Lost his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Petitions May 9th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions from people in Victoria-Haliburton who are calling on Parliament not to pass into law any changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms that would allow spousal benefits to same sex couples.
Petitions May 8th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by people from Lindsay, Bobcaygeon, Coboconk, Haliburton, Cameron, Little Britain, Bethany, Janetville, Buckhorn and area.
The petitioners call on Parliament to embrace zero tolerance toward individuals who drive a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs and they ask that sentencing reflect the severity of the crime.
Petitions May 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from people in my part of Ontario, Bobcaygeon, Dunsford and the surrounding areas.
The petition requests Parliament to ensure that people who drink and drive will be dealt with in accordance with the severity of the crime.
Nancy Sweetnam April 19th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, as the 1996 summer Olympics are quickly approaching I would like to congratulate Nancy Sweetnam of Lindsay, Ontario in qualifying for the games in Atlanta.
Nancy recently qualified for the 400 individual medley event in swimming at the time trials in Montreal. She had an excellent year at the World Cup swim meets in Europe where she grabbed four gold medals and a silver. This will mark the second time she has been to the Olympics as she competed in the 1992 Barcelona summer games. Due to her recent success at the World Cup swim meets, it appears Nancy is peaking at the right time, heading into the Olympics.
Congratulations and good luck, Nancy. The people of Victoria-Haliburton and the rest of Canada wish you all the best in your quest for gold.
Agriculture March 22nd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, given the necessity to eliminate large government subsidies including those that have existed in agriculture, can the minister of agriculture assure both the grain producers and the dairy producers that they are being treated in a fair and equitable manner?
Grosse Ile March 21st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the Minister of Canadian Heritage on the recent announcement that Parks Canada will proceed with the naming of Grosse Ile and the Irish memorial.
Grosse Ile has for years been known as the Irish island, and the Irish community is very pleased that the peace and tranquillity of this important part of Canadian history will be maintained.
Between 1832 and 1937 Grosse Ile was a quarantine centre associated with the port of Quebec and was the principal point of entry to Canada for immigrants. There are thousands of graves on this national historic site, the majority of which are Irish as a result of the famine years, especially 1847.
The announcement by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on the March 17, 1996 was very welcome and timely, and we anticipate the 150th anniversary celebrations along with the current reconstruction of this important Irish memorial.
North American Aerospacedefence Command March 11th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for the question. I indicated the benefits to Canada for a DND budget of $320 million as probably one of the least expensive agreements any nation could have with the United States.
Though there is a crisis in Cuba right now and that Canada is having some differences there, I still think that 99 per cent of the agreements Canada has with the United States, the giant to the south, are excellent agreements and this is one of them. Although minuscule problems do occur, they can be solved with this type of agreement in place.
North American Aerospacedefence Command March 11th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with another member.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak about the importance of NORAD and to share some perspective with my hon. colleagues on the value derived from NORAD's agreement, naturally on behalf of the people of Victoria-Haliburton.
A 1994 review by the auditor general showed the Department of Defence was the largest body in government with 33,000 civilians, 77,000 regular personnel and 30,000 reserves. They have been faced since that time with CAP growth and yet have participated in unusually high levels of military operations; recently in the gulf war and engagements in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and even the Oka crisis. We have every reason to be very proud of our military personnel.
Since the end of the cold war the North American Aerospace Defence Command, NORAD, and the Canadian NORAD region, CANR, have undergone numerous changes to respond appropriately to the changing threat to North America.
Although change has been part of NORAD's evolution since its inception in 1957, recent political developments have been especially dramatic and significant. The response by NORAD demonstrates its commitment to providing effective and efficient aerospace defence for both Canada and the United States.
The foundation for NORAD was laid prior to the cold war when Canada and the United States joined forced to defeat the Axis powers of Europe and Japan. The August 1940 Ogdensburg Declaration formally articulated for the first time the concept of joint Canadian and American defence.
Following the second world war in February 1947 both Ottawa and Washington announced the principles for future military co-operation including air defence.
