Debates of Nov. 23rd, 1994

Petitions

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure to present a total of 178 pages of petitions with respect to the issue of mining. Canada's investment climate is forcing its mineral industry to look for new opportunities elsewhere, a trend which has eroded industry employment substantially in this decade and threatens the long term viability of mining in Canada.

I concur completely with the sentiments expressed in the petition. In subsequent events in the House I will be making a presentation as we debate Bill C-48 on natural resources speaking in support of the mining industry.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I wish to present some petitions on behalf of grandchildren and grandparents in Canada asking Parliament to amend the Divorce Act to grant standing before the courts to argue for continuous access for grandparents to their grandchildren.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today, two on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Simcoe Centre and one on behalf of the constituents in Sarnia-Lambton.

The first one is from Simcoe Centre dealing with the issue of euthanasia. The petitioners request that current laws regarding active euthanasia be enforced.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition from Simcoe Centre deals with sexual orientation.

The petitioners are concerned about including the undefined phrase sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Refusing to define this statement leaves interpretation open to the courts, a very dangerous precedent to set.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is dealing with official bilingualism and I present it on behalf of the citizens of Sarnia-Lambton.

Given that the large majority of Canadians are opposed to the official languages policy imposed on them by a former Liberal government, the petitioners request that a referendum be held to either accept or reject this flawed policy.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the one notice of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Department Of Natural Resources Act

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

moved that Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend related acts, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me this afternoon to speak on the occasion of the third reading of Bill C-48, a bill to establish the Department of Natural Resources.

This afternoon I wish to focus my brief comments on the important role of research and development as these concepts relate to the resource sectors and my department.

In the red book of the Liberal Party of Canada we stated our commitment to encourage progress toward the concept of sustainable development by integrating economic and environmental values and objectives.

One of our key challenges as a government in meeting this commitment is to create resource production and processing technologies that are less harmful to the environment and government and industry must meet this challenge by working in collaboration and partnership.

Government research facilities will continue to make an important contribution to R and D but the involvement of industry, universities, colleges and levels of government other than federal is essential.

The role of the federal government in the natural resources sectors is that of partner and that of a natural bridge between industry, other levels of government and the academy.

Natural Resources Canada has a lead role to play in the way our natural resources are managed. NRCAN, along with other science and technology departments, is responsible for ensuring that the Canadian taxpayers' investment of approximately $7 billion in science and technology is focused on areas that have the highest priority in terms of meeting our important economic, social and environmental goals.

By facilitating co-operation between all stakeholders government can ensure that the science and technology at work in these sectors contributes to the wealth of our economy and the health of our natural resources.

NRCAN has four main scientific branches: the Canadian Forest Service, the Geological Survey of Canada, the Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, otherwise known as CANMET, and Geomatics Canada. All these branches make important contributions to research and development in partnership with others.

Let me now give some specific examples of how my department fulfils this important role. In mining let us look to the problem of acid mine drainage, an environmental liability for the Canadian mining industry, with a potential price tag of between $3 billion to $5 billion.

To address this challenge the mine environmental neutral drainage program, otherwise known as MEND, unites the efforts of four federal government departments, eight provincial governments, seventeen mining companies and a number of academic institutions. It has developed new leading edge technology that can be transferred and marketed around the world. The program has also saved to date hundreds of millions of dollars for Canadian mining companies.

Let me move to the area of geomatics. When it comes to a discussion of innovative technology I believe that some of the most remarkable and innovative technological developments have occurred in the field of geomatics. Integrating economic and environmental objectives for resource development begins with accurate information. Working in partnership our geomatics industry and the Government of Canada have been instrumental in developing, applying and transferring both innovative

technology and expertise to Canada's resource industries and to countries around the world.

For example, we can receive images at the Prince Albert satellite receiving station, a world class Canadian built facility, which is located in Saskatchewan. Then we can digitize this information and use it in computer based tools to explore for new resources, to develop new mines or to monitor changes in our environment. Those are only a few of the uses of geomatics technology.

Let me move to the forestry sector, one of the single most important areas of Canada's industrial strength. In the forestry sector advanced technologies based on remote sensing and computer science are giving us new techniques for managing the forest resource and its ecosystems.

Canada has developed highly successful forest health monitoring systems including the forest insect and disease survey, a partnership between the federal and provincial governments and the acid rain national early warning system. Canada also leads the world in the development of forest fire danger rating systems and related decision support systems. These are just a few examples of the valuable partnerships that exist between government, industries and universities.

However the challenge is clear. We can no longer tackle problems in traditional ways and government must continue to find innovative solutions through our partnerships and through science and technology which is the key to progress toward sustainable development. My department, NRCAN, is in the process of drawing the road map for natural resources development in the 21st century. It is a map for success because of the consensus that we have achieved by bringing together key stakeholders in the resource sectors.

NRCAN is a major federal force behind science and technology and is the leading federal agency responsible for natural resource issues. These roles provide NRCAN with the capacity to help address the challenges industry faces and to contribute to the fulfilment of the government's policy priorities.

Increasingly the department's policy and science and technology efforts focus on two interrelated objectives, helping the resource industry to maintain its international competitiveness and doing so in a way that is environmentally sustainable. Together these two objectives capture the essence of the concept of sustainable development, the integration of economic and environmental objectives and values.

In conclusion, it was a pleasure to address the House this afternoon on the occasion of the third reading of Bill C-48, a bill that will when enacted provide the legal framework for the new Department of Natural Resources.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat a number of points I raised previously, since I find myself in the position of a teacher faced with a student who is the opposite of a quick study. This certainly does not apply to the minister but it does to her government.

They should start making a serious attempt at understanding what is at stake, because this is a very complex issue. Yesterday, we presented a number of amendments that I feel were entirely appropriate and justified, but they did not pass. They were defeated.

I will go back to what we proposed yesterday to explain why normally, these amendments should have been accepted by everyone.

We should recall that Bill C-48 was introduced as part of the present government's plan to restructure the federal public service. The purpose of the bill before the House today is to legislate the creation of the Department of Natural Resources. Once the bill is passed, one minister will have the powers and duties that today are vested in the ministers referred to in the Department of Forestry Act and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act. As far as this bill is concerned, obviously we cannot object to bringing Forestry and Energy, Mines and Resources together in a single department. Of course not.

As such, this is a laudable objective. Regrouping certain duties to provide a better service may be justified, provided they are ours to regroup. That would not seem to be the case when we are talking about natural resources. I will get back to this later on, because I feel the present government failed to take advantage of this opportunity to reach an understanding with Quebec and the other Canadian provinces.

I also feel that if this government had done what it should have done, today we would be able to say that it fully intends to respect its partners. That is not the case, and unfortunately, I see no sign of it in this bill. In fact, I see more duplication.

According to the bill before the House today, the term natural resources is applied to all resources mentioned in the Department of Forestry Act and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act. This means that anything connected with natural resources is affected by this bill.

Furthermore, and this is very important, the bill refers to integrated management and sustainable development, which we

fully endorse. Those are principles we in the Bloc are prepared to support, because, as I said before, this is very important for the future of our children and grandchildren.

These principles are already being applied in my riding, in Matapédia-Matane, and more specifically in connection with forest management. We did not invent these principles but we support them wholeheartedly. In the last 20 years, we have really invested in our forests, and there are some wonderful things to see and some wonderful things are happening as a result of our efforts.

In my opinion, it is no longer possible to speak about development of natural resources without speaking about sustainable development. The bill before us therefore has the advantage, and we support this, of applying the principle of integrated management and sustainable development to all natural resources.

