Debates of Oct. 17th, 1994

Department Of Industry Act

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a ), the Chief Government Whip and the Chief opposition whip have asked me to defer the division.

Consequently, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)( a )(ii) the division on the questions now before the House is deferred until tomorrow at 5:30 p.m., at which time the bells will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

The House resumed from September 27, consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an Act to establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend related acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Department Of Natural Resources Act

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I representative of the riding of Abitibi, in Quebec. As many members know, it is possibly the largest riding in Canada outside the Northwest Territories, with an area of 500,000 square kilometres. In my riding, natural resources are most important, be they forests, mines or hydroelectricity. It is my duty to support the amendment proposed on September 27 by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois:

That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-48, An Act to establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend related Acts, given that the principle of the Bill does not provide for empowering the minister to compensate Quebec financially if it chooses to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources itself, pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Constitution Act, 1982.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin, a strong defender of the federal system, would surely share this opinion since, in an essay he wrote on the sharing of powers and entitled Partage des compétences: c'est comme un vêtement sur mesure , he recognized the limits of the spending powers of the federal government and the right of a province to ``opt out'' with financial compensation whenever the federal authority creates a new jointly funded, national program, provided the dissident province creates a similar program consistent with the national interests.

This bill brings nothing new, it is solely the creation of a new department, as part of a government reorganisation started in 1993 by the former Conservative prime minister, Ms. Kim Campbell. If the sole purpose of this bill was to merge two departments into one, with a view to saving money, improving efficiency and correcting the shortcomings found in the two previous bills creating the former departments, it would be easy, on the face of it, to accept it and even to support it.

However, it is rather obvious that with Bill C-48, the federal government is assuming powers and rights which are going to infringe upon an exclusive area of authority belonging to the provinces. It is totally unacceptable. As we, from the Bloc Quebecois, have been saying over and over again, this intrusion of the federal government leads to wasteful duplication and overlapping between the two levels of government, at great expense to Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.

We doubt that this bill is aimed at reducing this waste since its founding principles maintain the status quo and, even though departments are merged, they retain their mandate. If you go to the trouble of creating a new department, why not make sure at the same time that its operations are efficient and harmonized with the priorities of the provinces which, I remind you, are the leaders in the field and have exclusive jurisdiction over their own natural resources. Nothing in this bill gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over their natural resources, and no alternatives are suggested.

In 1982, during the negotiations on patriating the Constitution, and also during the negotiations on the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord, Quebec asked for the right to opt out-with compensation-of federal programs where it knew it could do a better job. Many of the parties concerned agree with this concept, which is even more appropriate when we are talking about natural resources, an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

I am sure many federalists will agree, and as I already pointed out, in certain publications Senator Beaudoin has referred to this as a beneficial alternative, reducing duplication and overlap.

For the time being, the only real change the average Quebec or Canadian citizen can see is that, instead of two ministers, we will have only one. There is nothing wrong with that per se , but the structure has not changed. Operating expenditures remain the same. There are no cuts. However, it is time to streamline operations for maximum efficiency, since all taxpayers are paying for the federal government's poor management.

One way to streamline the federal administration and make it more efficient would have been to redefine the role of the federal government in relation to the provinces, clarify the concept of provincial jurisdiction and opportunities for the provinces to manage their federal programs.

The federal government does not abide by its own Constitution, and all the provinces have paid dearly and will continue to do so for Ottawa's interventionism and centralist approach. Hon. members will recall the Trudeau government's energy policy that caused oil companies to be nationalized at an exorbitant price, only to be sold off a few years later.

The Athabasca tar sands project is anything but a financial success. As for Hibernia, it is an even bigger money gobbler. We will have to invest another billion dollars or more to support a project that was never essential to Canada's energy self-sufficiency, and no one knows whether further technical or financial problems will add even more to a bill that is already astronomical.

Western Canadians and my colleagues here in the House may wish to tell me later on whether they received as much money to search for new oil wells in Western Canada. In any case, Quebec never received any subsidies for its hydro dams.

The total bill for Hibernia, which will be several billion dollars, could have been channelled into research on new energy sources like hydrogen, while supporting the economies of the Maritimes, since the excuse for Hibernia was to create jobs for Eastern Canada. The government could have supported job creation in the Maritimes and used this money to give Canada a technological edge in this field on international markets instead of trying to look for new oil in difficult conditions at the cost of human lives, on drilling platforms off-shore-new oil at well above the price on world markets.

