House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was grain.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as Conservative MP for Cypress Hills—Grasslands (Saskatchewan)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 69% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act June 18th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I should point out that we were not the only country that expressed the need to protect the concept of interoperability between the parties that were signing on to this and the ones that did not. Other countries such as Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, a whole list of other countries understood that this was an important concept within the realm of this convention.

I should take a couple of minutes to point out the reality of what would be expected if we were to rule out interoperability or if we were not to protect our troops. For example, there would be a risk in operational planning. Our men and women of the Canadian Forces participate in the strategic planning of things like air campaigns. They work in the headquarters of multinational operations. If there were no clause 11 in this bill, it would actually prevent Canadians from any involvement in the planning of and working on missions.

Second, I can describe a situation. I think that as soon as I bring it down to this level, members will understand why there is the necessity. For example, a team of 30 Canadian soldiers are guarding a school of young girls and boys in Afghanistan when they come under armed attack by Taliban terrorists. They call in air support from the United States forces to protect them. In a combined operation, they do not know in advance which plane can come to their rescue and what payload that plane will be carrying. When they are told that, the question is this. Would we want Canadian soldiers to volunteer to die, which they may do if we are prohibited from using the air support that would show up, or would we sooner have air support from a close friend and ally such as the United States?

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act June 18th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked a couple of questions and hopefully I have enough time to respond to them.

One reason we do not use the term “investment” is because it is seen as too broad. The convention is written in a particular language and each country then has to put it into the language of its legal system in order to make it fully applicable. The word “investment” is not used because it is a broad term. It would be covered, as I mentioned earlier, under things such as counselling, aiding and abetting. Those are wrapped up in that. We are not permitting people to invest in cluster munitions, and I think the member opposite can be comfortable with that position.

In terms of the Ottawa convention, these are two very different treaties. One of the differences lies, in a practical sense, in the way that the munitions are used tactically in operations. This one is used in a wide variety of situations, typically planned and unplanned. If we had adopted the exact approach of the Ottawa convention, it certainly would have undermined the Canadian Forces' ability to effectively participate in joint military operations, interoperability and those kinds of things.

We did not believe that we should risk our national security and defence interests. We think this provides a good balance. It provides the leadership that Canada insists we show to the world in wanting to get rid of these munitions. At the same time, it allows us the interoperability that we need with our partners.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act June 18th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague listened to my whole speech, but Canada has taken a strong position against the use of cluster munitions. We have never used them, we never intend to and we will forbid our troops from doing so.

However, we also need to continue interoperability agreements with other countries for a number of reasons. One reason is that we need to work militarily with them. A second reason, specific to this convention, is that we believe by working with these other countries we can hopefully convince them that they should sign on to this treaty as well.

The sooner we can get rid of these weapons around the world, the better off we will be. We are committed to help get rid of these weapons in places that are polluted with them. The minister was in Laos and was strongly impacted by what he saw. Therefore, we have made the commitments, which I mentioned in my speech, to try to deal with this issue around the world.

Prohibiting Cluster Munitions Act June 18th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here tonight. I hope we have a good debate here tonight. I am not so sure that we did not catch the NDP off-guard a couple of days ago when we did the last stage of discussion of this bill, because it seemed they came up with the same talking points all evening. Its members had about two points. Hopefully, tonight, we can have a broader discussion.

We do want to talk about Bill C-6, which is about cluster munitions. The speech I have here tonight will lay out a good explanation of what Bill C-6 is about, why it needs to be put in place, and how it would be a good balance for Canadians, for Canadian troops, and for our responsibilities around the world.

I do not think that there is a person in this House who does not share with me the sense that the world would be far better off without cluster munitions. They cause death, injury, and damage wherever they are used, and they can create significant long-lasting humanitarian consequences for civilian lives and for civilian livelihoods. This is because cluster munitions disperse large numbers of smaller bomblets, increasing the risk that some of these munitions will strike non-combatants and that any submunitions that do not explode will cause an ongoing threat to civilian populations and reconstruction.

