Gerald Keddy

[Governor General, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians are shut out of a job competition in the Governor General's office. The Governor General has a job opening for a program and policy officer, but most Canadians who may be qualified for this job will never be given an opportunity to apply for it because the competition is restricted to those who live in certain postal codes in eastern Ontario and western Quebec.

This is blatant job discrimination. Here is a well paying job for a Canadian with the proper academic work and language skills in the office of the Governor General, of all Canadians, yet the competition, with the exception of those in a small geographical area around the national capital, shuts out every qualified person from B.C. to Newfoundland.

The Prime Minister's government must stop its discriminatory hiring rules. The federal government, which is facing a massive job skills shortage in the public service as baby boomers retire, must search for the best and the brightest across the entire country, not just around the national capital.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the government has granted hundreds of licences and bought boats and gear for natives in eastern Canada, yet only a handful of these licences are actually being fished by band members.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans commit to a moratorium on these royalty charters for the chiefs until the hundreds of licences already granted are being fished by aboriginals on the east coast?

[Species At Risk Act, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's discussion on Bill C-5. He added a lot to the debate by providing the PC Party's position on the legislation.

I would like to hear an additional comment from the member, especially on the one issue that I see as a major flaw in the legislation, which is the lack of compensation for landowners. As other opposition members have mentioned, that contributes to the rural-urban split.

I can give an example of that. We in Nova Scotians used to like to say that we had landowners and land users. For years I took that attitude as well. I learned over time, actually about 25 years, that those land users could be our friends. Whether they were birdwatching, hunting or skidooing on our property, if we had a good relationship with them they would be our friends. They would make sure that our cabins were not being broken into, fires were not being set, no one was stealing our Christmas trees and they were not causing a problem.

The legislation will force many of us who are landowners back to resenting the land users because we will be the people who will be paying the bills. I would like the member to comment on that.

[Species At Risk Act, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the point I should like to get across is that our legislation very much mirrors the American legislation. The American legislation did not involve the landowners, loggers or farmers. It very much pitted landowners against land users.

What they have ended up with in the States is that when people find a rare or endangered species on their property they shoot it, bury it, and do not tell anybody. That is the type of legislation that we are looking at today.

If we want to protect endangered species, especially plants and animals, we must find a way to compensate landowners. If as a landowner I had to exclude 10, 20 or 100 hectares because of a rare or endangered plant or animal which needed protection, I would want to be compensated for that. I am more than happy to allow for the protection, but if agricultural or forestry land is being taken out of production, all the onus cannot be upon the shoulders of the landowner. There has to be some sharing of that responsibility.

The legislation does not do that. It did not do it in California. It put people out of work south of the border. It caused animosity between people who depend upon the land to make a livelihood and people who simply want to enjoy the benefits of walking and looking at a beautiful piece of real estate. We cannot afford to do that in Canada, and unfortunately that is what the bill would do.

[Species At Risk Act, March 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the same person would not want to be candling eggs either, I am sure, because he or she would be in real trouble.

It is a pleasure to speak to the species at risk act. My colleague from Fundy—Royal has spoken eloquently on the bill and clearly laid out the PC Party position respecting the legislation. I should like to address some of the specifics of the legislation and how they may be applied to those of us who live in the rural and urban areas of Canada.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Brandon—Souris. I am sure everyone in the House will be waiting patiently to hear his words of wisdom on this legislation.

I have spoken in the House on previous occasions to highlight the plight of wild Atlantic salmon. When we are discussing species at risk legislation, I realize that all species encompassed by the legislation are in need of more support. There are many more species in need of support than just the wild Atlantic salmon.

However there is a need for more support not just from Canadians but also from government organizations at all levels, or wild Atlantic salmon and other species at risk in Canada will become extinct. Wild Atlantic salmon are decreasing in alarming numbers and the problem is that we do not know the cause. The salmon go out to sea but fail to return. What we are seeing as the years go on is fewer and fewer wild Atlantic salmon returning to our rivers.

We knew for a long time that many of them were being caught by commercial fleets off Greenland. Today the numbers have diminished to the point where they are not actually able to go out to sea to breed and produce enough smolts to return. We have few grilse and very few multi-sea winter salmon coming back to our rivers in eastern Canada.

The Atlantic Salmon Federation has been vocal in its efforts to highlight the problems facing this important species and to initiate more research into what is happening to prevent the return of more salmon.

