Gerald Keddy

[Canada Elections Act, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for the life of me I cannot understand why the opposition parties wants to take this piece of legislation and move it backward instead of forward.

Hon. members are all pretending to support the legislation, but they want to amend it to give the government even more tools to put off having an election every four years. That is the reality of it. If we were to have four year terms, the municipalities, the provinces and we hope the federal government would not bring in a referendum or cause an election to occur.

The hon. member is giving government more opportunity to not follow the four year rule but to have its friends in a municipality or in a province or perhaps the government itself do something that would cause an election not to be held. Why would the hon. member want to amend the bill to actually defeat the purpose of the bill?

[Canada Elections Act, April 23rd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate it is no surprise to me that the Liberal members opposite want to amend and change the bill because they do not want four year terms. That is the bottom line.

They look for any advantage they can find to allow government to control the election. They think that if they get back into power, it would be advantageous to them. That is the bottom line here.

The real issue is that as the bill is amended, the government can regulate when the election is held because it will simply have a referendum. Why not have a referendum on any number of issues? Then the election will be put off. That is unfair.

The point is that the bill has been sent to the Senate calling for four year terms. Canadians from coast to coast to coast would understand clearly that when an election day is held, four years hence there will be another one. What is complicated about that and why can the Liberals not agree to four year terms?

[Liberals of Central Nova, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to point out the difference between leadership and opportunism. I speak in favour of democracy and in respect of partisan choice.

Today I rise to defend a group of Canadians ignored and abandoned by their own party, the Liberals of Central Nova. Their own leader has told them that they do not matter and Nova Scotia Liberal MPs have not been able to find enough backbone to speak for them. They want them to vote green.

What an embarrassment for this once proud party. What is next?

In the last federal election in Central Nova, the Marxist-Leninist Party placed just behind the greens. So, in the upcoming days I fully expect Nova Scotia Liberal MPs to call another press conference stating a new alliance, this time with the Marxist-Leninist Party.

For Central Nova Liberals I offer an alternative course: find a home in the Conservative Party, a party with principles, a party that will not abandon them.

[Persons with Disabilities, April 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 243. I am very pleased to speak in support of this motion, which calls on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to study the level of financial support provided through the Canada pension plan disability benefit, CPPD.

From the first hour of debate it appears a substantive issue in this motion, a study by Parliament on Canada pension plan disability benefits, has the support of all parties in this House. It is no small accomplishment for all parties to agree on anything, so Canadians should be heartened by seeing a shared agreement to make something as important as studying long term disability a priority. I say that Canadians should be heartened, yet they probably are not. Why? Because the opposition's commitment falls short of truly making this study a priority.

The Conservatives made supporting our friends and neighbours who are struggling with disabilities a central plan of our platform in the last election. This Conservative government has honoured those who voted for us by introducing Bill C-36 which improves access to Canada pension plan disability benefits by measures in the 2007 budget, such as: the new registered disability savings plan introduced to help parents and others save money to care for children with severe disabilities; up to $1,000 annually to a limit of $20,000 in the form of a Canada disability savings grant to help promote the future financial security of children in lower income families; an investment of $30 million in the Rick Hansen Foundation which will help translate research into benefits for Canadians living with spinal cord injuries; and a new enabling accessibility fund that will contribute $45 million over three years to help all Canadians, regardless of their physical ability, participate fully in their communities.

I believe Canadians see that their government has stepped up to the plate, so where are the Liberals? For starters, the Liberals voted against every measure the Conservative government put in place to help those Canadians who are dealing with disabilities. Their leader says he wants to run on a platform of social justice, then instructs his caucus to vote against the budget that actually delivers it for the first time in this country.

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition needs more time to think about it. We say that leadership is not leading followers in the wrong direction. Canadians cannot afford to wait for the Liberal leader to ponder what they already know is good and works. How can Canadians be expected to trust the Liberals to govern when Liberals cannot even seem to figure out how to be in opposition?

