George S. Rideout

[Mining Exploration, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House concerning this motion that the government should

consider revitalizing investment in mining exploration in Canada by providing fiscal incentives.

Let me begin by thanking the hon. member for Abitibi for bringing this matter before the House. The Government of Canada acknowledges that it is important for all Canadians to recognize that mining will continue to be a key sector of the Canadian economy for generations to come.

On behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, I am pleased to have this opportunity to be able to tell the House about the measures that the government is presently taking to maintain or increase the economic and social benefits Canadians derive from the mineral and mining exploration sectors.

Mining directly contributes $20 billion to the national economy every year and creates more than 300,000 jobs for some 115 communities throughout Canada. It has significant benefits in almost every other sector of our economy. How many Canadians know, for example, that toothpaste has five minerals in it or that sunscreen contains zinc? How many Canadians think of the mining industry when they add salt to their food or when they switch on their computers or start their cars?

Simply put, without mining and minerals many of the things we take for granted today would not exist. The World Bank recently released a new report ranking all countries on the basis of total wealth. That report ranked Canada as the second wealthiest nation in the world when taking into account our vast natural resources.

Mineral exploration is fundamental to a healthy mining sector. We are witnessing a significant improvement in the fortunes of the Canadian mining industry, thanks in part to recent increases in spending on mineral exploration. Total exploration expenditures for 1994 were $630 million. This total represents an increase of $150 million, or 32 per cent compared to exploration expenditures in 1993. Moreover, the favourable trend is continuing, and spending could approach $675 million in the current year.

The amount of flow through share financing to support mineral exploration in Canada has been on the rise since 1991, when it totalled $40 million. This indicates the increasingly positive prospects for the mining industry in Canada. Flow through shares financing totalled $80 million in 1994 and is projected to be between $80 million and $90 million this year.

There are other facts that demonstrate a turnaround for the industry. This year it is expected that 14 new mines will be opened and that 11 mines will be reopened, representing a net gain of some 700 new jobs. This year could be one of the best years for mining since 1981 in terms of mine openings. Preliminary data indicates the outlook for 1996 may be even brighter. In addition, figures concerning Canada's base metal reserves have been increasing recently. The Voisey Bay nickel discovery in Labrador has been cited as one of the world's richest. There has been tremendous interest and investment in diamond exploration activities. These are just a few of the highlights of healthy recent activity by the industry that is stimulating a number of benefits and jobs in particular.

Let me now turn to the role of the federal government in the mining and minerals sector. The Government of Canada made some very difficult choices in the budget, which were made for the benefit of the country in the long term and did not include any new tax incentives for any sector of the Canadian economy, including mining.

Although we cannot afford any new incentive programs, Canada is still one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to encouraging mining exploration activities. At the federal level all exploration and preproduction development expenses are fully deductible. In recognition of the special needs and risks of resource development, the flow through share financing instrument allows those deductions to be transferred to individual investors.

Provincial governments, as the resource owners, also have an important role to play in encouraging mineral exploration. Over the past few years a number of them have taken steps to promote exploration activities by introducing new tax incentives. Since the provinces have primary responsibility for determining the pace of activity within their jurisdictions, these steps are highly appropriate, in my view.

We believe the mining industry has a strong future in Canada, but we are also aware the industry faces challenges. During the last federal election the Liberal Party was the only political party to release a detailed plan outlining its commitment to the mining industry. That commitment still stands.

Working closely with the provinces, we will continue to support and encourage the mining sector in Quebec and in every other province and territory across Canada. One of the best ways to do this is to reduce the long term structural impediment to mineral investment. Many of these impediments were identified by the Whitehorse mining initiative, an unprecedented multi-stakeholder initiative that led to a common vision for Canada's mining industry through shared principles and goals. The federal government was a full participant in this 18-month exercise.

