Debates of April 29th, 1999

National Housing Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-43, an act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency and to amend and repeal other acts as a consequence—Chapter 17.

Bill S-25, an act respecting the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-66, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 9 with the following:

“(3) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-66, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 17 on page 10 with the following:

“person who is a builder of rental housing projects on reserves, as defined in the Indian Act or that is a non-profit corporation or a cooperative association is unable to obtain a loan described in”

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-66, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 10 with the following:

“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-66, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 44 on page 10 the following:

“(3) The Corporation may only make a loan, contribution or forgive an amount under subsection (1) for rental housing projects being built or owned by a non-profit corporation or cooperative association or for housing projects on reserves, as defined in the Indian Act.”

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-66, in Clause 9, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 13 with the following:

“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-66, in Clause 11, be amended by replacing lines 31 to 36 on page 13 with the following:

“(2) Paragraph 75(2)( a ) of the Act is replaced by the following: a ) pursuant to any of paragraphs (1)( a ) to ( f ) or paragraph (1)( h ) or ( j ), except with the approval of the Minister; or”

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-66, in Clause 12, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 14 with the following:

“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-66, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 7 on page 15 with the following:

“and develop land for a low-rental housing project or to construct or acquire and operate a low-rental housing”

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-66, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 15 with the following:

“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-66, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing line 28 on page 16 with the following:

“(4) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-66, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 13 on page 17 with the following:

“projects owned by public housing agencies, as defined in section 78, non-profit corporations or cooperative associations, and may forgive amounts owing on”

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-66, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 15 on page 17 with the following:

“(2) The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-66 be amended by deleting Clause 21.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-66, in Clause 23, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 18 with the following:

“99.2 The Corporation may, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, determine the”

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-66, in Clause 24, be amended by deleting lines 16 to 18 on page 19.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-66, in Clause 13, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15 on page 15 with the following:

“79. The Corporation may, pursuant to agreements made between the Government of Canada and the government of any province, undertake jointly with the government of the province or any agency thereof or with any public housing”

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-66, in Clause 34, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 21 the following:

“(3) The Corporation may not exercise any of its powers or functions under this section within the territorial limits of a province without having first obtained the agreement of the government of the province.”

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 is an important bill. It is intended to give new powers to the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation.

It is paradoxical, to say the least, that we are having to deal with a bill such as this. I think everyone understands that the federal government has absolutely no interest in housing.

Before introducing our amendments, I want to remind the House that the government made a commitment in the 1996 speech from the throne to withdraw completely from the housing sector. Government members with us today will remember that, at least I hope they do.

However, we find a paradox on reading the bill. We discover the government wants more space and more powers in the housing sector. It is totally incomprehensible. It is contradictory to say the least, and completely inconsistent.

If the bill were passed—and I certainly hope not, but we are sometimes at the mercy of majorities—it has all the potential to allow the federal government to establish a national housing allowance.

I asked the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible for the CMHC, whether it was not somewhat inconsistent that, in the throne speech, which is a commitment after all, the government said it wanted to withdraw from this sector, and that negotiations were even under way to transfer $1.9 billion to the provinces. The minister replied that, while that was so, there were some provinces where logic did not apply.

This attitude is a bit hard to understand. Our amendments, which I hope will be favourably received by the government, provide that, if the federal government takes action in the low cost, co-operative or non-profit housing sector in municipalities in Quebec, we hope that permission will first be required from the Government of Quebec and the National Assembly.

The bill contains certain provisions flowing from a clause such as this, particularly where aboriginals and student loans are concerned. We hope, through our amendments, to broaden the scope of what exists already on a smaller scale.

I wish to take this opportunity to ask the federal government, particular the government members here today—I am thinking of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration—to bring pressure to bear so that the negotiations that have been going on with the Government of Quebec for over two years reach a successful conclusion.

There is something positively indecent about the federal government's proposal, and I will explain why.

As we speak, the federal government is spending $362 million annually in the housing sector, through various CMHC programs. But this is to completely ignore Quebec's demographic weight. If the federal government had to adjust its spending to reflect Quebec's demographic weight, it would be just over 24%, as everyone knows. It would then have to spend $480 million. The difference is $117 million.

Nor is it respectful of what used to be termed households with core housing needs. I would remind members that all the governments in Quebec, the one the Minister of Immigration belonged to, as did her friend Mr. Johnson, the government of Mr. Parizeau and the government of Mr. Bouchard, all these have made the same demands on the federal government as far as housing is concerned, namely that they receive a fair share, taking core housing needs into consideration. Although Quebec accounts for 24.60% of the population of Canada, it contains 29% of households in need of core housing.

This has been acknowledged by Mr. Ryan, Mr. Trudel, and all the housing ministers, one after another, in the National Assembly.

If Quebec had its fair share, taking into account the households in need of core housing, that would mean it would receive $567 million. I repeat, however, that as we speak what is being spent is $362 million. This makes no sense at all.

More ridiculous still, the Minister responsible for CMHC and member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, makes an offer to Quebec, offering it less than the CMHC spends annually. This makes little sense. He offers Quebec $289 million, while at this very moment $362 million is what is being spent.

I hope the voice of Quebec will be able to make itself heard in this cabinet, that the ministers will get some hold on themselves and loosen the purse strings a little. Housing is an important issue. The main cause of poverty is certainly the amount that our most disadvantaged fellow citizens have to pay in rent.

Even if there is no official indicator of poverty in Canada, the National Council of Welfare, along with Statistics Canada, considers a person poor, and below the poverty line if he or she is devoting 55% of income to basic necessities, i.e. accommodation and food.

We live in a society where there have never been so many poor, and in many cases, of such poverty. We should recall the slogan of the Liberal government in 1968, which called for a just society. This is how Pierre Elliott Trudeau's Liberals made their entry into government.

These people, who claimed to have a sense of fairness and to want to live in a fairer society, are becoming dramatically accustomed to living with a level of poverty that has never been so high. It is important the federal government give the provincial governments the money it will transfer so they have additional resources in the housing sector.

I cannot stress enough with the Liberal ministers that the voice of Quebec must be heard and negotiations must continue. There is no need for a bill like this. If the federal government wants to talk of housing, it will have the support of the opposition parties. I am sure it will have the support of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Reform Party and the New Democratic Party if it wants to make more money available to the provinces, which should be the real agents in the area of housing.

