Lost his last election, in 2004, with 40% of the vote.
Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act November 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my NDP colleague bringing that up because that very organization actually supports this particular act.
Do I want to comment on a particular statement made in the Globe and Mail ? Not particularly. Mr. Turner did not have the ability to sit in on the committee work nor did my hon. friend as I did. I stand here today and say that this is an act for which Canadians can be proud, not simply for today but for generations to come, and that is a fact.
Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act November 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight right off the bat, I was not accusing anyone. Obviously the Bloc is terribly sensitive over its position on veto power for the province. I was simply repeating the issues that it brought forward. If it considers those accusations, it simply has to look from within.
A federal government, from Quebecers to British Columbians to Ontarians, is charged with the responsibility of moving forward to protect our border water properties. That is an intrinsic responsibility of the federal government. We will work co-operatively with the provincial governments. That is right in the bill. We must consult with them when they are impacted.
Veto powers, on the other hand, is something that is totally unacceptable and we have to search for the true motive behind that. I think all Canadians, including those from Ontario, know why the Bloc wanted veto power for the parti Quebecois.
Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act November 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the question but, sadly enough, I cannot answer it because it is rhetoric and it is fearmongering at its worst.
There have been massive consultations. If the hon. member checks the record of the committee he will see that we had dozens and dozens of organizations present at committee. I am sorry but quite clearly this is not an act just simply for British Columbia. I live in a coastal community as well. That coastal community had representation. The maritimes had representation.
As I said, there were hundreds of letters that went out with respect to consultation. Just because the hon. member and his party did not get their way does not mean that the consultation process was not successful, and it will not stop there. It is in the act that we have to continue to consult.
One point that has to be made very clear is that the minister cannot, in a unilateral fashion, create a marine conservation area. The act would require the support of the stakeholders.
Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act November 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I will clarify my point. I thought I had made it quite clear but obviously the hon. member from the New Democratic Party is somewhat sensitive to the issue. I simply suggested that Canadians check the attendance records. I did not say whether there was good or bad. I apologize if he was suggesting that I was inferring that the NDP was not attending on a regular basis.
They talked about the disproportionate amount of time and the lack of concern for the environment. It was quite interesting when they were making suggestions that we were not listening to environmental groups. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We have, on the other hand, the Alliance Party suggesting that we are catering to the environmental groups. Somewhere in between what we have is what Canadians expect, a balanced approach with the number one priority being these marine conservation areas. That is exactly what has taken place.
I would like to speak more to the NDP's position on this particular act but sadly enough it does not warrant a great deal of expression on my part.
Last, in many ways, I would like to address the Alliance Party. I sat here and listened to the member for Skeena, a new member to the committee, address his opinions as to the history of the bill, the act we are dealing with right now. I can appreciate that as a new member perhaps he is not fully familiar with the history of this particular act and what has actually gone on with it. He made reference to the fact that the Liberals were trying to rush this through as quickly as possible. Well if that is true, I would hate to see if we took our time on something. The process took three years. We began the process in June 1998.
When we had opportunities to speak to the minister and challenge her on issues with regard to the establishment of marine conservation areas, the Alliance Party talked about guns and more guns. It wanted park rangers to have guns. We are talking about marine conservation. This is the kind of commitment that the Alliance Party showed to the creation of a marine conservation act. I would suggest that it is a terribly sad thing for Canadians, and certainly the ones who supported that party, to see it carrying on in that fashion.
In conclusion I want to state that this is a bill for which parliament and Canada can be proud. We will be recognized as leaders with respect to establishing national marine parks for decades to come.
On that note I want to thank almost all the committee members.
Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act November 8th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague from Bras d'Or--Cape Breton, a colleague both in the House and on the heritage committee. Every once in a while in parliamentary committees we get involved in a piece of legislation which creates an incredible sense of pride, legislation that is not for the benefit of this generation, not for the benefit of Canadians from coast to coast to coast today, but for generations to come. This is a time when parliamentarians will make a difference. This act allows us to do so.
