Gerald Keddy

[National Horse of Canada Act, April 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill S-22, the national horse of Canada act. Once again I would like to thank the member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey for bringing this Senate bill into the House of Commons under his tenure and under his leadership. He has done a fine job in pursuing the bill, along with our colleagues in the Senate.

For me it is a special pleasure to speak to Bill S-22. Back in 1990, in New Ross, Nova Scotia, the town where I was born and raised and where I live today, Allan Hiltz started the rare breed program. He brought in and brought back to this agriculture museum the Cottswold sheep, the Berkshire pig and the Canadien horse.

In 1990, the three Canadien horses that were purchased from Quebec brought the total Canadien horses, not just in Nova Scotia but in the maritime provinces, to five. Three were at the Ross Farm Museum, one was at the Louisbourg National Historic Park and one was owned by Ruthanne Hart , who is the founding member of the Canadien Horse Breeders Association, Atlantic District.

There are now 3,000 Canadien horses across Canada, with 250 foals being born every year. Eleven of those horses are in the small community of New Ross, with eight of them at the Ross Farm Museum.

Canadien horses and heritage animals are definitely a part of our Canadian heritage. They take us back to the very roots of our existence. Part of the foundation stock for the Canadien horses were horses that were brought from France to LaHave in Lunenburg county in 1632 to 1635. Some of those bloodlines still run in the horses that were later taken to Quebec.

It is important to remember that most of the horses already in Nova Scotia prior to 1632 were picked up when Argall raided the French settlements in Nova Scotia and burned Port Royal. They stole the horses and took them back to New England. A lot of the original breeding stock that was in Nova Scotia was lost. It was the horses that were brought into LaHave and the horses that were later taken to the province of Quebec that established the foundation stock for the breed today.

It is not my intention to be longwinded on the bill today. All of us want to see thebill go through the House as quickly as possible. However, I have one more comment to add.

I listened with interest to the member for Lanark--Carleton. I would like to correct one part of his debate for the record. There is no such thing as a Sable Island pony. I have been on Sable Island many times and have worked out there for eight years on the offshore. There are Sable Island horses and they are direct descendents of Canadien horses. Those are horses that were picked up in 1755, 1756 and 1757 during the expulsion of the Acadians and taken to Sable Island. That is the foundation stock of the Sable Island horses, which is exactly the same foundation stock as Canadien horses.

In closing, I once again congratulate the member from the government side for bringing the bill forward. It is a great bill and a great day for all Canadians.

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister still refuses to assert Canadian custodial management outside the 200 mile limit, will he agree to increase coast guard and DFO presence inside the 200 mile limit?

It is absolutely shameful that the minister expects one coast guard vessel to patrol all of the Grand Banks inside the 200 mile limit. What is he going to do about it?

[Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, April 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the amendment to Bill C-33. I first looked at this bill when it was C-62, Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act and again now when it is C-33, the same title, Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.

This bill is long overdue. It has been on the books since 1992-93. It is high time that we actually pass it through parliament. Ten years is long enough for any piece of legislation to be passed in this place.

There are some important questions to be raised regarding the deletion of the non-derogation clause. In conversation with the Inuit Tapirisat and the people in Nunavut they raised a number of questions about the bill. None the least of which was the long standing concern that the people of Nunavut had over the requirement for ministerial approval of applications. Certainly the intent, and a noble intent, is to have more control or more power vested in the jurisdiction and the people of Nunavut.

There was a problem with the authority of the governor in council to make regulations in areas that the Inuit felt should be the authority of the water board or the surface rights board, especially the water board. The legislation did not expressly recognize Inuit water rights. The bill states that is subject to Nunavut rights in the Nunavut Act and the rights invested in the crown. Possibly there should have been another amendment looking at water rights specific to the Nunavut area.

Another concern raised was that the $20 million liability factor. It should have probably been higher. However, all those issues and the non-derogation clause aside, this legislation is long overdue. It should have been passed long ago.

It has the support from the member for Nunavut and the premier of Nunavut. It is not up to us as parliamentarians to hold this particular piece of legislation up whether or not we agree with the amendment. The amendment has been passed in the House. It will be my intent to support the amendment in the House. It is incumbent upon all members in the House to look at this piece of legislation carefully to make sure that it is pushed forward and to absolutely make sure that it is passed because it does give more rights to the people who live in Nunavut. That is extremely important.

Maybe at some point in the future we should come back and look at this again but let us get the legislation through. Let us pass it. It is a good piece of legislation. It is timely and it is long overdue.

[Contraventions Act and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (marijuana), April 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to the bill. I would like to take a moment to thank the member for Esquimalt--Juan de Fuca for bringing the bill forth. The bill is extremely timely and important. It is an issue that has been ignored by parliamentarians and parliaments of Canada for far too long. It is time we dealt with in a serious and legitimate manner.

I understand there are other speakers trying to get some time on the floor tonight so it is not my intent to speak for a lengthy period of time. However before speaking to the bill, it is extremely important that we first speak to the amendment. The member of the NDP who spoke before me used the word hijacking of the bill. I would use the word treachery; treachery of another parliamentarian.

