Gerald Keddy

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

Mr. Speaker, as I rise to my feet I ask for you indulgence as I have a question. As I understand it, these amendments are at report stage and specifically the amendments put forth by the hon. member for Skeena, Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 7, are what we are debating at this time.

I have been following the debate closely and noticed that a number of members did not follow that at all and actually got off on some tangential items, including the next series of amendments from the Bloc party which we will be debating after. Am I correct?

[Economic Development, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

The minister's department has stated that one-third of the $200 million earmarked for Devco will be spent on an economic development package for Cape Breton. That works out to $68 million for economic development. This is just not enough.

What guarantee can the minister give that the $68 million earmarked will not go to companies with Liberal Party connections?

[Supply, December 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and his history lesson. As a student of history and someone who reads a fair amount of history, both ancient and modern, I would like to repeat a bit back to the member about Canadian unity and the ability of the provinces to sit down as equals and hopefully work toward a better country for all Canadians.

As the hon. member was speaking I was thinking of an ad that his party supported during the previous election. It said not another leader from Quebec. They were all crossed out. That is a very difficult thing to overcome and that is the type of thing the member has to wrap his head around and overcome if he and his party are to move ahead toward unity in this country.

The motion on the floor today is not about bringing the provinces together. It is a motion to set in place the next referendum in Quebec. It is impossible for the people to meet by December 31. It is an artificial date. It will not happen. Everyone is off over Christmas. It is totally fraudulent and ridiculous and cynical. If the date had been the end of January, the end of February or the end of March I think the member and the party would have received some support for the motion.

How cynical can we be. There is no open discussion. There is no equal footing among the provinces at this time. They cannot meet a deadline when everyone is off during the Christmas holidays. We will not achieve unanimity and it will fail and the new government that sits in Quebec today will say “Look at that. We can't even get agreement on a December 31 deadline therefore the door is open, let's look at a referendum”. That is what will happen.

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise in this House this evening and speak on the emergency debate on agriculture. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for granting that debate last Friday.

I would like to split my time with our agriculture critic, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

I am certain everyone in this House is aware that there is an agriculture crisis in Canada. That crisis is very real and it is with us today. It has been with us for the last couple of years in the agriculture community and we expect it will be here tomorrow. It will take some resolve on the part of this government. It is going to take some resolve on the part of the minister of agriculture and some resolve on the part of the finance minister to find the means to attack this problem.

Several international factors have combined to threaten many parts of Canada's agriculture industry. The huge support payments of the European Community and the U.S. government's support to farmers combined with the Asian financial crisis have had a devastating effect on the Canadian agriculture community and the rural way of life across Canada.

In 1997 net farm income fell 55% nationally. In 1998 farm cash receipts in western Canada are down drastically. There is a crisis in the hog industry that is affecting every major hog producing province, provinces like Quebec, Manitoba and Ontario. To add to this problem, the agriculture industry in Nova Scotia is reeling from two years of drought that have coincided with significant cuts to government support programs.

Many in the agriculture industry feel that farm safety nets will not be strong enough to protect Canadian farmers from further drops in farm income.

Some statistics are worth repeating. I am sure before the evening is over, we will repeat this one several times. However, I will say it one more time because I want to stress the importance of this. In 1997 net farm income fell 55%. That is half the net farm income gone. It is impossible. It is a concept that most of us in small business have a very difficult time and a very difficult job to grasp. In 1998 farm cash receipts in western Canada are down again and there are concerns that the farm safety nets will not hold.

Canada ranked second last in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development for government assistance to farmers. Canada's producer subsidy equivalent is 2%. The United States is 16% and the European Union is 49%.

Our farmers do not have to take a back seat to anyone in the world. They can compete on a fair basis with any farmers anywhere in the world. However, when farmers and producers in the United States are getting a 16% subsidy and farmers and producers in the European Union are getting a 49% subsidy, it makes it very difficult for our farmers to compete on an even footing.

It is not sensible for anyone in this House to think the European Union will drop its subsidies in the short term or that the United States will drop its subsidies in the short term. The only sensible train of thought taken from that would be to support our farmers with the same type of subsidy in the same type of support the Americans are giving to their farmers and the same type of support the Europeans are giving to their farmers.

