Debates of Nov. 9th, 1995

Department Of Human Resources Development Act

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

I guess that is what they are looking for. They can go into the next election and say: "This is what we wanted to do for those first five years and we are really going to do it in the second five years". That is unacceptable.

Well done is better than well said. The government should think about that. All it is doing is talking. Meanwhile people are waiting. Maybe it is just not all talk. Maybe there are some things the government has done.

Since being elected it has overspent in the last two years $80 billion plus. Congratulations. Add the interest on top and the figure is close to putting $100 billion more debt on the backs of our children. The Liberal members sit there sanctimoniously talking about how well they are doing.

People listening to this have to be really disgusted with this kind of talk about how they are empowered, how they have done things, how they are doing things. What they have done is put us deeper in debt.

When I talk about the social programs, the question has to be asked: How is the government going to address social programs when it is blowing the budget every year and adding more debt? The fact is that the premiums have to go up and the benefits have to come down. If the government keeps spending and spending into oblivion it is going to cost big time. Government members sit there spouting this rhetoric, like they are going to do something. They have done something all right.

Let us talk about the member who has just finished speaking. "Canada works. Canadians feel that Canada works". As I recall, during the last election campaign, I said that Canada was not working very well. The people said: "Yes, we agree with you. Canada is not working very well". Where does Canada work? Where Liberals sit, where their Liberal ridings are, is that where Canada works? It does not work in my riding.

Let us make a comment on this statement. The Liberals have a straightforward goal. They are talking about a vision and a new economy. Yes, they are creating a new economy. Congratulations. We are back to the $80 billion over two years again. They are creating a new economy all right. We are going down hill fast. If they had anything serious to do with the economy they would not set ridiculous financial targets like having a deficit which is 3 per cent of the gross domestic product after three years.

What the Liberals are really saying is after three years we will be overspending every year by $26 billion. What kind of logic is that in a day and age when we have $565 billion of debt? What kind of responsibility is that of a majority government to the young kids in this country?

I have another comment and then I will get on to what I really wanted to talk about. I just have to address these things sometimes.

The comment was made that 500,000 jobs have been created. Where do we get this figure of 500,000 jobs from? Where does this number come from? I followed up on one of these comments that was made in Atlantic Canada where the government had said it had created 40,000 jobs in ACOA. As it happens the challenge was put out to prove it.

The government backed off and said: "We say it is 40,000 jobs, we know". Show us how. How did the government figure that out. With a survey of a half dozen or so companies extrapolated came out to 40,000 people if this and this and this happened. It is hogwash. When the government throws out numbers like 500,000 new jobs it is hogwash. It cannot prove it.

In fact the government talked about 100,000 jobs in infrastructure. It only cost us $6 billion, and if there are 100,000 jobs, most of them are temporary. Who is going to pick up the bill for $6 billion? Congratulations. To get their names on the stats for the unemployed they have spent $6 billion of the taxpayers' money. I would not pat myself on the back if I were a Liberal. I would be ashamed.

Now I am going to say what I really wanted to say. This bill transfers powers from the former ministry of employment and immigration. I guess it is necessary to transfer the powers. The Liberals took over from the Conservatives. There is going to be a name change, move people around and that sort of thing. However, let us look at the job they have done.

After 30 years of big government, both Liberal and Conservative, we have ended up with less security instead of more because they mortgaged our future. There is less security today than there was before in the social programs. Now the Liberals come into the House and say they have a real novel idea. They are going to fix it. That is novel, after 30 years of being at the trough.

Pensions by and large are unfunded today.

[An hon. member]

Not theirs.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Well, except the MPs pension. They are all on that. If they will protect and pension it is that one. Fully 1 per cent of our population is waiting for significant surgery. Tuition is rising and literacy is falling. These are not negative comments; this is reality. I caution Liberal members to

stop coming into this House and putting platitudes to the Speaker expecting people to buy them. They do not.

Is my time running out? I knew this would happen. I cannot even give a good lesson to these people without running out of time.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

They would not learn anyway.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Have I got a minute? Rats. I am out of time.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my Reform colleagues and I were elected on a platform of real change. It was change that would revolutionize the power and prosperity of Confederation, change that would put an end to the burden of constitutional wrangling which has plagued this land for generations, change that would release Canadians from the oppressive weight of deficit spending. These sentiments were echoed all across the country, particularly as we led up to the referendum on October 30. Canadians are not happy with the way their government operates and they want it fixed no matter where they are in Canada.

Today we are addressing Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development. One would hope that a responsible government would listen to the wants of the electorate and do everything in its power to accommodate them. However, this bill perpetuates the centralized grip that Ottawa maintains on programs which would be administered much more effectively at the local level.

Each province and region in Canada is distinctly different from the other. Demographically speaking, there are more differences between the provinces than there are similarities. Each province has identifiable characteristics which are unique to its own situation. These differences supersede language, culture and self-determination demanding economic prosperity through natural resources, employment, education, training, social services and housing. The Ottawa bureaucracy has historically implemented a unilateral blanket of policies which falls short of fulfilling the individual needs of the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, if you were going to purchase a helmet, would you purchase a generic helmet or would you purchase a helmet that was customized to your size and function? You would not purchase a cycling helmet to play hockey. Why? Because it is not suitable. While a cycling helmet is quite effective for cycling, it is not effective in protecting your health and livelihood even if you are a referee in a hockey game.

The same can be said for human resources development programs. It is imperative that social programs meet the specialized needs of a given province or municipality. Who better to determine that criterion than the province itself or the people in the communities?

This bill pays lip service to decentralization. For example, clause 20 of the bill gives the minister the power to enter into negotiations with groups, including provinces and municipalities, for the administration of services under the Department of Human Resources Development. Although in theory this practice can be seen as a movement toward privatization, in reality it continues to exist unchanged as a centralized body subject to the exclusive decision making practices of the minister. It is lip service.

The parliamentary secretary for HRD earlier in debate said that the federal government works as a partner. The minister is the decision maker for that partner. It is that partner which has removed $7 billion from this social envelope to which I say, with friends like this, who needs enemies?

Since the time of Confederation the federal government scribed, debated and implemented laws which were perceived to be in the best interests of the nation. Over the past 128 years Canada has emerged as a nation comprised of diverse communities to which the archaic macro political practices of the past no longer apply.

