House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 55% of the vote.
Business of Supply April 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member say that the motion is clear as it implies. Right there is the evidence that there is not much clarity at all.
He talks about the frustration that he has experienced with this party. The reality is that our government was the first government to provide a vote on this mission. The Liberals, when they launched this mission, gave the army--
Business of Supply April 19th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that we deeply mourn yesterday's loss of a dedicated soldier and a fine Canadian. A member of Canada's Special Operations Forces died yesterday due to injuries from an accident that occurred in Afghanistan.
This is a time of great sorrow for his family and friends. On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to extend my deepest condolences to them during this difficult time. Our thoughts and prayers are with them.
Canadians stand united in pride and gratitude behind our Canadian Forces. We honour their courage and commitment. Their sacrifice will not be forgotten.
We are here today debating this motion because the Liberal Party of Canada now sees fit to abandon the mission to which it originally committed our nation. It seems that even in opposition the Liberals are determined to continue their new leader's record of not getting the job done. Is that the legacy we want to have for our Afghanistan mission? That we did not get the job done?
Interestingly, the deputy leader of the opposition, the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, has some different views. Let us look at what he has said about this mission just in the last several months. He said:
What I learned there is you cannot do development in Afghanistan unless you control the security situation. The schools and clinics you build by day are burned down by night unless you have the troops to secure the development gains that you have made.
Is the Liberal Party now committed to abandoning the children and patients even if we have not stabilized the security situation by 2009? The deputy leader said:
States like Canada cannot be safe if we let Afghanistan fail...and become a base for terrorist attacks.
Is the Liberal Party now committed to gambling that Afghanistan will not become a safe haven for terrorists again? The deputy leader said:
We have got to be a party that stands for human rights everywhere, that does the tough lifting when it has to be done...You ask us to do something hard and difficult and we can do it. We're doing it in Afghanistan. It's in the greatest tradition of our country and that's the kind of country we want.
Is the Liberal Party now committed to risking human rights and the great tradition of our country?
He went further. He wrapped the mission in his own party's flag just last summer when he said:
Liberals need to remember this is a Liberal mission. We're in Afghanistan because of the leadership of the two previous Liberal governments...We, as a party, cannot abandon what is right or what we believe for political convenience.
Finally, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party told us, “We should stay there until we get the job done...”.
In 2009, are Canadians going to be saying that we did not get it done? We are talking about the future of a country. We are talking about the future of some 30 million people, people just like us, except that we have the good fortune of living in Canada.
At this time of year, while many Canadians are engrossed in NHL playoffs and tax returns, Afghans are overwhelmed by much more fundamental preoccupations. Will their daughters be safe as they go off to school today? Will their crops wither from the drought this year? Or can they really rest assured that the Taliban who scattered from their village months ago have no plans to return?
Human lives hang in the balance. The motion hastily put forward today, which asks this House to call upon the government to terminate the Canadian Forces operation in Afghanistan by February 2009, demands that we make a hugely important decision without sufficient information and analysis.
Certainly February 2009 is the current date to which we are held. It is the date that the members of this House supported. For that reason, it must be taken seriously.
However, any proposal for an extension or a termination of our military mission in Afghanistan beyond February 2009 must be analyzed with the highest level of scrutiny, with the utmost appreciation for the work that Canadians and our allies have invested thus far, and with heartfelt concern for the plight of the Afghan people.
Out of respect for the vote taken by parliamentarians in May 2006, I insist that we not rush to judgment here today.
We brought forward a motion to the House to extend the current Afghan mission to February 2009. The government has been clear that if it were to seek a further extension it would come to Parliament to do that, and that remains our position.
There is no doubt that this mission has come at a cost. Tragically, it has cost Canadian lives. The costs to Canada form a crucial part of the equation when we look at the viability of this mission for Canada in the years to come.
However, the costs are only one part of the equation. The men and women who are currently facing danger in Afghanistan are well aware of this.
They understand that when we evaluate this mission we also need to weigh the reasons for it and the potential to make a difference.
The reasons are straightforward. The government of Afghanistan has asked for our help. Our allies and partners are depending on our contributions. The mission has been authorized by the United Nations and is being led by NATO. And quite simply, the future stability of Afghanistan has a bearing on the security of the world and the security of Canada.
This mission is not just about help for the Afghans. It is about international peace and security.
For example, as the Minister of National Defence highlighted in Montreal a few weeks ago: six million Afghan children, one-third of them girls, now go to school compared to 700,000 in 2001, all of whom were boys; 6,000 kilometres of roads have been built and repaired; 2,500 villages have electricity for the first time; and 80% of Afghans now have access to basic health care, compared to only 8% in 2001.
