Gerald Keddy

[Nunavut Act, June 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to rise in this House to speak on Bill C-39. I have a great deal of interest in this debate. I have listened to it for five or six hours but I have to admit I am not interested in a lot of the discussion that ensues about dragging the debate into other areas and other jurisdictions. I am not interested in the term Balkanization. I am not interested in filibustering and I am not interested in how this affects the Senate.

What I am interested in is what this bill says to the people of Canada about a very historic occasion in this country. This is the first time in over 50 years that we are presenting a new territory, bringing a new territory into the Canadian mosiac. This is a very historic occasion and it is one that as a member of the Indian affairs and northern development committee I am very proud to have participated in.

I think it is time to quickly summarize what this debate is about. The Nunavut Act will create a new territory on April 1, 1999 in the northeastern and central regions of what is currently the Northwest Territories.

This process was initiated in the 1960s. It has been a long process and it has been a long debate. I am sure the people who started that debate in the 1960s would be very weary of it if they were still here. Some of those early participants are still here.

The creation of Nunavut was set out in the Nunavut land claims agreement signed on May 25, 1993 by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. The government of Nunavut will be a public government reflecting the demographics of the area which is 85% Inuit. The official language will be Inuktitut.

During the debate of this bill, during the process of this bill through parliament we made some additions. We made some changes. Amendments to the Nunavut Act were necessary to allow for a smooth transition for April 1, 1999 to ensure the continuation of services.

Because of the complexity of the regulations, the original bill required amendments to ensure this would take place. The amendments allow for additional seats for both a new member of parliament and a new senator to represent the territory.

As well, this legislation removes any uncertainty regarding basic services like drivers licence registration and courtroom proceedings to allow them to continue after April 1, 1999 in an uninterrupted manner.

These are the specifics of the bill. These are the nuts and bolts of what we are talking about here. This is not an occasion for members of parliament to get up, filibuster and ask questions that have no relevancy whatsoever to the piece of legislation we are trying to discuss.

Bill C-39 is an historic piece of legislation that will create the third territory in Canada. It is a step toward provincial status for all territories, Yukon, NWT and eventually Nunavut.

Amendments to the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act were necessary to allow for an election prior to April 1, 1999 and to make a seat available in the House of Commons and the Senate to reflect and provide representation for this new territory.

This is an historic event in the development of our country. I want to let the citizens of Canada consider that for a minute. This is not a time for politicians to stand up, filibuster and talk about issues that are certainly interesting and important, I admit, but which are not relevant to the debate. If we are to have debate in the House of Commons surely we should have relevant debate.

Another thing for which there seems to be a misunderstanding is the size of this new territory. Nunavut will encompass 2,242,000 square kilometres. Approximately one-seventh of that is under Inuit title under Inuit land claims. That land claims area is Inuit controlled land. The rest of that territory belongs to the people of Canada. It is crown land. This is not one huge land claim.

I have listened to comments today. Obviously members have not read the act. I have heard the debate go on and on about 25,000 people and what it is costing the people of Canada. What has it cost the territories of Canada to belong to this nation? How much have we taken from Yukon? How much have we taken from the NWT? How much have we taken from the eastern Arctic in mineral royalties, mining rights, oil and gas revenues? How much have we taken in taxation dollars? How much has been contributed? A lot.

I think it is time to allow a bit of common sense to enter the debate. We are talking about maturity here. We are talking about the maturity of a nation. We are talking about having three territories. Surely it is time we can be proud of this historic occasion and the very fact that on April 1, 1999 Canada will have a new territory. I think it is an historic occasion and a wonderful event.

On those words I take my seat and I hope the filibustering has stopped.

[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.