Gerald Keddy

[Liverpool Regional High School, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of South Shore can claim a first that no other riding in Canada can claim. The first high school in Canada to attain the status of Earth School, having completed 1,000 environmental action projects, is Liverpool Regional High School in Queens County, Nova Scotia.

There are 1,771 green schools in Canada that have completed 100 projects. This is the first goal in the SEEDS Canada program. To qualify as an Earth School the students must complete 1,000 environmental projects.

There are only 94 Earth Schools in Canada and the only one at the high school level is the Liverpool Regional High School.

Congratulations to the students, teachers and staff at the Liverpool Regional High School.

[Dna Identification Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues here that I think we should stop to take a look at.

The hon. member who just spoke made the point that we will not be able to take DNA samples until after a conviction. I think that is something we had better take a long, hard look at.

What this specific amendment is dealing with, however, is the fact that we are going to increase the penalty for misuse of a DNA sample from two years to five years.

It is a pretty simple proposition. This is not complicated. Even members of the government should be able to fathom this one, turn it around in their heads and support it. I expect they will. However, it begs a few more questions. Who are we protecting? Are we protecting the person who commits the violent offence? Are we protecting the public? Are we protecting some unknown entity? I am a little confused in the circle of life here.

It is time that we simplified the laws of this land instead of making them more complicated. If we are talking about misuse of a DNA sample, then let us increase the penalty. Let us understand what it is for, but let us also use that tool.

The police associations have asked for it. The barrister associations are a bit mixed on it. We do not have one complete answer there. However, it is a useful tool.

I am not catching the explanation that tells me that it is some type of an invasive plan or that it is invasive to the person who actually has a DNA sample taken. By plucking a hair from a head or by taking a swab of saliva out of a mouth we have a DNA sample. Is that somehow more invasive than putting ink on a person's hands and fingerprinting them at the point where that person is charged? We do not have to wait. What is going on here?

As responsible people, as the people who help to set the laws of this country, we should come to grips with this. This is not a complicated issue. This is childishly simple. Let us deal with it.

This is past due. We spent far too much time arguing about this and discussing this in the House of Commons. The justice committee has come in with specific recommendations. It is time to approve those recommendations and move forward.

We should understand that this is a new tool in the arsenal against crime. It needs some protective measures so we do not abuse it. We always run the risk of abuse in government or abuse by officials or abuse by a third party with some type of an ulterior motive.

Let us not think that we are quite in the days of Orwellian thought yet. This is not Nineteen Eighty-Four . We have the opportunity here to move forward. This is not an invasion of somebody's home. It is not an invasion of their bedroom. This is about a DNA sample which is going to be held in a databank with protective measures so that it will not be available to the general public.

We have spent too long, and I probably have as well, discussing this subject. I think it is time we move forward on it.

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Tony Cunningham of Shelburne County, Nova Scotia is anxious.

He is anxious because Mr. Cunningham will soon stop receiving TAGS support. He wonders when this government will announce the licence retirement program that allows him and thousands more like him the opportunity to leave the groundfishery.

Could the Minister of Human Resources Development inform the thousands of people like Mr. Cunningham when they can expect to hear of a package that allows them to retire their licences?

[National Forest Strategy, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has stated that Canadian woodlot owners are like any other Canadian business. Yet Canada's national forest strategy for 1998 to the year 2003 recognizes that woodlot owners are not like other businesses and that a change to capital gains taxation is required.

I wonder what the Minister of Natural Resources thinks of the taxation recommendations in our national forest strategy.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 6 the following:

“(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), every producer of special crops shall be entitled to participate in an insurance plan established under subsection (2).

(2.2) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe the circumstances in which a producer of special crops may not be entitled to participate in an insurance plan established under subsection (2).”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 6 with the following:

“(3) A producer who participates in an insurance plan established under subsection (2) and who delivers or causes to be delivered a special crop to a licensee shall pay to the”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 6 with the following:

“(4) A licensee shall collect the levy referred to in subsection (3) from every producer who is required to pay the levy under that subsection and shall remit it to the agent within”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 5 on page 7 with the following:

“(8) A producer of special crops who participates in an insurance plan established under subsection (2) may, in the prescribed manner, withdraw from the plan. The agent”

Speaker, I would like to mention again, as I did during the second reading debate, a resolution that was passed at the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association's annual meeting. Similar motions were passed at the Western Canadian Wheat Growers convention, the Western Barley Growers convention and the Saskatchewan Pulse Development Board. In addition, the concern mentioned in this motion has been raised by other stakeholders in the farming industry out west.

