Gerald Keddy

[Transport, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the era of post-panamax shipping is upon us. The port of Halifax is ideally suited for growth at the expense of our international competitors.

Yet the government risks losing this opportunity because the current port authority structure does not represent local interests. The Metropolitan Halifax Chamber of Commerce, the Halifax Shipping Association and the International Longshoremen's Association have proposed a new management structure to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister commit to these needed changes?

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the hon. member on the government side.

Certainly that is the type of attitude we have to take toward this very important piece of legislation. My hon. colleague for West Nova has been following this legislation very closely and it is through this type of co-operation and understanding that we can promote this important type of legislation.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, those questions from the hon. member are very good ones. On her first question on the overlap of jurisdiction, I think that is an issue we cannot put aside and one that requires further study. Her main question was whether or not it should be the responsibility of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Because it is a heritage bill I see no other way to do it.

Certainly our member for West Nova has been very closely monitoring the bill. We feel comfortable with it because of his assessment. It would be incumbent upon each party in the House, all of the oppositions parties and the government as well, to make sure that they are comfortable with all of the details of this bill.

In answer to the hon. member's question, I would suggest that it would be incumbent upon the Minister of Canadian Heritage to confer with her colleagues, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment. It would be a very dangerous precedent, because of the overlapping jurisdictions, not to confer with those parties.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House to address Bill C-48, an act respecting marine conservation areas. I speak to the bill on behalf of the member for West Nova who like myself represents many of the coastal communities in Nova Scotia.

The proposed piece of legislation is designed to protect and conserve representative areas of Canada's marine landscape for the benefit, education and enjoyment of all Canadians and the world.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always maintained a keen interest in helping protect the environment for future generations. Having been born and raised in Nova Scotia, I quickly came to appreciate the importance of our natural environment and the importance that this environment plays in our everyday lives.

Many of my constituents depend upon the ocean or natural resources for their livelihood. Many of our early settlers were attracted to this great land by the abundance of fish. Our aboriginal peoples fished these waters long before the arrival of any European settler.

Nova Scotia promotes itself as being the ocean playground of Canada. Deriving one's living from the ocean is a cultural way of life for many of us. We depend upon the preservation of this large habitat, not only for our survival but for the survival of the next generation. It is incumbent upon us all that we begin taking immediate steps toward protecting this ecosystem.

We do not have to look very far to see the devastation that can be caused when we take our natural resources for granted. The maritime provinces, in particular Newfoundland, have been decimated by the serious downturn in the fishery. Tens of thousands of fishers have been forced out of this industry because of government mismanagement. Cod stocks have been destroyed. There can be no telling how long or if they will ever rebound to previously sustainable levels.

Our marine environment is always under constant use from local fishers and under constant threat particularly from foreign fishing. Our efforts to protect our marine ecosystem will prove fruitless unless we stop foreign overfishing.

Recently our coastal regions have been faced by another menacing attack. This time it comes from illegal lobster fishers who have been pillaging the ocean floor almost unabated by Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials. In Nova Scotia, specifically in St. Mary's Bay, this lucrative lobster fishery could be in danger if strong measures are not immediately taken to put an end to this illegal activity. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has an obligation to everyone in Nova Scotia to enforce its regulations on behalf of conservation and on behalf of the families which this fishery supports.

The Progressive Conservative Party has long been concerned with preserving our ecosystem. In 1986 the PC government approved the national marine parks policy. In 1987 the country's first national marine conservation area known as Fathom Five in Georgian Bay was established. Unfortunately it has yet to be proclaimed. There are still outstanding issues to be addressed in this regard.

In 1988 the government signed a federal-provincial agreement with the province of British Columbia to create a national marine conservation area in the Queen Charlotte Islands. On April 6, 1990 the Progressive Conservative government signed an historical and unique agreement between Canada and Quebec to create a marine park at the confluence of the Saguenay estuary and the St. Lawrence River.

In December 1996 the government introduced Bill C-78, an act to establish the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park and to make a consequential amendment to another act. Finally the agreement and the legislation were given royal assent, culminating with the proclamation of the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park on June 8 of this year.

