House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 34% of the vote.
Terrorism October 3rd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the British government has seized $88 million worth of assets of terrorist organizations. The Prime Minister said we were doing this two weeks ago. The Minister of Finance said we could do it last week. The reality is, Canadian financial institutions received effective legal authority only two days ago to freeze, and not even seize, these assets.
My question is simple. Why do we still not have the laws here in Canada to seize the assets of terrorist organizations?
Supply October 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is saying that we want a country where there are laws against discrimination and racism. Thankfully we have that in Canada.
He is also saying that the great strength of people in the immigrant communities in Canada, including people like him, myself and many others, is their effort, their hard work, their tolerance and their integration, and not assimilation necessarily, within Canadian society. That is something we are all proud of.
Supply October 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, we are very lucky to live in one of the most tolerant, if not the most tolerant country in the world. We are only tolerant by virtue of the vigilance that we have as a country and as a people. I know my party, as we all are in the House, is supportive of a country that continues to uphold the basic rights and freedoms that we have all enjoyed up to this point.
It is only with this vigilance and the support of the freedom that we have enjoyed these rights. If we let our guard down we run the risk of losing those freedoms.
Supply October 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, as a party we have never been supportive of taxpayer money going to groups that would foment hatred or disaffection within our society.
The individual mentioned has made some comments in the past, and there are others. If we look at Concordia University, we see a heinous situation taking place. Non-students professing to represent the students are asking people to take up arms against other groups. It is absolutely vile.
No longer can we use taxpayer money or the money of any public group to further that type of hatred and disaffection.
Supply October 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to speak to this very important motion. I thank the NDP for bringing this issue forward. Many issues being dealt with today are of critical importance to all Canadians and the government would be wise to listen to the creative solutions that are coming forth.
September 11 focused all Canadians and indeed the international community on some challenges that have been ignored for far too long. I would like to dispel some of the myths surrounding this particular problem.
Some individuals have portrayed this as an issue of poverty and social inequities. If that were the case, there would be umpteen numbers of terrorist groups coming out of sub-Saharan Africa. That is not the problem. Osama bin Laden is worth up to $300 million. Islam is a very rich religion. It is true that many of the people who have committed acts of suicide for their jihad are individuals from impoverished areas. The people who committed these atrocities, the people who were on those planes, were well educated and from a middle income background. It is not an issue of poverty. It is not an issue of social inequities.
Why would somebody take up arms against us? The type of fundamental Islam that Osama bin Laden portrays has nothing to do with social inequity. They hate us and the west for what the west portrays. We are what the Taliban is not; the Taliban is what we are not. The west represents freedom and individualism. We are actually perceived as being venal to those who want to support the Osama bin Ladens of this world. Fundamental Islam is anathema to our western culture and vice versa.
Osama bin Laden would rather blow up the negotiating table than sit at it. Therefore there is no room for negotiation. That is why we are looking at military options to deal with those individuals. However it is interesting to look at why people would support them.
In looking at the precursors to conflict, one of the most potent tools in conflict is communication. It can be used as a tool for peace but can also be used as a tool for conflict. Look at the communication that has gone into the camps in the Gaza Strip, into Palestinian held territory and into many of the other Arab states in the world. Venal, obnoxious, vile communication is used to stir up people against the west. That is what happens and there is no counterpoint to it. Those people do not see our viewpoint and our world. Communication is used as a tool to whip up frenzy and to stimulate people to take up arms against us.
Therein lies an opportunity for us and the international community to get into those areas and portray another point of view. Some have said this could be done by using shortwave radio, the BBC or other tools as a very potent force in trying to calm down conflict and its precursors. The UN has explored this option. We would be wise to go where people are being stirred up by these vile comments and statements, lies in fact, and counteract that by portraying what is really going on in the world.
In order to combat this there are a number of opportunities. From a foreign policy perspective we have a great opportunity to raise something out of the ashes. We have a great opportunity to build communications and solid relationships with states that we have had difficult relationships with in the past. I am talking about countries like Russia, the Commonwealth of Independent States, Arab countries, Iran. Many of these countries have come on side at least tacitly. There is an opportunity to improve that. For example, with respect to Pakistan we have lowered its debt load. We can forgive some loans internationally and decrease barriers to trade. Decreasing barriers to trade and removing sanctions would probably be the best way to improve the socioeconomic conditions in these countries. That is what we can do as a condition for working together to deal with the threat of terrorism.
