House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was commons.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Progressive Conservative MP for Calgary Centre (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 46% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Committees of the House September 19th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I move that the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be concurred in.

I draw attention to a number of issues that relate to the government's intentions and requirements in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time in this debate with my colleague, the member for Saint John.

The report was originally presented to the House on June 14, 2000, during the second session of the 36th Parliament. The report was a major study of the procurement by national defence and it outlined many of the needs of the military.

The level of preparedness of Canada's armed forces has been deteriorating continually since this government came to office.

The government's only military plan is simply to hope that no crisis occurs, that there is no need for the Canadian Forces.

Now we have a crisis before us. The terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington show that there is no limit to what may be made a target. The target can even be in North America.

The information we have received from our security intelligence services establishes clearly that terrorist cells may be found even here in Canada. This has been confirmed by the leaders of other nations, as it was yesterday by the king of Jordan. Our own Prime Minister did not want to tell Canadians all the facts about terrorists. He did not level with Canadians.

Instead, CNN, the American network, confirms for us what our agencies and services are saying in this regard.

The government was informed in June that terrorists would become more dangerous and more determined. There was an indication that Canada was a target. Canadians want to share in the fight against terrorism. We want to win this battle and we know very well that among those first called on to fight the fight will be the men and women of our armed forces.

We ask them to give up their lives in a time of crisis, but this government starved them when they needed new equipment, better working conditions and more support.

The Prime Minister has been invited to Washington. He follows President Chirac, Prime Minister Blair and other heads of state. Our Prime Minister follows behind the parade, because Canada has failed to maintain the level of its international commitments, which our allies count on.

When the Prime Minister goes to Washington, we know what he will be asked. He will be asked to stop the movement of terrorists to and from Canada. He will be asked to extradite or to deport people who are wanted for crimes related to terrorism. He will be asked to curtail the flow of money to terrorists or their organizations, and he will be asked to share intelligence and defence capacities.

Insofar as defence is concerned, the embarrassing question for Canada is, what resources do we have to share?

Let me quote from an article by Jeffrey Simpson in the Globe and Mail this morning entitled “Canada's help: Who are we kidding?”:

The U.S. knows the lamentable state of our military and has periodically complained about it. Canada had one ship in the Persian Gulf, but it has returned home. The navy has frigates, but they remain without helicopters, courtesy of the Chrétien government's cancelling of a contract agreed to by the Mulroney government nine years ago. Ottawa has yet to issue detailed requests for proposals for these helicopters.

The article goes on:

The army has a few special units but lacks sufficient equipment and men to be effective in any dangerous operation. The air force has CF-18s but lacks in-air refuelling capabilities and some necessary technology for serious combat. Canada's military forces are so weak that the Chrétien government's support for any military fight against terrorism will necessarily be limited.

That commentary is by an objective journalist and commentator.

We have no long range tanker aircraft to get our fighter aircraft overseas. Our Hercules transport fleet is aging. Without tankers, it will be difficult for Canadian fighter aircraft to get overseas. The 1st Battalion Royal 22nd Regiment in Quebec is ready for deployment, but it is not a special forces unit. It lacks transport for rapid deployment and would have to go without its heavy weapons. Most of our forces are committed already in peacekeeping operations around the world. Our armoured corps is outdated and our tanks do not have the armour or the armament to stand up to handheld weapons, the sort of weapons terrorists use.

The 1994 white paper on defence called for Canada to contribute a brigade size force of about 5,000 men for sustained overseas operations. We are not capable of carrying out that commitment, according to retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie.

The Canadian navy is the best off of our three services but it lacks modern, robust maritime helicopters, key to surface actions. It is understaffed and it lacks financial resources.

We are paying a price today for a lack of preparation in the last nine years. The matter we are calling upon to debate, the committee report we are discussing today, itemizes ways in which Canada can move forward and become a respectable military force in the world again. We cannot simply sit back and engage commitments unless we are prepared to accept them. We are facing a commitment now and we are not in a position to do as well as Canada should be doing.

I am pleased to pass my debate time now to the hon. member for Saint John.

Terrorism September 19th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Canadians who are being asked to fight terrorism need to know the facts.

