Gerald Keddy

[Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier and I appreciate the fact that the Bloc members are supporting the principle of this piece of legislation, but we always see that constant and reoccurring habit of trying to drive those wedges. We are much better off when we all work cooperatively. I certainly appreciate his comparing this agreement to the offshore agreement.

Part of the argument that Nova Scotia put forward on the Donkin coal mine, and certainly on the methane, is that it is offshore, so it should be covered under the same agreement with offshore oil and gas. Methane gas and coal bed methane being drilled from jackups on the ocean, or from drill ships, or semi-submersibles, whatever it is drilled with, I concur, should be treated the same as other offshore resources.

Of course, the member should know the original agreement signed on the offshore has been available to Nova Scotia under our government since the beginning. It is part of what is on the table. He mentioned Premier Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been on the table for Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

It is up to the provinces to decide if they would choose to take that agreement or if they would choose to take the new equalization formula which offers 50% of their natural resources. Certainly, members should also be aware that the way the offshore accords were written the moment a province becomes a have province, it would lose the benefits of the offshore accords which would have given it 100% of its natural resources.

In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, that will probably be sooner rather than later. We are expecting it will become a have province and especially with the escalating value of its energy resources, Newfoundland and Labrador will probably become a have province in 2009. Therefore, it would lose the benefit of the original accord it signed anyway.

The new agreement is much better for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular than the old equalization formula because under the new formula it would continue to receive 50% of its natural resources like any other province.

Again in closing, part of this and the reason why I took the time to explain that to my colleague from the Bloc is the fact that the Government of Canada, on this piece of legislation, Bill C-15, has worked in a cooperative manner in a positive way for a positive outcome both for the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government. It shows what we can do when we work together.

[Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso is absolutely correct.

The project we are talking about, the Donkin coal seams, is under the ocean. It is not land based. Even though it is underground, it is certainly not within the jurisdiction of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island.

We have always considered the coal seams an offshore jurisdiction. That is why this unique piece of legislation has been put in place because quite frankly, Nova Scotia was claiming jurisdiction for the Donkin coal seams along with the federal government. This was a cooperative way of getting beyond that.

I would like to make this point, and in no way am I trying to step on provincial jurisdiction here in Point Aconi or the Prince Colliery or any of the other mines that still have some potential in Cape Breton Island. Let us be clear, these are for undersea resources. They are not for land based resources.

The other debate is a Nova Scotia provincial debate. The other debate about open pit mining is strictly in the purview of provincial jurisdiction.

However, I would ask people who are listening to this discussion to take a look at some of the examples in Nova Scotia where there has been a cleanup of a lot of these old mine sites, and they have been open pit.

The Trenton-New Glasgow area is a prime example of that where a local company came in, Chisholm's, I believe was the company name, and it did have an open pit mine. It certainly was dusty and caused a problem for a few years. However, it did an extremely good job and reclaimed a bunch of old mine sites that were frankly a personal hazard for all the local children in the area who were playing in some of these mines. Some of these mines went back 150 years. It is not as simple as one versus the other.

To the member's first and original question, there are two totally different jurisdictions and two totally different subjects.

[Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on Bill C-15, the Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act. This is an act that is extremely important to the province of Nova Scotia and certainly to the island of Cape Breton.

Before I begin my remarks, I have a brief comment on the comments by my Bloc colleague. I think this act is an example of how the federal government and provincial governments, in this case the province of Nova Scotia, can work cooperatively for the better good of both. This act is not trying to drive divisions between areas.

The member for the Bloc is a member of the natural resources committee. She would be well aware that Nova Scotia's mining regulations, in particular the underground regulatory regime for coal mines and underground mines, are some of the best in the world because of the disaster that occurred at the Westray mine during the explosion there and the loss of those miners, which is still certainly in the minds of all Nova Scotians today. The laws have been improved because of that disaster and the regulatory regime that exists there has some of the best regulations in Canada.

To be clear, what is going to happen here is a single regulator in terms of resource development and labour matters. That regulator will be the Province of Nova Scotia. It will be facilitated by incorporating the provincial legislation into federal law and delegating to the province responsibility to administer these new federal laws. I want to be clear on how that will happen.

As I have mentioned, this legislation is about cooperation. It is not about driving wedges. It is not about causing a schematic shift across the country to pit one province against another province or one part of the country or one region of the country against another. This is a good, practical solution to an ongoing jurisdictional discussion between the Province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada.

