Gerald Keddy

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development finally answered an extremely simple question about the election process for the Caldwell First Nation.

It should be noted that Chief Johnson, a custom chief, has not consulted all band members and the minister did not consult the citizens of Blenheim Kent-Essex about the Caldwell Reserve until after the issue received significant amounts of publicity.

Lack of consultation always leads to confrontation. Why did the minister choose this route?

[First Nations Land Management Act, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on Bill C-49 today and specifically on Bloc Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.

These amendments make provisions within the legislation regarding matrimonial property. This was discussed at committee and the B.C. Native Women's Society requested a number of amendments to ensure that provincial standards are met until the land codes, developed by the individual first nations, are established.

Allowing provincial standards to set the minimum standards for dealing with matrimonial property would be welcome if there were not already provisions within the framework agreement to ensure protection in the event of matrimonial breakdowns.

The legislation as it stands allows the first nations to develop their own requirements and standards with regard to matrimonial breakdowns within broad guidelines. If provincial laws are imposed on the first nations, it impedes the objective of this legislation, namely to allow first nations to have greater control over management of their land.

It is important to note that this legislation deals specifically with resources so when discussing matrimonial property, it only includes the land but has no jurisdiction regarding children or financial assets other than property.

While it is important to ensure that matrimonial property is handled fairly for all parties involved should a marriage break down, the land codes developed with community consultation and approval should be enough to ensure that this occurs. A dispute resolution process is also in place should the need for it arise.

These amendments therefore question the objective of this legislation without being necessary to ensure adequate protection for the participants involved in a matrimonial breakdown.

This bill speaks to much more than just matrimonial division of assets in the event of a possible matrimonial breakdown for first nations that have signed this land code. This land code is a far too important piece of legislation to be lost by some of the amendments that have been introduced to it.

I was at an event in Nova Scotia this morning. It was the unveiling of the newest quarter from the Canadian mint. It is a logging coin. The reason I bring this up is that since 1749 my family has been involved in the logging business and the sawmill industry in Nova Scotia. In the 1940s my grandfather ran the last steam mill that was located in New Ross, Nova Scotia where I grew up. In nearly 250 years never once as a landowner in Nova Scotia did we ask anybody if we could cut timber on our own land. Never once beyond the modern environmental guidelines did we ever ask somebody if we had the right to pursue an industry on our own property.

My sons are sixth generation on the small farm I live on. If we want to cut pulp wood, if we want to cut logs, if we want to build a fence, if we want to put in a pasture, if we want to build a road not once have we asked anybody if we could. That is what this deal is about, the ability of first nations to get out from under the umbrella of the Indian Act and to decide for themselves what they want to do on their own property. It is to make sure that they have the ability to do that. Prior to this piece of legislation they did not.

It is a fact the House has to look at. It is high time that we dealt with the subject. We have ignored it for far too long. It is a good piece of legislation and I support it.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have been sitting here in this budget debate listening to the hon. members on the government side and what a great job they have done. I made the point before that we will give this budget barely a passing grade. It is nice to see the books in the black. I will repeat that statement. It is not a problem.

Let us draw it into perspective. These guys are talking about knowledge based industries and there is nothing in the budget for knowledge based industries. They are talking about the military. There is nothing in there for the military.

I want to draw the House's attention to something that is very critical to P.E.I. and very critical to coastal Canadians. On budget night we had in all of Canada three search and rescue helicopters that were fit to fly and that men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces would actually get into to try to rescue someone.

It may not mean a lot to the member from P.E.I, but I bet it means a lot to his constituents. It means a lot to my constituents in South Shore, Nova Scotia. It means a lot in Hudson Bay if one is adrift in a boat. It means a lot in just about every place in Canada; three choppers fit to fly with crews that would get in them.

[The Budget, February 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex and to the member for Guelph—Wellington and others. The member for Chatham—Kent Essex said there was no one on the opposition benches willing to give the government a passing grade.

I will give the government a passing grade on getting the budget into the black. Most members over here would give a passing grade for eliminating the deficit and putting the budget in the black.

It is like the report cards kids bring home from school on which it is indicated in very careful teacher's writing beside the marks that the student is capable of doing much better. The government is certainly capable of doing much better. It has barely received a passing grade. Now it is time to really go to work and do the business the country needs done.

The member for Guelph—Wellington talked of knowledge based industries. The government put a levy on CD-ROMs to help the music industry in Canada.