To help develop an action plan to address the Whitehorse Mining Initiative issues that fell within federal jurisdiction, the Minister of Natural Resources has established an advisory committee composed of representatives from the mining industry, labour, aborigi-

nal and environmental groups. One of the committee's first tasks will be to provide commentary and advice on the sustainable development and minerals metals issues paper that was released for discussion in September in Vancouver.

The Government of Canada has already taken several steps to address the most fundamental industry concerns. For example, in the 1994 budget we introduced a deduction for mine reclamation trust fund contributions. In "Building a More Innovative Economy", our government-wide plan for economic growth and job creation, we identified six major sectors of the economy that will benefit from substantive long term improvements to the federal regulatory regime. One of the six sectors is the Canadian mining industry.

Mining sector areas under active consideration include changes to the administration of the Fisheries Act, land use and related decision making, the definition of waste, regulatory regimes north of 60, regulatory impact analysis, and toxic management. As well, important improvements on the issues of overlap and duplication may be achieved through the harmonization initiative of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.

We believe that the less costly and more efficient regulatory regime that we are trying to achieve will lead to an improved investment climate that is respectful of sustainable development principles. I emphasize our commitment to environmental protection will not be compromised.

The Government of Canada is already making an effective contribution to improve the conditions that are required to ensure that exploration activity will continue to rise in this country. The harmonization of environmental assessment regimes between federal and provincial orders of government and regulatory reform measures through the "Building a More Innovative Economy" initiatives are real and meaningful efforts to reduce overlap and duplication. The goal is to provide stable and predictable conditions that will attract more investment for mineral exploration and for economic activity throughout Canada. The result is that this activity will stimulate new opportunities in Canada and help to put more Canadians back to work.

The Government of Canada is confident that the prospects for mining in Canada will continue to improve and that mining will realize the full potential of Canada's rich geology in a manner that is consistent with the principles of sustainable development. As a result Canadians will be able to enjoy the many benefits that come from a strong mining industry for many generations to come.

[Immigration Act, September 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I too want to congratulate the member for Cambridge for bringing forward Bill C-316 and to compliment him on his efforts to try to deal with what I consider to be a justice issue and a law and order issue.

I probably should not say it this way, but I approach support of the bill with some trepidation because I see Reformers are also supporting it, which means that if they are I must be wrong. At the same time the bill is a positive effort. I am hopeful once it gets to committee and has the chance to have the shared view of many that the improvements necessary to make the bill function properly will be put forward.

I believe all of us are in accord that the direction, the aim or intent of the bill is a proper one, one all of us in Canada would like to see happen.

If I may I would like to read the summary of the intent of the bill. It captures where the member for Cambridge wants us to go and reflects the intent of most Canadians.

It says:

If a person is convicted of an offence punishable by 10 or more years imprisonment and is or is seeking permission to remain in Canada, but is not yet a citizen, a court may, on application by the prosecution, order in addition to any other sentence, that the person and anyone dependent on that person be removed from Canada. Such an order discontinues any other process, procedure or appeal

under the Immigration Act and any other right to parole or any other early or temporary release.

We are not talking about trying to take away anybody's rights. We are not trying to do anything different except streamline the process. Rather than dealing with the criminal justice aspect and then turning around and going through the procedures under the Immigration Act, the legislation empowers the judge to deal with the issues together, as he has heard the evidence of the case, and to decide whether or not deportation should be part of the decision.

That approach is a proper one. There are some constitutional or charter of rights issues that will have to be dealt with. I am sure some other fine tunings are necessary.

At the same time the object of the bill warrants that it goes to committee and that it has the necessary input from all concerned so that in the end result we will have a stronger situation that provides necessary protection for Canadian society.

We have heard recounted in the debate over the last number of hours some of the horror stories that have occurred. Those are horror stories for sure, but perhaps they also point to some of the flaws that presently exist in our law. The bill is aimed at trying to resolve some of them.

The bill has received support from a number of agencies and organizations in Canada. To name a few, the Canadian Police Association, CAVEAT and Victims of Violence are organizations that watch what is happening in the criminal justice system and for the flaws that may be present. When we achieve their support I believe we are moving in the proper direction. Therefore, a committee study of this legislation should go a long way to helping protect Canadians.

