Gerald Keddy

[Supply, November 4th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have been following this debate and have certainly attempted to listen closely. I have listened very closely to the government members and their discussion over the language of the motion.

I would like to put the motion on the record:

That this House deplore the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada at and following the First Ministers' Conference of October 26, 2004, and that it call on the federal government to immediately implement its pledges of June 5 and 27, 2004, to allow the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to keep 100% of their provincial offshore oil and gas revenues.

To talk about language is sheer lunacy. This is not a bill. This is not something that the government takes tomorrow and turns into cold hard cash and then revenue flows into Atlantic Canada. This is a motion that could become a bill. The government gets to manipulate and change the wording of the motion if it cares to implement it. Do not give me this trivial foolishness and excuse that somehow this motion cannot be accepted by Liberal members on the government side. That is absolute sheer lunacy.

This offshore accord for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is a greater tragedy than the Ocean Ranger.

[Tlicho Land Claims and Self-Government Act, November 1st, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my colleagues and some of the comments of members on the government side. I also listened to the member for Calgary Centre-North, our critic for aboriginal affairs, who has done a good job in researching Bill C-14.

Like all matters dealing with aboriginal affairs, Bill C-14 is complicated and deserves intense and close study. This has nothing to do with an unwillingness on behalf of the Conservative Party to seek a final remedy for a number of first nations that are seeking land claims and treaties, but rather an attempt to bring some fairness to the issue.

Reference has been made to the Nisga'a treaty. I was aboriginal affairs critic at one time and supported the Nisga'a treaty. The treaty we have before us, as I have read it, is nothing like the Nisga'a treaty. They are totally separate issues.

I know some members of the House have taken exception to a number of issues in the treaty, such as the issue of paramountcy, which doe not particularly bother me as much as it may bother others. However I do find a number of other issues problematic, especially when it comes to international affairs. I have not heard a clear and concise explanation from the government side on them. They certainly deserve a much closer study and a much more introspective study by government members.

I would like to draw the House's attention to 7.13.2 which reads:

Prior to consenting to be bound by an international treaty that may affect a right of the Tlicho Government, the Tlicho First Nation or Tlicho Citizen, flowing from the Agreement, the Government of Canada shall provide an opportunity for the Tlicho Government to make its views known with respect to the international treaty either separately or through a forum.

That makes common sense to me and I would see no problem with that. I would think that any first nation about to ratify an international treaty signed by the Government of Canada would want an opportunity to look at that treaty.

I will go a step further here and read 7.13.3 which states:

Where the Government of Canada informs the Tlicho Government that it considers that a law or other exercise of power of the Tlicho Government causes Canada to be unable to perform an international legal obligation, the Tlicho Government and the Government of Canada shall discuss remedial measures to enable Canada to perform the international legal obligation. Subject to 7.13.4, the Tlicho Government shall remedy the law or other exercise of power to the extent necessary to enable Canada to perform the international legal obligation.

Again, this makes common sense. The Tlicho people would amend their laws, which makes sense. However now we get to the crux of the problem.

The crux of the problem is really in 7.13.4 which states:

If the arbitrator, having taken into account all relevant considerations including any reservations and exceptions available to Canada, determines that the Tlicho Government law or other exercise of power causes Canada to be unable to perform the international legal obligation, the Tlicho Government shall remedy the law or other exercise of power to enable Canada to perform the internal legal obligation.

Under the legislation, what would stop the Tlicho government from selling bulk water? We have agreements among the provinces and the territories. We are not about to start exporting bulk water, although it does cross the border every day through municipal agreements along the border. We sell bottled water to the U.S. under our obligations under NAFTA and under the WTO.

Just imagine for a minute what would happen if the Tlicho First Nation decided to sell bulk water. There are all kinds of issues at stake. There are all kinds of bylaws that state that the Government of Canada shall not supercede the Tlicho ability to deal as an international body. Within a certain frame or guideline, I can agree with that. I have no difficulty with that.

I want to know some specifics. The government is very short on specifics, but very big on grandiose plans on how this is going to help first nations.

We have a great example. That is the Nisga'a agreement where the first nation has paramountcy on a number of issues that do not infringe upon the obligations of the sovereign state of Canada and the responsibilities of the federal government. There are dozens of examples, but it is very clearly written into the Nisga'a agreement. This language is not clear, final or definite when I read this proposed legislation.

