Gerald Keddy

[Main Estimates, 1999-2000, June 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said. He made some excellent points. Without question, the Canadian public does not support a non-elected Senate. If a survey was sent out to 100 Canadians, I dare say that 70 of them would say they do not support a non-elected Senate.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment drawn from the hon. member of the government benches who just spoke. He stated the quid pro quo, that there would be equal funding for professional and amateur sport. Although I am not an expert on this issue, I know a bit about sports. It seems there is a bunch of sportsmen on the government benches, but I think they are mostly jugglers. They are trying to juggle truth and fiction.

Surely Canadians and parliamentarians would not spend a penny to support professional athletes in this country. They already have all of the tax deductions. They have all of the potential to make a profit that any other business in Canada has. They already have all of those breaks. Surely we would not spend one penny, not one penny, to support professional sports in this country.

[Tancook Island Ferry Wharf, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Chester ferry debacle gets worse and worse. In 1931 the then federal government expropriated land in Chester. It paid for the land in 1936. Tancook Island residents have parked on this federal property since that time.

My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. How could his department take land that had been used for ferry parking since the 1930s and give it to private interests, to a private person? How could that be done?

[Tancook Island Ferry Wharf, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Public Works Canada and ACOA are involved in a parking project at the Tancook Island ferry wharf in Chester, Nova Scotia.

This government set funds aside to help finance 48 permanent parking spaces. Now the 250 residents of big and little Tancook Island find they have only 26 temporary parking spaces on and adjacent to the ferry wharf.

Can the Minister of Public Works explain how federal moneys could be spent reducing service to Tancook residents when the original plan they supported guaranteed Tancook residents the 40 to 50 spaces they traditionally had?

[National Defence, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the government's complete and total disregard for the personal safety of Canada's emergency rescue personnel has reduced morale to an all time low.

We are all well aware of the inherent dangers involved with flying one of our Sea King helicopters. Each day our military personnel risk their lives by flying these outdated military aircraft. In recent months our Labrador helicopters have experienced their own problems, culminating with the tragic deaths of six search and rescue officers.

Despite that tragedy and subsequent problems with burnt wiring, the government continues to risk the lives of our airmen. The government cancelled the EH-101 helicopter deal for purely political reasons, putting at risk the lives of our military personnel.

Why will the government not quit putting Canadian lives at risk by immediately providing our personnel with the necessary equipment they need to fulfil the mandate the government has given them?

[Natural Gas, June 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to debate Motion No. 292 put forward by the member for Churchill River: that the government provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions, to address environmental concerns and energy costs.

I listened to the other speakers, as well as the member for Churchill River, and I think he should be congratulated on an excellent motion. I also listened closely to the government's answer thinking that much of what the government member said was true. However, this was before the government signed the Kyoto protocol which will very much change the way we look at energy and the way we use energy.

We signed a commitment to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2010. We knew, the G-8 countries knew and the industrialized nations of the world knew when they signed that commitment that they would not be able to meet that commitment. I do think the countries signed the commitment in good faith and that they meant well. However, I am not sure they are willing to put their money where their mouths are.

The member for Churchill River raises a point that many of us who represent rural ridings face. We have significant areas in our ridings that are now serviced by fuel oil, diesel fuel, electricity, coal-fired electricity and various sources of energy that are fairly expensive. If we could reduce the cost for our industries in the ridings we represent, that would certainly benefit our position as MPs and we would actually be able to bring something back to our ridings. We would actually be able to deliver a service.

The member for Churchill River discussed the various energy plays that are occurring in Canada at this time and the amount of natural gas which is abundant in this country. I am discussing fields such as Venture, South Venture and Thebaud off Sable Island. I am also talking about fields and potential fields in the Laurentian Channel and the Sub-Laurentian basin, exciting new discoveries in the high Arctic such as Fort Liard, and a lot of natural gas exploration in northern Alberta and northern B.C. now which will be put into the alliance pipeline and sent all the way to Chicago.

We are becoming major exporters of natural gas to other places on this continent. The Sable fields will go to the maritimes northeast pipeline. Much of it will go into New England. I have seen the plans put forth by the present provincial government in Nova Scotia but I am not convinced it will service the rest of the province. I am not convinced that P.E.I. will be serviced at all. I am not convinced that some of the exciting natural gas discoveries off Newfoundland are going to put natural gas into Newfoundland.

Perhaps now that we have entered a new era and have signed a protocol which is going to force us to use cleaner sources of energy, it is time for the federal government to look at assisting rural areas in provinces that are not now serviced by natural gas to provide service to these areas.