When it comes to this motion, the Liberals are no less of a disappointment. They hold out the promise of doing something on a priority, then agree with the Bloc to defer everything until the fall. That is not leadership. This is another example of the Liberals saying whatever they think will be pleasing to the public, but failing to follow through. No doubt the member for Kitchener Centre proposed this motion to show support for stakeholders in her own community. How disappointed they must be to see her agree to postpone it. It looks like her new leader cannot shake off the ghosts of the old Liberals who made everything a priority so that nothing ended up being one.

I understand that the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development relayed his support for this motion to be studied at committee. I have no doubt he was encouraged to see the opposition align more closely with the views of Canadians that he was hearing. How disappointing for the minister and the stakeholders he meets to see that this important public policy issue is not getting the true support it deserves.

It is no less perplexing to see that the Liberals are working with the Bloc to frustrate progress on this issue. The Bloc, of course, has no experience with the responsibilities of being in government. The Bloc's contribution to this public policy matter is to delay any action at the same time the Bloc purports to support it. The Bloc members cannot have it both ways, at least not in the minds of the people they are putting off.

The government and Conservatives across the country want to make progress for those with disabilities. We believe that to make further progress requires proper study of the Canada pension plan disability benefit. It is only through gathering the evidence and learning where challenges exist that we can recommend to the government how to address those challenges with sustainable solutions.

Sustainability is critical. Acting in an informed way helps build solutions that can evolve as circumstances change. We have an opportunity here, but despite the Liberal leader's claim to be committed to sustainability, he is unable to show some discipline with members of his own caucus who are proposing ad hoc solutions to the types of problems that potentially should follow a study like the one in this motion.

For instance, the member for Sydney—Victoria has a bill before the House. It stands for a principle we all support. It aims to help those who have cancer or other illnesses, but rather than providing benefits through Canada pension disability, the bill calls for a solution that would only help employees to the exclusion of other Canadians.

I cannot help but think that Bill C-278 would benefit from Motion No. 243 being studied as soon as possible. Perhaps because the member for Kitchener Centre agreed to defer this study until fall the member for Sydney—Victoria felt he had no choice but to call up his bill in the coming days.

Still, Canadians expect legislation to be based on good planning. They expect solutions to be measured and sustainable. Canadians should not be held hostage to the lack of good planning by the Liberals for their own private members' business. They should not be saddled with legislation whose impact has not been studied and no one can say is sustainable.

I support a study because it is the right thing to do. I only wish the opposition cared as much about ensuring that we pass good legislation as my caucus colleagues and I do. My constituents wish that the opposition would come to its senses and return to making this study a priority.

When this finally does get studied, members will know that CPP disability is the largest long term disability insurance plan in Canada. Last year, approximately 300,000 individuals and 90,000 of those individuals' children received financial support through this program.

As specified in the Canada pension plan, monthly Canada pension plan disability payments are made up of two parts, a fixed amount which in 2007 is $405, and a variable amount based on the level of Canada pension plan contributions and the number of years contributions were made before the client became disabled. The combination represents the monthly amount a Canada pension plan disability beneficiary will receive in 2007. The maximum benefit payable is $1,053 per month. In addition, eligible children of disabled contributors are entitled to a fixed monthly payment of $204. Last year on average, Canada pension plan disability beneficiaries received $763 per month.

What is also important to note is that a significant number of recipients receive benefits from other sources. There is a broad and complex system in Canada that provides income support to persons with disabilities. While Canada pension plan disability plays a central role in this system, the standing committee may also wish to review in its study the other income sources for disability beneficiaries.

An example of another pillar of this income support system is EI sickness benefits which fall under the responsibility of the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development. EI sickness benefits provide temporary income support for up to 15 weeks to individuals who are too injured or sick to work. In 2004 over 294,000 individuals received these benefits with total payments of $810 million.

We know that a number of individuals who receive EI sickness benefits while they are temporarily disabled go on to apply for and then receive CPP disability benefits. With the introduction of Service Canada in the last few years the government has been working to better serve all Canadians who need services from the federal government including those applying for EI sickness benefits through CPP disability.

