Gerald Keddy

[Operation Apollo, October 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, today in Halifax family and friends of Canada's military gathered with the Governor General and members of parliament as Canadians bid farewell to the 1,000 men and women of Canada's armed forces embarking on Operation Apollo.

The frigate Charlottetown, the supply ship Preserver and the destroyer Iroquois will leave Halifax as the main body of the Canadian naval task group. These ships will meet up with the HMCS Halifax, which is already serving in the Persian Gulf area.

It is never easy to commit troops to war and we sincerely wish them Godspeed and safe return. They perform an important role in obtaining peace and security in the world.

These ships will join an aircraft carrier battle group and actively participate in protecting the force. These men and women have been well trained and are prepared to do duty. They will be missed by their families, but they can rest assured they will never be far from the thoughts of all Canadians from coast to coast.

[International Actions Against Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I have waited some time, with a fair amount of patience, to take part in this take note debate. A number of thoughts come to me concerning this debate, but I have to say that I gave some thought to not even participating in this form of debate in the House of Commons.

Surely with an issue of this magnitude and of this importance, we should not simply participate in a committee of the whole on a take note debate where every member of parliament, as long as members of parliament are willing to show up and speak up, can speak for 10 minutes and simply sit down, with no requirement for the minister of defence to speak, for the minister of transportation to speak or for the Prime Minister to speak. Surely this is a matter of much greater importance than that.

As it worked out, we were able to hear from the leaders of all the respective political parties and I applaud all of them. I did not agree with all of them, but I certainly applaud all of them for their contributions.

However, it is certainly disgraceful, perhaps even disdainful, that we do not look at this issue with more importance and take the opportunity to have a full fledged debate in the House of Commons. We have committed troops to war. We did not do that with a debate and a motion on behalf of the House of Commons. We did not use the parliamentary system in the way it was meant to be used.

There has been a lot of discussion about the events of September 11. In no way, shape or form have any parliamentarians spoken in favour or even partially in favour of what happened on September 11. Everyone in the House has raised that issue, many of them very poignantly, and everyone has been adamantly against that type of violence in the world. What has been missed is the interpretation of how Canada should react to those events and even how other countries in the world, especially the United States, have reacted to those events.

It was with some concern that I listened to the debate on our opposition day motion and did not hear support for it from the New Democratic Party. It was with profound regret that I realized the New Democratic Party had no intention of supporting our opposition day motion. For the benefit of people who are watching this debate at home, I would like to explain very briefly what that opposition day motion was. It is very important to the debate at hand here this evening.

The motion put forth today by the right hon. member for Calgary Centre, from the PC/DR coalition, states:

That this House reaffirm its condemnation of the terrorist attacks against our NATO ally, the United States of America, on September 11, 2001, and affirm its support for Canada's courageous men and women in the Canadian Forces who are responding to defend freedom and democracy in the international military coalition against terrorism; and

That this House hereby order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to sit jointly to hold frequent meetings with ministers and officials of the government and the military.

This was amended to read “frequently, including joint meetings”.

There is nothing in the motion that would prevent any member of parliament or any member of any political party in the country from supporting it.

It is appalling that members of parliament chose to vote against that. We have committed troops to war. It is our job as parliamentarians to support them. We do not necessarily have to support the government in every action the government takes, but certainly we have to support our men and women in the Canadian military.

There were a number of issues that were brought up concerning this action. One of them was the fact that somehow our NATO allies, Britain, the United States, including Canada, were bombing civilians in Afghanistan. The way this was brought up, especially by the leader of the NDP, was as if those civilians were being targeted.

It needs to be noted here in the House, the record needs to be set straight, that no one is suggesting that innocent people do not get killed or injured in war. There is a huge difference as to whether or not that was the intent.

What happened on September 11 was a deliberate act of intent to murder innocent men, women and children. What has happened in Afghanistan, where perhaps civilians have been killed, was not intended. They were not the intended target. Certainly all members of the House should recognize that.