Was the King of Jordan correct when he told CNN last night that his authorities had uncovered operations in Canada by Osama bin Laden and drew that information to Canada's attention? Was the Prime Minister informed personally about this information before he told the House on Monday that he was “not aware of a cell operating in Canada with the intention of--

Terrorism September 18th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister has admitted to the presence of terrorist cells in Canada, can he tell the House what concrete actions he plans to undertake to eradicate their presence from Canada, and when he plans to do so?

Terrorism September 18th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told me that he was “not aware at this time of a cell known to the police to be operating in Canada with the intention of carrying out terrorism in Canada or elsewhere”.

Jane's Intelligence Service states that al Qaeda cells have been identified in Canada. CSIS confirmed that a bin Laden-Canada connection is being investigated.

Are Jane's and CSIS wrong? If not, has the Prime Minister now been informed of the existence of bin Laden cells operating in Canada?

Terrorism September 17th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Prime Minister is going to confirm this opinion with the appropriate officials and pass the real answer on to the House of Commons.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister, why did the cabinet of Canada not meet immediately when this crisis arose? Has it met yet? What kind of signal does the Prime Minister think this casualness sends to allies against terrorism?

Terrorism September 17th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

A mere three months ago, CSIS warned the government that “Canadians, now more than ever, are potential victims and Canada a potential venue for terrorist attacks”.

Does the government have reason to believe the cells of the al-Qaeda group of Osama bin Laden are, or have been, in operation in Canada?

Terrorism September 17th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday's tragic events profoundly touched the hearts of people around the world. All our lives have been turned upside down.

We wish to express our most sincere condolences and our deepest sorrow to the relatives and friends of the victims, in the United States and in Canada.

The courage and determination of the Canadian and American people during this tragedy sends a very strong message, that while terrorists can destroy lives and buildings they cannot destroy democracy or our freedom.

Canada is the United States' closest neighbour and ally. We welcomed diverted planes into our airports. Canadians opened their own hearts and homes to those stranded by this cruel and brutal attack.

Now is the time for us to stand solidly with the people of the United States. Parliamentarians should follow the example of the Canadian people who without any hesitation came to the aid of their American neighbours. We are with them fully in our determination to eliminate the scourge of terrorism from the world.

On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Democratic Representative coalition in parliament, I extend our heartfelt condolences to all who have lost families and friends in this brutal tragedy.

Attack on the United States September 17th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to take part in this debate on behalf of my colleagues in the parliamentary coalition.

Six days and a few hours ago the world we knew changed brutally and forever when hijacked planes were flown deliberately into crowded buildings with the explicit purpose of killing innocent people and breaking the confidence of societies built upon freedom and order. Our hearts go out to the individuals and families, including far too many Canadians, who have been struck directly. The shock and the losses that engulf those families are almost beyond belief.

This atrocity was unexpected as well as brutal. The victims started their day Tuesday, as we all did, expecting the ordinary. Suddenly, without warning, without reason, their precious lives were taken by a terrible, premeditated strike against order and humanity.

My young nephew, Scott Delaney, worked until very recently on the 51st floor of the World Trade Center. He was scheduled six days and a few hours ago to go back there for a job interview. Another obligation intervened and he did not go. That chance decision saved his life, just as the deliberate decision of the terrorists stole the lives, the futures and the hopes of thousands of sons, daughters and friends from around the world.

Last Tuesday's tragedy shook the entire world. On that day, all of us became victims, victims of acts of horrific cruelty aimed at creating upheaval in public order and all of humanity. The world we live in today is far different from the one we were living in only six short days ago. On September 11, 2001 the face of the world changed and it, and we, will never be the same again.

Words will never be enough to express our sadness or our support for those who have lost family members or friends. However, as well as extending our thoughts and prayers, we also wish to express our determination to make sure that, despite the tragic and murderous consequences of terrorism, free societies will never give in to terrorist acts and that the values we hold so dear will continue to prevail.

We can never grieve enough for those victims, for their families, for the futures that were torn away. We must offer them more than our grief, more than our sympathy and more than our prayers. We owe them our determination to ensure that while terrorists can take lives, they cannot destroy free societies.

