Michelle Dockrill

[Violence Against Women, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, 8 years ago 14 women were killed at l'École Polytechnique in Montreal. I rise today to remember them and to remember other women in communities across the country who have lost their lives because of violence.

As a result of a private member's bill from former NDP MP Dawn Black, all members of this House from all parties pledged their support for making December 6 a national day of remembrance on violence against women.

Yet this week we have seen macho, angry, confrontational behaviour in this House, the kind of behaviour that members of this House pledged to end, the kind of actions not suitable in this House or any other house in Canada.

I call on all members of this House to reflect on the lives lost in Montreal and renew their commitment to end all forms of violence.

[Toy Labelling, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the New Democratic Party and as a mother I am very proud to stand and second this motion brought before the House today by my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst.

This motion simply asks that the government introduce legislation to require manufacturers to indicate on the label when a toy contains phthalates so parents can make informed decisions when buying playthings for their youngsters. It asks for labelling because recent studies have shown that phthalates, which are invisible chemical agents commonly put into plastics to make them flexible, have been found to cause cancer, infertility and liver damage, and are particularly damaging to children. Examples include teething rings, soothers and plastic toys.

The studies have recently prompted chain stores in at least seven countries, all with large and highly developed modern economies like Canada, to remove toys polluted by phthalates from store shelves. The Netherlands and Denmark have banned outright the use of phthalates in plastics. The Austrian government has banned phthalates in toys. In what is a clearly growing international momentum on this issue, the Government of Denmark just this week approached the European Commission for a continent-wide ban on phthalates in products.

However, in Canada millions of children are undoubtedly playing with these chemicals right now and their well intentioned parents will bring even more into the home this holiday season and put them under the Christmas tree.

An official from Health Canada told my office that as of this week the department is standing behind all studies that show toys with phthalates are safe. Health Canada is not joining the growing international movement against these toxins. Health Canada has not asked for labels to identify these dangerous toys. Health Canada has only said that it will begin what may be a lengthy process of its own testing which has the very real possibility of being inconclusive.

I have to ask why this minister will not err on the side of the safety of our children. Has the Minister of Health not learned anything from Justice Krever and the ways in which early danger signs were sadly ignored in that shameful episode? The same thing that happened with blood products appears to be happening with plastic toys.

The minister's department says that these deadly toys are safe and will stay on the market and nothing will be done to raise public awareness about the problem. The government's position appears to be that it is okay to poison children for Christmas.

The action by Denmark creates an interesting dilemma for the minister. Denmark is a nation whose people are considered thoughtful and prudent. They have added much to the evolution of modern civilization. The Danish and other governments have decided that these nasty products, sold for profit, specifically to children, have not met the community standard of health and safety and, indeed, morality and will be banned outright.

Protecting the public good is done elsewhere, yet when New Democrats suggest the same business and the government react as if the sky is falling and the mountains are tumbling into the sea. It is like we were taking away the cookie jar.

The Danes and the others are banning these toys and other phthalate ridden products because they know that businesses will not pack up and leave the country and take along every last job when the government makes a common sense decision in the interest of public health.

Holding such a threat over the head of a nation is nothing short of economic terrorism, yet this government thinks that regulation is a dirty word, a word the Minister of Health is afraid to say. Thankfully the Danish and other governments will ensure that corporations make their profits in a way which enhances the public good, and if killer toys have to come off the market, then so be it.

We in this party applaud Denmark's integrity. This government is always talking about international trade. Perhaps we could import some Danish integrity to this government.

I would like to point out to the minister that these types of common sense health policies currently in place in other countries like Denmark are commonly referred to by Canadians as having backbone and principle.

The New Democratic Party knows that there are ways of regulating rogue business without causing economic chaos. It is an accepted part of national life in most countries, and yet this government has abandoned its responsibility in this area. The government should be aggressively protecting the public good and especially the public health of our children with stronger health and consumer regulations.

Canadians used to rely on something called consumer and corporate affairs. The corporate affairs part has changed its name to the Government of Canada, while we can find the consumer part in a matchbox in the basement of Industry Canada.

Millions of polluted toys are being bought this Christmas season by unsuspecting Canadian parents and the official policy of the Minister of Health appears to be toxic toys for girls and boys and a very scary Christmas for all, or perhaps toxic toys r us.

