Andy Burton

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 10th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for those questions. I unfortunately cannot reply in the member's native language, but I will do the best I can in English.

I will deal first with the provincial consultation aspects. Obviously if legislation such as this proceeds there is a role for the provinces. I would suggest that it is a major role. It is absolutely critical that the provinces be involved in the creation of any marine conservation areas.

I am from British Columbia, the west coast of Canada. I think the implications for the province of British Columbia are of great concern because of the potential for offshore oil and gas development, among other things. The implications are not just for the offshore but for lakes, streams and so on. Certainly there has to be a great deal of provincial consultation. There is no question about that.

As I said right at the beginning, I have a great deal of concern about the environment. We all respect the environment. I come from a rural area. I have lived in small town Canada all my life. I hunt and fish. I consider myself to be a basic environmentalist. I enjoy the outdoors. I respect the outdoors and the environment, as do all my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance. It is extremely important that we continue to protect the environment.

What we are saying is that we cannot allow this legislation to stand in the way of environmentally acceptable development. That is my concern. As I said earlier, especially in B.C. there is potential for offshore oil and gas development, for instance. We cannot just shut that down. The potential for the economy of Canada and British Columbia is huge. Look at what it has done for Newfoundland. Look at what it has done for the east coast. We have to take all of those things into consideration. We need to have a balance.

I am no expert but the precautionary principle has been changed to some degree by taking out words around the phrase lack of scientific certainty. The real statement reads:

Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures—

We are saying that the removal of certain words from that principle creates a little different and much harsher aspect in the content of the bill. That is what concerns us. Even if there was no real evidence something could be stopped on that basis rather than people saying that we should take a look at it and see if we can really do it in an environmentally friendly manner.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak with great concern about the government's Bill C-10, an act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada. Before I comment on the areas of the bill that I find quite concerning, I would like to make the following statement.

I believe that Canada's natural heritage should be protected and that it is our responsibility to ensure a viable environment is passed on to our children and our children's children in perpetuity. However, I also believe that the very survival of many remote and coastal communities, particularly those in my riding in northern British Columbia, depend on natural resources.

British Columbia has been blessed with beauty and an abundance of natural resources, many would say more than enough to go around. Yes, we must protect our natural environment, but we must do so with the understanding that not all industry is harmful to the environment and that the economic sustainability of many coastal and remote communities hinges on their ability to extract or harvest those natural resources, be it fisheries, forestry, mining or drilling for fossil fuels. This is a reality we cannot overlook.

As members of the House undoubtedly know, the bill has had a rather difficult time making its way through parliament in the past.

An earlier form of the bill was introduced in the House of Commons during the 36th parliament as the then Bill C-48. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage which heard evidence in February and March of 1999. Bill C-48 then died on the order paper when parliament was prorogued.

It reappeared in the second session of the 36th parliament as Bill C-8. It made its way as far as report stage. Although it was amended slightly in committee, it too died on the order paper when parliament dissolved to the call of the October 2000 election.

Bill C-10 before us today is a reincarnation of both Bill C-48 and Bill C-8, taking into account the 1999 amendments.

I would venture to suggest that a lack of broad public consultation is the reason for previous versions of the bill being dumped from the government's legislative agenda in the past. I would say that it still needs much amending.

I do urge the government whip to allow her members to take a long hard look at the effects of the bill and allow their conscience to guide them in making much needed changes in committee and report stage.

At this time I would like to shift my attention away from the scope of the bill and narrow in on what I believe are some key areas of the bill.

To begin, let us take a close look at the preamble, specifically lines 4 to 10 in the government's definition of precautionary principle. The bill begins by stating:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to adopting the precautionary principle in the conservation and management of the marine environment so that, where there are threats of environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty is not used as a reason for postponing preventive measures;

The hon. members in the House today and the viewers at home may not realize that Bill C-10 considerably expands the concept of the precautionary principle. There is broad support for the wording of principle 15 of the 1991 Rio declaration on environment and development, which states:

In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

Members of the House should be concerned that since the precautionary principle guides the government in its decision making process, this substantially expanded version allows the government to essentially create marine conservation areas wherever it pleases; the definition is that broad.

