Gerald Keddy

[ATLANTIC SHELLFISH INDUSTRY, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I am proud to rise in this debate tonight. My question is quite simple.

There is a fair amount of confusion and misinformation being spread about the actual status of the stocks and the responsible solution that the minister has found for a very difficult subject. It is never fun to tell a fisherman that there are less fish to catch. If the previous government had done that more often, we would not be in a lot of the trouble that we are in now.

During his speech, the member for Cape Breton—Canso chose to make a drive-by smear about one individual licence granted in Nova Scotia. The member for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte asked a number of questions in the House about the same licence. Would the hon. member from the NDP agree to have the individual come to the fisheries committee to explain his side of the story?

People in this House may not know Tim Rhyno but I do. He is a 13th generation fisherman who had his licence stolen from him by the federal Liberal government. His grandfather sailed on the Blue Nose. Now that does not entitle him to a crab licence but it does tell us that he is a fisherman born and bred. I am appalled at the absolutely unethical, slanderous, morally incompetent and wrong allegations that have been made against this fisherman.

The member from the NDP can listen to the Liberals or he can listen to my question. Will the member allow this guy to come to committee to tell his own story or will he listen to the Liberals?

[May 10th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I have been to Colombia. I have met dozens and dozens of Colombians. We have had dozens of human rights advocates and NGOs at committee. I have read thousands of words of testimony and listened to thousands of words of testimony.

The reality is that the situation in Colombia has improved. It has improved dramatically. Is the situation perfect? Absolutely not. No one is trying to pretend that it is; however, no one should ever say that it has not improved dramatically and substantially in a quantitative way from the situation that was there, certainly in the 1990s and early 2000s.

I think everyone in this House believes that human rights and increased prosperity through trade and investment are not mutually exclusive. At the same time the FTA was signed, we also signed a labour co-operation agreement and an environmental co-operation agreement. Under the terms of that agreement, we both have to uphold fundamental principles.

[May 10th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly the hon. member's privilege to go from the question he had actually planned to ask, strictly on human rights, to another issue. I will try to deal with both.

The public can decide whether or not to take the hon. member's allegations as fact, or maybe the public would be wise to do a bit of investigation into the issue themselves, read up on the facts, listen to what everyone is saying about this particular subject, and ensure that what the hon. member has said is correct.

The same hon. member came to committee a couple of months ago on this very same issue, with breaking news that two families of indigenous people had been murdered in the jungle by the government forces. Of course, all hon. members at committee were outraged that such a thing could occur. We realize there is a lot of violence in Colombia, but that is a pretty serious allegation.

When we actually studied that allegation, we found out that the two families of indigenous people were not murdered by the government in Colombia at all. They were murdered by the socialist insurrection, or FARC, in the jungles in Colombia because they were narco-traffickers who are as much the cause as the paramilitaries of individual human rights abuses in Colombia. However, let us be clear. Certainly, I would invite hon. members and citizens to check the record on that.

The government has already explained many times that human rights are at the centre of our relationship with Colombia. We monitor the human rights situation in Colombia and regularly raise human rights issues with Colombian officials at the highest level in both Bogota and Ottawa. We hold formal senior level consultations on human rights with Colombia. We also raise human rights issues in Colombia in a multilateral form, such as the universal periodic review mechanism of the UN Human Rights Council and the International Labour Organization.

Furthermore, when we signed the FTA, we also signed a labour cooperation agreement and an agreement on the environment. In the labour cooperation agreement, both countries committed to ensure that their laws respect the International Labour Organization's declaration on fundamental principles and rights at work, which uphold human rights in a number of areas.

Without question, human rights challenges remain in Colombia. However, in recent years the government of Colombia has demobilized over 30,000 paramilitaries and weakened the two main armed groups. Philip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on extra-judicial summary or arbitrary executions, said in June 2009, following his visit to Colombia, that while vulnerable groups remain threatened in Colombia, there was also a dramatic improvement in the security situation since 2002. The hon. member does not have to take that hon. gentleman's word for that, but I will certainly take it.

The total number of homicides has been substantially reduced. The security levels in many parts of the country have been transformed and we continue, as Canadians, to support substantial development, peace and security activities in Colombia. DFAIT's global peace and security fund has disbursed over $18 million since 2006 on peace-building activities and efforts to pursue justice for victims of the conflict in Colombia.

This is not a simple conflict. This is not an easy conflict. This is a conflict that has gone on for decades. At the end of the day, what needs to be recognized here is that Colombia is making important headway on--

[May 10th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, my rebuttal will be simple. Let us just set the record straight. The funding for the Atlantic coastal action program has not been terminated. The shift to an ecosystems based approach is not simple. It takes time to do it the right way and the best way for Atlantic Canadians and for all Canadians. Above all else, we are else committed to doing this the right way. That is our responsibility to Canadians and we take that responsibility seriously.

[May 10th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member may have forgotten what his question was.

His question was about environmental groups in New Brunswick that he was alleging were not going to receive funding from the federal government. Those environmental groups would be under the Atlantic coastal action plan program, a program that I am very familiar with, a program that Bluenose Coastal Action Foundation group in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's does a great job delivering.

On April 7, it was announced that all 16 Atlantic coastal action program organizations would receive funding through the 2010-11 year, while making the transition to an ecosystem based model of environmental management.