The minister is lost in toyland, like his cabinet colleagues. They only seem interested in hearing the prime minister announce his best before date.

I cannot understand how on earth the people in this government can spoon feed poison to our children, my eight year old daughter included. The studies are there. I urge the minister to act quickly in the interest of all Canadians.

The reason we need labels is that phthalates are not a danger a parent can see coming. It is not like a car in the street, a vicious dog or a sharp object. Phthalates are not something a parent can recognize. They are unseen, hidden inside toys that children are often desperate to get their hands on or put in their mouths, and yet the government refuses to even warn parents of the dangers, preferring to please itself by putting these deadly chemicals into Canadian babies through things like soothers. It is absolutely shameful.

We at least need labels so parents can make an informed decision to protect their children while the machinery of government grinds through its own testing process. Not even Health Canada can tell us how long that will take.

It is important for a government such as this, sitting as it is in the hip pocket of big business, to realize that the word is going to get out about phthalates, whether CEOs and comfy bureaucrats at Health Canada like it or not.

When that happens, and it is happening right now, all toy manufacturers, including those who refused to use phthalates, will suffer an exodus from toy stores.

Not acting on my colleague's motion will cause economic harm, confusion and fear among parents. The Minister of Health can take the blame for that one too when the CEOs call him on the carpet for it.

How can Canadians continue to have faith in these products that are improperly studied before allowing them into our homes? Perhaps that is why earlier this year it fell upon two workers at an Ikea store to notice that the eyes on 11 models of stuffed toys posed a danger to children. Somehow these 11 toys were approved for sale by the manufacturers and Health Canada but were pulled off the shelves by the large retail chain itself.

It should not be the responsibility of store clerks to protect the nation from dangerous products. It is the responsibility of Health Canada and the Minister of Health.

I call on this government to properly fund departments responsible for public health and safety. Perhaps if this funding had not been cut, we would not be here today imploring the government to take notice of what is happening over this issue.

The economic costs associated with health problems from these polluted toys are obvious. By taking preventive measures we can save some Canadian children from liver disease and cancer. For all these reasons, the safety of our children, the health of the economy, it is important for the government to recognize this problem and accept my hon. colleague's suggestion and place labels on toys polluted by phthalates as soon as possible.

I cannot think of a better Christmas gift for my child and all Canadian children.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Medicine Hat that he does not represent people across the country. The last time I looked we did not have any Reform Party members of Parliament here from Atlantic Canada.

I come from a part of the country that has one of the highest rates of unemployment. People are having difficulty feeding their children. There are no prospects for future employment.

How does the member propose that these Atlantic Canadians can invest in RRSPs when they are not able to feed their children?

[Petitions, December 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I too, pursuant to Standing Order 36, would like to on behalf of Canadians table two petitions calling on this Parliament to rescind Bill C-2 which imposes massive premium hikes and reduces benefits, and also petitioning the House for a national review on the retirement income system in Canada.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, I stand today and support Motions Nos. 1 and 24 in Group No. 1 on behalf of Atlantic Canada.

Coming from Atlantic Canada I have a difficult time understanding why the government would not want to support Motion No. 1. We in Cape Breton have been very well aware of government patronage over the years. I have to say that when I hear the government talk about priding itself on openness and accountability, this is a surefire way to ensure that accountability and openness. We have seen years of patronage. This is like allowing the mouse to mind the cheese.

What is really important is that this will ensure a balance between the private and public aspects of the so-called changes to the CPP which are going to benefit all Canadians. I must say there is a large number of seniors in my riding of Bras d'Or and they are not as confident that these changes are going to benefit them.

With respect to Motion No. 24, it is quite simple. It is asking the chief actuary to do the job the government has not been able to do or has refused to do. It is the right of Canadians to be told what the fund is going to cost them and what benefits they will receive or what benefits they will lose. As I said, Mr. Speaker, my comments were going to be brief and hopefully we will get an opportunity at a later date for some of the other what I see as really good amendments.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. member is very simple. China agrees with the facts of warming, the average temperature, and realizes the immediate impacts on its northern region. Does he believe that the Chinese are part of his conspiracy theory?