Bill C-15 is an excellent example of what can be accomplished when we sit down and are committed to finding solutions. We are not committed to trying to find a way to pick a fight and cause an ongoing schism in the federation. We are committed to actually finding a solution.

The Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia have worked cooperatively to ensure that Cape Breton benefits from this economic opportunity. As the Minister of Natural Resources has mentioned, Donkin is the last major undeveloped or underdeveloped coal resource off Cape Breton Island. This resource is not underground on Cape Breton Island. This resource is underground offshore Cape Breton Island. We need to be very clear about where this resource lies.

This legislation presents an excellent opportunity not only for the people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotians, but we expect that when the Donkin mine is open and in full operation it could create up to 275 jobs. This is extremely important to the province of Nova Scotia and the island of Cape Breton in particular. Indirectly, the project could generate 700 jobs. This is very good news for an area which in the past few decades has seen the decline of its coal and steel industries. The salaries, the equipment purchases and the sales of goods and services associated with Donkin could provide hundreds of millions of dollars to the economies of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia.

I will give members a bit of history on the development of the Donkin mine and coal in Cape Breton. Certainly, the region was settled because of coal, and coal mining has been the main livelihood for more than the past 100 years. On an historical note, it is interesting that when Nicholas Denys settled on Cape Breton Island in the late 1600s and had his trading post set up somewhere in the Sydney River area, it is thought now, he wrote in his diary of open seams of coal in the Sydney area on Cape Breton Island.

Certainly when Louisbourg was settled by the French, one of the reasons was the proximity of coal in the Cape Breton area. That was surface coal. The Donkin mine, of course, is under the ocean and offshore of the coal producing area.

The significance of coal is still evident today in the communities and the culture of Cape Breton. Miners who worked in the subsea mines have a long history. Many Cape Bretoners today can trace miners in their families going back more than 100 years. Cape Bretoners are proud of this mining heritage and they have never forgotten it.

In the early years, the work sustained many families, but it certainly was not an easy life. It was extremely dangerous and extremely hard work. Today, mining is still dangerous and hard work, but it is a very different profession compared to what existed 100 years ago. Mining provides good jobs and builds strong communities.

In the case of Donkin, it is important to note that this development is not starting from square one. A lot of the work at Donkin has already been done.

Exploration of Donkin began in 1977 with the original wells being drilled by ship. Eleven holes were drilled during a three year period and several seams of coal were detected. The Cape Breton Development Corporation of those days spent $80 million on two exploratory tunnels in the mid-1980s. At the time, the coal was deemed too expensive to extract, the tunnels were sealed and flooded, and the development did not proceed, but the coal is still there and the tunnels still exist.

As we can see, Cape Bretoners have lived both with the anticipation and with the disappointment of not seeing Donkin developed. Today I am happy to say that the pendulum has swung back to that feeling of optimism on Cape Breton Island.

As we all know, today's energy situation is very different from the recent past. Energy prices, including coal prices, have risen dramatically and new clean technologies are being developed, resulting in a new interest in coal as an energy source. Another factor favouring Donkin today is that the coal deposit may be of sufficient size and potential to be a source for international markets. We know that there is a very hot market for coal.

Nearby on Cape Breton Island, and certainly in Nova Scotia, there is a local workforce with extensive underground coal mining experience. These are some of the best workers in the world when it comes to mining and extracting coal. It is a workforce that welcomes the return of coal mining jobs. Local businesses certainly would welcome this development too.

Cape Breton also has two local coal-fired power stations capable of using Donkin coal. The rail infrastructure is in place to ship coal by train to two more power plants elsewhere in Nova Scotia.

Let us not forget the potential of Sydney Harbour, which sits ready to ship coal to international markets. The member for Cape Breton—Canso mentioned that in his speech. Some preliminary work may need to be done to assist the Sydney Harbour authority to move some of the larger ships in and out of the harbour, but that is all part of the infrastructure requirements that would be needed to fully develop the Donkin coal mine.

These are just some of the positive factors supporting this initiative. As we have heard, this is the last major coal deposit off Cape Breton Island. If it gets to the development stage, and I certainly believe it will, we expect to see at least 10 years of operations in the Donkin mine. In addition to providing much needed jobs, the development of Donkin would help stabilize the tax base of this community for many years.