The motion reads as follows:

Whereas the majority of Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association members also are growers of specialty crops, and

Whereas the proposed Special Crops Rural Initiative Program would appear to favour the Canadian Grain Commission and not necessarily special crop growers, and

Whereas the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program is promoted as being voluntary, it is in reality a form of negative billing which all consumers reject—, and

Whereas the scheme has questionable support at the farm level, and

Whereas the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association rejects the compulsory nature of the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program, and

Whereas the Special Crops Industry has flourished without such a program,

Therefore be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association inform the federal and western provincial ministers of Agriculture of their concerns and at the very least that the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program be truly voluntary for both the growers and the special crops dealers.

This resolution aptly describes what Bill C-26 fails to do. It fails to give farmers choice, not unlike what the government did with Bill C-4, which failed to give farmers choice in how they sell their wheat.

The compulsory nature of the special crops insurance plan is a form of negative option billing. Today's producers run large operations and should not have to apply to opt out and then to receive their money back if they do not wish to participate.

Farming businesses should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to be bonded or licensed and, if so, pay the bills themselves. Producers should have the choice to decide for themselves if there is too much risk selling to an unlicensed buyer. Special crops producers would be better off having choice between selling to large licensed grain dealers and small unlicensed grain dealers. That would make sense. I hope the government considers giving farmers that choice.

The amendments put forward by the PC Party today speak to these concerns. I hope the government will also listen to the stakeholders and vote in favour of these constructive amendments.

Once again I would like to conclude that the PC Party supports this bill, but we can make this a better piece of legislation if the government supports these amendments and the amendments put forward by the member for Prince George—Peace River.

I know the government wants to rush Bill C-26 because it believes it is simply a matter of housekeeping. However, let us try to give farmers in western Canada a piece of legislation that gives them choice.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move the second group of amendments introduced by the member for Brandon—Souris.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the last time I spoke to Bill C-26 was at second reading. I stated that there were a number of elements of the bill that needed to be looked at more closely and that I expected the committee would look into the bill in further detail when it did clause by clause analysis.

The committee in fact looked into the issues of concern. The government even introduced several amendments that made this piece of legislation better for western Canadian farmers. Committee members from all parties supported the government amendments. The government actually provided some good, sound amendments in this piece of legislation.

However, the government did not see eye to eye with the opposition parties on one key element, that being the voluntary aspect of the bill. The amendments that my party has put forward from the hon. member for Brandon—Souris take into account this element of the bill. The majority of the stakeholders who appeared wanted this system to be voluntary.

Group No. 2 Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 speak to the aspect the government has not addressed. I will speak to this later.

The amendments put forward by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River address a number of concerns. Group No. 1 amendments speak to removing oversight power from the special crops advisory committee to an appointed special crops board of no more than nine members. The members would be appointed by the minister from a list of recognized commodity organizations in western Canada. This change from the special crops advisory committee to a special crops board was suggested by Saskatchewan pulse growers and supported in committee by Manitoba pulse growers.

The brief of the Saskatchewan pulse growers which they submitted to the standing committee addresses this issue by suggesting that section 49.02 be amended, stating that there be an increase of the powers of the advisory committee to that of a board of directors because the bill relies on regulations for many of the specifics with respect to the insurance program. It is desirable for special crops producers to have direct responsibility for the development of regulations as well as the selection of the insurer and agent.

These amendments speak to the need for producers to have a say in how the speciality crops program will be carried. This allows the stakeholders to shape the regulations of the legislation and it is positive for producers to have input into the process.

The PC Party will be supporting these amendments because they add to the democratic process of allowing the producers to engage in the legislative process by giving them responsibility for the development of the regulations.

[Taxation, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian private woodlot owners need to be able to amortize profit to accommodate sustainable forest management. Is the minister willing to change forestry taxation and capital gains regulations to ensure continued and sustainable fibre production on Canadian private woodlots?