There is a major shortage of resources. However the federal government has a lot of money. After dumping responsibilities, it has a huge amount of money. In the fight against poverty, the least it could do is let the provincial governments, with Quebec in the lead, have some of it.

In all of Canada, as we speak, two provinces are working on housing development, that is, permitting public housing to be built. There is Quebec, with one of the best governments ever assembled in the National Assembly. Quebec has set aside $42 million for housing development. Another province has also done so: British Columbia.

I would ask the Liberal members to vote in support of our amendments, because it is in the interest of Quebec.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to enter the debate on Group No. 2. These amendments from various members of the opposition parties all essentially deal with one subject: the governance, the administration and the devolution of powers with regard to the housing situation in Canada.

I want to address my remarks primarily to the efficiency, the accountability and the effectiveness of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the operation of the Government of Canada with regard to housing.

I notice a number of members of the Liberal Party are here. It is to their advantage to listen carefully. It would be very good if all of them were here to listen to some of the comments that are about to be made.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

I must have hit some kind of chord. They all agree that they should be here listening to this point.

The government does not have a national housing policy. There is a little bit here and a little bit there. There is a little bit in CMHC and a little bit in some other kind of program. There is no consistent national housing policy.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been set up under the National Housing Act to implement the government's housing policy when in fact there is not one. There is a whole bunch of hodgepodge itsy-bitsy pieces coming together. Sometimes they work and sometimes they do not. It is essential that we have one.

I would like to ask whether the government believes that a hodgepodge is the best way to meet the housing problem in Canada today. I submit that it is not. The way to look after housing and to develop a solution to the housing problem in Canada would be to give the jurisdiction of this matter to those people who are closest to the situation and to the problem. That would be the provinces and the municipal governments.

There is no doubt that is precisely what was addressed by my hon. colleague who just spoke. It is also a question that has been raised by the other opposition parties. Huge sums of money are involved in the business of providing housing. There is also a huge social problem which needs to be addressed. We need to ask ourselves what is the best way to resolve this problem.

I commend the city of Toronto that commissioned a major study, the Golden report which was published in January of this year. It comes to grips with many of the issues we are dealing with today.

It is not only the city of Toronto that has done good work. The magazine put out by the Canadian Housing Corporation made some very interesting points. It indicated that the municipal governments throughout Canada that are closest to this problem have probably done a better job of coming to grips with it than any other level of government.

Surprise, surprise. Of course they have because the problem is before them virtually every day. It deals with Vancouver and Van City Place, a 50 unit development for street involved youth. There is a new development of 40 singles in Toronto in addition to the Golden report. The city of Montreal is an equal partner with the province of Quebec on a 50% cost sharing program designed to improve the quality of housing in central areas.

On a small scale, the city of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, was a key player in establishing a new affordable home ownership initiative. The city of Kamloops provides another example. Working in partnership with the Canadian Legion and a local developer, the city has provided land on a lease basis for a seniors condominium.

The city of Edmonton is an active partner in the Edmonton coalition of the homeless initiative to establish a housing trust fund. The city of Saskatoon is similarly assisting the development of a trust fund. The city of Toronto just established an $11 million capital revolving fund, using money collected from private developers in return for density bonuses over the past dozen years.

A variety of cities large and small have shown not only that they can deal with the issue but that they actually are dealing with the issue. It is significant that we can demonstrate the housing issue can be dealt with at the local level and that these governments are competent, able and willing to deal with the issue.

The government through Canada Mortgage and Housing has vacated a large number of these areas. It is confusing. On the one hand it devolved the problems to the provinces but not with all provinces. There is another confusion and that is the federal co-op development that has been happening in Canada. In Ontario there is a real division. Roughly 50% of the housing co-operatives are owned by the provincial government, or under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, and about 50% are under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

On the one hand the government says it wants to divest itself and give it all to the provinces. Lo and behold a lobby group is formed and is successful in saying that the federal co-ops should stay with the federal government. That is exactly what happened.

The concept of housing co-operatives is a good one. I like it a lot because it comes to grips with one of the fundamental principles of housing, the pride of ownership that goes along with owning a home.

The National Housing Act has given many people the right, privilege and opportunity to own their own homes. It has been a benefit to all of them. They have expressed their own individualism through housing. People who are not as capable or not as able financially to do that have joined together with others and have formed a co-operative venture so that they can own their domicile co-operatively.

There are different kinds of co-operatives. We have mentioned federal and provincial co-operatives, but there is also those that are equity co-operatives and those that are non-equity sharing. People who do not have the resources can get into a co-op, develop their equity and actually feel they are part of a co-operative, have an ownership and a direct interest, an equity interest in the particular place where they live. It makes them accountable. It makes them responsible. It gives them a sense of pride as individuals to be able to express themselves in this way, which is highly desirable.

A better solution to the whole business of social housing might be to allow these people to own some of it themselves and be able to share in the management and operation of a particular unit on a co-operative basis, rather than on a handout basis where it is given to them virtually without any strings attached and without any responsibility connected to it.

My colleague was commenting on my speech. I am so happy that he was impressed with it. I just wish hon. members opposite would be as impressed as he was. It is good to hear that common sense is recognized by both sides of the House.

I want to come back to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. We need to have accountability. We need to recognize that accountability is best found if the decisions are transparent and if the powers of the corporation are somewhat restricted. The provisions of the bill give almost carte blanche to the management of Canada Mortgage and Housing to do whatever it wishes to do, whether it is to get involved as a intermediary in the financial marketplace or whether it is to have agents and branches in other countries.

One of the amendments concerns the ability of Canada Mortgage and Housing to establish branches and agents. It is not restricted to Canada. They could be established anywhere in the world. That is not what Canada Mortgage and Housing should be doing. If the purpose is to establish Canada's national housing policy, it should not be allowed to establish agents and branches in a foreign nation somewhere. The loophole is not closed in this legislation. It is important for the members opposite to recognize that this is Canada's mortgage and housing corporation, to implement Canada's national housing policy, and not some other national policy.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will make some brief comments on the amendments in the second group. I will deal first with the amendments submitted by the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Motions Nos. 8, 10 and 20.

If my understanding of the amendments is correct, the intention is to restrict financial assistance to non-profit and co-op associations when it comes to encouraging the building of rental housing projects on reserves.

