Russ Hiebert

[Norad, May 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be participating in tonight's debate on the renewal of the North American Aerospace Defense Command agreement, or Norad.

As the hon. members are well aware, Canada and the United States have a longstanding friendship. No two countries could have stronger political, economic, social and cultural ties.

Our security and defence relationship remains the closest and the most highly developed in the world. There are few other countries that have such trust and confidence in each other.

Norad is a key element of the Canada-U.S. defence relationship and is a symbol of our shared commitment to the defence of North America. However, our military cooperation does not end with Norad. For decades we have been working together in a wide range of other defence activities.

I would like to put the renewal of the Norad agreement into context by reviewing the Canadian-American defence relationship.

We have maintained a strong defence and security relationship between our two countries for over 60 years. In 1938 American President Franklin D. Roosevelt said in a speech at Queen's University that the people of the United States would not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil were threatened by any nation. A few days later Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King replied that Canada would not permit enemy forces to attack the United States by land, sea or air from Canada.

Both countries agreed then, as they do now, that they would never become a security liability to the other. This commitment was reaffirmed during the second world war with the Ogdensburg Agreement of 1940, the first bilateral defence agreement between Canada and the United States, which created a permanent joint board on defence to oversee the defence of “the northern half of the western hemisphere”.

Over the years, new bilateral agreements and arrangements have been negotiated between our two countries, and Norad is the best known of these.

Our military partnership includes a long list of treaties and memoranda of understanding that covers all aspects of our military activities, ranging from joint planning, operations, logistics and combined exercises to defence production, research and development, and intelligence. In total, our partnership includes roughly 145 bilateral fora which provide regular consultation between our two countries.

Canadian-American defence cooperation also extends to the field of defence production, research and development. The Defence Production Sharing Agreement signed in 1956 has defined the terms of our bilateral defence trade and has provided the Canadian defence industry with significant opportunities, including access to the American defence market.

At the same time, the Defence Development Sharing Agreement, signed in 1963, has helped Canadian companies develop products used by the American armed forces while promoting research and development in Canada.

Trade in defence goods between Canada and the United States amounts to over $3 billion annually. The long-standing industrial cooperation between our two countries has resulted in a highly integrated North American defence industrial establishment supporting some 50,000 aerospace and defence jobs in Canada.

There is also the Canada-U.S. test and evaluation program which allows our countries to use each other's defence facilities for the testing and evaluation of weapons systems and military equipment. And of course, Canada and the United States are linked to a wide range of multinational organizations, including NATO and the United Nations.

Our troops work together on the national and international scenes. About 600 members of the Canadian Forces are serving in the United States at present, about half of them assigned to Norad duties, and more than 150 Americans are serving in Canada. Of course, our troops are working together on the mission in Afghanistan, alongside other allies.

In times of national emergency our military forces have always been there to help each other. Such was the case on September 11, 2001, when terrorists struck the United States. On that terrible day, Canadian CF-18 fighters worked closely with their American counterparts in Norad to defend North American airspace from further terrorist attacks. Our disaster assistance response team and HMCS Preserver, Iroquois and Ville de Québec were all put on standby in case of further emergency.

The Canadian Forces also responded quickly to the demands of more than 200 rerouted commercial aircraft grounded in communities across Canada. Within hours, Canadian Forces transport aircraft worked closely with local airports, government agencies, Red Cross workers and countless volunteers to help cope with the heavy influx of travellers.

Just last year, as the images of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina flashed across our television screens, Canada responded by sending three naval vessels filled with medical supplies, water and other essentials to New Orleans and the devastated areas along the Gulf of Mexico.

This is what neighbours do. This is what friends do.

And we will continue to work together to protect our continent.

Canadian-American defence cooperation has lasted for more than 60 years and continues to thrive today. This government believes that this relationship serves the fundamental interests of our two countries and that it is consistent with our commitment to put Canada first.

The world has changed dramatically since the cold war ended, and we are faced with new threats now, from international terrorism to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The events of September 11, 2001 underscored the need to adapt our defence relationship in order to be equal to these new security challenges.