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his comments. As we all know, our time for speaking is very limited. I could have continued on a lot longer to mention the things which he just talked about.

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to stand on behalf of the New Democratic Party to speak in support of our country's initiative to ban land mines.

This treaty is a testament to the power that people can have when they act together and to the positive power that governments can have when they put their minds to it.

Just one year ago most nations of the world decided that even though the economic costs were large and the military implications larger, this issue is a moral one. Anti-personnel land mines are an evil which has no place in the arsenal of modern democracy.

In Canada we are blessed with thousands of kilometres of open space. It is difficult for me to imagine living in a country where you risk crossing a unseen border with every step, the border between your life today and a life without a leg or a life without your child; where the field you and your family have tilled for generations is now a dangerous and foreign land full of hazards that could in an instant destroy lives and ruin futures; where your children cannot play in the streets or in the woods; where there is no freedom from fear.

Perhaps I feel strongly about this treaty because I am the mother of a young daughter. I read about the scores of children like her who are killed or maimed every day by mines. I read about mines made with brightly coloured plastic or cloth designed to attract children, designed to kill children. Designs like these have no place in the world I want for my daughter.

In Canada and other first world countries we spend a lot of time talking about rights and duties and codes of acceptable behaviour. At the same time we have allowed our governments to manufacture and export land mines, weapons whose only purpose is to cripple and to maim. That is the worst sort of hypocrisy.

Since 1868 and the St. Petersburg declaration which outlawed weapons which uselessly aggravate suffering, through to the Geneva convention which banned the use of terror against non-combatants, governments have worked long and hard to make sure that human lives are spared the painful excesses of modern military technology. But they have worked simultaneously to advance that technology, to make it possible to develop devices like the gravel mine I talked about a minute ago, a mine that includes the following line in its owners manual: “They are especially effective against inquisitive children. They make life difficult for rural communities without endangering troops and armoured vehicles”.

How about the wide area anti-personnel mine. These are dropped from aircraft and throw out eight fine threads which then act as trip wires. Anyone who steps on any of the trip wires sets off the mines and lethal pellets scatter over an area of 60 metres. Mines have been filled with flechettes, small and irregularly shaped scraps that embed themselves deep in the victim's flesh. Some are made of plastic, not because it is cheaper but because the plastic will not show up on X-rays. A surgeon has to gouge blindly inside the patient's body. A recent innovation has been to tip the pellets with depleted uranium so victims will also suffer from radiation poisoning.

This is what the governments of the world have been working on in their labs while the leaders preach peace and compassion.

This treaty is a huge step forward, a step on to safer ground. We are not free from danger yet. Until the superpowers have the courage to sign this treaty and the United States has the courage to accept the ban wholeheartedly, we know that every day for decades to come more lives will be shattered by mines.

Every year in Europe a few mines left over from the second world war explode, killing yet more people. That war ended over 50 years ago. Since then more mines have been laid than ever. Countries like Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola and Bosnia are carpeted with bombs that will take decades to clear. During those decades more families were broken. This is a fact and one we cannot escape, but we can reflect on it and do our best to make sure the cycle of violence and death is broken.

The United Nations has done excellent work co-ordinating mine clearing projects around the world but that work is useless unless we, members of the governments of the world, promise to ourselves and our children that we will stop adding to the stockpile. Making that promise means more than speeches in the House of Commons. It means applying the full moral weight of our nation to those countries that still insist land mines are a vital part of their defences.

It is ironic that today the leaders of the APEC nations are gathered in Vancouver hosted by our Prime Minister. The leaders of China and the United States both have refused to sign this treaty. Yesterday U.S. President Bill Clinton at least had the courage to congratulate Canada and urged us to move forward with the treaty. Meanwhile the Chinese government, which is responsible for a large percentage of the global manufacture and export of mines, has refused to sign the treaty and even to discuss signing the treaty.

It is truly a positive step for this Liberal government to have initiated this treaty. I want to extend sincere thanks from the NDP caucus to our Minister of Foreign Affairs for his diligent work to make this treaty a reality. It shows what governments can do when they decide to make a positive difference. My only regret is that it often seems the minister is a lone voice in this administration pushing for a more moral and humane approach to foreign affairs. While he pressures the Chinese and tries to take them to task for their refusal to meet the standards of international decency, other government leaders are wining and dining the Chinese president in Vancouver.

