Debates of April 24th, 2001

Resource Industries

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intervention. For example, if we are talking about the mining industry and if we are looking at the Brunswick Mine, it is not that long ago that they started to use the Pastefill, where they put concrete into it, du ciment. They started to do it. Doing that makes it just as hard as the pillars on the side. Then they pick up the pillars. It is too bad they did not pick them up 25 years ago. They would have saved a lot of pillars and mined the whole mine.

Those are the types of things that can be done. Sudbury was doing it a long time ago. Falconbridge was too. The miners were going underground and doing the backfill on a concrete floor all the time while we were on the rocks and breaking our feet most of the time, if members know what I mean. That is the type of technology we can use.

The federal government could put those mining industries together to look at it instead of having them say they have a way to do mining that is cheaper so they do not need their friends to do it. They almost call each other adversaries. I think this is wrong because we are losing part of a natural resource that could offer jobs for a longer period of time.

Regarding Elliot Lake, I know that something else has been found. With all respect to the people of Elliot Lake, they say they have turned it into a good place to retire to, but we do not want that in New Brunswick. We would like to keep our youth in New Brunswick. We have enough leaving right now. We want to keep them at home.

However, I agree with the member. There are different things we can do to prolong secondary or third processing. It is one of those. In forestry, for example, why do we send all our product somewhere else so that it comes back from other countries that sell it back to us? It is the same thing in the fisheries. Who is talking more, probably down home, about secondary or third processing in the fishery? I am telling everyone that it works.

[The Chairman]

I know this is a totally new experience for all of us. In my following remarks, I want to address myself particularly to the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, but also to all members.

We have been at this debate for a little more than two hours and because it is not structured as we are accustomed to, time seems to go a little more quickly. To the extent that we have had two hours of debate and I have not yet had the opportunity to give the floor to speakers from the Progressive Conservative Party, the format, as I would understand it, would be that in the initial round we would have a speaker, or speakers if you split, from each of the parties, and in the second round we would alternate from one side of the House to the other, depending on a representative being here from the party or parties.

Therefore, with the greatest of respect to our colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, who I know has been here since the beginning and has been very patient and very attentive, I regret this, but I will be giving the floor to the members of the Progressive Conservative Party.

In advance, I will tell all my colleagues that in the speaking order the next opportunity will fall to members of the government side, followed by the Canadian Alliance.

I hope I did not mislead anyone. These are uncharted waters for all of us. Certainly the participation has been very interesting. I take note that most of you spoke without notes. Obviously you care very much and have a great deal of knowledge about the subject matter. I think that lends itself well to making public policy for all Canadians and tonight in this case in the area of natural resources.

That is the end of my speech. We turn now to the Progressive Conservative Party.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Chairman, I would be sharing my time with the member for Brandon—Souris and if I have a couple of minutes or 30 or 40 seconds left at the end of my 20 minutes he will get them. I think that is only fair and reasonable as a colleague.

The debate here tonight is on natural resources. I very much appreciate the Secretary of State for Rural Development being here and staying throughout the debate, and his colleagues with him.

Certainly I think that when we look at the economy and the global situation on the planet today we tend to trivialize the primary industries. Many of us tend to forget where we come from. A number of the ridings represented in this place are rural ridings. I would even dare to say that perhaps we rural ridings are equal to the urban ridings. If we counted them all, I think we would surprised by the number of parliamentarians who are here representing rural constituencies. There are a great number of us.

I am also going to take the opportunity in this debate to discuss rural issues, very much like the rest of the speakers have discussed rural issues, but I think we are discussing rural issues in a number of sectors.

I do not look at the Secretary of State for Rural Development as being responsible simply for rural Canada or the agricultural community. There is a very large forestry sector out there. There are large fishing communities on the three oceans around the country and on Canada's inland waterways. We have a huge mining sector in the country that has been quite often overlooked and underrepresented, I believe, by the present government, by other governments in the past and by provincial governments.

We have to find a way to accommodate our primary industries in the country, to have them represented so that the people have viable jobs and opportunities, not only for themselves but for their children and for their grandchildren.

Most of us from rural Canada are survivors. We live in communities that have survived for hundreds of years, quite often. We represent 15 or 16 generations of ancestors and more in some parts of Canada. We have managed to eke out a living, whether that has been a subsistence agricultural living or one dependent upon forestry or fisheries, for literally hundreds of years.

Now we have to find a way in the modern economy, with the globalization of the planet, with transportation that is immediate, this minute. It is no longer that day or that week, it is this minute. The discussion taking place here can be listened to in Australia or China. Decisions we make in the Parliament of Canada can be reacted to immediately by businesses halfway around the world. With all respect, I do not think this government or any government is quite ready for that type of accommodation of the new economy. I do not think we have adapted to that. The appointment of a minister of state for rural Canada is a step in the right direction. I applaud the government for it.

I would like to talk about a couple of specific areas and hopefully get some replies from the minister on these specific areas. I will try to be brief.

My first love is forestry, so I have to go there for at least a second. We tend not to recognize the importance of forestry in Canada. It is the primary industry. It is the second most important industry in the country. If we combine the primary industries such as forestry, agriculture, fisheries and mining, we can shut out the rest of the economy in this country. We produce the jobs. We put more money into the economy than the rest of the sectors put together.

A tremendous amount of money comes from the primary industries of this country and the majority of them are sustainable. The mining sector, we have found, is more sustainable than we thought. When people look for minerals today in Canada they do not try to look for a new mine. They go where we have been mining for generations and find more resources, more ore bodies, wherever that may be. Timmins, Ontario, is a prime example of that.

I started to talk about forestry. We should not take away or ever forget the fact that as much as we may love to look at a view scape of timber, the real economy of that timber is the noise of it hitting the ground. It is not only the fact that companies cut that timber. There are jobs involved in getting it to the mill. The wood is processed. Houses are built from it. There are value added products that come in, whether that be paper, pulpwood or finger jointed mouldings for door frames.

We tend to trivialize the contribution the forestry sector has made to this country and that it will make forever. It is 100% completely sustainable. In most of Canada it is not dependent on planting a whole lot of trees or putting a lot back into it. We can continue to harvest the forest through natural regeneration on the west coast of Canada and certainly on the east coast of Canada in those maritime climates. Very little of the land in eastern Canada needs to be replanted. Foresters have to go in there 10 years after harvest and thin it. There are so many stems coming up on the acreages that they have to be spaced. It is not a matter of planting trees unless someone is trying to grow a different type of forest, unless the land is better suited for Norway pine instead of black spruce, or perhaps better suited for an exotic species like Norway spruce instead of balsam fir. There are alternatives.

