Debates of Nov. 20th, 2007

Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, the hon. member for Central Nova and the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's have worked hard on the bill. I know this has been important as well to the member for Cape Breton—Canso. I thank him and I appreciate the efforts he has put into informing his colleagues of the importance of the bill and getting them on side. We look forward to working with the other parties as well to pass the bill as quickly as possible.

Could the hon. member address the issue of the urgency to pass the legislation and maybe talk a bit about the importance of some of the coming deadlines for Xstrata, so people can understand it is important that the bill be passed as quickly as possible?

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know Xstrata has been patient as have the people who have worked on this file. It is always a concern. It was brought up that the project may fall apart if this were not in place. They are saying now that we should get this done and off the table so we know with what we are dealing. They say that the parameters should be set so as we go into this everybody will be on the same page.

The province of Nova Scotia is in the process of putting forward its legislation. It may be done on a parallel track.

I will do everything on this side of the House. I will work with my colleagues and hopefully we can fast track this. If so, everybody wins.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and his passion. It is clear that this issue is close to his heart, and his arguments were masterful. He seems pleased that Nova Scotia and the federal government have come to an agreement, made some compromises and harmonized their laws and regulations so that the mine can finally be operated.

I have a question for my colleague. The federal government has demonstrated its openness. Is my colleague prepared to support the Bloc Québécois when it asks the federal government to respect the Charter of the French Language, which means adapting the Official Languages Act and the Canada Labour Code in order to apply Quebec's Bill 101 so that all federal institutions and workers can work in Quebec's official language?

Given that Nova Scotia has benefited from the federal government's openness and flexibility, I would like to know whether the member thinks that the government will be open to respecting Quebec's Charter of the French Language within the Official Languages Act and the Canada Labour Code.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that having the provincial and the federal governments come together for some kind of an agreement is somewhat monumental. In the period of time that it has taken we have to exhibit patience. I wish the Bloc all the best in seeing this through to fruition.

What I have commented on today is the fact that our opposition party will support the government on this legislation. We are very pleased that the federal government has worked with the province of Nova Scotia to see this through. We think it will provide a great opportunity for the people of our area. We think it will provide a safe and productive workplace for at least 250 people from my community. On this one, it is an example that there are those opportunities where the federal and provincial governments can work together.

In this case, we will support the government, and we applaud it.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-15, An Act respecting the exploitation of the Donkin coal block and employment in or in connection with the operation of a mine that is wholly or partly at the Donkin coal block, and to make a consequential amendment to the Canada--Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act.

I would like to begin by telling the House that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-15 in principle. My colleague from Nova Scotia can count on the Bloc's support. Members of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources will study this bill seriously and thoroughly.

The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government should do more for regional economic development. It should stop undermining the efforts that provincial governments—particularly the Government of Quebec, since I am a member from Quebec—want to make by respecting the priorities set by the provinces.

For members of the Bloc Québécois, creating and maintaining jobs in the regions, as well as providing assistance to workers in difficulty, such as those in the forestry or fishing sectors, is just as important in Quebec as it is elsewhere. In our view, this Conservative government is washing its hands of the whole issue, by refusing to propose any support programs for older workers—we mean real income support for older workers—or change the employment insurance criteria, and by renouncing its earlier ideas concerning the creation of an independent employment insurance fund.

In short, all too often, the federal government listens to reason and develops legislation and policies to promote this regional development. Fortunately for Nova Scotia, that is what it is doing with the Donkin coal mine project.

Furthermore, the efforts of the elected representatives of that riding cannot be overlooked. According to my colleague, they fought to convince the government that enough time had been wasted and it was time to act. Thus, it has been a happy ending for Nova Scotia and it appears that everyone is finally happy with the agreement.

The Bloc Québécois' position is that, since Bill C-15 is the result of an agreement between the federal government and the Government of Nova Scotia and has to do with a specific case, that is, the Donkin coal mine, and since there are no direct repercussions for Quebec, the Bloc Québécois does not intend to oppose it. We will work hard in committee, as I was saying, to push the bill through as quickly as possible.

A word of caution, however: being in favour of the principle of the bill does not mean that we have absolutely no problem with the spirit of the bill. I alluded to this a little earlier when I asked my question. We deplore the fact that the federal government is prepared to incorporate provincial legislation by reference when it comes to creating 275 jobs, but that it is not willing to do so, far from it, when it is a question of the language of work, for instance. I will come back to this.