I gave that little history lesson to try to explain to the House how long legislation takes and how important it is to begin it now.

The bill will provide the legislation needed to establish and manage a system of marine conservation areas representative of the 29 marine areas in Canada, reflecting the relevant Parks Canada guiding principles and operating policies for them. The 29 distinct conservation areas identified by the legislation represent four broad and very distinct areas of Canada's marine ecosystem.

There are 10 specific areas associated with the Atlantic Ocean including the Bay of Fundy, Scotia shelf and Labrador shelf. The Arctic Ocean consists of nine specific regions including Hudson Bay, Beaufort Sea and Baffin Island shelf. The Pacific Ocean includes such areas as the Vancouver Island shelf and the Strait of Georgia. Finally we have Canada's Great Lakes.

It is important to note that although the proposed legislation is designed to establish and manage a system of marine conservation areas representative of the 29 marine areas, it does not specifically identify a precise geographic location to be protected. These sites will have to be chosen through much consultation with members of the general public, provincial governments and obviously those individuals who earn their livelihood from these distinct waters.

I cannot stress the point strong enough that much consultation must be undertaken before any particular area is singled out for protection. There must be a balanced approach taken when exploring any area. The interest of our fishing community must be protected before any agreements on locations are finalized. Conservation is vitally important to all of us but particularly to those who make their living on the water.

We cannot simply target a location without exploring the long term effect it will have on the fishing industry. Our fishers must have a direct say in the management of their industry. We have already witnessed the disaster than can occur when they are excluded from the decision making process. It is also important that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans be involved within the consultation process.

Earlier I briefly mentioned our aboriginal people's dependence on these waters for their food fishery. It is important that the aboriginal peoples be involved in the negotiations. With many land claims still to be resolved, it is imperative that they be consulted on creating any new marine reserve areas.

Under the bill there are restrictions on non-renewable resource extraction. I believe careful examination of any proposed site must be explored as to its potential for oil and gas exploration.

Nova Scotia is finally going to receive the economic benefits of the Sable oil exploration. This economic boom for our province would not have been possible if the Sable area had been previously designated as a marine protected area. That is a thought that all of us in the House should carry with us. That is why I propose that as much consultation as possible is undertaken with all those who have a vested interest in our ocean floors in terms of both renewable and non-renewable resources.

I am encouraged by the fact that the department circulated discussion papers to over 3,000 stakeholders across the country, including fishing and shipping associations and unions; the oil, gas and mining sectors; aboriginal and environmental groups; and the academic community. This represents a very strong beginning in the consultation process.

In conclusion, the government had set a goal for itself of establishing 10 marine parks by the year 2000. The clock is ticking, but as we approach the new millennium we cannot afford not to carefully examine this undertaking. If it takes longer than the year 2000 then so be it. If we put the legislation in place and we actually go out there and establish some marine protected areas, let us do it so we do not have to revisit it again, renew it or change it in 10 years time.

Once we actually make a national park of a marine protected area it may be very difficult to get out of it. I do not feel there should be a deadline in this regard. It is something we should move slowly and carefully but distinctly toward.

It is important to send the bill to committee. Our party intends to support it. I am sure the committee will want to hear experts from every sector involved in the process. Hopefully at the end of the day we can put the bill before the House, have it voted on, approved, and have a better country because of it.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, October 29th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have to admit I stepped in a bit late and only heard the end of the statement made by the hon. member for Halifax West.

Just for the record I would like the hon. member to tell me if I heard correctly that he was actually making a statement in support of conservation measures taken in the Newfoundland lobster fishery and that they could be applied perhaps in Nova Scotia. I would like some clarification of that.

Specifically I would like to know if he is supportive of the recent conservation measures that have occurred in district 33 and of which he would hopefully be aware. If he is supportive of those measures I would like to know why.

[Nunavut Act, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the first issue is that prisons and museums tend to be the same in relation to the act before us and some of the justice applications the hon. member is discussing.

I am not a legal professional. Nor do I profess to be. My party has looked at this issue and will be studying it in great detail in committee. As the hon. member is aware, we have a golden opportunity to look at a trial case of implementing a one court system in northern Canada where there are huge amounts of territory, a duplication of task and an overlapping of jurisdiction. If we can solve the problem with the one court system then we are in favour of it.