Canada needs legislation which is flexible enough to accommodate Canadians from Corner Brook to Cranbrook and everywhere in between. It is time to end the centralized purse string control which Ottawa has over the Canadian taxpayer and over the functions that are covered by this act.

Tax dollars are squandered in order to sustain the massive national central bureaucracy which is not in touch with the needs and wants of Canadians in Corner Brook and Cranbrook. The constituents in my riding, like all other ridings across this great land, pay taxes for essential services. Let us look at this sum as though it were just one dollar.

That dollar is sent to Ottawa where the cost of the massive bureaucracy does little more than deplete the amount of that tax dollar. By the time it is sent to the province through transfer payments, that dollar probably is worth about 80 cents. A similar vacuous process takes place at the provincial level where duplication of bureaucratic intervention does little else than spend tax dollars without cause or consequence, the resulting factor being that the original tax dollar collected from Joe Public is returned to the community as only 60 cents. This is one of the many reasons our country is in such a sorry financial state.

There are considerable benefits to downloading the collection and implementation of essential service taxes from the federal level to the local level. Look at the simplification of collecting, administering and dispensing benefits and essential services at the

level at which the services are received rather than meddling at the federal level.

The most obvious advantage is the omission of expensive and extraneous bureaucratic intervention. The administration of taxes at a local level would ensure the transparency and accountability that Canadians have come to demand from their public institutions. Closed door deals and political patronage are not welcome.

This bill proposes there is room for the commercialization or privatization of these services by allowing the minister or his appointed representatives to enter into negotiations with the provinces and other parties. But surprise, surprise, the final decision will be at the discretion of the minister, not the public. This is a problem because the minister receives advice from the federal bureaucracy interested in its own self-preservation.

Reform is calling for the decentralization of federal powers in these areas. Decentralization means that the provinces, regions and municipalities decide based on their own needs when, why and especially how the funds are to be administered. Downloading gives Canadians a higher return on their tax investment while empowering them to be able to decide how their tax dollars are going to be spent.

This concept is obviously scary to the establishment. Traditional federal institutions will be quite opposed to relinquishing any power. So too is the federal Liberal government whose mandate is based on the inflexible centralized power which has existed since Confederation.

Bill C-96 does nothing to remedy the problems which are evident to everyone except this Liberal government. Canadians are calling for real change, not minuscule housekeeping activities.

Bill C-96 as I have stated, continues centralization in spite of the cosmetics. There is a lot of lip service in the bill to the idea of decentralization and changing where the decisions are going to be made.

Reform by contrast offers protection to pensioners for OAS and for CPP which is completely unfunded and which will run out of funds within a very specified period of time. Reform looks to decentralization and the efficiencies that would occur from that decentralization putting power back in the hands of Canadians where it should be. This government continues to tell the lie that the government will do it. Its spending habits are such that the government can no longer be counted on to do it.

The country at this point is in a unique position to make changes. Canadians are demanding change, but more important, Canadians are demanding change now. Vacuous housekeeping bills like this one do absolutely nothing to give the change Canadians are asking for.

Canadians want a decentralized power structure which empowers citizens, not politicians. Canadians do not want Bill C-96 and neither does the Reform Party. We saw Canadians come together in strength in Montreal. We saw an outpouring of healthy Canadian nationalism. What they did not want was status quo legislation like Bill C-96.

Canadians are looking for leadership. I say to the Liberals: You can lead or you can follow, but if you are not going to lead, get out of the way.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech.

With respect, I must say his message is somewhat convoluted. On one hand he says that this is a housekeeping bill. He referred to it as status quo legislation and then talked about the Liberals trying to centralize power with the bill. Now, if the bill does not do anything, as the member suggested, how could it further centralize power? There is something there that whoever wrote that speech should try to straighten out. There is an obvious contradiction.

Let us assume for one minute that the member was confused about the bill being housekeeping and status quo legislation and it is about centralizing power which he talked about initially. The member is going to have to answer another question. If the Liberals want to centralize power, as they have traditionally wanted to do according to the member-which of course is factually incorrect as we all know, those of us who are objective like you, Mr. Speaker, being the independent person you are in the House you will understand this-then surely we have not done a very good job of centralizing.

We live in what is either the most decentralized federation or second most, depending on those who consider Switzerland to be more decentralized than Canada or Canada more decentralized than Switzerland. If we have centralized all that much and it is still the least centralized country in the world, it seems to me we have not done a very good job of centralizing.

Would the member explain these contradictions in his speech because with respect, I believe they do not make a heck of a lot of sense. We cannot have centralized all these things and still end up with a country that is very decentralized.

The member also talked about the finances of the nation which he says we have not sufficiently addressed. Perhaps the member is reading from material that was prepared some time ago. Surely, he would know that no less than the people at Fortune magazine, which is a rather prestigious publication, recently said that Canada was now a good place to invest because it had finally addressed the issue of the deficit and was progressing to clean its fiscal house and put things in order. That is another contradiction. Maybe the

member can explain to us why he believes all these things that are different from reality.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer those questions. As the member will probably recall, today we will be going to the world money markets to borrow $100 million. What is it for? Is it for human resource development or medicare? No, we are going to the world markets today to borrow $100 million to pay the interest on the money we have already borrowed. If that is not bogus I do not know what in the world is.

The reality is that while the member may be correct, and I am prepared to accept what he has said about Fortune magazine's saying this is a good place to invest, and truly in Canada with the resources and the people we have it is a good place to invest, but I remind him the bond rating agencies have downgraded the Canadian/U.S. denominated debt and we have been put on watch on our Canada bonds.

If we are in such good shape, I wonder if they too are concerned, as we are, about the fact that today we will borrow $100 million to pay interest on money we have already borrowed.

Dealing with the issues the member raised I find, as my leader has from time to time, that perhaps if we speak a little slower and perhaps get to smaller words sometimes we can manage to get our message to the people on the other side.

I was talking about the fact that this bill is a continuation of the process of the centralization we have had in Ottawa since 1968, since the time of Trudeau, when the giant sucking noise Canadians heard was all of the money, all of the power, all of the decision making being drawn into Ottawa. This bill does absolutely nothing to change that situation. It is the continuation of the centralized decision making process.