This being said, I and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois understand perfectly well that the objective of the present bill is to formalize what is actually taking place.

I hope that our colleagues in the Liberal Party do not expect us to support this bill to establish the Department of Natural Resources. It is a bill to which we have no trouble speaking. Quebecers elected us, a sovereignist party, to defend the interests of Quebec and, at the same time, to initiate dialogue with the rest of Canada, with a view to laying the groundwork for our eventual sovereignty.

I note, however, that the present Liberal government seems to has absolutely no intention of respecting the jurisdiction of Quebec or even that of the other provinces, although this jurisdiction was conferred under the Constitution that governs us. I would remind the government that natural resources are a provincial responsibility, under the Constitution of 1867, and that this right was reaffirmed by the 1982 Liberal coup.

So much for this government's respect for its partners. By establishing this department, the government repudiates the basic principles which should govern efficient management of this country. It also creates a new bone of contention between the provinces, the territories and itself.

I will never lay enough stress on this issue. I have said it before and I repeat: Natural resources are a provincial area of jurisdiction in which the federal government has no business. We have to defend Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources and will always do so.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, would renege on our promises and most of all neglect the mandate our constituents have given us, if we were to keep quiet about the federal government's involvement in an exclusively provincial area of jurisdiction. We cannot stand idly by in the face of such an attack and a bill which, as it stands now, is an affront to the politicians in Quebec and the other Canadian provinces.

I do not understand how they can boast that they are acting in the best interests of the country, when they do not even abide by their own Constitution. If the government really wanted to respect the terms of the Constitution of Canada, it would abolish the Department of Natural Resources and let the provinces manage this area which comes under their own jurisdiction.

Since the very beginning, every successive Quebec government has defended the provincial areas of jurisdiction defined in the Canadian Constitution, starting with Mr. Lesage, "Masters in our own house", and then Mr. Johnson, "Sovereignty or Independence", but even before their time, Quebec had always requested provincial autonomy.

Even the more federalist of the Quebec premiers have insisted that the Constitution be fully applied, especially in the area of natural resources.

As is, this bill allows the government to enter into agreements with organizations as well as individuals and companies. It allows the government to award contracts in the natural resources and forestry sectors, even to individuals. Yet, the achievement of 1982, the 1982 Constitution Act, defines very clearly the provincial areas of jurisdiction enshrined in section 92(a) concerning the development, conservation and management of forest resources, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom.

Every successive Quebec government has asked that Quebec jurisdiction over natural resources be respected and now this bill negates these repeated requests.

Just one year ago, a known federalist, Quebec minister Sirros, stated in the National Assembly Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over the management of natural resources over the Quebec territory. It seems that this government did not pay heed to his call, since we have here an Act to establish the Department of Natural Resources, which, if this bill is passed, will have full jurisdiction in this area.

With this bill, the Canadian government assumes powers and rights that directly infringe upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in terms of natural resources and this, to us, is unacceptable.

Clause 27.3(1)( c ) of Bill C-48 is a very good example. It reads: c ) may enter into agreements with the government of any

province or with any person-

This is where the problem lies:

-for forest protection and management or forest utilization, for the conduct of research related thereto or for forestry publicity or education;

If there is an area in which we, Quebecers, have excelled, it is forestry. If there is an area which is truly ours since 1867, it is also forestry. And yet, Bill C-48 allows the Canadian government to put Quebec's jurisdiction aside and to enter into agreements with individuals, organizations and companies.

If at least the government had included an obligation to consult the governments of Quebec or the other provinces concerned, Bill C-48 would not have been acceptable, but it could have been less offensive, less detrimental to federal-provincial relations.

Clause 35 is a good example of this desire to interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction. In order to understand the significance of this clause, I think it is worth reading it again. It reads as follows:

1. The Minister may cause distribution to be made of duplicate specimens to scientific, literary and educational institutions in Canada and other countries, and may authorize the distribution or sale of publications, maps and other documents issued by the Department.

There is nothing too serious up to that point. I will continue:

1. Subject to section 4 of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act respecting the powers, duties and functions of the Minister in relation to matters mentioned in that section over which Parliament has jurisdiction, the Minister shall be responsible for coordinating, promoting and recommending national policies and programs with respect to energy, mines and minerals, water and other resources-

All this in an area under provincial jurisdiction. Clause 35 of the bill goes on as follows:

-and, in carrying out his responsibilities under this section, the Minister may

(a) conduct applied and basic research programs and investigations and economic studies in relation to those resources, and for that purpose maintain and operate research institutes, laboratories, observatories and other facilities for exploration and research related to the source, origin, properties, development or use of those resources;

Again, all this in an area under provincial jurisdiction. Let us move on. The Minister can:

(b) study, keep under review and consider recommendations with respect to matters relating to the exploration for, or the production, recovery, manufacture, processing, transmission, transportation, distribution, sale, purchase, exchange or disposition of any of those resources, and with respect to matters relating to the sources of those resources within or outside Canada.

We are still in an area of provincial jurisdiction as recognized by the Canadian Constitution. But the highlight of the bill is undoubtedly the following paragraph.

7.(1) The Minister may, in exercising the powers and carrying out the duties and functions mentioned in section 6, formulate plans for the conservation, development and use of the resources specified in that section and for related research and the Minister may carry out those plans in cooperation with other departments, branches and agencies of the Government of Canada.

The federal government assumes all powers in an area which comes entirely under provincial jurisdiction. Allow me to draw to your attention the fact that provincial governments have not been mentioned once since the beginning of clause 35. Clause 35 concludes in these terms:

In formulating and carrying out any plans under subsection (1), the Minister may:

(a) cooperate with the provinces and with municipalities;

(b) enter into agreements with any person or body, including the government of any province or any department, branch or agency of such a government, respecting the carrying out of those plans; and

(c) make grants and contributions and, with the approval of the Governor in Council, provide other forms of financial assistance.

(3) The Minister may, in exercising the powers and carrying out the duties and functions mentioned in this section, including in relations to technical surveys, consult with, and inaugurate conferences of representatives of producers, industry, the universities, labour and provincial and municipal authorities.

That means the Minister can even go directly to municipalities without consulting the provincial authorities. In my opinion, clause 35 represents one of the worst attacks this government has ever made against powers handed down to provinces since it came to office. Voting against this bill is of the utmost importance.

Since when can the federal government enter into agreements with municipalities without the province's consent? Since when does the federal government have the right to invade a field of provincial jurisdiction without the province's agreement or without even having to consult it? Such an attitude leads me to believe that no understanding, no harmony is possible in a country where the central government acts without the agreement of its main partners. One would think that this government cannot read its own Constitution, that of Canada. One would think that it is deaf when it comes to Quebec's and the provinces' claims.

What we see with Bill C-48 is a government insisting on trespassing on an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the legitimacy that the explicit agreement of Quebec would confer on its action. A government which is getting involved in the writing of Canada-wide standards regarding natural resources. A government which has not learned from past mistakes and still believes that coast-to-coast policies are the key to collective wealth. This is completely false.

It is also a government which is harbouring the very same illusions it denounced in the past. This government is giving itself the means to act directly, without anybody's agreement, particularly that of the main stakeholders, the provinces, by

financing agencies or individuals directly. It is also a government which is bypassing the provinces, dealing directly with municipal governments, even though, under the 1867 Constitution, they come under the authority of provincial governments.

Finally, Bill C-48 confirms that this government could not care less about the claims of Quebec and the provinces and that it intends, as much as possible, to disregard the Constitution which governs us, in order to act as it pleases and achieve its ends, no matter what the cost to taxpayers in Quebec and this country.