This government is committed to quality client service by building on the one step personalized service offered through Service Canada. The government is working to improve the client interface on behalf of these two important sources of support for Canadians with disabilities.

Even though I have much more to say on this motion, I know my time is running out, but the premise of what I said is that the motion should proceed directly to committee. It should be studied. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Liberals who introduced the motion now suddenly want to put it off until fall. It is a matter of making a decision. This is an important issue. It is meaningful to a number of Canadians who are beneficiaries and it should be looked at immediately.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the divestiture program has a priority system and it goes federal to provincial to municipal and that, of course, could include first nations or local groups. Then it goes to not for profit groups and then it goes to for profit organizations. The availability is there for any interested group, whatever its designation, to access it.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair point, but the reality is that there are 750 lighthouses across Canada. There are probably 300 of them that have real heritage value. The government is not going to be responsible for 300 lighthouses from coast to coast to coast and all of the costs and all the maintenance on them.

We have to find a way to divest them to communities that want them, that have been asking for them, and put them in reasonable shape before they are divested. We are not talking about an ongoing cost accrued to the federal government that will go on for perpetuity. That is not in the offing.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the way the divestiture process works is it would first go to non-profit groups. They would be community groups. I would hope that we find a way in this bill to allow the adjacent community to have some priority access.

If the lighthouse happened to be on Lake Ontario, there is no reason why a group out of Atlantic Canada should have priority access to it. There is probably a community that is close to it that would want to have priority access and responsibility there. If there is not a community group willing to take the lighthouse over, then absolutely, there would be the option for a for profit private group to take it over.

I do not see any big pool of money out there, quite frankly. I think that is the reality. Fisheries and Oceans has some responsibility and it has some funds that can be used. Environment Canada has some responsibility and it has some funds. I do not really see this as a western diversification or an ACOA project unless there is a private business interest that can show a profit somehow through this.

So, we have a difficult job. I am not saying this is an easy job to take this bill as it exists and make it into a workable--

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, March 27th, 2007]

moved that Bill S-220, An Act to protect heritage lighthouses, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-220, seconded by the member for St. John's East.

I would be remiss in my introduction if I did not recognize the hard work done in the other place by Senator Carney to get the bill into the House of Commons. I certainly want to recognize her work.

I also recognize that the bill will occupy a fair amount of time not just from the government side, but from the opposition members, because there is a fair amount of work to do on Bill S-220 in its present form.

In any coastal community lighthouses are an integral part of the landscape. They are part of our culture, our history as a nation, our folklore, our songs and our stories.

The close association of our country to our oceans and our lighthouses is a fundamental part of our Canadian identity. Whether it is the east coast, the west coast, the Arctic, the Great Lakes, the inland waterways, Canadians from all parts of Canada understand the critical role that lighthouses have played in the very development of this nation. Without these majestic towers and the brave and selfless people who ensured that their lights kept burning, our status as a beacon of hope and safety would never have been possible.

In fact, our very role as a trading nation would not have come to be if lighthouses did not mark the way for safe passage for people, commerce and opportunity. Lighthouses have for centuries offered mariners from around the world safe passage and hope. They are part of the core technologies that supported expanded trade and commerce within and between nations.

Increasingly today they are playing a new and important role in the development of our coastal economies. The historic significance of these light towers to the communities of which they are so much a part is irreplaceable, and steps must be taken to preserve and protect Canadian heritage for present and future generations.

Lighthouses are monuments to the Canadian way of life and to the fact that as a country, we depend upon maritime transportation. It would be a great loss if heritage lighthouses were not saved. They are invaluable heritage resources and once gone, so too are the opportunities they represent.