One of the strengths of the Canadian-American defence partnership has always been its flexibility. On countless occasions over the years, we have adapted our mutual defence arrangements to meet new security challenges. We must continue to do so.

That is exactly what the new Norad agreement aims to do. Under the new agreement, in addition to pursuing its traditional mission of aerospace warning and airspace control, Norad will also help monitor our maritime approaches.

As the Minister of National Defence said in his speech, recent events have made it all too clear that terrorists can strike at us in unexpected ways from unexpected places. Adding the maritime warning mission to Norad's function is the prudent thing to do. We are showing due diligence in the face of this unpredictable threat.

The defence partnership between Canada and the United States is extraordinary. We know each other well. We trust each other. We have a long history of working together. Our shared commitment to provide for the defence of the North American continent is constant.

We have taken concrete action when our neighbours to the south have needed our help in emergencies.

We know and understand that the details of our defence and security relationship must be flexible, that they must evolve with the changing times we are witnessing together. Alfred North Whitehead, a British philosopher who lived through the turn of the last century, said, “The art of progress is to preserve order amid change, and to preserve change amid order”.

The proposed renewal of the Norad agreement preserves the continental order to which we have become accustomed and which has served us so well, but also brings about the change that is required to adapt our relationship to today's evolving security threats, security threats that we face together as neighbours in North America, security threats against which we will continue to stand strong, side by side.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my friend's speech. In it he made some rather disparaging remarks about our child care plan. That is quite regrettable. I want to draw to his attention some of the differences between the Conservative plan and the plan that the Liberals proposed, and then ask him a very important question at the end of my comparison.

Whereas the Conservative plan will trust parents, the Liberal plan would rely on bureaucrats and politicians. Whereas the Conservative plan includes care provided in home by relatives, neighbours, friends and child care centres, the Liberal plan would have only supported government regulated centres or day care programs. Whereas our plan will invest $10.9 billion over five years, their plan was only proposing to invest $6.2 billion over that same period of time. Whereas the Conservative plan will create 125,000 day care spaces, the Liberal plan would have created none. In fact, the Liberal plan would have given the money to provinces to spend on anything, not necessarily day care spaces. Finally, whereas our plan works for stay at home parents, shift workers and people in remote areas, the Liberal plan would have only benefited those who worked a nine to five schedule.

In light of these contrasts and comparisons, will the member opposite vote against our plan and prevent the parents in his riding from benefiting from the Conservative child care program?

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I remind my hon. colleague that the democratic right that she is exercising with freedom of expression is the very right that we are trying to establish in Afghanistan. I respect her right to speak freely and I respect the right of others to ask questions but at the end of the day we have a responsibility to the forces that are present in Afghanistan. We have to assure them that they are over there for a good purpose and that we will not back down from them during a debate like the one occurring here this evening in Parliament.

To further expand on the good work that we are doing in Afghanistan, I want to remind all members in the chamber of some of the accomplishments that have occurred recently: 4.8 million children have enrolled in primary schools as a result of our assistance in Afghanistan; 3.5 million refugees have returned; 63,000 former combatants have been disarmed and demobilized; and a president, a parliament and 34 provincial councils have been elected. We are doing good work. I encourage all members to support our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I would have to disagree with the premise of the question that there is a contradiction there. I do not see any contradiction whatsoever. In fact, the primary responsibility of the forces that are present in Afghanistan are to bring peace, security and stability so that the pillars of democracy can surface and grow in that environment. Without their presence, there is no way that these important civil institutions could ever develop.

I would suggest that the hon. member take a second look at why we are playing the role that we are playing in Afghanistan.

[Canada's Commitment in Afghanistan, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for York—Simcoe.

As this is my first opportunity to rise in the House since the January election, I want to take this opportunity to thank the voters of my beautiful riding of South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale for the privilege of being re-elected to serve them for a second term. I would also like to thank the Prime Minister for the confidence and trust he has placed in me by naming me Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence.