At the same time a number of factors are contributing to the decline in general numbers: climate change, the corresponding warming of ocean temperatures, acid rain, pollution, the escape of farm salmon and predators. This is why none of these species should be looked at in isolation. There are many overlapping factors that need to be examined if we are to ensure that these species exist for future generations.

Bill Taylor, president of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, sums up very clearly and concisely the issue at stake:

We need a comprehensive, five year research, restoration, protection and community watershed management program dedicated to the wild Atlantic salmon and its habitat.

The legislation before us would be a step in the right direction except for the major flaws the bill entails. My colleague from Fundy—Royal clearly explained these limitations, and I would like to repeat two points.

First, the legislation does not require the protection of habitat. Second, by allowing the decision on which species are endangered to be made by cabinet and not by scientific experts, the effectiveness of the legislation has been severely constrained.

The Speech from the Throne on January 31 mentioned the need to protect species and stated that the government would be reintroducing the bill. What is disappointing is that the government did not take the opportunity to learn from its previous discussions on the subject.

Suggestions and recommendations from interested and affected stakeholders were not incorporated into the legislation. If changes proposed by stakeholders had been incorporated into the legislation, we could have had a more meaningful discussion on the real merits of this legislation.

There is one more thing that I would like to mention with regard to wild Atlantic salmon. The species is seen as a barometer that indicates the health of our oceans. If the habitat has become unsuitable for wild Atlantic salmon, it is also negatively affecting other species. They too will soon be listed as endangered, threatened or otherwise at risk.

It tells us that we do not have much time to deal with the problems affecting the species and its habitat. Yet the government has delayed making any effective changes. It has talked the talk since 1993, but we have yet to see any real meaningful steps taken to help endangered species in Canada.

Being from Nova Scotia I will focus my attention on a couple of other species that are threatened in the province. The Nova Scotia Nature Trust recently identified more lakes in Nova Scotia that have some of Canada's rarest plants along their shores. Shingle Lake, Ponhook Lake in Queens County and Harpers Lake in Shelburne county are a few lakes that have been recognized as having rare plant species along their shores.

Now that these rare plants have been identified, appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that they are protected. The trust plans to expand its landowner outreach program and public education program to make more people aware of these rare plants. The first step is to disclose to the landowners that such rare plants exist on their property.

Originally these plants were found on many lakes in Nova Scotia between Digby Neck and Mahone Bay. However the use of all terrain vehicles, damming and development have been contributing factors in their decline to the point where they need to be protected today. I would hope the legislation would protect these types of plants in the section on endangered species and threatened species.

I seriously stress and support the idea of encouraging landowners to help in this endeavour and to be adequately compensated for their assistance in protecting such species for all Canadians.

In no way should the financial burden be placed on an individual when all Canada benefits from the protection of these species. That is the trouble with this piece of legislation. It is certainly not the landowner's responsibility and it cannot become the landowner's responsibility to protect endangered species. All Canadians benefit from the protection of species and must somehow contribute to the continued protection of the species.

There are a number of birds, plants and animals in Nova Scotia. A few years ago we had a small mammal called the sea mink. It was completely different and did not interbreed with the inland mink. It was larger and lived in coastal areas. That animal is extinct today.

We have a number of birds that live in very small and isolated groups. The ipswich sparrow on Sable Island is a prime example. There is the piping plover which I have been fortunate enough to have actually seen. There are 50 or 60 breeding pairs left in the world. They breed upon the shores and the beaches of the south shore of Nova Scotia. It is these types of animals and birds that we have to protect. We have to find a way to protect them.

The legislation is simply wrong-headed. What is even more disappointing is that the government had ample opportunity to listen to the dialogue of opposition parties, the Sierra Club, landowner groups and big industry, but it did not hear what those groups were saying.

It refused to change or alter the bill. It refused to take it out of the hands of government, members of cabinet and privy councillors. It refused to list rare and endangered species in a meaningful way so that we could do something about the protection of these plants and animals. We have ended up with legislation that is kind of warm and fuzzy and sounds good but in reality will not work.

I will give an example. I have a number of cousins who are loggers in Sonora in northern California. Their logging operations have been shut down because of the spotted owl. They log mostly on government land and they simply cannot get timber contracts. They cut wood that is diseased, and that is the only wood they are allowed to cut. If there is a diseased tree on government lands in northern California they are allowed to cut it. Their own timber tracts are severely restricted and it is just about impossible to cut on public land. I will just take a couple of more seconds because I know—

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the government member who just spoke. Free trade works fine when there is lots of demand, but right now we do not have the same demand.