I will bet that many of my colleagues from the other provinces agree with me. I will bet that many of my colleagues opposite think the same way but will never dare come out into the open about it, for fear of being repudiated by their own government. Let me tell them any way that such unsolicited federal interventions in a provincial area of jurisdiction cause awful overlapping all over the place.

We are going through difficult economic times. The provinces already have long-established natural resources strategies. What is the federal government doing if not duplicating whatever is already there? I am sure that Canadian taxpayers, to whom this government is so committed, would not approve of this. If they were asked tomorrow if they agreed with paying double for the sake of satisfying this government's centralizing designs, I know what they would say. Their answer would be a clear one. I am sure that they would never agree that the current Liberal government act this way. As far as we, in Quebec, are concerned, it goes without saying that we will not accept this disgraceful luxury of paying double all the time.

Let me give you an example with respect to forest management, over which this government is unduly assuming power by establishing the Department of Natural Resources. The provincial strategy tabled by the government of Quebec in May 1994 illustrates my point. This strategy is well and truly independent from the National Forest Strategy developed by the federal government and the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. The people of Quebec have to pay for both strategies. The people from my riding have to pay for both. We are sick and tired of that.

This government completely disregards the Constitution that governs it. It has also completely disregarded the very legitimate demands of all Quebecers for at least 30 years. The time has come for Quebecers to make a decision that will allow them to finally exercise the powers they are entitled to.

In November 1990, the House Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, although made up of hard-core federalists, said that in the 20th century, the government tried several times to influence national forestry policies, but that it encountered provincial resistance to any potential interference in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Committee members felt that the federal government clearly had to play a much more serious role in guaranteeing the success of any national forestry policy.

We must come to the conclusion that the current government has not learned anything from the past. We also note that, although many observers recommended that the federal government take the Constitution into account in dealing with natural resources, this government continues to display the same interfering and contemptuous attitude toward a level of government which nonetheless has jurisdiction over natural resources. Quebec has always demanded the same powers over natural resources and forestry. Quebec was opposed to creating the Department of Forestry, which it rightly saw as federal interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Quebec also did not ratify the National Forest Strategy. Since 1991, after the resounding failure of the Meech Lake Accord, no Quebec minister has participated in the activities of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. In fact, Quebec just recently released its own strategy on forest management. It is certainly its prerogative, considering that this sector falls under provincial jurisdiction.

We will never support Bill C-48. We will never tolerate this undue and unacceptable interference in a field of provincial jurisdiction. I am not just referring to Quebec but also to the other provinces. We will never tolerate this unjustifiable desire to deprive another level of government of its vested powers. As Bloc Quebecois members, we will never support this kind of action.

Nor will taxpayers, and particularly those in my riding of Matapédia-Matane, ever let those who govern waste public money by duplicating services. As the elected representatives of Quebecers, we will never let the government ruin the efforts of generations of Quebecers to develop their natural resources the way they wanted to do it.

I hope that members will seriously consider the implications of this bill and will send the government back to the drawing board. If necessary, I will be pleased to make my plea again and again, because the government does not have the right to resort to useless duplication in order to gain some specific power. Since it took office, this government has been centralizing over and over. This legislation is yet another attempt to gnaw away at the powers of Quebec and the other provinces. The government is increasingly bent on gaining power, instead of trying to manage taxpayers' money. The Bloc Quebecois will oppose any such attempt to gain power.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak on Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of Natural Resources and related acts.

We do not have any significant problems with the bill at present, so I will use this time to expand on some ideas on natural resource management that our party would like to put forward to help improve this very important aspect of our country.

Canada has a number of resources, both human and natural. Being so large and so rich in so many of these resources, it is critically important that we manage them properly. Our natural resources, including fish, lumber, mining and water, are extensive. Few countries in the world can claim to be as rich as we are in natural resources. In fact the standard of living of all Canadians is intimately associated with these resources.

Natural resources are under siege, as they are in every other country in the world. What we do now is critically important in how these resources survive in the future. I would first like to deal with the latter, our natural resources, and go through some of the specific principles that we need to apply to them to ensure they will survive in the future for coming generations. I would also like to deal with some specific problems, in particular some of the problems affecting where I live in British Columbia.

First and foremost, the most important principle in natural resources is sustainable development. Much damage has already been done by the generations that preceded us and the current generation in dealing with our natural resources.

Everybody hears much about the ozone depletion, about the decrease in biodiversity that has occurred all over the world, from the flora and the fauna, the well known animals and plants now being affected such as the tigers and black rhino to the lesser known plants that are being decimated and wiped off the face of the planet every day.

As an aside, this lack of biodiversity is a huge loss to us as a species. For within that wealth of biodiversity exists a potential for those species that have become extinct that will never be explored, a potential we can use in industry, in medicine to save lives, to help our species and other species on the planet.

Desertification has occurred as a result of the mismanagement of our natural resources. A wide swath is gone all over our world that has rendered arable land into deserts. Land that was once productive now is not and never will be again, at least not in our lifetimes. It will never be able to produce the food stuffs, the agriculture, the homes that the people of the world need and that our burgeoning population will require.

As a country we have been very guilty of deforestation in the past. We have criticized Brazil for its deforestation practices, but we have been as guilty as them. Much has been done over the last few years to undo this, in part because of the loud outcry and the interest of the Canadian people, but also because of special interest and environmental groups that have comes on side to help be watchdogs for what has gone on in our natural resources.

Pollution plays a very important part because various aspects of pollution are decimating areas that we will forever have to live with on land, in lakes, water bodies and in the Arctic. All we need do is talk to the aboriginal people that live in the north to know what horrible things have happened to the pristine areas that once existed in our north.

This is not something that is only specific to our country, but to all of the countries that share the Arctic borders. Pollution is rampant. Foodstuffs are going down and they too are being polluted. It is happening all over. Toxic wastes are being dumped. All these things are occurring now and need to be addressed now for, as I said before, what we do at this moment will forever impart on future generations. Things are not getting better.

Look at the acidification that has been occurring in the Great Lakes. Where I used to live in Ontario, thousands and thousands of beautiful lakes that used to have such an enormous resource of fish are dying. There is a wasteland of lakes in Ontario and in Quebec that has been rendered useless because of the acidification and the dumping of acid rain into these lakes, a profound tragedy, lakes that now it is too late to do anything about.

Perhaps if we address this problem now, in the future we can get a handle on it and prevent this from happening and do things to bring them back to the state that they were once in.

We should also like to address another aspect that is not often discussed in natural resources, that is the burgeoning world population, a population that now stands at 5.7 billion and in a mere 37 years will double to over 10 billion people. It is interesting to note that it has taken the entire history of man to get to our current stage of 5.7 billion but it will only take 37 years to double that.

I ask everybody to consider what will happen to the future of our population and our world when that population doubles. When that happens we will have an increase in the demand on our resources, an increase in the demand on our natural resources, on our environment and on our security. A broadened definition of security, we are now finding, will include our military security, our environmental security and our social security.

These increasing demands on our limited resources will result in conflicts among people, which will result in migration of people from areas that have not to areas that have, which will impact on every country in the world. Do not think because we might live a half a world away that it will not because it certainly will. There are recent historical precedents to support that.

I would like to put forth some constructive solutions that we can all work together to fulfil. First, I support and urge the government to engage in fulfilling transboundary agreements throughout countries over areas such as pollution, in particular with the United States, and with the transboundary agreements that we will need to fulfil with countries bounding the Arctic.

