Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was ontario.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Haliburton—Victoria—Brock (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.

Statements in the House

International Actions Against Terrorism October 15th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the question of Canada's military contribution to the campaign against international terrorism.

One of the most significant issues that has arisen in the weeks since September 11 is that of our bilateral relationship with our American allies. Almost every aspect of this most complex of relationships has been somehow engaged in the aftermath of the attacks on the United States last month. Among the most important is that of our bilateral military relationship.

In speaking to the motion before us, therefore, I will discuss the issues against the background of this excellent relationship, one that has served us so well for so many years.

We know quite well just how extensive the links we share with the United States are. Our cultures, while not homogeneous, are closely linked. Our economies are interdependent. We share a common border. And there is a constant flow of Americans and Canadians across this border, as our neighbours venture north to see the sights from Quebec City to Peggy's Cove to western Canada, as we venture south seeking a taste of the American way of life from Florida to New Orleans to New York.

In addition to cultural, economic and personal connections, there is our military connection. Simply put, the United States is our most important ally and defence partner.

To give members an idea of how well established our military relationship is, consider that our two countries currently share over 80 treaty level defence agreements, more than 250 memoranda of understanding between the two defence departments and approximately 145 bilateral fora in which defence matters are discussed.

Members should also consider that there are 600 Canadian Forces personnel currently serving in the U.S., mostly in Norad related assignments. As well, over 20,000 defence related visits to the United States are conducted annually by the Canadian government and industry representatives.

In addition to the agreements governing our defence relations, there are, as I mentioned, a number of bilateral defence fora. Among them is the Canada-U.S. permanent joint board on defence. Established in 1940, it is the highest level bilateral defence and security board. It provides a vital forum for co-ordinating our many bilateral agreements, addressing areas of common concern and fostering interoperability between our forces.

Another important forum is the North American Aerospace Defence Command known as Norad. For over 40 years Norad has provided Canada and the United States with effective aerospace defence capabilities. Norad benefits from a binational American-Canadian command. With a Canadian officer as the deputy commander in chief, Norad provides a concrete example of how well our personnel work with the U.S. side by side.

Another way in which our two countries' militaries work seamlessly together is through the provision of joint training opportunities. By promoting interoperability, these arrangements help foster exactly the kind of operational effectiveness the current coalition effort requires. Joint exercises are held regularly both here in Canada and at American military facilities.

With ties as extensive as these, it is not surprising that Canada acted quickly to assist the United States after the horrific events of September 11 took place.

Three Canadian warships were put on a heightened state of readiness to deliver humanitarian aid, including medical supplies, transportation and communications equipment into U.S. ports had they been called for or needed.

At the same time, members of the disaster assistance response team were put on active alert in Trenton, Ontario. They were prepared to move to New York by road if necessary.

During and immediately following the events, Norad increased its alert readiness measures. In response, we put additional CF-18s at the disposal of Norad to patrol North American airspace.

Meanwhile Canadian forces personnel were recalled to their bases and put on high alert. This provided a visible signal to Canadians that we were engaged and prepared to deal with the developing situation.

The Canadian forces also responded quickly to the demands that the rerouted planes placed on communities across our country and worked closely with local airports, Transport Canada, Red Cross workers and countless volunteers. At the same time members of the Canadian forces were assisting local authorities in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Manitoba to accommodate thousands of displaced travellers.

Organizing the assistance relief was a significant undertaking. The federal government's new Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness played a key co-ordinating role. Within hours of the attack, officials compiled an inventory of resources available in Canada for humanitarian assistance to the United States. This information was communicated to their counterparts at the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency.

They also worked closely with the provincial emergency measures organization and the private sector to assist in co-ordinating the support and resources necessary to help local authorities accommodate the air travellers that were stranded in Canada.

These actions demonstrate just how able and ready the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces are to respond when called upon. And their actions did not stop there.

On October 8 the Minister of National Defence announced further Canadian military support to the United States led campaign against terrorism. Our objective is to make an effective and meaningful contribution to the overall military campaign and to ensure that Canadians, their interests and values are defended and that this lengthy campaign is a success.

The Canadian forces are becoming an integral part of the overall international campaign. A Canadian frigate, the HMCS Halifax and some 230 personnel have been directed to the Arabian gulf. A Canadian naval task group will be deployed from Halifax. The task group will comprise two frigates, one of which will be the HMCS Halifax , a destroyer, a supply ship and six Sea King helicopters. An additional frigate from the west coast, the HMCS Vancouver , will also integrate into a U.S. carrier battle group. The air force will deploy surveillance and airlift support to the region. Humanitarian assistance will also be provided to the Afghan people. As well, a component of our specialist force, joint task force 2, will contribute to the overall effort. In total, some 2,000 Canadian forces men and women will participate in the operation.

The government has underscored that this will be a long campaign. As the Prime Minister has said, it will be fought on many fronts, not only military but also humanitarian, financial, legislative and diplomatic, on as many fronts perhaps as there are varied and complementary dimensions to our bilateral relationship with our American friends. Only by working together can we ensure the long term security of both our countries.

