Discussions have taken place between all parties and there is an agreement to re-defer the recorded division requested on Bill C-48 until the end of government orders on Tuesday, October 21.
Lost his last election, in 2006, with 35% of the vote.
The Income Tax Act October 9th, 2003
Discussions have taken place between all parties and there is an agreement to re-defer the recorded division requested on Bill C-48 until the end of government orders on Tuesday, October 21.
Petitions October 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I have the honour of presenting a petition regarding an amendment to the Income Tax Act with respect to volunteers who provide emergency services.
Committees of the House October 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move:
That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be modified as follows: Judi Longfield for Guy St-Julien.
Income Tax Act September 25th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I would like the division to be deferred until Tuesday at the end of government orders.
Business of the House September 25th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent for the following motion:
That when the House begins with items C-406 and M-392 under Private Members' Business later this day, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be entertained by the Speaker, and, that at the conclusion of debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-406 and of debate on motion M-392, all questions necessary to dispose of the said motions be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on Wednesday, October 1, 2003.
Parliament of Canada Act September 25th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent in the House to further defer the vote until Tuesday afternoon, at the end of Government Orders.
Committees of the House September 23rd, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 45th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of the committees, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114.
Supply September 16th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), I wish to inform you that in today's debate on the Opposition motion all Liberal members intend to share their time.
Committees of the House June 13th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 40th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs relating to the inclusion of a code of conduct in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
Supply May 29th, 2003
We have a motion before us today which I would like to read:
That this House affirm its strong support for NORAD as aviable defence organization to counter threats to North America, including the threat of ballistic missile attack; and support giving NORAD responsibility for the command of any system developed to defend North America against ballistic missiles.
Before setting out my reasons for supporting this motion, I would like to revisit a fundamental principle for Canada-U.S. defence cooperation as set out in the 1994 White Paper:
The United States is Canada's most important ally and the two countries maintain a relationship that is as close, complex, and extensive as any in the world. Canada and the US are partners in the world's largest bilateral trading relationship. The undefended border between them is evidence of the common political, economic, social and cultural values Canada and the US share as advanced industrial democracies. Geography, history, trust and shared beliefs have also made the two countries partners in the defence of North America.
When we talk about Norad, we are talking about the fundamental principle of partnership in the defence of North America.
What is Norad? First, Norad is the cornerstone of North American security. Norad was created in 1958 to protect the airspace over North America. The remarkable thing is that this protection is ensured in complete respect for Canadian sovereignty. I repeat, because it is important and it is fundamental: in complete respect of Canadian sovereignty.
Naturally, the motion before us reaffirms our commitment to the North American Air Defence Command, or Norad, and recognizes the role that organization could play in ballistic missile defence.
Missile defence is a normal extension of Norad's role. It is not a novelty; it is not something coming in from left field. It is a step along the evolutionary path we have been following for several decades.
What is remarkable is that the bi-national Planning Group will also be located within Norad. This group will coordinate the planning of emergency measures to react to natural disasters or man-made crises. Everything to do with the conception, coordination and planning of joint security takes place there.
A few days ago, here in this House, we had an opportunity to debate the issue of missile defence. If you will permit, I will repeat a few sentences I used at that time, because they seem very relevant to today's debate as well. I said:
—the state has the duty to ensure the security of its citizens. I do not necessarily share the American assessment that Canada would be a potential target for hostile action by someone, somewhere on this planet.
Not being a target does not necessarily mean not becoming a victim. If an attack were launched using nuclear warheads—or bacteriological or chemical warheads—targeting Chicago, New York or Seattle, the fallout on Canada would be nearly automatic. Are we going to leave it up to others to protect us?
Of course, the issue here is the fundamental principle of our government's responsibility, the exercise of Canadian sovereignty. In terms of decision-making, the missile defence system is a fait accompli for our American friends. It presupposes studying a host of scenarios, planning countermeasures that must begin within 20 minutes at most of the launch of a hostile missile.
The question is as follows: Would we be better able to ensure the protection of Canadians if we participated in examining these scenarios, or if we were absent? Would Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver be better protected if our neighbours were left to assessing needs on their own, or if our government took part in these plans to protect us? For me, the answer is obvious. Canada's participation, incidentally, would be fully in line with our commitment to contributing to the defence of North America.
Norad, which has existed since 1958, protects North American air space and is a perfect example—I want to say this again, as it is so fundamental, so important—of military cooperation under bi-national command that fully respects the sovereignty of our two nations.
In the interests of Canadians and our collective security, we must support maintaining Norad. We must do better than this: we must support Norad's expansion. That is why I am very pleased to support the motion before the House today.
I forgot to say when I started that my hon. colleague from Nepean began by paying tribute to my work as chair of the Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence, and he was extremely complimentary. I thank him, in the hope that I will live up to these expectations and respond in a manner that is fitting and professional.