Bob Speller

[Parliament Of Canada Act, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard the hon. member talking about something going on in the other place. What did he say the Conservatives did over there? I was not quite clear as to what he said.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House a report from the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the 41st Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in Colombo, Sri Lanka from October 3 to 13, 1995. It is tabled in both official languages.

[Mining Exploration And Development, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today in support of Motion No. 292, especially after the fairy tales I have been hearing from the member of the Bloc.

During my seven years as a member I have had an opportunity to meet various sectors of the mining industry, people involved in the mining industry on a daily basis. The main message they have been giving governments over these years is that governments must make a solid commitment not only to keeping the mining industry in Canada but also to making it prosper.

The motion before us today proposes the government consider implementing a new program of mining incentives which would encourage exploration and development in Canada. Although most people equate these incentives with taxes and grants, this is not necessarily the case.

I commend the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River for putting this motion forward. He has been very supportive of the mining industry. As he previously stated in the House, all the mining industry wants is a level playing field and a tax system competitive with the rest of the world and competitive internationally. In order to do this it is essential to streamline government procedures and to provide the mining industry with a single window approach to approvals.

The parliamentary secretary will be speaking after I finish. I am sure he will bring us up to date on how the minister is moving in these areas.

Why is this motion so important to Canadians? It is important because we are being asked to consider new initiatives, initiatives which previous governments did not feel were necessary.

When driving through Hagersville or Caledonia in my riding the first things we see as we approach these communities are the shafts of the gypsum mines. They support the gypsum plants which produce gypsum board which is shipped throughout North America. These communities rely on the mines, as do small communities in remote and rural areas all across the country. For visitors these mines show the importance of mining to the economic and social well-being of the country.

There has been a progressive decline in investment, employment and mining exploration in Canada over the last ten years. Between 1990 and 1993, 20,000 jobs were lost in the Canadian mining industry. Taking into consideration that mining provides 400,000 direct and indirect jobs in Canada, that number is quite substantial.

There are approximately 150 communities across Canada which depend on mining for their livelihood. When we factor in the number of businesses and the family members who buy goods from the stores and businesses, we are talking close to one million Canadians depending on this industry, a big industry in Canada.

We are also talking about an industry which pays some of the highest industrial wages in Canada: $847 per week. Most of these wages are earned in rural and isolated communities across the country. They provide the infrastructure in many places which keeps rural Canada together.

Between 1986 and 1991 Canada failed to attract a single new mining project with capital of more than $250 million. By comparison, Latin America acquired five such contracts. Likewise, from 1991 to 1992 more than 150 companies worldwide reduced expenditures in Canadian mining projects by 30 per cent, from $430 million to $302 million.

We need to look at why these investors are no longer selecting Canada and we must move to provide solutions to the problem. Why are they going to South America? Why are they going to Southeast Asia? The common feeling is it must be because of the environmental differences. I do not think that is the case. That may be a small component of it but more and more it is a direct result of government red tape.

We have three and in some areas four different levels of government. These companies have to go through an enormous amount of red tape to get anything done. It should be a primary role of anybody looking at solutions to the problem to deal with the whole question of red tape.

In 1994 the total contribution to the Canadian economy from mining equalled $19.1 billion. We must also remember this is a cyclical industry; it has ups and downs. In 1992 and 1993 alone 44 Canadian mines closed while 22 opened. We can see the trend is not in the right direction.

The requests that have been put forward by Keep Mining in Canada are not only logical but they are very plausible and workable. The Keep Mining in Canada campaign, supported by the industry, has laid out 10 reasonable points that it feels, if achieved, would help its industry.

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources when chaired by the member for Kenora-Rainy River conducted extensive hearings with all the stakeholders which resulted in the setting out of nine key recommendations committee members felt that if followed through on would help the industry.

They talked about streamlining the federal-provincial environmental regulations, which only makes sense and I know the Minister of the Environment is working in that area now; implementing an appropriate incentive to stimulate grassroots mineral exploration, and I know some hon. members do that sometimes as well; changing the tax laws on mine reclamation funding; establishing processes for land use planning that respect mineral tenure and ensure both the protection of Canada's heritage and access to the mineral resource development. We have to be able to balance those two. I know the parliamentary secretary will be happy to tell us following my speech how the minister is working in that area.