Through Parks Canada the Government of Canada has taken a leading role in the creation of national marine conservation areas. I commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage for the incredible role she played over the last number of years in dealing with this in its various forms. I congratulate the minister, the secretary of state, and most certainly the chairperson of the committee.
I have sat on numerous committees in a full time capacity and have filled in as well. I do not think I have witnessed one that has the collective, co-operative and collegial approach offered by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, save and except a few which I will get to in a minute. I thank the hon. member who spoke just before me for articulating in a non-partisan fashion what the act would actually accomplish.
I would like to set the record straight by identifying some of the important things the bill would accomplish. I would then like to lead into some of the responses that were made by some opposition party members. Some of those members participated fully in committee over the three-plus years that we were dealing with this issue, and those that did not took a very partisan approach. Sadly enough that did not surprise us on this side, or for that matter Canadians at large.
The overriding theme of the national marine conservation areas bill is very simple. It is to ensure the protection of Canada's marine environment for the appreciation and enjoyment of Canada and the world. Who could argue with that? I suggest no one with a balanced approach and opinion. Sometimes we have to deal with those who are on the extreme left or right. I will address some of their comments in the not too distant future.
There is an urgent need for this legislation, contrary to some of the views that were expressed in the House. I sat on the Canadian heritage committee for the past four years and for three years now we have been in one form or another discussing this bill. We heard from countless dozens of witnesses. We sent out hundreds of letters. We had meetings on our own as individual members of parliament. We heard from the bureaucracy and from the minister.
We had opportunities for all opposition parties to become fully engaged if they wished and for frank discussions on reasonable amendments. There were some reasonable amendments put forward in a very non-partisan fashion and some absolutely ridiculous ones.
However at the end of the day we are trying to ensure that Canada offers Canadians and people of the world a sustainable, ecological and friendly environment within our marine shores and areas not for this generation but for generations to come. I truly believe this act does exactly that.
I will address some of the comments made by the hon. member from the Bloc. The Bloc had a primary concern over the veto power of the province. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
The Bloc wanted veto power for the province regardless of whether the province even owned property or had a specific interest in the suggested area. What I would suggest, which is certainly no secret to Quebecers or to Canadians, is that the Bloc is asking the Government of Canada to put the powers that are entrusted to us into the parti Quebecois, which is totally unacceptable. Other than that, having the Bloc members at the table was a very useful exercise. They agreed with many things, but not with that one issue, veto power for the province, which again certainly comes as no surprise whatsoever.
I listened somewhat sadly to my hon. colleague from the NDP express his displeasure or disappointment with the act and talk about the disproportionate amount of time that the New Democratic Party caucus, as well as the hon. member for Windsor--St. Clair, had spent at committee. Rather than chew up a whole lot of time on that particular issue, I might suggest that the Canadian public access the Internet and check the attendance records at committee, because unless I am shortsighted--
Anti-Terrorism Act October 17th, 2001
Madam Speaker, I would like to start my debate on terrorism by quoting the Prime Minister, as it captures the feelings of Canadians very well. He stated:
Our enemies have made a fatal miscalculation. They have mistaken our freedom for weakness. They have mistaken our openness and generosity for a lack of spine. They have mistaken our values for a lack of resolve. And they will be proven wrong -- on every count.
I believe that encapsulates the events of September 11 and our response to those events both in the United States and Canada, and for that matter terrorism around the world.
I thank the Prime Minister and the House leader for providing me yet another opportunity to address my concerns and comments to the House and to Canadians. There has been in excess of 40 hours of debate and discussion surrounding our proposed anti-terrorism legislation.
I would like to touch on three specific issues regarding the anti-terrorism debate. First, I will shed some light on the act itself. Second, I will address the response from the opposition parties. Third, I will address our overriding responsibilities as Canadians and as a government.
What I have to say about the act will clear up some misconceptions that have been brought forward by the Alliance. The purpose or intent of the anti-terrorism bill is to specifically identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. It provides new investigative tools for law enforcement and national security agencies. What is very important is that it ensures Canadian values of respect and fairness are preserved and the root causes of hatred are addressed through stronger laws against hate crimes and propaganda.