I firmly support and encourage the involvement of housing co-ops and other not for profit associations in the provision of rental housing, such as the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. It has been helping to supply Canadians of mixed income with affordable housing for over 30 years. The government should continue its commitment to co-op housing as a social policy instrument.

I should also mention that non-profit and co-ops are not the only forms of social housing. There are many innovative and successful private sector solutions for the provision of affordable housing; everything from large apartment buildings all the way down to single duplexes owned by small builders. These small business people should not be excluded from the bill. They are also important in supplying affordable housing to all Canadians.

I will now move on to Motions Nos. 7, 9, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21 and 23. My comments are relatively straightforward on these items. These motions would create a legislative requirement that cabinet advise Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on how to implement certain aspects of its mandate.

I have two thoughts on this. First, I am concerned that these amendments would place unnecessary restrictions on the CMHC that would require it to seek cabinet approval every single time the corporation wanted to assist an individual, group or company in setting up affordable housing projects.

Second, cabinet already provides policy direction to the CMHC on many issues. In some cases, cabinet will want to direct the corporation on how to proceed in certain instances. However, when and how cabinet should intervene should be at the discretion of cabinet and not be written inflexibly into the legislation.

On Motion No. 17, the member for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton has suggested that we specify the type of housing projects in section 78 to be low rental housing projects. I have no trouble with this amendment as it spells out in clearer language the intent of the act with respect to the development and financing of public housing. I certainly see no great demand among Canadians that the government should be involved in financing upscale housing, so I would be pleased to support this amendment.

The next two motions I would like to speak to are Motions Nos. 17 and 35 put forward by the hon. member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve. I understand the intention of the member with respect to the intrusion of the federal government into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

It was just last year that we had to deal with a senseless and unprecedented program called the millennium scholarship fund. This was a unilateral and unwarranted invasion of Canada's provincially-run education system. First, the government slashed educational transfers to the provinces by 40%, and then, to add insult to injury, it kept most of the money for itself and started a new program to solve the lack of money in education, a problem it created in the first place. However, the program was not universal for all students as were the educational transfers it replaced. Much of the budget for the program will be eaten up in new administrative costs. This program has set federal-provincial relations back several years. This is certainly not a nightmare that my party and I would like to see repeated. I think my hon. friend and I are in agreement on this.

Where I differ from him is whether or not a real threat exists in this bill that would allow the government to create another millennium scholarship fund but this time in housing, an area of provincial jurisdiction. I think the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve is trying to kill a mosquito with a nuclear bomb when only a fly swatter is necessary.

In my reading of the bill, in both sections that the member would like to amend, there is a requirement that CMHC create a program working jointly with the provincial governments. That means that CMHC cannot proceed alone but must have the approval of the provincial government concerned and must work bilaterally with that province to produce a joint result.

This goes beyond consultation, beyond co-operation or collaboration. It requires CMHC to create a program that is the child of both the federal and the provincial governments. Just as it takes two hands to make a handshake, there is no way the federal government can create a new program on its own according to the bill. I am satisfied that the provisions in this bill provide sufficient protection against that happening.

Lack of decent affordable housing and the proliferation of homelessness in the country is reaching dramatic proportions. Just last month, the Prime Minister appointed the new Minister of Labour from Moncton, New Brunswick as the new minister for homelessness. Last Friday, during question period, a member of the Reform Party asked the new minister for homelessness a question and she denied being the new minister for homelessness. It is a shame that she has had the title for over a month now and does not even know what her job is.

That is why I am saying that CMHC must have the flexibility to act jointly with provinces to solve these problems in different areas and under different circumstances.

These two amendments, if passed, would prevent the provinces and CMHC from being able to implement solutions to housing problems, even if there is agreement between the provinces and CMHC, until a universal agreement on housing is signed covering all aspects of housing policy between the provinces and CMHC. In other words, the provinces and CMHC could not solve any problem until they solved all of their problems. This is too restrictive.

Bill C-66, as it stands now, will allow the provinces and CMHC to take action incrementally in areas where there is joint agreement without the requirement that they must agree on everything before moving forward.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to various motions presented by my hon. colleague. The government does not support these motions and I will explain why.

I cannot repeat it often enough. What we have before us today are three visions of the relationship between the Government of Canada and CMHC. The amendments being proposed by my colleague from Kelowna would, in my view, seriously undermine the government's ability to carry out its public policy role in housing which it fulfils through the renewed mandate of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Allow me to explain.

The Government of Canada is committed to playing a leadership role in housing. That is why the government renewed the mandate of its housing agency, CMHC, and has strengthened CMHC's ability to fulfil its mandate through amendments to Bill C-66.

The government understands the importance of helping Canadians meet their housing needs. We understand the importance of building a strong competitive housing industry. We know that good housing creates sound communities and a strong country. We know that housing has a major impact on the economy of Canada.

Bill C-66 clearly states the public policy role of CMHC. I will quote from the bill itself. It states:

The purpose of this Act, in relation to financing for housing, is to promote housing affordability and choice, to facilitate access to, and competition and efficiency in the provision of, housing finance, to protect the availability of adequate funding for housing at low cost, and generally to contribute to the well-being of the housing sector in the national economy.

Surely nobody could dispute the importance of these objectives. Yet the member proposes changes that would eliminate the government's ability to regulate CMHC should it be necessary to do so.

If we were to remove this section of the NHA as proposed. We would effectively be reducing the government's control, in other words, the public's control of CMHC.

I am certain that if my hon. friend thought for a minute about what he was proposing, he would realize how ridiculous it is to imply that the public should not have the right to ensure that CMHC is accountable to them. CMHC is a public institution with a public policy role, a role that has served Canadians so well for over 50 years. To suggest that government control of a public institution should be reduced is somewhat bewildering.

Bill C-66 will give CMHC the means to carry out its public policy role more effectively and in a financially prudent manner. That is what the Government of Canada expects. That is what the people of Canada deserve. That is what Bill C-66 is all about.

At the other extreme, we have the member from Cape Breton who would have every decision made by CMHC approved by the governor in council. Perhaps the member does not realize that to do so would involve great expense, both in terms of administrative costs and in the quality of services that the Government of Canada can offer Canadians. Indeed, the member would have the government return to the old days of red tape and heavy bureaucratic processes at the expense of the efficient delivery of important government services for needy Canadians.