[Fisheries, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government has yet to announce a post-TAGS program. It still has not informed the House on an active licence buyback program to reduce effort and retire senior fishers.

Will the minister inform the House of the proposals before the special cabinet committee? Thousands of families are waiting his reply.

[Mi'Kmaq Education Act, May 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act respecting the powers of the Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia in relation to education.

Bill C-30 is a historic piece of legislation that will provide the Mi'kmaq communities in Nova Scotia with jurisdiction over education on reserve. This will be the first piece of legislation transferring jurisdiction over education to first nations and it will set a precedent across Canada.

Education is a provincial matter, but the federal government is responsible for programs and services for aboriginals living on reserve. As such, the federal government, the provincial government and the Mi'kmaq first nations worked together to bring about this legislation.

To give a little history and background to this legislation I would like to point out that the process which led to Bill C-30 began in 1991. At that time the Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia, namely a group of band chiefs and concerned citizens, approached the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development requesting control over education.

This led to the signing of a framework agreement in 1992 between the federal government and the 13 Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia. These first nations are: Acadia, Annapolis Valley, Bear River, Chapel Island, Eskasoni, Horton, Membertou, Millbrook, Pictou Landing, Shubenacadie, Wagmatcook and Whycocomagh.

Following the signing of the framework agreement meetings were held between the federal government and the Nova Scotia chiefs and culminated with the signing of a political accord in November 1994. This accord began negotiations for the transfer of jurisdiction over education.

A process of consultation with band councils preceded this event and consultations were conducted with the Mi'kmaq people and the general public to apprise them of the current state of negotiations and the extent of jurisdictional control requested by the Mi'kmaq first nations.

My point here is that we have had seven years of negotiations and discussion on this bill already. It has been in the public eye for seven years. This is not the first time the public has heard of it. Parliamentarians should not think that all of a sudden there is some type of conspiracy going on which will threaten education on native reserves across Canada. This is a piece of legislation that has been discussed prior to today, which will hopefully be enacted after this discussion today.

The corporation, known as Mi'kmaq Education, was established to help with the anticipated transfer of jurisdiction to the Mi'kmaq communities. Mi'kmaq Education's purpose is to facilitate and support the Mi'kmaq communities in the setting of objectives to ensure a program and structure is in place to deal with the administrative requirements associated with such a transfer.

Mi'kmaq Education established by the 13 Mi'kmaq first nations hired three Mi'kmaq people to consult with the Mi'kmaq community members and the general public. These consultations were carried out in a number of ways, including newsletters and information booths, in an effort to reach as many people as possible.

As well, the team met with Nova Scotia first nations schools, Nova Scotia universities and the Nova Scotia School Board Association. The team visited each community twice, meeting with both the band council and community and business members. This led to the negotiation of an agreement in principle which was signed on May 3, 1996.

The final process at the community level was conducted through the signing of band council resolutions which demonstrated that each band council had the support of its community and there was support for the chief to sign the final agreement on their behalf.

However, no referendum was conducted to determine community support and the Millbrook first nation later raised this as a point of contention.

Nine of the Mi'kmaq first nations signed the final agreement on February 14, 1997. The four that did not sign, Afton, Bear River, Horton and Millbrook, did not feel they had informed consent from their respective communities. However, clause 12 of the legislation allows these bands to join the process at a later date if they have the support of the band council to sign the agreement. The governor in council may then add the name of any Mi'kmaq first nation in Nova Scotia, thus granting the band jurisdiction over education.

The reverse may also occur. If the band council authorizes the withdrawal of the first nation from the agreement, the governor in council may do so. Both these procedures would be effective as of April 1 the following year.

It is important to note that the act allows for bands that have not signed on to this agreement to come into it. It also allows for bands that have signed on to the agreement and that may later see it does not suit their purposes to leave the agreement. It encompasses all Mi'kmaq first nations.

Four of the thirteen first nations in Nova Scotia did not sign the final agreement for various reasons. Horton first nation consists of a small number of Mi'kmaq, most of whom live off reserve. The advantage of the legislation is therefore minimal for this group. Two of the others, Afton and Bear River, still have questions regarding the process and are content to wait and see how the legislation progresses and how successful the program is. It is expected that they will join at a later time which the process allows for.