I say to the member who, after all, has a responsibility to the affairs of the House, the House has continued since we reconvened in the middle of September to do nothing but housekeeping things. Rather than coming forward with this kind of a bill, why are we not getting the reports that have been promised from HRD on UI, on pension? Why are we not getting those things? I suggest it is because the government is devoid of any ability to bring us those things.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud today to have this opportunity to speak in the House of Commons, this impressive forum of democracy, to support the Minister of Human Resources Development and his parliamentary secretary here on my left, on Bill C-96.

The purpose of this bill is basically to establish and give a clear mandate to a department that, as we know, is fundamentally important to Canadian society and plays an equally important role in the daily lives of our citizens, not only in Quebec but in Canada as well.

In fact, Bill C-96 ensures that the minister and his team can continue to help people in need, both in Quebec and the rest of Canada, and in all the regions, whether we are talking about the Gaspé or Abitibi-Témiscamingue. In fact, it is a tool that allows the federal government to intervene in an intelligent way to provide assistance where needed.

It makes me really sad to see that, even when we are discussing an issue as important as the reform of the human resources department, the official opposition cannot refrain from playing pure party politics.

During the referendum campaign just concluded, we heard all sorts of statements which completely distorted the facts and which, in my opinion, were nothing but an insult to people's intelligence.

Earlier, the member for Lévis concluded his speech by saying something which the official opposition keeps repeating all the time. Alluding to comments presumably made in this House, he said something about facing the music. It is unfortunate for Canadians that the official opposition cannot set aside its partisan attitude and stop trying to distort the facts and the statements made in this democratic place.

I am not surprised to hear members of the official opposition say that the ultimate purpose of Bill C-96 is to make sure that the federal government continues to interfere in fields of provincial jurisdiction. I am not surprised because this is yet another tactic to avoid debating the real issue, as well as an attempt to fool the public.

This is unfortunate, because today, what we are saying on the Liberal side is that the referendum was democratically held, that people voted no, but also voted for change.

In today's context, changes must involve the federal government and all the provinces working hand in hand. Essentially, we are talking about multilateral relations. It is in working together that we will be able to respond to the desire for change expressed by the people in Quebec, a desire which is felt not only in Quebec, but across Canada.

Unfortunately, with the government we have now in Quebec, and with the official opposition we have in Ottawa, it is very difficult to see how we can work towards a common goal, an ultimate goal, which, in the end, is in the best interests of the people, because they do not want the Canadian federation to work.

Indeed, it is not by withdrawing from multilateral discussions, as the Parti Quebecois government did in Quebec, that advances will be made in improving Canadian federalism. It is not by withdrawing from multilateral discussions on the environment that it will be able to better defend Quebecers' interests so that Quebec can continue to be part of the federation, and continue to be an extremely strong province in a prosperous and united Canada.

It is not by refusing to sit down at a conference table with the other provincial premiers that the system will be changed. In the end, it is the people in Quebec who are suffering from this refusal to co-operate.

There is nothing complicated in this bill. It is aimed at giving tools to the federal government, at reorganizing a department, and yet, the official opposition is acting prematurely. The opposition is talking about interference. It is a bit early to start talking about interference. Before talking about interference, one must wait to see the kind of reforms the minister and his team will be able to bring about.

Judging on past experiences, if the past is any indication of the future, I think the minister has every reason to be proud of the changes he is proposing, and I think people in Quebec and Canada have a right to expect promising and positive changes which meet the expectations not only of Quebecers but of all Canadians.

When I speak about changes the minister should be proud of, members will recall that, at the beginning of the year, before the finance minister's budget was tabled, the official opposition said loud and clear that they wanted the Canada Assistance Plan to be eliminated and transformed into a much more flexible plan, giving more leeway to provinces.

Responding to that reality, that legitimate request, the human resources development minister, in co-operation with the finance minister, replaced the Canada Assistance Plan with the Canada social transfer.

What is the Canada social transfer? It is a tool which will allow the federal government to transfer funds to the provinces so that they can operate in the social field and do so with much more flexibility.

Let me read a few lines. It says that the social transfer is mainly designed to help the provinces provide the level of benefits and social assistance that they wanted to provide but could not because of inflexible rules. That is done.

Someone mentioned earlier that the past is an indication of what the future holds. It is clear that the Canada social transfer is far from being the monster that the official opposition has made it out to be. It is essentially a structure in which all the provinces have more leeway.

What is the Canada social transfer about? It makes it possible for instance to fund parental wage assistance programs such as the one known as APPORT in Quebec. This is an exclusively provincial program. So, with the Canada social transfer, the funding of programs like APPORT, a program developed by the Government of Quebec and appreciated by everyone, is made possible, while, under the old system, the Canada Assistance Plan, it could not be funded.

The Canada social transfer, or CST for short, also provides for the provincial sales tax to be refunded to welfare recipients, a measure which could not have been implemented under the Canada Assistance Plan. I read further that it also includes a program to provide food to disadvantaged children, which would not have been possible either under the old system because it was too inflexible.

The Canada social transfer also includes the provision of transportation services to people with disabilities, services that can be provided without having to assessment needs, contrary to the prescribed procedure for qualifying for funding under the old system.

The steps taken by the minister and his department are clearly a reflection of the federal administration's good faith and commitment to keep up with the trends towards change, as requested by the public.

As for trends toward change, as for the Canada Assistance Plan, we keep hearing: "Yes, but that mean beast, the federal machinery, is the only one setting national standards". I have said it in this House and I repeat that we are a country. I think that, whether we are from Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia or Newfoundland, we agree that we, together, as a big family, must have standards that allow for a similar quality of life throughout the country.

But as far as the system is concerned, we kept hearing that national standards were set unilaterally by the federal machinery. Again, in trying to respond to the needs for change, to the demands of the provinces, the Minister of Human Resources Development has ensured that national standards will now be set in co-operation with the provinces, through the Canada social transfer. So, we are not imposing any more; quite the contrary, we are responding to current federalism, evolutionary federalism. We are responding once again to the winds of change and, once again, in a spirit of good faith that demonstrates a will to work in partnership and in co-operation with the provinces.