In the light of this unjustified spending, with no regard for the priorities of the provinces, one wonders whether the federal government knows what it is doing when it decides how to spend money in the provinces, especially in areas over which the provinces have jurisdiction.

Canadians are sometimes surprised to see the Bloc Quebecois here in this House. Perhaps today they will start to understand our long-standing demands, especially concerning natural resources. We are justified in demanding our rights, the rights of our province. This is also legitimate for the other provinces.

When the Natural Resources Committee, of which I am a member, studied clear cutting, the conclusions it came to were again to centralize authority for the sake of better performance. In opposition, the Bloc Quebecois wanted to show that co-operation would have been more effective because the initiative for reform must not come from the federal government but from the provinces themselves, since as I have said many times, they alone have the mandate to manage their resources.

The committee report would surely have been the same, but at the same time it would respect the provinces' powers.

Section 92-A of the Constitution Act, 1867, clearly states that mines and forests are exclusively in provincial jurisdiction. Is it right that the provinces cannot make their own decisions?

Unfortunately, federal intervention is too often to be expected.

The federal government starts with good intentions and ends up using its co-ordination role to become the one in charge. The usual scenario goes something like this: the federal government wants to be there to help co-ordinate, which, in itself, is good in such a big country, but as it co-ordinates, it decides that it should also run things. While it is at it, why not set the direction for the program and while it is doing that, why not be in charge?

Each time it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, the federal government comes along with its dollars and sets the mandate.

Spending the money of Canadians and Quebecers does not give the government the right to meddle in fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. A down-to-earth example in natural resources is the program to encourage mining exploration investment in Quebec. The Mining Association of Canada and the Canadian Prospectors Association think that this program is excellent. If this bill recognized the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources and opting out with federal compensation to make Quebec's program more effective, this incentive program could really grow and create many well-paid jobs.

This co-operative attitude already existed in the 1980s and yielded excellent results. For example, the Aur Resources Mine opened near Val-d'Or with an investment of some $300 million, creating 150 direct jobs and at least twice as many indirectly.

To end my speech in this debate, I would like to quote again what Jean Lesage, the former Liberal Premier of Quebec, said in an address to the Empire and Canadian Club in Toronto in 1964. His words were eloquent: "Quebec seeks to obtain all the powers needed to assert itself economically, socially and politically. If the provinces do not pursue the same objective, Quebec will necessarily move towards a special status reflecting both the particular characteristics of its people and the more extensive role that they want to give their government".

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity afforded by this debate on Bill C-48 to say that this is another important step towards streamlining government.

As you know, natural resources play a major role in Canada's economy. In 1992, net trade in these products amounted to $40.5 billion. These impressive figures illustrate the impact of the natural resources sector on our economy as a whole. However,

we must also consider the direct impact of this industry on the lives of thousands of Canadians.

First of all, one in every thirteen members of Canada's workforce is employed in the energy sector, at all levels. What makes this a very special group is that workers and their families are often located in remote areas. I am thinking of the forests around Lac-Saint-Jean, the mines in Abitibi or Northern Ontario and Alberta's oil fields. Altogether, over 500 communities across the country depend on natural resource activity.

The fact that this industry operates in remote areas creates some very specific problems. I am thinking of towns built around a mine or a factory. If demand for the product declines and the factory has to close temporarily, the whole town suffers. And as we saw in Schefferville and elsewhere, in some cases the factory or the mine closes for good.

It then becomes necessary to either find a new focus for the town or relocate the community. Neither option is easy to implement and both are hard on the community.

It is therefore very important to ensure that the natural resources sector remains a vital element of the economy and the job market. This can only be done through new technology, as the industry and government are fully aware. We are fortunate that Canada is a world leader in the development of technology to improve the productivity and competitiveness of our mining, forestry and energy industries.

Only last week, a large European delegation, mostly from Germany, visited construction sites in New Brunswick. In Quebec, they went to Saint-Félicien, in the riding of the Leader of the Opposition. They also went to British Columbia. They came to look at our modern forest management methods, and I must say they were all very impressed.