By removing the words serious or irreversible when dealing with threat assessment, the government has carte blanche to decide what warrants a designation of a marine conservation area and what does not. This is not in accordance with the Rio declaration that Canada signed on to and, as such, is not an appropriate definition of the precautionary principle.

I would urge members of the House to demand the amendment of the definition. The precautionary principle is the guiding force determining what regions become marine conservation areas. It is not acceptable that this definition be expanded arbitrarily.

I am concerned with a few other clauses of the bill, which I believe either need to be amended or entirely deleted.

The government has said that the purpose of the bill is to establish the rules that will allow for the creation of national marine conservation areas to protect and conserve marine ecosystems that are representative of the 29 marine environments in Canada's coastal zones and the Great Lakes.

Unlike national parks, whose resources are fully protected, marine conservation areas are managed for sustainable use, except where forbidden by clause 13, which deals with the exploration and extraction of any and all mineral or other deposits within a marine conservation area.

The bill would allow for sustainable use within the marine conservation area, with a focus on recreation, tourism, education and research.

Currently, federal-provincial agreements are either in place or under consideration for four parks, representing five of the twenty-nine marine regions. The proposed Gwaii Haanas park on Queen Charlotte Shelf in the Hecate Strait marine regions is in my riding of Skeena. This park could represent an area roughly equivalent to one-sixth of my total riding.

I must say that there are those who believe the intent of the legislation is to forbid any form of development within marine conservation areas and, further, to go beyond protecting the original 29 marine regions the legislation was designed for and to create many more new marine conservation areas. This is of grave concern to me and to many other Canadians.

As is mentioned in the bill, these 29 marine conservation areas would be zoned for different uses. Some may be zoned strictly for tourism, others for science, and there are many who believe most of these marine conservation areas would severely restrict any human activity, but more specifically industrial activity.

Whatever the original intent of the bill may be, I would urge members to take specific notice of clause 13, which specifically forbids any mineral or inorganic resource extraction within all marine conservation areas. Allow me to quote from the bill in clause 13 on page 9:

No person shall explore for or exploit hydrocarbons, minerals, aggregates or any other inorganic matter within a marine conservation area.

I ask the House to reflect on why the bill needs such a severely restricting, overarching clause affecting all marine conservation areas when it is supposed to be the intent of the bill to zone each area for specific usage, unless of course it is the government's intention to shut down those industries in Canada that rely on the extraction of such materials.

Furthermore, I find it quite strange that members of parliament representing areas of Atlantic Canada would not strongly object to such a clause since some of them hail from a province like Newfoundland, where the famous Hibernia offshore drilling program has successfully and, may I say, in an environmental manner penetrated the ocean's floor, and its very existence is ensuring the lives and well-being of many Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians. Should such a bill and clause have been introduced prior to the Hibernia project and even prior to any exploration for that project, it possibly would never have been.

I would like to press on in this vein a little further and say that the legislation could prevent any further exploration and development off the shores of Newfoundland. For that matter, it could prevent such development off the shores of Canada, period, be it in our Atlantic, Arctic or Pacific oceans. Of course many will say that is true only if those specific areas are designated as marine conservation areas. That brings me to my next concern with the legislation.

I ask hon. members of the House to take note of clause 5 on page 4. Subclause 5(1) is most distressing and represents what is fundamentally wrong with the government. It seriously undermines the effectiveness of elected representatives in the House. I believe that once the members in the Chamber today hear what I will read from the bill they cannot help but understand that there need to be serious changes to the bill for it to be accepted in the Commons. I will quote from subclause 5(1):

Subject to section 7, for the purpose of establishing or enlarging a marine conservation area, consisting of submerged lands and waters within the internal waters, territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of Canada and any coastal lands or islands within Canada, the Governor in Council may, by order, amend Schedule 1 by adding the name and a description of the area or by altering the description of the area.

In plain English what this means is that the Prime Minister and his cabinet can decide out of the blue to create a marine conservation area in any member's riding or backyard. Yes, the bill does recommend that the Minister of Canadian Heritage consult with those she or he deems to be affected people, but it does not guarantee that their opinions will be heard and agreed to. It is conceivable, should parts of the St. Lawrence be considered a marine conservation area, that the government could restrict or reduce fishery catch levels for various species, or even shipping levels. The heritage minister might even choose some of the most fertile fishing grounds on the east coast or, for that matter, the west coast, and deem them marine conservation areas. There would be nothing we as elected members of parliament could do about it.