The Asian crisis has had a significant and dramatic effect on farm incomes. To combat the Asian crisis the United States recently announced an additional $6 billion in support bringing its total in excess of $14.5 billion U.S., which is $22.2 billion Canadian, for 1998 alone.

It goes on and on. Somehow we have to come to grips with the fact that the farm situation in Canada is in a meltdown. Thousands of farmers are facing bankruptcy and the NISA accounts simply do not have enough money to protect them. It is incumbent upon the Parliament of Canada to find some solution to this problem.

The Asian crisis has aggravated this problem. At the same time the European Union has aggressively pushed production over the last two years, despite falling wheat prices. The European Union is providing direct support for grain at $175 per acre of wheat grown. The EU is intervening to support the floor price of grain with intervention support prices of $205 Canadian per tonne. The EU export subsidies are $55 Canadian per tonne for wheat, $119 Canadian per tonne for barley and $137 Canadian per tonne for malt. A European farmer will not receive less than $5.58 per bushel. Our farmers are receiving somewhere in the range of 40 cents.

We have to recognize this as a major problem and a major affront to the Canadian economy. We have to come up with some type of support program to protect our farmers and to help them in situations like this.

Canada's prime farm safety net, the net income stabilization account, was developed by a Progressive Conservative government as a rainy day account whereby farmers in good years could put away up to 2% of their profits per year, which is not a huge amount of money, and have that amount matched by the federal and provincial governments. The income in the account could be drawn upon during poor years. Farmers have started to withdraw money from their NISA accounts. For a six-month period in 1998 withdrawals increased by 70%. There is currently $2.5 billion in the NISA account.

Other safety net measures include crop insurance and companion programs like advanced payments for crops. The federal government contributes $600 million and the provinces $400 million to the total safety net structure. That is not enough. It is inadequate.

Since 1993 federal and provincial government farm support has decreased by more than 60%. Farmers are looking for a long term commitment from the federal government for support in good times and bad. Economists have estimated that Canadian wheat farmers are receiving less than 40 cents a bushel in direct support from the Canadian government. How can we compete against countries that give $2.60 and countries that give up to $5.69? It cannot happen.

I would like to draw upon a few facts which will be on record for the House and for members of the other parties who I hope will be supporting the debate tonight.

The Progressive Conservative Party has had a very positive record for assisting Canadian agriculture during hard times. Between 1984-85 and 1988-89 crop and income insurance totalled $21.7 billion. We established a special Canadian grains program to offset the effects of low grain prices caused by the trade war between the European Union and the U.S. and $2 billion was paid out over two years. Between 1988 and 1993 $800 million was paid to Canadian farmers to offset losses from drought through the Canadian drought assistance program.

The PC party has stated that the federal surplus should be utilized in the following manner: one-third for debt reduction; one-third for tax relief; and one-third for government spending. The current farm income crisis makes it necessary to increase spending in this area.

Farmers need a long term commitment on farm safety nets. Currently the minister of agriculture is only negotiating a one-year extension with his provincial counterparts. Farmers need assurance of the government's ongoing commitment to a national farm safety net program. Farmers need a national program that is consistent from east to west and which is available to all producers. The assistance programs must be delivered equitably and fairly.

In the short time I have left, I would like to make a plea to the members of the Reform Party that they support this emergency debate and that they understand the crisis. Many of the members are from western Canada. They also understand that in the past we spoke as a party with a strong united voice for the producers of western Canada.

[Agriculture, November 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[Indian Act, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw a few references from the remarks of the member for Churchill River. Unfortunately, I was not able to hear his whole discussion, but what I did hear I thought was very well put forth and very well thought out.

I think he could have used a little more emphasis on the benefits that can be derived from the protection of both the land owners, in this case the first nations, and the lessors of first nation lands. Bill C-49, which the member referred to, deals with this issue in a very positive manner. If we did not have Bill C-49, then maybe some type of legislation like this would be required. Unfortunately, this would be inappropriate.

We cannot willy-nilly and easily change the Indian Act. This is a long, drawn out process that would take the support of all members of parliament. Certainly I do not see that support, nor do I believe that most members of parliament see that support.

However, I speak to Private Member's Bill C-402, an act to amend the Indian Act, and specifically the obligations of landlords and tenants on reserve land. This bill seeks to have provincial landlord and tenant laws applied to leases on reserve land.