I want to echo very strongly a sentiment expressed by other leaders in the House; that an essential element of our free society is that we judge people on their character and accomplishments, not upon where they come from, not upon their colour and not upon their faith.

The people who committed this atrocity are extremists. That is who they are. We must be very careful that in responding to this crisis that we do not create new victims or blame whole communities for the acts of people who in any society would be judged extremists. To be clear and for the record; all of us in the House know that no one is more shocked or more offended by this atrocity in the United States than members of the Canadian Arab and Muslim communities. No one is more offended than they are.

If we in this parliament seek to be fair, so must we be forceful. Our response must be effective, focused and strong. This is a challenge in which Canada must play a leading role. We are not neutral on issues of terror, freedom and order. They reach to the heart and the core of our nature as a nation.

The Prime Minister said that Canada should not become a fortress against the world. That is true. However, Canada should be a fortress in the world, a nation known by our friends and allies to be strong and reliable. That is the challenge for Canada in the months to come.

At our best, Canada's role in the world has been to ensure that freedom and order prevail and prevail together. We have done this in times of war and we have done that in times of peace. We have earned a reputation as a nation that stands on the frontline of defending and advancing free societies. That is where it must stand now.

I congratulate the Prime Minister for the firmness he finally showed on Friday. This nation, our people, our traditions, our parliament and government can play leading roles in shaping the world's response to this new terror. That is what Canada does in this difficult world. We put our values to work. We did that when NATO was formed, when peacekeeping was established, when new treaties of trade were framed and when apartheid was fought. We must do that now with our closest friends next door and with our allies against terror around the world.

The place to start is with one stark and simple fact. Our world changed profoundly Tuesday morning. People and places that once felt secure, now feel exposed. Systems of protection and prevention, which on Monday night seemed adequate, were proven Tuesday to be brutally inadequate.

We must rebuild that sense of security. Indeed, free people themselves are already doing that. What we are seeing in the long lines of volunteers at blood banks and in the people going back to work in places that so recently were targets is more than just compassion, or courage or defiance.

It represents the strength of the values which we have always claimed free systems nourish: the optimism, the activism, the balance in resisting a rush to judgment and, most of all, the palpable sense of personal and community responsibility in such a material and self-indulgent world.

One sometimes wonders whether those values will erode. Now they have been put to a shocking test. They are robust and resilient, rational and responsible.

Those attacks also demonstrate how much the world has changed. How wrong it would be for us to pretend that old ways work and how urgent it is to deal with the real threats of Tuesday, of today and of tomorrow.

We must rebuild the feeling of security Canadians enjoyed, whether rightly or wrongly, until last Tuesday. This time, however, we have an obligation to rebuild it on a solid foundation, to immediately undertake all necessary steps to ensure that such a tragedy does not take place ever again.

The government must imitate the speed with which Canadians moved into action. After this massacre, the Canadian people immediately moved into action with all the vigour of a friend or family member.

We parliamentarians have an obligation to follow their example of prompt action, to not abandon them, to take indepth actions immediately, to ensure that the necessary changes are made without delay. In these days of mourning and deep distress, our leaders have a duty to console Canadians, and the only concrete action possible will be to ensure that this is done.

This is work in which the whole nation should be engaged and certainly work in which all the nation's representatives assembled here in parliament should be engaged.

The government has come to parliament with a resolution, that the House of Commons, representing all of Canada, can do much more than resolve. We can be and we should be an active instrument of Canada's response to this terror.

With agreement, which I am sure would exist, the government could act today to authorize the committees of the House on transport, immigration, justice, foreign affairs and other relevant matters to begin immediately to gather evidence and to gather advice in public on what changes we need to make our nation more secure.

These issues are too important to be left to ministers and public servants meeting in secret. The changes that may be required may be too radical to leave to the custodians of the status quo.

If the government is serious about an honest analysis of our system, let it trust parliament to help in that work. Let parliament reach out to the people who elect us so they can be reassured in this time of doubt.

The government cannot close its mind in advance to changes in any area or policy related to security. It must be prepared to reconsider funding levels to CSIS. It must be prepared to examine immigration policy, airport security, aircraft security, border security and the activities of groups that might be associated with terrorism.

