Larry Miller

[Business of Supply, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, first, I thank the finance minister for his continued strong performance as Canada's finance minister.

I have to make a comment first. Everybody in Canada knows the Liberals have never had a surplus they did not spend. The NDP have never seen a surplus it would not like to spend, but like the Bloc, it will never get a chance.

A question that came from across the way for the finance minister referred to comments about the Premier of Ontario. I come from Ontario so I have a right to speak to this. The premier announced a week or so ago that he would put a whole bunch of money into funding sex changes. However, he will not sign an agreement that will give funding to municipalities in Ontario or right across Canada.

As the finance minister mentioned, some sectors of the economy are having a tough go of it due to the high dollar, especially the manufacturing sector. As we know, the government has introduced significant measures to support the manufacturing sector and its workers.

For workers, we have come out with the community development trust, which provides over $1 billion for communities and laid off workers. I know my home province of Ontario is using this money to help fund a retraining program, which estimates say will help 20,000 unemployed workers make the transition to new careers, and I know the Premier of Ontario is very appreciative of that.

On that note, I would like to ask the minister about something that one of my colleagues, the member for Edmonton—Leduc, brought to my attention, and it was brought to his attention by a business in his riding, City Lumber. Forklifts and other powered industrial lift trucks used for manufacturing do not qualify for the accelerated capital cost allowance. I know some of the businesses in my riding could also miss out because of this opportunity.

Therefore, would the minister explain what is being done or what can be done to correct this situation.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, May 1st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as a member across the way said, there seems to be a lot of love in the House tonight. On the serious side, it speaks to the fact that this bill is supported right across the country. It is not controversial. This should be done and needs to be done. One thing I want to point out is that there is support from every part of the country, from one side to the other, from every province in the Maritimes, through Quebec, in Ontario where I am from, around the Great Lakes, and right out to the west coast.

There is one thing that I know will make the Bloc member happy, because he talked about the funding aspect of this bill. I have to point out to him that it has been addressed for the first time in I am not sure how long; I will not say for the first time in history but I will say that it is a long time. The minister got money in the budget this year to deal with the issue. We can all debate about whether it is enough, but there is money and I think that is a very positive thing. I thank everyone for their support.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, May 1st, 2008]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to debate third reading of Bill S-215, an act to protect heritage lighthouses. But before I go any further, I would like to personally thank my seconder, the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's, for all his hard work on this, and also for the very strong support from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

I would be remiss if I did not mention some of the history of this bill which some may or may not know. This initiative was initiated seven or eight years ago by the late Senator Forrestall. After his unfortunate passing, it was carried on by Senators Carney and Murray. We have had some great support from people all over the country which I will be talking about a little further here.

There is a book called Alone in the Night. It is a collection of stories about the lighthouses of Georgian Bay, where I happen to live, the Manitoulin Islands and the North Channel in Ontario. It speaks about what our Canadian lighthouses really are when the authors wrote:

Lighthouses capture the imagination. There is an obvious appeal in the romantic image of lights as beacons of strength and protection, but the fascination goes beyond that. Pass one of the silent towers and an eerie presence beckons--of untold stories and forgotten memories.

By most standards, we are still a very young country. Lighthouses are a critical and important part of our early history and our development as a nation. From Newfoundland and Labrador to British Columbia, they have shaped our destiny. Let me offer but a few selected samples.

The Cape Pine light tower, which is a national historic site, was built in 1851 on Newfoundland's southernmost point to guide transatlantic navigation. It was the first of a series of cast iron structures that substituted for fire-prone timber structures. On a personal note, I had the privilege of being at that site last July and it is truly something to see. Its contribution continues today. In recent years it has operated as a pollution research station.

In the Maritimes, we have Sambro Island, just outside the entrance to Halifax Harbour. It is 250 years old this year and the oldest operating lighthouse in all of the Americas. Along the St. Lawrence, L'Isle-Verte and Cap-des-Rosiers lighthouses were built almost 200 and 150 years ago respectively, and both are designated national historic sites. In British Columbia, Race Rocks and Fisgard light stations will be 150 in 2010.

All members know of the important role that lighthouses have played in our development as a nation. With many lighthouses celebrating important anniversaries this year, and I have mentioned just a couple of them, I can think of no better way to honour their importance than for this House to pass Bill S-215.