In closing, I would like to echo the call made by others to be mindful of the difficult challenges facing the many Canadian forces members participating in this campaign as well as those challenges facing their families at home. We have every confidence that they will do us proud as our country stands united with the United States and our other allies.

Supply October 15th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's statement. I would like to know more about his feelings on Saudi Arabia being part of the solution, if I heard him right, to the problem that exists within the Islam community. I wonder if he could expand on that a little for the House and explain to us the connections among Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and the other areas that are in conflict in regard to the Muslim faith and Islam.

Supply October 15th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member for Lakeland. He is doing an excellent job as defence critic. He is with the program, as the saying goes, in complimenting members of the Canadian armed forces. I commend him for that.

I want to allay some fears and misconceptions that may exist regarding the budget of the military. In the last three federal budgets the government has raised military spending by $3 billion to bring Canada up to seventh in NATO.

I know members do not want to hear it but if we talk about military spending in actual dollars Turkey spends $7.7 billion and Greece spends $3.3 billion. Luxembourg spends $90 million, as members have said. These are the barometers we are using.

Let us compare GDP, which is always nice if there is nothing else to compare to when looking for something to find fault with. The second in GDP is the United States. The U.S. has the largest military budget in the world at $343 billion. When comparing budgets and numbers we should bring it into real dollars.

Does the member recognize that Canada is seventh out of 19 NATO countries in military spending in actual dollars? Does he recognize that the military is the federal government's largest budget? Does he know that it is the largest employer in the federal government and the holder of the most assets?

The member may realize that people sometimes see the military as an easy area in which to make cuts, but he should recognize that the government has elevated military spending by $3 billion in the last three budgets.

Supply October 15th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I will only take about a half a minute to actually deal with reality.

The member mentioned Luxembourg. Luxembourg spends $90 million on defence. It has no army, navy or air force. I believe it has a bit of anti-aircraft homeland defence. Luxembourg is a great place to visit which I would recommend to anyone.

In actual fact Luxembourg is the same size as the city of Oshawa and has about the same population. I do not know how it could possibly compare because Canada does spend $11.9 billion on its defence and it is the seventh largest in NATO. We should look at actual spending and $11.9 billion versus $90 million is hardly a comparison.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that he keeps bringing in something that is not a reality. Could we deal with the reality that Canada is the seventh largest spender in NATO?

Softwood Lumber October 4th, 2001

Madam Speaker, the Canadian government has not been asked by the United States to participate in a BMD system. What is more, we cannot very well make a decision for or against BMD without first knowing what the system will look like, how much it will cost, where it will fit into and how it will affect the global security framework. The Government of Canada is keeping an open mind about the proposed U.S. ballistic missile defence system and has not taken a position for or against it.

Ballistic missile defence has the potential to play a positive role in global security without jeopardizing arms control and disarmament. However, the outcome will depend largely on how missile defence is pursued. We are continuing to assess the U.S. plans for a missile defence system as they emerge and to consult closely with our allies.

A Canadian decision will be taken only after an analysis of the new global security framework into which the U.S. would fit a BMD system and a comprehensive review of the implications for Canada. In line with Canada's defence policy, and without prejudicing any future decisions on BMD, the government continues to examine the issue of ballistic missile defence and the details of the U.S. system as they develop. The American proposal does not yet include a timetable for deployment or specific details about the architecture of the system. U.S. officials have made it very clear that Canada will be consulted on the issues affecting our longstanding defence partnership, including NORAD.

We are pleased with the U.S. intent to reduce its nuclear arsenal and welcome the American commitment to consult with China and Russia on ballistic missile defence. The government has a longstanding tradition of consulting parliamentarians on major foreign and defence policy issues. At the moment, and in line with the 1994 defence white paper, Canadian participation in ballistic missile defence is limited to research and consultation.

I know I am out of time, but let me say that there has been no Canadian decision made with regard to BMD and our efforts remain within the perimeters of current Canadian policy.

National Defence September 27th, 2001

I am glad to see the members are awake. For a party that is measured by the defence index, what can we expect?

The facts are the same. We have acquired 12 modern frigates and 11 steam-driven destroyers are being replaced. We have 4 Victoria class submarines, 650 new armoured personnel carriers and 15 new Cormorant helicopters. The government is acting.

National Defence September 27th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, naturally the government welcomes the report of the CDA.

National Defence September 27th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, through the 1999-2000 federal budgets and supplementary funding, the government has reinvested more than $3 billion in defence over a period of four years. The CDA report also commends the government for the increased funding and the additional money that is being spent on the military.

We feel we are doing an excellent job and that our Canadian military is doing an excellent job. We will continue to meet all the commitments of the white paper.

National Defence September 25th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about operational readiness of the Canadian forces. We are talking about deployments that are done on a normal basis as part of our NATO commitment.

We do not discuss operational deployments in the House of Commons or anywhere else where CNN wants to broadcast or give more locations or more information to terrorists who may be quite interested.

National Defence September 25th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, 98.1% is what the current strength of the forces is and what our commitment to the white paper is.

We have more CF-18s now than we had during the gulf war. We have more trained pilots now than we had during the gulf war. That party should be praising the hard work of the Canadian forces, not denigrating it.