This is another example of concrete, active federalism. Our friends opposite are always quick to claim jurisdiction for Quebec. However, when the Government of Canada brings investors or journalists to the province, they are reluctant to admit that they benefit from Canadian initiatives.

Our government agrees that natural resources are a matter of provincial jurisdiction. However, we have a duty and a mandate to ensure that the sector contributes its fair share to economic growth and job creation across the country.

Of course, we must do this in co-operation, in a partnership with the provinces, and we are doing so without any hesitation whatsoever. In fact, streamlining the department provides a national perspective on mining, energy and forestry issues and provides a leading edge and expertise in research and development to help the industry meet current and future challenges.

One of those challenges is Canada's progress towards sustainable development. For many years, the industry seriously damaged the environment, not because it was intent on being destructive but because people were not aware of the impact certain procedures had on our environment.

It is essential to reconcile our economic and environmental objectives at all resource management levels. We have made a lot of progress, but we still have a long way to go.

The modernization of the Department of Natural Resources goes precisely along these lines. We must commend the government for taking this initiative and including at the very beginning of Bill C-48, in clause 2, an excellent definition of sustainable development.

This shows how serious our commitment to sustainable development is. This is particularly important in the area of natural resources where we must promote rational development and the protection of the environment.

The new department wants to co-operate with the provinces, the industry, the environmental groups, the natives as well as other stakeholders so that the natural resources sector can continue to grow in the short and medium term.

The department will also act increasingly as an intermediary between the industry and environmental activists in order to reconcile their concerns.

The Department of Natural Resources also has an important role to play in the area of research and technology. In fact, its reputation in this field is excellent. Its scientific and technological know-how cover all aspects of the industry management. Very often, the department can act as a leader and does so. Nevertheless, particularly where the protection of the environment is concerned, we need the co-operation of all the stakeholders to achieve our goals.

I am thinking among other things of improving energy efficiency. It is widely recognized that improving energy efficiency is an essential element helping us, in the short term, to achieve the goal of sustainable development. Many businesses have discovered that energy efficiency pays off. Related technologies also contribute to economic development and job creation.

Each of us can contribute to Canada's energy efficiency, thus helping the government meet its greenhouse effect reduction goal. Innovative technologies developed in Canada can also be exported to the expanding global market. It is forecast that by the year 2000, the global pollution control market will reach $600 billion US.

Canada certainly intends to get its share of this global market, a large part of which has to do with resource development technologies.

This is an important bill. It is a technical bill because we are trying to reorganize the Department of Natural Resources to put all the resources of two departments into one so we can have more efficient administration of the policies. Almost a year ago this government was elected under the auspices of the red book, making sure we develop and improve the economy, create jobs and also reduce the deficit and be more efficient.

With the reorganization on November 4, 1993 the Prime Minister presented the new cabinet to all Canadians and the rest of the world. We proved we were going in that direction, that we intend to keep our promise. That is what we are doing. We are putting into law what we promised in the red book and what the Prime Minister announced on November 4, 1993.

At this stage with this global economy the protection of the environment is very important, not only in terms of protection but also in terms of developing the technique, the necessary technology to protect the environment. Canada has the know how and the tools to be a leader in the world in this field. We can create thousands of jobs if we put all our resources together. We are going in the right direction in organizing the Department of Natural Resources in this fashion.

Natural Resources Canada has a very important role to play in assuring us that exporting our resources helps us to prosper and to create jobs while applying the principles of sustainable development. It is the way of the future, the voice of reason, and that is why I am pleased today to support this bill.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the words of the secretary of state and also to the previous debater from the Bloc Quebecois. I read Bill C-48 in great detail.

I am having difficulty understanding the concerns of the speaker from the official opposition about the federal government infringing on provincial jurisdictions. The secretary of state also represents a riding in that province. I am wondering whether he could clarify if the federal government is infringing on provincial jurisdiction or is the bill truly a bill which has as its goal sustainable development in which not only Canada will benefit but this entire planet will benefit?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs. The bill is very clear and we have been saying all along that we recognize and know that natural resources is a provincial jurisdiction. What we should do with Bill C-48 is to reorganize the department. We had two departments and now we have one. We are being more efficient and we are putting our resources together to compete out there.

It is a global market in which we have to compete. I said in my speech that in recognizing the jurisdiction of the provinces, recognizing that we have to work together, and we are working together, we are trying very hard and working together as a province, it is the role of the federal government to make sure in every sector that we create jobs because that is what Canadians want.