Millbrook was looking for legislation that would establish an inherent right process. While Bill C-30 is a step in that direction it does not go that far toward self-government since this remains a delegated jurisdiction. Chief Lawrence Paul of the Millbrook first nation expressed concerns over the funding arrangements supporting this legislation. Chief Paul felt the funding should be guaranteed for a period greater than five years agreed on by the federal government.

Twenty-seven Mi'kmaq first nations currently exist in Canada. They are located in four of the Atlantic provinces and in Quebec. Thirteen of these bands are in Nova Scotia. They are situated across the province. They have a long history and a strong culture. There are approximately 9,000 Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia, with 6,200 living on reserve. There are 2,200 Mi'kmaq students in Nova Scotia with this number split evenly between those living on and off reserve. Half the on reserve students go to public schools off reserve. This legislation does not provide the Mi'kmaq with greater powers or control over schools that are not on reserve.

Mi'kmaq culture historically relied heavily on story telling as a means of entertainment and communication. It incorporated songs and dances into these stories which were a means of passing on Mi'kmaq history. It is a goal of Mi'kmaq education to preserve Mi'kmaq culture and traditions. Giving control of education to Mi'kmaq communities ensures this is possible. The goal of Mi'kmaq education is to incorporate traditional languages and cultures back into the school system. This was one of the reasons the 13 Mi'kmaq first nations requested the federal government to transfer jurisdiction to their Mi'kmaq communities in 1991.

This legislation covers elementary and secondary jurisdictions and the allocation of funding for post-secondary education. Thus first nations will have control over what is taught to their students but they will have to ensure the education is equal to that of other students in Nova Scotia and that it meets university entrance requirements.

Without this legislation, the Mi'kmaq have no opportunity to make laws for education on reserve. The Indian Act gives the federal government this authority. Bill C-30 repeals sections 114 to 140 of the act and delegates jurisdiction to the Mi'kmaq. This will force the Mi'kmaq to develop structures to properly manage education and to make laws in line with standards set out in a constitution. Each community will first have to develop a constitution before it makes up its laws.

This legislation should increase accountability for the Mi'kmaq with regard to their education system. Currently band councils are not accountable to members. Instead they report to the federal government. Bill C-30 will increase community involvement, and accountability will improve through the preparation of financial statements and the annual report.

There are some detractors to this important piece of legislation but if we read the legislation thoroughly and carefully, which I would encourage all hon. members to do, this is a very precedent setting piece of legislation and increases accountability. It does not diffuse accountability.

Mi'kmaq communities recognize there will be challenges ahead such as the construction of schools on reserves, in particular for those bands outside Cape Breton. Moreover, there are challenges of finding Mi'kmaq who can teach students their own language and there are challenges of maintaining standards as required to meet both school board and university requirements.

Most first nations in Nova Scotia seem to be happy with the proposed legislation and feel this is a step in the right direction not only toward self-government but to improving the education their students receive.

When I spoke with a number of bands affected they stated they were pleased to be getting control over education. While they expect some hurdles along the way ultimately this is seen as a positive move.

This legislation also has its critics within the Mi'kmaq community but the legislation is designed and written to encompass those critics and to give them the opportunity to have their say and also to perhaps make changes in the legislation.

Bill C-30 would be a stepping stone for other first nations across Canada to begin taking an active role in educating their own people. Taking an active role would mean that the 53% of natives living on reserve under age 25 would have some say in their education process. This is an area of great importance to the first nations and its students. First nations want to ensure their traditions and heritage continue while the young people want and need an education that will prepare them for the future.

First nations in Manitoba and Ontario are looking at the process but because of different treaties they will have to tailor it to meet their own needs and circumstances. Furthermore, this is a move toward self-government, something my party has and continues to support as a means of improving economic development for aboriginal peoples.

This is a historic piece of legislation. The Mi'kmaq first nations in Nova Scotia have requested and are prepared to administer it and I am pleased to support it at this stage.

I look forward to examining it in greater detail as the process continues in committee.