Lastly, with its trademark rigour and hard work, the Bloc Québécois will examine the provisions of Bill C-15 that raise questions. This is the case, for instance, when it comes to the sharing of royalties and the exclusion of royalties on coal-bed methane from the Canada-Nova Scotia offshore petroleum resources accord.

In the matter of offshore revenues, this Conservative government is acting against the interests of Quebec because the equalization formula does not take into account all revenue from natural resources and therefore penalizes Quebeckers.

For the time being, I would prefer to focus on the main objective of Bill C-15. I would like to point out, and it is truly important to say so, that this bill is the result of an agreement between the federal government and the Government of Nova Scotia, which seeks primarily to settle a jurisdictional matter. These two governments both claim to have jurisdiction over the Donkin coal block. Many discussions have taken place to establish who has jurisdiction over the management and exploitation of the Donkin coal block.

To settle this issue, Nova Scotia and the federal government arrived at an agreement: establish a single set of regulations governing resource development and labour issues, including industrial relations, occupational health and safety and labour standards

The regime proposed by this bill may be divided into three parts.

It provides a legal regime to facilitate the exploitation of the Donkin coal block. It gives the Governor in Council the authority to incorporate Nova Scotia laws into federal law by regulation, and gives Nova Scotia the power to enforce those laws.

Bill C-15 further governs the royalties from the exploitation of the Donkin coal block, through a system similar to the existing one for petroleum royalties.

It also amends the Canada—Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to exclude coal bed methane associated with a coal mine.

I would like to point out to this House that coal bed methane is the natural gas found in most coal seams. It is considered to be the cleanest burning fossil fuel and one of the purest forms of natural gas, often so pure that it only requires slight processing and can be delivered directly by pipelines.

The first of these three items, the legal reference regime, is dealt with in clauses 13 and 15, which are the core of Bill C-15.

Clause 13 states that the Governor in Council may make regulations excluding from the application of the Canada Labour Code any employment in connection with the operation of the Donkin coal block.

Furthermore, it allows the Governor in Council to make regulations to incorporate by reference any act of the Province of Nova Scotia to make it applicable to the Donkin mine workers.

Clause 15 states that an authority designated by the province, and not federal institutions, is responsible for applying the regulations incorporated by reference.

Bill C-15 allows the federal government to exempt workers of the Donkin mine from its own legislation in favour of Nova Scotia's legislation.

For the second point, clauses 9 to 12 of Bill C-15 address the issue of royalties specifically. They establish a system similar to the one that already exists for oil royalties, namely that the royalties on coal and coal bed methane are to be collected by the Receiver General of Canada and a portion will be remitted to the province in accordance with the terms of an agreement to be reached between them.

Third, the purpose of clause 16 is to amend the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act in order to exclude coal bed methane associated with the development or operation of a coal mine from the definition of natural gas and therefore exclude it from the accord.

Let us now come back to the offshore revenues I was talking about earlier. Budget 2007 announced an equalization reform that unduly favoured the provinces receiving revenues from natural resources and blatantly ignored some of Quebec's basic requests.

What is more, on October 10, 2007, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of Nova Scotia announced an agreement between that province and the federal government on equalization reform.

The federal government announced it would relax the application standards of the equalization formula. Budget 2007 allowed Nova Scotia to choose between two equalization formulas. It could either use the old formula and continue to receive 100% compensation for offshore development, or it could choose the new equalization formula whereby basic equalization payments increase but compensation for offshore development decreases. Nova Scotia could choose to stick with the old calculation method, but once it used the new equalization calculation it could no longer go back to the old formula.

The announcement on October 10 changed all that. Nova Scotia can now choose the formula that is most advantageous to it at the beginning of each fiscal year, until the expiry of the Atlantic accords in 2020.

In order to enjoy the benefits of future offshore projects, Nova Scotia had chosen to retain the old equalization formula. If it had adopted the new formula, it would have received additional equalization payments estimated by the provincial government at $289 million for 2008-09. The new formula will therefore let Nova Scotia keep additional amounts calculated under the new formula and it can return to the old formula if the development of new offshore platforms makes the old formula more advantageous.

The reason that this is to Nova Scotia’s benefit is that, in our opinion, it is still being done at Quebec’s expense: the equalization formula still does not take all natural resource revenues into account.

So that formula does not reflect what Quebec is calling for. It contains loopholes that favour the fossil fuel producing provinces by allowing them to exempt natural resource revenues from the equalization formula.

