Gerald Keddy

[Fisheries, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, could he tell us what the potential cost will be of that $30 million? Increasing the crab quota by 300% will entice more fishermen to gear up, to increase their efforts and to put more boats on the water.

Can the minister tell us what will happen to those fishers next year if the crab quota is significantly reduced? Would the minister not have been wiser to err on the side of caution?

[Fisheries, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recently announced a 300% increase in the crab quota in eastern Nova Scotia.

Knowing that the crab population fluctuates wildly, how can the minister justify this increase? It certainly looks like little more than election strategy to me.

[Forestry, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the forest industry in Nova Scotia is worth $1.5 billion to Nova Scotia's economy. A possible ban of export of red spruce would be devastating to the industry. Yet the government has allowed the brown spruce longhorned beetle infestation to occur in Point Pleasant Park. It has not put Canada food inspection phytosanitary requirements in place. They continue to allow infested wood to come in on container ships on the east and west coasts of Canada.

The Canada Food Inspection Agency has phytosanitary certificates required to bring wood in from foreign countries. We have phytos required to ship wood to Europe. Yet there is a major loophole in that legislation because we allow containers made from infected wood to come into Canada and be unloaded. The government has done nothing to stop that.

Either we have to start requiring phytosanitary inspected wood to be built into the pallets themselves—

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it was not my intent to point that out. It was my intent to involve the government in debate on this very important bill for the people of Cape Breton Island and Nova Scotia.

A number of amendments have been put forward. We have debated this in committee and we have gone through clause by clause. There are more amendments here. Our party will be supporting some of them and some of them we will not be supporting. What is important is that the debate occurs.

Sadly there has been a lack of debate on this issue. There has been a lack of responsibility on behalf of the government. The government has refused to go to Cape Breton Island and hold public inquiries. The committee has not travelled to Cape Breton Island to actually assess the situation on the ground in Cape Breton. Many committee members have not been to the coal field, they have not seen the rail cars and they have not been to the mines. The government has refused travel there.

It is a mistake for the government when it is liquidating the assets and privatizing the company, a crown corporation, to try to do it in an aloof and hands off manner. The government is going to put the bill through. It wants all parliamentarians to support it without looking at it too closely because it is just a matter of bookkeeping and let us move it through. That type of attitude is what the government has been about for far too long, that type of irresponsible government and its refusal to deal with the issues. A number of issues need to be dealt with.

Of the amendments put forward in Group No. 1 by the member for Bras D'Or—Cape Breton and the member for Sydney—Victoria, there are couple that deserve to be looked at in a much closer manner and taken seriously.

Motion No. 12 states:

The by-law of the Corporation shall provide that if a person contracts any illness as a result of the person's employment by the Corporation, the person shall be entitled, for the remainder of the person's life, to the health insurance benefits that were provided as part of the terms and conditions of the person's employment.

I would like to hear members on the government benches at least explain to me, but explain to the entire House and to the miners in Cape Breton who have contracted serious illnesses working underground why that particular motion would not be supported by any responsible government in the country. I would like to hear the explanation of that.

I put forth a very similar motion at committee stage and it was voted down. All the opposition parties supported it, and I suspect that all the opposition parties will support this one. Yet the government in its wisdom decided it does not have to deal with this issue. If people contract an illness through work, a work related injury, they will be laid off and the medical insurance will not cover them or their families.

Cape Breton Island is a area of economic hardship with 17% unemployment and higher. Yet the government is satisfied that it does not have any further responsibility once it goes through with its privatization plan. I point out Motion No. 3 which says:

The Auditor General shall review the disposal of the Corporation's assets and all other activities related to the closing out of its affairs, and shall report to the House of Commons within six months of the disposal of the last of the Corporation's assets.

Surely that is a good amendment. When we are liquidating assets and privatizing government or federal assets, to have the auditor general look at it and give a full accounting to the Parliament of Canada is responsible government.

I want want to hear what the Government of Canada has to say on this issue. I want it to explain to me, because I do not understand its rationale or its line of thinking, why this should not occur. Even more serious, I want it to explain to Canadians why this should not occur.