We need common rules on trade and the environment that will enable us to fulfil a rules based free trade agreement that will provide us, a relatively small country, with the powers to fulfil and protect our own environmental areas.

I would also like to see a larger emphasis from our dwindling foreign aid dollar to be put on providing for education and safe, effective birth control measures for all people no matter where they live.

We need to have education for the public for, as members of the House know, 80 per cent of the world's resources are consumed by a mere 20 per cent of the people. Not only must we address what goes on half a world away, but we must look into our own areas, our own spheres of influence to address these problems in our own home. Without doing this we cannot credibly ask other countries to do the same.

We must aggressively market our natural resources in a sustainable fashion. I would suggest that we put an increased emphasis on our value added product.

One of the great accomplishments in recent times of our country has been the ability of our country to negotiate the World Trade Organization, an enormous accomplishment for a country as small as ours. I hope this will improve the links between trade and sustainable development that will occur among a number of countries and we as a country can actually act.

On the World Trade Organization, I hope we can enter into this rules based system. This brings to mind one of the enormous strengths that our country has that we as Canadians tend to downplay.

I have said this before in the House. We are one of the few countries in the world that has the ability in terms of diplomacy, in terms of international respect, to bring countries together, bring them to the table, bring them to negotiate problems before they happen and to engage in discussions and agreements that will help to provide for sustainable development aspects and controls over pollution for a number of countries.

I do not have very much time but I would like to address a couple of aspects that affect in particular the west coast of British Columbia. One is the fisheries department.

We have on the west coast a horrible situation with the widespread decimation of fish which is definitely a sustainable resource, one that has been recently decimated, one that is on the verge of going the way the east coast fishery has tragically gone. I hope our minister of fisheries will accept some of the suggestions we have made and look at some of the solutions that we have put forth.

The problems occurring on the west coast are not merely environmental. There is terrible poaching occurring by all facets of the fishing industry, by commercial fishermen, non-commercial fishermen, sports fishermen, Canadians, Americans, aboriginals and non-aboriginals. All people within these sectors are responsible in part for this terrible decimation.

I would encourage strongly the minister of fisheries to engage in a judicial inquiry to determine once and for all what the root cause is and to root out the terrible things that have occurred in our west coast fishery. We cannot hide our head in the sand any longer to what is occurring.

Within the context of fisheries I know that we are constrained very much by fiscal restraints. I would suggest that the minister streamline the administration of the department of fisheries, there is a study that was done some years ago to this extent, but on the other hand to buttress up the department of fisheries officers who do an incredible job to try to save and help the west coast and east coast fisheries.

Another aspect is the forestry industry. Half of all the money that we actually earn on Vancouver Island comes from forestry. Recently we have come to an agreement that will enable us to have a sustainable west coast industry. I hope we will be able to use the expertise from that to teach other countries what we have learned from our mistakes.

Certainly there are terrible miscalculations and forestry practices that have occurred in the past in British Columbia. I think we are on the way to mending those. I hope in the future we will not lose sight of the recent accomplishments that we have made in this area and that we will be able to go ahead and expand these to not only involve forestry but also to involve the mining industry and other industries.

I would make a few suggestions about the division of natural resources. In these days of fiscal restraint does it not make sense for us to further divide the areas of responsibility? Clearly most of the responsibility lies with the provinces. I would encourage this government to give some of the federal responsibilities to provincial jurisdictions where they truly belong. In this way we could streamline the administration, streamline the responsibilities, decrease the administration and save the taxpayer a great deal of money.

In conclusion, we are faced with a balancing act between the needs and demands of an economy and a people who have to earn a living and must provide for themselves and on the other hand a need to balance the needs of our environment. Without a sustainable resource, without a safe, effective environment for ourselves, for our children and for our grandchildren we will not be in a world that we will want to live in.

I hope we will take these principles and apply sustainable development to our beautiful natural resources so that we and future generations will be able to enjoy them.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the bill which sets up the Department of Natural Resources. It is a very important one. It amalgamates the old Department of Energy Mines and Resources and Forestry Canada. Forestry Canada has been of extreme importance to this nation as a whole since day one of Canadian colonial history. I have said before in the House that the three things that were the economic foundation of pioneer days in Canada and certainly since Confederation were the fisheries, forestry and agriculture. All of them certainly have their challenges in today's world.

Bill C-48, the bill before us today, makes explicit reference to the minister's duty to foster the sustainable development of Canada's energy, mineral and forest resources. This means that the government's economic, social and environmental objectives will be factored into all decisions about resource development management and use.

One way the new department will pursue sustainable development is through the work of its scientific branches. Natural Resources Canada will continue to have vibrant science and technology arms in the form of the Canadian Forest Service, the Geological Survey of Canada, the Canada Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology, and Geomatics Canada.

Much has been said in the House today about the rights of the provinces. We are all very well aware that the provinces have a big say in natural resources. I, coming from Ontario, also know how some of those resources have been managed over the years. It is time for a co-ordinated and sustainable development program in co-operation with both provincial and federal governments.

There are many examples of partnerships between the federal government and the provinces. Great efforts have been made to build a bridge for the two. For instance, the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers from across Canada has recently agreed on a framework for future co-operation in the areas of science and technology, international trade issues, regional development, aboriginal forestry and national co-ordination.

In the energy area the department is working closely with Environment Canada officials, the provinces and other stakeholders to develop a national action program on climate change. This is in keeping with Canada's commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

This commitment follows our international obligation under the convention on climate change which Canada signed at the 1992 earth summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The reason I raise this matter is that in today's world it is not as simple as in past Canadian history to say this little compartment belongs to the provinces, this belongs to the federal government, and so on. With new technology, new demands and our outlook in the global world today we have to have more co-operation and bridge building between federal and provincial governments at home if we are going to compete effectively and efficiently.

Across the country we have several research and development institutions with regard to the forest industry. In my own constituency we have a national forestry institute located near Chalk River. It is called the Petawawa National Forestry Institute because it is actually located on property owned by the Department of National Defence.

It is very important because of the fire research. What is better for sustainable development than to have expertise in fire research out there? How many hectares of property, how many square miles of forest is destroyed every year by forest fires? Therefore the more we know about controlling fire the better it is for sustainable development.

What better program can we have than for example the research and development on the rapid growth of trees that goes on at the Petawawa National Forestry Institute? It has experimental plantations which date back to 1917.

Base Petawawa itself was first set up by the Laurier government in 1905. Twelve years later, what is called Forestry Canada today had its roots-if I may use that term-on 41 square miles of that territory which was purchased by the Government of Canada in 1905 for a military base. The Department of National Defence has honoured the research going on in that 41 square mile area. Research cannot be turned off overnight. Some of the ongoing experiments there are decades old. It is a very important institute.

Other institutes across Canada, in western Canada, Quebec and Atlantic Canada also have a tremendous amount of work going on of a positive nature for the country's forestry industry. I have no problems with the Department of Natural Resources promoting forestry research in Canada. It has always been a federal responsibility in Canada to do part of forestry research. The provinces do part of forestry research. There is no big conflict. They are talking to each other and co-operating. That

is what Canadian federalism and the Canadian national spirit is all about.

Some other very important institutions are attached to the Department of Natural Resources. I want to talk about one of my favourite subjects today. That is Atomic Energy of Canada Limited which reports through the Minister of Natural Resources to the House of Commons.