The fact that this bill has arrived at third reading speaks to the tremendous amount of thought that this House and the Senate have put into protecting our heritage lighthouses. In fact, it is the seventh time that Parliament has considered a bill to protect heritage lighthouses, and I sincerely hope we will be seventh time lucky. Going back to my Irish roots, maybe the luck of the Irish will be upon us here.

There is broad support for this bill in this House, in the Senate, and certainly among Canadians. To date we have spent a considerable amount of time on this bill, with many hours in committee listening to Canadians voice their support for protecting heritage lighthouses. We heard from the Senate, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Parks Canada, and from academia and community stakeholders on both coasts, in central Canada and Quebec. We have heard the voices of people across this country urging us to pass this legislation and I agree with them.

I can tell members that in my riding of Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, there are a number of lighthouses, including some of the six historic imperial lighthouses that were constructed between 1855 and 1859, but the condition of some of those majestic properties has deteriorated. I would like to see this bill passed to spare a similar fate to the one on Griffith Island in Georgian Bay, which is in my riding.

Just this past Saturday night I had the pleasure of being on the Chi-Cheemaun, a local Ontario Northlands ferry, where a fundraiser was held, and part of the tour that we had passed by Griffith Island.

While it was very nice to see it at dusk, the light tower standing there with the light is great, but some of the outbuildings have deteriorated. This bill will keep that from happening and hopefully as well to some other important lighthouses in the country.

Why should we pass this bill? Mr. Robert Square, the chair of the Cove Island Lightstation Heritage Association, which is another lighthouse in my riding, said it best:

I believe that the preservation of lighthouses, Bill S-215, is a shared responsibility, shared between the government and our groups, the non-profits. There's a wonderful opportunity here to do some really good work in preserving our lighthouses.

These sentiments were echoed by Mr. David Bradley, chair of the Association of Heritage Industries of Newfoundland and Labrador. In his testimony, he said:

Canada's cultural heritage is vital to our identity and sense of place. The built heritage is the most vivid physical representation of that cultural heritage--

He also told the committee:

As with railway stations, lighthouses have a special significance to Canadians. They are iconic structures. Many have significant architecture. But their importance stems more from their role in Canadian history. Often standing in relative isolation on islands or headlands, they have been the first evidence of Canadian culture encountered by generations of immigrants to this country.

Natalie Bull also appeared before the committee as executive director of the Heritage Canada Foundation. She noted that lighthouses are used extensively in promoting tourism and that many are, as she put it, significant destinations in and of themselves. Peggy's Cove, I think, is one that truly represents that.

Mr. Barry MacDonald, who has worked tirelessly to advance this initiative, spoke to the committee of the bonds that maritime communities have with the lighthouses that served them and their forebearers. He is the president of the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society and he also noted how volunteer groups are benefiting their community by keeping these bonds intact. He said:

A pioneering effort began in Prince Edward Island in 1984 with the lease of the West Point lighthouse. A well-organized development plan saw ten rooms, a full-menu restaurant, and a gift shop in place by 1987. A real success story, this lighthouse has consistently employed 25 local people and is a major tourism destination on Prince Edward Island.

Casting an eye to New Brunswick, Mr. MacDonald pointed out that the interpretive centre at the Cape Enrage lightstation welcomes more than 40,000 visitors per year to the rugged Fundy shore. The non-profit group that developed it and operates it generates annual revenues of $350,000 and employs about 20 students. This group has been in business since 1993 and has not looked back.

The committee heard time and again of the tremendous benefits to transferring lighthouses to communities. It allows those closest to these heritage sites, those with the greatest stake in their preservation, a chance to have a hand in their future. Non-government groups have more flexibility in fundraising than does a government organization.

The executive director of Heritage B.C., Mr. Rick Goodacre, also appeared before the committee. He noted the contribution of the many volunteers who are adopting and will adopt lighthouses for alternate use. He stressed that the sustainability of lighthouses is dependent on the will to conserve them. He said of Bill S-215:

I think that's why, in this case, special legislation is valuable and necessary. I don't believe the general blanket of federal policy for heritage buildings is sufficient to deal with our historic lighthouses.

I say amen to that.

Mr. Goodacre told the committee that if Bill S-215 is passed, his organization will strive to help implement it in his province and realize its goal of protecting heritage lighthouses. To quote him: “We'll do whatever we can to make this work”.