The knowledge based industries those members were talking about will be taxed 50 cents for every 15 minutes of time on a CD-ROM. Those knowledge based industries will not hire people. They will go to the States, Mexico, Ireland or someplace where they are welcome because they will not be able to afford to work here.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian affairs is obviously uncomfortable with her position on the Caldwell Indian Band, so uncomfortable that she has declared a stay in the proceedings on the Caldwell reserve.

Yesterday she refused to answer the question of whether Chief Larry Johnson was a duly elected chief for that band and whether he has stood for election and is legally the leader of the Caldwell band as defined under the Indian Act.

Today the minister can set the record straight. Is Chief Johnson a duly elected chief for the Caldwell Indian reserve within the last two years?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the minister has chosen not to answer the question. Ministers who do not follow their own guidelines are usually wiser not to admit that in the House of Commons.

My next question will be simpler. There was no consultation with local agricultural groups and no consultation with the local municipal council. Why is the minister willing to further alienate these groups by forcing a reserve with a non-contiguous land base in an agricultural area that depends upon co-operation between its farmers?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development speaks of co-operation and consultation in Indian affairs but actually works in secrecy.

It is obvious in the media coverage of the case of the proposed Caldwell Indian reserve near Blenheim, Ontario, that she has not even consulted with the local Liberal MP. It has also been suggested that the minister is negotiating this contentious reserve with a chief who was not democratically elected.

Could the minister tell the House if Chief Johnson has stood for election within the last two years?

[War Veterans Allowance Act, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have both a question and a comment on the speech of the hon. member for Saint John.

Sometimes I think Canadian citizens and members of the House forget the lesson that was taught to all of us by World War II. Quite simply, we were taught in the history books that this war was fought on European soil and in European waters, in Asian waters and in Japanese waters when as a matter of fact much of that war was fought in our waters.

During World War II we captured prisoners of war. We captured German spies in Halifax with theatre tickets in their pockets. They knew what boats were going out in convoy. There was a submarine net across Halifax harbour which had to be raised in order for our troops, soldiers and supplies to get to Europe.

A comment I remember well was from my father who was a veteran of World War II. He never saw action. He was a military policeman stationed in St. John's, Newfoundland. There were dozens and dozens of dead merchant marine sailors floating in the waters from torpedoed ships off Newfoundland, in Canadian water, black with coal oil. This was the very essence of war and the part of war none of us wants to think about.

I ask the hon. member, is that a lesson which we should all remember, that the war was not fought all on European soil and in European water, that the war started on our doorstep when we had a 12 mile limit in Canadian waters?

[The Late James Baskin, February 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservation caucus I rise to mark the life of James Baskin who died on January 8.

Mr. Baskin represented the Ontario constituency of Renfrew South from 1957 to 1963. A part of the great Diefenbaker sweep, Mr. Baskin was a consummate representative of his electorate. His contemporaries tell us that his great interest was representing the people of Renfrew South. He was known as a great constituency man.

In later life he pursued his lifelong equestrian interests. James Baskin was largely responsible for the building of the Rideau Carleton Raceway.

To his surviving family we offer our sympathy and our thanks for helping him to serve the people of Canada in the House of Commons.

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak to the report stage amendments to Bill C-49, the first nations land management act, and specifically Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 7 put forth by the hon. member for Skeena.

These amendments allow first nations to join the framework agreement in accordance with section 45 but only on the condition that the first nations prepare land codes in consultation with neighbouring jurisdictions. Approval from neighbouring jurisdictions would be required and they would have written confirmation that they meet the laws of the provinces in which they are situated.

These amendments would impose on the first nations provincial or municipal laws without allowing the first nations to develop their own laws in consultation with the people of the first nations.

One of the advantages of the legislation is to allow first nations greater autonomy over management of their resources and to remove the restrictions placed upon them by the Indian Act. To instead require compliance with provincial and municipal laws without allowing the first nations to do so within their own land codes and by their own decision contradicts the objectives of the legislation.

While it may be advantageous for first nations to follow provincial laws—and some of the first nations have drafted land codes that reflect provincial laws—there is no need to change the legislation to make this mandatory. This would not allow first nations to develop rules according to their tradition of consensus.

These amendments ignore the purpose of the legislation, namely to allow first nations to manage their resources through consultation with their members. This places an onerous responsibility on first nations that is not reciprocated by the neighbouring jurisdictions and is therefore not equitable.