Gerald Keddy

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I think a unilateral withdrawal would be a travesty of the worst proportions. We would leave the Afghans wide open. If Canada withdrew and other nations withdrew, we would leave them wide open to external forces. It would be an absolute bloodbath.

Let me take the last 15 seconds to look at why we are there. When I listen to the Bloc or the NDP speak about this, they would have us think that no Canadian citizens died in the twin towers. In reality, Canadians did die. That was not just an attack against the United States. It was an attack against many countries of the world. It was an attack against democracy and everything that Canada stands for and has stood for since 1867.

Surely, if we are going to stand for anything, if we are going to fight for anything, then we are going to fight for freedom and democracy on this planet.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do recognize the contribution and the supreme sacrifice that Trooper Hayakaze made on behalf of the Canadian people and for the people of Afghanistan. We should not allow that sacrifice to be wasted, quite frankly. We have an obligation to stay the course for the long term, not for the short term, and to make sure that Afghanistan returns to a peaceful, democratic and truly open country that it is very capable of being.

In respect to the 80 men and women, Canadian soldiers and diplomats, who have died in Afghanistan, there was no vote that I have ever taken in this House that was more difficult than the first vote on the mission in Afghanistan. There was no question in my mind how I would vote. I knew how I would vote at home. I knew that when my grandfather served in World War I and when my father served in World War II there was a reason for that and I knew the vote I would take. I do not think any man or woman in this place stood and voted for the mission in Afghanistan without knowing the very real, very urgent danger that we put our men and women in uniform in. For that I have nothing but respect for those soldiers, sailors and airmen.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak in favour of the motion. It is very much a testament to the government's global commitment to help people in need to build better lives for themselves. Moreover, it is a testament to the government's willingness to adapt to new challenges.

One of the points of the Manley report said that what needed improvement was the government's communication to Canadians about the mission in Afghanistan. As the Prime Minister has said, it will never be easy to communicate an issue which involves the sacrifice of our brave soldiers. Nonetheless, openness and improved communication is important. Canadians deserve to understand why we make the sacrifices that being a good global citizen requires and in some ways this is simply a matter of respect for our citizens.

It is also a matter of respect for our soldiers, especially the brave men and women in uniform who did not return home from Afghanistan. In particular, I would like to mention two of those soldiers.

Private Richard Green was killed in Afghanistan on April 17, 2002. He was 21 years old and with the 3rd Battalion of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. He was raised in Hubbards in my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's.

The other soldier I would like to recognize today is Corporal Paul Davis, who was 28 years old. He was from Bridgewater, Nova Scotia and died on March 2, 2006, in Kandahar.

I do not think we can use the names of soldiers who have not returned home from Afghanistan lightly. I said that we had to use them with respect, and I meant that. I mention them with respect. Part of the government's message, what we are doing in Afghanistan and the way we are using our men and women in uniform, has to use the word “respect”. Part of our debate tonight has to use the word “respect”, respect for this institution, respect for the rule of law, respect for your office, Mr. Speaker, respect for other members in the chamber, respect for the other people in this debate and respect, most important, for a different point of view.

However, it is also extremely important that by respecting one another and the rules of debate, we also respect the truth. We are members of Parliament. Sometimes we blur the line. Sometimes we get crowded right up against it. Sometimes we step across it. However, there is really no excuse for rational, intelligent, respectful members of Parliament to tell an untruth in this place. That is exactly what happened with the member for Outremont this evening in his discussion about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization not being a defensive organization.

I will take a moment in this debate to explain for the general public, which may been listening and may have believed the hon. member's comments as being truthful. The North Atlantic Treaty states:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

This is a defensive organization with peaceful designs that uses the threat of force in the last possible instance. Article 1 states:

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

That is pretty clear. I do not think there is too much debate over that. I do not know how someone could take that charter and somehow say it is something different from what it is.

I am not going to belabour this too much further, but article 2 states:

The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

I think that puts the issue to rest, I really do. I do not think there is any room for a lot more debate on NATO somehow being an aggressive force that is running hell-bent around the country trying to cause havoc and to wreak havoc in the countries of the world.