Others have talked about the actual cost associated with this process. In the years 1993-94 there were over 1,000 foreign national offenders serving time which cost the taxpayers of Canada roughly $46,000 per prisoner.

Obviously with this bill we are going to save a little money. I do not think that should be the motivation for the legislation. The protection of society and the proper administration of justice should be the foundations, but we also can look at the financial aspect of this particular bill and see the merits associated with it.

It is a proper bill for committee study. It is a bill aimed at solving a problem which is of concern to Canadians. I again congratulate the member for Cambridge. He has done a tremendous job in his efforts to correct a situation he saw in his riding and from what he heard from his constituents, but also to represent the views of many Canadians across the country.

[Energy Regulations, September 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise to address the motion put forward by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.

My colleague has informed the House about steps the government is taking to reduce regulatory overlap and duplication in the Canadian nuclear sector.

I would like to take this opportunity to give the House an overview of the initiative undertaken by the government in other sectors of the energy industry in order to meet these objectives.

Before I do, however, I remind hon. members that the very basis for these efforts is the government's commitment to a market oriented energy policy. We believe the energy industry must have the flexibility to adapt to changing market circumstances if it is to continue to contribute to Canada's economic prosperity. That means keeping government intervention in the marketplace to a minimum.

Nevertheless, there is a need for regulation in the energy industry just as there is a need for regulation in other sectors of the economy. As my colleague noted, the challenge is to achieve a regulatory framework which protects the public good but does not unnecessarily inhibit the industry. Achieving this balance requires the government to be constantly mindful of the impact of its regulatory activities on the industry.

The agency primarily responsible for regulating Canada's oil, gas and electricity sectors in the areas of federal jurisdiction is the National Energy Board, the NEB. The board was established in 1959 under the authority of the National Energy Board Act, and for the past three and half decades it has done an excellent job in meeting the needs of both government and industry in administering a reasonable and balanced regulatory regime.

Under the act the NEB sets tolls and tariffs for oil and gas pipelines and also approves the construction of pipelines and designated power lines under federal jurisdiction. The board also authorizes the export of oil, gas and electricity and the import of gas.

The National Energy Board is an independent quasi-judicial body which reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural Resources. It is comprised of nine members, all of whom are appointed by governor in council.

Matters relating to tolls and tariffs, minor construction and short term import/export orders are the exclusive jurisdiction of the board. However, decisions requiring certificates of public convenience and necessity and export and import licences must be approved by the governor in council.

The NEB has proven to be an extremely effective regulatory body. In my view the board will be even better positioned to meet industry needs in the future as the result of recent initiatives it has taken to modernize, streamline and simplify its regulatory processes and requirements. These initiatives are in direct response to 13 recommendations the board received in October 1993 from the Minister of Natural Resources advisory panel on regulatory review.

I am pleased to inform the House the board has moved swiftly and effectively to address each of these recommendations. For example, the NEB has revised many of the processes and requirements for filing information with the board with the overall objective of easing the administrative burden on industry. Among other things, the board is implementing an electronic regulatory filing system for all regulatory filings. As well, it has taken industry views into account in revising its guidelines for the filing of information by companies applying for certificates of public convenience and necessity.

The board's guidelines for preparing a social economic impact assessment for pipeline projects have also been revised to reflect new legislative requirements and to avoid overlap and duplication with other statutory requirements.

The National Energy Board has also demonstrated its ability to adapt to change in the natural gas market by revising its rules on how gas can be moved on pipelines. Earlier this year the board decided to end its ban on selling pipeline transportation rights at prices above the regulated toll, which will help ensure the available capacity is allocated in the most efficient manner.

The board also decided against requiring that available pipeline capacity be posted on electronic bulletin boards since this secondary transportation market has been working well without any such regulation.

