House of Commons Hansard #234 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Bonavista—Trinity—Conception Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Fred Mifflin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak on this very important bill in Parliament today. I am very privileged to have the opportunity to do so.

I will very quickly cover the purposes of the bill as I see it. I will make a few comments with respect to the concern this party has for the people of the region that is most closely identified on the east coast with the ocean itself.

To begin, the bill is an excellent piece of work. It does what experts on the sea have been talking about. It should have been done a long time ago. Even before I get into the main objectives of the bill, it has to be looked at against the backdrop of the kind of country Canada is.

There is no question Canada is a maritime nation. We have three seas as our main borders. We have the longest navigable coastline in the world. We have the longest non-navigable coastline in the world.

If one adds up the water space not including the Great Lakes which themselves comprise a large percentage of the fresh water in the world, it is a pretty large piece of territory if one extends out to the 200-mile economic zone and follows the coast all along and includes the Arctic waters.

The responsibility for the management of that piece of property, sea property and the resources beneath, is tremendous. It involves close co-ordination to ensure we are getting the most effective management we can.

Canada has had many departments involved with the management of the seas. We have the Canadian forces, with the navy; the solicitor general with the marine aspects of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the old DFO as it was before this bill was conceived. Environment Canada has been doing surveys off the coast. The coast guard has been responsible for navigation and safety and keeping the sea routes open. Other departments have had peripheral concerns and interests.

The main purpose of this bill is to establish a framework to support the new oceans management regime for Canada and to consolidate the federal responsibility for Canada's oceans. The key word here is consolidation.

The other aspect of this bill that is very important is that it recognizes in domestic law Canada's jurisdiction over its maritime zones. That has been a very long time in coming.

Without wanting to sound partisan about this, the actions that were taken by the government with respect to the extension of jurisdiction beyond the 200-mile limit out to the nose and tail of the bank, which was not ours by accident of geography, is now in effect ours. Bill C-29 was passed in the House last year very quickly with the unanimous support of all parties, passed quickly by the Senate and subsequently recognized in the United Nations as being right, valid and proper.

One other thing the bill does is develop a new approach to managing the oceans and their resources. In that regard I want to pick one example. On the east coast of Newfoundland, Memorial University has what is considered by all those in the field of oceanography and marine sciences not just in Canada, not just in North America but throughout the world as being truly a centre of excellence.

It has scientific laboratories. It has the venue, the Logy Bay Research Station, the sea tunnel to test various sea foils, excellence again not just in Canada but throughout the world. It is one of the few resources of that nature that exists. It contains the pilotage training simulator which I had the opportunity, with some of the members of the defence committee, to witness. Certainly the reality factor was so high that one would find it difficult not believing one was not at sea.

These are a few examples of the elements of the Centres of Excellence that exist at Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland. I am very proud to have been associated with that over the years with some of my other colleagues and would hopefully continue to do so.

I want to address another aspect of this which is under the purview of ocean management and is certainly very much involved. This has to do with a statement made earlier by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, I think half in jest but I know with an element of seriousness. Because of that I felt constrained to respond to the concerns he raised in all seriousness.

I remind the House that in 1992 the cod fishery, after a bad year in 1991 because of ice that persisted all year, essentially had to be declared a failure. The previous government implemented a program called the northern cod assistance and recovery program to last for two years from 1992 with the hope that the northern cod stock would return. Regrettably, as we all know in the House, this has not happened.

This is a matter of fact. It is generally not known that the previous government-I make this point to make another point-had made no allowance for a replacement for that program in the

event the northern cod had not recovered and said so. The minister of the day in St. John's indicated to the Evening Telegram that the government could not really be expected to continue to provide the kind of compensation that was involved should the NCARP program not succeed.

When we became government we found that the budget and the books did not account for any money in the program to look after the failure of that program should the northern code not return. It was through the compassion of this government and the work of many of us in Atlantic Canada, spearheaded by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and many of his colleagues in cabinet that only new money was found in the first budget: $1.9 billion for the Atlantic strategy program, TAGS, as it is referred to. That program is not a perfect program but there are 39,000 people who depend on TAGS in the hopes the cod fishery will return.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

The program is a failure.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Fred Mifflin Liberal Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the hon. member repeat himself. I am glad he did because members of his party have stood up in the House and suggested this program is no good and it should be scrapped.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

The Reform Party?