Munitions can be dropped from an aircraft, or they can be shot out of artillery or out of rockets to attack a variety of targets, such as armoured vehicles or troops. When the munitions release the bomblets, some will detonate, but many do not. The result is small, unexploded submunitions lying on the ground. Like anti-personnel mines, they must be located, disarmed, and disposed of safely before a backyard, family garden, public park, or any other land can be returned to any kind of normal use. The bomblets are, to an extent, even more problematic than landmines, because they scatter at random, which makes them much harder to locate, to identify, and then to destroy.

Today, almost 30 countries are contaminated by cluster munitions from past wars. Some are recent, but in other cases, wars that ended long ago have left a legacy that remains armed and lethal. In countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, for example, cluster munitions dropped more than 40 years ago during the Vietnam War continue to cause deaths and injuries. Similarly, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and more recently, Syria and Libya, are also plagued by unexploded cluster munitions used in these recent conflicts or, in the case of Syria, a civil war that is still going on.

Canada has always been committed to protecting civilians from the indiscriminate use of explosive remnants of war. Canada has never produced cluster munitions. I want to point that out because there may be some confusion here later, once the opposition begins speaking. Though we have had them in our arsenal in the past, we have never used them in our military operations. That needs to be understood as well. That is why we have no problems in getting rid of cluster munitions stockpiles in our possession, even before ratifying the convention.

It was only logical, therefore, that we played a leading role in the negotiations that resulted in the Convention on Cluster Munitions in 2008. The convention itself prohibits the use, the development, the production, the stockpiling, and the transfer of cluster munitions. I want to go through that list again. It prohibits the use, the development, the production, the stockpiling, and the transfer of cluster munitions. Canada is already in the process of implementing the convention. Some of its requirements will require the domestic implementation of legislation before Canada can ratify, which is what Bill C-6 is here to do.

The Government of Canada will be committing itself to refraining from making, using, stockpiling, or transferring cluster munitions. Again, that needs to be made clear before the debate goes any further. I will repeat it. We are going to refrain from making, using, stockpiling, or transferring cluster munitions. The bill would make it an offence for individual Canadians to do the same. This is the last major requirement here in Canada before we can ratify the convention. I urge hon. members to support it, so that we can take our place among the growing community of states parties that have renounced these weapons.

The bill also reflects important compromises that were made during the negotiation of the convention in order to ensure that the legitimate defence and security interests of the countries that are party to the treaty are upheld. We would much prefer a world in which all of our allies joined the convention, but the reality is that we are not there yet. Given this situation, Canada and others had to find a way to negotiate a strong treaty, while at the same time remembering that we need to continue to co-operate with some of our closest military allies who may not soon be in a position to join it.

This is in contrast with what I heard one of the official opposition members say the other night, that we just should not bother to co-operate at all with the United States. That is a position that is completely impractical, but the NDP members seemed to think that they could embrace that.

The Canadian Armed Forces work closely with our allies, especially the United States. Our national security depends on that co-operation. Canadian soldiers, sailors and air personnel regularly join with their American counterparts in training and combat. We exchange personnel so that each of us is closely familiar with the operational procedures of the other.

The United States has not joined the convention and while Canada will continue to urge our American friends to do so, it is necessary for us to collaborate in a manner which will respect our new obligations on the one hand, while also respecting our obligations to our close ally on the other.

In order to allow countries and their military forces to co-operate with one another, article 21 was included in the convention. However, the armed forces of a state party cannot co-operate with those of a non-party state if the activities involved are a crime for their individual members. I think that is obvious.

In order to allow Canadian Armed Forces personnel to continue to work, train, fight and co-operate with their American counterparts without the risk of individual criminal liability, under this bill, the principles that are in article 21 of the convention must also be reflected in Canadian criminal law.

The bill would do this by creating specific new offences that would apply to everyone in Canada and then by excluding from those offences personnel who co-operate as permitted by the convention. Such individuals must generally be Canadian officials or members of the Canadian Armed Forces. They must be engaging in permitted forms of military co-operation and that co-operation must be taken with members of armed forces of state that is not a party to the convention.