In August 1994 the National Energy Board issued revised guidelines which will make it easier for pipeline companies, producers, shippers, consumers and governments to resolve tolls and tariff issues through negotiation rather than formal NEB hearings which are costly to all parties.

In another cost saving measure for the industry, the board decided to set the cost of capital for group 1 pipeline companies for multi-year periods rather than on an annual basis. This will reduce the expense associated with annual hearings for each pipeline by reducing the length of the hearings.

The National Energy Board is also endeavouring to reduce overlap and duplication by working more closely with provincial regulatory bodies.

For example, the NEB and the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board have signed two memoranda of understanding, the first to implement a mutual aid agreement for pipeline incidents in Alberta and the second to establish a common reserve data base.

Under the first MOU, when an incident occurs on an NEB regulated facility the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board will, at the request of the National Energy Board, provide emergency response assistance. If the incident involves a provincially regulated pipeline the NEB will be available to provide emergency response investigation assistance. The end result will be a faster, more effective response by both boards to pipeline incidents in Alberta.

Under the second MOU the NEB and the AEUB will share geological and reservoir information for natural gas and crude oil pools. The sharing of information will result in a common reserve data base for Alberta. The beneficiaries of this most efficient method of maintaining estimates of reserves will be the oil and gas industry and the taxpaying public.

I could go on and on about the efforts made by the National Energy Board to reduce the overlap and duplication and to streamline the administrative requirements. However, my goal here is only to give the hon. members an overview of the recent measures taken by the Board to improve the regulatory framework for the oil, gas and electricity sector.

I would urge the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia to seek a full accounting of the NEB's regulatory reform initiatives directly from the board. I believe he will be impressed with the progress that has been made to date. The record will clearly indicate that this government not only endorses the objective of reducing the regulatory burden on the energy industry, but it is actively pursuing that objective on a day-to-day basis.

[Explosives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the parliamentary secretary for his excellent address. I have a question relating to the role of transport and the detection of explosive devices and whether this bill will be of any assistance to the department in trying to regulate that.

We are hearing a number of speeches this morning talking about a number of things that are not relevant to what we are trying to achieve here, which is merely to detect plastic explosives normally in a situation in which they are being transported on an aeroplane. Transport obviously has an integral role to play with respect to that. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could comment.

[Explosives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise before you today to support Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act.

The Explosives Act is an act of public and worker safety which regulates the composition, quality and character of explosives as well as the manufacture, importation, sale, purchase, possession and storage of explosives.

The amendment to the Explosives Act is important for a number of very good reasons.

First, at the present time there is no way to detect plastic explosives at airports. This act proposes the marking of plastic explosives by adding a chemical which would be detected by equipment at Canada's international airports and thus ward off the threat of terrorism.

Second, this amendment will allow Canada to be among the first nations to ratify an international convention requested by the United Nations and co-ordinated by the International Civil Aviation Organization with respect to the marking of plastic explosives. This convention was signed in March 1991 by 40 countries and 14 countries have already ratified the convention. Five of these nations, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, are producer states where plastic explosives are manufactured.

Third, given the fact that Canada is a world leader in vapour detection technology, Canadian equipment manufacturers will be

able to take advantage of international market opportunities for their products as more and more countries ratify the convention.

Fourth, Natural Resources Canada which maintains the authority to inspect and approve the manufacture, distribution and storage of explosives in Canada will be responsible for the application of measures to mark plastic explosives following the proclamation of this amendment.

Let me explain these reasons in greater detail. Members of the House will certainly remember the tragic events involving crashes of two passenger aircraft caused by the detonation of bombs made of plastic explosives. The first instance I wish to refer to involved Pan Am flight 103 from London which exploded over the small town of Lockerbie, Scotland. The other was UTA flight 772 which crashed in Niger, Africa. A total of 442 people were killed in these two crashes.

Then of course there were the Air India tragedies involving two 747 aircraft both of which began their journeys here in Canada. One crashed in the Atlantic Ocean south of the Republic of Ireland while the other miraculously made it to Narita International Airport in Tokyo, Japan, before a bomb made of plastic explosives blew up in the airport's baggage handling area. That bomb killed at least two innocent baggage handlers.