Another member has presented a vision which would require that every service CMHC offers to individuals and communities be approved by the government of the particular province. We know this vision would have the Government of Canada so hamstrung that we would not be able to serve the housing needs on reserves without provincial approvals. This vision would also deny other needy Canadians access to important federal assistance should any of the provinces not consider the particular measure important or necessary.

Let me be clear: The benefits conferred by the programs administered by CMHC are and will remain governed by the House.

Bill C-66 introduces a modern relationship between the Government of Canada and CMHC. Bill C-66 calls for the approval of CMHC's corporate plan every year to ensure that the directions taken by CMHC meet the will and priorities of the government.

Moreover, every year the House is involved in approving the resources given to CMHC to reach out to needy Canadians; to implement those programs that one member would rather not see regulated at all and that another member would regulate to the point of administrative paralysis.

Furthermore, the CMHC Act and the Financial Administration Act clearly confer to the government oversight in all aspects of the corporation's activities. What more could the member want? Why, for instance, would we go so far as to endorse the proposal from the member from Cape Breton to have potentially every project approved by the governor in council?

The vision that we are proposing in Bill C-66 is a modern vision, a vision which will result in government services that are more responsive to the needs of Canadians and the needs of their regions, a vision which will better equip CMHC to work co-operatively with provinces, and a vision that at the end of the day will lead to a more efficient government. That is a vision I think every Canadian would support.

[The Deputy Speaker]

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

Voisey's Bay Nickel Project

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should become actively involved in the Voisey's Bay nickel project, specifically to speed up the settling of native land claims and to expedite the completion of all environmental studies.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the member for Compton—Stanstead for seconding my motion. Obviously the Voisey's Bay nickel find in Labrador of major importance. We have taken this time today to bring it to the attention of the House to see if we can exert some influence on the Government of Canada in particular and the Government of Newfoundland as well to expedite this process.

I am pleased to introduce discussion today on this proposed development of the rich nickel deposits at Voisey's Bay in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Members will note that my motion was originally filed exactly 19 months ago today.

During this period a series of developments have taken place which we hope can bring us closer to the approvals required for this project to proceed and for the maximum benefits to be realized for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and of course for Canada. But it is symptomatic of our sometimes cumbersome system and the red tape that we create that even now questions remain about whether positive economic activity will be allowed to proceed.

Despite the fact that my Motion No. 194 was submitted over a year and a half ago, the questions it addresses remain pertinent and topical. Developments on this file are ongoing and include the presentation of the environmental assessment panel's report to government on the first day of this month, the associated commentary from Inco representatives at the company's annual general meeting held yesterday, and ongoing consultations with aboriginal groups.

I fully understand that there are important questions which must be answered before a mining operation of this magnitude can be undertaken. In this case the most important questions include the project's impact on the environment, the status of aboriginal land claims and the revenue sharing arrangements with the provincial government in particular.

At the same time I feel it must be pointed out that those who propose to develop this rich natural resource, thereby creating employment and generating a new revenue source for our government, have to date lived up to their environmental responsibilities. Inco has acted in good faith on the environmental assessment process and invested considerable time and resources to co-operate fully with the panel set up to review the various aspects of this project.

There are still some outstanding issues on the questions of processing and refining. I am in full agreement with the province's position with regard to the requirement for a smelter and refinery in Argentia, Newfoundland. Every Newfoundlander agrees that the export of these raw materials from our province would be absolutely devastating to our economy. We are sticking to our guns. We are, all of us together in Newfoundland and Labrador, saying to Incoand its shareholders that there must be a refinery and smelter in Newfoundland if there is to be a mine site.

The spirit of my motion is to call on the Government of Canada to play a lead co-ordinating role in ensuring that while the important environmental and land claims issues are addressed, government itself does not become an impediment to progress.

I would like to share with my colleagues the fact that new discoveries of nickel have been found in Australia and other places in the world. Despite the fact that these deposits were found after the discovery in Voisey's Bay, the Australian projects in particular have in that time been designed, duly approved, developed, fully constructed and are now producing nickel.

The message is not complicated. The message is simply let us not allow the machinery of government itself to constitute a barrier to economic activity. Let us examine the advice carefully prepared through the work of the environmental assessment panel. Let us consult with the aboriginal people who hold land claims in the area. But let us do so in an expeditious manner so that when we know these valid considerations have been satisfied, we do not stand in the way or indeed cause even further delays.

The proposed Voisey's Bay development has, since its inception, been faced with a series of obstacles to overcome. I do not want to leave any member of the House with the impression that the concerns that lie behind some of these delays are not valid or important. Nobody that I know of is suggesting that such a project would ever be undertaken without due regard for the environment and without close consultation with the aboriginal groups in the area. But we must adopt a reasonable approach. We must not be blind to the fact that our people suffer when the wheels of government turn so slowly that the viability of a significant development project is put in jeopardy.

There are some obvious practical matters to be taken into consideration with regard to the timing of the government decision and its impact on the Voisey's Bay development potential. One of these is the very short construction season available in Labrador.

Because of the length and severity of the winter in the Labrador climate, construction can only be carried out during a relatively brief window of time every year. As a consequence of this, a delay of, let us say, three months in the government's decision making does not mean a delay of only three months in the start of construction. If the government were to wait until the end of this summer before giving its approval for the Voisey's Bay project to go ahead, the whole development would remain dormant, on ice, pardon the turn of phrase, until the weather warmed up some time in the year 2000 so the project could begin. A three month delay in decision makingmeans more than a full year's delay in construction.

I know that all members of the House are familiar with the difficulties experienced by the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in adjusting from the collapse of the northern cod fishery that drove our economy for centuries. I and my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus have identified the problems created by the fisheries crisis, emphasized the need for new avenues of economic growth and made constructive proposals to that end.

The problems are real and they have a human face. I see it firsthand on a regular basis. Many of the people affected are my constituents and still others have been forced from a lack of economic opportunity to leave our province. Can members present in the Chamber imagine that 30,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have been forced to leave Newfoundland in the last three years alone?

The area of Placentia and Argentia for example is in my federal riding of St. John's West. The closure of the former American military base in Argentia dealt a significant blow to the economy of that whole area of Placentia Bay. Since the Americans' departure, the Canadian government has invested in the neighbourhood of $100 million in environmental remediation, cleaning up the toxic waste and making the area suitable for new industrial and commercial development.