Overlapping jurisdictions also have a negative impact on investors. Much time and money is spent by companies filling out separate forms for either municipal, provincial or federal levels of government. They always seem to have different guidelines. These companies have to jump through a number of hoops. Surely our

governments can work together and come up with a single window and a single set of regulations which these companies can follow.

Canada also must implement an appropriate incentive to stimulate grassroots mineral exploration. By improving the tax laws and reclamation funding we would be promoting good environmental management. I know the member for Davenport wants to talk about that a little later.

The taxation of money put into trust by a company to meet future demands for mine reclamation should definitely be one of the items the government should look at. I am sure the member for Davenport will have something to say about that.

The last item I want to consider today in my last few minutes is the topic of establishing a process for land use planning that respect mineral tenure to ensure both the protection of Canada's natural heritage and access to mineral resource development. Mining is part of our heritage and we must ensure that it is accessible and that its terms can be met.

A commitment to supporting the mining industry does not translate into excess money being spent. Many incentives can be implemented that are not costly but which would encourage exploration and development. I talked about a few of these incentives in my speech. I urge anyone who seriously considers what is being voted on today to take a look at this. This is a votable item. It is a serious item. It is serious in the sense that it helps our program to develop and create jobs in this country.

We are voting today on the very survival of the mining industry and the demise of the communities that mining supports. Mining has always been a very important part of our heritage and I hope we will keep it.

[Veterans Week, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this week, Veterans Week, we stop to remember our fellow Canadians who so bravely fought and those who died to protect our freedom.

I participated in a remembrance ceremony a few Sundays ago, a day before the Quebec referendum. I thought of those Canadians who fought and died for our freedom and of what they might be thinking of Canada today, how they would still be very proud to be Canadians and how distressed they would feel at the plight of our unity given all that they had fought and died for.

Our contributions around the world have been highly commended, yet the cost of protecting democracy and peace has been very high.

Each of us has our own reasons for remembering. Only by remembering can we give meaning to the sacrifices that have been made. Only by remembering can we strive to maintain peace. Only by working together as a nation can we preserve the Canada that so many have fought and died to protect, a Canada that is envied the world over.

Let us not forget.

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, November 1st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was not going to rise on debate until I heard the hon. member from the Reform Party talk about Bill C-61 and try to suggest that somehow colleagues on this side of the House, because they are governing members, decided to finally pass this legislation after almost a year.

I know the hon. member came onto the standing committee on agriculture a little late. I still do not remember his taking part in any of the committee meetings dealing with Bill C-61, even though he was on that committee. The hon. member should know-and if he does not know he could talk to his colleagues who would tell him-that when the bill came in it was thoroughly debated by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Committee members from the government side were the ones who put forward problems they had with the bill. The bill is a good example of how the committee system around this place has worked. It goes to show how government backbench members on a committee can have some sort of say and input into the legislation.

When the bill came forward to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food government members on the committee had many concerns. We had concerns with the bill and we informed the minister of those concerns. We outlined to the minister a number of different amendments that we wanted to the bill before we were prepared to proceed with it.

The minister, in his wisdom, took that back to his departmental officials. If we go through Bill C-61 we see a number of amendments proposed by government members, not opposition members who chose not to show up for most of the meetings. Subclause 4(d) states:

respecting the circumstances under which, the criteria by which and the manner in which a penalty may be increased or reduced, including the reduction of a penalty pursuant to a compliance agreement-

That was not in there before. Government members felt it was important enough to put in there. Subclause 4(3) states:

Without restricting the generality of the paragraph-in making regulations-

Again it talks about the degree of intention or negligence on the part of the person. That was put in there by government members on that committee.

Clause 7 deals with the issuance of a notice of violation and states that there have to be reasonable grounds to believe. That was not in there before. Government backbenchers felt it was important. We went through the legislation for months and months and months, and the Reform Party was not there to help us.

The hon. member also has the audacity to say that the government would not even look at reasonable amendments. The Reform Party's Motion No. 20 to clarify the burden of proof is the hon. member's amendment. Motion No. 28 to clarify expenses is the hon. member's amendment. Motion No. 10 is to provide assurance that a security requested by the minister in respect of compliance be reasonable. He uses the word reasonable, but the government accepted opposition amendments on this point. We have gone a long way in trying to allay the fears of members on the other side that we were not listening to their concerns on the issue.

