Gerald Keddy

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the member's very good comment. We need a ceiling and a floor. The four Atlantic premiers are meeting in Charlottetown as we debate the bill. They are looking at the caps on equalization.

A press release is expected from them by 3 p.m. Atlantic time. I will let them speak for themselves because it is always dangerous to speak for someone else. However it is expected that they will be asking for the caps to be removed in some fashion.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have read the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore accord and it is obvious to me that the member has not. He should pick it up and take a real good hard look at it because the accord states that the bulk of the revenues coming from the offshore should go to the province involved, either Nova Scotia or Newfoundland.

The separate side deal was for the Hibernia project. Newfoundland got to keep 25% of its revenues because of the cost of bringing the project on stream. It was a huge cost and some of the technology developed for Hibernia was the first time that it had ever been used anywhere on the planet.

The member's other question is really ludicrous. The principle of equalization is that when a province makes a dollar the federal government will claw it back. That is why we are standing on our feet today discussing the issue. That is what is not working.

If we read the history books and take a look at what happened between 1957 and 1965 we find that Alberta kept its equalization payments. Why not? It allowed the province the opportunity to build its infrastructure, to dig itself out of the hole that it was in and to climb up the ladder of opportunity.

We are saying all the provinces should be allowed to do that. It would not be forever. We cannot expect to implement it forever. The provinces should be given an opportunity to climb out of the hole and to get on top of their debts instead of looking up at them. They should be able to bring in the revenues they richly deserve.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, April 2nd, 2001]

He is the vice-chair of the finance committee. He went on to say:

As a reflection of this importance, equalization is the only transfer program that is actually enshrined in the Constitution act. The goal of equalization, of providing equality of opportunity across Canada, is extraordinarily important. We should also recognize that a goal of equalization should be to provide a ladder for provinces and individuals in those provinces, those recipient provinces, to rise from their status as recipient to the point that they can participate in the free market economy fully.

That is the nuts and bolts of the legislation. The equalization system should under no circumstance provide barriers or roadblocks to success for individuals and provinces as they try to bootstrap themselves into a more prosperous economy. The equalization system, as it is formulated, can create and encourage a continued roadblock to success for these provinces. That is perhaps the most fundamentally important issue in equalization which has not been addressed and which needs to be addressed.

The Conservative Party is concerned that the government, instead of debating the issue, discussing it over the past five years and trying to come up with an equalization plan that provides all regions of the countries with opportunities to succeed, continues with the same old tired policies that we need to revisit.

If we are ingenious about giving opportunities to recipient provinces and about eliminating barriers to success, it will take more than a few hours of debate in the House of Commons and some witnesses appearing before the finance committee.

We need a new visionary approach to equalization. We need a new equalization program that provides a ladder to success and not barriers to success as this one does. Our party believes that an equalization program is necessary and that we should continue to protect and encourage equalization as a tenet of Canadian social policy. We can make it better as parliamentarians.

There are a number of concerns from our provincial counterparts, especially those in Atlantic Canada. Many of these concerns are relative to natural gas revenues. Offshore natural gas and oil revenues for some of the provinces affected, be it Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, and the opportunities for Nova Scotians, Newfoundlanders or Atlantic Canadians to bootstrap themselves into some level of prosperity in the 21st century are largely contingent on these revenues.

We should be very careful not to create a clawback through changes in equalization. That is exactly what we have now, a clawback that effectively eliminates and reduces significantly the benefits being made by these provinces.

In the past governments made the mistake of trying to protect regions of the country from risks of the future. In so doing with social programming and reinvestment in times when the government is not able to do that, we can create a very dangerous precedent and a very dangerous set of political dynamics.

At no other time in the history of Canada has Nova Scotia been positioned as well on the doorstep to the future as it is now. In no other time since Newfoundland joined Confederation has it been positioned as well as it is now to enter the country as a full-fledged partner.

The vision of the federal government must do what it chose to do from 1957 to 1965 in the province of Alberta when it allowed that province to keep its equalization payments as well as its revenues. If we had a similar program in Atlantic Canada for five years, and if we allowed those provinces to keep their oil and gas revenues as well as their equalization payments, in a very short period of time they would be able to be contributors to Canadian equalization instead of drawing on Canadian equalization.

That is one instance. There are also other opportunities in these areas: the gas fields on Sable Island, the stepout wells that are being drilled this year, the deep water drilling that will be taking place on the east coast, the potential of the Laurentian sub-basin, the potential off Labrador, and the additional wells being drilled off Hibernia. Newfoundlanders, Nova Scotians, Prince Edward Islanders and New Brunswickers have their foot in the door of the future.

The government has to show the vision to open that door wider. We have had Premier John Hamm campaigning in Ottawa. He was in Alberta a few weeks ago on his so-called campaign for fairness.