The witnesses who came before the committee clearly gave Bill S-215 a lot of thought. They recognized that while perhaps not every lighthouse can be saved, they are willing to work with the Government of Canada on this. They ask that we pass this bill so they can continue to be part of the process. They want to ensure that local communities are included and can assist in ensuring the future of their lighthouses.

Speaking on behalf of the heritage community on the east coast, Mr. Bradley, who again, is the chair of the Association of Heritage Industries of Newfoundland and Labrador, said:

--the heritage community recognizes that the compromises made along the way were a necessary part of that process, and we are happy with this bill.

Barry MacDonald, whom I mentioned earlier, was one of those people who helped make this bill work with compromises and I truly thank him for that.

I agree with Mr. Bradley when he added, “It is time to move ahead”.

Returning to Mr. MacDonald of Nova Scotia, he urged passage of the bill to, as he put it:

--recognize and protect the rich architecture that is present in our lighthouses across this country,--

From the grand beacons that rise along our coastlines to the small, wooden pepperpot styles that are unique to Canada, few nations can boast such a varied and treasured collection of lighthouse architecture. Put simply, these heritage sites are worth protecting.

This initiative has been around the block several times and it has always received strong support. Unfortunately, those attempts suffered the fate of many private members' bills, the parliamentary clock simply ran out. However, opportunity has knocked a seventh time.

The fact that this bill is here again speaks volumes to the importance of this proposed legislation to many Canadians who are determined to protect these unique symbols of our past.

There is wide support for this bill in the community and in government. The government sought changes and we in committee, through collaboration and compromise, made them. What we have before us today is quite simply a better bill, a workable solution.

Essentially, the bill requires that a designated heritage lighthouse be reasonably maintained. It facilitates ongoing protection and ensures use for a public purpose when heritage lighthouses are transferred from federal ownership.

We have also addressed the issue of access structures. To better define the scope of the act, we changed the terminology from “related structures” to “related buildings”. These measures will improve protection for heritage lighthouses, whether they stay in federal hands or are transferred to the community.

Thanks again to the input of many stakeholders, Bill S-215 offers a statutory mechanism to identify lighthouses worthy of heritage protection. It puts in place a process to recognize, protect and maintain them. It is a bill that would allow community members to have a say and take a hand in the future of their lighthouses, as well they should.

I call on members of this House to realize the dream of the late Senator Forrestall, who first brought this issue into the spotlight, and pass this bill.

Once again, I would like to thank Senator Carney and Senator Murray for all their hard work. I wish to thank Barry MacDonald and everyone else across this country who have helped to bring this bill to the point that it is. I thank them for their tireless support.

I urge everyone in the House to support this bill.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, May 1st, 2008]

moved that Bill S-215, as amended, be concurred in.

[Beef Industry, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the work of All County Feed and Grain Ltd. Co-owners Darryl Williams and Mark Kuglin are running a campaign to encourage people to buy beef raised by local farmers. I am proud of the fact that Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound is the second largest cattle producing riding in Canada and I fully support this campaign.

The truth is that whether it be tomatoes, apples or beef, food that comes from around the corner is healthy, safe and better tasting than the alternative. There are opportunities here for both businesses and individuals. The menus of the best restaurants now use locally grown meat and vegetables. Hopefully, hamburger stands at Sauble Beach, restaurants in Owen Sound, and bed and breakfasts in Tobermory will all proudly advertise locally grown beef and produce on their menus.

Eat local campaigns provide excellent rewards for health and well-being and they also provide a boost to our local economies. Canadian farmers provide the greatest quality food in the world. I stand up for our farmers. I encourage everyone to do the same.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, April 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk by the opposition about the price of food and whether or not we should be turning food into fuel.

Farmers in my riding, and I am sure a lot of agriculture producers in British Columbia where the member is from, have been struggling in recent years to make a living and finally, they are making some money on their crops to survive.

It has already been pointed out numerous times today that less than 5% of agriculture production is being used to produce fuel, which I think we would all agree is pretty minuscule. I am sure the member knows that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has recently authorized the removal of kernel visual distinguishability, KVD. This move by the minister will allow varieties of wheat, which I am sure will lead to other crops, to basically increase their yields in a huge way.

