Peter Van Loan

[June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we must set the record straight. The extension was only obtained after a new government in Canada intervened with the Americans and pressed the case and drew to their attention the problems that arose.

We pay great tribute to the broad private sector interests and municipal interests that have gathered to defend the tourism and financial interests that we have at stake.

We saw again today in the House of Commons in question period the anti-American smear from the Liberal Party members. Is it any wonder that during their time in government they were unable to even talk to the Americans about the problems proposed by this legislation? This legislation, and the WHTI initiative that flowed from it and which could have hurt Canada so much, went by without a single comment, public speech or letter from the Canadian government or our Liberal prime minister at the time. They could not communicate. They were actually more interested in picking fights with the Americans.

They oppose our resolution to the softwood lumber deal because it represents a constructive solution that works for Canadians. That is what we did on softwood lumber and that is what we are doing today on the western hemisphere travel initiative.

[June 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the western hemisphere travel initiative is the American undertaking to require individuals entering or returning to the U.S. to show proof of citizenship or documentation, such as a passport, upon entering the country.

We have been very active in pressing the Americans on the need for mutually acceptable approaches to protecting security without harming tourism and trade. While our party has been extraordinarily active on this, the fact remains that we are in this position only because of the total and complete failure of the previous Liberal government to act when the law we are facing was actually being debated by Americans.

The intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act, which established the new requirements, was adopted in December 2004. Did the Liberal government make representation to any committee of the House of Representatives or Senate at that time? No, it was asleep at the switch. Did the Liberal Prime Minister or foreign affairs minister raise any concerns with their counterparts? No. Did the Liberal government make any written submission to promote and defend Canada's interests before the law became final? No.

The problem we face today is a direct result of the complete failure of the Liberal government of the day, to which the member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River belonged, to take any action or steps to protect Canada.

Later, when it came time to develop a detailed implementation plan for the law, the Liberal government continued to slumber. Only after the leader of the Conservative Party took the extraordinary step of writing, as an opposition leader, to the Americans did the Liberal government finally wake up, and what a feeble response.

On October 31, 2005 on the eve of an election called in Canada, on the very last possible day to comment on the proposed implementation measures, almost a year after the law was passed and well over a year after the law was first debated, Canada's then Liberal government finally submitted a formal comment to the Americans.

Unfortunately, that was of course too late to change the law that had long ago passed. The horse had left the barn when the Liberals were asleep on the job, or perhaps just too busy calling the Americans names to actually do something to protect Canadian interests. All we can do now is try to clean up a terrible situation left to us by the Liberals and try to influence the detailed implementation of the initiative.

Our Prime Minister and government have been hard at work. In just 100 days, we have done more than the previous government did in years to stand up for Canada's interests.

First, the Prime Minister secured the President's recognition of the urgency of Canada's concerns on the WHTI during their first meeting. They tasked Canada's security minister and U.S. Secretary Michael Chertoff with making the WHTI work for both countries. The minister and secretary met on April 18 and Canada recommended alternative requirements which might meet the intent of the U.S. law. We invited the secretary to visit Ottawa this spring for further discussions. In Washington on April 13, our foreign minister pressed Canada's concerns with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Our efforts are paying off. Already a number of positive developments signal greater flexibility by the U.S. administration and Congress. On May 22, President Bush contrasted the significant differences between the southern and northern borders. The President said that it was his intention that any cross-border ID card should be compatible with Canadian needs and not be restrictive.

On May 25, the U.S. Senate passed the immigration reform bill, including two amendments delaying the final implementation of the WHTI to June 1, 2009. One of those amendments provides for economic studies to evaluate the impact of the WHTI and a substantial section on reciprocity with Canada, enabling the Secretary of State to accept provincial documents as valid ID to enter the U.S.

We are making progress but there is no guarantee, unlike what the member thinks, that these amendments will find their way into the final law. The House of Representatives must still pass its own version of the highly sensitive immigration reform act.

Our two governments will continue discussions this spring and our embassy in Washington is continuing its vigorous advocacy on this issue. Unlike the previous Liberal government, of which the member of Parliament for Thunder Bay--Rainy River was a member, we are not asleep at the switch. We are active, engaged and making progress in digging Canada out of the hole the Liberals left us in on this essential issue that is so important to our economy.