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Fred Mifflin Liberal Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL

The Reform Party. Reform Party members have actually stood in this House and said that program should be scrapped. The only thing I have to say to the hon. member or other hon. members from that side of the House is if they believe this should be the case and they want to revisit Atlantic Canada I suggest they be really up front with Atlantic Canadians and make the point they are making here, that they do not agree with the TAGS program and that it should be scrapped.

I have another concern as an Atlantic Canadian which is related to oceans policy because it is related to the well-being of Atlantic Canadians: the Reform Party's attitude toward the regional program that we rely on so heavily, the ACOA program. Again, members of the other party-I am not sure about the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster-have been very vociferous in saying that we should scrap the ACOA program while naming some of the people that have benefited. What audacity.

I can give two examples of successes in my riding. For one example I have to quote the name and for the second example my constituent would prefer that I do not use his name but he will recognize the business of which I speak.

The White Hills in Clarenville is a world class skiing resort. Through the negotiation of $2.9 million, mostly ACOA money, it has been able to do with the resort what would not have been possible thereby bringing many people, not just from Newfoundland but from eastern Canada, St. Pierre et Miquelon to come visit that area and to spread their money in the distribution centre of Clarenville, thereby benefiting from it.

Second, I have a young man in my riding who without government help established a lumber business not many years ago. Through recent assistance by ACOA of not much money, he was able to develop the new piece of equipment which allowed him to export three times what he was exporting without this ACOA grant.

I do not need any lectures from the Reform Party about what we should be doing for Atlantic Canadians. One of the things that we are doing for Atlantic Canadians includes those factors which are contained in Bill C-98, oceans management.

Instead of decrying members on this side and decrying the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his colleagues for trying to use of these programs beneficially through consolidation and more effective measures, they should be getting on their feet to congratulate them.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:15 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to the bill and to the issues raised by the hon. member who just spoke. He was talking about the supposed benefits of the ACOA program, more government subsidies and so on.

I should like to tell the hon. member what I discovered in my recent trip to the Atlantic provinces and what some of the fishermen are saying. I do not claim it was an exhaustive trip, but I did find interesting some of the things they mentioned about the efforts that should be made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to decentralize and to provide a better service to fishermen.

When I was in Antigonish they told me that a few short years ago they had two employees of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who took the time to deliver tags for their lobster traps right to their boats. Now there are 37 employees working out of some office and the fishermen have to go to Halifax to get their tags. This is not a streamlining of services. This is not a slimmed down bureaucracy. If the minister were keen on providing a better service at a better price and more cost efficiently, there would be widespread support.

The reason there is so much cynicism about the bill as one step of many similar steps is that the bureaucracy continues to increase and service continues to go down. Fishermen on the west coast and on the east coast are having difficulty finding a DFO person on the enforcement side in the field. Yet there are many people who seem to be stuck in an office and not providing services.

User fees will be allowed under the bill. The fishermen are saying that they do not mind paying user fees for the government services they use. However the government, not just in this department but in other departments too, continues to expand the requirements placed on the backs of fishermen, farmers and business people. The government continues to expand and charge the people. In other words it becomes a user pay bureaucracy.

The businesses have no say in what services are provided. The government continues to throw more people and more money at a problem and then doubles the fees. It is not a user fee for a finite service. It is just: "Let us tax these poor guys, call it a user fee or a licence fee, jack them up and see if they go out of business".

If the government were sincere about helping out Atlantic Canadians and British Columbia fishermen with the Fisheries Act there are a couple of things it could do. It could provide services in the field.

I have an article from the Vancouver Sun about the DFO. It states that John Fraser's report on the Fraser River sockeye indicated that the DFO nearly destroyed the salmon fishery in British Columbia last year through mismanagement and a shocking lack of enforcement.

If the government wants to re-establish some credibility with west coast fishermen at all levels, whether sports, aboriginal or commercial fishermen, it would have some enforcement people in the field to make sure the rules are enforced. It has no credibility on the west coast.

On the east coast it is a similar problem. Through successive years of federal government mismanagement it has managed to pretty well destroy certain parts of that valuable fishery. The people on the east coast do not run around saying: "Thank you, Mr. Tobin, for the turbot", even though we are all glad that the pillaging of that resource is not going on any longer.

What they are really saying is thanks to the federal government for destroying what used to be one of the backbones of the Canadian economy and still is, through no help from the federal government, an important part of a maritimer's life.