When talking about a will to change on the part of the federal government and a will to respect the wishes of the people, we can consider the strategic initiatives put forward by the minister to implement a number of programs based on the priorities and needs of the provinces.

Can we still talk about interference by the federal machinery? I think that the action taken by the minister clearly demonstrates that we are following this trend of open federalism, of modern federalism that increasingly respects the objectives and wishes of the provinces as a whole. Furthermore, with respect to reform, we must bear in mind that the people as a whole asked that reform take place not only to decentralize but also to ensure that programs established in the 1960s can be brought into line with the new needs of Canadians in terms of social and labour market programs. That is why the minister and his officials are busy implementing programs that meet the expectations of the members of the Canadian society of the 1990s by making sure that the department can make the leap into the next millennium.

In fact, our goal is to better serve the public and provide it with tools. At this stage, on the basis of Bill C-96, whose purpose is to set out the department's mandate, I think that in the general, public interest, we must try to see our basic role, our ultimate goal and purpose, at the provincial and federal level, as working together, hand in hand, towards change in the federal system.

The department this bill deals with is an important department because of both the role it plays in the field and of what it can achieve with the funds at its disposal.

To show how important this department is, this is the department responsible for unemployment insurance. Changes will soon be made to the UI program. Again, the minister's clear commitment to respecting all the provinces and meeting the needs of the public will show.

This is an important department, whose role in Quebec and Canada cannot be underestimated, a department which people rely on and which has an impact on everyday life, a department which, last year, spent $13.3 billion in the province of Quebec alone.

How does this affect us? This amount of $13.3 billion was used to help more than 164,000 Quebecers find jobs and 44,789 students find summers jobs, to pump $1.5 billion into the Quebec post-secondary education system, to ensure that more than 80,000 Quebecers receive adequate training, while $3 billion went to subsidizing Quebec social assistance programs, which benefited approximately 700,000 people.

We are talking about a department that, on the average, allowed UI benefits to be paid to some 528 unemployed people every month. That is not all. I have a long list in front of me, but unfortunately it would take too long to enumerate all the concrete actions that were taken.

The department also helped develop youth employment. So, we are talking about a department that is having a real effect, that is undergoing changes. Given that reality, instead of always playing politics, the official opposition should rise above partisanship and, just this once, think about the people's interest, try to serve them better and, finally, work in partnership.

We know what can be achieved through partnership and, again in this case, the past gives us an indication of what the future holds. Take for example the Canada social transfer set up because people asked for it. There are also the agreements to improve job opportunities for welfare recipients, which allow us to join forces in order to help them find jobs. There is also the block funding agreement which was concluded with Quebec under the Canada Student Loans Program.

There are many examples showing that if we are ready to co-operate, as Quebecers want, and work hand in hand toward the common goal of helping all the people, so that Quebec can still have its place, we will grow together and allow federalism to grow in the best interests of the people and the provinces.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Outremont and I am torn between disbelief and admiration. I say disbelief because, in spite of what the situation in Canada's manpower and employment sector, the member for Outremont keeps referring to a slew of federal and Liberal policies which, in the last two years, have obviously not given any results.

He told us about the role of the federal government regarding employment development in Quebec and in Canada. He said that this is important, that great things are happening. However, when we look at the statistics on unemployment, we see a situation quite different from the picture painted by the hon. member.

I say disbelief because I cannot understand how a member, who claims to be well aware of the situation of workers and of the plight of the unemployed and the welfare recipients in Quebec and in Canada, can seriously discuss federal policies and try to convince us that everything is fine, that there are no problems, that we simply must let the Minister of Human Resources Development go on with his good work. This is why I used the word disbelief.

My disbelief is also mixed with admiration. The hon. member talked about great principles. He told us about how we must work together, grow together, co-operate, be partners, and do our share to promote Canada's development.

In a way, I admire the hon. member, who may well become a minister some day. Indeed, his speech was an almost flawless performance in that it reflected the Liberal philosophy heard for at least 20 or 25 years, a philosophy which expresses something that no one recognizes in Canada. We are presented with a picture of

Canada that no one recognizes. And no one recognizes it because it obviously has nothing to do with reality.

Regarding the bill's provision on manpower training, we note that, for the last four or five years, since 1991 or so, everyone in Quebec has been asking that manpower adjustment and manpower training become the responsibility of the province. I say everyone, but I should be a little more specific and provide some names, since the hon. member may not have followed the developments in the newspapers and may not have heard the views expressed.

First, there was Mr. Bourbeau, then Quebec's Liberal minister of Labour; he was followed by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ryan. Now, it is the PQ government. All of them asked that Quebec be given full responsibility for manpower. Mr. Dufour, president of Quebec's Conseil du patronat, made the same request. And so did, just this week, Mr. Gérald Ponton, president of Quebec's Association des manufacturiers.

I ask the hon. member: How does he explain the fact that everyone in Quebec, except for the provincial caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada, is asking that manpower training be made Quebec's responsibility? Why is it that he and the minister do not see that this is what Quebecers are asking for? Why is it that his government will not comply with that request in the bill before us today?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before giving the floor to the hon. member, I must say that I failed earlier to carry out a duty with regard to the adjournment proceedings.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-International Criminal Court.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's remarks. First, as regards admiration, I would ask my colleague not to waste any energy in admiring me but rather to use his energy in helping the federal system change, in working to represent objectively and constructively the interests of the whole population of Quebec so that we can continue to make Canadian federalism change.

I talked earlier about remarks that are an insult to people's intelligence. We have to listen. There are people watching us today. Some members said the bill deals with manpower. The bill before the House, Bill C-96, deals-and I point this out to people watching us-essentially with structuring the department, providing the minister and his department with a mandate and the tools needed to be able to work. It is a bill of a general nature that has nothing to do with manpower per se.

As concerns manpower, and again I said it in my main speech, we ought to wait. We are now dealing with a bill of a general nature. I said in my main speech that the minister and his officials did an outstanding job in order to serve and to respond to demands for change made by the population. There are more things to come. What I ask the official opposition to do is to work in co-operation with us, to accept the referendum results and to help bring about changes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from October 4, 1995, consideration of the motion that, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider implementing a new program of mining incentives which would encourage exploration and development in Canada.