There was a lot of discussion on whether or not Canada, the United States, Britain and the rest of our NATO allies had the right to even respond to the events of September 11. I would suggest to members who question this that they should look at a number of precedents. First, they should look at article 5 in the NATO agreement. Second, they should look at article 51 in the UN agreement.

Article 51 in the UN agreement states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

This clearly gives any member country in the UN the right to self-defence and, more important, the right to act and react in self-defence.

I would suggest that there are a number of members of parliament who talked today in the discussion and debate in the House about article 51 in the UN charter, but it is obvious that they have never read it, just as they have never read article 5 of the NATO agreement; that is the part in the NATO agreement which states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

I would suggest that not only did the members who spoke against the opposition day motion today and who stood and voted against it in this House not understand the motion, but they did not understand their job as members of parliament. They did not know what article 5 of the NATO agreement and article 51 in the United Nations charter entailed. However they should have because they referred to them in their speeches in the House.

Although I do not agree that this is the way we should debate this issue, although I do not agree that we should be coming to the House of Commons after the fact that war has been declared and we have committed troops to the field, and I vehemently do not agree with that, I still chose to participate in the debate this evening because I thought there was the matter of setting the record straight on a number of issues.

A lot of members of parliament wanted to be on the record on this issue and I am one of them. I would hope in the future, however, that we have clear and open debate with opportunities to question ministers and, most important, the Prime Minister and that we conduct ourselves as parliamentarians in a session where questions can actually be answered.

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the hon. member for Prince Albert another opportunity to answer the question raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

The parliamentary secretary has stated in the House twice if not three times that it is somehow a mistake to criticize the government and the fact that it cancelled a helicopter contract and is forcing our men and women in the armed forces to fly choppers that are 38 years of age. He says this somehow heightens tension for their families and causes them aggravation and grief.

That is utter nonsense. The men and women who fly the choppers, their families and their extended families are only too happy to see the issue raised in the House of Commons. They are thanking God someone is finally saying something and trying to get them better gear.

Would the member for Prince Albert comment on that? The parliamentary secretary--

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's words. To be frank, what came to my mind was that it was a canned speech supplied by the office of the Minister of National Defence. To say that the government has had a balanced and committed approach to the challenge, I would categorically disagree.

A committed and balanced approach in a leadership role would have indicated that the government would have recalled parliament immediately after the events of September 11, that it would have immediately taken certain measures to change things within the Ministry of Transport regarding the safety of aircraft, that we would have put our troops on some type of military footing expecting they could be committed to the operation. Most of all parliamentarians would have had an immediate debate in the House on whether or not we will commit our troops to war.

Does the hon. member think Canada should do what the government has done and that it has been correct in committing our troops to war without approval and parliamentary debate?

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point for the hon. member. The issue as I see it is quite simply exactly this motion and I am surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence did not speak to this himself.

Because the government has not been forthcoming with information for members of parliament and the various committees of the House, we have had to put forth motions to force it to come forth with information. A prime example of this of course would be the fact that it committed troops to a war zone and did not recall parliament and debate that in the House, as was done in Britain and in other parliaments in the world.

My final point is that the NDP had a great showing of discussion here about the democratic process and a lot of talk about the UN, yet it failed to even mention article 51 of the United Nations charter, which gives any country under the charter the right to self-defence.

[Supply, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, to go back to another era, perhaps Neville Chamberlain should move over and the hon. member for Halifax should sit down because they are both standing in the same place. This is not the time nor place in Canadian history to try to stand on both sides of a line. We very clearly have drawn a line here and now is the time to take a stand.

The hon. member for Halifax does represent a number of Canadian military personnel. Other members of parliament represent them as well. However, what we have is a person trying to justify a position with which the individual is not comfortable. If we listen to the speech, we cannot take a stand that is not a stand. There is an old Yiddish word schlemiel, which is someone who falls on his or her back and breaks his or her nose. I realize it is not necessarily a parliamentary phrase but it is a very important phrase.