We need very much to look at the mining sector, on the east coast in particular now that we have the advantage of the development of the Sable gas fields and the Panuke oil fields. That oil and gas liquids and gas are coming ashore now in Nova Scotia. We have been talking for six months about a second pipeline. The first pipeline is already developed. Now there is discussion about a second pipeline double tracking the pipeline that is already there.

We need to look at a way to do a better job of sharing the money. I spoke about this earlier, about the fact that when Alberta was developing its oil and gas reserves the federal government recognized the position Alberta was in. From 1957 to 1964 Alberta received equalization payments from the rest of Canada and kept the revenues from their oil and gas reserves. That allowed them a head start in putting their infrastructure in place to actually develop and exploit the natural gas and the oil fields of Alberta.

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and any other province should get no less a deal than Alberta got. That takes a little bit of backtracking by this government. That takes a different approach, but it can be done.

We are not asking for the cancellation of equalization payments or the refusal of the federal government to gather royalties from the east coast.

What we are asking for is a period of time similar to what Alberta got, five, seven or eight years, in order to build the infrastructure up so what has been happening does not continue to happen. For every dollar that is made in the offshore, 81 cents goes to the federal government and 19 cents goes to Nova Scotia. This is not rocket science. This is a very simple equation. Somehow we have to change that imbalance, and that takes time and that takes an initiative on behalf of the government to compromise on a position that it has already taken. I see no reason why we cannot do that.

We have tremendous resources in rural Canada and in our primary industry. In the South Shore riding that I represent we have 1,760 boats fishing. That is phenomenal. That is in three counties. The fishery is in decline and it is facing great hardship. We have a lot of people fishing.

We have a great primary resource that is sustainable and we need to maintain that. We have an oil field that is being developed that we need to encourage. We have a forestry resource sector that needs to be encouraged as well. I have left the agriculture sector for the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. We need to encourage agriculture in Canada and we need to find a way to enhance it. Those are issues that face rural Canadians every day.

If we want to encourage people to continue to live in rural Canada, if we want to have ghost towns in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and if our small towns in Atlantic Canada are to survive, we need infrastructure for transportation. We need all kinds of innovative ways to continue to live in rural Canada and have an economy of means that can support us to do that.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)]

Madam Chairman, the hon. member talked about the need to have an appreciation for the natural resource sector and what it means for Canada. I am sure all members in the House keep close to their desks a document called “Think Rural”, which is a report of the standing committee on natural resources, chaired by myself, issued in March 1997.

I would like to read the opening paragraph of the report because it speaks directly to the member's point. It states:

Canada's natural resource industries have been the mainstay of our prosperity for most of our history and continue to be so today. They represent the backbone of the domestic economy and are by far our major source of trade surplus. Currently, they are one of our strongest strategic advantages in global competition. In fact, Canada is the third largest mining nation in the world, the world's largest exporter of forest and mineral products, a net energy exporter and a large-scale producer and exporter of agricultural products. Our future prosperity depends as much upon our continuing ability to discover and harvest our natural resources in rural Canada as it is coming to rely on our knowledge-based manufacturing and service sectors.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Chairman, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague from South Shore, a fellow bluenoser. He touched briefly on the issue of natural gas development in the province of Nova Scotia, which has application in Newfoundland, to Hibernia and to other wells that are under exploration there.

He spoke of the case that is being made currently by our premier, John Hamm in the province of Nova Scotia, and his campaign for fairness where he talks about the equivalent opportunity his province is seeking to bring gas revenues into the province for reasons of stabilization, opportunity and infrastructure that my colleague referred to.

When the example is made and the case is laid out before the Canadian people, it is undeniable that this is very much a case of fairness.

There were different scales of economy between Nova Scotia and Alberta in the 1950s. There were different issues in terms of government regulation of that industry. However the case remains very compelling when one considers the potential revenues that would be lost by the province as it attempts to enter a very large and competitive global economy.

Nova Scotians are not feeling that they are optimizing or capitalizing on those benefits themselves. People in communities like Goldboro, White Head, Canso and Dover are feeling left out of the process of capitalization on their own natural resources.

I take the hon. secretary of state at his word that he has an understanding and a sympathy for that case. This is an opportunity to demonstrate action and to demonstrate that the Government of Canada is listening to the provinces and is ready to work with them to help them optimize the benefits to them.

Nova Scotians should not have to be dependent or feel a sense of loss. They should have a sense of entitlement and a sense of participation in the Canadian economy, the same way Albertans did 40 years ago. That is all Nova Scotians are looking for.

Nova Scotians are looking for demonstrable evidence of that. They are looking for an opportunity to receive more of their royalties, more actual accrued benefit from their own natural resources. That is all we are asking. In the bigger picture they can be greater contributors to the economy and greater beneficiaries of their own natural resources, which benefits all Canadians.

All rhetoric aside, it is the people of those small rural communities in Guysborough county who are looking for some tangible proof that the government is listening. The people of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and other provinces are looking for evidence that they can be full participants in Confederation and full participants in the economy.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for allowing me a very minor portion of the time allocated to us. I too would like to echo his opening comments and congratulate the Secretary of State for Rural Development with whom I have had the opportunity of dealing on a number of occasions in his portfolio.

I will talk about rural development and where I see his department heading in the not too distant future with respect to helping rural communities not only maintain their populations but hopefully increase them and grow. He read a comment from a wonderfully prepared report, which unfortunately I have not had the opportunity of reading. It will be on my reading list in the not too distant future.

If we go back into history we will recognize that the whole country was developed on natural resources. Explorers came here because of the fish and the furs they could harvest and export back to Europe. My grandfather, as I am sure is the case with many ancestors of other people here, came to Canada because of agricultural land. People could come here and get land at reasonable prices, start raising a family and grow the crops we are so famous for.

Our natural resources, inclusive of the mining we talked about, the natural gas and the oil sands projects, are the backbone of the country. They started the country. They are the backbone of our economy. We have grown beyond that and have embraced the technical revolution we have enjoyed over the last number of years and the technology we have developed along with it.

However the problem we are suffering right now is the fact that Canadians have forgotten their roots. They have forgotten how the country was developed. They have forgotten what is still the backbone of our economy.

I have had the advantage of living in Toronto, and maybe that is a disadvantage. I know the difference between rural Canada and what we appreciate as being there from the earth. People from Toronto take it for granted. When people in Toronto flick a light switch they think that is where electricity comes from. I am not trying to be derogatory to the people of Toronto. What I am saying is that urban dwellers, of which I was one, take for granted all that is being provided.