Therefore we are not interfering with the jurisdiction problem. In every bill that we present to this House, it seems that we have a jurisdiction problem. We realize that this is a federation. There are provincial matters and there are federal matters. Also, there is a spirit of co-operation.

In this bill or in natural resources or in industry or in other departments, respecting the provincial jurisdiction, respecting the federal role of being a leader of economic development, there is praise for both the provincial government and the federal government.

Instead of fighting about who has jurisdiction, if we would work together and co-operate we would achieve both results of the goal of the provincial government and the goal of the federal government.

For all citizens who get elected to serve Canadians, our most important role is to make sure not only who does what but also to make sure that Canadians get the service they need, the jobs they want. That is where the objective should be. We should not try to fight each other and lose time and energy instead of creating jobs which is what people want. This bill creates jobs.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. secretary of state why, with this bill, the government did not take the opportunity to clearly spell out the fact that provinces have jurisdiction over natural resources and did not define major thrusts for optimum co-operation and development of natural resources to promote job creation.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-48 is an act which legally establishes the new Department of Natural Resources created when the new Liberal government was sworn in on November 4, 1993.

The purpose of this legislation is to create the legal framework for a department which already exists and is in operation. Just a half hour ago we had a debate on the bill to establish the

Department of Industry and now we are discussing the Department of Natural Resources. Two weeks ago, other bills were being debated, and I imagine that there soon will be other redeployments affecting departments. Indeed, we try to create a legal framework for the new departments which have been established.

As regards the government's action plan, I believe that the Minister of Natural Resources has already explained that plan on various occasions to the committee. Also, negotiations will take place with various provinces, including Quebec. All these initiatives are in progress and the hon. member should not expect an action plan in a piece of legislation such as this one, which establishes a department.

The purpose of this legislation is to establish a department, it is to define its role and to explain the new structure. I believe the hon. member said earlier that he agreed with the principle of having one minister and one department instead of two departments and two ministers as was the case before. So, this initiative will improve efficiency, but it will also ensure better discussions and better co-operation between the provinces and the federal government. We have always maintained that natural resources fall under provincial jurisdiction, but the federal government must ensure that these natural resources benefit all Canadians.

In short, this bill is about the structure of a new Department of Natural Resources. I am sure that the hon. member will find either in the budget or in other policy statements the federal government's action plan concerning the development of natural resources as well as sustainable development.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the principles of Bill C-48, a bill to create the Department of Natural Resources.

The Reform Party has long supported the downsizing of the federal cabinet and the reduction of bureaucracy. This initiative makes good sense particularly in the areas of provincial jurisdiction such as natural resources.

Having said that, however, I am disappointed to see another Tory bill brought before the House by the new Liberal government that promised to govern differently. There are no promises in the red book to finish Kim Campbell's agenda. All this bill does is formalize what has long been happening and has long been the case. Instead of seizing this opportunity to substantially downsize government and duplication, getting this government off the backs of Canadians, it takes half measures as we have seen in almost every piece of legislation the government has introduced into this House.

While I believe there is an opportunity in the reorganization of this department to realize substantial economic savings, it appears from my analysis of this bill that it will effect very little economic savings or the downsizing of the bureaucracy.

My colleagues who have spoken previously have addressed a number of areas of concern we have with this new super ministry. I will concentrate on yet another area that we believe could have and should have been included in this initiative to effect an economic benefit in the streamlining of these departments.

The area I refer to is the completion of the privatization of Petro-Canada. The creation of Petro-Canada with billions of dollars of tax money was part of the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the energy producing regions of this country. This fraud through government interference and regulation deprived the energy producing provinces of billions of dollars that should have accrued to them during the oil price shock of 1973-74 when OPEC cut off the oil to the west during the Yom Kippur war, causing a tripling of oil prices within weeks. The producing provinces were never allowed to benefit from this oil price surge because of the interference and regulation from the federal government.

Because of this false fear of its future energy security, the federal government created with tax dollars a national oil company. The mandate of this crown owned oil company was through an aggressive acquisition and exploration program to provide for Canada's oil self-sufficiency. In spite of the reckless spending of the tax dollar to acquire grossly overpriced foreign multinational oil company holdings such as Atlantic Richfield Pacific Petroleum, Petrofina, British Petroleum and Gulf Petroleum, creating one of the largest oil companies in Canada, this bureaucratic boondoggle was never able in any substantial way to fulfil the mandate.