How does the minister think this will sit with Canadians and more so with coastal communities whose very survival in many cases depends on the resources they can extract from the sea? The power the bill in this clause takes away from Canadians and their parliament and places in the hands of a very few insiders, cabinet members, is appalling. I know my constituents will not stand for it and neither will I.

I implore members of the House to demand the amendment of the clause and to return the power of creation and enlargement of these marine conservation areas to the hands of parliament, where it will receive much reflection, consultation and thought. We are accountable to our constituents and to Canadians.

I know my comments in the House today may seem strong and passionate, but when I read on to the end of clause 5 to subclause 5(3) my blood really boils. There is no doubt that Canadians listening today should be outraged at the fact that cabinet is the sole body creating and enlarging marine conservation areas. However, it should incense them even more to learn that the body that creates these areas does not have the power to reduce or eliminate them.

Let me explain. It is all right for the government to expedite the creation of these marine conservation areas and to wield the swift power of cabinet to that end, but to reduce or eliminate an area would take an act of parliament. Allow me to read once again from the bill. I would ask members to take note of subclause 5(3) on page 5:

No amendment may be made by the Governor in Council to Schedule 1 for the purpose of removing any portion of a marine conservation area.

Of course I agree that parliament should be the body deciding on whether or not a marine conservation area should be designated. However, what Canadians may not realize is that only the government can raise in the House an amendment to an act of parliament, meaning that it would have to be the will of the government of the day to amend or remove a marine conservation area. It would not be up to individual members to do so. Although we as elected members would have the opportunity to debate such a bill, we could not make any changes on our own.

It is also important to note that it is not uncommon for a bill to take up to one year to make its way through the House of Commons and its standing committee, to the Senate and then to receive royal assent. Depending on the priority the government places on the bill, it could take even longer.

We know that in reality the time a bill spends in the House of Commons or the Senate is controlled by the government. It has been known to push bills through in weeks and it has also dragged its heels on some bills for years, not unlike what has happened to the history of this bill, I might add.

The point I am trying to make is that the government does not need to abrogate its democratic responsibility by allowing clause 5 to stand. It already has the power to push bills into law and could create as many marine conservation areas as it likes.

I would urge the government to do the right thing and allow parliament its due evaluation, consultation and amendment of bills relating to specific marine conservation areas, not ram this omnibus piece of legislation through the House.

I would ask members to support amendments to the legislation that would see the need for the government to introduce specific legislation for every marine conservation area it plans to designate.

I would ask members to support amendments to remove clause 13. As mentioned, that clause would eliminate the ability to ever extract resources from the marine conservation areas regardless of the environmental viability of any project.

I will leave you and my hon. colleagues with these final words of caution and conscience. Members should ask themselves how their constituents would react if their fishing grounds were to become protected under the bill. How would their constituents feel if their activities, those which, I might add, put food on their tables and clothes on their children's backs, could not be continued? What if they were told they could not work or that the bill would drastically affect the future of their community? I would venture to suggest members of parliament would want to consult widely, bring their concerns to the attention of the minister and have their day in the House to express those opinions and to convince their colleagues to support their endeavours.

As this bill currently stands, hon. members will never have that opportunity. That is wrong. Therefore I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor: Bill C-10, An Act respecting the national marine conservation areas of Canada, be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

[Canada Shipping Act, 2001, May 10th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-14 on behalf of my party. Bill C-14 is an act respecting shipping and navigation and to amend the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 and other Acts.

For the benefit of those Canadians watching television, I will summarize the purpose of the bill.

This quote is taken directly from the bill. It states:

This enactment overhauls and replaces the Canada Shipping Act, other than the portions that concern liability, with modernized legislation that will promote the safety and economic performance of the commercial marine industry as well as ensure the safety of those who use pleasure craft. Key changes to the existing legislation include improvements to provisions to protect and support efficient crews, ensure passenger and vessel safety and protect the environment. A new administrative penalties scheme provides an alternative means for dealing with certain contraventions.

The enactment clarifies the marine responsibilities between the Department of Transport and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The enactment organizes the contents, updates the terminology and streamlines substantive requirements to make the law much clearer and easier to understand.