When a thermostat is turned on, be it heat that comes from a coal-fired, a gas-fired or perhaps even an electric furnace, that energy comes from the rest of the country. Canadians are now allowed to take advantage of that. I am speaking about natural resources but obviously I know agriculture best coming from the area that I do.

When urban dwellers buy at a grocery store most of them believe that the foodstuffs come from that store. The foodstuffs come from my area. They come from people like my grandfather who planted the seeds and grew the crops. They come from people who raised the cattle, the pork or the chickens. They come from those people who we cannot forget and, unfortunately, in our society we have forgotten.

My colleague said that he would leave agriculture as it is my forte. I have talked in the House too many times about the crisis that agriculture is now facing. It is for any number of reasons. It is because of an unlevel playing field and subsidies that are being paid by Americans and Europeans. It is because of the horrendous increase in the cost of production through natural gas prices for fertilizer and fuel prices for the tractors. We cannot trade our commodities with other countries because of unfair subsidization.

What we need to do is to remember where we came from. We need to support that industry as well as other industries. We also need to get a mindset. I will not throw stones or cast aspersions, but I think the government has basically lost touch with that natural resource, that primary industry, agriculture. We have to develop a mindset that says we as Canadians will support that industry.

How do we do that? We do that with long term support systems that we put into place. We need to develop those so that there is some hope for our younger generation to come into and continue in the industry. We need food, shelter, heat and water to exist.

If the minister of agriculture were here I would ask to him to please have the European mindset where they have said that they will support their farmers, their rural communities and their agriculture.

I will switch gears a little because we do have the Secretary of State for Rural Development here. I will talk about what he knows best, which is rural development, those rural communities that this great country is made up of. Unfortunately, more and more people are moving into those urban centres but there are still a lot of us who would prefer to live in rural communities because of the lifestyle, the clean air, the clean water and the ability to live in a rural setting that is more conducive to raising families.

I had a chance to talk to the minister and he has been very good at looking at the big picture. However, I would like to give him some suggestions about how we could preserve rural living. One suggestion would be to introduce a tax incentive that would attract people to live in rural communities. We have talked about tax incentives for northern allowances.

We should also be looking at different ways of attracting health care professionals and workers into rural Canada. One of the major problems we have in rural Canada right now is attracting health care professionals. That is not to say that the problem is not there for urban centres either, but we have a worse problem in trying to bring those people into our communities. Health care, as we all know, is probably the issue when it comes to supporting a rural community with an elderly population. We should be looking at ways to attract health care professionals into rural Canada.

We should also be looking at capital availability for infrastructure. My colleague talked about the solid infrastructure, the bricks and mortar, the roads, the railways and the highways. Rural Canada also needs to have the technical infrastructure in place. If we do not have those advantages we will lose that to the urban centres. It is not good for the country if it is made up of just four or five megalopolises.

We must maintain our rural communities. Perhaps we should look at capital projects for infrastructure in rural areas. Perhaps we should look at different ways of attracting people to live in rural Canada. Maybe housing is the answer. We have seen examples. Elliot Lake has attracted groups of retirees from urban centres to adopt what I consider a much nicer lifestyle in a rural area. Perhaps it is a marketing thing that the Secretary of State for Rural Development should be doing.

Perhaps we should look at our own departments, because a lot of problems come from the federal government. Let us take a simple issue like customs and customs areas. A prime example is my constituency where there are a number of border crossings. When a decision is made by Canada customs to reduce, remove or change the service at a border crossing it affects the whole community, but the department making the decision does not have the mindset or vision to see how it will affect the community. We must change that thought process. When a decision is made, no matter how small, it will affect other people. That must be dovetailed.

The secretary of state talked about the rural lens. The rural lens would make sure we bring all departments together so that when they make a decision or change a service they communicate with each other to make sure the change will not negatively affect the lifestyle of people in a community.

If we lose three people in a customs department in Boissevain, Manitoba, it means a great deal. If we lose three people in downtown Toronto it does not mean as much. We must therefore acquire the right mindset.

In closing, the biggest issue vis-à-vis natural resources and rural development is education. There must be government support. Rural development must be funded by society in general, which probably means urban dwellers, but they must understand why they are doing it. We must all decide among ourselves, and I think we have. I think the people in the Chamber tonight recognize that rural Canada is a vital part of what the country is all about. Having come to that realization we must now decide how to provide services that will allow rural Canada to prosper and grow. That is where we must head from here.

I thank the minister for being here. I would add that the debate tonight has been excellent. We had a debate like this not long ago on foot and mouth disease. Like tonight, we debated the issues logically and in a non-partisan way. I congratulate the government for putting the process forward. I hope we can continue this process in other areas of debate because it is very worth while. This is the way it should be in parliament, not acrimonious as we have seen in the past. I congratulate the government for bringing the debate forward.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development) (Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario)]

Madam Chairman, to answer all the hon. member's points I could be up here as long as he was. However I will take a moment to answer just a few and to mention to him that, if I have his schedule correctly, the two of us will be in Brandon together at the end of the week at the rural forum in his home community. I look forward to that, and it will give us a chance to discuss some of these issues.

To put it in a nutshell, I would describe it this way. All Canadians, rural or urban, should have the opportunity to access the wealth of Canada and of the nation. The key point is that we recognize, as public policy makers, that there are certain unique impediments that work against rural Canada and rural Canadians, and that one of our jobs as policy makers and parliamentarians is to address the impediments that inhibit the ability of rural Canadians to access the wealth of the nation.

The hon. member mentioned a number of possible solutions in terms of taxation and other things. He also mentioned something I think is very important: the idea of the rural lens. I fully agree with him that all of us in the House and in government need to ensure that as we respond to the issues of the day, put legislation forward and develop regulation, we do so in a way that deals with the reality that is rural Canada.

When it comes to delivering services, whether in health care or information, there is a big difference between delivering them in a place like Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg or Montreal and delivering them in rural Canada. We must develop policies that take those differences into account.

I look forward to being with the hon. member in his home community this Friday.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Chairman, this is one of the most awesome events I have participated in during my brief seven and a half or eight years as a member of parliament and my time as a legislative assistant for other members prior to that.

I was very interested in the comments made by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. As someone who has experience with the natural resources industry, I will point out to him an observation I have made. As the hon. member knows, there is a nuclear reactor in my riding, at one point one of the largest in the country. I have some interest in the dynamics of the marketplace, particularly as they relate to oil and gas and of course to food.

I have noticed the disparity between rural and urban Canada, of course, where fishing, farming, mining and forestry tend to be of a rural nature whereas the production, processing and delivery of products occur in more urban centres.

I wonder if the hon. member has given any time, thought or consideration, along with his party colleagues, to reviewing and updating our thinking on the new changes in the marketplace and how it has become more concentrated. Has he given any thought to the impact this might be having on the bottom line, not just for urban Canada but more specifically for rural Canada? Either member can answer. It is open to anyone.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Chairman, I know the member for Brandon—Souris wants a kick at this can too but the issue of processing comes from globalization and is not part of the traditional primary resource industry.

A prime example of that, and this is the point I want to get across, is what has happened in Britain. With globalization and the amalgamation of meat processing plants in Britain, as well as the health standards that have been introduced in Canada, the United States and other parts of the world, many smaller abattoirs and meat processors in the U.K. have been forced out of business.

Foot and mouth disease was a direct result. Huge meat processing conglomerates started taking hogs, sheep and beef animals from one part of Britain and, instead of processing them in the local village, trucked them in some cases 400 or 500 miles. Because of the incubation period, foot and mouth disease spread throughout Britain and to France and Germany in no time. It was a direct result of the globalization of the meat processing industry. I would like to hear some comments on that or—

[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]

I will ask the member to respond. Time is up but I think we are being flexible.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Chairman, I will not take a lot of time. My hon. colleague is obviously talking about primary processing and the minister will have an opportunity to see the state of the art largest hog processing plant in North America when he visits my riding on Friday. I would love to take the member on a tour. I know we can arrange it.

The urban market is obviously where most rural food products that are processed end up. With regard to the member's question about urbanization, I can only say to him that there has been an evolution. When my grandfather came to Canada he farmed a quarter and 80 acres, which at that time was a huge amount of land. Today in my area a small farmer farms 2,000 to 2,500 acres. That is a huge difference.

I am not opposed to growth or evolution. The point I am trying to make is that we must adapt. Even in our natural resources and primary industries we must adapt. There is no question about that. However, as I said earlier, there must be an education process and an understanding in the urban market of what we are trying to achieve in rural areas.

We will feed people. We will give them lumber. We will give them mining, natural resources, and oil and gas. However people must appreciate that some of the wealth developed in urban centres must go back into rural communities, whether at the grocery store or when we turn on a switch or in some sort of societal support. That is what we must talk about when we talk about support for rural Canada, and I think this is a good start.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Madam Chairman, tonight I would also like to thank the minister responsible for northern Ontario, who stayed here all night. It is really appreciated and it is the first time that we have here a committee of the whole in which all parties are taking part, the Bloc Quebecois, the Canadian Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party.

Tonight's debate is a civilized debate. We should be doing this more often, that is finding solutions. We are making friends. The war is still on and I appreciate the comments from the member for Témiscamingue who is still here tonight and who says that we have to co-operate for the well-being of our people. The war is still going on between political parties.

I will share my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I also appreciate his dedication. What is important is that he is one of the originators within the Liberal caucus in this debate. I want to thank him because we all are people from resource regions.

What matters here tonight is the case of the ridings of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik and Témiscamingue. We know that the economic situation there is now very different from what it was just a short while ago. The economic slowdown is serious in our resource regions. The situation is really bad in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. I have never seen anything like this in my whole life. In the last three years, we are managing a decline. Even the parish priest is depressed on Sundays. Think about it. People are trying to find ways to work. It is not easy. The governments and our ministers are doing a fine job, but that is not quite enough. The Liberal member for Outremont, who is the minister in charge of the economic development agency, is making announcements in CFDCs and in all areas.

There is one thing the government will have to do, and that is to go back to the effective agreements it had with the provinces. We had Quebec-Canada agreements in the mining industry. We could tell that Quebec was in charge. I agree with this, and we should not care which party forms the government. What matters is the taxpayer's money being spent here. We used to have good agreements. It seems that the discussion in Whitehorse brought about changes in provincial jurisdictions. If we have a big mess, everybody should do his part to find solutions.

We know we have problems in the forest and mining industries. The 15 mines that will close in the coming years are all in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. The government knows that. Political affiliation does not matter. In the next 20 months, 1,000 jobs will disappear. We now have a serious crisis on our hands, with the Sigma-Lamaque mine being closed and the Beaufor mine having closed six months ago.

I must point out that solutions need to be found. The government has implemented some things, such as the 15% tax credit on flow-through shares. As the hon. member for Témiscamingue just said, improvement is needed. It is true, improvements must be made. This was a first test for the Minister of Finance. We were pleased that he intervened in October. It is not easy to understand what flow-through shares are. We do know that a tax credit represents an additional 40% deduction the first year.

Coming back to the debate on the mining industry, a way must be found, along with the province of Quebec, to intervene. Authorization from Canada must be sought, because federal transfers are being made.

Abitibi—Témiscamingue represents some 860,000 square kilometres, so things are not easy when it comes to the cost of fuel, raw materials and so on. Everything comes from outside the area, anyway.

There is something else, however. The mining industry has not benefited from the corporate income tax cut that was set out in the last budget. That is what we are hearing from people. Officials of the Quebec Mining Association met with us in our officers and told us that the government had to find a way to give them some tax relief.

As we know, in 1948 Canada passed an emergency act on support for the development of gold mines to help owners of gold mines in Canada deal with the strong increase in production costs and guarantee a stable price for the gold they produced. The government repealed this act on June 30, 1976, because prices had increased. During that period, the federal government had given the mining industry $303 million for 61 million ounces of gold.

If we want to find a new way for the Government of Canada to support the gold mining industry, and we know that with the price of metals this is not easy, maybe we should come back to an emergency act. People say “We will sell gold.” I know that in the month of March of this year, Canada did not sell gold. Last year, we probably sold 900,000 ounces. People say to me “Guy, we will have to stop selling gold. The government should buy it up, keep it”. Such an act could help us to find a way to help our companies.

We must also support the efforts of industries regarding the exploitation of small auriferous deposits or base metal for small and medium size businesses.

Our companies go to South America or other countries and EDC guarantees the loans. This is awkward because it does not guarantee loans in Canada for companies who want to develop a deposit. If we do it for other countries, why not do it here?

When people in resource based regions see that Bombardier gets an interest free loan from the government, they are proud. This is not in our regions, but we are proud for people in Montreal, for all other communities in the south that get contracts from Bombardier; we are happy with that. However what are we doing for the small businesses? People would like to get repayable interest free loans to be able to go on.

I could talk a long time about what we hear from the grassroots. Some members talked earlier about the forest resources. The member for Joliette and the member for Témiscamingue mentioned it, but the quotas also have to be taken into consideration. The quota system really hurt some of the small businesses back home, even well established companies, like Précibois.

What is strange is that we do not even know who has quotas. We are told that this information is confidential. Some people in Toronto have quotas even though they do not have a company, but just a lumber yard. Things are not easy back home. Those who have quotas also have a business, employees, wage ledgers and so on.

We want free trade and I know that Quebec will work hard on this issue because it is an important industry, but the James Bay and Nunavut area that I represent are facing other issues that we will need to address later on. This is a huge region. We have fishery resources.

There are quotas on shrimp. People find it strange that the member of Val-d'Or should talk about quotas on shrimp. I represent the largest riding of all ten Canadian provinces. It covers 802,000 square kilometres, running 2,000 kilometres from north to south. I have 68 mayors to deal with. It is not easy.

It is a constant fight for the economy. Our members are fighting for the economy. Think about families who are fighting to have a salary at the end of the week and who do not have jobs right now. The employees of McWatters and of Beaufor are in this predicament. There are cases like this throughout the mining industry and we are trying to find solutions.

I also talked about the fishing industry, about Atlantic shrimp quotas and about the Inuit in my region.

I have nothing against urban areas, but we should establish a special agency in the resource regions of Abitibi, Témiscamingue, Baie-James—Nunavik, Lac-Saint-Jean and Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

When we talk about a special agency, we would like decisions to be made locally and quickly. I will give the example of the Department of Human Resources Development, where decisions with regard to students are based on 1996 statistics. Today the unemployment rate for young people is 21%, but we are being told that it is 14.8%. Let us get real.

I am telling my government that it must find ways to do something about that. People would like nothing better than to work.

I really liked tonight's debate, and I think the government will listen to us. We must act quickly to find new ways of collaborating with the government of Quebec. That is what politics is all about. People do want to work. Resource regions need help right now. I say it and I will repeat it, they are going through very tough times. Negative growth is worse than a recession.

However, I trust this government and the ministers who work very hard. They are here, they are listening to us. We have surpluses, but we must act without further delay.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a comment and a question and I will continue in the spirit of good co-operation tonight and try to build on our common points instead of our differences.

At the end of his speech, the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik talked about the creation of an agency or a willingness to see more decisions made in the regions. At the present time, the regional development agency is Canada Economic Development. Quite often we are frustrated because files only go through the riding office in Val-d'Or, but the decision making centre is not there. For example, Community Futures Development Corporations have boards comprised of people from the region.

Would the hon. member agree with the creation of a regional decision making structure and with people from the region running Canada Economic Development and having more leeway in making decisions?

At the present time, the discretionary fund of local leaders is $100,000. It is the same as it was about fifteen years ago in former regional development agencies; $100,000 today and $100,000 fifteen years ago do not have the same value.

Would he agree with a board comprised of people from the region having more leeway to approve projects in the regions instead of constantly having, as in our case, to send them to Montreal or Ottawa to have them approved?

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Madam Chairman, the hon. member is right, because sometimes it takes three or three and a half months to get an answer. We currently have projects in the regions with universities, but we must wait three months, a month and a half or two months in Montreal, before going to Ottawa and having to wait for another month and a half. It is important to realize that people in the regions want decisions to be made immediately.

I know one thing. If I need $10,000, I go to a bank and if the manager has not given me an answer a week later, I go elsewhere. If we do not get an immediate answer from the bank manager, we find another solution.

The hon. member is right. Perhaps the government should set up CFDCs or an agency to promote economic development for resource regions. Ministers come to the regions, they see things firsthand. However senior public officials do not always do so. They do not always come and they do not know the reality. They should come and spend a month in my region, in Rouyn-Noranda, Val-d'Or or in the area, to see what it is like.

Some do come. I know Jocelyn Jacques, who is from Montreal's CED. He visits the regions and he sees how things are going.

It should not take 30 days to make decisions. Business people want action. It takes three months. This is why, if we have a development agency, we can have it. Our neighbour, Fednor, is a mere 400 feet from the Rouyn-Noranda city limits.

As Richard Desjardins says in his song, they are 400 feet away, but we should get the same thing to develop the forestry sector and all the other sectors, together with the James Bay Cree and the Inuit. They are our partners, but there must be some action in the short term, not in the long term, not during the next election campaign, not in three or four years, but in the short term.

The hon. member is right. A decision will have to be made as quickly as possible regarding economic projects, to help our economy back home.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Chairman, perhaps I could make a comment on the last two interventions. Both members spoke about a philosophy that I deeply believe in. I believe the government demonstrates it an ongoing basis. Rural development, community development particularly in resource communities, has to be a bottom up and not a top down driven process.

Members are quite right that for there to be effective decisions in terms of the direction that needs to be taken, the types of priorities that need to be set, they have to be taken within the regions, taken at the local level. Quite frankly what will work in northern Ontario may not necessarily work in Atlantic Canada, on the prairies or in the interior of British Columbia.

We have some models within the federal government which work that way. The community futures program, I believe SADC in Quebec, is a program that works that way. Although it is funded by the federal government and receives its money from the federal government, it is controlled and operated by a local board of directors chosen from local citizens in the community. They know best their community and make the decisions.

Although the federal government funds them, the decisions are made at the local level, including investments in small businesses. The community futures model, one which we have in Quebec, in Ontario and indeed right across the country, is a very apropos one.

Another example is the federal-provincial infrastructure program where the decisions about what projects to bring forward are being made by the municipality, by the people closest to the citizens who understand the needs of their citizens the most, and then the federal and provincial governments collaborate with it.

The model is a good one. The need to have a bottom up driven process is a good one. We had some examples of where we undertake that in the federal government. We can build upon those examples and enhance that type of process to even a greater extent.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Chairman, obviously I wish to congratulate all my colleagues. It is relatively unusual to have a debate where partisan politics do not overshadow the interests of our fellow citizens.

First, I wish to congratulate my caucus colleagues. If I had been elected for the sole purpose of getting the Liberal caucus to approve an initiative such as this, I would have been thrilled. It is probably the best way of promoting the interests of our fellow citizens.

Obviously, we are very partisan regularly and that when the public's interests take precedence over what divides us, we probably all come out ahead. That is part of what getting elected is all about.

We cannot debate the whole issue of natural resources without constantly bearing in mind the regions involved that depend on them. We cannot analyze all the individual resources, be they fish, the forest, aluminum or the entire mining industry, without taking into account the regions that have lived off these resources for decades.

In fact, as everyone has pointed out, all the country's resource regions are experiencing a very serious problem. I come from the kingdom of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. This is not one of the country's high employment areas.