I am just one person whose voice has joined the global chorus calling for the abolition of land mines. There are tens of thousands of others, including the winners of this year's Nobel peace prize and many other individuals, groups and governments. I would also like to mention the efforts made by the British Labour government and Prime Minister Tony Blair who have shown what a moral government with the courage to use its authority can do. For them banning land mines is part of the moral philosophy of social democracy just as it is for us in the NDP caucus. It is part and parcel of our belief in human dignity and international co-operation.

This issue has to be put in a larger context. Land mines are an obvious and unquestionably evil expression of man's inhumanity to man, but there are others just as evil that receive little or no attention from the world's leaders. To be brutal, why ban land mines if there are no hospitals to treat children with measles? Why replace death from shrapnel wounds with death from malaria, with death from cold or hunger?

This treaty must be a first step, but the fact that I can rise in this House to discuss the issue that our government has been the author of a civilized page in the global book of laws remains a credit to this government. We are creating a new law for the civilized countries of the world and that is a worthy thing. On behalf of the people of my riding, of my party and for myself and my daughter Kayla, I thank all the people who made this treaty a reality.

[Donkin Mine, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I still have not received an answer to the question of whether or not members on the government side support the motion.

One of the topics he just discussed was the feasibility study which is going to be done with federal funds. He talked about the agencies which have approved this funding, ACOA and ECBC. What I have to tell this member is that there was one group that was not asked what it cared about or what it thought about this situation, and that group was the people of Cape Breton Island. They were not asked.

Where else could this situation exist? In a country that is supposed to be so prosperous we have an island which has the highest rate of unemployment in the country. There is the possibility of a major employer and it is being sold for a loonie. I ask the member, where? Under this Liberal government that is how it happened.

As I said in my speech, the Donkin mine is the future of Devco and Devco is the future of Cape Breton Island. I will continue, day after day, to remind this government when it talks about deficit reduction how it accomplished that deficit reduction. It accomplished it on the backs of the people of Cape Breton Island.

[Donkin Mine, November 21st, 1997]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take action to develop the Donkin Mine as a Crown Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank you, the members of this House, for engaging in debate on my Motion No. 136, requesting that the Government of Canada take action to see the Donkin Mine in Cape Breton be developed under crown control, specifically, that Donkin be opened under the control of Devco, the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I ask this House to allow me to briefly give a bit of background regarding the history of coal mining in Canada.

Many members know that our country's thriving coal industry is a source of significant benefit to the national economy. Many industries are involved in the transport and use of coal and all those which supply services, labour and equipment to mining operations rely directly on the coal fields for a large part of their income.

All of these industries and the individuals who work for them contribute to Canada's tax base. Their wages come from coal and their wages fuel the economy.

A study by the Saskatchewan Energy Conservation and Development Authority demonstrates how Canada's coal industry generates over $5.8 billion annually, or nearly 1% of Canada's gross domestic product. Over 73,000 men and women are employed in the coal industry in Canada today. That is nearly 1% of Canada's total employment. The direct contributions of coal production to the GDP and employment are significant and when the ripple effects from all other sectors are included, the economic impact is multiplied.

For example, coal is the single largest commodity transported on Canada's railways and loaded at our ports. The Coal Association of Canada estimates that ever dollar spent in coal production generates $2.36 in related industry and from income respending. Every direct job created in coal production supports an additional 3.7 jobs in the rest of the economy.

The National Energy Board of Canada predicts that Canada will generate 46% more electricity in the year 2005 than in 1998 to meet the demand caused by an expanding population and an expanding economy. Furthermore, the forecast says that the amount of electricity generated from the coal will rise by 70% over current levels.

It is true that Canada has a number of options to meet its power needs in the next century. Some provinces are looking at energy conservation measures such as promoting the use of energy efficient street lighting in order to free up a pool of electricity that could be used by homes and industry. This will slow the demand for new energy generating facilities.

There is the potential for hydro development in Newfoundland, Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta, but the sites are in remote and environmentally sensitive locations, making them costly to develop and placing them in conflict with aboriginal communities which have claims to the land.