I would like to know if the member supports the initiative taken by this government that will allow farmers to increase their crop yields and therefore, profitability.

[Ontario Economy, March 13th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has a responsibility to ensure our economy continues to grow in the highly competitive global environment in which we live.

My province of Ontario is a major contributor to the national economy, but Ontario's business taxes are currently the highest in Canada. If nothing is done, Ontario's marginal effective tax rate, the overall tax rate on new business investment, will be nearly twice as high as Quebec's by 2012.

Premier McGuinty has a budget on March 25. I ask the finance minister, how can Ontario help make sure Canada remains an economic--

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, sovereignty was the word that was floating around here a few minutes ago. We can have all kinds of debate out in the poppy fields or wherever but at the end of the day, every country has the right to sovereign decisions and that is an Afghan decision.

Canada has many of those same decisions and we do not want any other country telling us how to make our decisions, whether it be on the Arctic, on the coast or on anything in-between.

That is not to say that there are not things we could maybe help the Afghan government try to eradicate. It is a problem and maybe it can be turned into a positive in some ways through the medical aspect of opium, but at the end of the day it needs to be done through the cooperation and the decision by and with the Afghan government.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the refurbishing of, not just our armed forces, but the equipment they use, after years of being starved, which I guess is a good word and one of many that I could use to describe it, of resources to do the job.

Anybody with the right training and the right tools can accomplish just about anything. Canadians, especially Canadian troops, have proved that better than anybody over the course of time. Their record in the two great wars, in Korea and now again here, plus all their peacekeeping missions in-between have proved that. They were gutted to the point where they hardly had anything left to work with. We have given that back to them.

We have northern security in Canada. We must protect our sovereignty in the north because it is a part of Canada. That does not mean that we cannot have agreements with countries around the world to traverse through there, but at the end of the day it remains Canada's north.

We have our DART from Kingston that can help out in disasters around the world. The tsunami was an instance where it was certainly used, and in many other cases around the world. We also provide clean water equipment in devastated villages, whether it be war-torn or natural disasters. Canada's record for providing humanitarian aid worldwide is second to none.

[Afghanistan, March 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House and speak to this important debate.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean—Carleton.

The dialogue that our country is having on our role in this international mission in Afghanistan is a very important one. This government is trying to do whatever it can to inform Canadians about this mission so that we can come to the right decision on the future of our involvement in that country.

Before I get into how the government is working to promote this ongoing national discussion, I would like to begin by paying tribute to the many Canadian civilian workers and our Canadian Forces members in Afghanistan. They are serving our country with great courage, dedication and professionalism. I would also like to pay tribute to Canadians from across the country who have shown their support for our troops.

This time, there is a personal side to this for me. My nephew is with the British forces and arrived in the Kandahar area just in the last week. We certainly pray for his safety as well as that of all our forces.

Right now approximately 2,500 Canadian Forces members are serving as part of the United Nations mandated and NATO-led International Security Assistance Force to help bring security to Afghanistan, especially in the south. Their work in increasing the security of that country has made it possible for our diplomats, development workers and civilian police, among others, to make their own significant contribution.

Canada is among the world's top donors to Afghanistan and is an active contributor in areas such as education, health, community development, and training and mentoring for the Afghan national army and the Afghan national police.

Canadians, military and civilian, are making a difference as a key part of an international effort to help rebuild a country that has suffered through decades of war and upheaval. We cannot thank them enough for the difference they are making. We know it is not an easy task.

Our forces are experiencing the most demanding operation since Korea. The mission carries risks and challenges.

The Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are making real, tangible progress where it counts in improving the lives of ordinary Afghans. They are doing so in many ways: on patrols that provide security and in provincial reconstruction teams that facilitate development.

Their contributions are helping to rebuild Afghanistan every day, one piece at a time. They have my full support and, I trust, that of every member of the House.

I would like to speak of Canadians, who have demonstrated incredible support for our troops over the past few years. Their outpouring has been incredible. I would like to recognize it here tonight.

Without the support of Canadians, the progress made by our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan would not have been possible. There has been support from people from across the country, from individual Canadians, businesses and associations. In every corner of Canada, people are taking time away from their own lives to show our troops that they and their work are valued.

I think we need to commend all of these people who have made such wonderful heartfelt gestures of appreciation to our troops, not because they had to, but because they felt deep in their hearts that they needed and wanted to give something back to our men and women in uniform.