Right now our economic performance is due, very temporarily, to the construction of an Alcan plant. In a few months we will fall back into the harsh reality, which is country wide, where our resources will no longer support us.

This does not mean that resources are exploited less than they were, it means that we are coming to terms with a technological increase in production rates. In industrial sectors where we had 13,000, 14,000 or 15,000 people working, there remains perhaps 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000.

The federal government must assume its responsibilities and not think that everything will fall into place on its own when it holds federal-provincial conferences or transfers money to transfer payments, to tax points, to health care and to education or when we have specific programs for economic development.

The federal government, obviously with the provincial governments, has a vital mission to carry out, that of ensuring the survival of resource regions. It is clear that in politics we are always somewhat partisan.

I have a quote from a speech by the rector of our university to the Quebec institute of public administration. This is not from 25 years ago, but from last April. He said:

It has been clearly shown, and no one has contradicted these studies, that regions such as ours did not receive a fair return on their contributions to government coffers, according to their demographic weight and their needs, either in health services, or in investments in roads or, and even less so, in profits generated through the exploitation of national resources.

It is obvious to the rector that our regions were there to be exploited. As long as a few jobs were being created for resource development, most people did not complain too much. However now we realize that the jobs are no longer related to resource development. This is why the rector says that if we want to come into our own, regions like ours and like all the others will have to be involved in the decisions required to ensure our development. Decisions cannot come from higher up anymore, neither from Quebec City nor from Ottawa.

As Mr. Moussaly, of the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, said, resource regions like ours with a population of some 300,000 generate surpluses of over $330 millions for the Quebec government. Nobody, as far as I know, except Mr. Landry, the former Deputy Premier, has challenged this and he had no evidence to back his position.

This means that because resource development creates fewer jobs, it continues to fill the government coffers. Therefore, both the federal and the provincial government will have to ask themselves what is the best way to ensure that the resource regions benefit from the country's wealth. Canada is getting richer and the resource regions are getting poorer because young people are leaving.

In our area, between 2001 and 2015, our population in the 15 to 30 year age bracket will drop from 62,000 to about 42,000, with unacceptable unemployment rates, yet we still produce the same amounts of aluminum ingots. All resource development activities go on without any further jobs being created and we keep on filling the government's coffers.

A debate like the one we are having tonight should encourage the various levels of government to try to find some ways to empower the resource areas. It is not normal for an industry that generates almost $6 billion of positive economic activity in Canada, like the aluminum industry, to create from two and a half to three times fewer jobs than before, when it continues to export aluminium ingots throughout the world and buys back 500,000 tons of finished product annually at the domestic level.

I should commend my government colleagues, because for the first time we will have a research centre on aluminum processing technologies to help us.

After a 150 year wait, it does not matter if it takes a couple of years to build a centre that will empower us and help us to turn to aluminum processing, an activity that should do well in the future in many areas, like high technology, road transportation, and so on.

The role of the government is to empower us and help us to make strategic choices to ensure our economic development in all the various industries.

Currently, members of all parties are too often forced to make representations alongside regional promoters to Quebec City and Ottawa. I dream of the day when the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and probably other regions as well will have their own development corporations, where we will have the ability to make choices, to have people with expertise to guide us in advanced sectors where we can excel and create jobs for our children. I dream of that day.

I also dream of the day when we will have the opportunity, through our own development corporation, to be financially involved in businesses instead of simply throwing grants and repayable loans at them, when we will able to bring the federal government, through all its departments and agencies, to tell a young person starting a small business “There are 8, 10, 12 of us here to support you and to be financially involved in your business. We want to advise you on market opportunities and on promising market niches that you could develop”.

The federal government must renew its ties with resource regions. Within five or six years, it will transfer some $80 billion dollars to the government of Quebec in equalization payments for health and education. I want to be sure that the federal government can take initiatives to assure resource regions that they will have what they need to fulfil their responsibilities.

I will use health as an example. For the past 10, 15 or 20 years, our region, which has a population of 300,000, has had a shortfall of about $75 million dollars each year. It is a fact that has been proven by provincial officials and that is recognized by all. The federal government is transferring $13 billion this year, but where is the guarantee that in my area we will have the moneys needed to assume our responsibilities, to give health care to the sick, at least to be able to give seniors a bath? That is the reality.

We want governments to co-operate in order to respect the regions and to give them the means to choose the opportunities they want to exploit and financially help the businesses in full development.

I thank members and greatly appreciate the debate tonight, as was pointed out by my friend Guy ,who is working very hard for his riding and for whom I have a lot of respect. He puts his full energy into projects for the people he represents. I am convinced that this is only a beginning and that we will have many other opportunities to exchange views will all our colleagues and with each other in order to promote a better understanding of the reality we are living in our regions and find constructive solutions.

I started with aluminum. We are dealing with health and we will try to deal with many other sectors, particularly the development of tourism. Members will understand I am thinking of the new vocation of the Saint-Félicien zoo, which will become a centre for the conservation of boreal biodiversity, in co-operation with the Government of Canada and all the other partners.

I thank you for allowing me to say these few words in this debate.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Madam Chairman, the speech by the Liberal member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was an excellent one. I am familiar with his work in the House of Commons and I thank him again for having set in motion this emergency debate within the caucus.

He has referred to a development corporation, but a short term one. Tourist resources are also development corporations.

I would like a little more information. When reference is made to tourism, we have both natural and tourism resources in our area.

I have two points I wish to raise. In the short term, how much does a development corporation need to get from the federal government? Second, would the hon. member speak to us of the tourism resources in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean?

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Chairman, obviously this debate is not the place to define a specific amount within which a regional development corporation must operate.

Tourism has always been an area of concern to me. Back in my first mandate here, when we were involved in creating the national marine park in the Saguenay fjord, I kept saying to myself that it was incredible that the fjord of Saguenay was not on the list of Canadian parks after more than a century. I wondered whether we in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean were part of Canada. Think about it. I had the opportunity in 1997 to vote on the third reading of the bill establishing a national park.

We will continue to work in that direction. I am certain that the people in our regions, like all the members here, will be in a position to make their own development choices, to choose the areas on which they wish to focus. They need the assistance of the central government.

I am certain too that the federal government, while continuing to transfer funds to the provincial governments, is in a position to undertake initiatives that will help the regions take charge and direct themselves into areas with a future that will bring them into the world economy.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Chairman, I would like to put a little question to my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

This evening we have had a fine debate. We have had very constructive discussions, apart from the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, who did some politicking. I listened to all the debates and I think people in my region were very pleased. I think everyone wants to move ahead, but I felt the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord wants to go backward.