In 1954 the Royal Canadian Air Force chief of staff, Air Marshall C. Roy Slemon, held formal discussions with the commander of the United States air defence command, General Earle E. Partridge. They concluded that air defence for both countries could be best provided by a single organization with one command.
On August 1, 1957 the Canadian minister of national defence and the American secretary of defence announced the binational agreement for an integrated air defence command based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. NORAD was inaugurated as a command on September 12, 1957.
The first NORAD agreement was signed by the two countries on May 12, 1958 and has been renewed or extended seven times since. The current agreement will expire in May 1996. Today NORAD continues to assist each nation to safeguard the sovereignty of its air space, to contribute to deterrents by providing an aerospace surveillance capacity, to ensure threat evaluation and attack warning and to plan for an appropriate response to attack should deterrence fail.
Though each of these missions was born in the cold war, NORAD's mission emphasis has shifted significantly to adjust to changes in the strategic situation.
The air sovereignty mission has expanded to include south oriented surveillance and counter-drug operations. The attack warning mission has changed as well to focus on more accurate detection of single launches. The air defence postures have relaxed but the capacity to regenerate forces in a timely manner remains a priority.
Today's focus is clearly on air sovereignty, defined simply as each nation's right and responsibility to control the air space above its territory. Although air sovereignty is a national and not exclusively a military undertaking NORAD, provides Canada with an effective and efficient mechanism to monitor and control air space.
Surveillance systems detect, identify and track unknown aircraft approaching and/or entering Canadian air space. From January 1992 until October 1994 there were 1,624 unknown aircraft detected throughout NORAD. Historically Canadian NORAD regions account for 19 per cent of all NORAD's unknowns, 10 per cent in eastern Canada and 9 per cent in western Canada. When necessary, armed fighters are scrambled to intercept, identify and escort these unknown aircraft.
Counter-drug operations are a classic example of the air sovereignty mission. Although a small component of the entire air sovereignty mission, they are vital to the security interests of both countries and illustrate how well NORAD and Canadian NORAD regions have adjusted to emerging threats and changing national priorities.
The May 1991 renewal of the NORAD agreement included surveillance and monitoring of aircraft suspected of smuggling drugs as part of NORAD's mission. NORAD's goal is to end undetected and unchallenged air trafficking of illegal drugs into North America. To achieve this goal NORAD and Canadian NORAD regions have surveillance and alert forced capable of responding to aerial trafficking. They also have improved communication and co-ordination procedures with drug law enforcement agencies.
Canadian NORAD's regional forces have been drastically reduced and restructured to meet today's threat. The emergence of a new threat in the form of air launched and sea launched cruise missiles in the 1980s lead to sweeping changes in NORAD's surveillance systems.
An agreement authorizing extensive upgrading and modernization of air defence systems was reached by the Canadian and American governments in March 1985. The result was the North American air defence modernization project. This project replaced the antiquated distant early warning line and the north warning system comprising 54 modern radar sights stretching from the west coast of Alaska across Canada's Arctic mainland, and then along the east coast through Labrador.
Eleven sights located in Canada have long range radars and 36 short range radars fill gaps and provide improved small target detection. Additionally, four Canadian coastal radars provide long range coverage on Canada's east and west coasts.
Another part of NORAD's improvements to its surveillance capability is the ballistic missile early warning system. This system includes sights located in Flyingdales, United Kingdom, Thule, Greenland and Clear, Alaska. The Thule system in Greenland was upgraded in 1987. The Flyingdales site was upgraded to provide 360 degree coverage for all of Europe and North Africa in 1992.
Canadian fighter forces have also been adjusted to match today's situation. At the end of the cold war in 1989 Canada had seven operational squadrons. These squadrons were available for immediate deployment and ready to fight on arrival. Today there are four squadrons and training levels have been reduced to the extent that it would require several days of training, depending on the tasking, before any of the squadrons could deploy and be combat ready in a specific theatre.