On the question of whether or not incarceration will take place in the north there is an agreement in place. The details of that agreement after a two year sentence are unclear. We will be looking at that in committee. A number of questions with respect to the legislation have not yet been answered. It is important to remember that it is a trial case. We have a perfect opportunity to introduce a one court system, to look at it and to study it further.

On the third question of the western Arctic and the Yukon territory, they have been looking very closely at this system. It is something they would be very interested in. They also have the opportunity to wait and see. For them there is a benefit to be derived from that.

In the eastern Arctic there are 2.242 million square kilometres of territory and 26 villages. It is a very difficult to wait and see if they need the single court system now.

[Nunavut Act, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice and to amend other acts in consequence.

I would like to state that I will be sharing my time today with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

This bill amends the judicial system and the appointment of judges in the new territory of Nunavut which will be created on April 1, 1999.

This new territory is being created as part of the Nunavut land claim agreement, originally signed by the Progressive Conservative government in 1993.

I will repeat this for the benefit of everyone in the House because I have heard several people state the size of the new territory and no one has been right yet. For the record, the new territory will be 2,242,000 square kilometres, which is approximately one-fifth the size of Canada and 69% of the existing Northwest Territories.

It is important to ensure that a smooth transition occurs in April when Nunavut comes into effect. Obviously it is imperative to have a judicial system in place and to have the necessary people appointed and in place to begin work on April 1, 1999.

The amendments put forward by this legislation are going to establish a unique court system in Canada. Currently all Canadian jurisdictions operate with a two-court system where a provincial or a territorial court works in conjunction with a higher court, either a Queen's bench or a supreme court, depending on the terminology used. This legislation will implement a one-court system unique to the eastern Arctic.

This legislation to amend the Nunavut Act is necessary because under the original act a two-level court system would be implemented in the new territory. By amending the act the Inuit of Nunavut hope the judicial system will more accurately reflect their traditions. Whether this will be the result remains questionable.

One of the concerns of the Inuit is the location of prisons. Currently there is no federal facility in the north, so anyone serving a sentence of more than two years must go to a facility in the south. The only other option is an exchange agreement whereby a regional facility would agree to house the inmate. This issue, however, while important to the Inuit, is separate from the judicial system and not addressed by this legislation.

With these amendments there will be three judges appointed to travel to the various outlying communities in the new territory of Nunavut. These three judges will preside over civil, criminal and family cases. Currently the judge who presides over all of the cases in the eastern Arctic also follows this system for most civil and criminal cases. She is based in Iqaluit and travels to the remote communities as required. Cases dealing with issues such as divorce and adoption, however, are referred to the supreme court based in Yellowknife.

Under this legislation the three judges appointed to hear cases in Nunavut will have the same power and authority to hear all cases without the need to refer to a higher court level. At the same time, a court of appeal, about which I have heard a number of questions asked, will still exist should appeals be made, namely the Nunavut court of appeal.

This legislation will allow a one-level court system to be introduced to the eastern Arctic. The western region of the Northwest Territories, as well as the rest of Canada will closely watch this experimental system. Should it be successful, I understand that the western region is considering adopting a similar approach for its own judicial system.

I have had the opportunity on a few occasions to travel to the western and eastern Arctic and I am looking forward to the creation of Nunavut on April 1. Last year I had the opportunity to speak to other amendments to the Nunavut Act that will help to ensure that programs and procedures are in place and operational on April 1, 1999.

This legislation will also provide additional seats in this House, which will allow representation for both territories which are currently the Northwest Territories.

The PC Party was instrumental in establishing the basis for this new territory. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work on this piece of legislation, one that will ensure everything is in place and ready to go next April. This will be an historic time for Canada and it provides an excellent opportunity to introduce a one court system.

Whether the court system meets the high expectations of the Inuit remains to be seen, but it will be an opportunity to see how the justice system can be adapted to unique circumstances.

While a one court system has been discussed on different occasions as an alternative to the two court system, it has never been implemented. Given the conditions existing in the eastern Arctic, it is an excellent opportunity to introduce such a system.