Before I continue my speech, there is another comment that I would like to make about this debate, which one of my colleagues mentioned earlier tonight, and it is about some of the rallies for the troops that have been occurring.

As you would know, Mr. Speaker, in Atlantic Canada we certainly have in many ways a disproportionate number of the soldiers serving. They are Atlantic Canadians and we are quite proud of that fact. These young men and women, and sometimes older men and women, have found good careers in the military and have given their all to those careers.

Along with the Minister of National Defence, I was in Shelburne for a rally with the troops. It was a cold November day. It was raining and snowing. A good group of us walked a few blocks in some inclement weather. We were not nearly as cold as the RCMP pipes and drums band, whose members were there in their kilts, and we did make it to the fire hall.

There were over 600 people crowded into that fire hall. There were nine veterans from Shelburne County who had served in Afghanistan on the stage with us. There were more men and women who were in Afghanistan at the time or who were in transit one way or another from that area. It was a true testament to Atlantic Canada and to our Canadian men and women in uniform.

This motion that we are debating today will help better communicate to Canadians the successes we are having in Afghanistan and how to move forward on the challenges. In fact, the government has taken the bold step of engaging an independent and non-partisan panel on Canada's future in Afghanistan.

Who would ever have thunk it? Who would ever have thought that? We say that a bit tongue in cheek, but in all honesty, for a sitting government to form an independent panel on an issue as critical to the country as this issue, and then be prepared to listen to that independent panel, who would have thought it?

It totally befuddles me as to how every party in the House cannot be in agreement with what that independent panel found. The Manley panel is to be commended in particular for laying out an excellent strategic and moral case for why we are in Afghanistan. More than that, Mr. Manley and his colleagues have laid a path to success that the government has fully accepted.

I am personally grateful for their work and I look forward to the fruits that it will bear. We mandated the panel to release a public report. This is not some secret report shown to the Minister of National Defence, a few of his close personal allies and the Prime Minister. It is a public report that every member in the House has had an opportunity to read to prepare themselves for the debate this evening and the one tomorrow evening. It was extensively reported in the media and discussed by experts across the country.

I have one minute left and I do not know what to do with the minute. A minute is not a whole lot of time in this place. However, I will finish up by saying that I believe this debate was good for our country and Canadians responded favourably to the conclusions. That is why we are here discussing this motion. It is to implement many of the report's recommendations.

This is a difficult issue for many people. No member of Parliament takes his or her job more seriously than when voting to extend the mission in Afghanistan, as we will be doing again.

Our government was the first government to allow full and open debate on this issue, and it was a victory for democracy to do that.

[Afghanistan, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it was a very interesting comment about the heckling and the response to it. It was very interesting, quite enlightening I think for those of us who were in the House the other day.

I agree with the hon. member that the NDP members do have a clear position. They do not support the mission. They do not support the Canadian military. They do not support our men and women in uniform. In my short time in the House, the 10 years that I have been here, they never have. I am glad that he clarified that statement.

I listened to the hon. member describe the difference between the Bloc's position and the NDP's position, but in many ways it is one cat's kittens. There are really a lot of similarities in the two positions.

I will pick up on the question that my colleague asked. We are a partisan group here and we have different opinions. We come from different parts of the spectrum, but surely the hon. member would agree that there is a time and place when there is no choice but to respond to force with force. I see no way around that. The world has not changed significantly in any way, shape or form since mankind's early combats between countries.

I have a comment about Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland cannot be compared in any way shape or form to Afghanistan. Ireland is two countries divided on one island with a common language, with both sides of the struggle being educated, having access to outside media, having knowledge of what is going on in the rest of the world.

There is no comparison in the two struggles.

[Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, March 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, maritime region. The auxiliary's 16 directors, under the able chairmanship of Frank McLaughlin, just completed its annual meeting in Halifax. This volunteer organization, which is staffed primarily by fishing captains and their crews, successfully participate in over 200 search and rescue missions annually.