This is not rocket science. This is simply saying that the province, taking Nova Scotia as an example, manages to keep only 19 cents of every dollar of offshore oil and gas revenues in Nova Scotia. The rest of the money, the other 81 cents, goes to the coffers and fattens the revenues of the federal government.

There is something absolutely and incredibly wrong with that. We should not have to discuss the fact that 81 cents go to the feds and that 19 cents go to Nova Scotia. This is not the scale of justice. It is not imbalance at all; it is completely out of whack.

When Nova Scotia and Newfoundland signed the offshore accords, the intent of those accords was to give undersea revenues to the provinces that brought those revenues into Confederation. In 1867 when Nova Scotia joined Confederation, it brought with it those offshore revenues because it controlled those revenues. That became a net contributor to the economy and in the last 10 years it has been a huge contributor to the economy.

We have to find a way to ensure or enshrine, because the legislation is protected in the constitution, that some of that money goes back to the provinces from whence it came, whether from Alberta with revenues that come from underground, whether from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland with revenues that come from offshore, or from any other province in the country. There has to be some flexibility in the equalization system to accept varying and differing circumstances at different periods in our history. What we have now does not do that. We need some positive change and soon.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to discuss Bill C-18 regarding equalization from the federal government to the provinces. The bill, if passed, and I expect the government will be able to get its members into the House for an important vote like this one, would lift the cap off equalization payments for the year 2000-01. Quite simply, that is what the bill is about.

It is not a complicated piece of legislation. It deals specifically with an issue and certainly would be a help and a boon to the provinces that need increased equalization payments, especially in this fiscal year.

As we are debating this bill today we know that the four Atlantic premiers, including one of the only two Liberal premiers in the country, are meeting in Charlottetown to discuss equalization payments. Certainly what they are asking the government to do and what we are expecting they will ask the government to do is permanently lift the cap on equalization. There are a number of reasons the government should seriously consider measures such as lifting the cap on a permanent basis.

The concept of providing effectively level taxation or similar levels of taxation and services across the country is perhaps the very cornerstone of Canadian social policy. That was said in the House not long ago by our finance critic, the member for Kings—Hants. I would like to state—

[Cetaceans, April 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address Motion No. 75 put forward by the member for Vancouver East.

The motion would see stronger protection put in place for cetaceans, especially a moratorium on the live capture and trade of whales, dolphins and porpoises. The member for Malpeque said that a moratorium on the live capture of cetaceans, whales, dolphins and porpoises has been in place since 1992.

I would be interested in hearing the member's response to my questions, but unfortunately we do not get the opportunity for questions and answers. I am sure the member for Vancouver East was dying to ask some questions. There needs to be a broader debate on the entire issue. Through that type of debate we can get down to the fact of whether we should or should not be supporting the live capture of whales, dolphins and porpoises.

There are two sides to the issue. First, the live capture of whales for display in aquariums allows scientists and researchers to discover significant amounts of information about the lifestyle, reproduction and communication of these mammals and preserves what can be an endangered species for future generations.

Second, whales are very intelligent animals. When caged in aquariums it is believed they can lead bored, lonely and stressful lives. The last orca whale in the Vancouver Aquarium is being sent to San Diego SeaWorld so that it can interact with other whales.

Public opinion has played a significant role in Canada's attitude toward the live capture of whales. After much public outcry, the Vancouver Aquarium decided that it would not capture or bring any whales captured after September 1996 into the aquarium. However the aquarium can still exchange whales with other facilities. Currently there are 30 whales in aquariums within North America and 21 outside the continent.

At the same time information about cetaceans may improve by studying these mammals in captivity. As a result of studying whales in a controlled environment researchers realized that the gestation period for whales was longer than previously thought. This information resulted in the International Whaling Commission reducing Norway's whale quota to reflect this longer timeframe. The long term survival of the species may be facilitated by research that is conducted in a controlled environment and that would be difficult to conduct on a species in the wild.

Orcas off Canada's west coast are low in numbers and have recently been declining. The orca herd on the east coast, from Iceland through to Newfoundland and off the coast of Greenland, seems to be in much better condition than the ones on the west coast. Environmentalists and biologists are not sure of the cause of the decline, but one factor may be the high level of contamination in the food chain. Orcas consume vast quantities of food and are at the higher end of the food chain, causing high levels of PCBs to build up from the number of seal and salmon consumed.

Another issue that would be a factor in their decline is a lack of sufficient food. Salmon numbers are also declining and this may be preventing orcas from finding enough food to meet their daily intake requirements.

In any case numbers are declining. We need to question once again whether it is important to support the live capture of whales so that more scientific research can be conducted into this decline, or whether we are simply appeasing our desire to have the opportunity to see these creatures in accessible settings and increase tourist numbers.

There is little question that whales in particular attract human attention. The rising number of whale watching operations and the increased number of visitors to aquariums when whales, dolphins and porpoises are part of the exhibit attest to their popularity.