This agreement signals a small revival of coal in Nova Scotia. It is not a return to the old days when coal was king in Cape Breton, but Donkin has the potential to provide a viable industry to Nova Scotia and help the province meet its energy needs.

The people of Cape Breton are anxious to see this development proceed. Certainly the Province of Nova Scotia is anxious to see it proceed and the Government of Canada is anxious to see it proceed. Coal mining will once again bring good jobs to this important region.

It should be clear from my comments that there the benefits of the initiatives I have outlined are manyfold. There are jobs and opportunities available. There are infrastructure jobs and there are dollars that will be helpful to the local community.

Clearly, there is broad support out there for this piece of legislation and for the Donkin mine and the Donkin coal seams to be developed. In fact, the federal government went so far as to carry out consultations with all interested stakeholders last spring, and I can report that there is very strong support indeed.

The community of Cape Breton is excited about this opportunity. The labour unions and groups representing the rights of workers, including the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, have expressed support, and the employer and the offshore board have expressed support.

The Governments of Canada and the Province of Nova Scotia have a shared interest in seeing this further economic opportunity for Cape Breton. That is why they have worked closely together on this issue. I believe both levels of government deserve credit for their efforts to reach an agreement that will allow development of the Donkin coal seams. This bill provides a clear regulatory regime to permit the Donkin development if Xstrata decides to proceed with production.

There has been a fair amount of discussion here about existing provincial and federal laws, but existing provincial laws regarding matters such as labour standards, labour relationships, resource development and occupational health and safety will be incorporated into federal law as part of the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia.

Again, this can happen when organizations work in a cooperative manner for the better good of both the Province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. Nova Scotia will administer these laws so that a single and clear regulatory system can be established for the Donkin project.

In conclusion, let me say that this legislation allows both levels of government to retain their current positions, with nothing changing, with respect to ownership and regulatory jurisdiction, while facilitating the economic development of Cape Breton and certainly Nova Scotia.

By introducing this legislation, the Government of Canada is demonstrating its commitment to the economic development of the Cape Breton community and to Nova Scotia as a whole. This bill, I believe, is an outstanding example of cooperation between governments to facilitate a common interest in seeing the Donkin mine project proceed.

I would like to recognize the work of the Minister of Natural Resources, his parliamentary secretary and my colleagues on this side of the House, as well as the work done by my colleagues on the other side of the House.

I think there is pretty well unanimous support for this piece of legislation. There is some discussion and that is why we are in this place. We are here to look at the various areas of bills that we feel are projecting the common good and also to recognize what we see as flaws. I am happy to say, from what I have heard from members on the other side, that they recognize this as a cooperative and very positive piece of legislation for the province of Nova Scotia that will certainly benefit the regional economy of Cape Breton Island.

Before closing, I would like to say that coal was king in Cape Breton Island for many years, but it was also important to the entire province of Nova Scotia, certainly in the New Glasgow area. Earlier I mentioned the Westray explosion and the unfortunate circumstances that surrounded it. Coal was mined throughout Nova Scotia, in Springhill as well, and not just in Cape Breton. As well, there is still a very skilled workforce capable of underground mining, one that any employer would be lucky to hire.

I wish Xstrata, the company that will be primarily involved in Donkin, the best of luck. If the Province of Nova Scotia and the federal government can continue to work in a cooperative manner, I think this can be an example for other provinces.

[Equalization Payments, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question from the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, the hon. member would know that Newfoundland and Labrador has a great deal under the accord. In 2005, for the first time, it received 100% of its offshore. He would also know that as the deal is written it will lose that when it loses equalization.

Therefore, the issue is that under the new equalization agreement Newfoundland will be the chief beneficiary of 50% of its offshore revenues. The new deal is a good deal for Newfoundland and Labrador. The old deal was a good deal for Newfoundland—

[Equalization Payments, October 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand the premise of the question. I think there is some suggestion that there is no deal with Nova Scotia, that there is no Atlantic accord. The hon. member would be aware that this is a falsehood that he is attempting to spread.

The federal government is very satisfied with the agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Nova Scotia is extremely satisfied with the agreement with Nova Scotia, so I do not understand why the member of Parliament opposite continues to spread doubt and falsehoods about the Atlantic accord.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with some interest to my colleague from Nova Scotia to his view of the world and his view of the accord.

I know that the member took part in the agreement in 2005 when the accord was ratified and I thank him for his work on that. It was finally ratified by the then Liberal government. The hon. member would also know, so I wonder why he and the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley continue to mislead the Nova Scotia public on what is available and what is not available in the accord.