Mining Exploration And Development

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

Mr. Speaker, I would find Motion M-292 put forward by my colleague from Timiskaming-French River quite acceptable if it would take into account the history of this country and particularly of the province of Quebec.

I am in favour of implementing a new financial incentives program to encourage mining exploration and development in Canada and in Quebec, but not at any price or under any condition.

I do believe that natural resources play a crucial part in the economy of any country. A country without natural resources is a country that depends on international markets. It is very hard for a country with no natural resources to properly develop a processing industry. This industry would always rely on major markets and bear the brunt of a supply and demand system.

It would also be subject to the whims of the money markets which always seek to get the most out of our natural resources. We had a striking example of that situation in 1929, during the Great Depression.

When the automotive industry was in full expansion, the rubber producing countries, especially in Southeast Asia, could not get a reasonable price for their products although demand was very strong.

World financial markets were pulling the strings and, unfortunately, were getting richer at the expense of the producers. Government had to intervene so that this industry would not go bankrupt.

We still have the same market system and the government must act at the natural resources level. To yield all possible benefits, the

development of natural resources must be planned coherently and consistently, and I would not say this is the case in Canada.

The competition between the federal government and Quebec and the other provinces is counterproductive and above all very costly. It generates very expensive duplication and this waste of energy and money only benefits our competitors on the world markets.

While we, in Canada, are fighting each other and while the federal government is trying to oust the provinces from a jurisdiction which is rightly theirs, our competitors get the opportunity to capture our own markets. A country which fails to invest in the development of its natural resources shows a lack of foresight which makes it very vulnerable.

Motion M-292 by my colleague tends to maintain a minimum investment in the Canadian mining industry and this is very good.

Moreover, a country whose national government violates the jurisdictions of other levels of government cannot expect an exceptional performance from its industry. In Canada, we have had huge difficulties in this area for some years.

If you are a producer and if, every time you want to go ahead, you are faced with two levels of government that disagree and with two sets of standards, you will waste valuable time and energy that would be better spent elsewhere.

As everyone knows, a country's natural resources belong to the community. If they are available for the well-being of the population, they are at the heart of our own development. In addition to creating jobs, they play an active part in our economic growth and collective wealth.

As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, sections 109 and 117 of the 1867 Constitution Act gave the provinces ownership of the lands, mines, minerals, and attendant royalties; several provinces, including Quebec, used these provisions to promote local industrial development and economic diversification.

I was elected in a rural riding and a relatively poor region. Our natural resources are the key to the survival and development of small communities in our regions. The involvement of the government in this crucial economic sector is essential, and this is why I congratulate my colleague for presenting this amendment.

But I firmly believe that the federal government should stick to the Constitution and let the provinces and Quebec take care of this sector. The federal government should give back to the provinces the sums it has collected and continues to collect for natural resources, and tell them: "Administer them the best you can".

The federal government profited from the revenues yielded by the development of natural resources, and it would only be right, as is requested in Motion M-292 proposed by my colleague, that that money be used for further developing these resources. The interference of the federal government in natural resources is serious. For example, the federal government has heavily taxed petroleum, which is outright interference in interprovincial and international trade.

It unilaterally fixed the sale price of oil and gas, wading into the market beyond provincial boundaries, thus forcing certain producing provinces to reduce their royalties and, in certain cases, even causing them to lose certain foreign markets.

Moreover, one must not forget that the federal government has jurisdiction over interprovincial pipelines, interprovincial hydro lines and other methods of transportation between two or more provinces. Finally, in case of conflict leading to political stiffness like we experienced under the Trudeau government, the federal government could in a twisted manner use the declaratory power included in section 91(10) c ) of the Constitution Act of 1867 to unilaterally declare, as we have often seen the Liberals do, that projects like power dams, mines and oil wells fall under exclusive federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, it could use the incidental power to regulate working conditions and product quality in those projects, thus encroaching once more on provincial jurisdiction.

The present government already did that through its environmental legislation which declared its authority on such projects. Many people, particularly now, ask themselves why Canadian federalism does not work. Yet, the answer is obvious. There is in Canada a level of government that does not respect the jurisdiction of other levels of government. There is a government which wants to grab all power for itself.

There is a government which does not have for objective the well-being of Canadians, but the appropriation of all power. I conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois will support the motion, but not without certain reservations.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today in support of Motion No. 292, especially after the fairy tales I have been hearing from the member of the Bloc.

During my seven years as a member I have had an opportunity to meet various sectors of the mining industry, people involved in the mining industry on a daily basis. The main message they have been giving governments over these years is that governments must make a solid commitment not only to keeping the mining industry in Canada but also to making it prosper.

The motion before us today proposes the government consider implementing a new program of mining incentives which would encourage exploration and development in Canada. Although most people equate these incentives with taxes and grants, this is not necessarily the case.

I commend the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River for putting this motion forward. He has been very supportive of the mining industry. As he previously stated in the House, all the mining industry wants is a level playing field and a tax system competitive with the rest of the world and competitive internationally. In order to do this it is essential to streamline government procedures and to provide the mining industry with a single window approach to approvals.

The parliamentary secretary will be speaking after I finish. I am sure he will bring us up to date on how the minister is moving in these areas.

Why is this motion so important to Canadians? It is important because we are being asked to consider new initiatives, initiatives which previous governments did not feel were necessary.

When driving through Hagersville or Caledonia in my riding the first things we see as we approach these communities are the shafts of the gypsum mines. They support the gypsum plants which produce gypsum board which is shipped throughout North America. These communities rely on the mines, as do small communities in remote and rural areas all across the country. For visitors these mines show the importance of mining to the economic and social well-being of the country.

There has been a progressive decline in investment, employment and mining exploration in Canada over the last ten years. Between 1990 and 1993, 20,000 jobs were lost in the Canadian mining industry. Taking into consideration that mining provides 400,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada, that number is quite substantial.

There are approximately 150 communities across Canada which depend on mining for their livelihood. When we factor in the number of businesses and the family members who buy goods from the stores and businesses, we are talking close to one million Canadians depending on this industry, a big industry in Canada.

We are also talking about an industry which pays some of the highest industrial wages in Canada: $847 per week. Most of these wages are earned in rural and isolated communities across the country. They provide the infrastructure in many places which keeps rural Canada together.

