His portfolio went up.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Employee Benefits October 31st, 2001
His portfolio went up.
Terrorism October 29th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, Canada has long been a nation dedicated to peace and security. We have demonstrated this commitment time and time again through many means, including military. It helps define us as a nation.
By flushing out terrorists in Afghanistan, we are working to create a world that is safer and more secure for all nations, for all people, including Afghanis. We are fighting against a force that threatens our freedoms, our democracies and our very way of life. Canada will stand with our allies.
Terrorism October 29th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, certainly the Government of Canada is concerned that citizens are involved. We are doing everything we can in our role to stand with our friends and allies, the United States and Britain, to make sure we defend the interests of Canada and the interests of the free world.
Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act October 25th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk about the Montreal Canadiens. They are a great team. If one cheers for them or knows some who plays for them that is great.
I want to bring the attention of the hon. member for Medicine Hat back to the concern I have about Alberta's sugar production. The member has mixed up the U.S. free trade agreement with what we are discussing. This agreement is about Costa Rica and Canada.
Costa Rica would incur the same costs trying to export to the prairies or western Canada that western Canada would incur trying to export to Costa Rica, so there is some balance there.
I wanted to know a little more. Costa Rica has no refineries or beet sugar production whereas Alberta does, at least in the riding of the member for Medicine Hat. What are the member's fears? Could he expound on them a little? I am unclear on exactly what his fears and his farmers' fears are.
Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act October 25th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the member commented on his election to represent Prince George--Peace River and the comments of the NDP. This morning the NDP took a run at the member for London--Fanshawe and actually turned his words around, which I guess must happen all the time in election campaigns. The NDP member indicated that the member for London--Fanshawe said something to the effect of littering up trade deals. In fact the member was quoting the EU ministers who were the ones who said that trade deals are best done not littered up by environmental and labour standards. He was quoting someone. I wonder whether the member could comment on the desperation of the NDP to score points by misconstruing members' words.
Canada—Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act October 25th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech. As she was denigrating the member for London--Fanshawe, she mentioned he had indicated that something in the agreement was garbage. I heard the speech of the member for London--Fanshawe and I did not hear that. I am sure the member is mistaken.
The member wants to talk as though no negotiations took place and the agreement suddenly fell out of the sky. The fact is the two governments dealt with environmental and labour co-operation. They go hand in hand with trade liberalization. That is tantamount to the agreement. It is not something that just happened. It is something that was negotiated between the two parties, keeping in mind labour and the environment and the side agreements on them.
If we look at the Canada--Costa Rica free trade agreement, we will see that it complements the environment and labour and strengthens both environment and labour management, while reaping the benefits of increased trade with Canada.
Her side is indicating that somehow this did not happen, that it all just came together and there were no negotiations that took place. Yet Canada is a trading nation and depends on trade to be a nation of prosperity, such as we have.
Would the member withdraw the words she put in the mouth of the member for London--Fanshawe? He is quite capable of defending himself, but perhaps she would want to think about that. Could she comment on that?
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act October 22nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I appreciate that the member for Cumberland--Colchester gave me an opportunity to talk about something else besides something he was interested in five months ago which actually has no bearing now and certainly has changed the way the Canadian forces operate.
We are not waiting for anyone to ask us. Perhaps the member should have been in Halifax to watch the ships being deployed. We are responding to the world economies. I was recently in Ethiopia. We have 1,650 troops in Bosnia. I am sure the member is well aware of that. We are doing our part on the world scene to make sure that the world is a safer place to live in. Canada will take part in all of its NATO exercises and will live up to the 1994 white paper. We will also make sure that our commitment to NORAD is fulfilled. We do our part on the world stage. Our troops are something the world is very proud of and Canada can be proud of.
Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act October 22nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the question the member asked has absolutely nothing to do with the question he asked on May 30. For your information, Mr. Speaker, during question period he asked about the cancellation and reissuing by DND of the tender for the redeployment of vehicles and equipment from Eritrea. That is the question he asked. I do not know what that has to do with Afghanistan.
At this point in time Canada has not been asked by the United Nations and the United Nations has not made up its mind as to whether it is going to be involved in peacekeeping, and if peacekeeping is going to be involved in Afghanistan.
Perhaps the member should come back in six months and ask the same question again. He may actually get an answer. However, I will comment.
I appreciate the continuing interest of the member for Cumberland--Colchester in the military and the way it operates and the economy of scale that the military operates in. This ensures that the government has an opportunity to reply to some of the concerns raised by Canadians as to whether the military is combat capable, whether it is able to take part in the long term planning that is ahead of us and whether the enhancement of global deployablity is still of great concern.
I appreciate the member's question. His question came from the incident with the GTS Katie in which a shipping firm was not being paid by the agent that had been contracted. It protested and Canadian equipment, containerized equipment mostly, was held up in high seas and not allowed to enter port. That created a situation. The Government of Canada, through the Minister of National Defence, had decided that the use of commercial carriers to move equipment and personnel, which has been a common practice among Canada's allies for many years for non-combative services, eases the pressure on military personnel who would otherwise have to provide these services. On the subject of sealift in particular some valuable lessons were learned from the GTS Katie incident. A number of steps have been taken to strengthen the DND sealift contracting operations and options to meet the transportation requirements of the Canadian forces.
After consulting with the Department of Justice, legal counsel, the shipping industry and a number of NATO allies, DND decided to try an industry best practice approach of chartering its maritime transportation requirements directly with shipowners. This eliminates contracting intermediaries and allows for the solicitation of bids directly from shipowners through a broker.
The redeployment of Canadian forces equipment from Eritrea this past summer offered an excellent opportunity to charter by this means. It is a very successful operation and one now that we can be very proud of. It provides the economy of scale, the efficiency that all of our allies use and it has proved to be very successful.
Terrorism October 17th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that CSE operates within the law of Canada. It includes abiding by the Criminal Code of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The commissioner was appointed in 1996. He is the hon. Claude Bisson, former chief justice of the Quebec Court of Appeal. He was reappointed by the Prime Minister. His mandate is to review the activities and to ensure that they comply with all Canadian law.
Terrorism October 17th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the new authority to intercept communication is for targeted foreign entities and to protect electronic information and information and infrastructure that are of importance to the Government of Canada. It is not to spy on Canadians. Its mandate is enunciated and limited. It collects activities that are prescribed. It ensures the privacy of Canadians. It is targeted to foreign entities only.