I challenge the member for Halifax to represent Canadian military personnel, the men and women in her riding whom she represents, and to make sure that when they go into battle to represent Canada's forces on the world stage that they know they have the support of every parliamentarian here, including the member for Halifax.

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I listened intently to the hon. member's comments and I have a couple of comments and a question.

I think this is an extremely important issue for Quebec because it supplies 25% of all of Canada's lumber exports. Certainly my province of Nova Scotia supplies 7%. Timber is an extremely important industry in Atlantic Canada but at the same time, on a national scale, our part of the pie is not quite as large as Quebec's.

What has always amazed me is our local Maritime Lumber Bureau has always done its homework. We have sent delegations to Washington on an annual basis for many years. We were largely responsible for having Atlantic Canada excluded from the original softwood lumber deal based on our traditions with U.S. trade practices and on our stumpage practices.

The issue I am most afraid of at this time is the anti-dumping legislation that has been imposed. We know we are having a hearing on that on October 15, but how does the member feel the government has reacted to that? I think the government has simply allowed this to proceed almost like a runaway railroad car that is just on the track and moving forward. We have done nothing to counteract the anti-dumping charges, which are much more significant than the countervailing ones.

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, my question is for the minister. We are all well aware that the U.S. commerce department brought in a countervail of 19.3% on August 10. What we should remember is that it originally asked for 39.9%, which would have completely crippled the industry, not just cost us 30,000 jobs in B.C. and more jobs in Alberta, Quebec and Ontario.

The issue for me is that we were willing to pay the countervail and we are there now. Did the minister consider at the time pre-empting the countervail with an export tax? If not, why not?

[The Acadians, October 3rd, 2001]

My colleague mentioned Digby wharf.

There is a real concern on behalf of the mayors, the MLAs in the provincial legislature and the provincial government that the federal government is divesting itself of harbour bottoms.

I raised a question in the House regarding the actual selling of the harbour bottoms because that is exactly what is going to happen.

In several of these harbours, in particular the harbour of Bridgewater, which goes several kilometres up the LaHave River, and the harbour of Shelbourne, which is several kilometres long, if the government actually sold the bottoms of those harbours to a private individual, then what would happen to them?

Who would be responsible for any environmental assessment or environmental cleanup? Would that person own all the rights to the harbour? Could we set lobster gear on the bottom of the harbour? Could we set nets on the harbour? Would the person put the navigational aids in that harbour? Would he or she be responsible for the moorings not only for the commercial fishery but for the recreational boaters? Would he or she be responsible for harbours in front of the yacht clubs and sheltered coves where recreational boaters would be?

On June 8, as a supplementary to my question, my colleague from St. John's West asked the Minister of the Environment whether or not this was perhaps some attempt to avoid the responsibility for environmental cleanup in ports such as Liverpool or Lunenburg which have been shipbuilding centres for hundreds of years. There are perhaps things in the mud that are secure there, lead and other toxic chemicals or substances, that would be the responsibility of the federal government. As long as that bottom is not disturbed, that bottom is perfectly safe. If that bottom were disturbed, would there be a problem?

There are way too many unanswered questions.

It should be noted that the mayors of the towns on the South Shore, the wardens of the municipalities, the municipal councillors, the MLAs and the provincial government are all against the federal government divesting itself of the harbour bottoms.

It is inconceivable that the federal government would want to sell the harbour bottoms. It should maintain authority over them. If an individual wants to build a wharf or wants to put moorings in for recreational boating or for a commercial fishery venture, then he or she could go to the federal government and get the appropriate permits. However, the federal government absolutely must maintain control and ownership of what is under the salt water.

[The Acadians, October 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important opportunity during what we commonly call the late show to discuss harbour bottoms.

The government has not only made a conscious decision through Transport Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to divest itself of wharves and wharf infrastructure, but now it has gone a step further and fully intends to divest itself of the very bottoms of the harbours. That is extremely problematic for the South Shore of Nova Scotia, which is a very important player in the fishing industry. A number of wharves have been divested already.