What prevents the Tlicho people from deciding tomorrow, after the agreement is signed, that they wish to sell bulk water? As the agreement is written, there is anything in it to prevent that. That is one example.

This is pretty straightforward, responsible type of legislation that we would like to see governments bring forward. We have a number of first nations who have never signed treaties. Some of the Tlicho band are among those people.

This is about something called the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. It is about Arctic gas flowing through Tlicho land and an ulterior motive on behalf of the government. It is in such a hurry to exploit the resources of northern Canada, and by the way to exploit the resources and give nothing back to either three levels of government in northern Canada. It takes the lion's share of the profit and the Tlicho should recognize this, as well.

The government is not a beneficiary. It does not always act in the best interests of its clients, including Yukon, the NWT and Nunavut, let alone does it act in good faith when it deals with first nations.

There is a bottom line that we cannot ignore. The treaty, unlike almost any other treaty that I have had the experience of reading, does not deal with finality. It is not clear in its language and it opens the door internationally to a real serious problem. Part of that problem is about water, or could be.

If we look at article 2.2.9, it states:

Nothing in the Agreement shall be interpreted so as to limit or extend any authority of the Parties to negotiate and enter into international, national, interprovincial and inter-territorial agreements, but this does not prevent the Tlicho Government from entering into agreements--

I have heard a lot of language coming from the government benches that the opposition is not looking at the legislation with a clear mind and that we are attempting to be unfair in our deliberations. As an individual who has supported a lot of good legislation regarding first nations, this piece of legislation has a serious flaw in it. Until I hear the answer, not just the criticisms about what everyone else thinks about this but the answer to that specific part of the bill, then I am going to be very apprehensive in believing that this legislation is good for Canada and good for first nations.

[Committees of the House, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled, “Safe, Secure, Sovereign: Reinventing the Canadian Coast Guard”.

[Natural Resources, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on June 27, 2004, one day before the election, the Prime Minister told the people of Nova Scotia that they would receive 100% of their offshore royalties. Today the new deal covers the production life of the Sable project and excludes any revenues produced by any future projects.

Will the Prime Minister commit to keeping his election promise and ensure that Nova Scotia receives 100% of its offshore royalties, no cap, no limit and no exception?

[Natural Resources, October 27th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard excuse after excuse from Liberal cabinet ministers as to why they were not fighting for the prosperity of Atlantic Canada. During the election each and every one of them promised that Atlantic Canada would get 100% of the revenue from the offshore oil and gas.

This is not a partisan issue. This is about fairness and about the future of Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada. It is an absolute insult that the Prime Minister, after winning seats on the promise of 100% of the offshore royalties, now offers only eight years of royalties on existing fields.

Where are Nova Scotia's Liberal MPs on this issue? Nova Scotia has two cabinet ministers, two parliamentary secretaries and two backbenchers in the Liberal Party. Why all the silence and why have they broken their promise to their fellow Nova Scotians?

It should be about the future and the prosperity of Nova Scotia, not about the future and the prosperity of the Liberal Party of Canada.

[Points of Order, October 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during question period there was some discussion between the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and myself about the sponsorship program. During that discussion and in answer to a question, the Minister of Public Works mentioned the member from South Shore. What he actually stated when he was talking about the sponsorship program was:

The fact is all MPs were aware of this program. All MPs across Canada from all political parties received support from that program--

The fact is that the sponsorship program, at its beginning stages, was a for Liberals only program. It may have sent money into opposition-held ridings but those moneys were not accessible to members of the opposition because there was no way we could know about the program. It was a secret program in its beginning years.

Furthermore, sponsorship moneys that did come into the South Shore were not accessed through my office. I was not aware that the sponsorship program had been accessed at all until the access for information that brought the Bluenose debacle to light.

For the Minister of Public Works to say that all members of Parliament, including myself, were aware of this program is just patently false and, I feel, misleads Parliament. I am very certain that is not what the Minister responsible for Public Works intended to do.

Again, contrary to what the Minister of Public Works has stated, that “all MPs were aware”, there was no way that I was aware of this program. I would like your intervention, Mr. Speaker, to seek redress on this issue.

The minister was incorrect in his statement in this House and specifically mentioned me. It is only fair and, I believe, in keeping with the parliamentary tradition, that he correct his statement.