Countries such as Chechnya, Azerbaijan,Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and many others and a number of Middle East states are threatened by fundamental Islam. It behooves them to work with us. We can start building relations not only from a political dimension but also through communication, bilateral movement of people between countries as well as giving these countries the economic tools to allow them to stand on their own two feet. Therein lies a grand opportunity to build up relations which to this point has been very difficult to do.
Our military has been guided through cuts. NATO, the Commonwealth of defence associations and a recent report by the UN castigated Canada for not living up to its 1994 defence white paper commitments.
In my view this is what Canada needs. First, we need a $1 billion to $2 billion per year investment, 23% of which has to go into capital costs to avoid the rust out which is occurring now. Second, the navy at present can only put out one ship per coast. That has to be increased to at least two. Third, we need to increase our manpower from the low 50,000 to a minimum of 60,000 and hopefully as high as 65,000.
With respect to our air force, we have a great rust out. We need to upgrade our weapons systems on the CF-18s and improve our tanker capabilities, as well as our heavy lift capabilities. Our soldiers are burnt out psychologically and physically. They simply cannot keep up the rapid rotations. Because of this we are losing a lot of very good people. The way to avoid that is to lessen our demands and increase the numbers.
On the issue of Revenue Canada, my colleague from Surrey mentioned a couple of constructive things. One was that we can no longer allow individuals raising money for terrorist organizations to have a tax creditable status. They should be shut down completely. CSIS and the international community knows who they are, and Canada has to have the guts to shut them down as soon as possible.
On the issue of immigration, we need a steel sheath around Canada, but it has to be porous. It has to allow the flow of goods and services in an unrestricted fashion. It has to allow the movement of honest people who want to immigrate to Canada. However, it has to be a steel sheath against those individuals who are criminals, crooks and terrorists who intend to come to Canada and abuse our good nature. This is fundamentally important.
The NDP mentioned the prejudice and discrimination of individuals like Osama bin Laden who have warped and twisted the Koran. In Canada 99.99% of Muslims have nothing to do with what he represents and abhor all of what he says. There is a statement in the Koran, which I will paraphrase. It states that if a life is saved, it is saving the life of humanity. If a life is killed, humanity is killed.
Perhaps it makes us take notice that all the great religions of the world are peaceful religions. All support peace and kindness to each other. It is the perversion of religion, whether it be Christianity, Judaism or Islam, that is wrong and that allows this bloodletting to go on. It is wise for us to remember that people of the Muslim faith abhor this type of violence as much as any of us in the House.
In closing, there is a great opportunity after the September 11 disaster to build relations with those countries that we have not had relations with before and to improve communication with those disaffected populations that Osama bin Laden finds as a ripe garden to get to soldiers for his cause. We can combat that but it can only be done by working with our international partners in a multifactorial and multinational fashion.
Request for Emergency Debate October 2nd, 2001
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I move that this House do now adjourn to consider Canada's military readiness in light of the likelihood that the Canadian armed forces will have to participate in the war against terrorism.
The rationale behind the motion is that given the recent attacks, which constitute a genuine emergency under Standing Order 52(6)( a ), we need to have a debate to keep the public informed and to allow members in the House to have a constructive debate that will guide the government in its deliberations in the future. This is critical to the lives of our military personnel.
Canadian Airline Industry October 1st, 2001
Madam Chairman, I thank the member for Edmonton Centre--East. My 10 minute speech will be truncated to two and a half minutes so that I can share the time with the member for Surrey Central.
I have the highlights of my 10 minute speech in bullet form on how to save Air Canada. It is a vexing problem but it can be done. We should in part look at Continental and Southwest, two carriers that have been making money in the period of a downturn.
On the bailout issue, we are not going to give $3 billion, but a smaller number should be given to a company that prior to September 11 was worth $710 million.
On the issue of merging, date of hire should be the method used. It is the fairest method. Imagine having a pilot in the right seat with 15 years seniority over the pilot on the left. Those cannot be merged together if it is not date of hire.
