Gerald Keddy

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for the member for Kootenay—Columbia.

I was listening to his comments about cutting the timber on the ranches and the very real fear among constituents straight across this country from coast to coast to coast of capital gains. There is a misunderstanding of the whole problem of dealing with capital gains and income within a family for future generations. The understanding is that all this capital gains has already been taxed, that we have paid tax on everything we have acquired throughout a life.

Very quickly, I think part of the problem especially in forestry issues is that there is no way the Income Tax Act can accommodate the growth of capital in forest land prior to the 40, 50 or 60 years it takes to produce that fibre. All of a sudden there is a windfall profit and it cannot be claimed in the ensuing 10, 20 or 40-year period after it has been acquired.

[Petitions, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition signed also by residents of South Shore. These constituents believe that this parliament should enact Bill C-225.

[Petitions, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by the residents of South Shore. These constituents believe that this government should repeal Bill C-68 on the grounds that it does nothing to deter violent crimes and that the money would be better spent on putting more police on the street.

[The Late Leonard Jones, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I note the words of the member for Moncton. As the House marks the passing of Leonard Jones, we in the Progressive Conservative caucus send our condolences to the Jones family.

It is perhaps appropriate to note that political differences are left behind when one faces the ultimate mysteries of mortality. In this place, which has seen radical differences and dramatic reconciliation over the years, we mark the passing of one who fought for what he believed.

[Swissair Flight 111, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on September 2, 1999 the citizens of Canada will pause and remember the tragic crash of Swissair flight 111. Many citizens of the south shore of Nova Scotia are living today with the aftermath of that disaster. The communities on the Aspotogen Peninsula and Tancook Island are in the midst of the ongoing cleanup effort that is literally on their doorsteps.

Fishers from those communities were among the first to respond. They, like their forebears, are no strangers to disasters at sea. They left their homes in the dark of night to assist in the desperate search for survivors. Today there are still hundreds of men and women involved in the cleanup.

The sincere effort made by all the volunteers and professionals who have assisted and continue to assist in this tragic accident is a testimony to the strength of Canadian character and the true fibre of the men and women of the south shore of Nova Scotia.

[Supply, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the comments of the hon. member opposite is a revelation of a thought process I do not quite comprehend and do not pretend to understand. I thought I was a fairly clear, reasonably thinking person. There are a number of discrepancies in what the hon. member is saying. I would like to question him on a couple of them.

I will use an example. This morning on the Internet I found some information put out by the government. It is propaganda on Bill C-68. One of the items is 10 reasons for the registration of all guns. We could go through the argument point by point but we would be wasting a lot of valuable time although they deserve to be looked at. One of the last points is less paperwork. I want to ask the hon. member about that issue. Somehow this is going to put more policeman in service on the streets because we will have less paperwork.

These are the application forms for this law that is going to bring less paperwork, make our streets safer, give us more policemen actually on the beat in our communities. It starts with 669 and goes up to 774. These are the forms that are available for registering guns.

There are applications for a possession only licence under the Firearms Act for individuals who currently own firearms; for a possession and acquisition licence under the Firearms Act for acquiring firearms and/or crossbows, these are for individuals; for a firearms licence under the Firearms Act; for a firearms licence for businesses and museums; for a sponsor of a gun show; for a carrier firearm licence; to register non-registered firearms, long guns for individuals; to register a newly imported restricted firearm for individuals; to reregister previously registered firearms, restricted and prohibited firearms; to register firearms for businesses and museums; for authorization to transport restricted and prohibited firearms and prohibited handguns; for authorization to carry restricted firearms and prohibited handguns; transfer and to register, and there is another full page of applications.

I want to know from the member opposite, after he sits there and gives his head a shake, how we are cutting paper and putting more people on the street. Come on now. I would like the hon. member to explain it.

[Natural Resources, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources knows that the B.C. forest industry suffered losses of $192 million in 1997. This was due in large part to strikes, market shutdowns and the impact of the Canada-U.S. softwood lumber agreement.

Recent U.S. customs rulings have restricted imports of Canadian lumber even further. What actions have the Minister of Natural Resources and the government taken to resolve the impact of these restrictions on Canadian lumber and the impact on the B.C. economy?

[Division No. 216, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting no on this motion as well.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty it is very difficult for me to respond to those comments. I am not aware of what is on the Progressive Conservative website.

I think I can say with a clear conscience, knowing our party's positions, our stance, our reputation and our history for even-handed and clear policy, that I would hope the member is mistaken. I would assume that he is.

However, I would like to say that I noted that all members in the debate on the Mi'kmaq bill, which is what we are discussing, offered clear debate. We were not always in agreement and probably will not always be in agreement. However, we have to listen to other sides of the argument if we want to come up with an answer at the end of the debate.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, June 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate here this evening and I thought it was fairly even-handed, except perhaps for a few points which were made by a couple of members. I would certainly like to congratulate the government for introducing this bill and for steering it through the Parliament of Canada.

I agree with the bill. As the Progressive Conservative critic for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, it has been a pleasure to support it.

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize all of the members of parliament and the DIAND committee who worked on this bill and who participated in debate. I think most of them had valid points. Sometimes we do not always agree in committee, but hopefully instead of spending a lot of time trying to point out everyone else's mistakes in this House we can also recognize that because we do not agree it offers better debate and better answers at the end of the debate.

This bill, without question, will improve education on reserve in Nova Scotia. Without question there are a number of Mi'kmaq and First Nations people in Nova Scotia who should be recognized, but certainly above all Lindsay Marshall, the chief of Chapel Island, of Cape Breton Island, which is known in the Mi'kmaq language as Unama'ki. He certainly deserves recognition. He stands out in his field and deserves to be congratulated.

I have spoken several times on this issue. It is not my intent to stand here tonight and take the time of the House. I congratulate the Mi'kmaq people and the Mi'kmaq Nation in coming forth with this themselves, with pursuing this through parliament and with keeping the political pressure on the government and on all members of the opposition to support the bill. They deserve credit. It shows political leadership in the Mi'kmaq Nation in Nova Scotia. It shows their political leadership as citizens of this country.

The analogy that the hon. parliamentary secretary used when he was speaking tonight was interesting because I wrote down exactly the same analogy in my own words, except that I added a little more flavour to it than he did. He used the analogy of education being the key to success. I will read what I wrote down. I smiled when he was giving his analogy because I wrote: “If education is the key to the door of the future, then surely this 36th Parliament has helped to open that door for the Mi'kmaq people of Nova Scotia”. I think that is true.