All kinds of products can be shipped out of Canadian mills but there is a lessened demand on the American side. At the same time there is a downturn in the American industry. Its sawmills are shut down. Our government has said all along that it intends to let this go under free trade and that it does not have to negotiate anything.

We are guaranteed on Monday, April 2, that the Americans will either have countervail duties or anti-dumping charges, or our government will have some type of export tax in place.

Where is the plan? What is the government doing about it? When does it plan to have it in place? It is as simple as that.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member for Thunder Bay—Superior North with some interest, because obviously he has taken some time on this and has a background in and knowledge of the subject.

Softwood lumber is one resource that Canada has. I appreciate the fact that he brought others forward, but I would like to focus my question on the softwood lumber debate.

Perhaps because of lack of time, there were a couple of factors that the hon. member did not get a chance to bring up. One is the fact that lumber prices have fallen, within the last year especially. When the market gets expensive and the market is demanding lumber products, we can ship across the border with a fair amount of impunity because the Americans want our raw materials.

However, what also happens when the price of lumber is higher is that there are a lot of substitutions in the construction industry. More concrete is used and a lot more steel studs are used. A lot more timber or softwood lumber replacements come into the construction field at such a time.

The issue, I believe, and the issue I would like the member to reply to, is the very motion that is before us, that we want free trade in softwood lumber. As I mentioned earlier in the debate today, we now have free trade in six of ten provinces in Canada. We have a softwood lumber agreement that covers up to 14.27 billion cubic feet of lumber coming out of B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. The issue is that we need the government not to include all of Canada in one agreement.

We need to support those four provinces in getting free trade in softwood lumber, which we certainly will do, but in regard to the other provinces that have free trade in lumber now, we need to maintain it and assure those provinces that they will not be lumped in on countervail, that they will not be lumped in on any duty coming out of the United States.

I am sure the hon. member understands that and would like to comment on it.

[Softwood Lumber, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, six out of ten Canadian provinces currently have free trade with the U.S. in softwood lumber. The federal government must ensure that these provinces are not included in future agreements that would restrict free trade as it currently exists. Instead, we need free trade for the other four provinces, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

There are currently 145 sawmills operating in the maritime region and only five of these sawmills are publicly owned. As well, 22% of Canada's private woodlots are in Atlantic Canada, with 72% of Nova Scotia's woodlots under private ownership. This mirrors the American position where 75% of forest land is privately owned, and is one of the reasons why the Atlantic region was not subject to the softwood lumber agreement.

It was in 1842 that the Webster-Ashburton treaty provided reciprocity in forest products between Maine and Atlantic Canada. We need to see free trade continue for the six provinces that currently have free trade in softwood lumber. What Canada does not need is countervail or anti-dumping restrictions against any Canadian softwood.

[Supply, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for staying to take questions because it is an extremely important issue.

I have not been able to participate in the debate, but there was a comment made about the have and have not provinces for quota holding. The member who made that comment should take a look at some of the facts before us.

Six provinces in Canada now enjoy free trade with the United States in softwood lumber. In Atlantic Canada that goes back to the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842. There is a lot of history in reciprocity of softwood lumber products between Maine and Atlantic Canada.

Because we have six out of ten provinces that enjoy free trade now it is the position of the Conservative Party that we should not be encompassing all six provinces with the other four that are suffering under a softwood lumber agreement. We should be seeking free trade for those four provinces directly. We could support that from our position. I would like to hear the minister's position on that.

[Right Of Landing Fee, March 2nd, 2001]

I agree with the member who just said “It is common sense”. A little common sense goes a long way. I would like to do an overview of the PC stance on immigration. We recognize that immigration in Canada will continue. We certainly support it. We also recognize further that it is an economic necessity. We need to have more confidence in and respect for human diversity so that we do not get sucked into the debate.

I will quote the words of our immigration critic, the member for Fundy Royal, “so that we do not get sucked into the debate of always having to add the word criminal in a statement related to immigration. That is a very slippery slope”.

In conclusion, the PC Party supports the bill. We support the abolition of the $975 head tax and the $500 tax that is added on top of that. In other words, we support the abolition of the $1,475 tax that immigrants are forced to pay when they come into Canada.

We would like to see the bill made votable. Perhaps in the future it will become votable. In the meantime, it is through the continuation of efforts like this that hopefully some day we will see the abolition of the tax.

In summary, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable.