Debates of May 12th, 2000

Natural Gas

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak and I appreciate your help in arranging this time for me.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to Motion No. 298, put forward by the hon. member for Churchill River. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and address environmental concerns and high energy costs.

The motion is extremely important to an area such as my riding in northern Nova Scotia. There are all kinds of small communities like Advocate Harbour, Parrsboro, Tatamagouche, Pugwash and Stewiacke which are not in the mainstream and will not get the benefits of natural gas as pipelines pass through our area. If this initiative were successful, these small communities would have access to natural gas and would be treated equally, which is very important.

The PC Party and I support this motion for a number of reasons. First, if natural gas is supplied to unserviced areas, then it will spur regional economic development, always a challenge in my region. Second, natural gas is considered to be one of the cleanest energy sources widely available for public use.

Increased use of natural gas could help Canada meet its Kyoto targets. In Nova Scotia, we have a very pristine environment. It is very clean. We are very proud of it and we want to maintain that environment.

Canada signed a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% from 1990 levels by 2010. However, according to what I have been hearing, many of the industrialized nations of the world are uncertain about their abilities to meet these commitments, and Canada is one of those countries. Those commitments may have been made in good faith, but, by all accounts, Canada is nowhere near its targets. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions are now rising in the country.

The dramatic rise in gasoline prices over the past few months has shown consumers that dependence on a single energy source places people in a very vulnerable position, forcing them to either pay the price or forgo the service. Many people do not have any options, however, since they may be dependent on gasoline to travel to work or heat their homes.

There are a number of energy sources available, ranging from fuel oil and diesel fuel to hydro-electricity, coal-fired electricity and various other sources of energy, all of which can be fairly expensive. If another energy source can help reduce costs for industries or consumers, then I would support the initiative to help make that source widely available, which is exactly what we are talking about here today.

On the east coast there are some exciting projects that are developing, supplying natural gas to the area and to the United States, and there may be potential for many further developments. Only a few months ago the Sable offshore energy project, through the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, began supplying natural gas to buyers in the New England states. This pipeline goes through my riding, from one end to the other. A natural gas distribution franchise has now been awarded to Sempra Atlantic Gas and the construction of a natural gas pipeline will allow gas to flow to households in the maritime provinces.

By coincidence, I talked to officials from Sempra Gas this morning about routes for natural gas and the best way to get it to the smaller communities to see if there is some way to address those needs.

The pipeline is expected to service up to 300,000 households and 25,000 industrial, commercial and institutional customers.

There is also potential natural gas development in other parts of Canada, including the far north, Alberta and British Columbia. Recent newspaper articles have discussed the exciting prospect of natural gas development in the Northwest Territories after a 10 year moratorium which shut down operations near the Beaufort Sea.

The prospect of a 1,500 kilometre pipeline to link the Northwest Territories with markets in the United States is again under consideration. Future revenue from the $4 billion project makes that project attractive to the Northwest Territories government, which is willing to provide $100 million of the initial investment. Federal assistance is being sought to provide the additional $230 million needed over a four year period to see the project established.

Like all natural gas projects, the potential for spinoffs to the local economy could be great. Employment, infrastructure, training and other benefits would all be a part of the larger picture that would see the pipeline become a reality.

In my riding last year we experienced those spinoffs and benefits. The pipeline company and workers literally brought millions of dollars to our area and boosted our economy dramatically.

There is an estimated six trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves in the Mackenzie Delta region and the co-operation of the aboriginal groups in the area who have given their approval for development of these reserves means that oil companies are again exploring options in the area. It will be very interesting to see how this project develops and the economic spinoffs it will provide to the northern region.

It is clear that natural gas delivery to unserviced regions would assist regional economic development and improve the overall economic well-being of Canadian communities. The Progressive Conservative Party supports this motion because of the need to help remote or rural areas develop economically and also assist Canada in working toward meeting its Kyoto targets for lower greenhouse gases.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 298 today which states that the government should provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions.

I believe that, although governments can participate in the delivery of natural gas or any other product, they cannot and should not try to avoid basic and natural market forces. If a government tries to ignore the marketplace it is asking for trouble.

In my community of 30,000 people in Campbell River, one of the justifications for bringing in natural gas over a significant geographical hurdle was the considerable demand for the commodity. This took much more than the normal business activity and the normal residential sector would ordinarily demand.

There had been a proposal to build a natural gas/wood waste electrical cogeneration plant. In addition to the usual residential and commercial demands, this would be a potential major consumer which would have a greater demand than the rest of the demand combined.

In our case the provincial government played a pivotal and essential role in ensuring that these two things happened in tandem. Without its involvement and concurrence our community would still be without natural gas service. Essentially it had to guarantee, in one form or another, that the cogeneration plant would receive approval and would be economic. That was enough of an incentive to ensure that natural gas would come to the community. That is what we could call a win-win situation for all parties, and there is always room for a win-win situation.

There is also room for governments to regulate rates so that averaging would make services and commodities more affordable and increase total demand by making them more attractive for more consumers. The provinces and the territories have a very important regulatory role to play in these activities.

All of these things are already happening where they are needed, where demand is sufficient and where they are not a burden on the taxpayer. They are market sensitive, regionally sensitive and they properly allocate our energy resources.

There is opportunity in the north and other remote areas for natural gas exploration incentives that would place the source close to unserviced communities. This would create a whole new affordability index in terms of servicing remote communities. In these situations there is opportunity for provincial or territorial governments to put incentives in place to try to expand the servicing area of natural gas distribution.

The Northwest Territories, as an example, has done that very thing. The Inuvik natural gas project came about because in 1998 the Inuvialuit Petroleum Corporation, AltaGas Services Inc. and Enbridge Inc. formed a partnership to bring natural gas from the Ikhil field to supply the energy needs of the town of Inuvik.

The territorial Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development funded a portion of the initial research for the project. The department provided funding to assist residential customers to convert to natural gas heating, with Inuvik Gas Ltd. providing matching grants.

This is all fairly recent. Last September the hon. Stephen Kakfwi stated in the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories:

This program will result in the reduction of residential energy costs in Inuvik. It also allows the Northwest Territories to demonstrate its commitment to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

There are some pretty good things to say on this subject.

However, this is an entirely different matter from what this private member's motion contemplates today. This motion contemplates federal spending when the jurisdiction is almost exclusively provincial or territorial. In other words, the motion contemplates a massive intrusion of federal government into provincial and territorial affairs.

Canada is a major global natural gas producer and a major exporter to the United States. Canadian companies are at the forefront in developing natural gas alternatives to traditional engine fuels. There are many people aware of this, as there has been much attention paid to the stock market and publicly traded companies recently.

Westport Innovations Inc. is a Vancouver based company which is traded on the TSE. There is Calgary based Alternative Fuel Systems Inc., which is also publicly traded. These are two companies with which I am somewhat familiar, but I am sure there are likely to be other Canadian based companies doing similar things. These companies are working hard to use natural gas as a primary fuel, with good results, all of which has a positive impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Westport Innovations utilized technology developed at the University of British Columbia. It recently bought the rights. This is a good example of a public-private partnership doing research and development which has worked out very well for all parties.

Environment Canada has publicly recognized the efforts of Calgary based Alternative Fuel Systems. It has developed products to convert diesel and gasoline engines to operate on cleaner burning natural gas as well. AFS has received contracts to sell its products and technology to Mexico and India, enabling fleets of vehicles in those countries to be converted to run on natural gas. This is all very good.

The major environmental benefit, of course, is that this reduces vehicular pollutants. The economic benefits come from the reduced fuel cost, as well as reduced maintenance costs and increased engine life.

Natural gas is an excellent fuel source and Canada is blessed with large reserves. It is very important that we do it right in terms of how we develop, distribute, market and creatively manage this legacy. I cannot support this private member's motion, which is without vision and does not respect federal, provincial and territorial—

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to the member from the Canadian Alliance talk about unfettered market forces, that he does not support this motion and so on. I would seek unanimous consent to ask the member a question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

If we could let the hon. member finish, before we go to the next speaker, we could do it at that time, in what would be a pseudo-question and comment period. Why do we not try that instead of interrupting him in the middle of debate. That would not be something we would normally do.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would have greatly appreciated if that intercession had been when I had finished. I think that is the way Private Members' Business is normally run and operated.

Natural gas is an excellent fuel source and Canada is blessed with large reserves. It is important that we do it right in terms of how we develop, distribute, market and creatively manage our legacy.

I cannot support this private member's motion because it is without vision and it does not respect federal, provincial or territorial respective jurisdictions.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will be speaking on this motion, but at this time I would like ask for unanimous consent to ask the member for Vancouver Island North a question on his remarks.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is not much we cannot do through unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre to put a question to the member for Vancouver Island North?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration from those members. I am disappointed that the Liberal member from Ottawa, the upper valley, did not provide unanimous consent because I wanted to ask the member for Vancouver Island North a very important question about the Liberals, which I will get to momentarily.

I am very pleased to stand in the House and support the motion by my colleague, the member for Churchill River, who is also an NDP member, which reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and address environmental concerns and high energy costs.

I appreciate the Conservative members' views. They support this motion because they too are concerned about the kind of high energy costs that Canadians are being subjected to without any kind of justification or regulation.

On the point of having some kind of regulatory agency for energy, we have a regulatory agency for communications. We have over 150 television stations. We have hundreds of radio stations. We have all kinds of opportunities to choose whatever kind of communications that we like in terms of getting information.

Lo and behold, we have the CRTC which regulates communications in the country. We also have a regulatory board for transportation. There are many different ways to travel in this country and we have a regulatory board for transportation, the Canadian Transportation Agency. I support those regulatory boards because we need some sense of order.

However, the underpinning of our economy is energy. Everything we do, everything we consume and everything we move, whether we are going to work or it is the goods and services we buy, they all depend on the price of energy, be it natural gas, home heating fuel, diesel fuel or gasoline. There is no backbone in the Canadian Alliance Party or the Liberal Party to support a regulatory agency for what is controlled basically by four or five companies.

We have communications controls by the CRTC for hundreds of companies. We have transportation controls for many companies, 50 or 100 companies at least. I do not know the number. We have four or five companies that establish the price of energy and there is no regulation. They set up the market forces to determine what the prices are.

I ask the member for Vancouver Island North and the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul, if we have regulatory agencies for all of these other things where there is pure competition, why not for the underpinning of our economy, which is the price of energy? Explain that one to me.

Maybe the reason they do not support that is that they get substantial political contributions from the oil companies. Lo and behold, surprise, surprise, surprise. Bite my tongue. I do not understand what the reason could be. They receive hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from the energy companies to do what? To let the market forces determine the price of energy. This is the underpinning of our economy. This is not a chocolate bar. If we do not like the price of a chocolate bar for dessert we can buy some other candy, a piece of cake, a piece of pie, or we can choose not to have dessert. With energy, we cannot choose. We have to buy energy to get to work, whether it is a bus pass, or driving a car or a taxi. We need energy to pay for transporting of goods on rail, air or by ground. Everything we do depends on that.

The price of energy in this country has gone up so high, at record levels right now, because the government has no backbone to regulate the gas industry, be it natural gas, diesel fuel or home heating fuel.

I think Canadians see through these two parties. The former leader of the Reform Party, who was a former oil company executive, would not let this band of MPs from western Canada, the Alliance members, talk about any kind of regulation for energy because he was a former energy executive. Guess who primarily funds the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance Party? Primarily it is the energy companies, followed by the banks and then Conrad Black. Conrad Black gives these guys more money. He is actually becoming a bigger backer of the Reform Party than the energy companies, which is really incredible because the energy companies have lots of money.

I want to return specifically to this motion because it is really important. I have been dealing specifically with the motion in a very embracing way. We have heard the Liberal member from Winnipeg North—St. Paul talk about market forces. Given that kind of approach, members should know that government is obligated to provide a balance in the country. Everyone knows that the big corporations and the wealthy families run our economy. However, the government's obligation is to provide a balance to defend people and to provide a balance to the economic powers that run our country. This is not the approach of Liberals or the Alliance members. All they want to do is move the weights and the power more to the wealthy who run our economy now. That is wrong.

If we asked anybody whether or not the government should be the balance to the powers that run our economy, or to give them move power, I would venture to say that 90% would say that government should be the balance. That is why we are asking in this particular motion that government provide some balance.

Not all members live in the northern parts of Canada. I have worked in northern Saskatchewan for many years. The price to install a natural gas outlet in rural Saskatchewan, in the southern part of the province, can go as high as $30,000 for one installation. That is just the cost of the pipeline to the home of the rancher or the farmer.

They think the market forces should determine this. If they are so committed to Kyoto and the environmental concerns of millions of Canadians, they would say that natural gas would reduce the greenhouse effect and reduce greenhouse emissions, and that we should move to natural gas so that people living on farms in northern Canada could to use natural gas, which is our resource, to reduce emissions and provide a more cost efficient way to heat their homes, farms and businesses rather than burning home heating fuel which has higher emissions in terms of pollution. We could eliminate the use of wood or coal. Many people in northern Canada use wood or coal. These have a very high degree of pollutants compared to natural gas which is a very clean burning element.

I want to outline as well that we, as a country, have a very large reserve of natural gas and other forms of energy such oil, coal, and so on. We are viewed as a net exporter of these resources; that is, we produce more oil and natural gas than we consume so we export the difference.

When the Minister of Industry stood in the House this morning in question period and said that we are the second lowest gas priced country in the industrialized world, I think he needs a little correction here, because he is dead wrong. Of all of the exporting nations in the world, Canada has the highest priced gasoline.

I am not talking about the U.S.A. which is a net importer. It has to import more oil because it consumes more than it produces. Therefore, its prices are reasonably lower than ours when you compare them. Its prices should be higher than ours because we export our surplus to the Unites States.

If we look at countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, the Middle Eastern countries, all the countries that are exporters of oil and natural gas, we see that their gasoline prices are way below ours.

I think the Minister of Industry stands corrected. If he was here I think he would feel quite ashamed that he said that Canada had the second lowest price of gasoline. I wanted to correct the record on that.

We have a motion that is a very important motion. My colleague, the member for Churchill River, has told his constituents and northern Canadians that they are important, that they are part of Canada.

All we are asking in this motion is for the Liberal government and the Alliance Party to recognize that we do have people living in northern Canada who are Canadians too. We should provide a balance in terms of programs to these people who live there, settled in this country and defend our north in terms of environmental and other situations.

I thank the Liberal member for commending my colleague from Churchill River on his natural gas motion. I also think it is a very important motion. However, the member stated that the federal government does not subsidize natural gas pipelines. He may not be aware but the federal government does indeed participate in the industrial natural gas initiatives through the tax regime. I wanted to correct the record on that.

I ask all members to reconsider our duty and obligation as members of parliament to defend and support people living in northern Canada. I ask them to revisit this motion and consider supporting it so that we can bring northern Canadians into our country as equal citizens.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to obtain unanimous consent to ask the member who just spoke a question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for Vancouver Island North has asked for the unanimous consent of the House to put a question to the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

One question and one response and the Speaker will determine the length.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be short and sweet. The motion that we have before us and the speech that the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre gave relate to two different things. One is about incentives. The member was talking a lot to do with price controls and other things.

If I read into that, is the member saying that price controls and incentives are the same thing?

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, first, the motion says that the government should provide initiatives, not incentives—so I think he is not clear on that—to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and address environmental concerns and high energy costs.

I maintain that the speech I gave was more than relevant. It is really important to have a regulatory agency so that the most important element in our economy, the underpinning of our economy which is energy, should deserve some kind of regulation, as does communications through the CRTC and as does transportation through the Canadian Transportation Agency. Why not?

Maybe my response should end with a question to the member. Why does he believe that the CTA and the CRTC should exist but not an energy price review commission?

[Hec Clouthier, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed delighted to participate in this very worthwhile debate today.

With regard to the hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, I am a little surprised. Although he does speak very eloquently and very passionately for the cause in which he believes, I noticed that throughout his dissertation he kept using the word “think” many times: I think, I think, I think.

It might have been a relative of his for all I know, but there was a famous king called Solomon who at one time said that people use thought or thinking only to conceal their actions and speech to conceal their thoughts. I know it is a little twist in the words but I am just trying to figure out what he is trying to conceal.

I believe that perhaps he is trying to conceal the real agenda of his party, which is basically debt driven. His party is of the belief that the government, the taxpayer of Canada, should, in all circumstances, financially support any institution that they believe in their own minds—and I disagree with him on that—the people need. I personally believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions.

I would like to take this opportunity to address the motion on natural gas put forth by the hon. member for Churchill River. It is the government's current energy policy not to fund any megaprojects but to leave the competitive market to decide what goes forward and what does not. It is our firm belief that we should not be an interventionist government with regard to megaprojects. This is one reason, among a few others, that we have difficulty in supporting the hon. member's motion.

I understand the hon. member's desire to ensure an environmentally friendly and secure energy source for his region, but that is what Canada's approach to the complex, evolving global challenge of climate change is all about. We see it as a challenge that is both environmental and economic. We on this side of the House look upon challenges as opportunities in work clothes to work for the benefit of each and every Canadian, to work for the benefit of each and every province; in other words, the opportunity to do the right thing.

The Kyoto protocol in December 1997 reaffirmed the conviction among some 160 countries that six commonly identified greenhouse gases were accumulating in the world's atmosphere to the point that they must be altering the earth's climate. The majority of global scientific opinion suggests that human conduct is certainly contributing to climate change.

The protocol involved a commitment on the part of the industrialized world to bring down greenhouse gas emissions. This action is much like an insurance policy against those future risks. Just like buying insurance, we cannot get the coverage we should have had after the fact. We must do it before.

For Canada our Kyoto target is minus six, to get our emissions down during the period between 2008 and 2012 to 6% below the level they were in 1990. We are well on our way to that, but it will not be easy. Nothing in the world is easy, unless we are constantly critics. If we constantly criticize, that is easy, but when we have to make definitive decisions that will have a positive impact on the people of Canada things on occasion are not easy.

The hon. member opposite spoke about Canada's northern climate. I come from northern Ontario so I know of what she speaks, but Canada's northern climate, vast distances, increasing population, increasing production, and its resource based and energy intensive economy make our commitment to that road much more difficult to meet. If we can carry on from this point forward with no changes and business as usual, by the year 2010 Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will rise to about 26% above our Kyoto target.

We obviously have to slow down that trajectory, to flatten it out and then turn it downward to reach our target within this decade. Where we will be when it ends will depend on how astute we are at managing our domestic change challenges in relation to the rest of the world. We need to marry strong environmental performance with a strong economy. The Canadian public wants to have both together.

About 79% of human made GHG emissions are related to the way we produce, transport and consume energy. The more energy efficient we become, the fewer emissions we generate. The more we achieve in this regard through greater energy efficiency, the less we will have to rely on other means to satisfy our Kyoto protocol commitments.

Across our entire national economy in every sector, in every individual behaviour, each and every one of us must achieve energy efficient excellence. From a government policy perspective we have thus far used a variety of tools to achieve greater energy efficiency. For one thing we have tried to improve our own operations within the Government of Canada. We are on track to slash our emissions by more than 20% and to reach that goal by the year 2005. People can make informed decisions about energy use. The EnerGuide label for equipment, houses and vehicles is a great illustration.

The third tool is peer group challenges like the VCR, the voluntary challenge registry, where industries and business pledge to improve their performances and report their progress in a tangible and public way.

There are incentives like Natural Resources Canada commercial buildings program which puts up some cash to encourage developers and builders to incorporate best practices from the ground up. Hand in hand with these tools we must achieve a faster rate of new technology development and timely deployment of new technology. This is the key underpinning for everyone's use.

Let us consider an innovation like Solarwall, for example, developed by Conserval Engineering. It is a new solar based energy saving technique for large building ventilation systems. It requires modestly increased one time construction costs, but it generates significant savings in ongoing operating costs year after year. We get a more efficient ventilation system, fewer greenhouse gas emissions and a growing market across North American and around the world.

We must build our capacity for efficiency innovation in government labs, in academic institutions and in the private sector. We must put that knowledge to work quickly in the marketplace. Federally we are moving in that direction, specifically in each of the last four federal budgets. Within Natural Resources Canada about $100 million each year are normally invested in research for climate change solutions. Other federal departments add another $50 million annually.

The bottom line in all this is that there is no one simple answer. Regretfully, although I have great respect and admiration for my colleague from Churchill, I cannot support the hon. member's motion because it advocates a megaproject policy for energy which has been replaced, as we speak, by a successful, competitive market based approach.

The focus of the Government of Canada's policy is on providing environmentally friendly and secure energy solutions for all Canadians. This approach encourages energy solutions through initiatives that address the complex global challenge. In my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke I have two of Canada's greatest diversified energy producers: a hydro electric dam at des-Joachims and the Atomic Energy of Canada Laboratories in Chalk River.

We need to be the very best. We need to be the most intelligent, innovative and efficient at finding, developing, producing, delivering, consuming and exporting the world's most sophisticated and diversified energy products, skills, services and science. The Liberal government will be very ambitious in this regard. The upper Ottawa valley is leading the way. My great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is at the cutting edge. I believe that is a worthy Canadian ambition for one and all.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, like the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre I am pleased to rise today to support the member for Churchill River, Saskatchewan, and his Motion No. 298. I will quote this very important motion which bears repeating:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and address environmental concerns and high energy costs.

We live in a very wonderful country. Canada is truly fortunate to have an abundant energy resource that heats our homes and fuels our economy. Natural gas is the cleanest burning and most acceptable carbon energy source.

Canadian natural gas is distributed to more than four million customers in six provinces, providing 26% of Canada's energy needs. This number is increasing each year. Canada's natural gas exports are experiencing exponential growth. Canada as a whole is experiencing this tremendous growth in the natural gas area.

At the same there are entire regions of our country that do not have access to natural gas. This places many communities at an economic disadvantage. We can look at many of the communities in the northern part of our country and many places in our rural settings that are at a disadvantage. Natural gas presents an opportunity for economic development in unserviced regions where expensive fuel costs are a prohibitive factor in establishing and maintaining or expanding an enterprise.

When my colleague from Churchill River was debating the motion earlier this year, he put forth the need for a national vision in relation to natural gas distribution. He provided for the House examples of the social and economic benefits that natural gas distribution could bring to unserviced regions.

Canada, as I have said, is blessed with tremendous natural gas resources. Canada is the world's third largest producer and this resource sector is growing tremendously. Fuelling this growth and royalty revenue is United States demand which some day may place Canada's domestic needs at risk. It is a bit disheartening to think that many natural resources in Canada are quite often placed at risk because of the needs and the demands of other countries.

I remember growing up as a young lad in Nova Scotia always wondering why I could buy an Annapolis Valley apple much cheaper in other parts of Canada than I could in Nova Scotia where those apples are grown. This is something we have to give consideration to and it is something that becomes very relevant when we look at the whole issue of natural gas production.

In Nova Scotia right now we are in the process of producing natural gas. What is happening? This gas is being shipped to the eastern states. They are getting the gas even before many residents in Nova Scotia who live right around where the gas is being produced. We have to think carefully when we talk about the issue of having a national vision for natural resources.

When my NDP colleague from Winnipeg Centre was speaking to the motion he described the fact that gas discoveries were once considered a curse while drilling for oil. This is something that is interesting too. If while they were drilling for oil they discovered a pocket of gas it was a nuisance factor.