What if we took the Canadian Forces out of the equation?
The fact is that security is needed for development and reconstruction initiatives to move forward. Development and reconstruction need to continue if the people of Afghanistan are going to have faith in the ability of their democratically elected government to provide for them.
This mission is an integrated pan-Canadian effort. Not only that, but Canada's efforts fit into a larger multinational mission. We are in Afghanistan with 36 other countries. We are clearly not the only ones bearing the burden of this mission. In fact, Poland, Australia and the United States, among others, have just stepped up their contributions.
Thanks in part to the efforts of the Minister of National Defence, significant progress has been made in strengthening our collective efforts in southern Afghanistan. In fact, just last week the minister held a meeting with the defence ministers of the other countries working with us in southern Afghanistan. We are part of a multinational team, a team that is depending on us.
The motion that stands before us today, which aims to carve in stone a deadline of February 2009, would have an impact far greater than many realize. It would let down our allies and partners in this mission. Quite simply, we would be shirking our responsibility to provide international and, ultimately, Canadian security.
Not only do we have international partners depending on us, but even more importantly, we have Afghan lives on the line.
Setting a deadline for the Canadian Forces' withdrawal right now would send a clear and dangerous signal to the Taliban. For the sake of the Afghans, our mission cannot be measured simply by the number of years or months we have invested. That is not an indicator of success, but simply a mark on a calendar.
We should not impose artificial deadlines that ignore the facts about progress being made toward agreed development and security objectives. This mission is to be measured by the impact we are making and will continue to make for the people of Afghanistan and for the people of Canada.
We cannot take today's motion lightly. The government will make an informed decision about this extremely important issue, based on extensive deliberations. We will also give Canadians and Parliament the opportunity to express their views on this issue.
National Defence Act March 29th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of Bill S-3, An Act to amend the National Defence Act, the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the Criminal Records Act.
When this government took office, we promised to deliver on five key priorities. Those priorities were: first, to clean up government by passing the federal Accountability Act; second, to provide tax relief to working families by cutting the GST; third, to make our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime; fourth, to help parents with the cost of raising their children; and fifth, to work with the provinces to establish a patient wait times guarantee.
I am proud to note that we have made progress on all five of these priorities, and we are moving ahead in other areas to improve the lives of Canadians. We are working toward building a stronger, safer and better Canada.
The bill we are debating today is directly related to one of our top five priorities, and that is cracking down on crime.
The existing Sex Offender Information Registration Act, or SOIRA, is an important tool for law enforcement. It provides police with rapid access to information regarding convicted sex offenders, which assists them in investigating crimes of a sexual nature.
The bill we have before us would bring the military justice system in line with the civilian criminal justice system through the SOIRA. During my time today, I want to explain how the bill would do just that.
I fully support this bill and I encourage my honourable colleagues to do the same. This is a complicated issue, so I hope to make it as clear as possible for my honourable colleagues.
I think we can benefit from looking at the current system for a moment.
In December 2004 the sex offender database was established under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act. The sex offender database is maintained by the RCMP. It assists police in investigating crimes of a sexual nature by providing them with rapid access to information regarding convicted sex offenders.
I emphasize that the obligation to register pursuant to the SOIRA is not intended to be a tool to prevent sexual offences. Nor is it meant to be an additional punishment for a person who has been convicted of a sexual offence. The sole purpose of the database is to provide law enforcement officials with an up-to-date investigative tool for offences of a sexual nature.
Let me give the House an example of how this works. If an alleged sexual offence occurs in Ottawa, the local police investigating the offence here can quickly access the database to determine what sex offenders reside in this area. When necessary, the police can interview such individuals to aid in their investigation.
I would like to emphasize that police officers cannot access the national sex offender registry for just any reason.
Police officers can only access the database if they are investigating a sexual offence. The national sex offender registry is therefore an effective tool designed to help police officers who are investigating sex crimes. However, when the sex offender database was created in 2004, it did not include people convicted in the military justice system. That is what Bill S-3 seeks to change.
Under Bill S-3, a court martial could order a convicted sexual offender to register in the sex offender database. The bill would maintain Canadian legal norms with regard to the SOIRA. It simply would ensure that convictions for sexual offences pursuant to the National Defence Act would have the same effect as in the civilian criminal justice system for the purposes of the national sex offender database. This means that if a Canadian Forces member is convicted of a sexual offence by a court martial, he or she could be required to register pursuant to SOIRA, just like a sexual offender convicted in a civilian court.