One of the important benefits of article 21 is that it allows countries that wish to join the convention to do so without having to give up military co-operation with those allies that have not yet become state parties to the convention.

It was essential that the treaty permit this kind of co-operation between the militaries of countries that have joined the treaty and the countries that have not. Without such provisions, many countries that wanted to address the impact of cluster munitions by joining the treaty would likely not have done so. Instead, with the inclusion of article 21, countries are not forced to choose between working with their allies in the interest of broader peace and security and their efforts to do all that they can to get rid of the scourge of cluster munitions.

Indeed, article 21 enables more countries to join the treaty, thereby moving us much closer to the eventual elimination of these munitions.

While some may not like the provisions of article 21, it represents a negotiated compromise between states, and it forms an integral part of the fabric of the convention.

Clause 11 of this bill, which we are addressing tonight, implements the terms of article 21. Clause 11 would ensure that Canadian Armed Forces personnel would be able to continue to work with the American armed forces or any other allied non-party state, such as Turkey, Israel or Poland, all states that have not signed on yet. That includes by joining their military units on exchange without exposure to criminal liability.

I need to point out that Canadian Armed Forces members will never be permitted to directly use cluster munitions at any time. If people hear anything different later tonight, that will be an attempt to mislead and misdirect people to what is the actual reality of this bill and the treaty.

A Canadian Armed Forces order will be issued to ensure this. However, given concerns that were raised in relation to clause 1, at committee we were able to work together and the government agreed to an amendment that was unanimously adopted. The amendment would ensure what the government had intended all along, and which the Canadian Forces order will reinforce, and that is that members of the Canadians Armed Forces may never directly use cluster munitions at any time, even when they are on exchange with a non-state party's military unit.

The Canadian Armed Forces order will reflect all of the requirements of Bill C-6 as ultimately adopted by Parliament. In addition, and going beyond the requirements of the convention, the order would also prohibit the transport of cluster munitions aboard carriers belonging to or under the control of the Canadian Armed Forces. It would further prohibit Canadian Armed Forces members on exchange with states that were not party to the convention from instructing and training in the use of cluster munitions.

Most of the requirements of the convention do not require domestic legislation. Bill C-6 only implements the requirements that make it a necessity. For example, the convention requires Canada itself not to develop, stockpile or use prohibited munitions. We have not, we will not develop them and we will not use them. Also, no legislation is needed to destroy the stockpiles that we do have. The government can do that on its own.

However, the treaty obliges Canada to extend these prohibitions to private companies and individuals in Canada by enacting the necessary criminal offences. It is these offences, along with the supporting definitions and exclusions, that form the core of Bill C-6.

The bill would make it illegal for any person or organization in Canada, and members can go through the list as it is extensive, to develop, produce, acquire, use, stockpile, retain or transfer cluster munitions. It would also make it a crime to aid, abet or counsel someone else to do these things, even if they were done in a country where cluster munitions were not illegal.

This expansion of Canadian criminal law then makes it necessary to exclude individuals within the Canadian Armed Forces and other public officials for scenarios in which they engage in the forms of military co-operation that are permitted by the convention.

One of the long-term challenges of this convention will be its full international acceptance or its universalization. If we really want to rid the world of the scourge of cluster munitions, we need to ensure that as many countries as possible sign and ratify the treaty and, more important, that they fulfill their obligations to destroy all stockpiles of these weapons. Ideally, all countries of the world would join the convention. However, until that day arrives, it is important for all of us who believe in this treaty and its goals to continue with those efforts.

The Government of Canada is committed to doing just that. Of course, we are not alone in encouraging other countries to join the convention. Many of our friends and allies, like the U.K., Australia, France, Germany and others, are also working hard in this regard, as all parties to the convention are expected to do.

As I have already noted, the United States has not joined the treaty and may not do so any time soon. Canada accepts that other countries are and should be free to make their own decisions on what international obligations to sign onto, but we nonetheless will continue to encourage the Untied States and others to support this historic and important treaty.

