Gerald Keddy

[Income Tax Act, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote yes.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 30th, 2003]

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but I also want to make sure that the member for Calgary Centre is recorded as voting yes. He was not here for the first vote.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote yes.

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 30th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party--

[Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, September 26th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak in support of a matter of great importance to the men and women of the Canadian armed forces and the Canadian armed forces reserve, and a matter that should be of great importance, not only to the Parliament of Canada but to all Canadians.

At its heart, the legislation has the noble purpose of improving the quality of life for those who serve in our military. As such, it should not come as a surprise to learn that it has the support of members on both sides of the House.

It goes without saying, however, that the Canadian armed forces and the Canadian armed forces reserve personnel are among our most courageous citizens. They devote the best years of their lives, at great risk, to the protection of this country and its people.

In return, we owe them a duty of care. That duty of care extends to ensuring that they are properly equipped and appropriately compensated for the extraordinary service they offer the people of Canada. I also would say, with the peacekeeping missions that Canadian soldiers have served in the last 50 years, we should recognize the protection that they afford the people all around the world.

The Progressive Conservative Party has many disputes with the government with respect to the larger defence policy issues. There is no dispute at all, however, when it comes to the need to give our men and women in uniform the very best.

The modernization of the military and reserve pension schemes are things that are long overdue.

In the post-cold war world the Canadian military has undergone some very significant changes. Some of these changes speak directly to the demographics of those who are prepared to and those who continue to serve in uniform. The military pension scheme must be sufficiently flexible to reflect those changes and to ensure that our military men and women receive the very best pension possible.

Given the very rigorous and physical demands on our military personnel, the simple reality is that many in the service of the country are quite young. A pension scheme that reflects their youth must also recognize the various factors that can affect their length of service. I believe that both these important criteria are addressed in the legislation now before the House.

Moreover, we are in an age of the citizen soldier. The backbone of our military is now the militia. For too long this fact has not been appropriately recognized in the regulations affecting military pensions. I believe that aspect is also addressed in the legislation we are debating today.

Many of the changes proposed in the legislation speak to the need to revamp the administrative process that governs the military pension scheme.

All Canadians, especially our soldiers, sailors and airmen, deserve to receive the benefits they have earned without having to fight through red tape. After all, I think it is only proper that our soldiers, sailors and airmen, who do enough fighting for us, do not have to fight with us.

All this contributes to the creation of a military that is more competitive in recruiting the best and the brightest young Canadians.

This is, of course, a significant development given the difficulty the Canadian armed forces have experienced in the past in trying to increase recruitment levels.

International incidents, such as the September 11 attacks, can have a marked effect on recruitment efforts, as patriotic young Canadians make the commitment to help defend our country from possible terrorist attacks.

However, to sustain that level of recruitment and to retain those who have already joined, the military needs a pension scheme that is comparable to what is being offered in the private sector.

As members will know, the Canadian armed forces has suffered from the effects of manpower shortages. At a time when the operational tempo, the ratio of time spent by Canadian Forces personnel in deployed missions, increased dramatically, the number of CF personnel was in decline.

When demand exceeds supply, the end result is a military that is stretched far too thin. Our military men and women end up serving in longer rotations on a more frequent basis. This simply means that they have less time at home, less time to rest, less time to train and more time in the field. It also means that they have less time with their families. That is not a recipe for success. In the long run, and even in the short term, that is a recipe for disaster.

Our military has endured a very difficult period in these last 10 years. Cuts to defence spending have weakened our military but not its resolve. Recently the defence publication Jane's Defence Weekly wrote that these spending cuts have caused “irreparable damage” to our military. Irreparable damage: We can only hope that this is not the case.

Where there is no doubt is that we need the military to have an increased budget that remains stable for a definite period of time. Only stable funding at a level sufficient to meet our defence needs will allow our military to make the capital purchases it needs.