The hon. member talks about orders in council and Standing Order 110 which he should read. It states that committees have a right to review orders in council. It is a very important right for individual members of Parliament who can review orders in council. All of us in our role of checking the executive should have the power to review. The hon. member knows that.

In terms of the legislation I had concerns, as I said. However I sat down as a chairman of a committee with the minister and with the department. They went further than I expected them to go in terms of putting forward proposals to alleviate some of my concerns and the concerns of members on the committee and members outside the committee in terms of the House committee on procedure.

We sat down with government officials at a number of different meetings and came forward with amendments that we thought were reasonable. I thank the minister of agriculture for accepting the amendments. It goes to show how well this place can work when all hon. members work together.

[Small Business Loans Act, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I took note especially of the part of the hon. member's speech which dealt with the question that has been on the minds of most Canadians over the past few months. It is the question of Quebec separation and its impact on the small business community in Quebec. I thank the hon. member for his comments on that. They made a lot of sense.

The fact remains that in an independent Quebec it would be a lot more difficult for small business people. Certainly the surveys that have been conducted throughout the referendum bring this to light.

In a survey that was conducted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce of people who create the jobs in Quebec, the small business people, almost two-thirds, 64 per cent, of Quebec businesses believe that Quebec's economic prosperity would be diminished under separation. A strong majority, 55 per cent, believe that the business relations and trade with the rest of Canada would worsen under separation. More than a majority, 53 per cent, of Quebec businesses believe that their benefits and profitability would diminish if Quebec voted yes.

In another public opinion survey almost all the respondents, 93 per cent, expect long and difficult negotiations with the rest of Canada in the event of a yes vote. More than four out of five people, 83 per cent, think that Quebec's separation from Canada would have a negative impact on Quebec's economic development.

There is another survey of small business owners. Almost two-thirds of the small business owners in this survey chose Canada. They felt that the best route, the best way for their own economic prosperity would be through staying in Canada.

I think back to my own experience in a rural part of our country. I know the hon. member is from a big city and talked about the banks in the big city. In terms of small business people in rural Canada, obviously farming and farmers are a critical component to the small businesses in rural Canada and rural Quebec also. The whole question of supply management and where that goes in a separate Quebec is a major question.

These people should not be fooled. We brought in supply management a number of years ago with the support of Quebec farmers who were a major part in getting that. The whole concept behind supply management is that we are able to protect the local market, our current market under GATT and international rules. If Quebec becomes a separate country that will not be the case. They will not be able to protect that market.

Today in the industrial milk area Quebec holds about 47 per cent of the Canadian market. It is a very important aspect of it. The hon. member knows that. It would be folly to say to Quebec dairy and supply managed farmers that they would be any better off in a separate Quebec. In fact the whole nature of it would fall down. Granted, it would not only hurt Quebec dairy farmers, it would also hurt Canadians.

I ask the hon. member if he is aware of these statistics and these polls. Is he aware of the fact that the majority of Quebec's small business people feel that they would be much better off in Canada?

[Interparliamentary Delegations, September 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present to the House the report of the Canadian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association concerning the Canadian regional conference from July 23 to July 28 in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

[Committees Of The House, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which deals with Bill C-92, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, without amendment.

[Committees Of The House, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which deals with Bill C-86, an act to amend the Canadian Dairy Commission Act.

It is reported with amendments.

[Firearms Act, June 13th, 1995]

Do what I am told? Look at the hon. members who are falling in line with their leader.

Their leader lives in an urban area that is in favour of the legislation. All the polls that have been taken across the country have clearly shown that. How can the hon. member and members of his caucus stand here to say that those of us in Ontario, for instance, who are trying to best represent our constituents, who have taken polls and have spoken to many constituents, are not representing our constituents? His own leader comes from an area of the country where polls have shown that the majority of the people are in favour of the legislation. His leader is going to vote against it, against the wishes of his constituents. That party's key point during the election campaign was to represent

its constituents and have free votes. How does that align with party policy?