Between 1986 and 1991 Canada failed to attract a single new mining project with capital of more than $250 million. By comparison, Latin America acquired five such contracts. Likewise, from 1991 to 1992 more than 150 companies worldwide reduced expenditures in Canadian mining projects by 30 per cent, from $430 million to $302 million.

We need to look at why these investors are no longer selecting Canada and we must move to provide solutions to the problem. Why are they going to South America? Why are they going to Southeast Asia? The common feeling is it must be because of the environmental differences. I do not think that is the case. That may be a small component of it but more and more it is a direct result of government red tape.

We have three and in some areas four different levels of government. These companies have to go through an enormous amount of red tape to get anything done. It should be a primary role of anybody looking at solutions to the problem to deal with the whole question of red tape.

In 1994 the total contribution to the Canadian economy from mining equalled $19.1 billion. We must also remember this is a cyclical industry; it has ups and downs. In 1992 and 1993 alone 44 Canadian mines closed while 22 opened. We can see the trend is not in the right direction.

The requests that have been put forward by Keep Mining in Canada are not only logical but they are very plausible and workable. The Keep Mining in Canada campaign, supported by the industry, has laid out 10 reasonable points that it feels, if achieved, would help its industry.

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources when chaired by the member for Kenora-Rainy River conducted extensive hearings with all the stakeholders which resulted in the setting out of nine key recommendations committee members felt that if followed through on would help the industry.

They talked about streamlining the federal-provincial environmental regulations, which only makes sense and I know the Minister of the Environment is working in that area now; implementing an appropriate incentive to stimulate grassroots mineral exploration, and I know some hon. members do that sometimes as well; changing the tax laws on mine reclamation funding; establishing processes for land use planning that respect mineral tenure and ensure both the protection of Canada's heritage and access to the mineral resource development. We have to be able to balance those two. I know the parliamentary secretary will be happy to tell us following my speech how the minister is working in that area.

Overlapping jurisdictions also have a negative impact on investors. Much time and money is spent by companies filling out separate forms for either municipal, provincial or federal levels of government. They always seem to have different guidelines. These companies have to jump through a number of hoops. Surely our

governments can work together and come up with a single window and a single set of regulations which these companies can follow.

Canada also must implement an appropriate incentive to stimulate grassroots mineral exploration. By improving the tax laws and reclamation funding we would be promoting good environmental management. I know the member for Davenport wants to talk about that a little later.

The taxation of money put into trust by a company to meet future demands for mine reclamation should definitely be one of the items the government should look at. I am sure the member for Davenport will have something to say about that.

The last item I want to consider today in my last few minutes is the topic of establishing a process for land use planning that respect mineral tenure to ensure both the protection of Canada's natural heritage and access to mineral resource development. Mining is part of our heritage and we must ensure that it is accessible and that its terms can be met.

A commitment to supporting the mining industry does not translate into excess money being spent. Many incentives can be implemented that are not costly but which would encourage exploration and development. I talked about a few of these incentives in my speech. I urge anyone who seriously considers what is being voted on today to take a look at this. This is a votable item. It is a serious item. It is serious in the sense that it helps our program to develop and create jobs in this country.

We are voting today on the very survival of the mining industry and the demise of the communities that mining supports. Mining has always been a very important part of our heritage and I hope we will keep it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating today says that the government should consider implementing a new program of mining incentives which would encourage exploration and development in Canada.

Mining is one of the most important industries in Canada. It deserves the government's attention. It pays the highest average wage of any industry in the country which is over $200 a week higher than its next highest wage category of transportation and communication. Mining products total 15 per cent of our exports. It is a very important industry.

Investment in the exploration of new mines is less than half of what it once was in the early 1990s. In real dollars investment in the early 1990s was around $800 million annually. This year it is expected to be $300 million or maybe less. Exploration and development have fallen drastically because Canada has failed to provide a favourable investment climate.

Canada used to be a world leader in mining activity, but that leadership is in jeopardy. Other nations now offer a more favourable environment for mining companies. Canada has fallen from first to fourth place in attracting new investment. We have not opened a major new mine in the last five years. We need to address the problem quickly, not by the year 2000, not within the term of the government's mandate. We need to start now to turn the situation around.

The motion before us speaks about incentives for the mining industry to stimulate exploration and development. What kind of incentives are being talked about? Is it some huge program of cash rebates? Are costly tax breaks needed so that the industry can flourish once again?

I intend to support this motion but I want to make sure to let members know what we mean by incentives. For the Liberal or the socialist, an incentive is some kind of government assistance. It is a handout. It is a grant, a transfer or a tax shelter that is big enough to overcome the disincentives that are found in the industry. If there is over-regulation, for example, the government handout will be enough to induce companies to overlook inefficiencies in the system.

These types of government programs are like giving an oxygen mask to someone who is choking instead of just loosening the rope that is hanging around the neck.

For the free enterpriser, the entrepreneur who is a self-starter, an incentive is not a grant from the government where it picks some winners and losers in the industry. An incentive is merely an opportunity.

If I know miners at all, they are free enterprisers. They are risk takers. They are self-starters. They do not want special help. They want a level playing field and an opportunity to show their skills, develop the resources for the good of the country and for their companies.

We were talking with someone from a major mining association who represents mining companies yesterday. He told us that the industry is not looking for handouts. That is not what it needs. The industry is looking for the government to get out of its way so that it can get on with doing what it does best.

I am supporting this motion today because that is what I mean by incentives. I mean deregulation, not in a way that harms the environment, but in a way that makes government approval processes more efficient.

Government departments and different levels of government should communicate with one another to harmonize contradictory or overlapping legislation. Right now this is Canada's problem. The government strangles the industry with red tape, then someone

wants to come along and give the industry an oxygen mask of government incentives. We say, take off the red tape and the industry will be healthy again on its own.

Today we had a representative from the Mining Association of Canada appear before the standing committee. He said: "The current regulatory system is choked with red tape. Regulations, guidelines and decision making processes duplicate and contradict each other from one department to another and between the two levels of government". We have to solve this problem.

The industry also needs security of land tenure and security in Canada's legal regime. Mining companies have to know that when they start a project they are going to have an opportunity to finish it.

Security is also necessary in the new environmental assessment process. The government has made wonderful noises about this problem. I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary is going to try to sum this up.

