Lost his last election, in 2006, with 35% of the vote.
Committees of the House May 29th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirty-first report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Alberta.
Pursuant to section 22(1) of the Act, the committee recommends that the 30-day period for consideration of objections to this report be extended by five days. If the House gives its consent, I intend to propose that the thirty-first report be adopted later today.
Supply May 15th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to my hon. colleague and there are several things that bother me considerably. I think it may just be a lack of sensitivity, but he spoke about preventive attacks with respect to the U.S. government's actions in Iraq.
Is he aware that today we are talking about a defensive weapon, not an offensive one? Is he aware that the issue is protecting oneself against attack rather than attacking?
The second thing is that there was mention of collective reflection and my hon. colleague has been extremely eloquent on many topics, particularly social conscience, social justice and so on. Perhaps I should remind him that it was our government that launched the initiative for Africa. It was our government—or at least, the previous finance minister—who put forward the idea of global equalization. I believe these things are not mutually exclusive. That has nothing to do with antimissile defence.
In what way does protecting the security of our citizens within a reasoned and reasonable framework have a negative effect on our activities in trying to attack the fundamental causes of human poverty and hopelessness?
Supply May 15th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, in school, I learned this maxim by Boileau:
What is conceived well is expressed clearly,and the words to say it arrive with ease.
I have said all I had to say in this respect.
As for making this debate possible, I must point out that the Standing Orders of the House are very clear. Opportunity is given to the opposition to select the topic of discussion for debate on an opposition day.
This is what we are having today; this is democracy at work. The consultation process has started. I am happy with that. There will be more discussion at every level. I think that the public and the media will take part. I welcome this debate with great serenity and comfort.
Supply May 15th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed, I am blushing and I am afraid my ego is getting more and more inflated by the minute. Seriously, there is one thing that I want to say. When the Bloc Quebecois brought forward this motion this morning, I thought that it was really doing something worthwhile because these issues are extremely complex. However, we must not get caught in technical details, dogmatism, superficiality or prejudice at the expense of the real questions that we should be asking ourselves.
If there is anything we should be doing to benefit from the fact that we are debating this motion today, it would be to give Canadians an opportunity to consider what I think is the real issue here. Is Canada contributing to world peace or, on the contrary, is it not acting in the interest of world peace by taking part or considering taking part in this system? My answer is that it is contributing to world peace.
Supply May 15th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, I shall read the motion before us once more:
That this House urge the government not to take part in the United States' missile defence plan.
The least one can say is that I am not in any way inclined toward nor do I have any sympathy for militarism as a doctrine for this government.
My recent activities illustrates my point very well, including my involvement in the elimination of landmines, my active support of the struggle against the recruitment of child soldiers, my humanitarian involvement in Chiapas and Iran, my support for the establishment of an international criminal court, and my unequivocal support for my government when it decided not to participate in the war in Iraq.
And yet, I encourage my government to begin talks with the United States about possible Canadian participation in missile defence for the North American continent. I would like to explain my position, which is based on four fundamental principles.
First of all, I believe that 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.
Nevertheless, the world has been full of surprises in the last 15 years, and no one can predict with certainty what the geopolitical state of the world will be in another 15 or more years. Canada must continue to actively promote the cause of peace, but cannot, on its own, prevent all extremism.
In addition, the fact that Canada may not be a potential target does not mean that it could not be a potential victim. An attack by a missile with a nuclear, bacteriological or chemical warhead aimed at Chicago, New York or Seattle would almost certainly produce fallout in Canada. Are we going to leave it up to others to protect us?
That brings me to the first fundamental principle of my position, that is, the exercise of Canadian sovereignty. In this matter, I refer to the White Paper on Defence, published in 1994, which states the following:
Canada should never find itself in a position where the defence of its national territory has become the responsibility of others.
For our American allies, in terms of decision-making, missile defence is a fait accompli. It presupposes the careful examination of a host of scenarios and the planning of countermeasures that would have to be launched within 20 minutes or less of the launching of a hostile missile.
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. This commitment dates back to the second world war. It stems from the Ogdensburg declaration, signed in 1940 by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Mackenzie King.
This commitment is the foundation of an essential instrument for defence cooperation known as the Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence, or the PJBD. I have had the honour to chair the Canadian section of this board since 1998.
