House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was chair.

Last in Parliament April 2025, as Liberal MP for Nipissing—Timiskaming (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2021, with 39% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Norad May 3rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Edmonton Centre on his very detailed remarks. It is not just something he picked up from reading. I know it is something he has experienced in recent years.

Not long ago, I travelled to Cold Lake, and his colleagues in the army were very proud of his being here in the House of Commons.

The question is not so much one about whether we are here to debate the importance of Norad. I think we can all agree on the importance of Norad. It has to exist to defend not only Canada but the United States and the whole of North America. The concern I have is the process in which it happened. It happened behind closed doors, it happened in secrecy and it was signed. By signing it, the Crown was bound by that agreement, but there was no real power for that signature to take place. Now the Crown is bound.

If the House should vote against Norad, would that dishonour the Crown? There is a commitment there, but no real power to enforce it.

Norad May 3rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member for Lethbridge. We worked well together on the defence committee and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him.

I am not complaining about the fact that we are having this debate. It is a necessity. What I am complaining about, and do not like, is the fact that we are having this debate because the Conservatives got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. This is all happening after we found out from the U.S. government and U.S. media, not our own government, that this had gone on. That is where the problem lies.

If there were real transparency within the Conservative government, this would have happened a long time ago and we would have had this debate before anything was signed. That is what I have a complaint about. The debate on the other hand is a necessity.

Norad May 3rd, 2006

That is a point of order, but anyway, when we look at the United States, we see that Congress gets its power from the people and so does the president. Two separate entities can make that decision. The Crown, the government of the day, has to make a decision but it gains its power from the House, and the decision has to be ratified by the House in order to take effect.

What we have here is a decision that was made by a very small group of people who have control of the House, or think they do, and they have actually bound the Crown to this agreement. What they have not done is get consent from the House, and I do not think that is right. That is something that could come back to haunt them should they not have the approval of the House. That is just not good process.

Norad May 3rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I listen carefully. I do not heckle the other side. I would ask for the same respect from them.

Norad May 3rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the question is, should this debate be happening? This debate should have happened a long time ago, before they agreed. What has happened with this government is that it went ahead and signed an agreement binding on the Crown. In the United States, when Congress makes a decision--

Norad May 3rd, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

As the member of Parliament for Nipissing—Timiskaming, I am pleased to participate in this evening's debate regarding the pending Norad agreement between Canada and the United States. This evening's debate is of particular interest and importance to my constituents given that the Canadian air defence sector of Norad is located at CFB North Bay in my riding.

As we know, the North American Aerospace Defense Command is a military organization established by Canada and the United States in 1958. It is responsible for North America's air space control and protects Canadian and American air space against possible aircraft, missile or space vehicle attack.

The major driving feature behind Norad at its inception was to provide a means of defending against Soviet bombers carrying nuclear bombs. Following the cold war, when the threat of nuclear conflict had subsided, there was a great debate over whether Norad was still relevant.

Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Norad has taken on an even greater importance. Norad is now responsible for detecting and reacting to terrorist threats throughout North America. In August 2004, Canada signed an amendment to the Norad agreement to allow the organization to share its information with U.S. commanders running the country's missile defence system. This ensured the long term survival and effectiveness of Norad.

The current Norad agreement between Canada and the U.S. was due to expire on May 12. However, late last week, Canadians learned through American news sources that the Canadian defence minister and the U.S. Ambassador to Canada had already renewed the agreement at a meeting here in Ottawa.

Not only was there no notification of any signing ceremony, but when Canadian journalists questioned government officials about the agreement, officials at both the foreign affairs department and the defence department initially refused to confirm that the deal had been signed.

With Canadian officials saying nothing, it was left to U.S. officials to lay out the details of the renewal, whereupon Canadians learned that the new deal commits Canada to take part in Norad indefinitely, with added responsibility for terrorist attacks and the smuggling of drugs and people by sea.

The fact that we are finding out from American officials as opposed to our own government about major change to a treaty involving our military relationship with the United States is completely unacceptable. The fact that the agreement was signed before Parliament had an opportunity to discuss and debate the issue also sets a dangerous precedent.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs can say all he wants about how the deal has been signed but not yet ratified, but the truth of the matter is that Canadians have been kept in the dark.

While I intend to support the renewal of the Norad treaty, including its expansion into the realm of maritime surveillance, I find the Prime Minister's decision to craft this agreement under a veil of secrecy very troublesome. The Prime Minister campaigned on a platform of openness and accountability. So far, Canadians have witnessed nothing more than a conspiracy of silence, which both he and his government have given us.