As everyone in the House is aware, reserve land is a federal responsibility. As such, provincial laws currently do not apply on reserve and I would dare to say they will not apply on reserve in the near future.

This is a complex issue. It is not an easy thing to change. We simply cannot give provincial laws jurisdiction where there is already federal jurisdiction and we do not have a willingness on the behalf of the land owners, in this case the first nation and the Government of Canada, to grant that jurisdiction.

The Indian Act sets out provisions relating to reserve land. Aboriginal people do not own land on reserve, unless the band council with the approval of the minister allots it to that individual, usually through a certificate of possession. Anyone with a certificate of possession may lease or sell land, subject to restrictions such as approval of the minister. All lands remain reserve lands under the Indian Act unless they have been surrendered conditionally or unconditionally to the minister.

To lease land on reserve the first nation must surrender the land to the minister for the purpose of being leased. To sell land it must be absolutely surrendered to the minister.

I want to go back to leased land on reserve. The first nation must surrender the land to the minister for the purpose of being leased. It is obvious that the jurisdiction and the responsibility and control is in the hands of the minister of the day.

Bill C-402 would provide the ability for provincial landlord and tenant laws to apply on reserve. Provincial laws may include the following provisions: the right to limit rent increases; the right to establish rules for terminating the lease, for example, evictions cannot occur without notice and reason; the obligation to meet certain standards of cleanliness and damage repair. That sounds right and most reasonable thinking people would ask why we cannot do this.

Again, it gets back to jurisdiction, and it gets back to the way we run the country. I am not saying that is correct, but I am saying that we cannot change it in the short term. In the long term with a lot of research and due diligence and study on everyone's part and the ability to sit down and discuss this perhaps, and certainly I for one would support anything that brings the first nations out from under the aegis of the Indian Act. It is an archaic piece of legislation; in the long term it is harmful and in the short term I would say it is discriminatory.

I would like to explain some of the reasons this piece of legislation in my opinion will not work.

We are imposing regulations on first nations. This is a step away from self-reliance for first nations. It is a step away from responsibility for first nations. It is a step away from self-government which all parties in the House have proposed to support. There is some discussion on what self-government is, but that is not in here. We are discussing something else altogether, a bill to impose provincial laws where there is federal jurisdiction. This changes one small segment of the Indian Act instead of removing the paternalistic and onerous obligations required by an act that was flawed from its inception.

Certainly the PC Party has always supported increasing first nations self-reliance and self-government, concepts that require first nations to assume control and responsibility of resources, land and administration. That sounds like leases of property to me. The bill before us contradicts that goal.

The Indian Act states that the first nations land is clearly under federal jurisdiction, so provincial rules have no authority on the first nations land if they contradict the Indian Act. One assumes that the first nations negotiated in good faith and continue to negotiate in good faith.

Since some first nations rely heavily on income derived from leased land, they must ensure rents are set at levels that ensure optimal use of that property. Under the Indian Act the first nation may lease land with the permission of the minister by surrendering or designating such land. This prevents first nations from optimizing economic development opportunities since the process can be time consuming. As well, this already ensures that some protection is available for tenants on first nation land since leases must receive federal approval.

Although I do not support Bill C-402, I see that there is a problem between landlords and tenants in relation to first nations land. However, that does not take away from the fact that first nations people need to be responsible for first nations land. At the end of the day we must recognize that they own first nations land. It is fine for them to decide they want to continue a lease for economic gain or opportunity. It is also fine for them to decide to discontinue a lease which they have the legal right to do.

Unfortunately provincial laws do not apply because it is within federal jurisdiction. It is a simple concept although some members have difficulty wrapping their heads around it.

I support making changes to the Indian Act. However this change already exists under Bill C-49. If it passes third reading and the bill gets through the House there will be provisions available for tenants and landlords to deal with one another. That is the way to do this in a democracy.

Although there may be some sympathy with the member and for the lessors involved, they did sign a binding contract with the first nations. They are responsible not only for their own investments but they are also responsible with the first nations. There is a binding contract. We have to give first nations responsibility. At the end of the day we may not be happy with every single thing that is done, and the first nations may not be happy, but in a democracy the first nations have the right to be masters in their own home. It is as simple as that.

