Gerald Keddy

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today, the first day that Parliament is back in session, to speak on fixed election dates. I have listened to some of the debate in the House, not all of it, with a bit of chagrin really at some of the misleading comments made by some of the Liberal members, in particular the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

We all have an obligation in the House to look at the legislation that a government puts on the order paper, and to offer valid criticisms and amendments to that legislation if we feel the legislation is not doing what it set out to do, or if it is legislation we cannot support. Some of the comments that I am hearing amaze me. Members will say that they have no intention of supporting this piece of legislation, but when they are asked a direct question, they are not really certain what their positions are. They cannot have it both ways.

I was elected on June 2, 1997. Three years later, on November 27, 2000, there was another election. Barely three and a half years after that, on June 28, 2004, there was another election. Less than two years after that, on January 23, 2006, there was another election. There were four elections in barely nine years. If there had been fixed terms, we would have saved the people of Canada the full cost of one election, over a quarter of a billion dollars. That quarter of a billion dollars could have been spent on government programs across this country, on very seriously needed infrastructure, on education, on health care, on a myriad of important issues that every man and woman in this chamber face in his or her riding.

To promote the idea that the system cannot be changed, as some of the Liberal members have, is fundamentally flawed. Of course we can change the system. We need to change the system. Before I was elected to the House, one of the first questions I was asked was about four year terms. Back in 1997 I supported four year terms. I have supported four year terms the entire nine years that I have been a parliamentarian. Fixed terms would be good for the people of Canada. Fixed terms would be a positive move to put more responsibility on government. It does not take responsibility away from government. It makes government much more responsible. It takes away one of the government's tools to manipulate the system.

It should be noted that when we started talking about fixed election dates, the Liberals said, “You talk about fixed election dates when you are in opposition. It is an election promise. If you ever become government, it will never happen”. The Conservatives are the Government of Canada. We have introduced Bill C-16 and we will bring in fixed election dates unless Parliament sees fit not to. I would be shocked if any member, for purely partisan reasons, would vote against a bill of this quality.

This bill will deal with a number of issues that Canadian citizens face and will help make Parliament work better. There are some major advantages to this piece of legislation: number one is the issue of fairness; number two is transparency and predictability; number three is improved governance; and number four is higher rates of voter turnout. All those issues, issues that affect the governance of this place, will be assisted and improved under the bill. To say otherwise is misleading.

To listen to the argument that somehow this would change the powers of the Governor General is even further misleading. The power of the Governor General and the power of a confidence motion in the House are inextricably linked. The power to dissolve Parliament is the historical prerogative of the Crown and is considered essential to the principle of responsible government. It is expressly conferred on the Governor General in section 50 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

Section 50 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides:

Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.

Because we are changing the length of the term, the proposed bill has to explicitly state that:

--nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.

The only reason that is in there is to enable a government, if it loses the confidence of the House, to go to the people of Canada. If the government were unable to do that, we would be in gridlock. We would be totally ineffective and unable to govern the country.

I listened to the Liberal members speak as though this was some kind of figment of our imagination, that the only other country in the world that had four year terms was the United States of America and that somehow there was the old argument that the Conservatives were somehow cozying up to the Americans. It is absolutely unfair and untrue.

The reality is that a number of other countries have fixed terms such as Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and last, but not least, the United States. Imagine that, all those countries have fixed elections dates and they still have democratic states.

There are countries that have a fixed term, but allow for more of a degree of flexibility. There is the fixed term of four years and the government has two months from the day to call its election.

It is a very similar system to the one proposed. Those countries include: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy and Spain. This is not something new that is being thrust upon the Canadian public. It is an idea that has been around for a very long time. It should help to bring some credibility back to the Parliament of Canada. It should help to increase voter turnout.

We have had a great deal of discussion before the bill was tabled and we will continue to have discussion with the tabling and at committee. The whole point is of a fixed election date. The next one would be October 19, 2009.

This is an important issue and I hope every member in the chamber will find time to speak to it.

There is much more to say, but I will try to wrap up. We have an opportunity to take one of the primary tools that past prime ministers in the country have used like a club. They have gone to the people before their five years were up and every political party has suffered from that. I think the Parliament of Canada has suffered from it.

For the first we are having a democratic debate on four year terms. This is the first Prime Minister who is willing to give up that huge tool in his tool chest and yet we are debating that in the House. This is somehow up for discussion. This will level the playing field, it will give democracy more of an opportunity to work and it will be a good thing for the public of Canada.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex, who certainly is a great advocate for his harbour and for the largest freshwater fishery in the country, that this government supports small craft harbours and it will continue to that.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has said in several different ways now that we support the motion. It is our intention to support the motion and we will support the motion.

I have a question for the member for Acadie—Bathurst. His fearless leader was on his feet a while ago talking about being on the wharf in Woods Harbour. I have been on the wharf in Woods Harbour several times. Woods Harbour is a major lobster fishing port in the riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's. Apparently at that time the NDP made a commitment to the fishery. The NDP said that it would support the fishery. I certainly applaud the NDP for that if they ever do support the fishery.