Under the direction of the Joint Rescue Coordination Centre Halifax, the Coast Guard Auxiliary Maritimes was tasked to go to sea in over 5,200 missions since it was formed in 1978. These 732 skilled mariners are constantly upgrading their search and rescue skills and risk their lives to ensure that those in peril on the sea are brought back to land safely.

I wish to pay tribute to and give thanks for the brave service and high level of technical capability these courageous volunteers provide for all Canadians and indeed all international mariners who travel the waters off our east coast.

[Committees of the House, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the ongoing challenge of climate change, and I think the member would agree, is that we do not tend to see, I do not believe, the climate change effects so much on the wharf infrastructure and the challenge to keep that infrastructure in place. We are not seeing dramatic changes in current and tide.

What we are seeing with climate change is the change in species, in algae, in marine plants and even in the birds that frequent our waters. We are certainly seeing that.

The way DFO operates when it is building new wharves and when it is assessing the work it needs to do on old ones, it assesses the tide and it assesses whether the harbour is being cleared and whether it is being infilled with sand. DFO looks at a number of issues and those are not really due to climate change, as much as--

[Committees of the House, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I will be polite in my answer for the member for Cardigan because we sit on committee together and he does have the best interests of fishermen in Prince Edward Island at heart and does understand the challenges that his government faced and that our government faces in trying to fix the deficit we have in wharf infrastructure.

The key point, and we owe this to the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, is the $20 million that was put back permanently into A-base funding, which is $20 million more per year on an ongoing annual basis to help fix the wharf infrastructure deficit that is occurring across the country.

I appreciate the member's intervention. Again, the costs have gone up and we recognize that. Armourstone is a prime example, the costs of pilings, the cost of everything. From the early 1990s to 2008 there has been a substantial increase in the inflation of the value of materials and that is an ongoing challenge for fishermen and for the department.

[Committees of the House, February 14th, 2008]

When I am speaking I always hear static or radio running behind me. I assume it is a member who cannot wait to have an intervention or does not understand the rules of the House. I can only assume that because they tend to continue to talk and interrupt and it makes my job more difficult to have reasoned debate and I know, Mr. Speaker, it makes your job more difficult, but they are fairly easy to ignore.

I want to reiterate the challenge the minister is facing, the fact that we do have an infrastructure deficit and we--

[Committees of the House, February 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the concurrence motion on the committee report regarding small craft harbours.

I am sure every member in the House recognizes that our present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has been a great advocate, proponent and supporter of fisheries infrastructure and the industry itself across Canada. He was faced with some difficult and onerous tasks when he took over as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from the previous Liberal government.

The Liberals had cut aid based funding in 2005 by $20 million. After we formed government, the Liberals tried to bring forward a motion in committee asking that the funding be reinstated. Not only did the minister reinstate the $20 million, but he added $11 million to that base funding.

Without question there is a huge infrastructure deficit in small craft harbours. Through good management and prudent fiscal policy our minister has attempted to address this infrastructure deficit, but it will be ongoing. In the present fiscal climate it would be irresponsible to suddenly find $600 million to fix all the problems left by the previous government. However, there is a plan and that is what we really need to talk about.

There is wharf infrastructure on the Atlantic Ocean, the Pacific Ocean, inland on the Great Lakes, and in the high Arctic. This wharf infrastructure did not establish itself overnight and some of the problems with it are not going to be fixed overnight.

What I have seen from our present minister is a willingness to look at that infrastructure in order to develop some policies and procedures that would allow us to continue to invest in fisheries infrastructure on an annual basis a reasonable amount of the public purse. As the present minister and I have said many times, the wharf is to fishermen what the highway is to farmers. Highway infrastructure is still needed by the fishery to get its products from the wharf, but a boat cannot be put in the water and hauled back out without some wharf infrastructure. This is all part of a viable realistic and achievable fishery, especially the small boat fishery, that class of boats under 64 or 65 feet.