I know that all members in the House, like me, are anxious for Canada to complete its ratification of the treaty. As soon as the bill is enacted, Canada will be able to take the next step to ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

The government has already begun fulfilling its future commitments to do away with the cluster munitions under its control. As I have said, the Department of National Defence has destroyed the vast majority of the former stockpile of cluster munitions and hopes to finish that destruction process by the end of this summer.

Internationally, Canada has participated actively in the first four meetings of state parties to the treaty in order to encourage its universal acceptance. We have also voluntarily submitted annual reports on our implementation of the treaty. Once we have ratified it, the commitment to submit annual reports will become a legal obligation.

These reports, which each state party must submit, show the rest of the world what each country is doing to get rid of cluster munitions. They will also explain what countries are doing to clear contaminated areas and rehabilitate victims. Canada believes that such reporting is important and necessary to ensure that all countries are meeting their obligations, and that is why we are already voluntarily providing these reports.

Finally, hon. members should be aware that Canada is also helping some of the nearly 30 countries that are contaminated by cluster munitions to clean up these explosive remnants. Since 2006, we have contributed more than $215 million to Mine Action projects around the world, which address the problem of explosive remnants of war, including cluster munitions.

For example, Canada has provided funding for projects in Laos for education on the risks of cluster munitions and for the clearance of those munitions. We have also provided funds to Bosnia and South Sudan to clear cluster munitions still lying around from the recent civil wars.

In November of last year, the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that the government would give an additional $10 million over 18 months to do even more to clear mines and cluster munitions to help victims of weapons and to educate local populations to be more aware of the risks.

In conclusion, I know hon. members on all sides of the House share my concerns about the tragic humanitarian consequences of these weapons. I urge all hon. members to support the bill so it can be enacted as quickly as possible and allow Canada to ratify the treaty and do our part to get rid of cluster munitions around the world.

Trinity Western University June 18th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, while tolerance has supposedly become the greatest of all virtues in the western world, the practice of it is falling far behind its proclamation. More and more, it is being used as a club by special interests to destroy traditional values.

Trinity Western University in Langley has applied to start a law school. It has a voluntary values covenant with students that they will refrain from sex outside of marriage while attending Trinity Western.

Although anyone can apply and this is a voluntary covenant, there are some who are insisting that this private university must not have a policy reflecting its specific values.

Last week's vote of B.C. lawyers regarding approval for the law school is a reminder of how political manoeuvring, exaggeration, and intimidation can negatively impact rights that have been in place for decades and that have been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Trinity Western University has been consistent. It is inclusive. It is a voluntary, private organization.

There is nothing noble about one group trying to destroy another group's values.

That is the exact opposite of tolerance, no matter how we label it.

The Environment June 17th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is well aware of how well we work with provincial governments and municipal authorities in order for them to be able to access our infrastructure programs. That includes the $14 billion in the new building Canada fund.

Going back a couple of years, budget 2011 included $148.8 million in funding between 2011 and 2016 for ten adaptation programs from nine federal departments and agencies. The member opposite should know that these programs focused on four areas: science to inform adaptation and decision-making, human health and wellbeing, north and aboriginal communities, and economic competitiveness.

Prior to this, our government had made an investment of $85.9 million in adaptation between 2007 and 2011.

Combined, our government has invested $235 million in specific domestic adaptation programs and activities since 2006.

The Environment June 17th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my colleague opposite would not want to talk about GHG emission reductions, because we actually led the United States two years ago. We put our reductions in place in order to deal with coal-fired power generation.

In terms of municipal infrastructure, I think he is well aware that we have the largest municipal infrastructure program that has ever been put in place by a government of Canada.

I want to talk a bit tonight about adaptation. Our government is committed to helping Canadians make any necessary adaptation, and as such, we have taken action to better understand what is happening in relation to climate change and to help Canadians prepare for the potential impacts by making investments in priority areas. Since 2006, our government has invested $235 million in domestic adaptation initiatives, which support decision-making in key priority areas, including human health, the north and rural communities, and economic competitiveness. I would like to talk a bit tonight about some of the examples of these activities.

Through Environment Canada's climate change prediction and scenarios program, the government continues to provide updated information about observed and projected changes in climate. Part of this foundational work will be to allow the government to provide credible, scientifically sound information to support adaptation planning and decision-making in Canada.