I well recall the early days of Petro-Canada's intrusion into the energy field with bureaucrats flying around in private jets and helicopters awarding extravagant cost plus contracts like the money would never run out. All this was sold to the Canadian taxpayer as necessary to reduce our dependency, or was it the U.S. dependency, on mid-east oil reserves.

We were told in Canada that we had less than 20 years recoverable oil reserves and that a high gasoline tax burden was justifiable to guarantee our future energy needs and pay for this spending binge. Now, 20 years later, we know that it was so much Liberal hogwash, a simple money grab and a flagrant breach of the principles of Confederation by the federal government, a Liberal federal government. We have 20 years later proven oil reserves that will supply Canada's energy needs for the next several centuries, almost 400 years of recoverable reserves in the tar sands of northern Alberta alone.

The past Tory government, knowing the moral dishonesty of these policies, moved with much foot dragging and procrastination to end this fraud by cutting taxpayer subsidization and even moved to partial privatization, turning our state owned oil company into a simple commercial enterprise no different than any other large oil company operating in Canada. I ask the question, why would the Canadian taxpayers want to own just another oil company? Is this oil company returning some benefit to the taxpayers in return for their billions of dollars in the form of lower gasoline prices or providing cheap clean burning natural gas to the homes in Atlantic Canada? No, it is not.

The fact is MPs on both sides of this House have been made aware of the unethical tactics of our state owned oil company harassing small independent gasoline retailers in an effort to remove competition, hardly what we might expect from our own taxpayer owned oil company.

It is engaged in the same export frenzy as all the other multinationals. Is it engaged in an aggressive Canadian frontier exploration program? No more so than any other multinational. In fact, Petro-Canada is competing with other multinational companies in the far flung corners of the globe.

Again the Reform Party questions why the Canadian taxpayer would want to own a national oil company. Why would this government not sell off this national oil company while the industry is strong and recoup some of those billions of taxpayers' dollars that were used to create this Liberal boondoggle? Why not use this opportunity when we are supposed to be downsizing and streamlining government to do something really significant and use revenue from the sale of Petro-Canada to reduce Canada's debt burden?

Could it be that we are about to become the victims of yet another Liberal fraud. This government, instead of behaving like a fresh new government with new innovative ideas that would stop this fatal spiral of debt and deficit we find ourselves in, continues to bring in this stale, tired Tory initiative that destroyed the PC Party, or it reaches back and resurrects the obsolete Liberal ideas of the Trudeau era.

In conclusion, as I said at the outset, we support the amalgamation and reduction of government ministries but let us take some new and innovative steps. Let us get government out of private enterprise and let private enterprise do what it can do better. Let us get government spending under control and reduce the necessity of this desperate sell-off of Canada's natural resources to support an unsustainable level of government spending.

Let us create technology to track the movement of profits of multinational corporations that move around the world at the speed of light and often escape the taxman. At the same time let us not tax to the point where we destroy the incentive to reinvest those profits in Canada's resource industries as we did in the case of the national energy program, particularly in value added manufacturing so we might escape the dependency on the exports of raw natural resource products.

Simply put, let us not continue on the same policies that in the last 25 years have plunged us into the position as one of the most indebted nations in the world at the same time that many of our natural resources that this country was built upon are in serious decline.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Athabasca as he went through some of the problems we have had in the industry and particularly in the natural resources industry.

He raised a couple of interesting points on the indebtedness that has been caused by the government intrusion into what should have been a private market decision on oil reserves and on a national policy to get into the oil business. I see in the paper that a two cent a gallon tax on this industry is being considered again, this time at the pumps apparently to make one industry pay for an environmental program that is going to try and fix the problems.

Would the member comment on the fact that again one particular industry and one province is being targeted to pay for what in essence is a national problem. I would like his comments.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, in spite of the fact that this government continues to tell us that a carbon tax or a green tax is not a consideration, it continues to come up in the news almost daily. Therefore, it continues to be of concern to us who come from those resource producing regions. Not only do we come from the regions that produce the oil and gas, we are also from a region of Canada that is very sparsely populated and has great distances.