Although the cause of the first Air India crash has never been officially determined there is strong belief that it was the result of a plastic explosive device. In any case, plastic explosives have emerged as the weapon of choice for terrorist groups, both for bombing aircraft and other targets such as public buildings because this type of explosive is small, powerful, stable, malleable and most important, difficult to detect.

It is quite likely that if plastic explosives had been marked or tagged with a substance that could have been detected by equipment in Canadian airports it is almost certain that the Air India tragedies would have been avoided. Consequently, terrorists would be discouraged from attempting any attacks in Canada using plastic explosives.

For these reasons an international effort to mark plastic explosives for the purpose of detection was initiated by the United Nations and has been co-ordinated by the International Civil Aviation Organization. The resulting international convention requires states to ensure the marking of plastic explosives to enhance their detectability. At the same time the convention requires controls over the import, export, possession and transfer of marked plastic explosives and the destruction of most unmarked plastic explosives.

In March 1991 more than 70 states and six organizations attended a diplomatic conference where the convention on the marking of plastic explosives for the purpose of detection was adopted by consensus. Forty states, including Canada, signed this convention.

The main features of the convention are: only plastic explosives as defined in the convention are required to be marked; existing unmarked commercial stocks of plastic explosives are to be destroyed within three years; an international explosives technical commission will be created to assess technical developments; the cost of Canadian participation in such a commission will be low; and the convention will come into force after 35 states including five producer states have ratified it. Canada is one of the world's producer states and as I mentioned previously, we will be among the first countries to ratify this important convention.

It is evident that the proposed bill respects the terms of this convention. The proclamation of this amendment to the Explosives Act will ensure Canadian official ratification of this important international agreement.

Bill C-71 specifies that the explosives branch of Natural Resources Canada will take the lead role in the implementation of the provisions of the convention. Plastic explosives are manufactured by the private sector in Canada.

Following the proclamation of Bill C-71, Natural Resources Canada's explosives inspectors who issue explosives factory licences to the private sector under delegation from the minister will refuse to license any manufacturing operation to make unmarked plastic explosives.

Inspectors again under delegation from the minister will refuse import or export permits for unmarked plastic explosives. Inspectors could take samples of explosives to verify that they are marked and could seize and destroy unmarked shipments, unmarked stores or abandon unmarked quantities.

The explosives branch is best placed to determine the location of unmarked plastic explosives and to assure control over them through a stringent system of licensing which would be supported by regular compliance inspections. Regulations would require prior notification of change of ownership along with a statement of the details of the physical transfer.

The military agrees that it can, except in times of emergency, observe all of the terms of the convention. Unmarked stocks of plastic explosives would be incorporated in munitions or used up during field exercises on a priority basis.

Transport Canada, which is responsible for the operation of detection equipment at Canadian airports, has indicated that the current technology can detect the marked plastic explosives.

Further, the extra costs of producing detectable plastic explosives are expected to be negligible. The industry has been involved in efforts to develop substances to mark plastic explosives for the purpose of detection. Therefore the industry acknowledges that the impact of extra costs will not be serious. The industry, the Canadian police community and the military were all consulted

throughout the process to prepare this proposed amendment to the existing law.

The major consumer of plastic explosives in this country is the Canadian military. The construction industry is a relatively minor consumer using plastic explosives for the demolition of large buildings. Given this comparatively concentrated consumer base, it will be easy to monitor compliance with the amended act following proclamation.

While the Canadian military has a 10-year supply of unmarked plastic explosives, the convention on the marking of plastic explosives provides for a 15-year period of grace for ratifying nations to use or destroy unmarked plastic explosives.

In addition, given the low volume of plastic explosives compared to the volume of conventional industrial explosives, the challenge of enforcing the provisions of the proposed amendment and by extension the international convention will not pose a significant problem or cost to the respective regulatory bodies.

