House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was afghanistan.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Conservative MP for Carleton—Mississippi Mills (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan April 10th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first speech in this Parliament, I would like to thank my constituents of Carleton—Mississippi Mills for re-electing me. It is an honour to serve Canadians in the House of Commons.

Today I address the House on Canada's mission in Afghanistan. Recently, the Prime Minister and I visited Afghanistan. It is a difficult terrain, a harsh climate, an unfamiliar culture, and an elusive foe making military operations challenging and at times dangerous. I can say with confidence that the men and women of the Canadian Forces know the challenges, they are overcoming them, and we are proud of them.

The Prime Minister has made our stance in Afghanistan very clear. We will stay the course. We will support our service personnel. We will endeavour in concert with other nations to bring peace and security to Afghanistan.

Today, as Minister of National Defence, I will explain why we are in Afghanistan.

Canada is in Afghanistan because it is in our national interest to protect the security of the nation and the prosperity of Canadians.

Canada is in Afghanistan to protect the safety and prosperity of Canadians.

The danger is not always clear, but it is real and our safety begins far from our borders. Let us just say that our government's strategy is “Canada first”.

Our approach to Afghanistan can be summarized in two words, “Canada first”. The Canada first defence strategy seeks to protect Canada from threats that confront us at home and from abroad. This means going to Afghanistan to counter terrorists harboured there, terrorists that are not bound by borders nor dissuaded by oceans.

The terrible attacks on September 11, 2001 during which 24 Canadians were killed, and the events that occurred in Bali, Madrid and London, exposed our vulnerability to terrorism.

Do we have to wait for terrorists to attack Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal or here in Ottawa before recognizing the real threat that is hovering over our safety?

An effective strategy to counter an opponent is to carry the struggle to his own territory. It is unwise to sit and wait for his next move. Since Afghanistan is a source of terrorists who are committed to striking vulnerable targets globally, Canada needs to be there along with our 35 allies.

We are in Afghanistan at the request of the Afghan people.

During our visit last month, President Karzai warmly thanked Prime Minister Harper for the Canadian contribution and asked him to thank the Canadian people. The Afghan people appreciate us and Canada is an example of democracy to these people who aspire to it.

As well as being in our national interest, Canada, one of the oldest democracies and one of the richest countries on earth, has a global responsibility as a member of an international community to show leadership in helping overcome the problems of Afghanistan.

Let us not forget we are also in Afghanistan because the Afghans have requested our help and we have the capabilities to provide it.

For both security interests and humanitarianism, the Canadian Forces have been involved in the mission in Afghanistan since 2001. They have done everything from surveillance duties, to burning suspicious vessels in the Gulf, to confronting armed insurgents.

More recently Canada adopted a significant leadership role and enhanced its presence in the south through the deployment of a battle group as well as a provincial reconstruction team and a multinational brigade headquarters. Complementing the Canadian Forces commitment, Foreign Affairs established a Canadian embassy in Kabul in 2003, while CIDA has directed over $650 million to the reconstruction and development of Afghanistan, our largest recipient of bilateral assistance.

The Prime Minister has expressed his desire for Canada to be a leader in this multinational mission. I can confidently say that national defence, in partnership with other departments, has taken this vision to heart. The Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan in substantial force in a leadership role with a clear, logical, legal authority. Our troops are among the best trained soldiers in the world, with the needed combat skills, peace support experience and the cultural sensitivity to prepare them well for the mission. Our troops are having a positive effect in Afghanistan.

Within the strategic context of restricting terrorism while expanding Afghanistan's capacity to protect and govern itself, Canadians are assisting in the establishment of legitimate and effective security structures, a police force, a military and a judicial system. As well, they are assisting Afghans who have suffered decades of poverty, tyranny and abuse by supporting and facilitating the humanitarian projects that are needed there.

There are clear signs of progress. Destroyed communities and broken lives are recovering thanks to the support from the international community, the Canadian Forces, colleagues from other departments and agencies, including Foreign Affairs, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian International Development Agency. These reconstruction efforts help reduce poverty and misery.

Schools, hospitals and roads are being rebuilt. Millions of people can now vote. Women now enjoy more rights and economic opportunities than they ever could have imagined under the Taliban regime. More than 4 million Afghan children, of which a third are girls, are now registered for school. With Canada's help, the Afghan people are on their way to defeating tyranny and taking back their country.