Quebec is calling for the equalization formula to be reformed to reflect a 10-province standard, 100% of natural resource revenues and the real value of property taxes. That is the only formula that will result in equalization achieving its objective, which is to provide the receiving provinces with a per capita fiscal capacity equivalent to the Canadian average. It seems that the Conservative government is not worried about that, though.

Let us come back to the language of work. It must be noted that when it comes to creating 275 jobs, something we applaud, the federal government is prepared to incorporate the laws of Nova Scotia by reference. But the government does not want to consider incorporating compliance with the language of work provisions of Quebec’s Bill 101 by reference.

And yet this is the government that boasts about recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation. To date, that recognition has not been supported by any actions or consequences, although what it means is that the House of Commons recognizes the attributes of the Quebec nation, and in particular its language and culture, by definition.

In fact, when the House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation last fall, the Bloc Québécois emphatically pointed out that that recognition had to have consequences, that there could not simply be purely symbolic recognition.

The official language of Quebec is French, everywhere in Quebec, except in matters relating to the federal government, for which there are two official languages.

That is the first concrete action that must be taken: to recognize that in fact Quebeckers form a francophone nation in America. If the Canadian parties are consistent in that recognition, they will have to understand that the Quebec nation and the French language are inseparably connected. Recognizing one means recognizing the other.

The Quebec nation has developed a tool for ensuring that French is the common public language: the Charter of the French Language or Bill 101. We often forget, though, that insofar as Ottawa is concerned, Bill 101 does not exist. As a result, areas under federal jurisdiction are exempted, including within Quebec. For example, banks, telecommunication firms, interprovincial transportation companies such as CN and CP, ports and airports are exempt from Bill 101.

The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government, therefore, to recognize and abide by the Charter of the French Language in Quebec in the Official Languages Act and comply with the spirit of the Charter in regard to the language of signage and of work in related legislation.

Contrary to what the Conservatives have suggested, the Bloc Québécois is obviously not asking the federal government to interfere in linguistic issues in Quebec. All we want is for the federal government to comply with the Charter of the French Language. The Official Languages Act and the Canada Labour Code are both federal.

The Canada Labour Code already requires the federal government to adjust to provincial legislation when setting minimum wages. In Bill C-15, the Conservative government agrees to exempt workers from its legislation in deference to the laws of Nova Scotia. If it is possible to adjust the federal legislation in both these cases, how can they justify refusing to adjust the federal legislation on language?

Federal or federally regulated companies are not affected by the Charter of the French Language, particularly insofar as the language of work is concerned. Some of these companies choose to abide by it, but it is all entirely voluntary.

The Bloc Québécois wants the Canada Labour Code to contain a provision, therefore, that “any federal work, undertaking or business carrying on activities in Quebec is subject to the requirements of the Charter of the French Language”. This would comply with the request voiced in 2001 in the Larose report.

This amendment would eliminate the legal void that enables federal companies to flout the Charter of the French Language when it comes to the language of work. It is important, though, to note that many federal companies decide on their own to abide by the francization programs of the Office de la langue française.

Nevertheless, some federal companies fail to comply with Bill 101 and do so with impunity. Since 2000, some 147 files have been closed at the Office de la langue française because it could not do anything in view of the fact that the companies were under federal jurisdiction. These figures refer only to files that were opened in response to complaints. If no one complains, no file is opened. We can conclude, therefore, that the number of delinquent firms was probably higher.

This was a long aside to explain why we are happy that Nova Scotia and the federal government have managed to reach an agreement by negotiating an accord to abide by the provincial legislation and that the federal government demonstrated a real openness in this case. We are asking for much the same thing.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the position of the Bloc Québécois: since Bill C-15 is the result of an agreement between the federal government and Nova Scotia, and it deals with a particular situation, the Bloc will not oppose it and will agree in principle.

However, I will not forget this precedent. And I will make sure that I remind the Canadian government about this type of legislative adjustment it offers to some provinces but not others. I pledge to remind the government of this precedent when we debate this issue in the House of Commons.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to sit on the natural resources committee with the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. Her speech is in keeping with the hard work that she does on that committee.

I was drawn particularly to the part of her speech that deals with coal fed methane. She had indicated that as a result of the CO₂ capture and sequestration approaches through the gasification process of clean coal that there was a tremendous opportunity, at a scale I would think, that clean coal could be part of a national energy framework or strategy.