Environment Canada is committed to ensuring that Canadian ecosystems are healthy, prosperous and sustainable and the government has taken enormous steps to protect sensitive ecosystems for present and future generations. For example, in Atlantic Canada we are moving forward with the protection of Sable island through a consultation program process that will see the important natural treasure and its many ecosystems protected for all Canadian forever.

Every year Environment Canada spends millions and millions of dollars on restoring habitat, addressing other threats to recover species at risk under the habitat stewardship program as well as taking action at the community level under the eco-action program to provide for clean air, water and land.

We are proud of our history with these community based organizations and the environmental successes that we have realized together.

We regret the time it took to fully review the Atlantic coastal action program and any undue burden that this placed on the ACAP organizations. However, the important issue is the result of this review is the transition to an integrated approach to environmental management that will offer greater benefits to Atlantic Canadians consistent with the approach taken across the country.

We certainly know and understand that all environmental policies are important. We also know there is a greater environmental awareness, not only from members in this place but from the general public and a demand that we preserve and protect the environment for future generations.

That is why we supported the ACAP group again for this 2010-11 year and that is why the Atlantic coastal action program will be transferred over to an ecosystem based approach. That approach, while it is not simple to do, is a good approach and will serve future generations well.

[Firearms Registry, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, another day and another serious gaffe for the Liberal leader and his team.

Last week, it was revealed that the Liberal leader used a photo of an American police officer to promote forcing his MPs to support the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. Even worse, the Liberals falsely Photoshopped the badge of the Ottawa Police Service on to the shoulder of that American police officer to make it look as if Canadian police officers support his initiative.

Not only did this show that a culture of deceit exists within the Liberal Party but it also broke the law. Ontario's Police Services Act and regulations prohibit municipal police officers from engaging in political activity while in uniform. The Liberal leader had to falsely place the badge of the Ottawa Police Service because no police officer would break the law in the way the Liberals suggest.

It is shameful for the Liberal Party to use our police in this way. This is not just a matter of law. It is a matter of trust.

[May 6th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I guess a direct answer is the best answer for the hon. member. However, to be fair, I did not ask him to clarify his position. I am glad he did. He does not support trade agreements. His party has never voted for any trade agreement that has come to the House. I do not know how it expects Canadians to have jobs and feed their families. We are a trading nation. I am glad he clarified his position on that.

I do not need to clarify my position on supply management. I can tell the hon. member and everyone else in the House that our party has defended and supported supply management at every negotiation and opportunity in this place and abroad.

The reality is the supply management industry is not knocking down my door. It is not asking for meetings with the parliamentary secretary or the minister on a regular basis. The reason for that is it knows the position of this government and this government supports supply management.

[May 6th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am a little bit puzzled that we are here tonight in the House talking about supply management. Certainly, no government in the history of this country has ever been more clear and more direct in its support for supply management.

The current Minister of International Trade, the former minister of international trade and the minister of international trade before him, all Conservative ministers, have supported supply management. We have debated it at committee. We have debated it in the House. Our position has never changed. We have been behind our farmers in supply management 100%.

I spoke on supply management myself at the WTO in Delhi. I have spoken at committee many times. I have to ask the question myself. Why are we speaking about supply management again, unless somebody is trying to spread misinformation about the position that this government has taken on supply management? The former government put supply management on the table in Doha. We fought against that in opposition, and certainly supply management has been defended every day by this government.

What we have here is a negotiation with the EU. Of course, the member would not want to talk about a free trade agreement or a comprehensive trading agreement with the European Union because his party has never support any free trade agreement that has come to the House.

The reality is that we are negotiating a trade agreement, a high quality, ambitious agreement with the EU. It is a priority for our government and for Canada. These negotiations represent a huge opportunity for all Canadians, including Canadian farmers. But specifically, in regard to supply management, our government has made it very clear we strongly support supply management.

We continue to defend interests that are important to these industries in particular. The hon. member mentioned milk, but he would also realize that the feather and egg industry also supply manage. It is specific to those industries. We also look out for the interests of farmers who are not supply managed. That is the job of government and that is a job that we take very seriously in our ongoing negotiations with the European Union.

The reality is that we live in a country that is based on trade. We have tremendous potential to expand opportunities for Canadian businesses, to expand opportunities for Canadian workers, to supply more dollars in Canadian homes, and open up opportunities for European businesses, families, workers and homes as well.

This is not a one-way street. Supply management is not on the table and the hon. member knows that. He is being a bit disingenuous when he tries to say that it is, but it is a fulsome and complete negotiation that will have discussions on a number of issues. At the end of the day we hope to be able to agree on a comprehension trading agreement with the European Union that will benefit both the European Union and Canada.

[International Trade, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a time of economic uncertainty and this government is working to open new doors for Canadian business.

The economic agreement that we are hopefully signing with the European Union has the potential to increase trade between Canada and Europe by $12 billion and to provide jobs and opportunities not just for Canadians and not just for Europeans, but to set a standard for the rest of the world to follow.

[Cancer Awareness Month, April 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, as all hon. members know, April is daffodil month, otherwise known as Cancer Awareness Month.

I encourage all Canadians to join in the fight against cancer. We can all take action to reduce the risk by working to have a healthy lifestyle.

I am proud to say that our government is committed to working in partnership to fight cancer. Our support for the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, in which we invested $260 million, is leading the tangible actions that will benefit all Canadians in the prevention and the control of cancer.

In addition to this, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research provided $138 million for cancer research funding.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers and caregivers for their support to patients and organizations that fundraise to help find a cure.

Everyone in the House has been touched by cancer in some way. Let us all work together to eliminate cancer.