The enactment amends the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, 1987 to inject greater competition within shipping conferences, to streamline the administration of the Act and to ensure that Canadian legislation covering international liner shipping conferences remains in harmony with that of Canada's major trading partners.

On this side of the House, we feel that these are all good and supportable directions for the legislation to take. As the quote outlines, Bill C-14 is a significant piece of legislation. I am told the departmental officials have worked on this for some time in an attempt to perfect it.

As the members in the House know the bill was originally introduced in the House as Bill C-35, which died on the order paper in the 36th parliament when the election was called. Bill C-35 did not go so far as to include the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act amendments. It only dealt with the regulatory changes affecting the industry.

This bill contains some 334 clauses and is just under 200 pages long. I reiterate that obviously the department officials have worked on this for some time. We would have appreciated more time to go through it in a little more detail and perhaps absorb it a little better, however we were not allowed that time.

Bill C-14 was introduced at first reading on March 1. It went to second reading the following week and was sent to committee shortly thereafter. As I said earlier, it was a very speedy process and I would have to wonder why.

The committee stage for this bill was a journey in itself. We heard the departmental officials give testimony and briefings regarding the bill and heard from witnesses in the industry as well. Some members may also have been visited by lobbyists from the shipping conferences exemption side of the bill urging support for the bill without amendment.

All of this happened in short order and the bill moved along the process quite smoothly until it came to the clause by clause examination. The opposition, and even some Liberal members of the committee, were not too impressed at the lack of organization by the department when presenting amendments.

We entertained 27 separate amendments at committee. This may not seem excessive but when they are dumped on your lap at the beginning of a meeting it certainly is a handful. We certainly did not appreciate such short notice nor did we appreciate not having the opportunity to review these amendments beforehand.

As many members know, clause by clause can be a rather tedious venture at the best of times, but with many last minute amendments of a detailed nature to a bill which deals mainly with regulations, it makes the process all the more taxing.

Up until that time, we thought highly of the officials for undertaking such a monumental task as to redraft such a large and detailed act. However being so disorganized as to drop those changes in the committee's lap at the last minute suggested either that the bill was possibly not ready for the floor of the House when it was first introduced or the drafters of the bill did not take the time to check their work.

Either way, as the government official put it, 27 minor amendments were put to committee and frustrated the entire process. The amendments were so poorly written that the parliamentary secretary had to verbally amend an amendment on the fly.

This is not acceptable. For members of parliament to truly have input in the process of making laws in the country, we need to ensure that the process is properly seen to.

We are now at third reading where amendments can be made to the bill at hand. We see today that there are no further amendments of the bill. At least right now it appears that way. However I would not be surprised, if the process allowed for it, if we were presented with last minute amendments.

I know the Speaker made a recent ruling preventing frivolous amendments, but I say to the hon. members in this Chamber today, does that mean that committee now becomes a mockery? I hope not.

This may be a phenomenon that only occurs with the transport department. I do not know. However I do know that I did not care for it and I do not think other members of the committee cared for it either.

With regard to the bill, at present the official opposition supports the bill in its current form. As I said earlier, we did have some concerns about the speed of the process, but overall the general direction of the bill is positive and it needed to be done.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the leeway to express my frustrations with the process. I would urge the members opposite, and should departmental officials be watching today, that to have good law making in Canada we have to get down to the business of drafting both in committee and in the House and at report stage, to ensure that such abuses of the process which occurred in this committee no longer happen.

In closing, overall we support the general direction and the long overdue overhaul of the legislation. We have some real concerns over the need to fast track this lengthy bill and would have preferred more time to analyze it in detail.

[Public Works, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly looks like awarding large advertising contracts to friends of the Liberals is becoming a habit of this minister. First Mrs. Tremblay and now Group Action. Who is next?

If as in the minister's response this is such an acceptable expenditure, why has the government refused to release the Group Action report of findings related to this contract? Why are they not released and when will they be released?

[Public Works, May 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, according to today's Globe and Mail there was no specific competition for the Group Action contract worth $615,000.

In the transport and government operations standing committee on May 26, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services said “Every time there was a sole source contract above $25,000 my officials came and briefed me and asked my opinion”.

If this is the case, why would the minister agree to such a blatant misuse of taxpayer dollars?