One of those new industrial commercial developments is the Voisey's Bay smelter and refinery. Much of the land has been put on reserve for this project and indeed, we have probably lost some other business activity in the area because we are waiting for this smelter and refinery to happen.

The proponents of the Voisey's Bay project have proposed a smelting and refining facility for the Argentia area that will provide the much needed economic boost to the local economy. I take my responsibility to the people of this area very seriously. I am here as their elected representative to fight to make sure that the smelting and refining facility does become a reality in Argentia. We have a responsibility to seize every opportunity that will generate new activity in the economy.

I would like to share with hon. members some information that illustrates the importance of new economic development in Newfoundland and Labrador.

According to the most recent labour force survey figures from Statistics Canada, unemployment in the province of Newfoundland stands at an intolerable 17.6%, more than twice the national average of 7.8%. The rate is three times that of Alberta with 5.8%, or Manitoba with 5.4% unemployed. That is good news for the people of those provinces and I congratulate the governments of Alberta, Manitoba and certainly Ontario for creating an environment in which economic activity is encouraged.

Former U.S. President John F. Kennedy once said that a rising tide floats all boats. I say to members that whatever positive signs may be evident in some parts of the country, Newfoundland and Labrador cannot afford to have a lethargic government act as an economic anchor.

Third party analysts agree that Newfoundland and Labrador will experience slower growth in 1999-2000 than it did last year. Even with developments in new industries outside the province's traditional economic backbone, the fishery, estimates are that growth in Newfoundland and Labrador next year will be only one-half of what it was last year. Surely it must be obvious that the last thing we would want to do is delay unnecessarily the start-up of a new development that will benefit the country, the province and its people.

Another point I would like to make, lest I be accused by some of overstating the impact of the Voisey's Bay project, is that I realize this development in itself is not a panacea for all of our problems. We all know that the days of seeking the magic megaproject solution that can stand alone and satisfy all of our economic needs are long past. This has much more to do with getting the fundamentals right.

In getting the fundamentals right, Newfoundland and Labrador exports more raw material per capita than any other province in Canada. Ontario as an example exports the least raw material per capita. There is an obvious correlation between the amount of raw materials we export and the unemployment rate. If rawmaterials are used wisely, we will get a much lower unemployment rate.

We have an opportunity for an important new addition to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. Moving forward with the project will be helpful. Failure to do so, failure to take full advantage of our natural resources when the opportunity to develop them presents itself, would be a clear indication that we are a long way from being able to effectively build a new economy in the absence of a viable commercial cod fishery.

I ask my colleagues in this House to join with me in making a strong statement calling on the federal government to assume a leadership role not only in seeing that the necessary criteria are satisfied but also in co-ordinating negotiations among all the stakeholders. Let us work to ensure that this project, including the Mill/mine in Labrador and the smelting and refining facilities in Argentia, can proceed without further delays for the benefit of all Newfoundlanders and indeed for all Canadians.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for St. John's West and I can understand the passion with which he speaks. One might wonder why the member for Etobicoke North would enter the debate on the project in Voisey's Bay. I will give the House some background to that.

I had the good fortune to visit Voisey's Bay with my colleague from Labrador in 1996. It was quite impressive and we could see the potential for this particular site for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed the people of Canada.

The member for St. John's West said that this would be an important new addition to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. He asked for the federal government to assist in facilitating some resolution to this impasse. I certainly would support that. This project is important to that region and to all Canadians.

The problem as I understand it is that the Newfoundland government has attached preconditions. These preconditions are aligned, I suspect, with what the member opposite said, that the refinery would need to be located in Argentia.

Unfortunately I think we need to ground some of the debate in business economics and logic. Going back to the original purchase, in 1994 Inco paid $4 billion for the Voisey's Bay discovery. The price of nickel at that time was about $3.50 U.S. a pound. It is now about half that price.

To have this important new addition to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador given current economic conditions, which are really projected to last for some time regrettably, this project will not really be implemented. That would be a sad day for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador and it would be a sad day for Canada.

Inco, as I understand it being a business, has to look at other options. It is looking at a project in New Caledonia, a French colony near Australia. Inco has to decide which one of these deposit sites is going to be developed next. Is it going to be Voisey's Bay or New Caledonia? Being a very strong Canadian company with a lot of roots in Canada, Inco would much prefer to develop the site at Voisey's Bay, but how can it when business economics argue totally against it?

One might ask why the member for Etobicoke North would be concerned. I am concerned as a Canadian. Having visited Labrador I would like to see the economy of Newfoundland benefit. I can understand why the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and their government are anxious to realize the full potential for their treasury and for their people, but we have to come back to basic business economics.

The fact is that if Inco decides to go to New Caledonia, Labrador will lose about 500 permanent direct jobs plus about 1,200 spin-off jobs. It will also lose about $1.1 billion in investment for the mine, the mill and the concentrator facilities.

As a member from Ontario let me say that Ontario is affected as well. The way that Inco has proposed it, the only way the project can proceed is if the mining, the milling and the concentrating are done in Labrador. At that point the concentrate would have to be sent to Quebec City or Sept-Îles and then moved to Sudbury, Ontario, or to Thompson, Manitoba.

That is the only way that Inco seems to feel it can proceed. It has its business people who understand business economics. They are accountable to their shareholders. That is the only way it sees the project working.

If the project does not go ahead, northern Ontario and northern Manitoba will lose smelting and refining jobs. Most of the smelting and refining of the New Caledonia concentrate will be done, for logistical and other reasons, in Japan and not in Canada.

Newfoundland insists on the smelting capacity being located in Argentia. Newfoundland and Canada are at risk of losing about $1.7 billion in taxes and other revenues over eight years. Now that the election in Newfoundland is behind us, it is time for the Government of Newfoundland to look seriously at some business economics and get on with this project.

To add some insult, I am afraid that in November 1998 the Newfoundland government announced amendments to the mineral act which gave the provincial cabinet the power to decide what was economically viable. The cabinet in Newfoundland, while we respect that it has good analysts and other people for advice, has the power to tell Inco, which is a business with shareholders, employees and other stakeholders groups to whom it is accountable and spends its whole life running businesses, that Newfoundland will decide what is economically feasible and what is not.

