House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was reform.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Liberal MP for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia (Manitoba)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 36% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Attack on the United States September 17th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult question. Let me say that after events of this kind some of the best parts of human nature emerge and sometimes the worst parts of us show up as well.

I was extremely moved last Friday when an estimated 100,000 Canadians, most of them, I suppose, from Ottawa and the surrounding district, came to Parliament Hill to express their caring and their sympathy for the American people. I assume that in a crowd of that size there were people from all faiths.

I am sure that there were Islamic people, Catholics, Protestants, Jewish people, Unitarians, atheists, you name it. They came as human beings who felt they had to express something. They had to show that they really cared for their neighbours. At that particular moment last Friday I think that Canadians showed the very best of themselves and I am very proud of them.

Attack on the United States September 17th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I would like to serve notice that I will be splitting my time.

I have been listening to much of the debate that began much earlier today. The debate has reflected very well on all members an all parties in the House. It shows that the House can do very well with less partisanship from time to time.

First, I want to express on behalf of my constituents of Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia sincere condolences to all the American people in the wake of last week's horrifying events. In particular, I want to extend sympathy to all the families who lost loved ones. That includes American families, Canadian families, British families and other families right around the world.

I want to say in particular to the United States of America and her people that our thoughts and prayers are with them at this extremely difficult time. Even though it is six days since that terrible event happened, many of us are still in shock. We are numbed by the magnitude of that horrific act. It is hard to believe that more than 5,000 people have died and that the huge famous landmarks in downtown Manhattan are no longer a part of reality.

I want to assure the American people that we will stand by them and support them at this difficult time. I am so pleased that our Prime Minister said very much the same thing. In fact he went beyond that in his moving speech last Friday. He indicated that our friendship with the Americans and the United States of America has no limits whatsoever and we will do whatever is necessary to help them in the days, the weeks, the months and yes, even the years ahead because this is going to be a long, long battle. We are not going to be able to get rid of the terrorists. The world will not be able to rid itself of the terrorists for a long time.

The Prime Minister noted that as a member of NATO, Canada along with its partners in NATO invoked article 5 which in effect says that an attack on one member is an attack on all members. By virtue of article 5, the terrorists attacked Canada as well. In fact they attacked civilization. They attacked democracies all around the world.

It is quite understandable in a time such as this that there is a clamour for a sharp response, an immediate response when people have lost their loved ones, people who are near and dear to them. It is understandable that some will seek blood, that they will seek revenge. In fact I caught an interview on CNN on the weekend in which a gentleman said, “Today we mourn, tomorrow we avenge”.

That is something I do not share completely. I certainly share the mourning, but when it comes to revenge, that is a different question. We have to be extremely measured in our response. We have to be disciplined. I can certainly understand people wanting blood and revenge. When someone is hurt, they react. That is a very human response.

As a country and as a people we have to be careful in our response. We have to be prudent. We do not want to make the same mistakes as the terrorists. Two wrongs do not make a right. We all know how violence begets violence. We do not want that. We do not want thousands of civilians caught up in some kind of conflagration where thousands of innocent people die. That is not what we want.

I am very pleased to note that a number of my constituents are advocating restraint.

I would like to share with hon. members excerpts from three e-mails I received. I would like to read short portions of those letters to indicate how these constituents feel.

The first one is from a woman who says she has never written to a politician before. She said:

The Canadian politicians that speak for me need to hear that, though I like most of the world have a difficult time understanding the events of the past week, I want our actions, as individuals and as a country, to help bring about lasting justice for all people, in every country and for all people of every race and religion. Justice is hard to achieve when acts of retaliation and revenge perpetuate the cycle by killing innocent people.

Here is a short letter from a man in my riding. In part he said:

--the Canadian government must work to ensure that calm and considered action is taken that will not jeopardize or threaten the lives of innocent civilians in other countries. Yes, there must be justice. A terrible crime against innocent people was committed. But this is not war.

I have another letter from a gentleman in my riding, who said in part:

We are committed to justice not revenge. Revenge will only continue the cycle of violence. Those who are powerful need to realize that when a finger is pointed out at someone 3 point back at you. A people who cherish freedom ought to know that others cannot be bullied into subservience. I could go on but it is crucial for our country and other NATO allies to help the Americans keep perspective not feed the emotionalizing of the situation.

Those are excerpts from three letters from constituents who I think are providing some sage advice, that is, we have to be very prudent in any response that we carry out as a people and as a country.

As I indicated earlier, I think this will be a long, tough fight. We are dealing with fanatics who are full of hate but clever, who are organized in decentralized cells that are very hard to detect and who of course are well financed.

It is worthwhile noting that warfare, if we want to call this war, has changed a lot over the last many decades. During the American civil war, which was less than 150 years ago, many a battle featured the armies lining up face to face. They had it out with each other. Many of the same elements were contained in the first world war. There were allied troops in trenches on one side and German soldiers in trenches only a few yards away, and they had it out.

