Gerald Keddy

[Nova Scotia 4-H Pro-Show, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on September 29 I had the pleasure to attend the 23rd annual Nova Scotia 4-H Pro-Show located at the South Shore exhibition grounds in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia.

This year's show brought 1,800 4-H members and leaders to Lunenburg county. It was estimated that by closing day over 10,000 people had visited the show, making Nova Scotia's 4-H Pro-Show 2000 one of the most successful ever.

The official opening platform guests were led to the stage by Arthur Young's oxen and entertained by the Lunenburg County Fiddlers. Everyone was welcomed by Bridgewater town crier Ossie Stiles. The hon. Ernest Fage, Minister of Agriculture for the province of Nova Scotia, along with the provincial 4-H king and queen and co-chairs Lorraine Wile and Robert Joudrew, opened the show with a parade of clubs representing every county in Nova Scotia.

Special recognition must be given to all the volunteers who worked behind the scenes and made this year's 23rd annual Nova Scotia 4-H show a fantastic success. They showcased Lunenburg county, introduced the rest of Nova Scotia to typical South Shore hospitality and, most importantly, supported 4-H.

[Fisheries, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday at the fisheries committee departmental officials referred to phase two in implementing the Marshall decision.

Non-native fishermen were completely left out of the negotiations in the so-called phase one. Is it the minister's intention to involve non-native fishermen in the negotiations in the so-called phase two?

[Criminal Code, September 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-321, an act to amend the criminal code to provide for the forfeiture of property relating to child pornography crimes, introduced by the member for Lethbridge.

Certainly this is a timely and important bill, and a bill that all members of parliament should be able to support.

The purpose of the bill is to allow a court that convicts a person of an offence under section 163.2 of the criminal code concerning child pornography, to order the forfeiture of anything used in committing the offence or related to the offence. This legislation is needed for the safety and the protection of every child in Canada. The legislation resulted from a court case in British Columbia in which the court ruled that an individual had the right to possess child pornography, something that the PC Party does not agree with.

The original decision in the Sharpe case was appealed to the British Columbia Supreme Court, which upheld its ruling of January 1999. Following the court decision, the PC Party justice critic, the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, called on the Minister of Justice to immediately refer the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada. Since the supreme court was ultimately going to hear the case, the PC Party wanted to expedite this process and ensure that children in Canada had the full protection afforded by the criminal code.

Again, in February 1999 the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said to the Minister of Justice:

—most Canadians were shocked and outraged in the wake of a B.C. justice's ruling dismissing charges of possession of child pornography as unconstitutional.

There is an urgent need for clarification for law enforcement agents, the judiciary, and all Canadians. The protection of children afforded by section 163 of the Criminal Code should be paramount.

Will the Minister of Justice do more than simply intervene in the B.C. appeal and will she reference the Sharpe case to the Supreme Court of Canada immediately?

We all know the results of that. However, the matter is finally before the Supreme Court of Canada and we await the decision of the court. If the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada does not overturn the original decision allowing possession of child pornography, the PC Party would support the use of the notwithstanding clause. This would suspend the decision for five years and allow parliament to introduce legislation to make possession of child pornography an offence.

This is an obvious radical action, but without question, given the heinous nature of this crime, radical action is required. By the way, this position has enormous public support.

Our position is also supported by the Canadian Police Association. The 30,000 members of the police association have publicly outlined their support for this legislation and the importance of ensuring that anything used in the commission of an offence under the child pornography provisions could be ordered forfeited by the court. The Canadian Police Association noted that this provision would include seizure of computer equipment used in the offence. As the Internet is a source of child pornography, this legislation would enable the law to keep pace with technology and recognize the role that the Internet plays in such offences.

This is a case where the need to protect those most vulnerable in society must supersede the rights of the individual. The Parliament of Canada has the duty to use every avenue available to protect society and especially children from sexual predators. We support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Fisheries, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans talks the talk about conservation but he does not walk the walk.

Did the minister approve or know about the money offered to Miramichi fishermen to ignore the illegal fishery or, more literally, to turn their backs on conservation?

[Fisheries, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is planning an enforcement action at Burnt Church. What steps has the minister taken to ensure the safety and good order of all of the citizens living on Miramichi Bay?

[Request For Emergency Debate, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as fisheries critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, I am proposing this motion for an emergency debate, seconded by the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.