Some of those examples I am talking about include the red Friday rallies that happen from coast to coast. People from across the country are wearing red in support of our troops on Fridays. I have a red T-shirt that was given to me by a family member from Markdale, in my riding, which I wear every Friday. To be honest, I wear it at other times as well. It makes us think about our troops over there.

I am talking about the daily messages posted on the “write to our troops” website of the Department of National Defence.

I am talking about quilting associations across the country making quilts for injured Canadian Forces personnel or for the families of the fallen.

As well, we have seen people gathering spontaneously on the overpasses of Highway 401 to salute fallen soldiers along what has been renamed the Highway of Heroes.

I am thinking, too, of businesses and employers taking the initiative to show their support. I am thinking of employers who support the reservists who work for them and ensure that they have jobs when they get back from service.

There is also the support coming from the sporting world. Our Canadian troops have been honoured at NHL games and were an important part of Grey Cup festivities last fall.

There are also things like the great many warm gestures over the holidays, such as letters, gifts, packages and email messages sent to our troops in Afghanistan.

Canadians of all ages, all religions and all professions know that the holidays are often a tough time of the year for our troops overseas and, of their own accord, took time from their families and all the things that make the holiday season special. They went out of their way to show our troops in Afghanistan that we remember them, that we care about them and that we appreciate all that they do.

It is initiatives like the one made by the Canadian Christmas Tree Growers Association last holiday season. It donated more than 2,000 Christmas trees to the families of Canadian Forces members serving their country overseas. It is year in and year out efforts by the massive number of volunteers across this country who organize events and initiatives for family members of Canadian Forces personnel. I recently attended one of those myself, the third or fourth one.

These dedicated volunteers are a small army in and of themselves. Canadians make all of these efforts because they want to express their support directly to the troops. Such expressions of support mean a great deal to the men and women of the Canadian Forces as they help Afghans secure and stabilize their country.

In many ways, such heartfelt gestures fuel their work. It comforts them when the going gets tough. It reminds them that Canadians from the east coast to the west coast and in the north support their work.

One of the core responsibilities of any government is to foster debate on the important issues facing our country. When a matter of national importance must be decided, the Canadian public and its elected representatives must have the information they need to draw their own conclusions.

This government is absolutely committed to that principle. Canadians expect and deserve nothing less, especially as the end of Canada's current military mandate in Afghanistan, scheduled for February 2009, approaches. That is why this government took the responsible course of action and our Prime Minister struck the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan, headed by former deputy prime minister, John Manley.

This panel was asked to explore options for Canada's mission in Afghanistan following the end of the current mandate. That non-partisan panel drew on the independent voices of five eminent Canadians with extensive foreign policy expertise and commitment to public service. It heard informed opinions on Afghanistan from across the spectrum: regional experts, development workers, academics and non-governmental organizations. Some were voices of support and some were not.

The panel members travelled to Afghanistan and saw for themselves the work being done on the ground. The panel provided a thorough report that assessed what had been done and that pointed a way forward. It confirmed that Canada's effort in this international response to Afghanistan is important and should continue.

It said that notable progress had been made and it listed the very real challenges to be overcome for us to see further success in this mission, along with presenting some well-thought out recommendations aimed at ensuring further progress. This government listened. We welcomed the panel's report and we responded to its recommendations.

Among other things, the government immediately created a cabinet committee on Afghanistan and created an Afghanistan task force within the Privy Council Office. Both of these measures are designed to improve the coordination required for us to increase our effectiveness in Afghanistan.

We are increasing our technical briefings to the media on Afghanistan. There have been 15 technical briefings since Canada first deployed troops there in February 2002, 14 of which have taken place under this government.

Of course we, in partnership with our Liberal colleagues across the floor, also responded to the Manley panel report by bringing forward a motion to the House that would extend Canada's commitment to the United Nations' mandated mission in Afghanistan until 2011 but not without important conditions and, importantly, we have worked with the opposition on this motion. Our mission in Afghanistan is neither a Liberal nor a Conservative mission. It is a Canadian mission.

In closing, I would like to indicate my support for the mission there and the government's efforts in this regard.

For my nephew, Lane, who has just arrived in Afghanistan, I wish him have a safe trip home.