Terrorism can only succeed if it accomplishes four basic things. First, if it creates a lack of confidence in Canadians or free thinking people with respect to their economy, they will achieve success in some small part. Second, if they compromise our sense of security, they achieve a bit of success on that part. Third, if they transfer the hate in their hearts into ours, they accomplish in some small bit their resolve. Fourth and most important, if they cause us to forgo some of our civil liberties, some of the things enshrined in our charter of rights and our constitution, then they truly succeed.
That is the delicate balance I want to address in the House today. I will certainly carry that message back to my riding as well. It is a delicate balance between civil liberties and the number one priority and challenge of a government, the protection of its citizens. The government has risen to that challenge.
The government has moved in a very methodical fashion in making sure that Canadians have the protection and receive the security they deserve in the country contrary to much of the untruths, speculations and fearmongering that has surrounded this debate.
The main objective of the anti-terrorism bill is to stop terrorism from getting into Canada and to protect Canadians from terrorist acts. That is the overriding theme of this piece of legislation. It would bring forward the tools to identify, prosecute, convict and punish terrorists. It would prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists, impacting not only on our society but specifically on our economy. This piece of legislation lays that out very effectively.
I am sure many interesting points will be brought forward in committee. I look forward to seeing what the committee brings back to the House. I urge my colleagues in the opposition parties to work in a non-partisan fashion to make sure the legislation gets back into the House, so that we can pass the bill into law and provide the necessary security and support for the citizens of Canada. If the opposition parties drop their partisan approach that will happen.
I present the next issue with a heavy heart. Most of the people in the House and back in my riding know that I do not often challenge the ideas of the opposition. I normally do not show any disrespect for its views because if I show disrespect I cannot expect it to respect my ideas and values. However I have to demonstrate a precedent and speak against the opposition.
There have been a tremendous number of falsehoods surrounding this debate. The Leader of the Opposition says that he is taking the high road, that he will support his Prime Minister, and that there will be less rhetoric in the House surrounding many of these issues.
However the exact opposite is taking place. It disturbs me greatly and I cannot help it. I do feel sympathy for the fact that the majority of Canadians at this point in time are not supporting the Alliance, but that is no excuse for fearmongering or hot button politics.
Every member in the House of Commons has a responsibility to Canadians to come together in this time of crisis against this ultimate evil. They have a responsibility to work collectively to ensure the security of the country.
It is not just about military action. It is about a number of different things. It is about stability in the economy. It is not about painting various immigrant communities in our country with a brush of evil or as terrorists. That is an absolute shame. It is a travesty that those kinds of discussions have been taking place in the House.
We have heard much doom and gloom from the opposition. Our responsibility is to instill confidence in Canadians from coast to coast to coast to make sure they get on with their lives and that the necessary tools are in place so that our economy is not adversely impacted in a significant fashion. Many of the comments coming from the opposition contradict that idea at its base to the greatest extent possible.
I am speaking on behalf of the vast majority if not all Canadians when I say that we must lay down a rule right now. Enough is enough. We need to work in a collective, non-partisan fashion to make sure that Canadians get the level of protection they deserve. I make a pledge to the House and to the 30 or so million people living in the country that I will do everything in my ability as a parliamentarian and as a Canadian to make sure we deal with this terrorist threat.
The last issue I want to touch on is our responsibility as parliamentarians but primarily as Canadians. We have an obligation not only to ourselves but to future generations not to let these evildoers and cowards impact our lives in such a fashion that we would be afraid to make trips and to follow through on the normal plans our families would make whether it be a house, car or furniture purchase, or whatever it may be.
If we let these terrorist activities impact us in that fashion then they win in some small way. Canadians should rise up with the sense of confidence that our economy has the right tools in place.
Our finance minister is looked upon internationally as one of the greatest finance ministers in history, not simply for Canada but around the world. The Canadian economy is in great shape to move forward and deal with this situation with him at the helm of our finances. There is an incumbent responsibility on all Canadians to make sure that they do move forward with their plans.