I was quite concerned one day not too long ago. I was sitting in the House listening to a speaker from across the way talk about the waste and lack of productivity in crown corporations and so on. I was trying to get the floor but time ran out so I am going to say now what I wanted to say then.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is a crown corporation and has been around as a corporation since 1952. It was started by the National Research Council of Canada in about 1945. I will give some very revealing highlights of this crown corporation which has been a success to the country.

Research and development is the force that drives the economy in any nation and I will give some facts. In developing Canada's nuclear energy capability, the federal government has appropriated $4.7 billion to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited since 1952. That is for the last 42 years. After putting $4.7 billion into it, what is our return?

Ernst & Young, a well-known consulting firm, has made a report on that very issue and has come up with this evidence. At least $23 billion was contributed to Canada's gross domestic product by the nuclear industry from 1962 to 1992. Within a 30-year period $23 billion came back into the gross domestic product of this country from an investment by the Canadian taxpayers of $4.7 billion over the 40-year period from 1952 to 1992. If we simply subtract $4.7 billion from $23 billion there is a gross net gain of $18.3 billion for Canada's economy. And someone has the nerve to stand in the House and state that it has been a drain on the Canadian economy.

Let me give another fact. Ontario has a large industrial community. Yes it was hurt by free trade for a while but it is coming back. A rather interesting statistic is that today 60 per cent of the energy supplied for industrial and domestic use in the province of Ontario comes from CANDU reactors. If we did not have them we would have to use more coal.

Because of geography, the coal for the southern Ontario coal burning plants has been imported from the United States. Ontario Hydro estimates that from 1965 to 1989 nuclear energy has saved the Canadian economy approximately $17 billion on foreign exchange. That is because we are not shipping money out of Canada to Pennsylvania and other areas in the United States to buy hard coal for coal powered plants. Think of what the saving is on environmental issues in the province of Ontario alone.

These facts have to be put on the record because there are too many statements made which attack Canadian organizations and other traditions and institutions of the country without having the proper facts to back them up.

In the 1990s foreign exchange savings will amount to approximately $1 billion a year.

We recently sold two reactors to China. That will mean a lot of money to businesses in this country. One thing was not highly emphasized during the recent trade negotiations with China. An important event that happened during the visit of the Prime Minister, the nine premiers and approximately 375 business people to China was the signing of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty between Canada and China.

Once again Canada is leading the way in putting in place those cornerstones of international necessity with this agreement between our two countries. That reminds us of something else. It was Canada that first recognized Red China, as it was then called, and recognized China as an official state. That opened the door for the U.S. to follow. That opened the door for President Nixon's visit to China. That opened the door for some communication which was absolutely necessary during those cold war days. It has fallen upon Canada to bridge the gap between ourselves and China and other nations can follow thereafter.

Direct employment in Canada's nuclear industry in 1992 was estimated at 30,000 jobs. Direct employment increased approximately 9 per cent in a three-year period alone. A minimum of 10,000 jobs in other sectors indirectly depend on the nuclear industry, another contribution. Nuclear energy supplied 15 per cent of the total electricity across the whole of Canada in 1992 which was valued at $3.7 billion.

Private sector companies which supply nuclear products and services had total sales of $9.4 billion between 1988 and 1992. The federal government receives approximately $700 million annually from the nuclear industry in the form of income and sales taxes. Canada's nuclear industry had a trade surplus of approximately $500 million individually in recent years.

Those are some of the facts of the tremendous contribution to economic growth that I wanted to put on the record today.

The problem with research and development in Canada over the years has simply been that people look for a return the morning after investing their money. That cannot be done with R and D.

In the future we have to encourage private enterprise in Canada to do more and more R and D on its own. However government will always have a place in Canadian research and development. Certain areas of development would not take place if they were not started by the government itself. Then private enterprise moves in and there are spinoff industries and a bigger return.

Let me give one more example of something I certainly want members of the House to know. There are 690 hospitals across Canada. I doubt very much if there is a single member in this House who is not affected by the fact that those 690 hospitals are licensed by the Atomic Energy Control Board to receive medical radioisotopes for their hospitals for sterilization for example.

Where do we get medical radioisotopes? From a nuclear reactor. One thing the Tories did badly when they were in power was that they sold the radiochemical part of AECL to the company that eventually became Nordion International. The whole incident has resulted in a dispute between Nordion and Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. A facilitator is trying to put that together today.

Canada controls 88 per cent of the world's market in radioisotopes. The Americans heard that the former president of AECL had cancelled the Maple-X reactor which was in the process of being built. The Americans got into the act and hauled one of their old reactors out of Los Alamos. They tried to build it up so that they could produce medical radioisotopes.

One of the greatest contributions that can be made to Canada today is getting the medical radio isotope dispute settled quickly and getting on with the business of retaining the 88 per cent of world trade in radio isotopes. It has been a great contribution to medicine. A considerable amount of research into cancer and many other medical problems has been done by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

I wish the minister well in the administration of natural resources and those organizations that are attached to her department because the natural resources department means a great deal to the future of the country. We need research and development, new science and technology and a good management system for our natural resources. That means sustainable development.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Grain Transportation.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are presently on third reading of Bill C-48, which will unfortunately end up in the bill being passed as is by the Liberal majority in this House.

Relevant suggestions were made by my colleagues and myself at second reading to bring it more into line with the spirit of the Canadian Constitution, but our efforts have been in vain.

In committee, we tried again to have certain clauses of Bill C-48 changed, so that the leading role of the provinces with respect to natural resources would be recognized. But again, the Liberal majority systematically rejected any proposal along those lines.

Hon. members are well aware by now of all our reasons for not supporting this bill, but it is important to repeat what these are for the benefit of those who are watching the proceedings on television. The public must understand what this debate is really about and why the Bloc Quebecois is against Bill C-48, which is not flawed in its structure, but in its very essence.

On behalf of the people of Quebec, who have elected us to look after their interests, I would like to go over once again the reasons, albeit obvious, why we are asking that the bill, as it stands, be purely and simply withdrawn.

As my hon. colleague from Matapédia-Matane said earlier, anything having to do with natural resources is affected by this bill. The bill does not recognize the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over natural resources and, therefore, is in contravention of Section 92( a ) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which clearly states that mines and forest fall under exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and this was confirmed by the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982.

Such interference maintains redundancy among all natural resources ministries and departments in this country, hence the risk of contradiction, duplication and overlap in many regards.

We must conclude that the federal government's lack of co-operation is not a healthy way to manage this country, because it does not look for ways to eliminate overlap and duplication at the Department of Natural Resources and is unwilling to recognize the provinces' predominance by staying in the background and letting the provinces design their own programs.

The issue of mining and the environment is a good example. Contrary to common sense, the federal government is set to proclaim the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and will soon table amendments to this 1992 act. It wants to create a Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to replace the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office.

As usual, this environmental bill is not bad per se, but not bringing it into line with the various provincial programs will cause often unjustified delays because it will be cumbersome to

deal with two administrations instead of one. The only acceptable administration is that of the province concerned.

In this regard, the mining industry is very worried about possible delays in processing mining licence applications. Decisions already take too long-often more than one year-and jeopardize projects because of the amounts involved that must be frozen over long periods of time, thus reducing profitability.

For example, the Grevet mining project in my riding, which involves potential investments exceeding $100 million, was put in great jeopardy by the wait for the mining licence, in particular for the environmental permit. This example shows that Bill C-48, by failing to recognize provincial predominance, opens the door to interference that could seriously harm the industry, thus endangering jobs we all need.