It is assumed that the one court system will have the advantage of being both cheaper to operate and more efficient with only one level of court to travel to the various communities instead of two. This should reduce the operating costs, particularly since it is necessary to fly to the outlying communities.

This is especially relevant when one considers that the new territory of Nunavut consists of 26 communities with a total population of approximately 26,000 people. This system may also improve efficiency since each judge will be able to preside over the various types of cases and it should reduce the scheduling program problems that the two court levels would entail.

On the other hand, this means only one system is available for different types of offences combining territorial and federal issues and jurisdictions. This may raise concerns about the fairness of a system that hears cases from all levels.

At the same time, while there may be some adjustments to the new system and some minor hurdles to overcome, the system will be unique to the new territory and closely monitored by the Government of Canada, particularly the western portion of the current Northwest Territories.

The legislation is necessary to establish the judicial system as a one court system, another step in ensuring a smooth transition to the new territory on April 1, 1999.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always supported the creation of Nunavut and the land claims settlement that set out the establishment of the new territory. I am looking forward to the creation of Nunavut next year and will continue to support legislation that assists in this endeavour.

I welcome the opportunity to study the legislation at committee.

[Christmas Tree Industry, October 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the use of real Christmas trees and foliage in the Parliament Buildings during the holiday season.

Mr. Speaker, I have not had the opportunity to speak to you at length on this subject and it is your prerogative to decide on the matter.

The Christmas tree industry is worth more than $100 million to Canada and every acre of Christmas trees provides oxygen for approximately 15 people. This industry helps support 3,000 farm families in Nova Scotia alone and is environmentally friendly and sustainable.

It is an embarrassment to see the greenery that decorates these halls during Christmas. It is inexcusable that this travesty continues. Real trees and foliage can and should grace these halls. If we want Canadians to embrace sustainable and environmentally friendly products, surely as the Speaker and representative of parliament, you could—

[Supply, October 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the question is for the member for Winnipeg Centre.

However, while I am on my feet I would like to congratulate the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for presenting this motion today and express my incredulity at Reform members and the fact that they dare to state in the House that they would not support this motion. Give your head a shake, boys. Give your head a shake. Think about it.

This motion is not about trying to find EI for someone who is not working. This motion is not about some type of giveaway. This motion is about bundling of weeks for people who already work, to allow them to actually benefit from the EI program. That is the type of thing we are supposed to support in this House as the Parliament of Canada, to look out for those people who need some assistance.

I would like to qualify a few statistics and take the fishery as an example. Less than one year ago there were 34,000 workers out of work in the east coast fishery. Seventy-three per cent of them had no high school education and 67%—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and our wheat board critic, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, in support of private member's Bill C-283.

I must begin by saying that the bill put forward by the member for Portage—Lisgar addresses some of the most paramount concerns farmers have with the Canadian Wheat Board, which are transparency and accountability. As in any crown corporation or mixed corporation Canadians expect no less.

The Canadian Wheat Board was incorporated by the Canadian Wheat Board Act in 1935 to market interprovincially and to export Canadian wheat and barley for producers.

The wheat board is a monopoly system. If a producer wants to sell wheat or barley outside the CWB he must apply for an export permit. This means he sells his product back to the CWB, obtains the permit, buys the wheat back from the CWB and then sells it on the open export market.

He has to go through the wheat board. He cannot market his wheat without going through the wheat board, a wheat board that generates sales of wheat and barley in excess of approximately $6 billion annually.

The point I am getting at is that farmers do not have a choice but to market through the wheat board and there is a lot of money at stake for the producers. Therefore, why should the Canadian Wheat Board not be accountable and transparent to those very producers?

There have been a lot of changes to the Canadian Wheat Board over the years. It was originally intended by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett's Progressive Conservative government that the Canadian Wheat Board be a voluntary institution with a mandate to operate in the best interests of producers.

It is unfortunate that the wheat board no longer operates in the way it was originally intended. It eventually became a monopoly and a means of controlling wheat prices for the federal government during World War II.

Its main aim was to limit grain price increases so as to safeguard the government's wage and price controls and control the cost of mutual aid to the allies during the war.