I have one of the largest training bases in Canada in my riding. I extend my best wishes to the men and women in the military; Colonel Reid, the base commander; and all the troops leaving from Halifax today for engagement in the Middle East. On behalf of all 301 members of parliament, the 120,000 people in my riding, and the 30-some million people in Canada, our hearts and our prayers are with them.
We want to make sure that this battle is won effectively. We appreciate the commitment shown to our country and we wish them a safe and quick return. We thank the men and women in our military for their absolutely patriotic effort in defending our country.
Supply October 2nd, 2001
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs could not have been more clear. They will deal with these issues in a most expeditious way.
The world changed on September 11. What was acceptable and what worked prior to then may need to be changed now. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have made a commitment to work with the U.S. and the coalition around the world to make sure these changes are made in the most timely fashion possible.
I hope the opposition will join us in making sure these bills get through the House in the most expeditious way possible. Canadians will feel a lot more comfortable if they know the House is united in the fight against terrorism.
Supply October 2nd, 2001
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comment. Knowing him personally I want to dispel any notion that I have something contrary to say about him. I know his heart and prayers are with all the victims and their family members.
What I am talking about more specifically is the partisan approach and knee-jerk reaction that have taken place in the House. I listened to the leader of the official opposition talk a few days ago about increasing funding to CSIS. The solicitor general stood and said the director of CSIS had publicly said the agency had enough money to fulfill its mandate.
The leader of the official opposition got back on his feet and asked if funding would be increased to CSIS. He was looking for anything he could hang on to. He said the government should send planes. Where should it send them?
I will be bringing a message to my cabinet colleagues, my caucus colleagues and the Prime Minister that as much information that can be disclosed within the House should be disclosed. However it should not be done at the cost of compromising our security and the way we bring the perpetrators of this evil to justice. We cannot compromise that.
Supply October 2nd, 2001
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the sixth largest city in Canada for splitting his time with me and for his very succinct and accurate commentary on recent events and how they have affected Canadians. Many of his comments I could not agree with more. I am sure I will be repeating some of them.
I rise today to speak to the NDP motion as well as to provide some of my own thoughts and those from my riding about the terribly horrific act which happened on September 11. I start by suggesting that it is a sad day not just for the House, the country and the United States, but all around the world. Parliaments, Canadians, citizens and countries all around the world are spending so much time, energy and money contending with such an incredible act of terrorism, cowardice and murder.
I would like to touch on three specific issues this afternoon that are linked directly to the incredible crime against humanity which was perpetrated on September 11. The first issue I would contend with is the shock and utter disbelief. As has been said in the media and around the globe, it was one of those moments that everyone for their lifetimes will remember where they were on September 11. It had that kind of impact on the global community.
I was on my way back to my riding from Ottawa when the events took place. I got back into my riding and the phone started ringing immediately. Constituents were feeling a sense of helplessness. Even more so there was a sense of rage not only that something like this could take place on North American soil but that the evildoers, the cowards and murderers, would take it upon themselves to kill thousands upon thousands of civilians, men, women and children, with absolute disregard for the quality of human life. We cannot lose sight of the fact that dozens of countries were represented in the twin towers when that unfortunate situation took place. Our hearts and souls pour out to them.
If there was a silver lining in the immediate aftermath, it was the overwhelming response we received from my riding. Many of the first questions were people asking what they could do to help. I am very proud to represent the riding of Simcoe--Grey. I thank the residents of Simcoe--Grey who have contributed emotional support. They have contributed financially and with any other means possible to support not just our neighbours, not just our friends, but our family. So many people in the House and across the country have relatives in the United States. My aunt, cousins and nieces live there. We were all touched in a very personal way by those terrible events.
When dealing with a crime of such horrific magnitude, one cannot help but feel an overwhelming sense of helplessness immediately after the fact and an incredible sense of anger and loss. However we cannot allow those first emotions to guide us in the weeks and months to come.