That is quite tragic. We are depriving Canada, Newfoundland, Labrador, Ontario and Manitoba of jobs, revenue and economic activity because of an understandable passion by the Newfoundland government not to repeat mistakes it has made in the past. We can understand that sensitivity, but when the price of nickel is half what it was when the project was conceived, it is a matter of economics. Sometimes we cannot have the full cake and have to accept half the cake.

I believe strongly that Inco is quite prepared to sit down with the Government of Newfoundland. Perhaps the Government of Canada could play a facilitative role in bringing the parties together, cutting through the rhetoric, getting down to the basics of creating jobs and economic activity in Canada. If that could happen I know it would be very positive.

The project at Voisey's Bay is a staggeringly attractive proposition. As I said, I had the pleasure of visiting it and seeing the area oozing with hope and the dreams of the people who will be involved. However, they will not be involved if the people of Newfoundland and Inco cannot get together to make the project a reality.

I support what the hon. member is saying. The Government of Canada should play a facilitative role, but I do not see how it can do that if the Government of Newfoundland is saying there are preconditions, that the smelting capacity must be in Argentia. That is a huge stumbling block.

I support the member opposite in the sense of moving the project forward. I would argue that our government should be involved in helping to get the project rolling.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for St. John's West. For those Canadians watching these proceedings on television, I would like to read the motion that is currently before us:

That in the opinion of this House the government should become actively involved in the Voisey's Bay nickel project, specifically to speed up the settling of native land claims and to expedite the completion of all environmental studies.

The hon. member certainly has more faith in the federal government than I have. I understand his frustration at the seemingly endless process of study and negotiations and more study and negotiations. However, I would never have thought I would hear anyone on the opposition side of the House looking to the federal government to expedite anything.

The victims of tainted blood have been waiting for over a year for compensation. We could ask them what they think of the government's ability to be expeditious. Newfoundlanders in particular have not been served well by the Liberal government. The TAGS program has been a disaster for Newfoundlanders and was a band-aid solution in place of real reforms of the cod fisheries.

The Hibernia project has been another Liberal failure. Not one oil manufacturing job will be created in Newfoundland as a result of the project.

Churchill Falls is another example. Newfoundland lost $1 billion a year as a result of a do-nothing Liberal government that refuses to give Newfoundlanders a fair deal.

The seal hunt has also been systematically destroyed by the Liberal bureaucratic red tape that has prevented the export of seal projects around the globe.

These are four good reasons why we should not invite the Liberal government to get involved in this project. Newfoundlanders are better served by negotiating on their own terms.

Furthermore, the Voisey's Bay project has been stalled and delayed, not because there has not been enough government interest in the matter but because there has been too much. This is no longer a business venture. It is a three ring political circus.

Let us look at the players already involved in this project. Inco Limited is involved. As it is the private sector company ready to take on the risk of the project it will be the one creating the wealth and the jobs. It will be the one jumping through the political hoops trying to please the various stakeholders involved in the project, many of whom have very legitimate concerns that must be addressed.

I applaud the patience of Inco's president, Scott Hand. It seems that Canadian entrepreneurs have unfortunately had to become politicians and spin doctors. That is the new cost of doing business in the Canadian economy and more federal intervention, as is proposed in the motion, is not the solution.

I take this opportunity to encourage Mr. Hand to continue to negotiate with the province. The Newfoundland people want this project, need this project, and are ready and able to make this project a success.

The Labrador Inuit Association and Innu nation are also involved in the negotiations, representing the interests of the first nations people in the area. They have been active participants in the creation of a 200 page study of the project that contained over 100 recommendations. On the basis of this report, it looks as if the Voisey's Bay negotiations may have been given a second life and a second chance.

The land claim concerns and benefit agreements brought forward by these groups are currently being considered by Inco. The environmental study has given the company a conditional green light to proceed.

The premier of Newfoundland is also involved in this matter. While Brian Tobin is working for the people of Newfoundland, I believe he can learn a lesson from Alberta about creating economic growth. In Alberta we are working to remove the barriers impeding economic progress and development. In Newfoundland they are erecting new ones.

If my hon. colleague from St. John's wants to be of some assistance to his constituents, and I know he does, he should ask Mr. Tobin a simple question: Is Newfoundland open for business? Nobody questions where Mr. Tobin's loyalties lie. I would however question his commitment to liberalizing the Newfoundland economy to encourage domestic and foreign investment.

The answer to the Voisey's Bay project and economic development in general is not further political meddling. We need to see the development of sensible and workable environmental policies that allow for sustainable economic growth.

Environmental regulations are another tax on Canadian businesses. While many of them are necessary, others are not. There is a balance that must be struck.

We also need to address the first nations land claim issues according to fair and equitable guidelines, but this must be done on a comprehensive basis so that it does not continue to be a never ending barrier to economic development in the country.

Politicians and lawyers have hijacked land claim issues and it is the grassroots Inuit or other aboriginals who have suffered. I once again applaud the author of the motion for allowing debate in the House on the Voisey's Bay project. However I do not believe he will find a solution through this arrogant and out of touch Liberal government.

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged to hear members say that the Voisey's Bay project could find minerals in my riding of Manicouagan. I am referring to Sept-Îles.

I am pleased to speak to this motion regarding the problems of the nickel project in Voisey's Bay, Labrador.

The motion recommends that the government become actively involved in this project; on the one hand, to speed up the settling of land claims from aboriginal communities present in the area and, on the other hand, to ensure that all environmental studies necessary for implementation of the project are duly completed.

The Bloc Quebecois supports this motion. In order to explain our position, I will give some essential background and history.

Inco Ltd., the main backer of the Voisey's Bay nickel project, has its eye on lands in the far northeast corner of Labrador. But the Inuit and Innu in this region have lived on these lands for thousands of years. Clearly, these are their traditional hunting and fishing grounds. They also grow certain medicinal plants there.

What is important is that these northern communities have, from time immemorial, maintained a close relationship with the land and its resources. Their traditional economy is based on the bounty of nature and the land, for instance boots made of skins, bone and ivory needles, food-gathering, trapping, and so forth. In addition to providing for the material needs of the Labrador Inuit and Innu, the land is at the heart of their relationship with other works of the Creator, and their spirituality.

In fact, in its 1996 report, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples identified the land as one of the four fundamental themes of the northern first nations' culture. In other words, the land is extremely important for the culture and the soul of a northern aboriginal.

