House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was afghanistan.

Last in Parliament August 2019, as Conservative MP for Calgary Forest Lawn (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 48% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply December 1st, 2009

Mr. Speaker, first, we need to understand the rules of Parliament. When a document is requested, it must be in two official languages. At this current time, those documents are being translated in two official languages, which is why it is taking longer. I am sure he would not want us to present documents that are not in two official languages.

Second, the motion calls for all documents to be provided. Since the Liberal Party was in government, it should know exactly what information can go out and what cannot go out because if it is important to national security it cannot go out.

What I am hearing from the member is, to hell with national security, to hell with everybody else, just give it to us. It is our right. No, it does not work that way. We need to have the integrity of the system respected by Parliament.

I also want to say that the Evidence Act is supported by Canada. It is the law in this country. I find it very strange when somebody says that we should break the law of this country.

Business of Supply December 1st, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear the Liberals clapping. I hope I will give them enough information that he will change his mind about supporting this motion.

Today before the House I address a motion proposed by the member for Ottawa Centre that the Government of Canada call a public inquiry into the transfer of Taliban prisoners in Canadian custody to Afghan authorities from 2001 to 2009. This motion is about partisan politics and is a waste of taxpayer dollars. This is a motion that I cannot support.

Canada has always been and remains committed to ensuring that Taliban prisoners are handled and transferred in accordance with our obligations under international law. There has never been a proven allegation of abuse involving Taliban prisoners transferred by Canadian Forces.

Calls for such an inquiry show complete distrust in the work done to date by our forces, our diplomats and the international organizations that are currently looking into the allegations surrounding detainee transfers.

Losing sight of Canada's engagement in Afghanistan is easy and focusing on the negative seems all too common. At this point, I would like to remind all of my colleagues who are listening that both the Bloc and the NDP did not support this mission in Afghanistan. Let us get that very clear. No wonder they are playing partisan politics.

In the last four years, our government has focused on the promotion of the rule of law. We take this commitment seriously. Casting aspersions of unproven allegations surrounding torture on our brave men and women only undermines the work that they are doing.

A key focus of Canada's mission in Afghanistan and of the combined international effort is to augment Afghans' trust in their own national authority. Canada is committed to helping Afghanistan get the necessary training to assume even greater responsibilities for its own security.

Our conduct in this matter has been instrumental in establishing the strong reputation that our brave Canadian men and women have today. When our military and diplomats have been presented with credible, substantiated evidence, they have taken appropriate action and yet the opposition refuses to believe that. It keeps refusing to believe our generals and the diplomats who have stated quite clearly that when they had credible evidence they took action.

Ongoing and persistent insurgencies against the national government there presents very real risks to Canadians, as well as to Afghan personnel and civilians, and the implementation of capacity building projects. This situation is particularly acute in Kandahar province. These risks weigh significantly on Canada's programming but have been overcome with planning through risk management and determination.

Taliban prisoners are detained by Canadian Forces and then they are turned over to Afghan authorities because they have attacked or killed Canadian soldiers or there is credible information to suggest they intend to do that.

At this time I want to make one point very clear. The Liberal opposition critic stood today and said that an Afghan detainee was not necessarily a Taliban, that he could be anybody else. Members of the NDP keeps saying that these detainees are not Taliban. They do not like it when we use the word Taliban but our Canadian soldiers are fighting the Taliban. They are not fighting anybody else. When they take people prisoners, they are people who want to kill Canadian soldiers. Let that be very clear. When we are talking about the Taliban, the NDP should not stand up in the House and say that they are not Taliban. They are Taliban because that is who we are fighting.

Afghanistan is one of the most dangerous and poorest countries in the world. Our whole government mission there is to support both the Government of Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan so that they will have a safe environment. We need to be clear about the importance of having a safe environment.

Everyone knows the record of the Taliban government, which is why the international community, under a UN mandated mission, went to help Afghanistan get rid of all the people who were attacking everyone else. It is very important to understand who we are fighting and who these so-called detainees are. These are people who have been attacking us and will continue to attack us.

However, it is very important to understand, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence has stated, that once we know there is credible evidence, we will then take action. We have been working and our soldiers have been working according to international rules. Why can the opposition not understand that?

I will give one example of how the opposition tries to turn this whole thing into partisan politics. This morning, when the defence critic for the Bloc was standing up, a member of his party stood and said that his party had supported this mission in Afghanistan. Two motions came out supporting this mission and I can show from the record that the Bloc did not support the mission in Afghanistan. I found it amazing that a member of the Bloc would stand and say that his party supported the mission in Afghanistan.

When members of the NDP were making a statement, they talked about Amnesty International that went before the court and the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. What they refused to tell anybody else was that the Federal Court and the Supreme Court declined to listen to their case. Also, these detainee transfers have been subject to a Canadian Forces review, an RCMP review and a board of inquiry has been conducted. The Military Police Complaints Commission has also done its job on this subject.

We have provided quarterly reports and, most important, are under way now based on what has been said. Even the Special Committee on Afghanistan is listening to this subject. The committee has had people before it who are involved in Afghanistan, such as the generals and the diplomats, and more are coming. They will let us know.

What I do not understand is why they need a public inquiry. For what and to do what? It is wasteful. They keep talking about not getting documents but, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence has said, documents will be provided. Of course they need to be redacted because of the need for security, but we need to be reasonable. They should get the information before they start going there.

The call for this public inquiry is nothing more than partisan politics by the opposition members. I would like to tell them that this is a very serious matter and they need to be very careful. They should not destroy the reputation of our Canadian soldiers internationally.

The Bloc member said that when the Prime Minister goes to China he should talk about human rights. What are we talking about? What human rights? Who has abused the human rights of the detainees? The people on the ground have stated that, as far as they are concerned, if credible evidence is provided, and they have given examples of when it was provided, they would stop the transfers.