[Points of Order, October 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Minister of Public Works stated in his answer to a question from the member for Wellington—Halton Hills that the members of Parliament of all parties lobbied for sponsorship moneys. The Minister of Public Works would know that this is incorrect because he used to be in the same party at one time. He then went on to mention a number of members of Parliament by riding. He specifically included the member for South Shore, which would be my old riding in the 37th Parliament.

This was a deliberate attempt, a scandalous attempt to mislead the Canadian public, and I insist that the minister retract his statement because at no time did I ever lobby for any sponsorship moneys, nor was I aware that they even came into the riding.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I would like to speak briefly to the parliamentary secretary's comments on testing.

As I see it, the issue around testing is not about any disagreement with the science. Rather it is a disagreement with the results. What I mean by that is the government can say that it does not want to assist farmers in testing animals destined for export markets or assist farmers in testing animals destined for niche markets such as Japan and Korea. Those countries are going to insist upon testing for a very long time, the next 10 to 15 years at least I suspect. The only way we will ever access those markets is if we test our animals. If an affordable test is put in place, I will guarantee that a loss will become cheaper over time. As we test more animals, we will find a better way to do it. It is not a matter of disagreeing with the science. If we do not do the testing, we will not export our beef to those niche markets.

[Agriculture, October 12th, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I have listened to a fair amount of the debate this evening. A couple of comments have stood out among all the comments that have been made.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food stated that the objective of the government was to keep far farmers in business. I certainly applaud the parliamentary secretary's comments and I think he actually believes them. However, I live in rural Nova Scotia. I can drive by farm after farm that is no longer in production. They have given up. They have moved on to another means of making a livelihood. They have abandoned their farms.

Over the weekend I was at home putting the finishing touches on a new barn. One might ask why I would build a new barn today, and I ask myself that question. A friend of mine came by because he pastures his heifers there. I know the parliamentary secretary is no stranger to the barnyard. He said that he was fifth generation farmer and he saw no way that he could stay in the industry. He is an engineer and he has always supported his farm by off farm income. He will no longer stay in the beef industry.

Our farms in Nova Scotia are much smaller and more modest in scale than they are in western Canada. It does not matter if a farmer has 50 head of cattle, of 100 head of cattle or 200 head of cattle, they are just as important as the farm that has 1,000 or 10,000. The same element of scale is involved.

We have a situation that has arisen in the country that is hitting agriculture like no other situation with which we have ever had to deal. I do not see any answers coming from the government. I have heard a lot of discussion, a lot of rhetoric and a lot of debate tonight that somehow miraculously the border will open. Quite frankly, I would like to see how and why.

We have done nothing in our association with our American allies and colleagues to open the border. The government has been adversarial, in most degrees, when dealing with the Americans. There is nothing that would tell us, looking at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Health Canada regulations and the USDA regulations, that the border will open. If the Americans want to keep it closed, they will keep it closed and they will keep it closed for the mandatory seven years. There are 30 other countries of the world that have also closed their borders to Canadian beef.

This is not a situation. This is a crisis.There are 16.8 million cattle in Canada. We have nearly one million head of sheep. We have elk, goats and deer. All these animals need to be marketed. We have cull cows coming from the dairy industry. We have dairy heifers that we cannot ship across the border. This is just compounding exponentially every day as this situation goes on.

We cannot sit here and talk about what might happen when the border opens. I want to know what we have done. I have heard the discussion about what we have done about Japan. Between Japan and Korea, a million tonnes of beef is consumed in those two countries alone.

What has the government done to look at a mandatory testing regime for overseas exports, which the government would pay, not the farmers? What about the $8 billion in surplus that the government suddenly miraculously found on its books? How much of that will get to the farm gate? I suspect very little, if any. The idea that somehow we might find $400 million on September 10 to put into a program that might be delved out over the next six months, to a year, to eighteen months is great. That is wonderful for the person who is grasping at straws. A lot of farmers have already given up and have drowned.

What are we going to do to ensure that at least the rudiments of the industry, the basis of our industry, is still there two years down the road when we are still having this discussion about the American border not being open and when we still have done nothing about accessing the huge Asian market and other markets around the world?

[Health, May 14th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, just before we leave this place for an election, it would be nice if the Liberals would come clean on health care. The truth is they have no position at all on private clinics. They are willing to turn a blind eye if it suits the Prime Minister's lifestyle.

My question is simple. Are there any other senior civil servants or cabinet ministers who are using the services of private clinics?