The Ogdensburg declaration paved the way for the NORAD agreement, in 1958. This agreement to protect North American airspace is a marvellous example of military cooperation that reports to a binational command that fully respects the sovereignty of both countries. This is one of the cornerstones of our position, and my position especially, which is that missile defence absolutely must come under NORAD.
Some people argue, quite honestly, I am sure, that supporting missile defence means supporting the weaponization of space. We need to make a critical distinction here between the militarization of space and the weaponization of space.
The militarization of space has long existed. For example, reconnaissance satellites for military purposes have been circling the earth for many years, using the technologies of many countries, including Canada.
The weaponization of space, which would mean deploying arms in space, is a whole other ball game. Canada has traditionally opposed the weaponization of space. It must continue to do so aggressively.
In passing, the Americans have not yet decided where they stand on this. There has been no debate yet in the U.S., and should there be, there is little to indicate that the American political class will decide to deploy weapons in space.
I am fully convinced that we must continue to use all our moral influence to oppose the weaponization of space. This has nothing to do with a decision on the missile defence plan. It has nothing to do with the famous star wars program as imagined by President Reagan.
Opponents of Canada's participation in the missile defence plan allege that it would encourage nuclear proliferation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Canada has always played a key role in fighting nuclear proliferation and must continue. The diplomatic fight against proliferation and the missile defence plan are not mutually exclusive.
But the missile defence system would send an interceptor carrying no explosives of any kind, to destroy a hostile missile solely upon impact. It is not illogical to think that having a missile defence system could deter a hostile country from even producing nuclear weapons since they would be useless. This would therefore reduce the danger of proliferation, not increase it.
Perhaps this explains in part the interest expressed many countries such as China, Russia, Japan, European countries and others, in the missile defence plan.
It is absolutely impossible in a few short minutes to speak comprehensively about such a complex issue, which has been discussed for many years by the Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence.
So, on the basis of these principles, Canadian sovereignty, the protection of Canadians, the fight against nuclear proliferation and the refusal to weaponize space, I encourage my government to undertake constructive talks with our American friends about our participation in a future missile defence system. The Canadian public must participate in this debate, not based on dogma but rather on facts and our real options.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act April 11th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the parties and I think you will find unanimous consent to consider that it is 1:30 p.m.
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act April 11th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among all parties and I think you will find unanimous consent, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), to further defer the recorded division on report stage of Bill C-9 to the end of Government Orders on Tuesday, April 29, 2003.
Assisted Human Reproduction Act April 10th, 2003
Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place among all parties and there is agreement, pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), to further defer the recorded division requested on the amendment introduced by the member for Yellowhead, regarding third reading of Bill C-13, until the end of government orders on Tuesday, April 29.
Situation in Iraq April 8th, 2003
Madam Speaker, I want to address first all the families wiped out, in whole or in part, by the war and terrorism, wherever they may be and whatever their origins. I cannot and dare not imagine their loss. These words are perhaps small comfort, but I am forced by my conscience to speak them.
We are debating today a motion that I will address from a particular angle since, since 1998, I have the honour of chairing the Canadian section of the Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence, commonly known as PJBD.
This institution was established in 1940, under the Ogdensburg declaration signed by Prime Minister Mackenzie King and President Roosevelt. The board members are diplomats and senior military personnel from both countries. My American counterpart and I report directly to the leaders of our respective governments.
The PJBD is a unique and privileged forum for Canada. We are the only country that shares such an institution with the U.S. The PJBD has examined virtually every important joint defence measure undertaken since the end of the second world war. It reflects the profound common interests of our two nations on matters of continental defence and global peace and security. It remains as important today as it was upon its creation over 60 years ago.
I am very proud indeed of the role that PJBD plays in promoting the bilateral Canada-U.S. defence and security relationship, and I am very grateful to have the opportunity to be part of this important process.
First, I would like to express my pride in my team on the PJBD. This is a talented, dedicated and inspiring group of men and women who do a wonderful job of representing our country.
I would like to pay special tribute to the head of our military group, General Cameron Ross, who will be leaving us in June. From my seat in the House of Commons, I want to acknowledge the deep values of commitment and integrity and the acute sense of diplomacy of this brilliant officer of the Canadian Armed Forces. I would like to wish him good luck in his future endeavours.
I would like to sincerely acknowledge the quality of our armed forces. I have spent time with many members of Canada's military in Quebec City, Ottawa, Comox, Bosnia, Brussels and elsewhere, and have found the same professionalism, the same upright character, the same humanity. They are a source of pride to us all. I wish to very humbly and very sincerely pay tribute to them all, and today in particular to those who bring us honour in the Middle East.