[Humanitarian aid for Palestine, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this government did assume leadership when it led the world in a statement on Hamas after the elections in the Palestinian lands.

In terms of openness to the approach being followed, we are looking forward to the development of a mechanism by the European Union and we will see if that represents the potential avenue for dealing with the humanitarian issues there, with which we are very concerned.

[Humanitarian aid for Palestine, May 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we have looked, with great interest, at the announcement by the Quartet on the question of humanitarian aid to Palestine and to the Palestinians and how that could be maintained. We will be examining whether that represents an option for us.

The fundamental position of the government on the question of Hamas and how these aid problems could best be resolved would be if the Palestinian authority would commit to renouncing violence, to recognizing Israel and to ensuring that agreements of the road map were actually followed to establish long term peace.

[The Budget, May 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has only been elected for the second time but to suggest that the Liberal government was able to increase emissions under Kyoto by 30% over the target in just 14 months is not true. Everybody knows that Kyoto was signed many years ago and it took the Liberals four or five years to achieve that 30% increase in emissions.

I know it is one of the few areas where we have managed to exceed the United States. The Americans, who did not sign Kyoto, only increased their greenhouse gas emissions about 14%. However, the Liberals, a track record which the member is so proudly defending, increased greenhouse gas emissions by 30%.

It reminds me of the fellow who threw himself for mercy before the court after murdering his parents arguing that he should have mercy because he was an orphan. That is the Liberal approach on the environment. Under the Liberals' watch and after they signed Kyoto we have seen a 30% increase in greenhouse gases and then they stand as the defenders of Kyoto.

Could the member explain that contradiction and how the Liberals were able to create that increase in emissions so quickly?

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to address a couple of points that have been raised by the member for Yukon.

In terms of disputed waters, if we are dealing with disputed waters today, the situation on surveillance is exactly the same as it would be after this treaty is in place because those remain under the national control of the respective countries. If we believe it to be our territory, then it is our obligation before this treaty is put in place to exercise our sovereignty and deal with it. After this treaty, it will be the exact same situation. There is no change there whatsoever. I am sure when the member reviews it he will understand and appreciate that.

In terms of future processes for amending this, obviously it all depends on what kind of amendments he might have. The hypothetical question is whether they constitute what we consider to be significant amendments.

Since the member is asking for that commitment from this Parliament, did he ever ask, when he was sitting as a member in the government, that the amendments in 2004, which his government negotiated at that time, be put to a debate and voted on in this Parliament? Did he ever ask that of his Minister of Defence and his Minister of Foreign Affairs?

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by responding to the issue of prosperity. We do not have quite the prosperity we would like in the world today but there is no doubt that there is more than there used to be. In eastern Europe, where they used to have socialism, which I know my friend is a proponent of, having cast off socialism they are enjoying the fastest growth rates in the world today. That is thanks to having abandoned the wayward ways that some over there have not yet abandoned. Enough on prosperity and on to the issue about understanding the agreement.

We are very fortunate in having this treaty before us because rarely do we have a treaty that actually reflects basically half a century of practice. The changes to it are very minor and there is nothing like the past practice of what the treaty has shown us to know what it will mean for the future. What it will mean for Canadians is safety, security and the comfort that we have a collective defence arrangement that keeps Canadians safe, that protects us from military threat and does so at a minimal cost.

If we had to do the same kind of military build-up to protect ourselves, if we did not have the enjoyment of the shield that Norad gives us and which we share in, we simply would face ruinous expenses.

For us, we know what the treaty means. We have seen how it has worked in practice. It has been very good for Canada. It has been very good for Canadians. That is why we are pleased to endorse it and ask this House to endorse it for the next four years until there is a quadrennial review. In four years there is a review and that is the way it should happen. It can be ended at any time by any party on 12 months' notice, and that seems to me better than waiting five years if we decide we do not like it anymore.

In the unlikely event that the NDP ever forms a government, I have no doubt it will give that 12 months' notice and will walk out of the arrangement. The NDP would then either have to do a great big military build-up for Canada, or perhaps it would simply leave us unprotected, but that is a question the member will have to wrestle with.

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

Over half a century ago, my family had a decision to make. They were refugees from Soviet tyranny. They had fled a war-torn Estonia, seeking freedom, hope, opportunity and democracy. While apparently initially safe in Sweden, they feared a bellicose and expansionist Soviet power, one that had imprisoned family members in Siberian camps and killed others in the family. That Soviet threat was a short distance away, in fact only minutes by plane.