There is also a need to make the investment in human resources and human capital. That is what we are doing today, albeit indirectly. There is a tendency to think of our army, navy and air force in terms of tanks, ships and airplanes. The reality is, it is about soldiers, sailors and airmen. For that reason, modernizing the pension scheme for the men and women who are at the core of our national defence is really an investment in our national security.

My good friend the hon. member for Saint John has often said that when it comes to the military we should put politics aside. Once we have ascertained what course of action is in the best interests of our military we should not let our political differences stand in the way of progress.

It is for that reason, and with this sentiment in mind, that today I am pleased we are taking this step toward ensuring that the military has a pension scheme that works and that the legislation presented here for our consideration has as its goal making the Canadian Forces pension scheme more accessible and efficient. After all, when their time in the military is over, our national heroes deserve a hero's welcome at home and a place to rest.

[Fisheries and Oceans, September 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, half the time that a member of Parliament who represents the coastal area in Canada calls DFO, he is calling for a simple question such as when is the clam season going to open. It is not really complicated.

Let us take a look at the facts. The combined budget of DFO and the Coast Guard has shrunk by $44 million, forcing the elimination of search and rescue helicopters and other services. Is this why the minister has placed the gag order on his department? Why else would he apply pressure to control what DFO officers and employees are saying to members of Parliament?

[Fisheries and Oceans, September 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a Fisheries and Oceans Canada member of Parliament inquiry form. It states:

All staff are required to report contacts with members of Parliament, senators or their representatives within 24 hours of contact.

I find this a bit puzzling. No other government department has it. It amounts to nothing less than intimidation of DFO officials.

The question is simple. Does the minister not trust his department or is he deliberately trying to keep information from Parliament?

[Canada Post, September 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the government wastes a lot of rhetoric on how it supports rural Canada, yet it is denying basic federal service to much of it.

The Liberals have broken their promise not to close more rural post offices and, worse yet, they have changed the rules so larger commercial accounts are excluded as post office income thus lowering the profit of many of the small branches and putting them on the non-essential list.

I am sure that no one working for the minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation will recognize the names that I am about to list. Tancook Island, Barss Corner, Greenfield, Hunts Point, McGray, Northeast Point, Pleasantville, Port Clyde, Port Joli, Port Mouton, Riverport, Sable River, South Brookfield and Stony Island are all post offices in South Shore that are slated to close.

Too often the only federal presence in rural and coastal Canada is the local post office. How can the government pretend to help rural Canada on one hand while pulling the door closed on rural post offices with the other?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, September 23rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Progressive Conservative members vote no.

[Supply, September 23rd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Fundy--Royal spoke to this issue and what we are seeing as members of Parliament in our ridings, especially in rural Canada. The situation is not dissimilar anywhere in Canada, whether in the heart of beef country in Alberta, southern Ontario, New Brunswick or rural Nova Scotia.

I listened to the government earlier. One of the issues discussed was our relationship with Japan, and our opportunity with Japan to build new markets for beef and our lack of response very early on in this crisis to deal with it in an equitable manner. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food spoke earlier and said they had 76 meetings with Japan. That is all well and good, however, it was the first three meetings that did not occur where the problem arose.

When we had one case of mad cow, the Japanese asked to come to Canada to loan their expertise on this subject and to see for themselves how we controlled the health of our product going out into the marketplace. Rather than accept that help and build goodwill with Japan, the minister responsible for agriculture and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said it was okay, we were fine, and we did not need their help. The Japanese called the second time and got the same answer. They called the third time, but they have not called a fourth time. That is why we have had 76 meetings trying to open the Japanese market back up, because they got a total ineffectual response.

The other comment by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was that we have had 250 to 280 interventions on behalf of the department in regard to opening the border. Again, it is not the amount. We could have 2,000 interventions. What we need is a delegation that is non-partisan, non-political, and led by the Prime Minister and all the leaders of all the parties in this place, to go visit our partners in the United States and bring the message forth to open that border up. That becomes the issue.