But let us get back to the issue before us. The Innu and the Inuit have important land claims in the Voisey's Bay region. These claims obviously concern traditional lands that are filled with memories and that have been used by generations of Innu and Inuit. These claims are still not settled and now there is this nickel mining project.

It goes without saying that the federal government and the Newfoundland government must sit down with the Innu and Inuit communities to settle their claims, this before allowing Inco to begin mining operations in Voisey's Bay.

This is, in my view, a basic issue of respect for the aboriginal community that lives there and for which these lands are literally their living environment, one that also reflects their cultures. In short, these lands are their universe.

This mining project is a good development opportunity for Labrador. It could even, based on my information, benefit communities as far as Sept-Îles. For the moment, I cannot say any more on the subject. However, we must not forget that it will also, in all likelihood, have a negative environmental impact on that region.

It is therefore imperative that the federal government try to settle the claims of the Innu and Inuit, so that Inco's arrival in Labrador can take place in a climate of mutual co-operation between those involved, and in the respect of the aboriginal community living on that territory.

Therefore, the Voisey's Bay mining operation must necessarily include guarantees and a significant compensation package for the first nations directly affected by this mining project. The motion before us generally goes in that direction.

Incidentally, a few years ago, the federal government, the Newfoundland government and the Innu and Inuit communities in Labrador appointed a group to examine the impact of the Voisey's Bay mining project. The group tabled its report on April 1.

It recommended, among other things, to settle the issue of land claims and to arrive at an agreement between the company, the governments and the aboriginals on the sharing of benefits—we are talking billions of dollars—from the mining project. Indeed, this is the way we will have to go, it would seem.

While the land claims issue is still not resolved, particularly in the case of the Innu, there is also another basic issue that remains unresolved, namely the environmental impact of the mining project.

In fact, at this time, the Inuit and the Innu of Labrador still do not know where the smelter will be located and what will happen to the slag it will produce.

There are a number of contaminants contained in this residue, and the wind may carry them to adjacent soil and water. These vital problems are still on the back burner. The Bloc Quebecois is therefore calling upon the federal government, as the motion proposes, to become actively involved so that all of the environmental studies will be completed in order for the aboriginal population, and all other individuals or groups affected, to have the proper information on environmental impact.

To summarize, if this development project, which is of importance for Labrador, is to be given the green light to proceed, first the native land claims by the inhabitants of this area, the Innu and the Inuit, must be settled. It must also be ensured that the environmental consequences of mining operations are analyzed in depth and that the information relating to this, which is of such vital importance, must be made publicly available. In other words, the project is a good thing, but not at any price.

What is required first of all is to sit down, put all the pieces of the puzzle together, scrutinize all the implications of the project, while maintaining harmony, good faith and respect among all partners associated in the project.

It is certain, indispensable even, that the federal government must get actively involved in resolving the major problems I have raised here. There is much still to be done, so it is very much in the federal government's interests to roll up its sleeves and get cracking.

Since Motion M-194 is along the same lines as my own observations, I support it.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this motion, which was put forward by the member for St. John's West, regarding the proposed Voisey's Bay project.

This debate is timely in that a significant step was recently taken with the release on April 1 of the environmental assessment panel's report.

Before getting into the issue, there are a couple of points I want to make with respect to the remarks made by the Reform member for Edmonton—Strathcona. He spoke disparagingly about some of the programs which the Government of Canada has in place in the province of Newfoundland. He spoke about the TAGS program, for instance. The TAGS program, the Atlantic groundfish strategy, was put in place to help people in their time of need. We were there for the people of Newfoundland as a result of the downturn in the cod fishery.

He also spoke about the seal hunt. I really do not know what his point was on that, other than he was flopping around like a seal on the ice and he would not know the difference between a codfish and a seal if he saw one.

I believe it is important to review the historical context of this project so that we can more fully appreciate the present situation and some of the complexities that still lie ahead. However, before I begin I would like to preface my remarks with a couple of points.

First, the Government of Canada's position regarding the Voisey's Bay project is that this is a matter to be resolved between the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is the manager of the mineral resource, and the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, which is the firm proposing to develop the project.

However, I would like to emphasize that while it is up to the province and the company to negotiate a mutually beneficial outcome, the federal government strongly supports all positive endeavours to this end and looks forward to its successful completion.

The second point I would like to make is that the Government of Canada is heavily involved in native land claim negotiations across the country and is doing everything in its power to resolve all such claims as expeditiously as possible. The Government of Canada is committed to the land claims negotiations in Labrador and to a fair and equitable process and outcome. These talks have their own pace and the government does not want to jeopardize them by attempting to advance them beyond that pace.

The project we are addressing today concerns a mine and a mill near Voisey's Bay on the northern coast of Labrador. This is a rugged area, with rough terrain and a sub-Arctic climate of short summers and long winters, which was a point made by the member for St. John's West earlier. It is located between the Inuit community of Nain and the Innu community known as Davis Inlet. The area is the subject of overlapping land claims on the part of the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation. The land holds an estimated 150 million tonnes of ore containing nickel, copper and cobalt.

Minerals were first discovered in this vicinity in 1993 by a company called Archean, which was under contract to Diamond Fields Resources Incorporated. Two years later, in 1995 and 1996, Inco Limited purchased the area in two stages for $4.3 billion.

The Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, an Inco subsidiary, has proposed to develop a nickel, copper and cobalt mine and mill in the area. The nickel concentrate from the mill would be sent elsewhere for processing.

In November 1996 the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company announced that it had chosen Argentia, Newfoundland as the site for a smelter and refinery complex. The company estimated that the two sites together would create 3,500 direct and indirect jobs in the province, and that we all certainly would welcome.

On January 31, 1997 the four principal parties involved in the Voisey's Bay project, that is, the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation, signed a memorandum of understanding to establish the environmental review process. Under the MOU a five person environmental assessment panel was appointed. The panel held two rounds of public consultations over the next year and a half. The first round began that spring. The second round of consultations took place in the fall of 1998, from September 9 to November 6. The company was also at those hearings to explain the project and to respond to any concerns and questions raised by participants.

During the period between the two rounds of consultations several events took place that had a significant impact on the project's negotiations and progress.