Although the amendments to the National Defence Act are designed to harmonize the military justice system with the civilian criminal justice system, they are not an exact copy of the provisions contained in the Criminal Code.
Under the SOIRA, offenders who leave Canada must provide notice and specify the dates of their departure and return. This system may work well for offenders convicted under the civilian criminal justice system. However, it poses potential problems in the case of military personnel, given the unique nature of the military operational environment.
Some Canadian Forces member can, for example, be deployed from their home base with very little advance notice. This can occur, for instance, in response to a domestic emergency or for a deployment overseas. Depending on the nature of the operation, the release of the member's date of departure could put in peril the security of our armed forces and our allies.
Bill S-3 recognizes this fact and a certain amount of flexibility is therefore built into the bill. The bill would provide authority to the governor in council to designate registration centres for the Canadian Forces that could be located both inside and outside of Canada. As well, the bill would allow the Chief of the Defence Staff to determine how a sex offender could fulfill the reporting requirements and exercise the rights established under the SOIRA. I will explain these rights in more detail later in my speech.
First, if an offender's operational obligations prevent him or her from exercising their legal rights or for meeting some of the SOIRA requirements, the bill would address the situation. The key to this authority is that it would be only used to remedy a situation involving two conflicting legal obligation. This authority would allow Canadian Forces members to exercise their rights or satisfy their obligation under the SOIRA once their operational obligations have been completed. Ultimately, the offender would be required to fully comply with the SOIRA requirements.
Second, the bill would allow certain information to be excluded from the database when the Chief of the Defence Staff determined the release of this information could jeopardize national security, international relations or certain types of operations. However, the Chief of the Defence Staff would not exercise the authority granted under Bill S-3 for just any reason. The Chief of the Defence Staff could only exercise this authority when a registered offender could not comply with his or her reporting obligation for operational reasons. We do not expect that this authority would be exercised very often.
In essence, this important provision would allow a sex offender to report under the SOIRA while ensuring that information which could jeopardize national security, international relations or operational security would not be disclosed.
To summarize, Bill S-3 would extend the registration scheme of the SOIRA to individuals convicted of sexual offenders under the National Defence Act. This would bring the military justice system in line with the civilian criminal justice system, while taking into consideration the unique operational requirements of the Canadian Forces.
Bill S-3 would also ensure that the military justice system would continue to reflect the same legal norms that exist within the civilian justice system.
Bill S-3 is a step forward in terms of the government's efforts to fight crime. This government has given the police more tools and resources to fight crime.
The Sex Offender Information Registration Act is a valuable tool for police to investigate crimes of a sexual nature. This is why we want to extend the SOIRA registration scheme to individuals convicted of sexual offences under the National Defence Act.
I am thankful for the cooperation of all members who have allowed this worthy bill to go forward.
Interparliamentary Delegations March 28th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House a report from the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, concerning the parliamentary visit to the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, held in Georgetown, Guyana, from January 7 to 13, 2007.
Mr. Speaker, this is the height of Liberal hypocrisy. The Liberals should be ashamed to even ask this question in light of the fact that they were going to close Goose Bay and eliminate all the jobs; whereas we are protecting Goose Bay by investing over $30 million, creating jobs and protecting the future viability of this important infrastructure.
When the member opposite talks about words ringing hollow, he should look to himself first.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to share with the House more about what this government is doing for Goose Bay.
First and foremost, I want to assure the House that this government cares about the people of Happy Valley-Goose Bay and their concerns for long term economic viability. Consequently, we are committed to ensuring the future of Goose Bay as a usable infrastructure for military and civilian aviation.
Last summer we awarded a contract to resurface the main runway at the Goose Bay airport. This important project, valued at over $30 million, is expected to be completed this summer. It will enhance the marketability of Goose Bay to a wider range of commercial aviation, while maintaining that infrastructure for use by both Canadian and foreign militaries for many years to come. Moreover, resurfacing the runway will create employment and contribute to the economy of Goose Bay and eastern Labrador.
In awarding the contract, we made sure that the airport would remain fully operational for commercial and military flights throughout the resurfacing work.
It is important to note that Goose Bay is currently a civilian airport operated by DND. Given that civilian air transport is the mandate of Transport Canada, officials from DND have been in discussions with Transport Canada and Treasury Board in order to reach an agreement that will ensure that the Goose Bay airport is managed as effectively as possible.