The federal government knows that the provinces have long had their own natural resources strategies. The provinces already carry out environmental assessments of projects, and the process that the federal government wants to put in place will increase overlap and duplication. The federal government refuses to recognize the provinces' legitimate rights; its assessment and review process is outrageous. It will cost everyone very dearly and will continue to do so if we do not find ways to have a "single window" where industry will be able to obtain information and where the projects will be accepted in as little time as possible.

Unfortunately for the industry, which wants to be efficient and profitable, the federal government has new requirements. It wants new regulations. It wants more projects to be subject to a thorough review. Clearly, this means a waste of time and money, confusion and long delays in approving and implementing these projects.

As an aside, I would like to give a specific example of the slowness of government bureaucracy, in particular in the Department of National Health and Welfare, to which I wrote on May 24, 1994 on behalf of several of my constituents; I received a reply only on October 27, 1994. If it took five months for a department to answer something relatively simple, Mr. Speaker, imagine the delays that more complex issues, like environmental assessments, will involve.

In the present economic environment, we must streamline, and Bill C-48 would have been a good chance to do that. Increasing the number of structures and the amount of duplication must stop before it is too late. In our work on the parliamentary committee studying Bill C-48, we could with simple amendments have made several clauses reflect the provinces' primary jurisdiction over their natural resources.

For example, in clause 5 on the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Natural Resources, it would have been enough to say that these powers, duties and functions are subject to the principle of provincial predominance in the field of natural resources. This would not have reduced the powers, duties and functions of the minister, but it would have reasonably put them in relation to provincial priorities.

As regards clause 7, the Bloc Quebecois wanted an annual report to be tabled by the minister, so as to make her department accountable for its mandate and objectives. In his most recent report tabled yesterday, the Auditor General of Canada states clearly, on page 8 of the booklet on main points: "7.1 Two years ago we called for government to reform its departmental reporting to be more transparent. We suggested that Parliament should expect and receive a regular accounting for the exercise of the entire business of government: in a phrase, global stewardship. This year, we continue this theme of transparency by following up on our 1992 Report, and extend it to the sectoral activities of government".

"7.4 We believe that there should be better sectoral reporting. This means that when a sectoral activity is identified, one department has to be given the lead responsibility to provide a summary-level report to Parliament for the entire sector".

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that we did not ask for an extensive report: we simply wanted an internal report on the quality of services.

Here is one last excerpt from the Auditor General's report: "7.5 But in the end, reporting of any kind will not change soon unless Parliament is explicit in letting government know that current reporting is inadequate and that it wants it changed". The Auditor General's report seems to confirm that it was not such a bad idea to ask that Bill C-48 be amended so that a clear and concise report be submitted at least once a year.

It was certainly legitimate to table this amendment so that parliamentarians and Canadians could monitor the usefulness and the efficiency of the programs developed by the Department of Natural Resources.

As regards clause 27 of Bill C-48, we wanted the minister to have the authority to enter into agreements only with the provinces and not with any person or body of her choice, since only the provinces can define their policy on natural resources. Clearly, overlapping and duplication could resurface if, for some reason, the minister decided to promote a specific policy.

Finally, clause 35 of Bill C-48 not only suggests overlapping and duplication but also federal interference in a field of provincial jurisdiction, as stated in the Canadian Constitution.

Indeed, through clause 35, the minister is giving herself the power to enter into agreements with any person or body in a province, without that province having any say. As I mentioned earlier, the issue is not the quality of the federal government's action. The member who spoke just before me noted that it is sometimes necessary to have a national policy as, for example, in the case of nuclear energy. No province has a concrete

nuclear energy policy, although many provinces have policies in terms of forestry and mining.

The issue here is not to control the quality of federal measures, but to ensure that the federal government acts within its jurisdiction and respects the agreements and policies elaborated by the provinces.

In fact, Quebec has never signed the National Forest Strategy nor the Whitehorse Work Group Agreement concerning the mining industry. Quebec wants the federal government to recognize the predominance of provinces in the area of natural resources before signing any document appointing the federal government as the national director whose decisions provinces would have to follow in order to get tax money.

This is why Quebec wants the right to opt out, that is to withdraw from a federal program with full financial compensation.

Given the financial crisis we are going through, we are entitled to ask politicians and legislators to focus on efficiency. It is possible.

Right now, all the members sitting on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources are examining briefs concerning the mining industry which were submitted by witnesses from various provincial governments and the industry. Their goal is to prepare the most accurate report possible on the tools needed to promote the mining industry and job creation in this area. This type of co-operation is a credit to the members. Efficiency could have been the main concern during the drafting of Bill C-48, as in the case of any other bill.

In concluding, I would like to mention the position of the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources, presented by Mr. Jacques Robitaille at the annual meeting of the Canadian Council of Forestry Ministers on October 4 and 5, 1994, and I quote:

Regarding the main point on the agenda, Quebec's position is as follows: We will not be a party to preparing and ratifying a framework agreement whose purpose would be to assign a role to the federal government in an area over which the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction.

Both Constitution Acts are perfectly clear on the forestry sector, in that management of forest resources is the exclusive jurisdiction of the legislatures of the provinces. In this context, we could not consider approving any intervention in this sector by the federal government.

Furthermore, as far as financing is concerned, Quebec favours bilateral agreements that identify funding procedures for programs based on the priorities of the provinces and administered and delivered by the provinces.

This position is clear and ought to be reflected in the spirit of Bill C-48. Considering that the principle of provincial priorities is not reflected in Bill C-48, we will vote against the bill.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Bill C-48, a bill on natural resources. This is particularly important to my constituency of Kootenay East because many of its people are directly employed in the resource industry.

I would like to speak briefly about mining and about forestry. In my constituency I have Canada's largest operating mine. In 1991 over 5,200 British Columbians were employed directly by the coal industry. These jobs represent 12,500 jobs in the service sector. As a matter of fact, over 15,000 workers in the transportation and service sectors rely on the coal industry for their livelihoods.

My constituency office is in the town of Cranbrook and is as directly related to that as is the Elk Valley. The House should also recognize that coal accounts fully for 20 per cent of all rail traffic in Canada. Therefore coal is a very important issue to Canada and to our natural resources.

One of the difficulties I have had in coming to Ottawa, indeed in coming to the House, is that there is very frequently the impression left that natural resources somehow are a sunset industry, that is that industries related to natural resources are somehow in sunset and that the information highway is going to carry us off into the future.

Truly we do have to be working on the high tech side of our economy but as I see it we continue to be in Canada, whether we want to be or not, very dependent on natural resources. In 1991 B.C. coal producers exported 22 million tonnes of metallurgical coal and 2.8 million tonnes of thermal coal. These sales were worth $1.6 billion. That is a lot of money. When I combine that together with the international sales of forestry of $22 billion, we get an idea of the importance of natural resources.

The problem particularly in the case of the mining industry is that the multilevel of Canadian governments is basically taxing the business out of existence in Canada. Between 1987 and 1991 the B.C. coal producers combined earned only $8 million, but they were taxed $454 million. Let me repeat that because I think it is very significant. Combined over a five-year period the B.C. coal producers earned only $8 million but in the same period of time paid taxes of $454 million. For every $1 of profit these producers were taxed $57.

Since 1991 tax increases in B.C. have added $12 million to $15 million a year to the coal producers' costs. The B.C. coal industry is facing a grim future. The choice is between coal output and reducing employment. Unfortunately for the workers in the Elk Valley they are too familiar with the choices that are

currently having to be made. The cost of increased production is unmanageable. The only choice in order to remain solvent is to reduce jobs.