This tactic of taxing the resource to force people to use less of the resource or to reduce CO2 emissions is the same kind of fraud I talked about in my presentation. In fact, Canada only produces some 2 per cent of the world's CO2 emissions. If every vehicle in Canada was parked and ran no more we would reduce CO2 emissions in the world by less than 1 per cent.

I say it is a fraud. If we really want to do something about CO2 emissions, let us look at some of the other countries in the world, like China that produces 20 per cent of the CO2 emissions, where doing something about it would have some effect.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how much time we have. I was interested in a couple of

the comments the hon. member for Athabasca made. One was the question of bringing in and passing a Tory bill.

I would like to remind him of the story of Senator Hayakawa of the United States who was asked if the government of the United States should keep the Panama Canal after its term expired. He said: "Of course we should. We stole it fair and square".

The other thing I would like to talk about is fraud. The hon. member mentioned that the tar sands contain enough oil potential for several hundred years. I think he mentioned 400 years. What is his information base for that? Is that 400 years of Canada remaining at 29 million population or is that 400 years of witnessing the exponential curve in population growth and subsequent energy demand around the world? Is that 400 years of a population decline in Canada? Four hundred years of what? When one makes a blanket statement like that, one has to follow through with some kind of qualification to make the thing legitimate.

Since predictions like that were made years ago, the population of the world every year has increased at the rate of about 95 million people. I do not know whether he wants to keep those other people from having any of that energy and if he would prefer that, but that is not the way it is going to be.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Madam Speaker, the statistics I presented were provided to me by the Alberta Energy National Resource Conservation Board. In fact, the figures I quoted were based on Canada's current consumption of energy. Certainly they are statistically correct today, but 50 years from now who is to say what that might be.

It has more truth to it than the fraud that was perpetrated in the creation of Petro-Canada whereby we were running out of conventional crude oil and had to move immediately to spend $6 billion of taxpayers' dollars to create Petro-Canada. Today, 25 years later, our conventional crude oil production has not even begun to decline. Given the technology advancements, who is to say that 20 years from now we will not continue to produce the same level of conventional crude oil, not even taking into consideration the synthetic crude oil production?

I think my figures are quite valid and quite honest.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Madam Speaker, a very few minutes ago I was given the honour of addressing this bill. I appreciated very much being a member of the natural resources committee and watching history being made.

One of the significant aspects of this bill is the tying of the forestry industry with the rest of the resource industry. In this day of information accessibility, the information highway, the move toward high tech and all those wonderful things that will present miracles to our children and grandchildren in the future, our country does and will in the future rely on its natural resources providing that we provide a sustainable base for the continuing preservation and enhancement of those natural resources.

The other reason why it is significant is that in the future, maybe 400 years in the future if my hon. friend is correct, I think with the acceleration in population on a global basis and the increasing demand for energy the future for renewable energy will be upon us in the twinkling of an eye. Therefore, because Canada produces probably more, if you will pardon the $25 word, biomass than perhaps any other country on the face of the earth, it is only natural that the forest industry and the production of cellulose and energy become inexorably tied under the wing of one ministry.

We are not very many years away from when we will be able to produce motor fuel from cellulose in a very competitive and environmentally sustainable way. I think the connection that has been made with the creation of this new ministry is very positive.

I should point out to my friends in the Bloc who from time to time worry about the jurisdiction that there is no change in jurisdiction in this bill. In other words, it is recognized that the provinces have jurisdiction over those industries.

Our nation has a requirement to provide a voice internationally, particularly at the present time, to overcome some of the negative feedback that we have been getting from places like Europe and so on which were prompted to worry about the forest practices in Canada.

I must go on record, having sat on the committee studying forestry practices in this country, as saying that we are perhaps a model for the whole world in the advancements that our industries have made. Our government must now through various mechanisms take those advances and take that standard that has been set and point out to our friends who buy our raw materials, our resources or processed materials around the world that we are indeed doing a good job. Perhaps in the future we will be able to share our technology and some of the things we have learned with people around the world. We must not forget there are countries on this earth today that have virtually denuded their lands of forest cover. Is it not Madagascar that is sliding into the Indian Ocean? Countries in the Caribbean were stripped bare for their logs before the turn of the century. Only now some of those countries are very concerned about rejuvenating their forests, understanding the value of that kind of forest cover.