Tensions are heightening across the country as transportation is threatened and the potential for civil unrest is extremely real. I have a report this morning that as many as 850 boats in Nova Scotia are prepared to steam to Burnt Church, New Brunswick, and there is more talk of native roadblocks going up across the country.

A search for a solution appears to have collapsed. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans appears to be in conflict with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Government of Canada is not speaking with one voice on this issue and the House needs to hear from the government.

Again, there is a real danger of civil unrest if the people affected do not see that there is a possibility for future discussions. A House debate would offer another opportunity for dialogue and movement on this issue.

The House and the Speaker should give the government another opportunity to talk to the communities affected by ordering a special debate. We have no other chance to raise this issue and a full airing must be presented to the House to avoid confrontation.

We, the Parliament of Canada, must be the voice to raise this issue and, through our debate, get people talking again. If we fail in this duty, it is my great fear that the people around Miramichi Bay, representing both natives and non-natives, will see this as an abdication of our duty and take matters into their own hands.

[1911 Census Records, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today to Motion No. 60 put forward by the member for Calgary Southeast. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take all necessary steps to release the 1911 census records once they have been deposited in the National Archives in 2003.

I am actually a bit surprised at the brevity of the debate on the motion before us tonight, and I am more than a bit surprised that the person who actually proposed the motion has chosen not to speak to it at this time. I understand that he may be here for the five minute wrap up, but when one puts a private member's bill forward, hopefully one would be a little more serious about it than the five minute wrap up.

The motion addresses an issue that is very important to many Canadians. Many of us understand it because we have been contacted by constituents, historians and genealogists.

While I understand surveys have shown that this issue is not one of which the general public is aware, there is certainly a vocal outcry from many segments of Canadian society who understand the implications of this motion and the problem it attempts to resolve.

Let me outline what exactly it is that needs to be addressed and what this motion we are debating here today contemplates.

Statistics Canada conducts a census every five years, polling Canadians about such things as their name, address, marital status, income, education and activities.

In the 2001 census, additional questions will be asked on languages spoken at home and at work, birthplace of parents and religion. This information is considered confidential and is not made available to other government departments, including the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.

The problem is that until 1906 census information collected by Statistics Canada was kept confidential for 92 years, after which time the information was provided to the National Archives of Canada and available for public searches. This enabled family descendants, historians, genealogists and any other interested persons to access records from censuses that were collected at least 92 years previously.

In 1906, however, changes were made to the Privacy Act which stated that where other acts provide specific protection to personal records, those acts must prevail. Since the Statistics Act makes reference to the confidentiality of census information supplied by the individual completing the census, legal opinion indicates that any census following 1901 cannot be released to anyone other than the specified individual in the census. Moreover, no time limitation was ever stipulated.

Hon. members can see the bind in which the government finds itself. What I find more surprising, though, is the real lack of activity by the government to do anything about that bind because there are certainly a couple of avenues that the government can take.

To go back to the 1911 census, which would have been made public in 2003 under the regulations in place prior to 1906, it is now considered private and confidential in perpetuity. Only with a change to legislation can this regulation be changed and access provided to historians, genealogists and descendants of people who filled out those original censuses.

The motion we are addressing today proposes such a change. It asks the government to take the necessary steps to amend the regulations and allow the former practice of transferring census information to the national archives following a period of 92 years. The federal government is aware of this problem as there has been a concerted effort by genealogists to have this matter brought to the attention of the public to facilitate the changes that would allow continued access to these records.

Genealogists across the country like Muriel Davidson and historical societies have been in contact with my office. There is a huge file on this issue. The need for it is obvious. If the government has a bill in waiting it should have put it out first. This is something that we should no longer continue to ignore.

The government responded to efforts made by individuals, historians and genealogists by establishing in November 1999 the expert panel on access to historical census records chaired by the president of Carleton University, Dr. Richard Van Loon. This panel was mandated to examine the problem from the perspective of both historians and the general populace, to review options and to report its findings by May 2000. May has come and gone. The panel subsequently requested an extension, expecting to report by the early part of this summer. The early part of this summer has come and gone.

Statistics Canada is now saying that the minister has the final report to review and it will be released at his discretion. Those of us who are interested in the findings of the expert panel will have to wait until the minister chooses to release its recommendations.