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I fully concur with the hon. member's concerns. I think I said earlier that long term and lasting benefits must accrue to the resource based communities. I think that is where we really have failed in the past, like in the community I used to live in. I moved away when I became a member of parliament, to a more urban area. Believe me when I say that I really miss my quiet rural life, but I am enjoying this too.

Benefits have to accrue. There is no question about it. Times have changed. In the past people went in to get resources, got them out of there and that was the end of it. What was left behind was left behind. I do not think that is acceptable any more. It is a shame that it has gone as far as it has.

As I was going to say, the community I used to live in has gone from a peak population of 2,500 when the Grand Duke mine was operating to 500 people today. We have had a few humps and bumps in the meantime, but it is very difficult for these small communities that are resource based.

Yes, there has to be something left behind, whatever it might be. As the member suggests, it could be forestry research centres or northern campuses for universities and those types of things. That is something that needs to be addressed. A lot of these issues are much more provincial than federal, but I think this is a good place to suggest some of these things and possibly funnel some funds toward it in the future.

My main experience with the roads to resources was, of course, the Stewart-Cassiar highway. It was done under that roads to resources program in 1957-1958, in that era. It basically built a road from Cassiar to Tidewater and Stewart so that the product could flow not through the Yukon, unfortunately for Whitehorse, but more directly to Tidewater.

The Kemess mine right now hauls its concentrate further eastward to hit railhead at Mackenzie to go to Vancouver. It is hauling it further that way than it would have to straight out to Tidewater and Stewart. It is going in the wrong direction and it is going 1,000 miles to Vancouver. It does not make sense. The mining company itself cannot afford to build that road. A road is proposed, but if there were some co-operation among the federal and provincial levels of government and the industry, there are other potential ore bodies in there that could be developed if a road were there. Also, the forest industry would be extremely happy to see such a road.

These are the types of things we need to look at. What is the potential for natural resource development if government gets involved in some form of basic infrastructure, maybe not building the road per se but assisting with it? That is what I am saying.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, obviously there is no panacea that will solve all these problems overnight. I fully understand and recognize that, but I think we have to start working toward some of these solutions.

The member mentioned Kimberley. Of course the Sullivan Mine has been going for almost 100 years. It is due to close very shortly. I think it probably is finally mined out. Mines do not last forever. They are finite resources. However, by the same token, the incentives can be there for industry when it is developing and getting the mines into a production stage. As somebody mentioned earlier, a mine starts to close the day it opens, because eventually the ore body is depleted. The key is to maximize the ore body, as I think somebody mentioned. That is a very good term.

The resources will not last forever, but we must maximize them. We can do that by being the best in the world at what we do, as Canada certainly is when it comes to mining and forestry and, I am sure, a number of other industries, like agriculture. We are pretty damned good at fishing too, maybe too good but I do not know about that, because there are some problems. We have to be the best in the world at what we are doing. I think we can do that as Canadians.

There is a role for government, as I said earlier, in providing basic infrastructure. I think that is key. We must have power, roads and ports. Those three things have to be in place. We might include railroads to a degree, although that has more of a private sector aspect. It did not 150 years ago, but today I think that is more for the private sector.

Then there is the tax climate and flow through shares and things like that. I am not suggesting subsidies. I do not believe in them myself. I do not think that is the way to go. I think the answer is a tax regime that is amenable to investment and allows profits to be made, to be reinvested and to create more jobs. I think that is the answer and we just have to work toward that.

[Resource Industries, April 24th, 2001]

Madam Chairman, I am somewhat heartened by the discussion that has gone on tonight.

I am a person who has lived in a resource based riding for the last 42 years. I have earned my living from resource production. Basically mining but certainly forestry is a big producer in my area. I am talking about northwestern British Columbia, which is probably a bit of a microcosm of the natural resource history of Canada. We have had mines come and go. We have had the forestry industry wax and wane. It is a real indication of how critical and how important resource industries are to the local economy but how tenuous they are when it comes to world commodity prices and situations that affect them.

I would like to give a little history on some of the mines that have come and gone since I lived in that riding over the past 42 years. I started out at the north end in Cassiar, which was a world famous asbestos mine. Asbestos has its connotations for some, but it has produced a lot of products for the Canadian export economy and has created a great deal of wealth for the north over its lifespan. It is no longer there for various reasons.