If the government wanted to help it could get off the backs and out of the pockets of fishermen and let them get on with life. It is not only fishermen when we talk about ACOA grants. I heard a member from the maritimes make a statement the other day: "Thank goodness for regional development grants. They are the way to prosperity. We will get more regional grants".

If that were the case the maritime provinces would be the most prosperous provinces in the world. The trouble is the government has not yet caught on to the basic economic fact of what is best to promote business, to promote diversity and to promote fellows like the hon. member was mentioning who want to export around the world. We should say to that person: "Listen, I will offer you low tax rates because I am not wasting your money. I will offer you less government regulations so that you can have a chance to put a business together easily. I will make sure that the Department of the Environment does not take three years to do a study when you want to start a mine and that there will be rapid approval processes".

Why not co-ordinate with the provincial governments so it is not overlapped and driven from Ottawa instead of being driven from the provinces where it should be? Then perhaps those people would have a chance to diversify, to get out in the world and do what they want to do? They used to be able to do it before the federal government stepped in and started kicking butt. If it would allow people in the maritime provinces to exert their free enterprise spirit, to go back to the roots that made them strong and the most vibrant part of Canada at that time, we would see a prosperous maritimes.

If we continue with expanding ACOA, giving more grants and having a bureaucracy in the DFO that will not even deliver the tags but will sit back and ask for more user fees, it is hopeless. The government seems to have lost its sense of direction.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

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

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour will please say yea.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division on the amendment stands deferred until Monday, October 2, at the time normally provided for daily adjournment.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to call it 1:46 p.m.?

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Oceans ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It being deemed to be 1.46 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Mining ExplorationPrivate Members' Business

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Deshaies Bloc Abitibi, QC

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider revitalizing investment in exploration in Canada and in Quebec by providing for fiscal incentives, including flow-through shares.

Mr. Speaker, on June 5, I had the pleasure of speaking to Motion M-292 tabled by my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River, which dealt with mining incentives to help the industry replenish its ore reserves quickly enough.

Without consulting each other, my colleague and I tabled in this House similar motions on mining. This shows that there are many stakeholders urging the government and the Minister of Finance to analyze all possible scenarios and to adopt a policy to revitalize mining exploration.

Mining ExplorationPrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and apologize for interrupting my colleague who is speaking on his private member's motion. However, I wanted to clarify that the deferral of the vote is to 6 p.m. on Monday.

Mining ExplorationPrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It is so noted.

Mining ExplorationPrivate Members' Business

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Deshaies Bloc Abitibi, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is the message I wish to convey today through this motion, which says:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider revitalizing investment in exploration in Canada and in Quebec by providing for fiscal incentives, including flow-through shares.

We have noted for a long time how little mining exploration is done in both Quebec and Canada. Therefore, we must act quickly to revitalize mining exploration throughout this country in order to replenish ore reserves in this industry. This situation is mainly due to the fact that junior mining companies, which underpin mining exploration, cannot raise enough public funds to carry out their exploration work, while major companies, which have the money needed for exploration, spend an increasingly important part of their exploration budget in developing countries.

The advantage is that those countries already have listed minable sites, while Canada offers few new deposits ready for mining. I remind the House that the committee on natural resources held hearings on this matter last fall and made nine recommendations that were supported by all the parties represented on this committee.

Unfortunately, the government decided to disregard all the work done by the committee and all the evidence we heard there. That is how this government operates. It has given the fifth report of the committee entitled "Lifting Canadian Mining Off the Rocks" the following response: "Keeping Canadian Mining on the Rocks".

I doubt that, by rejecting almost all of the recommendations in this report, the ministers, both of finance and of natural resources, were really aware of the true effect of their decisions on mining exploration in Canada and in Quebec.

All the stakeholders in mining exploration are disappointed that this government did not agree with any of their recommendations, that were based on their expertise and knowledge of mining. I would like to remind the government that more than a quarter of Canadian trade is based on the natural resource sector and that it is time that the government saw the mining industry as an important means of ensuring economic development in our society by achieving the national priorities, which are, according to the Liberal government, employment and growth.

Mines that will be closing in a few years as a result of the depletion of their reserves will not be replaced if new sites are not discovered. This will cause major layoffs and will have a very negative impact on the Canadian economy, especially in mining regions, where metal processing, transportation and other infrastructures will be hard hit.