The last meeting of the PJBD, was held on March 19 at the Pentagon, within a few days of our Prime Minister's announcement that we would not be taking part in the war in Iraq. That was mere hours before the start of the military intervention in Iraq. I must admit that I had some concerns about that meeting.
My own discussions with senior officials of the U.S. reveal that our American counterparts were indeed disappointed in Canada's position. Of that there was no doubt. However I did find strength in explaining quite clearly that Canada's decision was one based on principle and taken by a sovereign government. I was equally clear in articulating Canada's stance, especially our commitment to multilateralism.
While our counterparts disagreed with our position, I do believe they understood. This was a case of friends explaining their positions to friends. We, Canada and the U.S., have worked hard to develop these kinds of ties which allow us to speak frankly about our differences.
Of course throughout history Canada and the U.S. have had disagreements but never have we let these disagreements compromise the core commitment of our two countries to the joint defence and security of the people of North America.
Since September 11, the nature of the security and defence dialogue has expanded and deepened significantly. The PJBD has responded accordingly. The last two meetings in Comox, B.C. and in Washington, D.C. have explored the broadening definitions of security with people from a variety of departments and agencies from both countries, including the RCMP, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, the United States Office for Homeland Security, the North American Air Space Defence Command and the United States Northern Command.
As I mentioned earlier, the nature of the defence relationship with the U.S. has changed dramatically since September 11. I would like to talk briefly about how the relationship has adapted to the new realities.
The creation of the U.S. Northern Command in the wake of the terrorist attack of September 11 became a catalyst for the enhancement of Canada-U.S. security co-operation. The enhanced security co-operation agreement, which was signed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Secretary of State Powell last December, was a significant achievement, and will contribute greatly to the safety and security of Canadians and Americans alike.
As is well known, the agreement establishes a binational planning group located within Norad in Colorado Springs. The planning group will co-ordinate binational maritime surveillance and intelligence sharing, provide attack warning and threat assessments to both governments, develop contingency plans for binational military support to civil authorities and conduct joint exercises.
The planning group is headed by a Canadian general who reports to both governments. This binational co-operation and Canada's leadership role is unprecedented. The results that will stem from this initiative will improve the security of Canadians and Americans alike. In the event of an emergency it will save many lives.
In the war against terrorism, Canada stands side by side with the U.S. The outpouring of heartfelt support for the U.S. in the early hours and days following September 11 is well known. Our military contribution was and continues to be impressive on the land, on the seas and in the air.
At its height, Canadian forces in operations in Afghanistan and southwest Asia involved more than 3,400 personnel, the fourth largest contribution to the international coalition.
Today more than 1,200 Canadian military personnel remain dedicated to fighting terrorism in the Persian Gulf alongside the United States and other allies. Canada currently provides command to task force 151 operating in the Persian Gulf and Canada will soon be making a significant contribution to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
The list of areas of cooperation is too long to go into here, but it is nonetheless impressive and absolutely essential. For instance, there is the smart border declaration, which is intended to facilitate the safe and secure border crossing of goods and travellers so essential to trade.
I would like to address my last words to my counterpart, Mr. Jack David, the chair of the U.S. section, a man for whom I have great respect.
Jack, we have heard too many unfortunate comments on both sides of the border, aiming at our leaders, institutions or even our people. I know he and I will remain above the fray. I know we will keep focused on continuing to build together a relationship which is second to none. I know we will find ways to ensure that PJBD will do its share to alleviate the tensions and demonstrate the wisdom which is so essential not only for us in North America but indeed for the world, in full respect for each other's sovereignty.
My support of the motion we are addressing is not dictated by a party line. It is dictated by one very simple reality. If we cannot prevent war, I want to help build peace. That is the spirit in which I hope that this same principle applies to the United Nations.
The UN has proven incapable of preventing war, but it must play a key role in building peace. In this connection, I wish to express my very strong support of the comments made by President Bush this morning.
Ethics April 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chair of the Standing Committee of Procedure and House Affairs.
This committee was charged with writing a new code governing conflicts of interest for members. As there has not been a conflict of interest case involving a member since 1993, this code will be mainly preventive and must reflect the opinions of members as a whole.
Numerous consultations have already been held. What will the next step be?