I was elected by the people of Jonquière to solve a problem faced by all of Canada's regions. It is not only the riding or the region at home that faces it. I was here to debate for all regions, to come up with constructive solutions for all of Canada's regions.

I think the member for Chicoutimi-Le Fjord tried to rein in all the energy of the members of this House. What the federal government is doing is not a partnership, as he seemed to say.

The member spoke of equalization payments. Do you know that these payments were established in Canada in 1940? That was before the war, in order to help the war effort of all the provincial governments. It was renegotiated in 1977 by the governments in place, the governments of all the provinces.

Equalization is a federal-provincial agreement. When he was the Conservative member, he said we had $33 billion cut since the arrival of this government. I hope he recalls what he said. At the time, his leader, Mr. Charest, now the head of the Liberal Party of Quebec, said the same thing, that the Prime Minister and not Lucien Bouchard was the one to blame.

We have to go beyond that and ensure we move ahead. I am here to make progress. Our regions are there for the same reasons. The government has to move forward, not go backward always with an eye to the past. The past tells us what the future will be, as the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik put it. This is the way to go. It is time to stop shooting oneself in the foot like the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. What is needed is a partnership as the member wants with my colleague. It is time to stop and this member must tell the truth. We are all here to help each other and move forward.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for her comments. She can count on me to work in a constructive way to promote research in the aluminum, health and tourism industries in my region. We will do our very best.

I realize that the Bloc Quebecois member for Jonquière still thinks my election was a glitch. It was not. Her leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, anticipated it two days before the election, when he delivered a speech in Chicoutimi during which he looked somewhat like De Gaulle. The hon. member for Jonquière remembers that in Chicoutimi the Bloc Quebecois leader proclaimed me the winner twice.

This means that his spontaneity prevailed over partisanship. Trust me, we will continue to promote the interests of our region and we will do so very effectively, as we have shown for the past six months. I want to point out that, over the next six years, Quebec will get $80 billion in equalization and transfer payments. We will work hard to ensure that our region gets the maximum from the federal government to take charge of its own destiny, because there are people who feel that we do not get our fair share from the Quebec government.

The hon. member for Jonquière is well aware of that. The federal government transfers funds to Quebec, where the money is put into structures in the regions. The PQ government sets up all sorts of committees. All these committees get small subsidies so that they are at the mercy of the PQ government. I am here to promote the initiatives that will ensure the future of my region, including research in all areas, tourism and the development of small and medium size businesses. We will continue to strengthen our presence and we will do our utmost to be increasingly more present in the country's resource regions, particularly in our beautiful region of the kingdom of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Chairman, I cannot resist correcting the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord on a point or two. I have respect for his political involvement but, at the end of his speech, when he questions the good faith of the government of Quebec in managing or spending money, I would point out to him that the government of Quebec is accountable to the voters. Normally, in Quebec City, there is one opposition party, which is there to do its job. These members are accountable to the public.

I do not think that people expect their federal MPs to become opposition members in Quebec City when they are here. There are places where that can be done. I am sure that the people in his riding hope that the member will go after the maximum in Ottawa.

The member also sort of insinuated that there were many transfers that were going to be made to Quebec and that he was not too sure whether that was going to be properly spent in the regions. This needs to be put in perspective, however. There were many cuts and, at the time, we were not concerned about how the government was making them. People did not want Ottawa having a say in how they were made, but when it came to reinvesting money and good news, Ottawa had to call the shots.

There cannot be a double standard. The record needs to be set straight. Equalization payments and health transfers do not advance regional development. I hope that the government is talking about new money for regional development.

I remember when I was young, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord was a Progressive Conservative at the time, there were Canada-Quebec agreements, subsidiary agreements on regional development. My region received $75 million over five years. Since then, I wonder if Canada Economic Development has spent $5 million in the last 10 years. At some point, we are no longer talking about amounts comparable to what they were previously.

At the time, the Conservatives did some good development work. I give them credit for this. There are two members who are now sitting on the other side, but who were Conservatives then. They believed in the regions and I hope the Liberal Party will take a more favourable approach towards the regions, while respecting everyone's abilities.

I will conclude with a question. Would the hon. member agree with regional management of this? He spoke of a development corporation for the kingdom or a local corporation that would be a shareholder in projects, which is a very good idea, and not only a granting agency, so that we could have long term benefits?

At the present time, CFDCs, as the secretary of state was pointing out rightly, are managed locally but not Canada Economic Development. Decision making centres for these structures are outside. I am sure he has experienced this elsewhere. Would it not be appropriate, at least in the short term, to correct the way Canada Economic Development is working, so that people from the region can have a say on what is going on there? There ought to be more leeway to work with this tool while waiting to develop another, if need be.

[André Harvey, Liberal, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague for his comments. Indeed, a corporation that would be responsible for the development of a region, both in terms of capital and it terms of strategic development choices, would obviously have to be controlled locally.

I have not taken the time to fully define the operation and the legal structure of such a corporation, but we would like that to happen quickly. We are looking for a formula that would enable us to be more effective in resource regions. Things are going well in Montreal in terms of development. The problem is that people think that resource regions can survive without government support. It is simply not possible.

Let us analyze the number of people who leave our region, and that goes for all resource regions. We must have ways of keeping our young people. There are niches we can exploit in all sectors. For example, in the lumber industry, we are slowly starting to move into processing, but things are progressing too slowly.

The development corporation would fulfil this responsibility locally, or I hope it would. That is the position I will defend.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Chairman, it is certainly an opportunity to speak at a take note debate. This is the largest audience that I have ever seen at this type of a debate. I recall my first take note debate when we were talking on Bosnia. It was probably the second week I was here. There were two members in the House for that debate. This is a huge turnout. Obviously this method is working better.

I have a lot of industry and natural resources in my constituency. A $7 billion expansion was just completed to our petrochemical industry. We have a pork plant capable of processing something like 20,000 hogs per day, most of it shipped to Japan.

About 70% of my constituency is urban high tech. The future of our community is very dependent on industry and on natural resources. There are 11 quarter sections of land under housing development. There is massive growth and we can just barely keep up. There is zero unemployment. This is a good news story from our area. We of course have the Alberta advantage with low taxes and that which goes with that.

I want to put a little emphasis tonight on an issue that I am most concerned with and that is the environmental implications of so much that we do, whether we talk about urban or rural development or whether we talk about industry and natural resources.