Even before Tuesday's tragedy the government was warned of weaknesses in our security arrangements. The Leader of the Opposition has mentioned several actions which Canada could have taken.

In that spirit, let me quote from the CSIS report released on June 12, 2001, less than three months before planes ploughed into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center towers:

Terrorism in the years ahead is expected to become more violent, indiscriminate and unpredictable...There will likely be terrorist attacks whose sole aim would be to incite terror itself. A hardening attitude, and a willingness on behalf of certain terrorist organizations in North America, reinforce the belief that Canadians, now more than ever, are potential victims, and Canada a potential venue, for terrorist attacks.

That was the warning given by CSIS to parliament, to government, less than three months before the attacks of Tuesday. Let me quote from the auditor general's report of 2000, which said the Department of Immigration:

—could also improve the way it collects criminal intelligence information...gathered by various stakeholders.

It said that information is not systematically exchanged because computer systems are not compatible and data are not always shared among the Department of Immigration, the RCMP and CSIS.

That was a warning more than a year ago by the Auditor General of Canada about our capacity to deal with people who might be seeking to come here to wreak terror on this continent, elsewhere in the world, or here in our home.

Those are only two examples among many of the warnings that were given and not acted upon. They are clearly areas where the government can act now, immediately, to strengthen the security of Canada and of the world.

Parliament should be given a detailed description of what the government now knows about the Tuesday attacks. Parliament should be told what changes the government is now contemplating, what reviews of policy it plans, what military, intelligence or other role Canada can play in a campaign against the terrorists.

If some of that information is confidential then let the government give that information to parliamentary leaders on a confidential basis.

This is a Canadian concern. This is parliament's concern. This is not a matter reserved to those who sit in the secrecy of the Privy Council Office. To rebuild the trust of the public, to rebuild the trust of our allies, to rebuild the trust of financial markets, parliament must be fully informed and advised.

The Tuesday attacks have obvious economic implications, implications for growth, for revenues, for spending priorities. This government has yet to present a full budget to Canadians.

We know the minister's revenue forecasts were wrong before the attack. Parliament and Canadians have a right to know what the facts are now. We need to know the costs of the projected new spending the government has proposed.

As those new figures must be known within the government which authorized the spending, let the public know so the public can be heard in deciding whether these priorities are more important than the priority of making our nation secure.

It is not often that we recognize a turning point in history, but we are a different world than we were a week ago. However let us bear this in mind. The technology of terror did not change. Nor did the purpose of terror, which is and always has been quite precisely to explode the order and the confidence which are the bases on which most of us live our lives.

What changed was the audacity of the terrorists. They have warned us that the threat runs wider than it did before. That means that our response must change, must be broader, tougher, itself more audacious.

This was a calculated attack upon the kind of open and safe society in which Canadians believe so profoundly. It was a direct attack on us, on all of us, and we must be prepared to respond directly.

We must deny the terrorists the psychological victory they seek. We must organize ourselves to protect and assert the civilized values that were so deliberately attacked. No nation has a greater stake in that response than Canada, and we must play our full part.

Our grieving will continue for days, months and years to come, but today, immediately, we have a duty to act to ensure that the values we hold so dear, the values that characterize us, prevail.

In the next few days, months and years we will grieve, but now we must also act to ensure that the values we hold so dear prevail.

That will involve hard decisions. It will require us to apply our values in the context of a new, changed, real tough world. The world needs an active Canadian government and at a time when democracies are under scrutiny an active Canadian parliament.

We have an opportunity to shape this new world if we are prepared to look at these issues, open to new realities, determined to play a role of leadership. The world needs Canada's leadership and strength now and this parliament, I am confident, would be prepared to support a government that showed that kind of leadership.

Access To Information June 13th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, this is the commissioner's opinion, not mine.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether the RCMP has been in touch with the Prime Minister or with his solicitor or his representative, or any other member of his staff or of the Privy Council Office, for the purpose of discussing falsified documents originating with or involving the Business Development Bank?

Access To Information June 13th, 2001

Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner reports that “access requests made by journalists and opposition members get slower service, closer scrutiny” to protect ministers.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister issue an order today to stop this deliberate attempt to hide the truth from journalists and parliament and therefore from the public?