid the world of this unspeakable evil.