My grandfather chose Canada as the place he would find that freedom, along with hope, opportunity and an enduring measure of security.

The Norad agreement, for the collective security of Canada and the U.S. from the threat that might reach our continent by air, is one of the reasons his choice of Canada as a place of freedom and democracy that would be secure from hostile threat has proven to be so prescient.

Much has changed since that time. Some good things have happened: democracy has spread; global conflicts are generally in decline; free markets are spreading; and people around the world are enjoying growing prosperity. The Soviet Union is no more and, remarkably, my grandfather's homeland of Estonia once again enjoys freedom and democracy.

However, there have also been less welcome changes in the world. We have seen unprecedented acts of terrorism in the air against both Canadian and American targets. Nuclear proliferation is altering our global system. The potential use of new weapons of mass destruction has emerged. Rogue states and authoritarian dictators have demonstrated increasingly belligerent attitudes. And, of course, all the traditional forces in the international system that make the ability to defend ourselves important remain today.

Norad is a critical vehicle for ensuring Canadian security in the current context. Taken together with NATO, we have the two key elements of collective security upon which Canada relies.

Defence cooperation has become a key requirement of our security and prosperity in an interdependent world. More than any other defence organization, Norad embodies the binational teamwork that is needed to counter today's transnational threats.

Canada is a country blessed with vast territory. Such a vast territory demands corresponding vast defence efforts. Since 1958 Norad has contributed to those efforts by serving as North America's first line of defence against an aerospace attack.

Norad detects and warns of attacks against North America from aircraft, missiles or space vehicles, and participates in the surveillance and control of Canadian airspace. These two missions provide Canada and the U.S. with the means to ensure an appropriate level of air sovereignty by ensuring the surveillance and control of North American airspace; attack warning; and assessment of aerospace attack against North America by manned bombers, cruise missiles, or ballistic missiles and defence against bomber and cruise missile attack.

The benefits to Canada have been significant.

Norad has strengthened Canadian sovereignty and, for nearly 50 years, has given us an important voice in the defence of North America.

Norad has enabled Canada to protect its sovereignty and influence American decisions about the defence of North America, especially when Canadian interests are at stake.

Thanks to Norad, Canada and the United States are full partners in continental air defence.

In short, Norad provides Canada with an extremely cost effective capability to exercise surveillance and control over Canadian airspace. The decision to enhance Norad by incorporating a maritime warning function will provide increased protection against emerging maritime threats, such as terrorism, and will enhance the ability of Canada and the United States to respond to those threats from both outside and inside North America.

The renewal of Norad further strengthens Canada's extensive and long-standing defence relationship with the United States and the tradition of cooperation between our two countries. The continuation of Norad to meet the security challenges of today is therefore in Canada's fundamental national security interest.

We are fortunate in Canada to have as our next door neighbour the United States, a great power that shares our commitment to freedom and democracy. For 200 years we have lived peacefully side by side. Through two great wars we have stood together for freedom and democracy against authoritarian powers, even if the Americans were a bit late to the fight each time. Our shared commitment to freedom and democracy has given us the mutual benefit of confidently relying upon one another for our common defence. For Canada it has been a particularly good value.

We bring to the table over half the terrain to be defended, yet contribute less than 10% of the cost of Norad. We share an equal partnership in the command and operation of Norad, yet we enjoy the protection of significantly larger American air force assets to protect our continent, including Canada. The degree of authority Canada enjoys as an equal partner in Norad was demonstrated on September 11, 2001. On that transformative day a Canadian was at the helm at Norad.

Norad is a robust defence agreement that uniquely ensures our sovereignty in a way unlike any other bilateral defence treaty in the world, and Norad has served Canada well. The new aspects of Norad under this treaty are also welcome, although they do not significantly alter the agreement that has served so well.

The maritime warning element responds to the new threat of hostile activities reaching our shores by water, but even so, this new innovation is modest. Both the surveillance and the command control response aspects of maritime defence will remain exclusively under Canadian command in Canadian waters.

The most dramatic and historic change resulting from this new Norad treaty is in fact the very debate that we are having tonight and the vote that will follow. Throughout Canada's history, ratification of treaties has been the exclusive prerogative of the executive, the governor in council. The constitutional framework in Canada has put treaty ratification firmly in the hands of cabinet.