Through the Standards Council of Canada, with support from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, we are providing funding to update critical codes and standards in the north to adapt new and existing infrastructure as well. By equipping Canadians with the information, knowledge, and tools they need to make more informed decisions, we will be better able to manage risks associated with changing climates and better positioned to take advantage of new economic opportunities that emerge along the way.

This government is also making relevant investments in disaster mitigation and infrastructure. In budget 2014, the Government of Canada announced $200 million over five years to better protect Canadians and their homes through a national disaster mitigation program. The program will support investments such as infrastructure to control floods.

The government is also committed to working with first nations groups and provincial and territorial partners to help first nations become more resilient to natural disasters, such as flooding and forest fires, which often threaten the health and safety of their communities. To that end, economic action plan 2014 proposed to provide $40 million over five years for disaster mitigation programming on reserves.

In addition to these investments, disaster mitigation projects are eligible for federal funding under the $14 billion new building Canada fund, which was also announced in budget 2014. We would certainly welcome the member's support for our budget.

I am pleased to have had this opportunity to highlight some of the many specific actions we have taken and investments we are making to help protect Canadians and Canadian infrastructure.

Foreign Affairs June 17th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, I know everyone in this House is concerned about the situation in the Central African Republic. While the roots of this conflict are not religious, rebel groups and rival factions have been able to use religion to promote inter-communal hatred and violence.

The rampant human rights abuses and the extrajudicial killings must stop. The Government of Canada has not been silent. We have taken action. We have condemned the violence. We have been an important source of humanitarian assistance, and we have supported African troops under the MISCA banner.

The member opposite will be glad to hear that we will continue to support international efforts to stop the violence in the Central African Republic, and I am sure that we can count on the support of every member of Parliament.

Foreign Affairs June 17th, 2014

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here early in the evening like this.

The situation in the Central African Republic is deeply disturbing for Canada and for Canadians. The Central African Republic is a country where religions once coexisted in peace and mutual respect. It is troubling to see how quickly this situation has deteriorated into conflict and violence.

To this day, the looting, rapes, and indiscriminate killings continue. Sadly, more than one million people have been forcibly displaced as a direct result of violence.

This situation must stop. Canada has strongly condemned the violence in the Central African Republic, and urged all parties to exercise restraint and to end the cycle of violence. The government has supported international efforts to stop the conflict, promote the protection of civilians, and to help the most vulnerable have access to life-saving assistance.

For example, last December, our country was the first country to contribute to the UN trust fund in support of the African Union peace mission in the Central African Republic, or MISCA, as it was called. The government gave $5 million to support African Union troops with vital communications equipment to enable them to accomplish their missions and help the people of the Central African Republic.

Since the start of 2013, Canada has contributed over $23 million for humanitarian assistance. This assistance is providing food, water, sanitation, health care, and protection services to those most in need. We are also funding air transportation, so that humanitarian workers are able to get safely in and out of remote and insecure regions of the CAR where people are in the most desperate need of help. In sum, through our financial assistance, Canada has been making a difference, especially in the lives of those most vulnerable.

As colleagues in the House are aware, the United Nations Security Council agreed, in April, to create a UN mission to replace MISCA in September 2014. My colleague was speaking to that. This new mission, called MINUSCA, has a broad mandate, which includes the protection of civilians, support for a political transition, support for humanitarian assistance, and the promotion and protection of human rights and the rule of law.

The UN team was recently on the ground in the Central African Republic to finalize the operational planning for MINUSCA. Based on this recent assessment, the UN will begin to ask member states to support the specific needs of this mission. Based on these needs, our government will decide on how Canada can best contribute to that mission.

As we have already stated publicly, Canada will not be sending companies or infantry troops of the Canadian Armed Forces. However, there are other ways in which we can and will support the UN mission and the overall objective of ending the conflict in the Central African Republic. As we did when the EU mission was established in December, the government will respond expeditiously in support of the new UN mission.

Agricultural Growth Act June 16th, 2014

There they go.