The Minister of Natural Resources has said many of the right words to the industry and made many good promises. The red book, the Liberal mining platform and the White House mining initiative are all full of great words.

The industry minister promised action on streamlining regulations this year, 1995. However, to quote Greg Waller, an executive with Cominco, obviously exasperated with the government's lack of action to date, says: "The mining industry is getting impatient with the empty words".

An example happened this last week. I received copies of two separate letters from the provinces addressed to the Minister of Natural Resources, one in September and one in October, requesting, almost pleading for a meeting between the minister, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and their provincial counterparts. They did not even get the courtesy of a reply from the Minister of Natural Resources until a provincial minister talked to me late last week.

I raised the issue in the House last week. I find out now the minister had a conference call with the intergovernmental affairs minister and the provincial minister. That is a start. It is a shame it takes two and half or three months to arrange a simple teleconference call among three parties who say they are interested in getting to the bottom of this regulatory problem.

There was a good presentation on regulatory reform in committee today. There were some specific recommendations and reforms that would help the industry. Many of those ideas were adopted by an all-party committee in last year's report "Lifting Canadian Mining Off the Rocks". These all-party resolutions were brought to the government. They were recommendations from all sides. Not a single one of those recommendations has been adopted to date.

Again, they are good words, nice words, but we do not need more words. We do not need more committees. We do not need more studies. We do not need more talk. We do not need more task forces. We do not need government inquiries. We do not need empty promises. We know the problems. We know what to do to fix them. What is needed right now is not knowledge, more ideas. We need the political will to get the job done.

Here is part of the conclusion from today's presentation by the mining association: "Real progress requires the removal of costly regulatory systems that are process based rather than performance or results oriented. This implies a willingness by the federal government to let go of outdated and expensive centralist systems. It is a willingness which has not been expressed in concrete action to date".

We need to get away from an expanded role for the federal government in the mining industry. The federal government must get off the industry's back and out of its pockets and allow the industry to rise to the prominence it should have. That should be left primarily with the provinces and the federal government should remember that.

We are dealing with two philosophies of government. Is the role of the federal government an ever increasing one or should it take heed from what the industry, the provinces and many Canadians are saying? They are saying the role of the federal government is not to continually expand into areas of provincial jurisdiction; the role is to see where there is overlap and then to withdraw and allow the provinces to get the job done.

The Minister of Natural Resources has been politely applauded for saying the right words to the natural resources community. She talks the talk, but can she walk the walk? Her political honeymoon with the industry will soon be over unless she produces results to act on the good intentions she has expressed.

The problems with regulatory reform are the first test of this minister's real political will. Will she be able to overcome her colleagues around the cabinet table who are calling for natural resource industries to sit on their hands watching as sustainable development slowly devolves into sustainable preservation? I hope she has that will. I hope she will be able to stand up to her colleagues, stand up for a more rational approach to environmental assessment, stand up for Canadian jobs and expertise and development.

I call on the minister to back up her words with some action starting today. Provide the only real incentive the Canadian mining industry wants and needs which is substantial, positive regulatory reform. She knows what has to happen. Let us see it happen. Let it happen now.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Timiskaming-French River for his forceful introduction of this motion and for his keen interest in the importance of the mining industry.

The motion before us urges the government to adopt the recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources entitled "Lifting Canadian Mining Off The Rocks" and urges the adoption of a new program of incentives.

It seems to me that at a time of budget austerity and restraint it would be wiser not to seek new tax incentives and subsidies. It is true that the mining industry is an important part of the Canadian economy. It is true that the past recession has proven difficult for the mining industry, but the resource sector has returned to profitability. For example, Barrick Gold Corporation of Toronto posted record profits of $250 million in 1994, up 17 per cent from 1993.

In addition, as the member for Timiskaming-French River pointed out at the beginning of this debate, there was a substantial increase in exploration activities throughout Canada in 1994, 9.1 per cent or $3.3 billion above 1993 according to the Minister of Natural Resources and the press release which she issued on February 9, 1995.

On page two of the report I mentioned earlier, we find the following statement: "An application to build a mine in Canada, for example, can take up to four years to make its way through environmental assessments, in contrast to a mere six months in Chile". Are we to conclude that Chile has a more advanced environmental assessment process than Canada, or that Chile is providing greater environmental protection than Canada?

Environmental assessment regulations and legislation and the cumulative impact assessment are essential parts of sustainable development. They are here to stay. They are safeguards on human and environmental health.

The report goes on into great detail on issues of tax reform. It is silent on the cost of tax incentives not only in terms of forgone revenue but in terms of potential damage to water, soil, and air. This, I submit, requires attention.

The concluding paragraph of the report on page 11 is also important because it reveals a big gap between the position of the mining industry and that of the government. The paragraph states: "Governments must strike a much more realistic balance between environmental considerations and the economic viability of the industry".

This idea of balancing environmental and economic considerations runs counter to the Brundtland definition of sustainable development and the position of the government in the red book and also paragraph 6(a) of the Department of Natural Resources Act, which calls for the sustainable development of Canada's natural resources.

Balancing environment and economy is not sustainable development because it separates the two, running the risk of making policy decisions that give precedence to the economy over the environment. The mining association must realize that the Department of Natural Resources has a mandate to integrate the environment and the economy, as defined in the red book.

Regarding federal and provincial overlap and duplication, it is important to act on what is known. In the late 1980s the federal government delegated authority for the monitoring and enforcement of mining regulations to the provinces. In his 1990 report the then auditor general Kenneth Dye stated: "In the one area where the federal government has already delegated monitoring and enforcement authority to the provinces, there has been a serious deterioration in compliance. A review of the metal mining liquid effluent regulations issued under the Fisheries Act indicates that compliance fell from 85 per cent in 1982 to 48 per cent in 1988." This conclusion seems to be important and should be kept in mind when we hear calls for voluntary programs to reduce emissions.

Voluntary programs such as the accelerated reduction and elimination of toxics, ARET program, are not substitutes for regulations. This conclusion is substantiated by a 1994 Kellogg Peat Marwick management survey, which found that 95 per cent of respondents from Canadian organizations cited compliance to regulations as the principal motivator on environmental issues, while only 16 per cent cited voluntary government programs as a principal motivator.