I am truly honoured today to rise in support of this bill that was brought forward originally by my colleague, the late hon. Michael Forrestall, a senator from my province of Nova Scotia who first championed this initiative back in April 2000 and tirelessly worked to ensure its passage. Senator Forrestall said it well several years ago when he stated:

I ask all honourable senators familiar with Nova Scotia and the beautiful tourist trails throughout my home province to imagine the Lighthouse Trail without one lighthouse or its outlying structures. Imagine no more Peggy's Cove; imagine no more Grand Manan Island; imagine no more Gannet Rock Lighthouse. Forget about West Point Lighthouse in P.E.I. or Cape Spear Lighthouse in Newfoundland; forget about Langara Point Lighthouse in British Columbia, probably one of the most beautiful, remote and historically important lighthouses in our structure.

Lighthouses have been sources of salvation to sailors in littoral waters for hundreds of years and have served as the centres of our coastal communities....They are symbols of man's conquests of the high seas and oceans, and in the past have captured the hearts and souls of people world round, as they were the first sight of land upon return to the homeland. No question exists of their place in the human heart or of their simplistic beauty set against the rugged, dark seas. One does not have to hail from the shores of the Atlantic or the Pacific to be attracted to lighthouses.

As sponsor of this bill to protect heritage lighthouses and also as a native of the Lighthouse Route, I am glad to have this opportunity to talk about a subject that is so dear to my heart.

The bill is aligned with the Fisheries and Oceans lighthouse divestiture program which strives to transfer surplus lighthouses to local communities for continued public purposes.

There is no denying that lighthouses have played a key role in the development of Canada as a nation. Indeed, the establishment of many coastal communities across the country was intrinsically linked to the building of their lighthouses and to the harbours to which they guided travellers.

Lighthouses are great symbols of Canadian heritage. There are more than 20 lighthouses along the Lighthouse Route in my riding of South Shore--St. Margaret's.

I am not alone in my love of this symbol of marine heritage. Canadians and people around the world are familiar with the beauty of one of our country's most famous lighthouses at Peggy's Cove, which again is situated in my own riding of South Shore--St. Margaret's, and whose pictures have graced calendars and tourism posters for many years. It is as Canadian as the sight of a grain elevator in a prairie field of golden wheat, or polar bears on a northern ice floe.

Such Canadian symbolism is enshrined in Bill S-220. It is based on the recognition of the cultural and historic significance of lighthouses as part of our maritime and national heritage. Because of their importance as community sentinels, the bill seeks to provide national protection and processes for disposal to communities for public purposes and alternate use.

Specifically, the bill would protect heritage lighthouses in three ways: by providing for their designation as a heritage lighthouse; by providing for public consultation in this designation process and before the removal, alteration, destruction, sale or other disposition of a designated lighthouse; and by providing that designated heritage lighthouses be reasonably maintained.

Such provisions, indeed the key objectives of Bill S-220, are definitely in keeping with the federal government's efforts to build a culture of heritage conservation in Canada. However, one also has to recognize that there are competing demands for resources from the Government of Canada. The objectives of this bill are not at issue. There are, however, challenges which relate to implementation and particularly in eventual funding requirements.

The bill as currently worded would see Parks Canada, under the direction of the Minister of the Environment, managing the heritage designation process. It would have to task or to establish a new organization to administer the provisions of the bill, including development of criteria for designating, maintaining or altering heritage lighthouses, or carry out research or consult with the public in response to petitions to designate, and applications to alter or demolish heritage lighthouses. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, as custodian for most of Canada's lighthouses, would then be tasked with ensuring compliance with these provisions and securing the funding to support these new obligations.

The reality is that new marine technologies, such as satellite based navigation, offer today's mariner modern efficiencies that lighthouses never could, and these new systems are steadily replacing the need for lights. It is true that many lighthouses are starting to deteriorate, and after allocating resources based on program priorities, DFO does not have the financial resources to invest in assets that are or will no longer be required for program purposes.

However, the bill would create statutory maintenance obligations that could not be met through current operational budgets. The bill raises difficult issues that require choices among competing public priorities. The safety and security of mariners remain primary requirements for DFO. The application of any heritage considerations must respect the department's financial reality and its ability to make operational decisions related to current and future uses of lighthouse properties and facilities.