The benefits and membership of NORAD are outstanding. Standardizing equipment among members is probably one of the leading ones. Having a structure in place during peace time is a lesson we should take from our immediate histories. Situations like the gulf war and desert storm must keep us on alert and in readiness mode for our own protection.
Leading edge technology and space based technology are also another large part of the advantages of NORAD. It is the single most important agreement between Canada and the United States. Another part is environmental protection; radar sites for the protection of our lands and the animals that populate the areas in question.
Last year the president of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada renewed their commitment to NORAD.
We have every reason to take a hard look at the defence budgets and adjust them to the times we are in. As I stated, in a 1994 review by the auditor general, our defence indicated 33,000 civilians, 77,000 regular personnel and 30,000 reserves; this with a capped growth, and yet they have participated in unusually high numbers of engagements with success have served our country proud.
We have every reason to be proud of our military personnel and the role they play in NORAD.
Crayola Crayons March 8th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce that Binney and Smith (Canada) Limited, the maker of Crayola products has just manufactured its one hundred billionth crayon.
Binney and Smith in the town of Lindsay, Ontario is the lone manufacturer of Crayola products in Canada. Surely my fellow colleagues can recall the days when they were kids and covered the walls with the colours of Crayola.
Crayola has issued a special commemorative blue ribbon crayon to mark this occasion. It will be distributed in regular packs of crayons somewhere across North America. Whoever buys the crayon can either turn it in for a $100,000 bond, or they can keep it.
I ask my fellow members, would they take the cash or would they keep it?
Members Of Parliament November 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and support Motion No. M-39 on behalf of the member for Scarborough-Rouge River. This is the second private member's motion brought forward by the member to which I have had the pleasure and privilege of speaking.
The member for Scarborough-Rouge River is once again bringing to all members of the House a problem that requires very little effort to rectify. However it may cause members of Parliament to be left in a difficult position when it comes to giving proper representation to cases involving the Immigration Act, the Young Offenders Act, and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. Members of Parliament must be allowed to represent the people who elected them to the full ability they are given under the law and to ensure that they have access to all information concerning the aforementioned acts.
At the present time an immigration hearing is off limits to individual members of Parliament. This is a problem particularly if the member is privy to information which may better represent the truth than the story being presented.
If a family promotes a visitor to Canada through the assistance and help of a member of Parliament and assures the member of Parliament that the person will return to their native land on a specific date, and if the visitor then applies for refugee status upon arrival and asks for welfare in the interim, that is a direct abuse of the system. It may well be that the member of Parliament is the only person aware of the original application and the promises which were made at that time. Therefore, why is the act very specific in section 69(2), which reads that the proceedings before the refugee division, et cetera are to be conducted in camera?
Members of Parliament are elected both to serve as legislators and to act as de facto ombudsmen. In cases where the member of Parliament has an interest and where he or she feels there may be an injustice, they should be allowed observer status automatically. That is not to say that any member of Parliament can attend any closed door meeting going on at any time. The member must be allowed to attend the meeting in which he or she has an interest and may be in a position to dispel some of the myths which are present at a number of these closed door meetings.
In the case of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act of which I am well aware from my experience on the parole board, the parole board may decide at its option to exclude anyone it wishes from the hearing. In other words, it may decide that no witnesses are allowed: no family, no friends or character witnesses who may help the person to gain parole or in fact lose parole. That is allowed under section 140(5) of the act.
Once again a member of Parliament is removed from the role even as observer status in a hearing which may affect the community into which the person could be released on a parole pass, even though the member of Parliament may have important knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the release of the offender.
The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River is not asking for a huge change in these acts. It is a change which can be accomplished with the stroke of a pen if the motion is passed. It is a necessary item of business which requires very few administrative dollars. It opens up the system and makes it transparent. It will help all members of Parliament to function in a more complete manner for the people who have elected them.
I urge the support of all members for Motion No. M-39 sponsored by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. Let us open up the closed door meetings of these agencies and allow members of Parliament to further serve their electors in an effort of fairness for all.