It seems appropriate that the first opportunity I have to speak in the House as parliamentary secretary is on the subject of the most important deployment our forces will face during this Parliament. Our young men and women in Afghanistan are doing an excellent job of defending our national interests, protecting Canada and the world from terror and helping the people of Afghanistan rebuild their country.

I know that I speak for all members of this House when I offer them my full support and sincere thanks for their courage and sense of duty.

We need to recognize that it is in our national interest to see Afghanistan become a free, democratic and peaceful country. Canada is not an island which is able to live in isolation from events taking place around the world. Al-Qaeda has singled out Canada as a target for terror, which means the fight against terror is our fight. Too many countries have learned the hard way that not taking terrorists seriously is risky.

There is also the threat of drugs. If Afghanistan descends back into chaos, it would quickly become a safe haven for the production of heroin, which would likely find its way onto the streets of Canada.

The current mission in Afghanistan is also part of Canada's long tradition of standing up for what is right when it needs defending.

As part of this tradition, Canadian military personnel have participated in peacekeeping and peacemaking operations all over the world. On every occasion, Canadians have served with courage, distinction and honour.

Our current mission in Afghanistan is no exception. It demonstrates Canada's commitment to making the world a better place in which to live, not just for Canadians but for all. However peacekeeping and peace-building represent just the first steps whose real importance lies in the fact that they make what follows possible; namely, the humanitarian and development work which are helping the Afghan people build a stronger, more peaceful and prosperous country.

Here too Canada is playing a key role. Since 2001, Canada has pledged more than $650 million to aid Afghanistan in rebuilding itself after the ravages of war. Canadian Forces personnel are providing medical and dental care to Afghans, many of whom have never seen a doctor or a dentist. They are helping to rebuild schools and making sure children can safely attend them, and they are protecting the civilian population so Afghans can restart their lives.

As a result of the work of Canadians and others, thousands of Afghan refugees have returned home from Pakistan and elsewhere. For these efforts, Canadian Forces personnel have won the gratitude and support of a vast majority of the Afghan people with whom they have come into contact.

Canada is actively participating in a number of humanitarian and development projects to promote equality for women, expand the public education system for children and ensure the right to vote for all Afghans.

Thanks to these and other projects, much progress has already been made. Poverty has been reduced. Millions of Afghans are able to vote in free elections. Afghan women now enjoy rights and economic opportunities that were simply unthinkable under the Taliban. Afghan children are now able to attend school as freely as Canadian children.

These are important victories for the people of Afghanistan and they represent things worth standing up for, but for this to work we need to stay the course so our young men and women can return to a grateful Canada knowing that their self-sacrifice, hard work and courage made the world a better place. May God keep our land glorious and free.

[Excise Tax Act, November 28th, 2005]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-463, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act (rebate on goods and services tax on new homes).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to present a private member's bill respecting the GST rebate levied on new housing. The rebate is critical in reducing real estate market price distortions, particularly in my province of British Columbia where prices are reaching record highs.

The bill seeks to increase the bracket at which the GST rebate applies on new housing. The new bracket would account for price inflation, since the GST was first introduced, and would index the rebate to account for future price inflation as well.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Justice, November 23rd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, Robert Osbourne, the “bait car” auto thief, was convicted in June of this past year, yet he is eligible for parole as early as this December. He is supposedly serving four years for a string of auto thefts and a reckless high speed chase. He exceeded speeds of 140 kilometres an hour in residential areas.

There have already been 11 deaths related to auto theft in B.C. this year. When will the justice minister stand up and stop parole for dangerous criminals? Why does four years mean only six months in the Liberal soft on crime justice system?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the member mention in his comments the root causes of crime, because for the past few months I have been holding meetings across Canada as co-chairman of our Conservative Party's task force on safe streets and healthy communities. I have heard from police officers, youth workers and city councillors about the exploding problem of crystal meth abuse. It is becoming a scourge on our Canadian cities.