War has changed a lot, although not all parts of it. Certainly the killing part has not changed, but the tactics, the strategy, have changed a lot. We have to recognize that. If we are to beat our enemy, if we are to defeat these terrorists, it may not take airplanes and it may not take bombs to get rid of them. It may take something entirely different. I am no expert on it but it could take a superior brand of intelligence to identify the terrorists and to determine the most appropriate response.

I was talking to one of my colleagues earlier today, the hon. member for Mississauga West. I do not know if he mentioned it in his speech but he mentioned to me that perhaps one way we should consider, and I know it has already been considered, is to get at their source of finances. That would cut off the money supply. If they do not have money, it may curtail their activities.

Let me say in closing that I think we have to be prudent. We have to be careful in our response. We have to do everything possible. We have to look at our legislation, help our agencies and do what we can, but we have to make sure that at the end of the day we do not sacrifice our values, that we do not sacrifice our own democracy.

If we cannot assemble in open places in our country, the terrorists win. If we cannot travel freely, the terrorists win. If we always have to be looking over our shoulder, the terrorists win. If I know Canadians well, we will not let terrorists win. In fact, they will not win.

Petitions June 6th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by a number of citizens from Winnipeg who are concerned about the high cost of heating fuels. They are particularly concerned about the price of natural gas, which they believe is creating a disincentive for people to buy homes and businesses and to continue operating businesses.

The petitioners call upon parliament to enact legislation to supplement the income of individuals receiving pensions to reflect the rising cost of natural gas in Canada.

Petitions June 6th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House. One is from dozens of Winnipegers who are concerned about Bill C-16, the charities registration act, which they feel violates fundamental freedoms and makes a fair and transparent trial impossible.

The petitioners call upon parliament to make certain and significant changes to the bill before it is passed.

Portugal May 28th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada it is an honour for me to welcome President Jorge Sampaio of the Portuguese republic.

President Sampaio has been on an official visit to Ottawa since May 24 and will stay until June 1. This is President Sampaio's first visit to Canada.

Our Prime Minister met earlier today with President Sampaio to discuss ways to broaden and deepen our expanding relationship with Portugal. For quite some time now Portugal has been a proud economic partner to Canada.

In 1999 trade between our two countries reached $320 million. Also more than 400,000 people of Portuguese origin now live in Canada and have made a significant contribution to our nation.

The president of Portugal and his delegation will also meet with Governor General Adrienne Clarkson. Once again we welcome President Sampaio to Canada and congratulate him on his recent re-election.

Government Of British Columbia May 17th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to extend sincere congratulations to the new Premier of British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, and to his new caucus.

The size of the election victory provides a strong mandate for the new government of British Columbia. This will mark the beginning of a new era in British Columbia.

This is the first time in 49 years that a Liberal Party has been in government in British Columbia. We express our sincere best wishes for success during its term of office, and we look forward to working with the new government.

Petitions May 14th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Manitobans who would like to bring to the attention of the House the following: that the Government of Canada may be asked to support the U.S. national missile defence program.

They wish to point out that NMD is a unilateral initiative of the United States and that it would be a step toward the deployment of weapons in space, it would lead to a new arms race, it would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and that these treaties are cornerstones of the international non-proliferation arms control and disarmament regimes long supported by Canada.

The petitioners therefore call upon parliament to declare that Canada objects to the national defence program of the United States and they ask that parliament play a leadership role in banning nuclear weapons and missile flight tests.

Infrastructure May 8th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the infrastructure program in western Canada. Why is the federal government taking so long to make funding decisions under the Canada-Saskatchewan infrastructure program?

People are looking for answers because communities such as North Battleford need help to deal with their problems right now.

Press Freedom Day May 3rd, 2001

Mr. Speaker, today is World Press Freedom Day. Freedom of the press is essential to ensure that democratic rights and freedoms are protected.

A free press not only promotes transparency and accountability in governance but also encourages lively debate and engages citizens in public life.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said “Freedom of the press ensures that the abuse of every other freedom can be known, can be challenged, and even defeated”.

In Canada, freedom of the press and freedom of speech are protected within the charter of rights and freedoms. Unfortunately, that is not the case in all countries.

Today we pay tribute to journalists around the world who risk their lives to report on injustices and fight for the rights and freedoms that we in Canada so cherish and to Canadian journalists who contribute to ensuring a real public dialogue in our society.

Indigenous Games April 30th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that Canada will host the North American Indigenous Games from July 25 to August 4, 2002.

These games are the cornerstone of a growing movement of aboriginal sport and culture and were born out of the reality that aboriginal youth athletes have not been provided the same opportunities to participate in domestic or international competitions as their non-aboriginal counterparts.

Identifying and removing the barriers to participation for aboriginal people in sport in Canada is one of the four equity and access ministerial priorities for the Department of Canadian Heritage. The North American Indigenous Games are one of the primary vehicles identified by the aboriginal community as a means of achieving this policy.

I invite members to join me in congratulating the host society, the city of Winnipeg, the province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada, on their efforts in preparing to welcome over 7,000 young aboriginal athletes in 2002.