We have a government that is not responsible. It does not have to have a full accounting of the business it is about to perform. Do Canadian taxpayers not need to know whether this is a good or bad thing? Whatever anyone's position is on this issue, surely we have to be responsible and, more important, we have to be accountable.

The member for Sherbrooke just spoke about overlapping jurisdiction. The federal government wants to continue to keep its hands in the works through the Canada Labour Code. He made a very good point, a clear point. He explained his position well. It is a point on which I want to hear the government's response. I have not heard it. It has not articulated its vision for the future of Cape Breton Island. It has not explained why federal jurisdiction should continue to apply in a provincial area.

It cannot continue to govern from afar. It is like trying to write a will that somehow tries to control everything from the grave. It is a mistake for anyone to do that. One should make a decision and move on. The Government of Canada has to do exactly the same. I go back to Motion No. 5 which says:

If a work or undertaking of the Corporation or any part thereof is transferred, by sale, lease, merger or otherwise, to another employer, the work or undertaking or the part thereof, as the case may be, shall continue to be a work or undertaking for the general advantage of Canada.

That is a pretty sensible amendment. The problem here is not with the amendments. The problem has been with the government and its total refusal to take this issue and the Parliament of Canada seriously and to listen to amendments put forth by opposition members of parliament. Surely we are not just here to waste our time. Surely we are here to have reasonable, rationale and accountable debate.

Everyone needs to understand that the government is insisting on pushing this legislation through parliament like it pushes every other piece of legislation through parliament. It delays debate. It shortens debate. It refuses to speak to the issues. It refuses to present its own position on this very important issue. Opposition members are forced to bring motions from committee to parliament to have them debated. We debate them at committee, and that debate is rushed by any stretch of the imagination.

The member for Sydney—Victoria had unlimited time to speak the other day. He took that opportunity to speak in what I thought was a very rational manner for a limited period of time and discussed the issues fairly thoroughly. Instead of that gaining some co-operation from the government, all it gained was to shut it down, move it on, not debate it and not discuss it. That type of government is wrong. That is why we are debating this issue today and that is why we have a couple of other sets of amendments to debate. I look forward to continuing that.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to these amendments. But as the member for Bras D'Or—Cape Breton said earlier, it is also a disappointment to speak to a number of these amendments because of the lack of co-operation from the government benches on this bill. It is also a disappointment that the government is not here to defend its actions and its Bill C-11 on the privatization of Devco.

[Crab Fishery, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last week we heard from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that the crab quota for eastern Nova Scotia was being increased to three times the quota allocated last year, approximately a 6,000 tonne increase.

This is being done even though fishers have opposed such large increases in the quota and scientists acknowledge that there have been wild fluctuations in the snow crab population over the past 20 years. The minister is increasing the quota in the face of opposition simply to score some pre-election points. He is jeopardizing the long term sustainability of the crab fishery in order to make a good news announcement from a government with nothing but bad news announcements.

At what cost? When fishers applaud conservation efforts and smaller crab quotas, why is the minister providing a 240% increase in crab fishing area 23 and a 212% increase in crab fishing area 24? Obviously the election campaign for the government has already begun.

[Fisheries And Oceans, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government is purchasing fishing licences in Atlantic Canada in order to integrate first nations into the Atlantic fishery.

Of the licences purchased so far, can the minister tell us whether any of them were already owned by the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet or Passamaquoddy band members?

[Fisheries, May 2nd, 2000]

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

Of the first nations bands fishing in Atlantic Canada, how many and which ones are fishing under band conservation regulations instead of Department of Fisheries and Oceans conservation regulations?

[Fisheries, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to include fishermen and processors in negotiations with first nations in Atlantic Canada. The minister skirted the answer because he has not listened to processors or the fishermen. Yet in order for this interim agreement to work, he absolutely needs their support and, I might say, their input.

Will the minister re-open dialogue with the east coast fishermen and processors immediately?

[Fisheries, April 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will try again. I have some respect for what the minister is saying, but the fact remains that signed agreements are being distributed freely among the aboriginal community and the same government refuses to share these same agreements with processors and fishermen.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans meet with the fishing industry to brief it on the eight signed agreements and include it in the negotiations that will affect its future?