In fact, there are some learned academics, and we have heard some members across the way say it tonight, that view the behind closed doors traditional approach to Canadian treaty ratification as superior to the messier ratification processes one might find elsewhere.

This new government has chosen a different path. As the throne speech committed, the government will submit significant treaties to Parliament for a debate and a vote before ratification is finalized. With the greatest of respect to my friend from Pierrefonds—Dollard, ratification has not occurred. We have had the signing of a treaty. We are now having the debate and the vote. Ratification will occur at the later stage.

It is always a two step process, as anybody who has looked at Kyoto or the landmines treaty knows. Parties sign them but they do not always ratify them. Nations do not always ratify those treaties. In fact, many treaties provide for in force mechanisms only when a certain proportion have actually taken the step of ratifying the treaty. To not understand that is to not understand the dramatic nature of the precedent setting evening we are having tonight with this debate.

Those participating in tonight's debate are thus truly making history. So will every member of Parliament make history when voting on this treaty either to support its ratification or not. All members of the House of Commons will be participating in a historic debate and vote.

For that reason, I urge all members in the House to recognize the importance of Norad to Canada's defence and security, its value in safeguarding democracy and maintaining our sovereignty. Norad is a genuine partnership that has served Canada and the United States well. The decision to strengthen and continue that partnership will be a cornerstone of ensuring a Canada strong and free for the generations of the future.

None of my family that came to Canada seeking that freedom, hope and opportunity are with us today, but my mother and grandmother lived to see the astonishing end to the Soviet Union and the restoration of Estonian freedom. It was something that sadly my grandfather did not live to see. Although he wished fervently for that day to occur, in his heart he probably really doubted it possible. But what he never doubted, what none of them doubted was that living in North America, my brother and I and the generations to come would enjoy freedom and democracy safeguarded by the collective security arrangements of NATO and especially Norad. It is why they made their lives here.

Norad has worked well in the past. Norad continues to work well today. With the support of this House we can ensure that Norad will work well for Canada for years to come securing the freedom and democracy that are the Canadian values we treasure most of all.

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming struck some of the same notes the member for Vancouver South did earlier, so I am going to ask the member a number of questions.

First, does he agree with the member for Vancouver South that this debate should not even be happening because it is improper in our constitutional process to put debates like this before Parliament?

In regard to the member's view of openness, does he agree with the member for Vancouver South that this debate should not be happening in that regard?

Also, could he point me to any agreement or any treaty that the last government put in front of this House for debate and approval by Parliament?

Furthermore, could he advise this House whether the 2004 amendments that the previous Liberal government brought into the Norad treaty, which deal with sharing of information for ballistic missile purposes, were brought to this House for a debate and a vote?

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that our government does share the very heartfelt sentiment of the member for Halifax that non-proliferation efforts should succeed. We certainly are not throwing in the towel on that. However, in view of the track records that we see in Iran and North Korea, sadly the non-proliferation treaty is not always as effective as we might like it to be and we have to recognize in this world that protecting ourselves with a hope and a prayer is not always good enough. That is why we have to realize that at times defence solutions are required.

However, I want to go back to what the member for New Westminster—Coquitlam said because there were inaccuracies that need to be corrected. She spoke about how the new Norad treaty puts on the table maritime surveillance and how this was a Trojan Horse that the Americans would participate in maritime surveillance. I appreciate there was a concern that the three days they have had to read it is not long enough, but the treaty says, “Maritime surveillance and control shall continue to be exercised by national commands”. That means by Canada Command.

If the concern is that in maritime surveillance being included we do not have an adequate recognition of our sovereignty, in fact, this is a victory for our sovereignty. There is an acknowledgement of maritime sovereignty there and surveillance and command remain exclusively national matters. That was not accurately reflected. In fact, it was inaccurately suggested that maritime surveillance was included.

In terms of the inclusion of the availability of information on ballistic missile defence, that is not new in this treaty. That has been there since 2004, since the previous amendment. In terms of looking at the changes of what is new in this treaty, there is simply no change whatsoever, no step in any direction toward missile defence.

As for the Bi-National Planning Group, I am sure that the member for Halifax West would be happy to share with the House the fact that it is coming to an end. That group is shutting down this month. As a result, any fears the member has from it should be dissipated. I am sure the member would like to confirm that to the House.