An immediate response is needed if we are to reverse this trend by the year 2000, since it takes five to seven years on average between the discovery of a mine and start up of production. Failing this, the industry will gradually disappear. Renewal of the reserves is urgently needed; the mining industry is facing one of the hardest challenges it has had to deal with in many years.

As a result of the shift of mining investment to other countries, Canada's known mineral reserves have decreased. In 1992, 28 mines closed and only 8 opened. There are many reasons for this, but the trend must be reversed or the industry will be totally gone within twenty years.

Base metal reserves have been decreasing since 1980 and are unlikely to be replaced at an adequate rate in the near future. The industry has done its part. On numerous occasions it has voiced its concerns to the Government of Canada, which rather than facilitating the process of adapting to the new international competition, particularly from third world countries, has in fact added to the problems by allowing the investment climate in the mining sector to deteriorate compared to the competition.

The industry is working hard to ensure its survival. The economic and political context has not kept pace in order to encourage the industry to remain in Canada. Declining mining investments in our country are linked to a number of growing concerns.

To name but a few of those concerns: heavy financial burdens, compared to the countries of the south of course, particularly taxes and charges unrelated to profits; uncertainty and delays in environmental assessment and approval procedures; regulatory overlap between levels of government and between departments, creating needless difficulties; reduced access; uncertainty about tenure of mineral titles; and lastly, increased financial requirements to guarantee restoration.

For there to be any recovery in the mining industry, an incentive plan must be promoted for mining exploration in Canada, similar but better controlled than the one in place in the 1980s.

Even if base metal reserves are in decline, there is still immense geological potential in Canada, Quebec in particular. The recent opening of the Louvicourt Mine in my riding confirms the potential of the mining industry in Quebec and Abitibi and the expertise of those who discovered, developed and financed the mine and those who now operate it.

It also confirms that governments were right to create the flow-through share system, which helped to finance the initial exploration work leading to the discovery of the mine in 1989.

This particular mine, with $300 million invested to bring it to the production stage, will provide more than 350 direct jobs for the next fifteen years at least. It is the result of a joint effort during the eighties by the federal and Quebec governments to encourage mineral exploration on sites of former mines that were no longer in production and thus deemed unlikely to have sufficient potential as a source of major new discoveries.

New technologies and adequate funding were instrumental in discovering this copper, zinc, gold and silver mine, whose mineral extraction capacity is assessed at 4,000 tonnes per day, while recent finds near the site may extend the lifespan of this mine to 25 years. Its potential classifies Louvicourt as a world class mine.

Three more major projects will start up in my region in the next two years, thanks to the same flow-through shares from the eighties, and I am referring to the Grevet, Raglan and Troilus projects. Raglan in northern Quebec is becoming the largest potential site for copper ore in Canada.

The role of mineral exploration is to find other Louvicourts or Raglans. The average lifespan of a mine is about 11 years, and since it takes between five and ten years from the discovery of a mine to the production stage, we must start today to find the mines of the year 2000.

Many world class mines remain to be discovered in Quebec. This is clear from the examples I just mentioned. Only a small portion of Quebec's territory has been developed, and we could discover mines of this calibre, in practically any mining region in Quebec and Canada.

We have the human and technological resources to make further discoveries. For some years, however, the amount of exploration has been insufficient to renew mineral reserves because of competition from those same Third World countries and insufficient levels of public funding. The discovery of new mines is synonymous with economic development.

Louvicourt and Raglan are a clear indication that the federal government should increase tax incentives, already provided by the Quebec government, for preliminary mineral exploration in order to replace base metal reserves which are running out in this country.

The lack of mineral exploration in Canada is particularly disturbing, considering the general uncertainty as to Canada's commitment to encouraging mineral exploration and mining operations within its territory.

The uncertainty rises from the fact that regulations for access to sites are becoming increasingly restrictive, while environmental regulations or criteria are subject to duplication or diverging interpretations. In addition, obtaining an operating permit has become an increasingly lengthy process.

Exploration companies can no longer be sure that their exploration rights automatically include mining rights. The impression is that they have the right to engage in exploration, but until they have spent millions of dollars to identify an economically viable ore body, they do not know whether they will be able to extract ore and under what conditions.