Is the member satisfied that the committee in its deliberations is taking into account the opportunities with respect to clean coal, especially with the research work that is being done at CANMET at Bells Corners? Is she satisfied that the committee has taken the opportunities of clean coal and coal fed methane as part of a national strategy? Would she have any suggestions if she is not satisfied as to how we could have the committee focus in on the opportunities that she has outlined in her comments?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Natural Resources for his question. Many committee members are concerned about the issue of natural gas and coal bed methane. And it is a subject we would like to debate in committee in the coming weeks, looking first at the International Energy Agency's assessment of natural gas energy projections.

Last week, this agency issued a report, which assessed projections of Canada's energy needs. In this report, natural gas is examined as an attractive fuel. However, we must still take a hard look at how fossil fuels are being used because it must be said, and I think my colleague will agree with me, that they are the main emitter of greenhouse gases. We must find solutions, either by capturing them or storing them.

I think—and my colleague will agree—that research and development for these technologies currently lacks support to produce results in the near future that could be used more quickly, for example, by those operating coal mines.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation, which has given us an understanding of what is involved in this bill, which some of us initially found a bit unclear.

Having listened to what she had to say, I would like to know one thing. Clause 13 provides that the Governor in Council may make regulations excluding any employment in connection with the operation of the Donkin coal block from the application of the Canada Labour Code.

Does that mean that employees working at the Donkin coal mine will not be subject to the Canada Labour Code and will therefore have the same working conditions as all workers in Nova Scotia? Consequently, if anti-scab legislation were in effect in Nova Scotia, could these employees also benefit from it, unlike other employees governed by the Canada Labour Code, who cannot benefit from such legislation?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I believe she has a good understanding of the legislative arrangements negotiated between Nova Scotia and the federal government. What this clause means is that workers in the Donkin mine will be covered by the laws of Nova Scotia and not by the Canada Labour Code.

In fact, this is a successful outcome. This agreement was many years in the making, and local elected representatives took great pains to make the federal government understand how important the agreement is to their community, to economic development, to job creation in these sectors and to their image.

I want to say—and I am sure my colleague understands why I am stressing this—that we in the Bloc Québécois hope that the Conservative government will be just as open to amending the Canada Labour Code and the Official Languages Act in order to recognize the Charter of the French Language and our Bill 101.

To that end, the Bloc Québécois hopes to receive the support of the opposition members and the Conservative government, of course.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we can learn a number of things from this bill. First of all, it shows that sometimes, jurisdiction over natural resources can overlap.

For example, there is a mine in northwestern Quebec, the Siscoe mine, that had to shut down a few years ago because of plans to dig under Lac Siscoe. Apparently, there was water getting in and so on. A practical difficulty arose, and the mine operators had to deal with it alone. We have some important lessons to learn from that.

I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. Now I would like her to comment further on similarities between the exceptions that could apply to this mine, and the French language situation she mentioned.

Earlier, it was made clear that the purpose of the bill the Bloc introduced this morning was to make the federal government comply with Bill 101. To illustrate the proposal, our colleague mentioned the Larose commission, which issued very clear recommendations for Quebec in that respect.

Can my colleague expand on the recommendations that the Government of Quebec is hesitating to act on, but that deserve to be acted on?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. As an answer to my colleague's question I will cite the Larose report of the major commission in Quebec that studied the issue of language in 2001:

The francization of the workplace in Quebec also concerns the workplace of the federal government and workplaces under federal jurisdiction. That is why the Government of Canada should take the necessary measures to ensure that these workplaces respect language legislation when they are in Quebec.

I believe this quote from the Larose commission report in Quebec is quite simple.

We are glad that Nova Scotia was able to reach an agreement with the federal government and that it could apply its own legislation to operate the Donkin mine and enjoy all the positive economic effects.

Once again, I call on the government and all the parties here in the House of Commons to take concrete action. To recognize the nation of Quebec is to recognize its official language and federal legislation can be adapted accordingly. In this case I am referring to the Official Languages Act and the Canada Labour Code.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

We have enough time for one, last, very short question. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question as quickly as possible. We have talked a little bit about equalization and the Atlantic accord in this bill. It strikes me as odd that the federal government has decided to exclude certain types of revenues from the equalization calculation.

The basic purpose of this calculation is to ensure that all the provinces have the same fiscal capacity. The capacity of the provinces is calculated and money is given to the provinces that do not have enough. At the end of the day, we are in a rather absurd situation where only the Bloc Québécois is currently defending the very essence of equalization, which is to ensure equal revenues for all the provinces. Is that not ironic?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry has 30 seconds to reply.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the members that Quebec has been demanding an overhaul of the equalization formula to take into account a 10-province standard, which means 100% of natural resource revenue based on the true value of property taxes. The Bloc Québécois is bringing that demand to the debate here in the House of Commons.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on Bill C-15, the Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act. This is an act that is extremely important to the province of Nova Scotia and certainly to the island of Cape Breton.