In 1967 the Liberal government of the day made the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly permanent, a truly sad day for the majority of farmers who today want a voluntary wheat board. Furthermore, when Bill C-4 was passed last June further changes were made.

For the first time in history 10 out of the 15 board of directors were going to be elected by producers. The elections are being held this fall. Hopefully the newly elected board of directors will have some say in the future of the Canadian Wheat Board and will be able to make the necessary changes to ensure that the board truly evolves in the 21st century.

That being said, somewhere along the way the farmers started to mistrust the agency that was supposed to represent their best interests. They started to question its monopoly and their returns compared to a fair market value, and rightly so. They saw farmers south of the border getting more per bushel of wheat than they were receiving for the same grade through the wheat board. In some cases the farmers' suspicions were not unfounded.

That being said, most farmers in western Canada do not want to eliminate the wheat board, they just want the wheat board to be more accountable.

It is no different than the constituents that each individual member of parliament in this House represents. Canadians expect accountability. The last time I checked they expected a lot of accountability and I would suggest that members on the other side of the House take a long hard look at accountability.

I can tell members on the other side of the House who want to enter this debate that accountability will stick to them like scum on a pond and it will not be easy to get off. Canadians expect accountability.

I firmly believe that the bill before us today will only add to the accountability through the transparency of an annual audit by the auditor general.

I must also say that this is an issue that is not new to farmers in western Canada or to this House. During the debates and the committee hearings on the bill previously known as Bill C-4, which eventually passed last June, members of this House questioned the government as to why it was not willing to put forward legislation that would make the Canadian Wheat Board more open and more transparent. In fact, my colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, put forward similar amendments at the committee level during the study of Bill C-4 that would have given the auditor general the power to audit the Canadian Wheat Board. Unfortunately the Liberal majority of the committee did not recognize these concerns and the amendments were subsequently voted down.

However, the member for Brandon—Souris did not stop there. He pushed for more amendments with his Senate colleagues and eventually the Senate put forward several reasonable amendments, one of which allowed the auditor general to audit the Canadian Wheat Board's books within the first two years after the bill takes effect.

The audit is provided to the board of directors and to the minister. This amendment, along with other Senate amendments, including the elimination of the contentious inclusion clause, were eventually passed when the bill received royal assent June 11, 1998.

This adds further transparency to the Canadian Wheat Board, but there is still an opportunity for more transparency, and I believe we have that opportunity with Bill C-283.

Members on the government side will argue that due to international market sensitivities the government should not reveal the wheat board's secrets. My gracious. That is quite a statement.

The government will also say that there is an annual audit. When the Canadian Wheat Board releases its annual audit, if members opposite actually look at the annual report, they will realize that it has as much depth as the government's vision of Canada.

The government will also say that the professional accounting team of Deloitte & Touche currently audits the wheat board. Yet when my colleague, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, requested a 1992 managerial audit by the same company he was told it could not be released. He was told it was confidential. That answer is just not good enough for Canadians. They want transparency in their publicly funded institutions and they expect no less.

That being said, the U.S. government formally requested an audit of the wheat board over six months ago. In fact, the Toronto Star reported on January 14, 1998 the federal agriculture minister warning “The U.S. government is poised to demand an audit of the Canadian Wheat Board because American grain growers fear they are victims of unfair trade practices”.

If other foreign governments can request audits of the wheat board it would only make sense that the people of Canada, the farmers whom the wheat board is supposed to represent, are afforded the same rights. The unfortunate thing is that common sense does not always prevail in the benches opposite.

It was probably put best in a January 1998 Globe and Mail article that said “Farmers have no way of knowing whether the wheat board is doing its job, because it operates in secret. And they have no other recourse, such as a mediator or an ombudsman, against apparently incompetent, abusive and fraudulent actions”.

Once again it would only stand to reason that the Canadian Wheat Board be accountable to the farmers it is supposed to represent. It would only stand to reason that an annual audit be allowed to ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board is indeed accountable and transparent to the farmers it is supposed to represent.

The Progressive Conservative Party will support this bill and looks forward to reviewing it when it is sent to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.