In 1992 two of the coal mines in my constituency closed, causing the loss of 1,900 jobs in an area with a population of approximately 10,000. We can see the significance of this. Although the mines have reopened, they now only employ half the original number of employees. The House should also also be aware of the fact that human resources development currently has decided to go against a ruling by Revenue Canada and is going after registered retirement pension funds of the former employees in an attempt to regain overpayments of UI.

I am currently fighting that on behalf of the workers in the area. We get an idea of how far we have gone. Some of these people are losing their homes and the government, right now with two departments in conflict with each other, is going after these people's registered pension funds. I find that absolutely, totally unacceptable.

Back to the issue at hand, the Canadian mining industry is already taxed higher than any of its international counterparts and because of the larger tax burden Canadian coal has become less competitive in international markets. The fact is that international prices have plunged 35 per cent in metallurgical coal and thermal coal has plunged 20 per cent since 1987. Yet what has happened to taxes? We know what has happened to taxes. They have increased.

Another problem for the coal miners in my area is that mineral minimum taxes are more than three times higher for coal mines and hard rock mines in British Columbia. Property taxes are more than three times higher for coal industry than residential rates.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Tory times were hard times.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

If Tory times were hard times it would be very advantageous if the Liberals would learn from the hard times of the Tories and do something about the situation in my constituency. The simplest way to describe taxes is confiscation of capital, confiscation of the capital required by the companies to be able to do the job.

When the GST was introduced it was sold to industries as a tax that would benefit the export industry because it removed hidden taxes. The $100,000 of federal sales taxes the GST removed from the average mine was overshadowed by $600,000 to $1 million created in fuel taxes. Coal producers paid $4.4 million in federal fuel taxes and another $5.4 million in provincial taxes.

Furthermore, to move the coal from the coalfield in the southeast corner of British Columbia to port, those fuel taxes are yet another factor that puts them at a severe disadvantage to other producers around the world.

It was interesting that the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke was referring to the fact that the thermal plants operated by Ontario Hydro are powered by coal imported from the U.S. He said it very well. What this basically means is that the coal miners, the workers in Canada, do not have the jobs. Furthermore the coal imported from Kentucky has a significantly higher sulphur content than the coal that is currently available in my constituency.

Why are we not using a more benign coal, the B.C. coal, at Ontario Hydro? Why are we not employing the people in British Columbia to mine and refine the coal and deliver it to Ontario Hydro? Why are we sending the dollars to the United States? It is because taxes cost jobs. The taxes on the transportation of the coal from the southeast corner of British Columbia to Ontario means that we use a dirtier coal, coal from Kentucky, we send them our money and we let their workers work. Taxes cost jobs.

The country was founded on its abundance of natural resources. Our rich mineral deposits have sustained the quality of life which Canadians have become accustomed to. We only need to take a look at what has happened in the fishing industry, particularly on the east coast and now under the current minister of fisheries. I should call him the oceans minister. We are coming to much the same kind of situation on the west coast. The difference is that due to the mismanagement by the department of Canadian oceans we have lost our resources. In the case of the west coast due to the continuing mismanagement our resources are under threat.

The difference is that in this case, in mining, the resources are still available but the mining is being taxed out of existence rather than the resources going away. We need to make sure that we have the ability to continue to draw on this resource. The mineral resources in British Columbia, the current proven mineral resources, show us that at the current rate of production there is another 500 years of production available.

The European governments provide $14.8 billion U.S. in subsidies to their domestic coal producers. I am not suggesting that we should subsidize our coal producers but I am saying that we must stop taxing the life out of Canadian mines.

We are going right at the moment into the abyss of a chasm that we require a rail bridge across. When we put that rail bridge across the chasm in the mountains we then say that is a property improvement. As a result the regional districts along the way between the coal mines and port end up actually charging

municipal taxes on the bridges, on the rail line, in the mountains going across the chasm.

What is going on in Canada at the moment is that we are taxing our mines, taxing our natural resources at such a rate that we are going to put them out of production.

The government saw firsthand how a reduction of cigarette tax created a greater volume of revenue through the increase in consumption. If we were to take a hard look at what we are doing in terms of taxes on our coal mines, on our mineral producers, on our natural resource producers, we would see that by lowering the taxes they would be able to increase demand.

Our party is in an interesting position because on one side of the coin, particularly with respect to Bill C-48, we are saying that the Department of Natural Resources must be downsized at the federal level. There must be more power to be able to regulate at the provincial level. We must see a decrease in expenditures at the federal level and we must see a decrease in control.

That is our position. However I must relate to the House that there is an interesting situation in the province of British Columbia where there is an NDP government. It seems to have some kind of an idea that it can do things completely out of context to what world demands are. It has come forward with a study called "The Committee on Resources and Environment", CORE. Under CORE there have been studies. There has been input from a tremendous number of people. It has come back with a report that supposedly has a very broad base. I see more regulation, not only taxes.

It is not just me. I will read very briefly from a couple of news reports. Cranbrook city council will oppose implementation of the east Kootenay CORE report recommendation. In unveiling the report Owen, the person responsible for putting the report together, said east Kootenay CORE table members can take pride in the fact they put it together. This has been an ongoing process for about 18 months. That did not sit well with councillors Ron Tarr and Jim Kenelly. "It was not a made in the Kootenay report", Tarr said. "It was a Stephen Owen report", said Kenelly.

In speaking to the people who took the time, and they took a lot of time to get into the consultation process, I am told that the CORE report simply does not reflect what was agreed to at the table. The regional district of east Kootenay on Friday passed a resolution asking the provincial government to delay adoption of the CORE report until it heard from area municipalities. The east Kootenay district said it had grave concerns about the plan.

Lest we think it is just the politicians who are getting into the act here, the workers at Crestbrook Forest Industries Cranbrook sawmill have joined the list of those opposing Stephen Owen's east Kootenay land use report. Scott Manjack said CFI management has had its say and now it is their turn. The workers may agree with company officials but feel they should have a voice as well. In this instance we are on the same side, which is not always the case.

We would not normally expect the workers on the green chain or the workers who are on the tools to necessarily be in tune with the company. Then we hear from a person who is actually in the office with the staff. There is a grassroots opposition group forming to fight the east Kootenay CORE report. Members fear it could ruin the industry. "We are little concerned about its economic implications", said Kay Eff, "no we are a lot concerned". Eff is a member of the Canadian Women and Timber Organization and an employee of Crestbrook Forest Industries. She said: "This is not about my employer; it is about our economic future here".

Finally, we look again at the mining side. The CORE report recommends increasing protected areas where resource extraction is excluded from 13.1 per cent to 16 per cent. Coal bearing crown lands in the east Kootenay represent approximately 4 per cent of the area and yet coal mining is the single largest contributor to economic wealth. Coal lands designated as dedicated represent only 35 per cent of the total area of coal bearing lands, excluding private lands.

The difficulty with this report and the reason I bring it to the attention of the House is that even when we talk about the potential of downloading some of the responsibility, the people, our constituents, whether they are voting at the regional district level, at the municipal level, at the provincial level, or at the federal level, must make their representatives accountable. The representatives must be responsible in the recommendations they bring forward.

I had an opportunity a number of months ago to make a trip on the west coast with some members of the European Union. They came over to take a look at our clear cutting. I found it quite fascinating that as we were travelling north from Nanaimo to Port Alberni they were looking out the window trying to figure out what these tall things were beside the road. Of course they were 90-foot trees. They were a little bit nonplussed. They really did not know what it was they were looking at because a map that had been provided to them in Europe by the Sierra Club showed it as a desert.