In August 1997 the Newfoundland court of appeal issued a temporary injunction blocking the company from building a temporary road and airstrip that would allow it to begin underground exploration. The next month the company announced that it was delaying the Voisey's Bay start-up date, which had originally been scheduled for late 1999, by at least one year. Three days later, on September 22, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland stipulated that the road and airstrip were an integral part of the mine and that the company must refrain from any underground exploration until it had received environmental clearance.

In the spring of 1998 the Federal Court of Canada heard arguments put forward by the Citizens Mining Council of Newfoundland and Labrador that the project's environmental assessment should include both Voisey's Bay and Argentia sites. On March 8 of this year the court ruled that the law did not impose a duty in the circumstances of this case to include the two projects in one environmental assessment. This decision served to remove any uncertainty over the environmental assessment process for the two sites.

As well, Newfoundland rejected the new proposal of Inco on the ground that it was not of sufficient benefit to the province. It took the position that the project would not proceed unless all of the ore was processed within provincial boundaries and that the company's investment must include a smelter at Argentia in order to maximize the number of jobs for Newfoundland and Labrador citizens.

On July 23, 1998 Newfoundland suspended negotiations. A few days later the company halted its engineering and procurement activities relating to construction.

While these events were going on, parallel talks were also taking place with the Labrador Inuit Association and the Innu Nation. The negotiations were being conducted separately with each of the two native groups. I would like to emphasize that these organizations, as well as other aboriginal groups, have been an integral part of the environmental assessment process.

Negotiations with the two aboriginal groups are continuing. The federal government is strongly committed to forging new partnerships with native peoples. It is through the successful negotiation of major projects such as Voisey's Bay that the government will build and maintain such partnerships.

I repeat, therefore, that the Government of Canada is strongly committed to a fair and equitable process and outcome. It is making every effort in its power to achieve such a result as soon as possible.

Despite the sometimes rocky road behind us, I am happy to report that events have in the past few months taken a much more positive turn. On February 10, 1999 the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador indicated his willingness to renew talks with Voisey's Bay Nickel Company after the company said that it too hoped to resume negotiations. The four MOU parties have since held discussions and have reached a preliminary agreement on a broad framework for future consultations. I understand that formal consultations are expected to begin on May 3, 1999.

Also, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the environmental assessment panel released its report on April 1, 1999. This represents a significant milestone. The Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as native groups, are now in the process of reviewing the report.

I conclude by stating the government's view that a positive spirit of co-operation on the part of all parties will ensure that everyone concerned achieves mutually beneficial results from this impressive project.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I should advise the House that if the hon. member for St. John's West speaks now he will terminate the debate.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members who have spoken. Some were in support of the motion and I am not so sure others were supporting it or not. However I thank all hon. members for their contributions to this important debate.

The member for Malpeque just outlined a decent history of what has happened and how government will proceed with supporting this major development. In the case of the Government of Canada the major role it can play is in the lands claim area. I hope the motion will encourage the government to speed up and to make a priority of land claims.

Land claims for Newfoundland and Labrador relating to Voisey's Bay are a little more important and urgent than they may be in other parts of the country because of what I said about the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to have priorities as a House of Commons and as a Government of Canada.

If there is a priority for land claims settlement in Canada, it should be in Labrador to make sure this development can go ahead. I also thank my friend from Quebec who talked about the settlement for aboriginal peoples which comes from the land claims issue and his concern for the environment.

Not in a confrontational way I want to say in particular to the member from Etobicoke why this project is so important to Newfoundland and Labrador and why it is different from the norm. We just celebrated 50 years of Confederation a few days ago.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Charlie Power, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Our union with Canada has been an amazingly good stroke of luck for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has helped us in many ways. It has given us a social safety net. It has allowed us to access the Canadian economy in many ways. It has served in many ways to benefit Newfoundland and Labrador.

Unfortunately it has not always worked as well as it could have or should have. Certain things have happened to Newfoundland and Labrador because of our union with Canada that really should not have happened.

We still have an unemployment rate that is twice the national average. Why is that so? Why does Newfoundland and Labrador have twice asmany people unemployed every single day of every single week of every single month of every single year for 50 years? There has to be something wrong. There has to be some way that can be rectified.

Let us look at some of the problems we have. Our unemployment situation is obvious. Some 30,000 people left Newfoundland in the last three years alone. That would be comparable to 7,500 people leaving Prince Edward Island. It is unbelievable to think that can happen consistently and still have a viable entity as a province with health and education systems.

I want to give the member from Etobicoke a little history of what happens in Newfoundland and Labrador. One thing that happened in Newfoundland that should never have happened was that the Government of Canada forced the tiny unimportant province of Newfoundland to sign a deal on the Upper Churchill agreement, which has cost Newfoundland citizens anywhere between $700 million and $800 million every year since 1969. We could be a have province. We could contribute positively in a revenue sense to Canada. That is one example.

Everything we do in Newfoundland and Labrador is because of the nature of where we are and of industry in Canada. Maybe we should send all our fish to be processed in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia because there is excess capacity there. Maybe we should take all the nickel we have and send it to Sudbury for smelting. It would be logical to ask what Newfoundland and Labrador can supply to Canada. We can supply raw materials and labourers, I suppose.

That is not the nature of Confederation as we want it to be. There is a difference. There is an opportunity for the Government of Canada and the province. There is a problem with the provinces in some of its stances in negotiating with Inco. If we were to work this arrangement through it would show to all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and all other people of Canada we can be allowed in Newfoundland and Labrador to earn our own keep. We can be allowed to make our living, pay taxes and contribute revenue to the country of Canada. We can do it just using our own resources. We are not asking for a whole lot.

There is the Inco deal, the Voisey's Bay deal, and 48 million barrels of oil off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland this year, but we are not allowed to refine any of it in Newfoundland and Labrador. What should we do, just basically supply raw materials?

There is a tremendous correlation between Newfoundland having the highest per ratio export of raw materials and the highest unemployment rate, and Ontario having just the opposite. It does not export raw materials to the same degree per capita and has a high employment rate.

That is what we have to do in Newfoundland and Labrador and that is why Voisey's Bay is not just a mine. It is an opportunity for Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada to put our partnership right, to allow those of us in Newfoundland and Labrador to contribute. I hope this debate highlights the issue so that some of the people in the House can have a full understanding of the history of what has happened in Newfoundland and Labrador and why Voisey's Bay is so important to us.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Member's Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order paper.

It being 6.20 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.20 p.m.)