A speaker a long time ago talked about Syncrude. I worked on the Syncrude project before there was a Syncrude and was part of an environmental study which was done when it was just a pristine environment. One of the earlier speakers implied that there was no environmental concern, but I for one know because I worked there for about three years doing an environmental impact. It was done and that was a long time ago.

I want to talk about three things. I would like to talk about Kyoto, air and air pollution and water. Those are three resources that we should be particularly concerned about and that we should have a lot to say about.

I will speak briefly on Kyoto because it is a huge issue and obviously we would need a number of nights to really get into the Kyoto deal. I think it was doomed from the beginning. I do not think anybody really disagrees that climate change is occurring. The impact that humans are having on that is scientifically debatable. That again is another issue.

The process was doomed because of lack of consultation and a lack of planning. The government did not do its job properly. I am talking about this government and a number of others. Kyoto one was doomed from the beginning. It could not possibly work.

All of us should learn a lesson when we talk about natural resource development or concerns about consultation and communication with the people, industry and the provinces. That is what we have to do but I feel we have not done that.

What is the good news about Kyoto? The good news is that at least now we are aware that there is a problem. Canada now has the opportunity to show some leadership to the world to move on and involve China, India and Brazil, those industrialized countries that were not part of Kyoto one. Let us let them leapfrog in terms of technology. Let us sell them technology that would not allow them to have air pollution if they went through all the steps we did.

There is a lot we can do and encourage. We can encourage alternate energy. We can do all those things. We must make decisions about tradeoffs that we will have to make. The worst way to handle this would be for a government on high to come down with a carbon tax or with some kind of oppressive decision against energy in order to try and force conservation on people. People will buy into it. People will co-operate. The people of Calgary are buying into wind energy. It costs more but they are buying it and are proud of it. There is any number of new office towers in Calgary, most of them are heated with solar energy. They have solar collectors on the roof. That is the kind of thing government can encourage by tax breaks, by research and development. There is so much we can do, so let us not lament about Kyoto.

I really believe the Canadian government is doing a reasonable job of saying that we have to have sinks and that we have to have all of these or we cannot agree. When I was with the minister at the G-8 environment minister's conference it was obvious to me that the government understood the next step that we had to take. Now we need to communicate that to the people and to the people in the House, and we need to discuss it openly. Maybe we need to have another take note debate on Kyoto and what we do about that.

Second, all Canadians are concerned about air quality. The people of southern Ontario and of the Fraser Valley are concerned. Let me tell the House something that is happening with resource development and it is that we should think about because it has happened in Ontario and now it is happening in B.C.

There is a power shortage in California but California does not want to have energy plants there because they pollute. God knows, it has to protect the air in California because there are problems. It now has legislation because it had referenda which said it had to take care of its air.

Washington state wants to get the profit by selling energy to California but it does not allow high tension power lines over places where people live.

What is the good idea? It is to build Sumas 2, 3, 4 and 5 or actually 12 power plants within 500 yards of the British Columbia-Washington border. Why is that such a good idea? They would take Alberta gas. They would have wind blows north. They could run the power lines down the centre of Abbotsford and the high tension power lines could be taken out to the coast and run down to California. It would be the perfect situation. California would get the energy without having to have the power plants. Washington would get the profit without having to have the pollution. Of course we would get the high tension power lines, the pollution and we would make the Fraser Valley the number one most polluted place in Canada instead of southern Ontario. Southern Ontario would become second and Fraser Valley would become number one.

Those are the kinds of things that we cannot let happen. We cannot let energy development go that way. I phoned our consul in Seattle, a former Liberal member from Newfoundland who is a good friend and a good guy. He said that they could not interfere with what foreign governments did. However, we can damn right interfere with what foreign governments do if it is going to blow that air into our area.

We need to work together. If we are talking global energy, then let us talk global energy. I say the government is not standing up for those people in the Fraser Valley. I am really concerned about that, so are the people of Abbotsford and the people of that area. The people of Ontario should be concerned as well because the same thing could happen there. We could literally put power plants right along the whole border as long as the winds were blowing the right way. Let us be concerned about that. Let us talk about that. No matter what we are doing, whether it is agriculture, energy or natural resources, we have to think about the environment.

I started out as an environmentalist. I trained as a biologist and now I am back full circle talking about the environment again. We need to talk about the environment in this place.

Third, water will be our most important nature resource of the future and again the government needs to take leadership. What do we need to do? We need to know what we have as a resource. We have never mapped our aquifers. We do not know how much water we really have. We do not know if we are on a positive or negative input for that water. We do not know whether we are draining our aquifers, whether they are being replaced or whether they are positive or negative. That is easy. The science is there. We know how to do that. Many parts of the world have done that.

We need to do an inventory of our lakes and streams. We need to consider the ecological impacts when we change or divert water from one place to another. We need to talk about that openly. The government needs to communicate that openly. Then we need to make decisions. That is how we handle water. I encourage the government to consider that and to communicate that to people as an important resource.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Chairman, we are very interested in the comments made by the hon. member for Red Deer, particularly with respect to the issue in California and the lack of energy there. He explained something that was occurring in the Fraser Valley. I am not sure if he meant coal generation or hydroelectric generation and what the implications were.

I am from southern Ontario. A lot of us would like to believe that our air is fairly clean. A lot of us would prefer not to have the kind of blow over from some of the coal-fired plants that have been used as an alternative to the shutting down of some the reactors.

In order for us to really understand where he was coming from, could the member perhaps give us, in the environment that we have here, a specific illustration of the problem because it was a very good thought. I am not sure if it is a provincial jurisdiction or if we should be co-operating with those levels of government, obviously we should, but I would like a better illustration of what he was saying.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Chairman, first, we should be co-operating with the provincial governments in all cases because it is a common problem.

This will be gas fired generation. Initially, they were going to use diesel fuel and gas, and at one point they were going to use coal. There is one plant being proposed as coal but the other eleven, as I understand it, will now be totally gas.

The problem is the location and the prevailing winds. One of those plants, the Sumas 2, which is the closest to being approved by the government, will put out 3,000 tonnes of pollutants. I could give a breakdown of the chemicals involved, but the point is that air is already polluted from Vancouver. Because of where those plants will be located, the pollutants will blow directly into the Fraser Valley which is backed up by mountains and so it will capture that air.

An air analysis was done. Medically, Health Canada says that 150 deaths per year right now can be directly attributed to the air in that area. That is with what they have now. If we magnify that by what is being proposed, it becomes even more dramatic.

We need to work with the province and the federal government needs to provide the leadership to help the province and the cities, urban and rural. The farmers have been told by Agriculture Canada that their production could go down as much as 30% because of the pollution that is coming in there. It has big implications.