Before I begin my remarks, I have a brief comment on the comments by my Bloc colleague. I think this act is an example of how the federal government and provincial governments, in this case the province of Nova Scotia, can work cooperatively for the better good of both. This act is not trying to drive divisions between areas.

The member for the Bloc is a member of the natural resources committee. She would be well aware that Nova Scotia's mining regulations, in particular the underground regulatory regime for coal mines and underground mines, are some of the best in the world because of the disaster that occurred at the Westray mine during the explosion there and the loss of those miners, which is still certainly in the minds of all Nova Scotians today. The laws have been improved because of that disaster and the regulatory regime that exists there has some of the best regulations in Canada.

To be clear, what is going to happen here is a single regulator in terms of resource development and labour matters. That regulator will be the Province of Nova Scotia. It will be facilitated by incorporating the provincial legislation into federal law and delegating to the province responsibility to administer these new federal laws. I want to be clear on how that will happen.

As I have mentioned, this legislation is about cooperation. It is not about driving wedges. It is not about causing a schematic shift across the country to pit one province against another province or one part of the country or one region of the country against another. This is a good, practical solution to an ongoing jurisdictional discussion between the Province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada.

Bill C-15 is an excellent example of what can be accomplished when we sit down and are committed to finding solutions. We are not committed to trying to find a way to pick a fight and cause an ongoing schism in the federation. We are committed to actually finding a solution.

The Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia have worked cooperatively to ensure that Cape Breton benefits from this economic opportunity. As the Minister of Natural Resources has mentioned, Donkin is the last major undeveloped or underdeveloped coal resource off Cape Breton Island. This resource is not underground on Cape Breton Island. This resource is underground offshore Cape Breton Island. We need to be very clear about where this resource lies.

This legislation presents an excellent opportunity not only for the people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotians, but we expect that when the Donkin mine is open and in full operation it could create up to 275 jobs. This is extremely important to the province of Nova Scotia and the island of Cape Breton in particular. Indirectly, the project could generate 700 jobs. This is very good news for an area which in the past few decades has seen the decline of its coal and steel industries. The salaries, the equipment purchases and the sales of goods and services associated with Donkin could provide hundreds of millions of dollars to the economies of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia.

I will give members a bit of history on the development of the Donkin mine and coal in Cape Breton. Certainly, the region was settled because of coal, and coal mining has been the main livelihood for more than the past 100 years. On an historical note, it is interesting that when Nicholas Denys settled on Cape Breton Island in the late 1600s and had his trading post set up somewhere in the Sydney River area, it is thought now, he wrote in his diary of open seams of coal in the Sydney area on Cape Breton Island.

Certainly when Louisbourg was settled by the French, one of the reasons was the proximity of coal in the Cape Breton area. That was surface coal. The Donkin mine, of course, is under the ocean and offshore of the coal producing area.

The significance of coal is still evident today in the communities and the culture of Cape Breton. Miners who worked in the subsea mines have a long history. Many Cape Bretoners today can trace miners in their families going back more than 100 years. Cape Bretoners are proud of this mining heritage and they have never forgotten it.

In the early years, the work sustained many families, but it certainly was not an easy life. It was extremely dangerous and extremely hard work. Today, mining is still dangerous and hard work, but it is a very different profession compared to what existed 100 years ago. Mining provides good jobs and builds strong communities.

In the case of Donkin, it is important to note that this development is not starting from square one. A lot of the work at Donkin has already been done.

Exploration of Donkin began in 1977 with the original wells being drilled by ship. Eleven holes were drilled during a three year period and several seams of coal were detected. The Cape Breton Development Corporation of those days spent $80 million on two exploratory tunnels in the mid-1980s. At the time, the coal was deemed too expensive to extract, the tunnels were sealed and flooded, and the development did not proceed, but the coal is still there and the tunnels still exist.

As we can see, Cape Bretoners have lived both with the anticipation and with the disappointment of not seeing Donkin developed. Today I am happy to say that the pendulum has swung back to that feeling of optimism on Cape Breton Island.

As we all know, today's energy situation is very different from the recent past. Energy prices, including coal prices, have risen dramatically and new clean technologies are being developed, resulting in a new interest in coal as an energy source. Another factor favouring Donkin today is that the coal deposit may be of sufficient size and potential to be a source for international markets. We know that there is a very hot market for coal.