The mine at Stewart, a world famous gold, silver, lead and zinc mine, is long gone but was a real producer in its time. Mines come and go. We have Eskay Creek producing today. It is a world class silver producer with some very substantial gold values as well. It is an incredible mine. It will be mined out, but it is there today and is producing wealth for the north and for Canada.

Windy Craggy, which we heard a lot about a few years ago, was a potential world class copper, cobalt and gold property. They spent something like $50 million proving up the ore body and going into pre-feasibility studies and had the rug pulled out from under them for mainly environmental reasons. That is a real tragedy in terms of a resource that could have produced thousands and thousands of man years of jobs and billions of dollars of revenue and contributed hundreds of millions of dollars into government coffers over 30 or 40 years with the potential for other mine development in that area.

It is a very pristine area but if done properly these things can be done. Balance is the key to the whole development of our natural resources. There is a price to pay for everything but the price has to be acceptable. If we can come up with an acceptable way for development, whether oil and gas, minerals, forestry, hydro electric or whatever, some projects are doable and some are not. There has to be that balance. We have lost that balance to a large degree and that is something we have to try to get back, because of the potential for the wealth of Canada that can be generated. We cannot forget that.

There are some other mines that have come up such as the Grand Isle copper mine. In my little town of Stewart there was the Grand Duke copper mine which was the world's largest underground copper mine at one time. It was huge, having a thousand men working there. There are still millions of pounds of copper underground there, but the mine is gone. It is closed down. It is not viable to operate for a number of reasons which I will get into at the end of my 10 minutes.

If we took a thousand jobs out of a town the size of Stewart, it would be down to 500 people. When jobs are gone, the community and the people suffer. We are lucky we have the Huckleberry mine. It is not in my riding but the ore is hauled into the port of Stewart. It is a copper mine that is producing today, marginally viable, but it is luckily enough still producing. We have the Kemess mine, which is a fairly new one. It is a copper mine in northwestern B.C.

We have to encourage these types of developments. Unfortunately it is getting more and more difficult for mining companies not only to find new ore bodies but to develop them because of red tape, restrictions and problems that are put in their way.

We have the potential for oil and gas. In northeastern B.C. it is booming. Fort St. John, Fort Nelson and all along the Alberta border and into Alberta is booming area with oil and gas development. I envy them. It is creating jobs and putting food on the tables of families and creating revenue for governments. That is what we need to do.

On the east coast we have Hibernia and Sable Island producing oil and gas. Hibernia is a huge benefit to the eastern part of Canada. On the west coast we have the potential for oil and gas that is 10 times that of Hibernia. It is huge, but nothing is happening.

We have a moratorium on exploration, not on production but on exploration. We are not even allowed to go out there and have a look at it. The message I want to send to government is that it is time we took a real hard look at this. Technology has evolved. The environmental restrictions are there and there are ways and means of doing things that were not there 30 years ago when the moratorium was put on.

The potential is there, 10 times Hibernia, for pulling B.C. out of the economic doldrums which it is in right now through no fault of the government. I guess we all contribute. It needs to change. We need to do something about it.

The pulp and paper industry in my area is absolutely critical to feeding families and putting food on the table. The FCI pulp mill is in Prince Rupert. The communities of Terrace, Kitimat, Stewart, Smithers and Hazelton depend on that forest resource. It is getting tougher to be able to develop resources. For a number of reasons we are able to develop resources but the cost is rising and it is getting tougher.

The point I wish to make is that if there is a mountain of gold but the gold cannot be produced at a profit it is a waste. If it is not ore it is a waste. It is that simple. That is the problem we have today.

Ninety miles north of my home in the Stewart area is what is called the Ground Hog coal field. It has been known for almost 100 years. It is a world class anthracite coal deposit. It is the cleanest burning coal. It is a wonderful product.

We actually shipped coal to Newcastle from there on a test basis. A hundred thousand tonnes of Groundhog coal was shipped through the port of Stewart some 10 or 12 years ago. It has not been developed. There are reasons for that. It is not economically viable. The companies that own it look at these projects and because of all the hoops that have to be jumped through and world markets and commodity prices that all contribute to the bottom line. If there is no bottom line they do not develop.