[Request For Emergency Debate, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I seek leave under Standing Order 52 to propose an emergency debate to address the current farm income crisis.

Producers are selling at a loss. According to Statistics Canada, farm cash receipts are down drastically in 1998. Net farm income dropped 55% nationally in 1997 and it is expected to be worse in 1999. It is certainly one of the worst farm income crises since the Great Depression.

If we compare Canada's producer support with other countries we should be ashamed.

According to figures released by Agriculture Canada, Canada ranks second last, with 2% producer support, when compared to other OECD nations. The United States, the European Union, Japan and other OECD countries, respectively, have 16%, 49%, 23% and 9% support for their farmers.

An emergency debate is required now in order to urge the government to address this issue immediately before more farmers are forced into bankruptcy. I believe that all parliamentarians do not want to force our producers out of the industry.

The debate would also give the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food the opportunity to inform the House about the proposed $2 billion package that the government is considering to help farmers through this crisis. Time is of the essence.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your careful consideration of this very important and extremely urgent matter.

[Fisheries, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is another problem with the fishery. The lobster fishery is set to open in southwestern Nova Scotia. Thousands of fishers will begin the risky business of another season in the lobster industry.

It is incomprehensible that the government would choose at this time to take the coast guard vessel Mary Hichens out of service. This is a time when we need more search and rescue capability, not less. What is the minister doing to prevent another disaster at sea and to ensure the safety of these fishers?

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take a long time to debate this bill today. Part of my problem with the bill is not so much what the bill contains, but how it contains it.

There is a real danger in approaching legislation in an omnibus fashion like this. We have two quite different pieces of legislation in one bill. Perhaps we should not be trying to hurry this legislation through the House. We have a number of pieces of good legislation that we are trying to deal with. We should take the time to examine this bill carefully and understand all of the pertinent issues.

Bill C-56, the Manitoba claims settlement implementation act, has two parts, the first part being the Norway House Cree Nation master implementation agreement to establish reserves.

The Norway House signed the master implementation agreement in December of 1997. The legislation before us allows the government to affirm certain provisions of that agreement, although it is being implemented. What this implementation does is to ensure that fee simple lands provided to Norway House as part of the compensation plan do not fall under the Indian Act as special reserve lands.

It also ensures that money provided as part of the compensation agreement is administered by a trust for the first nation. This prevents the money from becoming band money as defined in the Indian Act, thus it is at the disposal of the first nation to be used as it decides. I guess the wording of that would be Indian money as declared under the Indian Act. Otherwise they would have to continue with the time consuming and onerous administrative requirements of the Indian Act. Instead, this improves their opportunity for self-reliance and is a step toward self-government.

The Northern Flood Agreement sets out a means of providing compensation to the first nations affected by the flooding of their traditional lands. The agreement was so poorly constructed, however, that the implementation never occurred. This legislation attempts to bring some form of closure to many of the elements of that agreement.

The second part of the legislation improves the process of establishing reserves. The process could be faster and more efficient with the minister rather than the governor in council approving reserves.

First nations also have the opportunity to improve their economic developments with this legislation, since it allows them to have third parties continue or begin developments while the process is ongoing to establish a reserve. This has been a hindrance to both economic opportunities for first nations and the parties trying to develop interest on reserve lands.

With a certain willingness to see this piece of legislation pursue the course of parliament and get to committee before Christmas, I have no problem allowing this legislation to continue. I am not going to continue the debate at great length today. However, I will say again that there is a danger in this type of legislation which deals with more than one issue. Actually, we are dealing with three issues. There are certainly two big issues. There is a certain danger in that. I caution parliament that if we are going to continue to do this, in the long run we will end up slowing the process because we do not have time to study each separate issue in its entirety.

For example, the Northern Flood Agreement consists of 155 pages. That is just one part of this bill. I realize that all legislation is complicated and can be fairly onerous, but this legislation would be much better suited in two bills.

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the answer of the hon. member for Prince Albert to the question of whether or not these fee simple lands were taxable and I am not sure what his answer was.

However, the legislation states very clearly that it ensures that fee simple lands provided to Norway House as part of the compensation plan do not fall under the Indian Act as special reserve lands. So they are fee simple lands, plain and simple. Members can draw whatever other conclusions they may want to from that, but they are fee simple properties.