Nearby on Cape Breton Island, and certainly in Nova Scotia, there is a local workforce with extensive underground coal mining experience. These are some of the best workers in the world when it comes to mining and extracting coal. It is a workforce that welcomes the return of coal mining jobs. Local businesses certainly would welcome this development too.

Cape Breton also has two local coal-fired power stations capable of using Donkin coal. The rail infrastructure is in place to ship coal by train to two more power plants elsewhere in Nova Scotia.

Let us not forget the potential of Sydney Harbour, which sits ready to ship coal to international markets. The member for Cape Breton—Canso mentioned that in his speech. Some preliminary work may need to be done to assist the Sydney Harbour authority to move some of the larger ships in and out of the harbour, but that is all part of the infrastructure requirements that would be needed to fully develop the Donkin coal mine.

These are just some of the positive factors supporting this initiative. As we have heard, this is the last major coal deposit off Cape Breton Island. If it gets to the development stage, and I certainly believe it will, we expect to see at least 10 years of operations in the Donkin mine. In addition to providing much needed jobs, the development of Donkin would help stabilize the tax base of this community for many years.

This agreement signals a small revival of coal in Nova Scotia. It is not a return to the old days when coal was king in Cape Breton, but Donkin has the potential to provide a viable industry to Nova Scotia and help the province meet its energy needs.

The people of Cape Breton are anxious to see this development proceed. Certainly the Province of Nova Scotia is anxious to see it proceed and the Government of Canada is anxious to see it proceed. Coal mining will once again bring good jobs to this important region.

It should be clear from my comments that there the benefits of the initiatives I have outlined are manyfold. There are jobs and opportunities available. There are infrastructure jobs and there are dollars that will be helpful to the local community.

Clearly, there is broad support out there for this piece of legislation and for the Donkin mine and the Donkin coal seams to be developed. In fact, the federal government went so far as to carry out consultations with all interested stakeholders last spring, and I can report that there is very strong support indeed.

The community of Cape Breton is excited about this opportunity. The labour unions and groups representing the rights of workers, including the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, have expressed support, and the employer and the offshore board have expressed support.

The Governments of Canada and the Province of Nova Scotia have a shared interest in seeing this further economic opportunity for Cape Breton. That is why they have worked closely together on this issue. I believe both levels of government deserve credit for their efforts to reach an agreement that will allow development of the Donkin coal seams. This bill provides a clear regulatory regime to permit the Donkin development if Xstrata decides to proceed with production.

There has been a fair amount of discussion here about existing provincial and federal laws, but existing provincial laws regarding matters such as labour standards, labour relationships, resource development and occupational health and safety will be incorporated into federal law as part of the agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia.

Again, this can happen when organizations work in a cooperative manner for the better good of both the Province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada. Nova Scotia will administer these laws so that a single and clear regulatory system can be established for the Donkin project.

In conclusion, let me say that this legislation allows both levels of government to retain their current positions, with nothing changing, with respect to ownership and regulatory jurisdiction, while facilitating the economic development of Cape Breton and certainly Nova Scotia.

By introducing this legislation, the Government of Canada is demonstrating its commitment to the economic development of the Cape Breton community and to Nova Scotia as a whole. This bill, I believe, is an outstanding example of cooperation between governments to facilitate a common interest in seeing the Donkin mine project proceed.

I would like to recognize the work of the Minister of Natural Resources, his parliamentary secretary and my colleagues on this side of the House, as well as the work done by my colleagues on the other side of the House.

I think there is pretty well unanimous support for this piece of legislation. There is some discussion and that is why we are in this place. We are here to look at the various areas of bills that we feel are projecting the common good and also to recognize what we see as flaws. I am happy to say, from what I have heard from members on the other side, that they recognize this as a cooperative and very positive piece of legislation for the province of Nova Scotia that will certainly benefit the regional economy of Cape Breton Island.

Before closing, I would like to say that coal was king in Cape Breton Island for many years, but it was also important to the entire province of Nova Scotia, certainly in the New Glasgow area. Earlier I mentioned the Westray explosion and the unfortunate circumstances that surrounded it. Coal was mined throughout Nova Scotia, in Springhill as well, and not just in Cape Breton. As well, there is still a very skilled workforce capable of underground mining, one that any employer would be lucky to hire.

I wish Xstrata, the company that will be primarily involved in Donkin, the best of luck. If the Province of Nova Scotia and the federal government can continue to work in a cooperative manner, I think this can be an example for other provinces.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's for his comments on this important topic today.