However, I have a message for the fishermen who were on the wharf in Woods Harbour that day. I would tell them to be very careful when the NDP say that it will support the fishermen. I heard the NDP members say in the House that they would support our troops in Afghanistan and they then voted to withdraw the troops and not support them at a critical time in that mission. If that is the same support that the NDP will offer to the fishery, I say that is not sufficient.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed when I stand in this House. The Conservative Party has had the reins of power for slightly over 100 days and has made some very important decisions that affect the lives of Canadians. Every resource sector in all parts of Canada has shown its support time and time again for the fishery, for our troops, for lower income earners and for middle income earners. We brought in a budget that will make a difference to all Canadians.

Now, all of a sudden, members who were in government and at the government table for over 13 years, who failed to prevent these cuts, who allowed the deterioration and utter destruction of our wharfage system in Canada, who allowed the deterioration and destruction of our fishery in Canada, who did not rationalize licences and who never made the difficult and tough decisions they should have made, are insistent that we change the system after being in power for only 100 days.

We absolutely support the motion that the committee study small craft harbours and recommends that the government consider the advisability of raising the current budget of $86.6 million contained in the 2006-07 budget by $15 million for the fiscal year 2007-08.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, certainly it is an honour to rise in a debate on the fishery at any time in the House. I am more than pleased to rise on debate today.

I have listened closely to the comments from my hon. colleagues. It has been quite a wide-ranging debate. I would like to bring it back to the motion, which is:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion agreed to by the Committee on May 16, 2006, the Committee has studied small crafts harbours and recommends that the government consider the advisability of raising the current budget of $86.6 M contained in the 2006-2007 budget by $15 M for the fiscal year 2007-2008.

All of the subjects aside, all of the issues that are confronting the fishery, all of them are important, but it is also important to speak to the motion as it has been spoken to by some of the other members. Some members have got slightly off-track of the original motion.

First and most important, we are supporting the motion. There is not a disagreement or debate in the House, really. We are supporting the motion. We support the motion as it is presented to the House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries has said that and several other members have said that. We will be supporting the motion.

I do not think I am overstating the matter when I say that all members of the House recognize the importance of the small craft harbours program, certainly those familiar with the ocean and with the fishery and those of us who represent coastal ridings. The small craft harbours program is an essential service for the commercial fishing communities in Canada. As well, it helps sustain the many coastal and inland communities served by the program.

As a member of this House and a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, I am a strong advocate for the program. More important, I recognize the significant contribution small craft harbours make to the 1,200 communities they serve in almost all the provinces and territories in Canada.

While the program is primarily intended to support the local fishing communities, these harbours perform a much broader function. They often provide a vital transportation link to adjacent communities or major hub communities. In some cases they are the only link. They are frequently the centre for community social activities or services centred for other economic pursuits, such as tourism, transport and other marine based industries. These services are very often critical to the welfare of our coastal communities. They can also serve to attract other businesses to the area. In short, small craft harbours are of great value to the many and varied clients they serve. The government is among the first to recognize their importance.

Having said that, I know that the current conditions of some core fishing harbours are not as good as we would like to see them. Reports indicate that about 21% of the facilities at these harbours are in poor condition. The overall network of small craft harbours is aging and increasingly in need of maintenance and repairs.

The program, with more than 1,200 harbours, maintains assets with a replacement cost of over $2 billion for the core fishing harbours alone. These assets require constant maintenance and repairs. They are aging or are subject to normal wear and tear, let alone storm related damage as was mentioned several times by several of the speakers.

Because of the limited budget, the small craft harbours program has had to very carefully assess on a constant basis its most pressing and critical core harbour repair needs. The priority has been safety and making sure that the basic harbour operations are maintained, or impacted as little as possible.

The program has managed so far to risk mitigation measures to avoid having to close any core harbours, but the level of services has diminished. I say that very clearly. Many of the members who spoke to this motion were members of the former government. Quite frankly, we have been in government for less than four months, just barely four months. It is quite a responsibility to suddenly have all of the problems of the last 13 years.

The fact is there had been a government in place that ignored small craft harbours. It ignored rural and coastal Canada and did very little to mitigate the damages and the wear and tear the harbours were subjected to. All of a sudden, members of the former government are standing and saying that there is a crisis. Where were they when the crisis was upon them?

We now have a government that is prepared to approve this motion, to work with fishermen, to work with coastal communities in a responsible and measured way. Apparently that is not enough. I would ask, what is enough?

Since the late 1980s the management and operation of core fishing harbours has been assumed by local harbour authorities. Harbour authorities are not for profit corporations. They represent harbour users and other local stakeholders. With about 5,000 volunteers these organizations have enabled the program to devote more scarce resources to the maintenance of assets while improving service to the harbour clients. Mainly, harbour clients are fishermen.

These harbour authorities have taken on great responsibility. Quite frankly many are now beginning to suffer fatigue and burn out largely because of the deteriorating conditions of their harbours. They need our support to continue. Improving harbour conditions will go a long way to relieve them of some of the burden. It is a very heavy burden that these harbour authorities carry. They do not have the funding. It was never put in place under the previous government. They do not have the access to resources.