Immediately after that horrific event, Canadians, our government and our Prime Minister were there for the United States. We accommodated tens of thousands of travellers. We not only opened our airports, we opened our homes and hearts. I could not have been more proud when the Prime Minister offered his full support to the president and Americans to give them whatever they needed.
Some Canadians were killed in the building. Just last week we had the sad task of dealing with the death of one of our very own. A gentleman from my riding was in one of the towers when the plane crashed. Sadly he left behind a wife and family. This event has reached into every corner of the country, every corner of the continent, and for that matter around the world.
The Prime Minister spoke out immediately and in the strongest possible terms against these acts of cowardice and murder. He used the word terrorism. He summed it up best in the House a few days ago when he stated that the only way these terrorists and murderers could accomplish their end deed and achieve their goal was if they transferred the hate in their hearts into ours.
We can never allow that to happen. Members in the House, members of the other place and Canadians across the country will not allow that hate to be transferred into their hearts.
I had the privilege last Thursday evening of attending an event in Toronto organized by the Pakistani community. At the event my good colleague from Scarborough--Agincourt and I witnessed a large outpouring of emotion and disbelief. We had the privilege of not only addressing Toronto's Pakistani community but hearing its members articulate their absolute disbelief, sense of horror and, most important, lack of acceptance that these kinds of atrocities could take place in the world.
Members of the Muslim community were there. One statement that has stuck in my mind was made by Ms. Raheel Raza, a writer for the Toronto Star . It touched me because I know from newspaper, radio and TV coverage that some of the perpetrators of this evil, these malicious people whom it is difficult to describe in words, use the term holy war. The woman came to the microphone, announced her pride at being a Muslim and spoke about the Koran and Islam. One of the things she stated was that the term holy war was a direct contradiction. It is an oxymoron.
The Koran and the Muslim faith are totally opposed to murder. The sanctity of human life regardless of religion, skin colour or where one chooses to live in the world is the foremost thing they take into consideration. We cannot allow evil doers, regardless of skin colour, to twist religion and suggest this is a so-called holy war. To do so would justify the act. They are nothing more than callous murderers and they must be dealt with and brought to justice.
The coming weeks, months and sadly years will require a collective effort from countries around the globe. One country that has risen to the challenge is Pakistan. I tip my hat to the Pakistani leader, General Pervez Musharraf, for his full support in the fight against terrorism. His country and countries throughout the region have been experiencing similar acts of terrorism for decades.
Over the past days I have had reason to be concerned because the House does not seem to be coming together in the way that it should. I have felt utter disbelief listening to some of the statements that have been made.
I had the privilege yesterday of meeting with a visiting British opposition parliamentarian and we had a discussion about this. Yes, there are opposition parties in the U.K. that feel different approaches could be made. However these things will be worked out in time. One of the things he reinforced was that there is a need for all of us to come together.
We have heard some very rational comments on the issue by the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP. However some of the comments of the official opposition and the Conservative Party have been downright outlandish.
I sat here a few nights ago and listened to one member suggest he had the answer. He wanted to bring back capital punishment. I sat here and wondered if I should run over and check for a pulse. Capital punishment is not the answer.
My heart and prayers are with our American friends south of the border. My heart and prayers are with the family in my riding that has lost a father. I know my constituents will offer their full and unequivocal support to the government to bring the perpetrators of terrorism to justice, and that is exactly what the government will do.
Terrorism September 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and other world leaders have spoken in the strongest possible terms against those who have inflicted acts of terrorism. They have clearly stated the need for an international response and encouraged countries around the world to assist in the fight against terrorism.
One country that has risen to the challenge is Pakistan. President Musharraf has pledged his full support in the fight against terrorism. While it is difficult to thank Pakistan for taking such a bold and courageous stance in the face of difficult social and economic times, we must try. Friendship is a two way street.
President Musharraf has delivered on their friendship and now we must deliver on ours. I call on the government to work with other G-8 countries to provide the necessary support Pakistan requires in its hour of need.
Canada would like to join President Musharraf and the Pakistani people in celebrating their day of solidarity and thank them for their courageous stance against terrorism.