I missed the first couple of minutes of his intervention, but I believe he did speak somewhat about land based coal deposits in Nova Scotia. Being a member from Nova Scotia, I know he is very much aware of the sensitivity around the land based coal deposits. In fact, there is opposition to any type of surface mining, strip mining operation, in the Cape Breton area particularly, Point Aconi, Boularderie and the Port Morien area.

If the hon. member had identified this early in his presentation and if he could clarify with the people who are paying attention to the legislation, that this legislation in no way impacts on land based deposits. It is specifically for those resources under the ocean, from the high water mark out, and that it will in no way encourage strip mining.

The federal jurisdiction does not even apply to the land based deposits. I would like him to comment that in no way would the legislation have any impact on those land based deposits.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso is absolutely correct.

The project we are talking about, the Donkin coal seams, is under the ocean. It is not land based. Even though it is underground, it is certainly not within the jurisdiction of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island.

We have always considered the coal seams an offshore jurisdiction. That is why this unique piece of legislation has been put in place because quite frankly, Nova Scotia was claiming jurisdiction for the Donkin coal seams along with the federal government. This was a cooperative way of getting beyond that.

I would like to make this point, and in no way am I trying to step on provincial jurisdiction here in Point Aconi or the Prince Colliery or any of the other mines that still have some potential in Cape Breton Island. Let us be clear, these are for undersea resources. They are not for land based resources.

The other debate is a Nova Scotia provincial debate. The other debate about open pit mining is strictly in the purview of provincial jurisdiction.

However, I would ask people who are listening to this discussion to take a look at some of the examples in Nova Scotia where there has been a cleanup of a lot of these old mine sites, and they have been open pit.

The Trenton-New Glasgow area is a prime example of that where a local company came in, Chisholm's, I believe was the company name, and it did have an open pit mine. It certainly was dusty and caused a problem for a few years. However, it did an extremely good job and reclaimed a bunch of old mine sites that were frankly a personal hazard for all the local children in the area who were playing in some of these mines. Some of these mines went back 150 years. It is not as simple as one versus the other.

To the member's first and original question, there are two totally different jurisdictions and two totally different subjects.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—our party's natural resources critic—said that the Bloc Québécois supports the bill in principle, but that naturally, we will have to study the contentious provisions in Bill C-15, just as we do for all bills. As she said, that is the case with respect to revenue sharing and the exclusion of revenue from coal bed methane in the Canada-Nova Scotia accord on offshore oil. I would like the member to comment on offshore revenue since he is, if I am not mistaken, a member from the Maritimes.

It appears that the Conservative government is acting against Quebec's interests because the equalization formula does not take into account all non-renewable natural resource revenue, and therefore penalizes Quebeckers.

I would like to know if he thinks that the equalization formula should include offshore resources. We know that the Conservative government had some problems with this issue after the former Liberal prime minister's government made some promises and signed an agreement with provinces that have natural resources. We know that Mr. Williams, Premier of Newfoundland, was very angry when the Conservatives failed to keep their election promise. The former premier of Saskatchewan decided to sue the federal government because of that. This is a very serious problem. One Conservative member even became an independent because of it.

I would like to know what the member thinks of this, and whether he thinks that the equalization formula should include offshore revenue.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier and I appreciate the fact that the Bloc members are supporting the principle of this piece of legislation, but we always see that constant and reoccurring habit of trying to drive those wedges. We are much better off when we all work cooperatively. I certainly appreciate his comparing this agreement to the offshore agreement.

Part of the argument that Nova Scotia put forward on the Donkin coal mine, and certainly on the methane, is that it is offshore, so it should be covered under the same agreement with offshore oil and gas. Methane gas and coal bed methane being drilled from jackups on the ocean, or from drill ships, or semi-submersibles, whatever it is drilled with, I concur, should be treated the same as other offshore resources.

Of course, the member should know the original agreement signed on the offshore has been available to Nova Scotia under our government since the beginning. It is part of what is on the table. He mentioned Premier Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador. It has been on the table for Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

It is up to the provinces to decide if they would choose to take that agreement or if they would choose to take the new equalization formula which offers 50% of their natural resources. Certainly, members should also be aware that the way the offshore accords were written the moment a province becomes a have province, it would lose the benefits of the offshore accords which would have given it 100% of its natural resources.