Private members' business is the single opportunity for individual members of parliament to bring issues of importance forth on their own. It is so important that we have changed the way we vote in the House when we do private members' business. We vote from the back to the front, so we cannot see how the leaders of the various parties vote first and therefore cower some of their own members into falling the lead of their colleagues who happen to sit in cabinet.

We get five hours a week to deal with private members' business. To put an amendment in that would verily remove this bill from the justice committee and put it over to another committee is absolute treachery on the part of any parliamentarian. I do not care in what party that individual sits. The issue of private members' business and the issue of free votes on private members' business should be sacrosanct at least in this place.

I said upon rising that the issue for the decriminalization of marijuana and an act to amend the Contraventions Act and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, or specifically marijuana, Bill C-344, is a timely bill. It would put this issue to the justice committee and allow for further study. It is the job of every parliamentarian in the House to vote down the amendment and ensure that the process is followed and that the bill actually gets to the justice committee.

Whether or not members support the bill, it is absolutely incumbent upon individual members of parliament to ensure that the process is followed. If we allow this process to be hijacked for nefarious and treacherous means, then the whole point of being a member in the House is in question. The right to be here is already then given up.

We can talk about the dollars that are spent on law enforcement and trying to control marijuana. We can talk about the fact that we have already legalized the medical use of marijuana. It is still extremely hard to access even for medical use. The issue here is simple. The majority of Canadians at some point in their life have broken the law and smoked marijuana or cannabis.

Are we going to continue to have young Canadians and Canadians everywhere hold a criminal record because they were caught with a marijuana cigarette or because they made a mistake in judgment at some time in their life? I do not think so. I think it is up to the Parliament of Canada to deal with this issue in a comprehensive way, and decriminalization is a start.

There are other issues here and those issues should be fleshed out in committee. We should come back here with a package that we can all look at, that we can weigh the pros and cons and make a decision about this substance.

There are other health issues. We have talked about tobacco, and there is a serious health issue with smoking marijuana. There is the definite tar in the substance that will cause the same effect on our lungs as tobacco smoking causes. We know for a fact that it lowers the white blood cell count. Therefore, there are health issues around marijuana.

There is also the fact that with the prohibition on alcohol everyone was drinking. With prohibition Canadians finally came to their senses and said “We cannot control this, so let us legalize it and that will give us some form of control”.

Some kid who is 16 years old who has a criminal record because of being caught with too much marijuana in his or her pocket would not be arrested when crossing the border to the United States. However people might not be 16 when they are arrested. They might be 24. They might have graduated from university and have a job south of the border but find they cannot access the job because of a criminal record.

There are all kinds of issues around this. That is why it is important, whether one supports Bill C-344 or not, that it goes to the justice committee which has an opportunity to study it and bring back legitimate proposals to the House on which we can make clear decisions.

[Fisheries and Oceans, April 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Last week another Russian trawler landed in Newfoundland with a manifest showing over 1.5 million pounds of fish and 35,000 pounds of fishmeal. Seventy percent of this catch was undersize and four more Russian trawlers unloaded similar catches.

The minister of “I will look into the matter” still plans to wait until late September to address overfishing.

Since the government will not raise the issue at the G-8 environmental meeting this week, will the minister agree to immediately call an emergency NAFO meeting to be held in Newfoundland to address the issue of foreign overfishing?

[Question No. 122—, April 11th, 2002]

Can the Department of Natural Resources provide: ( a ) the number of commercial woodlot owners by province; ( b ) the number of private woodlot owners by province; ( c ) the total acreage owned by each group; and ( d ) the amount of revenue the federal government receives from capital gains taxation of commercial woodlot owners?

[The Economy, April 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the government failed to reach a deal with the United States on softwood lumber. The U.S. will impose a 29% duty on Canadian lumber yet the government has no plan in place to assist the 30,000 workers in B.C. alone whose jobs have been threatened or already lost because of the government's failure to reach an agreement.

The government failed to protect Canada's scarce fish stocks and allowed a Russian trawler to head home with 49 tonnes of illegally caught cod, cod that Canadian fishermen have not been able to catch for years because of a moratorium. The same government failed to help western farmers. The country is in an agricultural crisis.

Instead, what is the government doing? It is paying $101 million to buy new Challenger jets for the Prime Minister when the government's own report has said that “fleet modernization or replacement is not warranted at this time”. This is at a time when our Canadian troops must hitchhike to battle and rely on 40 year old Sea Kings when they get there. Surely the government could do more.

[Fisheries and Oceans, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of fisheries finally agreed to take a small step toward curtailing overfishing of Canadian stocks by foreign boats. Yet his leader has still not even acknowledged 8,000 letters that he received asking him to protect endangered Atlantic salmon in Nova Scotia's rivers.

The minister of fisheries gave his word in the House that he would find a solution. He could start by asking his boss to answer his mail. Or is this like his attempt at curtailing overfishing on the Grand Banks, simply a little--

[Fisheries, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to say 10 minutes. However that may not be appropriate. If we could not get 10 minutes I would settle for 5 minutes.

[Fisheries, March 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thank the minister of fisheries for engaging in debate, but I am wondering if we could have unanimous consent to have questions and comments because of the importance of the debate.