Finally, I wish to emphasize that Canada's position as a leader in the development of vapour detection technologies will be enhanced as a result of the ratification of this international convention.

In fact, increased foreign market penetration by Canadian equipment manufacturers is virtually a certainty. Therefore the proclamation of this amendment has the potential to help stimulate job creation and contribute to Canada's future economic growth.

In conclusion, this amendment to the Explosives Act clearly shows the Canadian government's will to provide good government. We are committed to doing our part to protect the health and safety of passengers aboard aircraft using Canadian airspace and to doing everything in our power in co-operation with our partners around the world to ward off the threat of terrorism in the skies above Canada and other countries.

Passage of this amendment will allow Canada to ratify an important international convention which sends a strong message to terrorist groups that plastic explosives will be detected by equipment in our airports.

Further, Canada's ratification of the convention will demonstrate our leadership among signatory nations and encourage them to follow our example. In addition Canada is contributing to the development of substances to mark plastic explosives for detection.

With the ratification of the convention by more and more nations, Canadian manufacturers of vapour detection equipment will also be able to take advantage of significant marketing opportunities.

As a result this proposed amendment to the Explosives Act will contribute to two major federal goals: job creation and Canadian economic growth. Moreover, the passage of this amendment will protect the health and safety of all Canadians.

I urge the House give speedy passage to this legislation.

[Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the governments of the United States and Canada for the period October 1, 1993 to September 30, 1994, and the 1994 state of Canada's forests annual report.

[Natural Resources, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the committee on natural resources requested during the examination of the Department of National Resources Act, the Minister of Natural Resources tabled this morning the fifth annual report to Parliament, "The State of Canada's Forests, 1994".

Canada's forests continue to be a major engine of economic growth for Canada, particularly in certain regions of the country such as my home province of New Brunswick, but they are also essential to our environment.

The theme of this year's report, "A Balancing Act", describes the challenges of maintaining timber for our industry while conserving habitat for wildlife.

As the world's largest exporter of forest products, the eyes of the world continue to watch how well Canada is able to balance its economic and environmental needs.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge all my hon. colleagues to read the fifth annual report tabled in Parliament and to participate in the public debate on the future of the most precious of our natural resources: our forests.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the major source of dioxins and furans identified in Canada today include municipal and hazardous waste incinerators, effluents from pulp and paper mills, long range atmospheric transport from other countries and contaminants in such chemical products as pentachlorophenol and PCBs.

As a result of Canadian regulatory and guidelines initiatives dioxin and furan emissions from municipal solid waste and hazardous waste incinerators have decreased by 80 per cent in the last four years.

Between 1989 and 1994 dioxin and furan emissions from bleached kraft pulp mill effluents have decreased by 82 per cent. Some dioxin contaminated pesticides are either strictly regulated or banned.

In addition, the levels of dioxin and furans in the Canadian environment have declined significantly. Annual releases from pulp and paper mills have dropped from more than 350 grams of dioxins and furans to less than 9 grams. Less than 50 grams of dioxins and furans are released from municipal solid waste incinerators in Canada per year. I am sure the member would agree these are good news stories.

A federal-provincial task force has been established by Environment Canada to identify and characterize additional sources of releases of dioxins and furans in Canada. This group will prepare and analysis of sectors and areas requiring further action to eliminate measurable releases of dioxins and furans and will recommend time lines for their virtual elimination from the environment. This task force may recommend further regulations under CEPA or modifications to existing guidelines.

Furthermore, federal guidelines relating to contaminants are constantly under review as new scientific findings are reported. Health Canada is currently looking at federal guidelines for human exposure to dioxins set in 1990 to determine whether it is necessary to revise them.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had the same problem. I will not repeat what was just said, but had I been here I would have voted with my party.

[Petitions, April 28th, 1995]

The second petition, Mr. Speaker, deals with the request of citizens of Moncton that changes be made to the charter of rights and freedoms to enable residents to be notified when repeat sex offenders are released into the community.