The dynamics have changed. There are a number of wharves throughout my riding of South Shore--St. Margaret's. There is the East Dover wharf, the West Dover wharf, Port Mouton or Lunenburg County in Riverport. There is also Clark's Harbour and Woods Harbour. Those are only a few. There are dozens more.

Those wharves were built for 35 foot boats with maybe only 14 feet of beam. Today's boats are 44 to 50 feet, the same boat class, but they have 23 to 26 feet of beam. There is no comparison. One boat today takes up the same amount of space that two boats would have taken up 25 or 30 years ago. I am sure my colleagues opposite recognize that this has put an added strain on the fishery and on the wharf infrastructure.

We now have boats that are tied up abreast. Where we would put perhaps two, four or even six boats abreast in the past, we can get three today.

I have a number of wharves and Woods Harbour is a prime example where we might have 55 to 65 boats tied up, all fishing out of one or two smaller wharves. To get that boat that is tied up against the wharf out when that fisherman wants to leave, and he has five boats tied up alongside of it, that is quite a job.

I think it is important to mention priorities and some of the issues that the other members have mentioned. I believe members who spoke earlier have recognized that small craft harbour infrastructure is a priority. I certainly recognize that, our government recognizes that and, In particular, the minister recognizes that.

In 2006, I know for a fact there was unanimous support for another such concurrence motion, similar or the same as the motion today, but the financial value asked was different. It has increased by about $50 million in this interim report. However, the principle is the same.

To recognize the value of the harbours and their accessibility for those who use them and even the volunteers who run them, and very often they are volunteers who run them, is significant. There is a principle involved and the government supports that principle. We recognize the importance of traditional industries, such as the fisheries, as we will find in the most recent Speech from the Throne.

I do not mean to belabour this subject but we need to talk about the government's priorities and the government's costs.

This morning, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in committee. A question was asked of the minister and he restated the fact that small craft harbours and wharf infrastructure in coastal Canada continues to be, not just a priority for the government but a priority for the minister. He recognizes the challenge that he faces, and it is not one that we take lightly.

If we look at the small craft harbour program with the priority approach, we could have 10 harbours and we need to prioritize them. There is no way to get around it. We have to say which harbour needs assistance on a priority basis and we also have to balance that with the amount of dollars that some of these harbours bring in.

I have many harbours throughout the South Shore—St. Margaret's riding where some wharves would probably bring in excess of $100 million. There are others that would work hard to bring in $5 million. It is a different fishery in different locations.

However, if we look at that small craft harbour program in 2006-07 and 2007-08, it has received an additional $11 million through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans transformational plan. That funding falls to $8 million in 2008-09 and ongoing.

Therefore, let us be clear about dollars. While the program was scheduled to lose $20 million in sunset funding at the beginning of 2007-08, cabinet in December 2006 approved adding this $20 million permanently to the program's budget, A-base funding that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech.

This A-base funding is important because the $20 million that the Liberals cut from the program was never guaranteed A-base funding. It was simply funding that would never be available again. It was a kind of one time only funding.

When I rose to my feet I know the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound wanted an intervention. Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. I understand I have a bit of time left, so I will take a couple more minutes because I have a few more things to say.

[Loyalist Landing, February 8th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on May 4, 1783, the first of tens of thousands of United Empire Loyalists fleeing the American Revolution stepped ashore in Port Roseway, now Shelburne, Nova Scotia. This year marks the 225th anniversary of that landing which, at the time, established Shelburne as one of the largest towns in eastern Canada.

Nearby, the United Empire Black Loyalists settled Birchtown, one of the most historically important Black communities in Canada.

This anniversary is being recognized and commemorated with a year-long celebration of historical, multicultural, contemporary and participatory events aptly called “A Celebration to Remember”.

The Loyalist Landing Society, made up of local volunteers, has been working for nearly two years to make this signature event in Nova Scotia truly a celebration to remember. All Canadians should take this opportunity to be among the many thousands of visitors to Shelburne this summer.

We wish to congratulate all the organizers and volunteers. This will truly be a celebration to remember.