The legend of the map said that this area had been logged, was going to be logged, or was actually out of production. Yes, it had been logged. It had been logged 40 years ago and now we have 90-foot trees beside the road. They were wondering what was going on.

As a direct result of that trip the natural resources committee undertook a study on clear cut logging. The committee made a couple of recommendations and this comes from the report back to the House from the natural resources minister: "Canada believes that internationally agreed rules would help all nations in their efforts to move toward sustainable forest management. Canada through the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers and in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders has begun a

process to define criteria and indicators that will be a scientific and technical basis for measuring our progress toward our goal of sustainable forest management.

In addition, Canada is actively participating in an international process to define criteria and indicators for temperate and boreal forests. During the past year Canada has cohosted with Malaysia the intergovernmental working group on forests to help determine the future path for international sustainable forest management. This will contribute to the work of the United Nations Commission for Sustainable Development as it reviews progress toward the goals agreed to at the UNCED".

I absolutely recognize, contrary to my friend in the Bloc, that there is a place for a Canadian natural resources department, particularly as it relates to international trade and international issues.

In the area of communication, the recommendation from our clear cut committee was that the federal government, in conjunction with the provinces and territories, industry, environmentalists, and other stakeholders, strive to consolidate the communication strategies currently employed in international markets into a single and effective campaign to promote Canada's forest management practices abroad.

The response by the minister was supportive of that. Her department says the Government of Canada agrees with this recommendation and recognizes that foreign customers, retailers, and nations are seeking assurances that the forest products they purchase originate from sustainably managed forests.

With 50 per cent of Canada's forest products being exported, the economic health-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member's time has expired.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question. In the interest of time, brevity is important.

I listened to the hon. member's speech with a great deal of interest. He spent 20 minutes on a wide range of subjects, some of which I am quite grateful for the interventions that the member made. I understand he supports the bill just as I do, but I did not hear anything in his speech about why he supports the bill. I wonder if he might briefly give us some indication why the legislation in front of us-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Kootenay East.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize because unfortunately I did not see any signal from the Speaker so I did go over the time. My apologies.

In response to the member, the main reason I support the bill is because I believe, in terms of the consolidation of the departments and the way in which the bill has been put together, it will create efficiencies.

My major concern however is that we make sure the Department of Natural Resources at the federal level does not encroach on other levels of government. As a matter of fact we should be looking to efforts, as I have suggested, to divest the natural resources department at the federal level of some of its control and give it to the provinces.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-48, a bill that reorganizes the Department of Natural Resources.

The issue of natural resources is very important to my constituents in Kindersley-Lloydminster. Primary industries form almost the entire economy of west central Saskatchewan and are affected by this department or by the department of agriculture. Agriculture is also a natural resource.

Within my riding there are two potash mines, the Cory mine near Delisle and the Cominco mine near Vanscoy. There are also two Domtar salt mines, one near Biggar and the other at Unity. I have a vibrant oil and gas industry within my constituency, as well as the controversial government megaproject, the heavy oil upgrader at Lloydminster. The majority of my constituency is involved in the greatest natural resource of all, agriculture.

I have included agriculture as a natural resource even though it is traditionally thought of as separate from the other primary industries and perhaps is not affected by Bill C-48. It is appropriate in today's tough fiscal climate to reconsider the role of government in the lives of those working in primary industries. After all, this sector is the primary stimulus of all other economic activities.

Currently Canada's primary industries are divided into three categories by the federal government. There is agriculture and agri-food, fisheries and oceans, and then mining, forestry, oil and gas, atomic energy and other energy sources grouped together in the Ministry of Natural Resources. As the direct role of government in these industries decreases it may be time to consider an administrative merger of these departments.

It is worth while to consider that most of the provinces also have these three departments. Once we can agree which of these responsibilities are federal and which fall within provincial jurisdiction it will be easier to avoid duplication of effort. This will lead to less bureaucracy and may facilitate a merger of the federal ministries at considerable savings for Canadians.

I do not want to give the impression that it is the policy of my party that these three ministries be immediately merged. I am merely suggesting that the current division between Canada's primary industries are somewhat arbitrary. On examination it may prove optimal to merge two or three of these departments.

Currently the federal government seems to have its priorities reversed when it comes to funding our primary industries. The Lloydminster upgrader in my riding is a good example. Within the oil and gas industry the federal government concentrates its efforts on subsidizing the most expensive oil to produce like the heavy oil upgrader, the Alberta tar sands and the Hibernia project. The conventional oil and gas industry is then taxed more heavily to provide the money to subsidize the otherwise non-viable enterprises.

If governments would avoid the megaproject boondoggles and reduce the tax burden on the smaller companies that are making a go of it on their own the industry would blossom and flourish. We would find that both productivity and employment within the industry would increase. The government would discover that the industry would employ more people than the megaproject would employ in any case.

Those real jobs within the industry are more likely to be permanent jobs than the jobs created by government subsidy where megaprojects lose money or perhaps even collapse. The same is true throughout Canada's primary industries. The conventional industry, which provides most of the jobs and job growth, is heavily taxed in order to subsidize government megaprojects.

Being a farmer I am familiar with agriculture but the past year has given me the opportunity to become familiar with other primary industries within my riding. Earlier this spring I toured the heavy oil upgrader. I was impressed with its operation but on my tours through my constituency, I was even more impressed with the level of ingenuity and diversity of the people who are proving that large scale government intervention is not required to make industry work.

The renewal of the agriculture industry and the strength of the oil and gas sector has happened, some would say, despite the best efforts of the federal government.

The infamous national energy program of a previous Liberal administration is an example of Liberal gouging that still haunts the energy industry. The industry will not stand for another form of carbon tax no matter how the government chooses to disguise it. Instead of presenting these reorganization bills such as Bill C-48, why does the government not assure us that there will be no raping of the energy industry via taxation or via regulation?

The reason I mention all these activities in my constituency is to demonstrate that large scale government intervention is neither necessary nor is it wanted. If farmers, foresters, fishers, and oil men and women are left to run and develop their own industries then more economic activity will result. Not only does the government activity in these areas not lead to a rejuvenation of the economy, but it is largely counterproductive.

These megaprojects create an artificial competition which, when combined with the higher taxes needed to support government enterprises, stifles the growth and productivity that would naturally occur.

Bill C-48 is yet another housekeeping bill brought in by the Liberal government. For the most part, it merely amalgamates the old Department of Forestry with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I support the principle of consolidating government departments but it seems to me that when the government is reorganizing departments it makes sense to rethink its whole involvement.

What better time is there to seriously re-evaluate the role of the government in the area of natural resources? What better time to do this than in the first year or two of a new Liberal administration? Unfortunately what we have is an old bill reintroduced into the House with a few new brush strokes and no new imagination or input.

Rather than conduct a long overdue and in depth evaluation of the role of government, the Liberals would rather do nothing and just pass the legislation prepared by the previous government.

I support the small step the bill takes in reorganizing the government bureaucracy but I do not feel that the bill will improve the plight of the industry at all. There is still a long way to go. I am looking forward to the day when the government introduces some serious legislation in the area of primary industries.

The current model of government involvement does not reflect the reality that exists today outside the Ottawa bubble. The massive amount of bureaucracy and administration supporting the megaprojects is outdated and hurting the rest of the industry. The administrative overlap and high costs have to be cut. The natural resources industry is too valuable to the Canadian economy to be regulated to death.

In closing I will repeat my support for the principle of the bill. I look forward to the day when the House can consider some legislation with a little more meat in it.