We must ask ourselves if it is a higher priority for taxpayers to invest in replacing the Coast Guard's aging fleet, or carrying out ocean and aquatic research, or the impacts of climate change. These are difficult challenges and we need to make reasonable, responsible choices that balance the interests of all Canadians. The passage of this bill would leave both Parks Canada and DFO at a loss to carry out the new responsibilities under the new act without considerable investment.

At present, there are as many as 750 lighthouse light structures in Canada. Bill S-220 would provide statutory protection to many of them. This would in fact provide even greater protection than most of Canada's historic landmarks have, including the parliamentary precinct where we meet today.

About 95% of the cost to preserve these lighthouses would come under the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Without additional funding Fisheries and Oceans Canada would be forced to reallocate funds from existing programs and services. From search and rescue missions provided on a 24-7 basis, to development and investments in small craft harbours, to promoting the sustainable development of our oceans, to supporting a $4 billion seafood export industry, what gets cut when a country's security, environment and the economy are at stake?

Let us take a look at the scope of what Fisheries and Oceans Canada has to deal with on an ongoing basis by painting the big picture of Canada as a maritime nation.

Three of the world's oceans border on our coastline, the longest in the world at about 244,000 kilometres. Our oceans regions total almost six million square kilometres. Eight out of 10 provinces border oceans, as do the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon. The oceans provide recreational, environmental, employment, income and cultural staples to more than seven million Canadians who live in coastal communities.

Specifically, the Atlantic fishing industry employs more than 84,000 people and the Pacific fisheries provide jobs for some 14,000 people and plant workers. Canadian sport fishing injects about $7 billion each year into local economies throughout the country.

In 2006 the export of fish and seafood products to 128 countries totalled $4.1 billion as its contribution to the Canadian economy. British Columbia is our largest exporting province at $987 million, with Nova Scotia coming in second at $974 million, then Newfoundland with $798 million, followed by New Brunswick at $795 million, Quebec at $203 million, and Prince Edward Island is sixth with $194 million.

In addition, Canada boasts the largest freshwater system in the world with our two million lakes and rivers covering 7.6% of our land mass and the world's longest inland waterway at 3,700 kilometres from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to Lake Superior.

To support the many and varied users of our coasts and inland waterways, the department is also responsible for maintaining and operating a national network of small craft harbours. We have to take a long, hard, very serious and reasonable look at our ability to maintain the lights the way Bill S-220 would have us do it.

Unfortunately, I am running short of time. This is a bill that is important to Canadians. It is certainly important to Senator Carney. Again, I recognize her hard work in the other place.

I would like to again recognize my former colleague, the late Michael Forrestall, for his work in bringing this issue forward starting in 2000, and also the contributions made by many of the interested groups, including the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society, that are eager to take over many of these lights.

I think that members get the picture. This is a challenge. In order to keep these magnificent heritage structures and be able to afford to do it and to be able to run daily operations at DFO, we are finding ourselves in a very unusual situation. We have to find a way to allow the public process to take place, to allow divestiture to take place, to give priority to communities, especially adjacent communities, to give priority to the lights that have a larger and greater heritage component versus ones that may be newer. We have to find a way to do this within the budget before us.

At the fisheries and oceans committee we have a good group. We are all very interested in trying to find a solution to this very difficult problem. I expect that when the bill gets to the committee, with some reasonable amendments we will be able to find that way to preserve these lights for Canadians for perpetuity.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, March 27th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the pleasure of tabling, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation to the 15th annual Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, which took place in Moscow from January 21 to January 26.

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that every province in Canada gets more money under this budget. The reality is that Nova Scotia has a choice to make. It can take the old system, which was a good system in its day, and receive $57 million. It can opt into the new system and receive $95 million, plus $112 million of tax relief. I know the hon. member is not that good in math, but would he sooner have $200 million in his pocket or $57 million in his pocket?