In conclusion, the suggestion that greater investment incentives to the mining industry should be offered at a time when governments are desperate for revenues is not synchronized with a government agenda attempting to reduce deficit and debt. Instead, it would be preferable to ensure sustainable development in a variety of ways, including an efficient management of minerals, for example, by ensuring that recycled materials and virgin materials are treated equally under the tax system.

It is important to note that a 1994 study entitled "A Comparison of Tax Incentives for Extraction and Recycling of Basic Materials in Canada" concludes that "there is a potential bias in the tax system toward the use of virgin materials relative to recycled materials". This bias ought to be addressed and corrected.

In addition, to ensure sustainable development we could consider programs aimed at new technologies for mineral extraction and environmentally sensitive exploration methods and equipment. We could ensure that regulations aim at environmentally responsible exploration methods and that the regulations are enforced. We could ensure that exploration, mining operations, and reclamation

projects are conducted in an environmentally sound manner and do not compromise vital land uses such as ecologically sensitive areas and parks.

Mining and sustainable development can be integrated for the long term benefit of Canadians and the economy.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today on Motion 292, which would require the government to consider a new program of incentives to encourage exploration and development in Canada. In part the question is the definition of incentives and what that actually means.

[Translation]

I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Timaskaming-French River, for having brought these important matters to the attention of the House.

Mining makes an enormous contribution to the Canadian economy and way of life, representing a vital source of employment in more than 115 communities throughout the country. It provides direct jobs for more than 300,000 Canadians and contributes more than $20 billion to the economy every year.

Moreover, mining activities have a significant indirect effect on the Canadian economy, from the small local supplier to the specialized financial institution in Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver. For every job created in the mining industry an additional job is indirectly created in other sectors of the Canadian economy.

The Canadian mining industry is known throughout the world for its leadership in developing and applying state of the art exploration and mining techniques and technologies. We are very proud of the expertise that was developed here in Canada to take full advantage of our rich mineral endowment.

The government appreciates the key role of mining to our economic well-being. However, we are also aware of the challenges the industry has been facing, especially from increased global competition and mineral investment. We must meet these challenges by working with all the mining stakeholders to sustain the vitality of the industry and provide conditions that will foster its growth.

In our opinion, the best way to support and encourage the mining sector is to reduce the level of long term structural impediments to mineral investment. Many of these impediments were identified by the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, which saw the federal government, along with the representatives of industry, provincial governments, environmental groups, labour unions, and aboriginal organizations, come to the table to work together. A consensus was reached and the WMI leadership council accord was signed in September 1994, which outlines agreed upon principles and goals to guide the development of mining in this country.

To help develop an action plan to address the WMI issues that fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, the Minister of Natural Resources established a private sector ministerial advisory committee. One of its first tasks is to provide commentary and advice on the sustainable development of mineral, mines, and metals issues paper the minister released in September in Vancouver. This release fulfils a promise the minister made. After discussion on the paper, the minister will work with the stakeholders to develop a mineral and metal policy for consideration by cabinet.

To address the most fundamental industry concerns we introduced a measure in the 1994 budget allowing a deduction for mine reclamation trust fund contributions. Our commitment to mineral development was also reaffirmed when the mining sector was identified as one of the six key sectors where the government wants to see significant improvement to the regulatory regime. Furthermore, our natural resources standing committee is currently examining this very issue.

Some specific areas where we are working to make tangible long term improvements include administration of the Fisheries Act, land use and related decision making, the definition of waste, regulatory regimes north of 60, regulatory impact analysis, and toxic management policy and practices. Important improvements on issues of overlap and duplication could also be achieved through various initiatives to harmonize federal and provincial regulatory regimes.

On October 19 Natural Resources Canada and the Mining Association of Canada co-sponsored a seminar on regulatory streamlining in order to help identify concrete ways of accelerating progress on these issues. In support of the same objectives for jobs and new investments, NR Canada has been marketing Canada's mineral opportunities in Canada and abroad in an effort to attract much needed capital investment for our mineral industry.

The Minister of Natural Resources is a strong champion of the Canadian mining industry. Earlier this year she participated in the international "Investing in the Americas" conference, where she vigorously promoted Canada as an attractive country for mineral investment.

These efforts are very important, because investments are essential to ensure the industry's future.

We know that Canada's geography and geology are attractive. Exploration levels have recently started to recover, thus reflecting increased confidence in Canada as a mining country.

Of course the 1995 budget must be counted among our efforts to help solve the problems of the mining industry. By forcefully proceeding to put our economic house in order, we are sending a clear signal that we want to regain control of our country's finances. The measures implemented in the last budget will result in more favourable investment conditions in Canada, which will certainly benefit the mining industry.

The government remains committed to a prosperous mining sector in Canada and promotes actions that are consistent with our budgetary objectives and the efficiency of the federation. Mining, more than most industries, is global. The influence that Natural Resources Canada exercises in national and international fora makes a significant difference to the sustainable development and competitiveness of the industry. Our science and technology and our policy investments are cost-effective and bring benefits to Canada in all regions.

The initiatives I have discussed are fundamental critical steps that will result in greater levels of certainty for the mining investor. This government understands that reality. We will continue to work in partnership with provinces and territories to ensure that our geological potential is fully realized and Canadians have an opportunity to benefit from a strong mining industry.

In conclusion, this government appreciates the important contribution the mining industry makes to our country's job creation and economic growth. We understand the challenges that face the industry today. This government is following a policy agenda to put in place an attractive investment climate that encourages and supports a prosperous mining industry committed to sustainable development.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Timiskaming-French River, under whose name Motion 292 stands, has asked the Chair if he could close the debate on this motion under his name, with the understanding of course that he would only take two minutes and at 6.15 p.m. the Chair will put the question. Is there agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—French-River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. First of all, I would like to thank all of my colleagues in the Bloc and the Reform Party, and all my colleagues in the government, who have spoken so eloquently on this motion and particularly on the importance of the mining industry in Canada.

I think that we all, as parliamentarians and as federal politicians, acknowledge the importance of this industry to Canada. It is wonderful to see all parties supporting this motion and I thank you for doing so.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 93 the time provided for debate has expired.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it I think you would find unanimous consent to call it 6.30 p.m. and proceed with the adjournment debate.