As the MP for Nipissing—Timiskaming, I have a responsibility to determine how the new Norad agreement will impact the people of my riding. Given that MPs were not allowed to see the agreement or debate it in the House of Commons before it was signed, some very serious questions remain unanswered.

Norad is an integral part of CFB North Bay. I want assurances from the Prime Minister that a renewed commitment to Norad will also guarantee that the base remains in place well into the future. A new, state of the art, above ground facility was recently built to house Norad operations at CFB North Bay, replacing an aging underground installation built deep within the Canadian Shield in the 1960s, which was initially designed to withstand a nuclear attack.

As the new above ground facility was being constructed, the then minister of defence visited the complex, reiterated the Liberal government's commitment to CFB North Bay and emphasized its strategic importance to defending Canada and indeed all of North America.

This past January, just prior to the last election, the current Minister of National Defence visited CFB North Bay and pledged that a Conservative government would boost staff at the base as part of its party's commitment to increased military funding.

There are more than 800 military personnel, civilian staff and contract services currently employed at CFB North Bay, and I want to ensure that the Conservative government remains committed to each and every one of these people.

Norad has proven to be a very useful and valuable pact between Canada and the U.S. I am pleased that the negotiations that began under the Liberal government have led to an agreement that will see this partnership continue for many years to come. Furthermore, I believe that the decision to expand Norad's tactical surveillance functions to include maritime security functions is a positive one.

What is much less positive is the Prime Minister's penchant for secrecy. Canadians deserve to hear important defence policy initiatives from their own government, not someone else's. Is it any wonder that Information Commissioner John Reid, in his special report to Parliament, described the Conservative approach as “retrograde and dangerous”?

Perhaps the question that we as Canadians should be asking is this: if the Prime Minister cannot trust Canadians, why should we trust him?

National Defence May 1st, 2006

Mr. Speaker, this weekend I met with several members of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 23, in North Bay, who were appalled by the Conservative government's decision to not lower the flag above the Peace Tower in honour of the four Canadian soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan.

There are 39 branches of the Royal Canadian Legion throughout northern Ontario, consisting of nearly 4,000 members. They are all calling on the Prime Minister to reverse this decision and lower the flag as a proper tribute to those who lost their lives.

There is a very real cost to the important mission our men and women are undertaking in Afghanistan. We have an obligation to recognize the courageous sacrifices they make as they carry out their duties.

At a time when remembrance is waning across this country, especially among young people, the lowering of the flag atop the Peace Tower is the very least we can do to mourn the loss of four brave and dedicated men who died trying to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply April 24th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the words that keep coming back to me when I think of regional development are the words that came out of the Prime Minister when he was the opposition leader. I think the words he used were, “it breeds defeatism”.

What happens is that certain areas of the country deserve to have certain infrastructure so they can compete on a level playing field. I think it is important that we allow that infrastructure to develop so that any business or group competing on a national level is not put behind the eight ball. One of the key things about regional economic development is allowing that to happen, otherwise if we just take a laissez-faire attitude we end up with a concentration of population in certain areas.

Maybe what they are thinking is that we have five major centres, which are the five cities, and everybody should crowd in. I do not think that is the right way to look at it and that is certainly not my view of Canada. My view of Canada is having people right across Canada, up into the north, into the south and to both sides, east and west, so we can all work together and develop the country to be all that it can be.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply April 24th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the question is but the question was on monopolizing compassion. I am not saying that anyone in this Parliament has any monopoly on compassion but one thing that I have seen from the other side is a complete lack or even understanding of compassion. It is all very much to the right wing and everyone stands up and does whatever he or she wants and to heck with our fellow neighbours.

What the hon. member on the other side lacks understanding on is compassion toward other people who are in this country with us.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply April 24th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question is very pertinent and important because native issues are very important not only in my riding but in much of northern Ontario and northern Canada.

When we hear what was said about the Kelowna accord, there is one comment that comes to mind. I cannot think of who the member was from the Conservative Party but he or she said it was written on the back of a napkin and was kind of thrown together in one weekend. The grand chief from my region was there and worked for 18 months, that is just on his part, getting it together. A lot of work and discussion went into it to ensure that it served the needs of our native Canadians.

With one fell swoop, it was thrown aside. One of the great disappointments for all the natives in northern Ontario is that the Conservatives plan on disregarding and marginalizing them to the point where they will not have sufficient funding to go day to day in their operations. There was a good talk from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on how the government was going to take care of a lot of problems. Some of the problems that exist in northern Ontario are not being addressed by the government and I do not believe they will be addressed by the government.