Let us look at the good work Canadians, our officers and our diplomats have been doing in that country and let us stick to the great things this country is doing to help Afghanistan become a stable country.

Ukraine December 1st, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that a lot of members on this side of the House were in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution. I remember that the member for Edmonton East was out there.

A lot of members on this side are very much interested in Ukrainian democracy and we will continue to support Ukrainian democracy. I can assure the member that we will stand with Ukraine as well.

Ukraine December 1st, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member that even this time Canada will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. We are extremely happy with the elections that are taking place there. We will keep monitoring and we ensure that it will be a transparent and fair election.

Calgary East December 1st, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to pay tribute to the hard-working people of Calgary East who have elected me to represent them in Parliament for the last 12 years.

My riding exemplifies the virtues of Canada's multicultural mosaic. It is home to colourful and welcoming neighbourhoods, sprawling green spaces and many large businesses that proudly employ people from all over the city and the region. It is no surprise that close to 50 new Canadian citizens every month choose to settle down in the welcoming communities that make up Calgary East.

Like many Canadians, the residents of Calgary East too have faced the brunt of the economic downturn. However, I am proud to say that in these tough times they are certainly doing their part to help pull themselves and their country out of the recession.

I am privileged to represent the people in the riding of Calgary East and look forward to continuing to serve them as their Conservative member of Parliament.

Business of Supply December 1st, 2009

Mr. Speaker, it is very nice to hear the opposition talking about niceties and that this should be a public inquiry, and that it is not about criminal things, this thing and other things.

However, let us look at what actually happened. It is very simple. It started as a war in a country that was completely broken. We started under the Liberal regime, which set up a system that when enemy soldiers were captured, they would be taken there. All of these things were evolutionary.

After we came out with a new agreement in 2007, clearly the people who were on the ground, not the people sitting here in armchairs in this nice country, but the people who were on the ground, said time after time that whatever intelligence they had, they worked on it immediately. As soon as they knew something, everything was done. The committee heard about it and everyone heard about it.

What I do not understand from the members over there is that after one individual gave his assessment, they are basing their entire fight on that one individual.

Why do they not believe the generals, the people who were on the ground?

November 30th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was advised in June that no formal discussions between the governments of the United States and Canada have been held in recent years regarding resolution of the Beaufort Sea maritime boundary. This is because neither Canada nor the U.S. has found it warranted to resolve the issue at this time.

The member is right in noting that the United States and Canada have both issued oil and gas exploration licenses and leases in the disputed zone in the Beaufort Sea. The area may have oil and gas potential, but nobody knows for sure. Traditionally, neither country has allowed exploration or development in the area pending resolution of the dispute.

Canada and the United States have a strong history of engaging in bilateral and multilateral co-operation in the Arctic, and we look forward to continuing this co-operation.

November 30th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, Canada and the United States have a history of strong bilateral co-operation in the Arctic, and we will continue this co-operation. For example, Canada and the U.S. are implementing an ecosystem-based approach to oceans management in the Beaufort Sea and elsewhere. In addition, we are co-operating in the scientific work to delineate the extended continental shelf in the Beaufort Sea.

Canada's sovereignty over its Arctic lands and waters is longstanding, well established and based on historical title. This government will continue to protect our sovereignty. There are three exceptions to this, found on the outer edges of our Arctic: the 1.3 square kilometre Hans Island claimed by Denmark; a 65 square nautical mile maritime boundary dispute with Denmark in the Lincoln Sea; and our dispute with the United States over the maritime boundary in the Beaufort Sea. All three of these disputes are well managed by all involved.

The Canada-U.S. dispute in the Beaufort Sea is north of the Yukon and Alaska. To be clear, this is an international maritime boundary dispute between two nations, not sub-national governments like the territory of Yukon and the State of Alaska.

The disagreement that exists between the United States and Canada regarding the maritime delimitation of part of the Beaufort Sea is well managed and is not a major bilateral irritant.

Our position is, and always has been, very clear on this matter. Canada's consistent and long-held position is that the 141st meridian is the proper boundary between Canada and the U.S. in the Beaufort Sea. This is based on the 1825 Anglo-Russian treaty, which also set the international land boundary that falls between the Yukon and Alaska. Canada and the U.S. have managed the dispute for many years and will continue to do so.

Our position is clear. This government continues to reject any measures taken by the U.S. government that would infringe upon Canadian sovereignty.

We would like to find a resolution to this dispute but, of course, in the meantime, we will assert our right to enforce Canadian law in our territory. This matter will be resolved when Canada and the United States deem it necessary to resolve.

Foreign Affairs November 26th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Celil's case remains a top priority for this government. We are deeply concerned at China's refusal to recognize his Canadian citizenship and permit Canadian consular access to visit him.

We continue to raise Mr. Celil's case with senior Chinese officials, in particular the issues of respect for human rights, consular access and due process. We will continue to be in contact with Mr. Celil's family and provide them with all consular access.

Terrorism November 26th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, today, Canada remembers the victims of last year's deadly attacks in Mumbai. A year ago, cowardly terrorist attacks took the lives of 166 innocent civilians, including two Canadians.

Our thoughts are with the families of the victims and with the survivors of this terrible tragedy.

Last week, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I stayed in Mumbai at one of the hotels that was attacked.

Canada itself is not immune to terrorist attacks. Canadians lost their lives in the Air India bombings, as well as in the September 11 attacks in New York.

Canada has designated June 23 as the National Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism, which aims to denounce terrorism and honour the memory of its victims, such as those who lost their lives in the deadly attacks in Mumbai.

Canada and India have agreed to continue to fight against global terrorism.