There is a responsibility for government but government has to take a major and responsible approach to that responsibility. We just cannot suddenly declare tomorrow that we are going to satisfy all the ills of 13 years of neglect of the harbours.

These are not the only pressures facing the small craft harbours program. Indeed there are many others. As our fisheries and fishing industry in Canada continue to evolve, so too do the needs of the program's clients. The numbers and sizes especially of the vessels are changing. Fishing activity and patterns are shifting geographically and in other ways. More first nations communities are participating in commercial fishing. Aquaculture activity continues to expand and locate in new areas. Add to this the use of small craft harbours by non-fishing vessels. It is easy to see why many of our harbours are congested. This in turn leads to a reduction in the quality of services that users expect and contributes to deteriorating conditions at over-subscribed facilities.

Fifteen years ago the beams of the vessels were much narrower than they are today. Three vessels could actually be tied side by side. We could tie them abreast of one another at the wharf. Today two vessels can be tied side by side at the wharf because the beams have increased in size by that much. They are that much wider. The boats themselves have changed and the demands have changed with them. This in turn leads to a reduction in the quality of services that users expect and it contributes to deteriorating conditions again at over-subscribed facilities.

The program will have to invest in new capacity to address the new demands and reduce this congestion. As well, existing locally operated commercial fishing harbours outside of the program are seeking federal assistance to repair their deteriorating facilities.

In addition, Nunavut Territory, where no federal small craft harbours presently exist, has requested financial assistance to establish a number of community harbours to support the growing fishing industry. This translates into a demand for resources the program simply does not have at this time.

It was in the mid-1990s that the government began to focus its efforts exclusively on core commercial fishing harbours. This resulted in the divestiture of some 1,300 non-essential harbours. About 347 remain to be divested. Their early divestiture would provide financial relief to the program's ongoing budget. However, again because of limited resources available to maintain the core commercial fishing harbours, little funding has been set aside for these divestitures.

As a consequence, the previous pace of divestitures which was financed by now expired special funding has slowed considerably. This means that many harbours which should be in the hands of the community remain in poor condition with only the very basic repairs afforded by the program.

This delay has frustrated some communities waiting to assume these harbours and to see repairs made. What they want is simply a functional, safe and accessible harbour and wharfage.

Moreover, as the pace of divestiture slows, conditions at these harbours continue to deteriorate resulting in additional downstream costs to the program. The costs are escalating, the conditions of the wharves are deteriorating and government is in a very precarious position with only so much money at its request.

Our government will do its very best to explore all the options to deal with these pressures. However, DFO faces a number of other pressures and priorities, in addition to the small craft harbours program. We are truly committed to examining all possibilities. We are willing to work with other departments, various levels of government and the community at large to ensure we can continue to serve the many hundreds of fishing communities that depend upon the services of DFO.

This government supports the small craft harbours program, the vital core services it provides and the Canadians it serves. I would hope that we can all count on the support and the constructive input of this House because we need constructive input to save the small craft harbours program and our commercial fishery, quite frankly, because a lot of pressures are facing the commercial fisheries. The wharfage issue is only one of them.

In that way, our coastal and inland fishing communities can receive the infrastructure support they need to ensure their livelihoods and the quality of life that they rightly deserve.

The government is supportive of the motion and would like to see additional permanent increases provided to the small craft harbours budget to meet all its key program requirements and respond to the most essential of the clients' needs.

I do think this is a fairly complicated issue, one that really does not benefit from the use of partisan positions and rhetoric and one in which our government has taken a leadership role in a very short period of time.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Two former ministers did nothing. Shame.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

It was not a report. It was a motion.

[Committees of the House, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it was with great interest that I listened to my hon. colleague across the way. I very much appreciate his interest in the fishery and in small craft harbours that the motion was originally made on. Somehow he got off the subject and into capital gains.

Very quickly and for the record, in case someone actually is listening to the debate and realizes that it is more important than simply a press release for the hon. member, I first introduced the private member's bill in 2003. There was an election in 2004. The Liberal government had the opportunity at that time to bring in a capital gains deduction for fishermen, but chose not to do it.

Two parties, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Alliance Party, were combined in 2004. There was an assembly in Montreal where we established the policies we would run on in the next campaign. I took the matter of the private member's bill to that group. There were over 2,000 individuals at the assembly from coast to coast to coast. The bill was supported entirely as it was written for intergenerational transfer. We did not know if we would be able to support the $500,000 capital gains being available to everyone at that time because we had not seen the books.

We included it in our policy. I actually sat at the table to make sure that it was included in the policy in the last campaign in 2005-06. It was brought in by the budget of the government. The former government had opportunity after opportunity to bring this to fruition for the fishermen of this country and refused and failed to do it.

[Committees of the House, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans entitled “Small Craft Harbours”.

[Canada Post, May 31st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Post's rural customers are facing the possibility of a further reduction in services. Canada Post says that the service is temporarily being limited due to safety concerns of their drivers. This will pose a significant hardship for many rural residents.

Could the Minister of Transport tell us what his plans are to help resolve this issue?