The member would know that the 2005 accord, as signed with every “i” dotted and every “t” crossed on the 2005 equalization agreement as promised by the Prime Minister, is one of the options available to Nova Scotia. He would also know, and he should tell the truth, that what he and the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley have espoused, which is the accord as it was signed in 2005 with 100% of the offshore available in the offset agreement moved forward on the new O'Brien or 10 province equalization formula, would be worth less money to the province of Nova Scotia, actually $497 million less.

There is some confusion around this but to add to that confusion really is patently disrespectful and misleading as a parliamentarian.

[Speech from the Throne, October 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Governor General presented a Speech from the Throne which outlined our government's five clear priorities for this new session. One of those priorities provided effective economic leadership for a prosperous future. Our government believes that hard-working Canadians pay too much tax and our tax system must reward this hard work, encourage investment and job creation and promote Canadian business on a world stage.

The government wants to ensure economic security for all Canadians and will bring forward a long term plan of broad based tax relief, further reduce the GST, strengthen the economy through our long term economic plan, “Advantage Canada”.

Since taking office we have announced more than $40 billion in tax cuts for families, individuals and businesses. This is good for the economy and it is good for Canadians.

Under the strong leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and our Conservative government, we are building a better Canada.

[Heritage Lighthouse Protection Act, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to rise and wrap up speaking on Bill S-220. In doing so, I thank my colleagues from all parties present for their work and input on this private member's bill. I thank them for their support of the intent of the bill.

As well, I recognize the support and the input from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment. I would be remiss if I did not recognize Senator Carney and her sponsorship of the bill in the Senate. In mentioning Senator Carney, I would be remiss if I did not mention the late Senator Michael Forrestall who sponsored the bill not once but five times in the Senate. I am sure he is looking down today thinking that finally this has some opportunity and some chance of coming to fruition.

As well, there is a number of other individuals to thank such as Barry MacDonald of the Nova Scotia Lighthouse Preservation Society for his input into the bill. Hopefully, after second reading, the bill will proceed to committee. There are some amendments that we are looking to bring at committee, and I am sure there will be some discussion on those. It is important, for the first opportunity after many years and many people working on the bill, that we can see some light at the end of the tunnel.

I will point out one of the amendments that we will consider in committee. I will not belabour this tonight because I think most of the members understand it. However, so people who are lighthouse supporters and who are listening to this will understand, I will mention it briefly.

As the bill is currently drafted, it takes an inconsistent approach to public notices and public meetings. It would require a public meeting for decisions related to conservation work, despite provisions in the bill that already require any alterations to protect heritage value to be of a high standard. At the same time, the bill does not require a public meeting if a lighthouse were to be demolished or torn down. This was simply an oversight. This needs correction.

It is our intent to bring substantive, reasonable and sensible amendments like this to committee. We are hopeful that there will support from all the members, who have supported the bill to this point, at committee to make these types of changes.

The other aspect that must be understood is the overall cost has to be reasonable and within DFO's budget. As it now stands, we are expecting that DFO will have to find more money in its budget than it intended for some type of reasonable and orderly divestiture process.

Both the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment are all right with that. They know they will have to find some more dollars. For the first time, I think we have a golden opportunity to preserve lighthouses and lighthouse infrastructure in coastal Canada in perpetuity, whether that is east, west, north, south or the inland waterways. That is the point of this bill.

One more time, I would like to recognize the outstanding work of the late Mike Forrestall on this bill, and thank him for that.

[Fisheries Act, 2007, June 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important bill and I am honoured to rise to speak to it. I represent the large fishery riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's in Nova Scotia and this is an important debate for that area.

I would like to take 30 seconds to talk about the hoist motion which the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor moved, which delayed this bill finishing second reading and going to committee. Unfortunately, I do not think the Liberals really understood what the hoist motion was doing. I do not have time to talk about this today but I will another time. In the meantime, I move:

That this question be now put.

[Fisheries Act, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Liberal motion to hoist the new Fisheries Act was defeated. The hoist accomplished nothing besides 96 days of delay, time wasted at the expense of modern and accountable conservation measures and the protection of fish and fish habitat, and much needed stability for Canada's fisheries.

Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans assure this House that he will continue to lead on behalf of Canadian fishers and deliver this badly needed legislation?