Canada has taken the lead role and we will continue. Admittedly we have an economic challenge. The combining of the department of forestry with what was known as energy, mines

and resources has already effected a savings of some $16 million we are told. That is only the beginning and it will go on from there. It is efficiency at its best. It is the kind of efficiency all levels of governments have to introduce and effect in the very near future. It is a pleasure to be part of that and bear witness to that change.

I would also like to mention that my friends in the Reform Party are concerned about oil consumption. They seem to think that oil consumption is somehow at risk. The member for Athabasca made some comment about the 400 years and so on.

Let me draw a scenario regarding the consumption of energy. One of the main domestic sources of oil for the United States is now in decline. That is Prudhoe Bay, which has been supplying about 25 per cent of the domestic requirement of the United States. The rest of the oil patch in the United States has been in decline for many years.

The Americans have a few choices. One of the choices of course is to buy more Canadian natural gas, another non-renewable resource and take it in increased quantities. Another choice of course is to effect more conservation through one means or another. The cheapest barrel of oil is the barrel of oil you do not use. Another is to exploit as much renewable energy as is possible which the United States is presently doing with quite large efforts. Of course the other option is to buy more offshore oil.

If anyone imagines for one minute that Canada can somehow put a fence around itself and say that we have enough for all these years and we are going to save it and keep it for ourselves, I have news for them. The world is not like that.

China presently has the largest growing economy on earth. It is double digit growth. By and large they still are riding bicycles in China but with increased communication and witnessing lifestyles based on energy consumption in other parts of the world, it will not be long before that nation will require more and more oil. They will be off their bicycles and into automobiles before we know it. If petroleum is the only option, imagine the demand if China were to expect half of the consumption that North America presently consumes per capita. The bravado about the long term availability of petroleum is rather questionable to say the least.

Another thing that should be said is that in 1979 Sheik Yamani who was the Saudi Arabian oil minister went on Canadian television and said that oil was too precious a resource to simply combust. That was a prophetic statement if ever there was one. If we look at the amount of petroleum that is now used as a feedstock in the petrochemical industry for polymers and so on, we can easily see where that precious commodity may ultimately belong.

We are now bearing witness to the very beginnings of a move from non-renewable energy consumption, which has been kind of a blip in recent history as we did not have this before coal was discovered, and it will ultimately be used up. We do not know how much is in the barrel, whether it is two-thirds empty, one-third empty, or whatever. However we do know there are some compelling reasons why we should be making this move.

It is only fitting and rather prophetic that energy and these other forms of resources are now tied together. Hopefully the development of renewables can now go on with less hindrance than there has been in the past. Perhaps instead of two ministries not communicating with each other as well as they should have, now we will have one ministry that can communicate within itself.

I am very pleased to support this bill. It is a new era for Canada. As I said initially, it will be more efficient for the process of governing but it will also bring together some of those factors we have outlined and will set a new pathway for the future of energy and the other resources in this country.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. I would like him to clarify a couple of things he mentioned.

One was the jurisdiction of natural resources being primarily a provincial concern. That is a constitutional matter I am much in favour of. I am trying to get at the direction in which the Liberal government is heading.

The other is another leaked report from this government that has found its way into the media. This time it is the consideration of a two cent a litre tax on gasoline to pay for the stabilization of greenhouse gases. The minister herself admits that is one of the proposals so this is not an obscure report. This report exists and it just happens that it was leaked to the media six months in advance.

Also, I was at the United Nations a little while ago and we were discussing proposals for UN reform. This report should be very interesting to the Liberals who can read. If members look halfway through the booklet on Canadian proposals for UN reform, it says that Canada proposes a tax on hydrocarbons to pay for the United Nations.

I am not sure how many members have read that report but I urge them to dig it up. They should especially have regard to the constitutionality of who should control the taxation on hydrocarbons, what should be the priorities of the federal government and what the plans are. This is not pie in the sky theory or scare tactics but it is in a little book, this time a blue one, supported by the Liberal Party proposing a hydrocarbon tax to support the UN this time. Last time it was another crisis.

I would like to have the member's thoughts on exactly whose jurisdiction this is and what he thinks of hydrocarbon taxes specifically to fund everything, in this case from the United Nations to greenhouse gases. Which jurisdiction should that fall under? Who should we send this warning flag to, the provinces or the oil companies?