Certainly all of us would benefit from knowing the results of the panel's interpretation of release of historical census information, particularly given the important discussion tonight on this matter.

As part of the review of this topic the panel was asked to examine a couple of options regarding possible remedies to allow access to census records. One option would see the 2001 census and any future census transferred to the national archives after an established period of 92 years. The second option would see a similar change made retroactively to allow access to the 1911 census after 92 years. This second option entails breaking the promise of confidentiality made by the government of the day to the people who completed the censuses since 1906.

I understand a number of concerns with respect to this matter, both from the perspective of privacy and confidentiality and the need for historical access to information. As the past president of the local New Ross Historical Society in Nova Scotia, I am fully aware of the usefulness of census records when exploring and tracing family ties and compiling historical snapshots of any particular moment of time.

It is interesting, and I think important, to look at the history of census taking in Canada. According to a publication by Statistics Canada, Intendant Jean Talon ordered the first census in 1666 in New France. The basis of the door to door enumeration was to better prepare for the development of the colony. The 3,215 colonists in the areas of Montreal, Trois-Rivières, Cap-de-la-Madeleine and Quebec participated. Until 1739 there were 36 censuses conducted under French rule.

With British occupation censuses became more intermittent until the British North America Act of 1867. That act established the need for more regular, dependable data collection, which was particularly important for regional population counts as the British North America Act set out democratic representation based on population, a system still in place today.

As a Nova Scotian I also found it interesting to note that it was the 1767 census of Nova Scotia that introduced questions on religion and origin.

The PC Party recognizes and supports the release of census information to the general public. Not only does this information assist historians and genealogists but also everyday Canadians can find out information about Canada's past.

Sure, there are other options available for historical searches but to cut off this important avenue would be to ignore the past, and we all know that when we ignore the past we are unprepared for the future.

A survey was conducted as part of the expert panel's review of access to historical censuses.

The survey found that Canadians agree with having access to past census records particularly to enable families to trace their backgrounds. When the questions emphasized the fact that government would have to break its promise to keep the censuses confidential from 1906 onward there was less support.

However, if we think about why census records are useful and informative, it would be difficult to accept that although census taking began in Canada in 1666 there would be a complete void for a period of 92 years from 1911 to 2003. There would be no census information available.

It makes sense to allow access to the historical censuses on the contingency basis that only after 92 years have passed will records be publicly available through the national archives.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I have been contacted by a number of people concerned with the availability of census records. I have talked to constituents about this matter and publicly stated my support for initiatives to allow access to historical census records. I continue to advocate the position. The Progressive Conservative Party supports the motion before us today.

[Fisheries, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rae cannot guarantee a peaceful solution to the crisis in Burnt Church. The House has a right to know if the minister has a plan b and if so, what is it?

[Fisheries, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this government has confirmed that it does not have a plan B if negotiations at Burnt Church fail. The people living around Miramichi Bay deserve a plan. What is it?

[Natural Gas, June 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to speak to the motion. I spoke to the issue earlier in parliament before the member for Churchill River had an opportunity to introduce his motion. It is a well thought out and timely motion as events are unfolding in the history of the country and how we deal with our future energy needs.

So everyone understands what we are debating here, Motion No. 298 put forward by the hon. member for Churchill River reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and address environmental concerns and high energy costs.

The motion speaks to more than just that. Many regions in Canada already have natural gas distribution. In much of Alberta, which was government assisted, there is natural gas distribution, as well as in much of Ontario and Saskatchewan. There is less in Manitoba; there certainly is some but most of it is close to the pipeline.

The motion speaks to a more comprehensive federal plan to assist that distribution of natural gas throughout the country. On the east coast of Canada at the present time, we are just beginning to understand and enjoy the benefits of natural gas usage. There is a pipeline now from Sable Island, on which I had the good fortune to work as a driller on the offshore from 1980 to 1988 on Sable Island, Newfoundland and the Gulf of Mexico.

That natural gas is being delivered into Goldboro going into the Maritimes & Northeast pipeline, throughout the riding represented by the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, throughout the riding represented by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, through New Brunswick into Maine and down into the northeastern United States.

It is important to understand that certainly those areas close to the pipeline will be fed automatically. There are many other areas including northern New Brunswick, the Beauséjour—Petitcodiac riding, and the South Shore riding which I represent, that will not benefit immediately from the natural gas in the pipeline, natural gas off our own shores.