In this context, there are three ways in which we could deal with the problem: re-establish public financing of mining exploration; improve the efficiency of exploration and make Canada more attractive to investors in the mining sector by improving fiscal, environmental and access regulations.

The flow-through share system has shown over the years that, at least in Quebec, it has made a significant contribution to the discovery of a number of mines. If we consider the 26 base metal or precious metal mines that were in production in Quebec in 1994, flow-through shares were either entirely or partly responsible for financing the discovery of 14 of these mines. Still in the case of base or precious metals, this applies to the discovery of nine out of ten mining projects now in the development or pre-production stage.

Considering these discoveries, the flow-through share system has shown it is worthwhile for governments, since it generates major economic spinoffs.

Already in September 1982, a report on the Canadian mineral industry identified five areas of urgency requiring immediate government intervention; there was urgency then, they said. They were: preventing further erosion of Canada's economic competitiveness in certain key areas of mineral production, including those of copper and nickel; halting and reversing the depletion of mineral reserves; finding new ideas and developing technologies, policies and programs to encourage greater efficiency in mining exploration; reversing the apparent trend of mining investors, including Canadian multinationals, to drop Canada in favour of countries in Latin America, Asia or the Pacific and other areas of development in the world where resources are plentiful; and, finally, generally creating a political and regulatory context better suited to maintain industry viability and stimulate investment in mining exploration.

After 13 years of work by various committees on natural resources and others and with similar conclusions for problems which do not seem to have been resolved and after two federal governments, we are at practically the same point, hence the urgency and the need to act.

If Canada remains at the forefront in the metals market, it is due to the low cost of its mining operations attibutable in large measure to the high level of industry productivity.

The Canadian mineral industry therefore managed to increase its productivity significantly through the rationalization necessitated by the recession in the 1980s.

All of the sectors of the mining industry have significantly increased their productivity by adopting new technologies and mining methods, developed, for the most part, in Canada.

We must therefore support the industry's effort so as to avoid a decline in mine reserves and prepare new deposits for mining to replace those that will eventually be used up.

For many years, the Association des prospecteurs du Québec has been calling in vain for three measures that would promote mining exploration: extension of the expenditure period to 12 months in the year following the year in which the equity was raised and harmonization by Ottawa; a federal measure whereby only the capital gain over and above the net purchase cost would be taxable, something the PDAC is also calling for-Quebec already has a similar measure-; and greater deductibility of exploration expenses federally-the rate is currently 100 per cent federally and 175 per cent in Quebec.

Carrying part of work funded in one year over to the next would not mean any additional expense to the public purse.

To administer this measure, the Association des prospecteurs du Québec proposes a trust mechanism under a mandate conferred by the governments on private sector organizations, which would ensure technical and financial expenditures were justified. The users would pay the costs of the trust.

I have just given a long list of measures which would assist the mining industry and which would meet the demands of various groups. Not all are easy to implement in these times of severe government cutbacks.

However, a large number of them would not cost the public anything and could be very profitable in the medium run. The government must learn to distinguish between measures which involve expenditures and measures which yield dividends for the public purse.

It is essential to restore a climate conducive to mining investment in Canada and in Quebec. According to Natural Resources Canada, data dating back to June 1994 indicate that Canada's investment in exploration barely reaches 17 per cent of world spending in that field, while it was 23 per cent in 1991. We have good grounds to believe that within five years, if nothing is done to create a favourable climate for mining investment in Canada, this figure could drop to 10 per cent.

Such data clearly suggest that Canada must do something fast to reverse this trend. The various levels of government will have to work together to improve fiscal and environmental regulations, as well as regulations governing access to land for the mining exploration industry.

The mining industry can still contribute to the economic development of a country, as many South American countries which rely on the expertise and the financing of Canada to develop their economies have discovered. They know how to attract mining and exploration companies.

The present outflow of exploration funds and the selling of our expertise to foreign countries will lead, in Canada in the years to come, to a reduction of employment in the mining industry and in associated industries like transportation, and therefore to a reduction of the share of the mining sector in the Canadian GNP.

I hope that the measures I just proposed, as well as those proposed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources will be considered and implemented as soon as possible. In Canada and Quebec, we have the mining potential, the technical know-how and the money to allow our mining industry to increase its economic contribution, but the government has to be willing to do its part.

Mining ExplorationPrivate Members' Business

1:40 p.m.

Moncton New Brunswick

Liberal

George S. Rideout LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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