In August 2006 DND signed a six month lease with Goose Bay Airport Corporation, which is the body responsible for the management, operation and maintenance of the civil aviation area at Goose Bay. This short term lease, which has been renewed, was undertaken to provide the time necessary to develop a longer term solution for the airport.
In addition, Goose Bay Airport Corporation has recently submitted a letter of application to Transport Canada for funding of a new airport terminal.
Goose Bay is a tremendous asset for both civilian and military aviation in northeastern Canada.
As we announced during the last election campaign, we already have proposals for how to give Goose Bay a new lease on life. As part of our Canada first defence strategy, we have proposed many initiatives that will give Goose Bay a key role in defending Canada's northeast coast. This government has committed to give Goose Bay a key role in our Canada first defence strategy.
I can assure the hon. member that further positive announcements regarding the base and the airport will be made in the near future.
Canadian Forces February 21st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, on January 28 a fundraising event was held in my riding to kick off the support our troops campaign to send packages, cards and letters of support to Canadian Forces serving in Afghanistan.
Books, Tim Hortons gift certificates and other items have been assembled into packages and are on their way to Kandahar. When I was in Afghanistan last month, I saw first-hand how much efforts such as these mean to our soldiers. Their rec centre is plastered with posters, banners and letters from Canadians. The kind of public support our troops see on the news and televised rallies through campaigns such as the support our troops initiative is appreciated more than we here in Canada realize.
I want to publicly recognize and commend Mr. Clifford Grant, the constituent who spearheaded this initiative and organizations such as the Rotary Club of White Rock, for their continued support of the Canadian Forces.
The pride we feel in our troops is no better expressed than through endeavours such as these.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has asked even more questions which I honestly do not believe he is expecting answers to, so I will take them as rhetorical.
There is a question that should be asked of him. Canadians are wondering why the member opposite is so concerned about the need for a strong military presence when he has not objected to the policy of his own leader who advocates for no military presence in the Arctic. In fact, his leader would rather turn the Arctic into a giant national park that could be a place for international scientists to monitor the region.
Could the member opposite explain to Canadians watching why his position is so out of touch with that of his leader?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has asked more questions than can possibly be answered in the few minutes I have, but I would like to thank him for raising this very important issue.
I welcome the opportunity to share with him and with the viewing audience what this government and National Defence are in fact doing to assert our sovereignty and provide security for Canadians who live in the north.
National Defence is strongly committed to the protection of Canada's security and sovereignty in the north. This is an important part of our Canada First defence strategy.
Indeed, during the last election campaign, we promised to make the Canadian Arctic a priority.
Last summer, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence both travelled to the Arctic to emphasize this commitment. During their travel to Yellowknife, Alert, Iqaluit, Resolute and Goose Bay, they met with the local population and officials to talk about how the Canadian Forces could best serve this vast region of the country.
That trip was merely a first step in what will be a sustained effort to improve our ability to better serve Canadians in the north.
National Defence has started to explore options to achieve our goals, including our goal to improve CF surveillance and response capabilities in the northern territories and also to allow our military to better support the government's efforts in asserting our sovereignty and ensuring security in the Arctic.
As part of our efforts to bolster the role of the Canadian Forces in the north, we made the commitment to pursue a three-ocean navy capable of operating in all Canadian waters. Accordingly, the Minister of National Defence asked the Canadian Forces to look at options and make recommendations to enhance our naval presence in the north in a way that is both affordable and effective.
The building of a berthing facility in the Arctic is another key component of our defence plan for the north.
On that issue, DND is currently exploring several options and continues to consult other federal departments in the context of this process.
In addition, we are currently looking at ways to expand our air force capabilities in the Arctic to meet our needs for an army Arctic warfare training centre and strengthen the Rangers' presence in the region. Developments like the establishment of Canada Command and the recent increase in the duration and frequency of Ranger patrols are certainly promising, but this government knows it needs to do more.
There has been a great deal of discussion concerning our commitments with respect to our northern defence strategy, “Canada First”, and I understand that Canadians want to know more about our projects.
The Department of National Defence is indeed in the process of developing a plan for the Arctic as part of our Canada first defence strategy. Once this plan has been approved by the cabinet, the minister and I will be happy to share the details with the member opposite so that the details can be known to the House and Canadians.
We stand by the commitments we have made to the Arctic. I can assure the House and the member that this government will make good on those commitments.
Interparliamentary Delegations February 9th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House reports from the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 18th Commonwealth Parliamentary Seminar held in the Turks and Caicos from May 28 to June 3, 2006.