I think with respect to the fishing industry how many years ago lobster, mussels and certain shellfish were considered to be junk food. I hear many stories from some of the older people who talk about how they were embarrassed to go to school with a lobster sandwich. They would much rather have had a peanut butter sandwich in the old days. Nowadays we know that the priorities have shifted, the resources are looked at differently and lobster is considered a delicacy. Mussels are considered a very fancy meal in restaurants.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

What does lobster cost?

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

I cannot say what it costs, but certainly lobster is now considered a priority over and above peanut butter sandwiches for many people. This is how our resources change. We have to keep abreast of this vision and look at how we can make sure that each part of the country benefits from the wealth that exists in Canada.

Quite often we look at the idea of oil and gas companies competing. This is another factor. The whole issue of competition becomes an issue that sometimes prevents us from getting the best use of our resources. I can recall that when the Sable project was being discussed many oil companies came to me and lobbied me by trying to point that they were very concerned about the oil industry, that their prices remain competitive, remain as cheap as or perhaps even cheaper than natural gas.

It is almost like one company is afraid that if business goes from one place it will lose out. It is unfortunate that we cannot learn to work together and to realize that because one thing is taking place which may enhance the lives of individuals does not necessarily rule out the other industry continuing to have a meaningful place in society.

Often we see it as one against the other and we always compete. This is the problem we see particularly in the province of Nova Scotia. For far too long the island of Cape Breton has suffered because governments have felt that everything had to be focused in the Halifax area. We did not spread things out across our province. We quite often got the feeling that if something went to one area it took away from another area instead of seeing the idea that if we could facilitate another place growing as one place grows then everyone benefits from it.

This is what we need to talk about when we look at natural gas servicing Canada as a whole and providing opportunities for those unserviced regions. We need a real vision in this regard.

The NDP proposes a national vision not a chequebook reference. The Liberals talk about megaprojects as if it is going to cost all kinds of money. I submit that it costs more money not to have a vision, not to set initiatives and not to try to challenge these resources in the most useful way for everybody. That is what costs money. When people start looking at it from a political perspective saying they will do only what is best for their region, that costs money.

The NDP proposes a national vision. We are not proposing to sponsor every pipeline or every branch line so every home is linked to a cleaner energy source. We are asking the House to recognize that there are unserviced regions in the country. There are pockets of inefficiency and high energy costs. We are asking the House to recognize these disparities and to correct them so the situation across Canada is not one of have and have not regions. Let us increase the potential for all parts of the country to share in the resources and to take advantage of them.

We also have to think in terms of community input. Far too often we forget about getting input from the communities that are most affected. Quite often we forget about the people who have been the natural stewards of these resources for years and years. I am talking about our aboriginal communities.

Many times resources have been developed in these communities but the benefits of the development bypass the very communities in which the resource is located. This is quite often the case in the north and various remote areas. We must have a vision that is going to take into account the realities of this great country and try to bring about equal opportunity for all to share in the benefits that we have in Canada.

I would like to speak for a moment on the issue of emissions. The Progressive Conservative member for South Shore spoke in support of the motion. The member cited Canada's faltering commitment to the Kyoto protocol to address climate change and greenhouse gases.

The emissions continue to rise while the Liberal government hides from its responsibilities to provide leadership and direction and to ensure a cleaner environment and reduced energy costs for future generations. It is important that we think in terms of what we are doing for the future generation, for our young people. We must ensure the kind of environment for them that will enhance their future rather than create more difficulties for them.

We in the NDP agree that not enough is being done by the Liberal government to meet our international obligations to reverse the damage to our atmosphere which all nations and people share. The recent budget announcement will provide further studies and some immediate action but falls short of the current opportunities we could be implementing.

The NDP thinks this is a very important motion which is worthy of consideration and support by all members of the House. Ultimately by providing these kinds of opportunities right across Canada, we will be enhancing not only the future of our young people, but we will be providing economic growth and incentives for the current generation. We will be doing what is right in the eyes of Canadians.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. The order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

It being 1.49 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 1.49 p.m.)