In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular, that will probably be sooner rather than later. We are expecting it will become a have province and especially with the escalating value of its energy resources, Newfoundland and Labrador will probably become a have province in 2009. Therefore, it would lose the benefit of the original accord it signed anyway.

The new agreement is much better for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in particular than the old equalization formula because under the new formula it would continue to receive 50% of its natural resources like any other province.

Again in closing, part of this and the reason why I took the time to explain that to my colleague from the Bloc is the fact that the Government of Canada, on this piece of legislation, Bill C-15, has worked in a cooperative manner in a positive way for a positive outcome both for the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government. It shows what we can do when we work together.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the bill we are debating today on the Donkin coal block is really a good example of what this government can get done. Where the previous Liberal government always failed, we are able to get things done.

I want the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, who has worked so hard on this project, to talk about how our government is working so well with the province of Nova Scotia and other provinces in getting the job done.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. parliamentary secretary has about 20 seconds left.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, 20 seconds to say that the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government have a very good, lasting and strong relationship. We have that relationship because we have looked at some difficult issues and instead of simply saying we are going to throw down the gauntlet and fight over those difficult issues, we worked hard.

We worked through the negotiations and we succeeded where everyone else thought that we could not for the benefit of both the province of Nova Scotia and the federal government.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be sharing my time this afternoon with the hon. member for Charlottetown to speak to Bill C-15, the Donkin coal block development opportunity act.

I note that my colleagues across the way have decided to introduce a new element to this particular debate, that of the Atlantic accord and the offshore developments. It is their choice. It would not be mine if I were them because of course that is not a stellar success story on behalf of the Conservative government right now at this point in time and that they would be wanting to talk about that.

I will say this. There is an incredible success story to be told and that is through the persistence of colleagues of mine, the member for Cape Breton—Canso as well as his colleague, the member for Sydney—Victoria, both from Cape Breton representing the needs and the aspirations of the people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia for quite some time.

I want to congratulate him and the members for Cape Breton--Canso and Sydney--Victoria for keeping the pressure on this, and for bringing the views of the people of Cape Breton forward.

This is going to result in over 275 jobs for the people and miners of Cape Breton. It will mean that men and women who are currently working in other parts of the country and other parts of the world will be working at home now. It also means incredible new economic opportunities.

Cape Breton Island is really the Celtic tiger in so many ways. It has diversified its economy. It has gotten into the high tech sector. It has become involved in communications, manufacturing, software development, and has made huge strides in the development of its tourism sector. It deserves our congratulations and our support.

It is members like the Liberal member for Cape Breton—Canso as well as his colleague, the member forSydney—Victoria, that really I salute here today because they took the voice of the people who they represent and they translated it here on the floor of the House of Commons.

Bill C-15, to develop the Donkin resources, is simply a matter that the member for Cape Breton--Canso really kept the pressure up. He kept an eye on making sure that the legislation was drafted to meet the needs of the people whom he represented and brought those jobs home.

However, the members opposite on the Conservative side are actually wanting to raise the whole spectrum of the Atlantic accord. Just this morning, for the fourth consecutive time, there was to be a briefing by the Department of Finance for those interested in the amendments that were forced upon the people of Nova Scotia in their Atlantic accord agreement.

That is not what they asked for in these amendments. It is not what they were promised. Everyone in the House and everyone in the province of Nova Scotia, in Atlantic Canada and throughout this entire country knows that the promise that was given to the people of Atlantic Canada was 100% exclusion of all non-renewable natural resources for the equalization formula with no caps.

That however was not what was translated and provided by the Conservative government once it took office. That commitment was given on January 3 in an open letter to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, followed by an open letter to the Council of the Federation under then Premier Ralph Klein, as chairman of all 10 provinces and 3 territories, that there would be 100% exclusion of all non-renewable natural resources for the equalization formula with no caps. The statement was also given, “no excuses”.

We seem to be surrounded now by excuses, by fine print and by a cap. That quite frankly I think causes the people of Nova Scotia still some great concern, especially when there was to be a briefing just this morning.

For the fourth consecutive time a briefing was scheduled for all interested parliamentarians from both sides of the House. That briefing was offered by the federal Department of Finance back in October of this year, so that we could actually learn firsthand the nature of the side, side, side deal between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Nova Scotia.

It was cancelled once, it was cancelled twice, it was cancelled a third time, and this morning, 14 minutes before the meeting was scheduled to occur, it was cancelled for the fourth time, even to the point where a member of the Department of Finance was actually showing up for the meeting. Because there was no BlackBerry in the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Selkirk--Interlake on a point of order.