Plants that harness ocean tides such as the one opened on the Annapolis River in Nova Scotia in 1984, one of the first of its kind in North America, can also be looked to for inspiration when we consider how our country can meet its changing and expanding energy needs. But the fact remains that one of Canada's most abundant economic resources available for the production of electricity is coal.

Coal mining today is not the industry it used to be. Gone are the solitary miners working the coal face with pick and shovel. Gone are miners lamps from paraffin soaked rags ready to spark off explosions of the firedamp gas leaching from the stone walls around them. Today, mining is highly mechanized and heavily regulated. Canada can be proud of an industry with some of the world's safest mining conditions and progressive environmental management.

The picks and shovels have been replaced by automated systems that have dramatically improved the efficiency of mining. One machine now does what many men used to. Few people make these connections between the light switch in their bedroom, the electricity for their TV and the coal mines deep beneath the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

If and when people think of coal they think of soot, of miners with blackened faces, of harmful emissions that would damage our already fragile environment.

Let us face it, there is a serious question about the pollutants that are produced from burning coal. But just as today's miners work in conditions that would have amazed the men who worked underground in the last 200 years, so too has the way in which coal was burned being changed and improved.

Clean coal technologies can reduce emissions that would hurt the environment, especially the gases that dump acids into the ecosphere, sulphur and nitrogen oxides and carbon residues that have been linked to global warming. Technology cannot solve all of our problems, but it can certainly help. Let us not forget that we are building on a natural resource, naturally occurring coal, so that there is none of the environmental damage caused by processing or refining the product before it can be used.

Another sea change in the industry has been the huge reduction in the number of coal mines across Canada. In the 1930s there were 400 small coal mines. Today there are only eight companies operating a total of 29 mines. One of those eight producers is the crown corporation called Devco, the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

I can say with pride that Devco employs the best miners in the world. They are men who have mining in their blood who belong to families that have seen grandfathers and fathers and sons go underground just as my father and grandfather did. They are men who fought the vicious excesses of the private coal companies and who were trampled by the horses of the police and the army who acted as the private security guards for the coal company.

Not many people outside Cape Breton know that we have a unique holiday. On June 10 every year we remember Davis Day, the day when a miner was shot by company police after a peaceful demonstration. We have a long history of struggle, of fighting for fair wages and safe working conditions, and we will keep on fighting.

My preamble stresses the important role these men have played in Canada's history and the important role I hope they will continue to play in the future. Those Cape Breton miners are today looking to their crown corporation. They want to continue to do what Cape Bretoners do best, work hard and work honestly in the craft that has defined the economy of my island for centuries. They want to provide the power to run the computers, fax machines and office buildings that keep the new economy moving forward. They want to do their fair share.

Devco was founded in 1967 by an act of Parliament and is wholly owned by the government. All of its $325 million in assets are located on Cape Breton Island and Devco remains the largest producer of coal in eastern Canada.

With over 1,300 employees it is also one of the largest industrial employers in the region. At present, Devco operates two collieries, Phalen Mine and Prince Mine and all of the supporting infrastucture that enables Devco to take Cape Breton coal and sell it around the world.

In 1996-97 Devco sold 2.4 million tonnes of coal which yielded revenues of $167 million. It is apparent that Devco's contribution to the national coal industry is significant. Its contribution to the Cape Breton economy, which sees an extra $200 million a year thanks to Devco, is huge. Devco is one of the few large employers in industrial Cape Breton and jobs supported indirectly by the corporation's activities employ thousands more. When we look at the economic climate on my island it becomes pretty clear pretty quick that Devco's success and Cape Breton's success are one and the same.

Four hundred and fifty people work at the Prince Colliery, eight hundred at Phalen. Imagine the impact on industrial Cape Breton's already skyrocketing unemployment rate, a rate that is currently in the range of 35% to 40%, if Devco ceased to exist. It would take thousands and thousands of jobs with it. Even with the mines operating there is an expectation that 300 men will retire from Devco over the next three years, not to be replaced. Meanwhile all of our young people are leaving, there are no jobs and even their parents are joining the unemployment line. It takes time and money to train miners and the will to renew and rejuvenate the workforce simply is not there.