The member for Churchill River should be aware of the flaw that is within the system on the east coast. Many households in the rural areas are now heated by fuel oil. The oil delivery people and the Canadian Oil Heat Association of Nova Scotia have never been subsidized. They put those oil furnaces in the homes and the people bought them with their own dollars. There were no subsidies. We are now talking about putting in natural gas, which is subsidized, and giving the natural gas distributors an unfair advantage.

However, that does not mean that we cannot find ways to overcome that or that we should stop looking at this very good motion put forward by the hon. member.

There are several other areas that we need to look at, but the most important one is how we go about delivering the natural gas. In Nova Scotia in particular, it is absolutely asinine to discuss natural gas delivery if we do not have a plan to build a lateral pipeline from the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline which will allow a large enough pipe to come off the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline down to somewhere in Stewiacke and into the Musquodoboit Valley area. It should be a line that is at least 18 inches in diameter that can then be split and fed into the urban and metro areas of Dartmouth and Halifax, with another line that will split off and go down into the Annapolis Valley and hopefully into the Yarmouth area and then another line off that which will go down the South Shore.

We have a natural asset in the province of Nova Scotia with our abandoned rail bed. We could lay a natural gas pipeline along this rail bed to service all of the communities along the South Shore area, the riding I represent, and not disturb the road system or the highway system. It would be very convenient and very economical to use that existing rail bed, the railroad that has long since been torn up, to lay a natural gas pipeline. We could continue to use the same bed for recreational purposes and other purposes.

The other asset that would certainly service the South Shore riding would be the fact that we have some heavy industry. We have a hardwood mill in East Chester, a pulp mill in Liverpool, and Michelin Tires in Bridgewater. We also have a number of small manufacturing industries that could be well serviced by natural gas.

There was one thing that I was not clear on and I am not sure if the member for Churchill River mentioned it: Can we use natural gas for refrigeration? Very clearly there are hundreds of fish plants in the South Shore that could easily convert to natural gas and be able to use that to generate refrigeration.

The opportunity for major savings and a major benefit for the majority of the citizens in the South Shore is there, but there is a problem problem for the existing oil heat people who have already been servicing the area for domestic heat. I think the problem can be worked out to the satisfaction of both the consumers who are looking for a cleaner and more efficient source, and the consumers who have already invested in oil heat.

In conclusion, I recognize that the member on the government side said that this was provincial jurisdiction. However, I think that was true before we had a hole in the ozone layer, before we had signed the Kyoto protocol, before we became a major exporter of natural gas, and before much of the world was turning to natural gas. They cannot get enough of it.

The thing that has not been mentioned is the potential for us to bring liquefied natural gas out of the high Arctic. Some very exciting wells were drilled in the high Arctic on some excellent fields. We have been trying to bring more infrastructure, more jobs, more economic opportunities and more industry into the high Arctic. We abandoned the high Arctic years ago when we never should have. We left for no good reason. Now it is time that we went back there and reopened those fields so that we can bring liquefied natural gas out of the high Arctic by containers and use it in southern Canada or use it for export. If we are to meet the Kyoto protocol we have absolutely no choice but to convert to more natural gas use within the country.

Fortunately British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and much of Ontario already have the infrastructure for natural gas. I am very envious of that and very thankful that they do because it certainly helps all Canadians. That does not mean we should not look at some way to service the other areas of Canada that do not have accessibility to natural gas at this time.

[Halifax Rifles, June 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this summer is the 250th birthday of the city of Halifax and would be an apt time to reactivate the Halifax Rifles.

This regiment began in 1749 when the city of Halifax was founded. Historically, among the distinguished Nova Scotians who served with the Halifax Rifles were a father of Confederation, two prime ministers of Canada, five premiers of Nova Scotia and five lieutenant governors of Nova Scotia, along with numerous mayors of the city of Halifax.

The defence minister has consistently refused to reconsider reactivating the Halifax Rifles, using the excuse that he would have to deactivate another unit. This is simply not true.

It is time for the Minister of National Defence to recognize the importance of the Halifax Rifles to the city of Halifax and Canada by reactivating the Halifax Rifles. It would make a terrific 250th birthday gift to the city of Halifax.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the speech of the member for Richmond in which he dealt with the issue of aboriginal rights.

What happens if an amendment is made to the treaty given that there is constitutional protection for aboriginal and treaty rights? Will it require a more rigorous and more lengthy process to amend the treaty?

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

There is no access.

[Supply, June 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford has asked for a direct question on the points he has raised, I will ask him a direct question on the points he has raised and that is the value of the land in question.

Maybe the member for Langley—Abbotsford can correct me on this, but it is my understanding that the land in question has all been logged. The majority of it, up to 80% or 90% of it, has been logged. The region is second growth and much of it is much too young to cut. That was part of the reason the companies involved in this transaction gave it their blessing. Can the member for Langley—Abbotsford comment on that?