Our diplomatic presence in Kabul, our command of the multinational brigade headquarters and our well respected position in NATO all enable the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to align their efforts with the common international goal of a stable, sovereign Afghan state.

Let me summarize. Our Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan because it is in our national interest, because we have the responsibility to take a leadership role in world affairs and because Afghans need us and want us to help them. Our troops are well trained, well commanded, well equipped and empowered with robust rules of engagement and legal authority.

Most important, our efforts are proving effective. Together with our allies, our approach is to: stabilize the security situation; concurrently train the Afghans to take over their own security by province and region; maintain long term economic support to assist the economy; and exit as they become increasingly stable.

We have to be prepared to defend what we believe in. We have to be prepared to do what it takes to guarantee the safety of the Canadian public.

I can assure the House that we stood by this commitment in the past and the government will continue to stand by it. We have the finest soldiers in the world who are placing their lives on the line for us. The government will not disappoint them. We will not fail them. The government will stand shoulder to shoulder with our troops.

I believe that I speak for all parliamentarians when I say we are proud of the efforts that our courageous soldiers are making in Afghanistan to help defeat the scourge of international terrorism. We wish them continued success.

National Defence April 10th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member obviously was not here Friday and did not hear my response about conflict of interest. I have no conflicts.

As for airlift, it is a high priority for the defence department, and I am waiting for the recommendation from staff.

National Defence April 7th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, to have a conflict one has to have an interest. I own no shares in defence companies. I get no remuneration from any defence company. I have no connections with any defence companies. Therefore, there is no conflict.

National Defence April 5th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of redrafting the agreement. The Red Cross and the Red Crescent are charged with ensuring that prisoners are not abused. There is nothing in the agreement that prevents Canada from determining the fate of prisoners so there is no need to make any change in the agreement.

National Defence April 5th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the previous government knew about the arrangement because it was done under its watch.

With respect to the second question, this is a more mature arrangement than the Netherlands has. Nothing in the agreement prevents the Canadian government from inquiring about prisoners. We are quite satisfied with the agreement. It protects prisoners under the Geneva agreement and all other war agreements.

Veterans Affairs November 25th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, in May of this year the Minister of Veterans Affairs stood in the House and said, “We will always go the extra mile to assist any veteran in need”.

When it comes to making sure that veterans know the risks to their health, apparently a mile is a pretty short distance. The Veterans Affairs website has two short paragraphs on agent orange and an article from Salute .

It has been six months. Will the minister inform the House when she expects her department to deliver a comprehensive publicity campaign for veterans regarding agent orange?

Veterans Affairs November 25th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that agent orange was used at CFB Gagetown. However, the defence minister has initiated a long study that will just delay compensation to ailing victims.

The wheel need not be reinvented. We can learn from the experience and the proven approach of the U.S. military who have adopted a presumptive model.

Why will the government not presume that military personnel and civilians, who were in Gagetown at the time and are suffering from ailments associated with agent orange, were exposed and are entitled to compensation?

Petitions November 23rd, 2005

Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit three petitions sponsored by the Canadians for Military Preparedness. The petitioners ask that there be a baseline funding increase for the military, rather than a one-off funding that the government is planning at this time.

National Defence November 21st, 2005

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that in the next two months nothing of substance will happen with respect to this project.

He also knows that a new Conservative government will move quickly to acquire airlift and yet he is rushing to get cabinet approval of this, hoping something will change the airlift situation dramatically. It will not.

The only practical reason that this project is being pushed before the election is that the military want the Liberal government's signature on a document so it cannot back out of the commitment.

The minister recently said that large procurement should be held off until after the election. What has changed? Are we seeing more Liberal electioneering?

National Defence November 21st, 2005

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Minister of National Defence will be seeking approval from cabinet for the acquisition of 16 transport aircraft.

He claims that this is a competition. However he has fixed the requirements so there is only one possible outcome.

By declaring the budget firm and the total number of aircraft is 16, the Boeing C-17 will be eliminated. By demanding the aircraft must be certified at contract award and not delivery, they have eliminated the EADS A400M from competition.

Why is this sole source contract for the Lockheed C130J aircraft being spun as a competition when it is not?