I will provide the House with a background of Devco's history. The Cape Breton coal fields were taken under crown control in 1968 when the Dominion Steel and Coal Company, better known as DOSCO, decided to conclude its decade-long attack upon the people of Cape Breton by abandoning the island altogether. Realizing the chaos this would cause, the government stepped in.

Initially Devco was supposed to supervise the slow shutdown of the coal industry over a 15-year period while it would help the workforce find new jobs in new fields. Then the oil crisis loomed and suddenly Canada needed the Cape Breton coal miners again just as it needed them during the first and second world wars.

Now, instead of phasing out coal production, Devco was put in charge of drawing up a 20 to 25 year plan that would promote a stable industry which would benefit both Cape Breton and the rest of Canada.

Now 25 years later there are just two mines operating in Cape Breton and the same Liberals who promised a stable industry when in government and in opposition are now back making plans on how they can shut down the coal fields. Despite this, Devco has become more efficient and more effective. Management and labour have worked together to make Devco deliver the goods for as little money as possible. Both the United Mine Workers of America and Devco's management deserve credit for this.

For example, in Prince mine, the deeps—the main shaft leading from the surface down to the coal face—have been realigned to make better use of the coal deposits. Meanwhile, Phalen mine has been plagued with problems caused by rock and gas outbursts, heavy roof conditions and flooding. These problems have all increased the cost of Devco coal, despite the hard work of the employees who worked overtime to get the mine back into production.

In many ways we are back to where we started in 1968, but the reasons Devco should exist are even more valid now than they were then.

There is hope. There is a contingency plan in case the problems with the Phalen mine become so severe that it has to be closed early. The contingency is the Donkin mine.

Donkin is the future of Devco and Devco remains the future of Cape Breton.

In June 1996 the then minister of natural resources said: “Donkin is related to hope. Everybody wants and needs hope”. It is not often that I agree with the Liberal government, but today I am happy to stand and endorse the then minister's statement.

Donkin is a huge coal reserve beneath the Atlantic. In 1981 Kilborn Engineering estimated that there were 1.4 billion tonnes of mineable coal off Cape Perce. The mine itself has already been built, at taxpayer expense. Two gun barrel smooth tunnels and engineering studies have been completed by the Government of Canada. The geology looks good and the quality looks even better.

An annual production of 3.8 million tonnes is feasible once Donkin goes into production.

Associated Mining Consultants has endorsed the forecasted success of the mine. It says that minimal surface facilities would be needed for a small scale operation at Donkin.

Selective mining could be undertaken during a trial period with, say, 500,000 tonnes mined annually. That could be expanded once it is clear that a profit can be made.

Donkin is the gold mine of coal mines. It should be opened by the same people who built it, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, acting in the interests of the people of Canada.

Our government has made substantial investments into the coal industry and today, by committing to opening Donkin as part of Devco, we can start the process that will see Canadians getting a return on their investment.

Not only have the taxpayers already paid to build Donkin, Devco also has most of the assets it would need to open the mine sitting idly at its abandoned site at Lingan. There is $8 million worth of equipment, ready to be used, sitting and rusting. Canadian taxpayers have already spent $88 million on Donkin.

While it is true that development has no immediate effect on production, the fact that it has gone well is a good indicator that the mine will be a good one.

In 1985 Associated Mining Consultants reported to Devco that the Donkin mine could be brought onstream at 500,000 or one million tonnes per year. That would generate $118.7 million and $170.3 million, respectively.

Mining experts from the union today are saying that current conditions could mean reduced capital requirements, which in turn would mean increased profits.

Here is a quote from the report “The Donkin-Morien Mine: Building the Mine of the Future”: “Production of 4.507 million tonnes per year is considered possible and economically feasible”.

I repeat that it is the gold mine of coal mines. Devco was right when it said in 1992 that Donkin mine is a valuable asset for the long term. The Donkin tunnels give us access to the great riches of the Sydney coal field, a great Canadian asset as important as the Alberta tarsands or Newfoundland's Hibernia. As we once again begin to talk of the new energy sources, be they the planned Sable pipeline or the nuclear reactors this government is keen to give China, it is critical that we do not forget the resources that have always been the backbone of our energy grid.

In time of war and crisis—