We can look at what is going on in this country as far as energy requirements and the major gas and oil players in Canada. The Alliance pipeline, when it is built, will go from northern B.C. and northern Alberta to the Peace River district all the way to Chicago. It will feed the energy needs of the mid-central industrialized United States, but will not necessarily benefit the energy needs of northern Alberta and northern B.C.

We need a more holistic look at this. How do we deliver natural gas to the outlying and more remote areas of Canada? That is what the motion speaks to.

There are trillions and trillions of cubic metres of natural gas in the Canadian Arctic. There is drilling for natural gas in the Canadian Arctic today. There is drilling for natural gas in the Northwest Territories. We hold tremendous potential to fill Canada's energy requirements of Canada and much of the rest of North America, but while we are doing that, and it is certainly profit motivated, let us take a look at meeting our own energy requirements.

Take for example the branch line that will come off the Maritimes & Northeast pipeline. Sempra Gas has already won the bid to supply gas to Nova Scotia. I think it has a pretty solid plan and will be able to deliver on that plan. That branch line will go into the Musquodoboit area, feed into Halifax, Dartmouth, Sackville, the Burnside industrial park area. That is the main area it will be supplying.

We need another branch line that does not just go down the Annapolis Valley and feed that area all the way to Yarmouth, but two branch lines, one down the Annapolis Valley and the other one down the South Shore. The last time I spoke to this issue, I talked about the development of that branch line, the possibility of running it down the abandoned railroad lines that are being used for recreational purposes as walking, hiking and biking trails. That is a realistic opportunity for Sempra Gas to develop.

In the South Shore area there is a very real opportunity that we may get gas into Bridgewater. We may be able to run it down the abandoned rail line past East River and feed the hardboard plant in East River. We may get to Michelin Tires. We may get to Bowater Mersey in Liverpool. From there on we are going to have to squeeze government a lot harder in order to get that natural gas into the other areas of the province. There is the little community of New Ross which I come from, and communities like New Germany, Caledonia, Lockeport, Shelburne, Barrington and Gunning Cove.

Everyone in this room has heard of clear water lobster. I am sure it is no surprise to anyone. Only a handful of people in this room would understand that 60% to 70% of the lobster exported out of southwest Nova Scotia comes from Cape Sable Island. All the lobster is held in holding pens. A lot of it is refrigerated. Natural gas can be used to produce refrigeration.

There are hundreds of fish plants in South Shore and West Nova and the southwestern region of Nova Scotia. Natural gas could be a primary driver of those plants. It could be a primary driver of the refrigeration units that are required to run those operations.

The motion speaks not only to a requirement in rural Nova Scotia and other rural and remote areas in Canada, but to a requirement for cheap energy costs, a requirement to meet our Kyoto obligations, and a requirement to meet our acid rain obligations. If we feed natural gas into the United States, obviously it will have cleaner energy and there would be less acid rain coming up north.

The House has looked at endangered species legislation. I am astounded when I talk to members of parliament that they do not understand the threat to Atlantic salmon stocks. We had 1.2 million Atlantic salmon returning to the rivers in eastern Canada. Today, 80,000 Atlantic salmon return to the rivers in eastern Canada including Nova Scotia.

I live near the Gold River, a small river which runs into Mahone Bay. Twenty years ago 1,000 or 2,000 fish would come up that river but today we would be lucky if there were 70 or 80 and maybe fewer. Atlantic salmon is an endangered species. We talk about legislation but we are doing nothing to protect it.

The easiest way to bring back our salmon stocks is to get rid of acid rain in the northeastern United States. The easiest way to bring salmon stocks back in Europe, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Greenland is to get rid of acid rain coming out of industrialized Europe. One way is to feed the power generators with natural gas. It is clean, efficient and fairly cheap.

We have seen rising fuel costs straight across North America and not just at the gasoline pumps and not just for furnace oil.

I would like to congratulate the member for Churchill River for introducing the motion. It was timely and it was put forward in good faith. It is incumbent upon parliament to support this as much as we can. There is a real need and it is not just to supply natural gas to remote and rural areas of Canada, but to also meet the energy requirements under our Kyoto obligations and to meet the needs of our children in the future, to keep Atlantic salmon in eastern Canada and other species of fish, plants and wildlife in this country.

I support the motion and I congratulate the member for bringing it forward.