This is what the 2005 report of Criminal Intelligence Service Canada states about methamphetamine abuse in Canada:

Methamphetamine use is on the increase in many parts of the country, but primarily in Western Canada. The bulk of this methamphetamine is manufactured domestically in Canada in small clandestine laboratories...Organized crime groups involved in the illicit methamphetamine industry include outlaw motorcycle gangs, specific Asian crime groups, and independent organized crime groups.

The report quotes Chief Richard Deering of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, who states:

Substantive evidence indicates that about 95% of the property crime reported to us is directly linked to the illicit drug trade, which is, for all intents and purposes, controlled by organized crime groups that have refined the ability to profit from criminal activity to a science.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, November 16th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and follow up on a question I asked of the Minister of Justice on October 19 in question period.

My question was prompted by the outrageous comments of some of the minister's Liberal colleagues. First, there were the comments by Vancouver mayor and would be Liberal Senator Larry Campbell, who referred to concerns expressed about the growing crystal meth problem as “garbage”. Then there were the comments of the member for Richmond who said that our concerns about crystal meth were “irresponsible fearmongering”.

I raise these issues to remind the House that in the riding of the same member from Richmond three crystal meth operations were found shortly thereafter.

I want to use the bulk of my time to comment on some of the work that has been done to deal with the issue of crystal meth. I note that while the minister has committed a small sum toward education and addiction treatment, these funds although welcome, we must do more to recognize a society wide effort is needed to discourage and suppress drug abuse.

Unfortunately, the government is sending very mixed messages to society. On the one hand we have the reforms recently announced by the government to treat methamphetamine production and abuse more seriously. On the other hand we have a trend toward decriminalization of cannabis and state sponsored shooting galleries for heroin addicts.

On the one hand the government is saying that it is getting serious about treating crystal meth as a hard drug in the Criminal Code. Yet on the other hand it is refusing to adopt mandatory minimum sentences, eliminating conditional sentences and parole for violent offenders. Once again, we have the spectacle of a Liberal government that talks a good line, but fails to deliver results.

I want to tell the House that people in my riding know better than to wait for a federal Liberal promise to be fulfilled or for positive action to be taken. They have seized the initiative themselves and set up a community organization dedicated to fight crystal meth abuse.

The Surrey Methamphetamine Regional Task Force, better known by its acronym SMART, is focused on education and public awareness, health services and enforcement. Just yesterday SMART held a public meeting in Surrey to raise awareness about the drug.

Bruce Hayne, a past-president of the Surrey Chamber of Commerce, has taken a leadership role in the crystal meth battle and is chairing SMART. He was joined by several other concerned citizens, including Gary Hollick, publisher of the Surrey Now newspaper, who is leading the local education campaign and Denyse Houde and Lois Dixon of the Fraser Health Authority who are advocating for additional addiction services.

The Superintendent of the Surrey RCMP, Fraser MacRae, and Surrey Fire Chief, Len Garis, are coordinating on the law enforcement aspects of this problem. I want to congratulate these citizens for the good work they are doing.

As a member of Parliament for a part of Surrey, I also have a role to play in pushing for the kind of criminal laws that ensure we get crystal meth lab operators and dealers off our streets and away from our playgrounds.

I stand here today to demand that the government toughen up sentencing for crystal meth convicts.

Again, will the minister admit that the member for Richmond is wrong and that the would be senator from Vancouver is also wrong, that crystal meth is a scourge on our communities? Will he admit that the concerns that groups such as SMART have raised about the abuse of this narcotic are neither “garbage” nor “irresponsible fearmongering”?

Will the minister admit that the crystal meth problem has grown worse under his watch? Will the minister admit that the actions that matter are the actions that deliver results? Will he admit that his actions to the present do not address the critical issue of sentencing of crystal meth producers and dealers?

[Justice, November 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the Lower Mainland of British Columbia is now Canada's capital of crime. According to the Vancouver Sun , “Crime is rampant throughout the GVRD, no community is immune”.

The Liberal failure to tackle grow ops, the Liberal failure to provide enforcement capacity, and its failure to toughen up the Criminal Code are all reasons why crime is rampant. It has been 12 years of Liberal failure.

Why have the federal Liberals allowed crime to skyrocket in the Lower Mainland?