While orca numbers are declining other whale populations are increasing. The grey whale count is estimated at 26,000 off the coast of British Columbia. It is suggested that overpopulation is the reason there are increasing numbers of grey whales washing up along the coast.

On the east coast there has been good news lately regarding whale populations, particularly the northern right whale which is considered the rarest of the large whales. Researchers with east coast ecosystems in Nova Scotia recently announced that the number of newborn whales reached 25, the largest count since 1980 when births were first recorded.

It is widely believed by a number of scientists on the east coast that there is a rogue pod of right whales that are deep ocean whales. We do not see them in the inner Bay of Fundy and other areas, but they are actually interbreeding with the right whales that are there now.

This whale is certainly not anything close to emulating the escalating population that is occurring for grey whales, but the small number of existing northern right whales is encouraging, particularly after disappointing birth rates over the past couple of years. These numbers are especially encouraging when we consider that the entire population of right whales along the eastern seaboard is optimistically estimated at around 350, a very low number.

There are significant hurdles that young whales have to overcome if they are to reach maturity. Many die within the first six months possibly from chemical contamination, while others become entangled in fishing gear or are struck by ships. A biologist with the University of Oregon has been quoted as saying that about one-third of all animals found dead are from ship collisions. Over two-thirds of the population is scarred from entanglements in fishing gear.

That makes this especially troubling since recent cutbacks by the current federal government have forced the coast guard to terminate its effort in freeing whales trapped by fishing gear. With two-thirds of right whales scarred from having been caught in fishing gear this is not a service that should be eliminated, not if the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is serious about whale conservation.

Efforts need to be made to try to reduce the number of whales caught in fishing gear. By eliminating this service by DFO, the government is once again signalling that its commitment to whale conservation is in words only.

Collisions with ships are one of the major hazards facing right whales, with 16 of the known 45 right whale deaths since 1970 resulting from such collisions. Half the remaining whales congregate in the Bay of Fundy between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick from June to December. This makes whale watching a profitable enterprise in the area, but unfortunately the shipping traffic and fishing vessels in the area make it dangerous waters for the right whale.

East Coast Ecosystems Research has worked hard to promote whale conservation and has set up a whale sighting protocol. This program monitors right whale sightings and provides information to boats in the Bay of Fundy and along the Scotian shelf of Nova Scotia so that vessel operators are aware of whales in the area. Marine Communications and Traffic Services officers advise vessels traversing these waters that they are passing through an area where whales may be found. They provide co-ordinates of sightings and possible actions to divert a collision.

Perhaps we need a moratorium on the live capture of cetaceans but I am not entirely sure that we do. There are a number of things that we can do to help not only whales and dolphins but other marine species.

It is the government's responsibility to bring forth such legislation and to debate these issues in the House. We need to ensure that all sides of the issue are represented so that we can make decisions to the benefit of all Canadians and to the benefit of the mammals we are discussing.

It is clear that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans recognizes the need to help protect right whales, but its actions do not support its stated commitment to whale protection. It is time for the department to re-evaluate its plans in relation to right whale protection.

While we have taken steps toward conserving whale population there is still a long way to go. Scientists and biologists, not parliamentarians, need to debate whether the live capture of whales helps to increase public perception and knowledge of the plight of whales and other cetaceans, or whether there is more harm than good by keeping such mammals in aquariums so that they can be studied and examined.

There is one good example of scientific knowledge in the live capture of animals. It is taking place on Sable Island off the coast of Nova Scotia. I first went to Sable Island in 1980. That year we counted 60 or 70 dead horses on Sable Island because the government did not allow the live capture horses to be brought ashore when populations reached too high a point.

There was nothing wrong with those horses. They could have been brought ashore and homes could have been found for them. That did not occur because they were protected and the government did not allow their live capture. Sometimes there is a reason for live capture of animals.

[Lumber Industry, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. What has the minister done to guarantee that Canadian sawmillers will not wake up on Sunday morning facing U.S. anti-dumping measures against Canadian softwood lumber?

[Health, March 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward Island's Kensington Intermediate High School has cancelled a school trip to France and the United Kingdom because of concern over hoof and mouth disease.

I call upon the federal government to take heed of the P.E.I. example and immediately take measures to educate Canadians in a massive Canada wide program to ensure this disease does not enter the country.

Canada needs more stringent preventative measures to protect Canadian livestock from hoof and mouth disease. Canadian travellers must be told what steps they can take to prevent bringing this disease into the country, whether it is through dried meat or infected clothing.

Returning travellers from infected areas now have to disinfect their shoes, but what about the other two pairs of shoes they have in their suitcases? What about the clothes they are wearing?

Canada can no longer remain passive about this issue. We must start a program tomorrow and it is the government's responsibility to impose it.

[Division No. 54, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the PC Party votes yes to this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the PC Party votes no to this motion.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Division No. 44, March 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Party votes yes to the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)