The best way to deal with the issue of labour woes, which airlines across the world are suffering from, is with final offer arbitration. It will force both sides to come to the centre. It is reasonable and effective. Striking should be forbidden in groups working in the airline industry. Airlines are absolutely essential and crucial for an economy to function.
On the organizational side, Air Canada is drowning in paperwork as we speak. It has at least doubled the amount of paperwork that individuals have to labour under. That should be removed.
On the ticketing side, it should go back to using SABRE. It works. For baggage a computerized tracking system is needed. The current baggage handling system does not work.
The parts inventory must be computerized. Right now it is not. Mechanics do not know where the parts are. This leads to increased inefficiencies.
Cut down the routes that do not work. Decrease the number of flights on those routes that do not produce revenue. Maximize the number of people travelling on those routes. This will increase profitability.
On the manpower issue, scoping by pilots should not be allowed. Pilots should be allowed to work on the planes they are familiar with.
On the issue of equality, it is equal pay for equal work. There simply cannot be individuals who do the same job in the same or different areas who are being paid different amounts. Listen to all the groups. Bring in managers from Southwest and Continental. Both of those airline companies have done a superb job in rejuvenating those two airlines which were on the brink of bankruptcy.
On aircraft maintenance, contracting out to privatized handlers would probably not work and there could be an element of danger. Look at the airlines that crashed in the U.S.
Allow the regional carriers to manage their own affairs. They are doing a good job. They fly at capacity. Allow that aspect to be decentralized to the regions and they will function very well.
We cannot give money to Air Canada and allow it to function as a low cost carrier to drive WestJet into the ground. It is not fair and reasonable.
Listen to the people who work for the company. The employees have excellent suggestions. Provide a venue for them to offer solutions. Reward them for providing cost-cutting solutions. It will increase morale and there will be a functional airline at the end of the day.
National Defence September 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the government says it is capable of helping the United States militarily in the war against terrorism. That is fiction. Yesterday's United Nations report and today's Conference of Defence Associations report prove we cannot meet our international obligations. That is fact.
Canada lags behind Belgium, the Netherlands and even tiny Bulgaria with only eight million people. Our military has shrunk from 80,000 to 50,000 troops, which shows that we can only send a maximum of 14,000 into combat. That is not enough to sustain a brigade for even six months.
Half our CF-18 planes cannot get off the ground because their electronics are obsolete. They cannot integrate with American pilots. We do not have enough soldiers to meet our domestic needs let alone our international obligations.
The reason for this is that our military has been gutted and used as a political punching bag by the government, which has compromised the security of all Canadians.
International Boundary Waters Treaty Act September 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. I believe it does. The Middle East has done some very good work, not only with desalinization procedures but also on how to use salt water. It is interesting to note that we can use salt water to irrigate crops such as melons, corn and many others. We need to look at that.
One thing we cannot do is pump, at a great energy cost, water from a central region to a coast where there is salt water, which can be used for other things such as irrigation purposes. We could also use the irrigation we have in more efficient ways. There are micro methods of irrigation. There are more efficient uses of irrigation in California. Those technologies need to be spread to many other parts of the world.
There is an energy cost in desalinization of which we have to be cognizant. That cost has to be weighed against the benefits of desalinization.
International Boundary Waters Treaty Act September 27th, 2001
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his very impressive comments on global warming. If anybody in the House or in the world had a pat answer on how to deal with global warming, he or she would have a Nobel prize.
I am an expert in nothing so I cannot add anything beyond what is already out there on global warming, other than to say we have to deal with the facts on the issues of Kyoto and global warming.
There are a lot of misnomers about what is taking place. Regardless, there are things that we can do. There are some very good technologies on energy utilization, such as decreased use of fossil fuels and new non-fossil fuel alternatives, but they do not get the exposure they ought to.
If we put a fraction of the resources we put into subsidizing other elements of the energy section into developing new techniques and energy tools, we would have a much greater chance of dealing with the phenomenon of global warming.
In the end, one of my friends, who is an expert in this, said that it will probably require a multifactorial approach by the energy sector, diminished use of fossil fuels, probably greater use of nuclear energy in the end and other alternative sources of fuel. Some people think that solar power and wind power will be the panacea that will address all the problems, but they have a cost inherent in them too. They are not a magic bullet but need to be worked into the whole energy system and used more efficiently where appropriate. Then we will have a better system.