We are having difficulties with the fishery which is another natural resource. In my maiden speech I touched on the Pacific salmon treaty and some of the fisheries management difficulties that we are having on the west coast. There are some real difficulties in the herring roe and kelp fishery in terms of licences going one way or another and the balance not being there any more. The fish industry is very concerned about this.

We have potential in water, another natural resource. We have the Kemano project, a hydro electric project that produces power for Kitimat. It is a huge project that has been there for many years and yet Kemano completion was shut down. There was a second stage to the original project which was shut down.

We have to ask ourselves why these things are happening. There is something wrong. The potential is just absolutely phenomenal and this is one small corner of Canada, northwestern British Columbia. I am sure it is happening all over the country. We need to ask ourselves what we can do. The backbone of Canada is its natural resources and its people. We have to look at providing long term benefits to communities when we produce these resources.

I know that is a concern of my colleague across the floor. It is a message I am getting loud and clear. Over the past 40 years resource communities have gone through the ebbs and flows of peaks and valleys. The valleys are getting deeper unfortunately and the peaks are getting a lot less frequent.

There has to be long term benefits accruing to these communities. That is something that we really did not deal with in the past very well. We have to look at that to see how we can stabilize this community, especially when we develop finite resources such as metals, minerals, oil and gas. Forestry is a little different because it is a renewable resource. If we deal with that properly we can have trees forever. I will get arguments on that, but I know we can if we do it right.

People is the resource that gets forgotten very often. How many times have I seen a mine shut down, all kinds of government funds come in to help people move away and relocate and then the town dies? We have then lost a lot of the good people and the potential for developing something else becomes more difficult because the workforce is gone. It just compounds itself.

We have to recognize and understand some of these things. What can we do to encourage our resource industries? The taxation aspects are critical. The industry has to be allowed to make a profit to reinvest. Flow through taxing for mining was mentioned. That is a good start. We need to pursue that a lot further.

As an example. in B.C. last year roughly $25 million was spent on mining exploration. We need to spend $150 million per year to maintain a level that would see some new mines coming out in the future. There is a huge problem that has to be dealt with.

Security of tenure is critical to the mining and forest industries. That is a big problem, especially in British Columbia given land claims. There are a lot of messages here.

A program put in many years ago by the Conservative government in 1957-58 was called roads to resources. That opened up the whole northwest corner of British Columbia as well as, I think, a number of other areas in Canada. That is something the government should take a look at again in regard to some sort of program that would allow some of the more remote areas with huge potential to develop. I am not saying to subsidize anything. I think industry has to stand on its own two feet, but government's role is to provide the basic infrastructure of power, roads, ports and so on.

I see that my colleagues across are nodding, so I assume they are hearing me. I do appreciate that. I have enjoyed this opportunity, Madam Chairman. I think it is a good format and we should continue it.

[Queen Charlotte Islands, April 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, during the past two weeks I had the opportunity to visit the beautiful Queen Charlotte Islands or Haida Gwaii , as they are known locally. I took the time to meet with several different groups of people, including members of the Haida first nations.

I received several messages loud and clear on the island. Number one was about the total lack of credibility in federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans' policies. The fishing industry on the north coast as a whole is in serious trouble and DFO must address this issue.

Islanders are also concerned about their failing economy. Any economic development, industrial or otherwise, would be welcome provided environmental concerns are fully dealt with and long term and lasting benefits accrue to the island people.

The Queen Charlotte Islands are a beautiful part of Canada and it is my privilege to have had the opportunity to see them for the first time and to relay the concerns of their citizens to this parliament.

[Softwood Lumber, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, this past Saturday night the softwood lumber agreement expired. Yesterday the U.S. government took action against Canadian producers.

We are now faced with duties that could reach as high as 76%, to be imposed retroactively. This could mean the death of the Canadian lumber industry. Canadians need a national solution to this problem before major shutdowns and layoffs occur across the country.

The Liberal government has dragged its heels long enough. It is time to get to the negotiating table with the Americans to start to do some serious work on the issue.

In a few days the governments of all the Americas will be working on the FTAA. How can we consider entering into this hemispheric free trade agreement when we cannot even be sure the NAFTA rules will ever be followed with the U.S. on softwood lumber?

When will the government get to work on this matter of extreme importance?