House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 67% of the vote.
The Environment October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are not talking about arbitrary figures on a piece of paper that mean nothing. We are talking about peoples' lives, thousands of jobs, the ability of people to support their families.
Does the minister really think that $1 a litre gasoline and doubling home heating fuel costs is a reasonable cost today?
The Environment October 23rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the environment minister talks about the inevitable cost of complying with the Kyoto summit and the resource minister says that the Reform Party is only fixated on taxation. A recently produced study by the Canadian Petroleum Producers Association says that those costs could be $180 billion to the Canadian economy and $1 per litre of gasoline.
Is this the minister's idea of reasonable costs?
Speech From The Throne October 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I would only suggest that the member should visit some of the modern day mines in Canada and look at the work that is being done for environmental reclamation.
Why would he not visit the Syncrude and Suncor sites in my riding where the mined out areas are now rolling hills retrieved with pine, spruce and poplar. The grass is growing and buffalo are grazing where they have not grazed for 300 years. Why would he not visit the TransAlta Utilities mine site west of Edmonton, Alberta where tremendous work has been done and the coal mine has been reclaimed to a state that is far more productive and just as aesthetically acceptable as the ground and the country ever was before.
I get so tired of the rhetoric that we hear on the issue. We all enjoy our standard of living and the wonderful wealth of this country. More than any other reason it is because of the development of our resources.
Speech From The Throne October 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, that certainly was a classic NDP speech. I am surprised that the member is not speaking to us wearing hemp sackcloth clothing and living on bean sprouts. That is what he would have us all do if we were to follow his advice.
We have just as much concern as anyone else does for the environment.
Speech From The Throne October 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to respond to the government's Speech from the Throne. I would like to inform the Speaker that I will be splitting my time this morning with the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.
I would like to start by congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, for your appointment to the Chair and also the hon. Minister of Natural Resources for his appointment, the minister that I will be critiquing in this Parliament.
I would also like to thank the constituents of the constituency of Athabasca for re-electing me to represent them for a second term in a riding that certainly without any question is key to the energy future and the energy self-sufficiency of Canada. I am honoured to be able to do that.
At present the natural resources industry is confronted by many impediments to its continued contribution to Canadian employment and wealth creation. It is my hope that the newly appointed Minister of Natural Resources will heed the many voices from within the industry and use the expertise of the Canadian population when deciding what his legislative priorities will be and which policies he will be advocating.
At this time I would like to express my regret over the lack of attention to the natural resources industry in the Speech from the Throne. No more than four lines made reference to natural resources and not a single mention was made of either forestry or mining. This is perhaps understandable but nonetheless astounding considering the significance of the contribution the resource sector makes to Canadian wealth and employment.
In 1995 mining, energy and forestry contributed a combined total of $91.6 billion to Canada's GDP which constituted over 13.5 percent of Canada's total GDP. These three industries directly employ 750,000 Canadians and create countless spin-off jobs in the industry and in the service sectors. The products of these three industries alone account for approximately 38 percent of Canada's domestic exports.
The government's total lack of attention to these significant contributions is indicative of the low priority that this government and past Liberal governments place on the needs of the resource sector. I hope the limited mention of natural resources in the Speech from the Throne was simply an oversight and not a continuation of the Liberals' traditional lack of attention to the important role of natural resources in the Canadian economy.
I am particularly concerned about the future of the mining industry in Canada, an industry that accounts for approximately 16 percent of Canada's exports and generates employment for over 400,000 Canadians both directly and indirectly. Approximately 150 communities which are home to over one million Canadians are supported almost exclusively by the mining industry.
At present the future of the mining sector is in some doubt because mineral reserves are being depleted at a faster pace than they are being replenished. Mineral exploration is absolutely critical to the replenishment of the reserves.
Significant changes need to be made in mining regulations, and environmental regulations need to be streamlined if mineral exploration is to flourish. A single environmental assessment process based on nationally agreed upon standards is crucial.
These were the conclusions of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, in which I participated, in reports tabled in 1994 and 1996. In the federal government's response to the report tabled in 1996 the government expressed agreement with many of the recommendations and solidly committed to make environmental regulations affecting mining more efficient. Yet the government has been slow to streamline mining regulations, placing projects like Voisey's Bay nickel in serious jeopardy.
The Newfoundland court of appeal's decision to halt construction of a road or airstrip at Voisey's Bay without a full scale environmental review may cost 3,000 construction and 2,000 permanent jobs in a part of Canada that most desperately needs employment. It is impossible for a company to know whether it wants to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a complete environmental assessment until they know the size and extent of the ore body. Without a road or an airstrip, site exploration is impossible.
If Voisey's Bay is to set the precedent for other mining projects, making a full scale environmental assessment necessary before exploration is completed, we can be fairly sure that mining companies will be more reluctant to undertake new exploration projects.
The formation of a joint federal-provincial review panel to hear concerns regarding the Cheviot mine project in Alberta was an important first step toward establishing a national environmental assessment process based on nationally agreed upon standards. Government endorsement of the joint panel's recommendations was equally important.
The outcome of this first attempt at streamlining is commendable but the process is far from complete. The panel hearings were far from efficient, drawn out over a period of three years. In the mining industry this is unacceptable as time is of the essence because of the volatility of the markets. However I am encouraged by this small step in the right direction.
I was certainly less than encouraged by the brevity of the mention of greenhouse gas emissions in the Speech from the Throne. So brief was this mention that it failed to even hint at the prime minister's intentions regarding a legally binding greenhouse emissions cap.
The secrecy surrounding the prime minister's intentions is alarming given the serious impacts that such a cap would have on the Canadian economy. The oil and gas industry will suffer tremendous financial losses as will the electrical industry in Alberta and now in Ontario which will return to coal burning after serious problems at Ontario Hydro nuclear plants. If a cap is introduced, Canadians can expect dramatic increases not only in gasoline and home heating fuel but also in electrical energy rates. At this time it is imperative that the prime minister proceed with caution.
While some scientists and environmentalists have developed models that imply a link between rising greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, not all scientists subscribe to this theory. I am not trying to imply that this lack of consensus means that the government should not act. However, given the lack of solid scientific evidence in support of the theory of global warming, it seems a legislated emissions cap is premature especially in light of the fact that many companies have thus far shown compliance with voluntary programs aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
If as anticipated the prime minister announces a legally binding emissions cap in Kyoto, Japan in December of this year, the announcement will effectively kill the goodwill built between government and industry and will result in a loss of jobs as well as government wealth generated through taxation and royalty revenues. Precautionary measures like voluntary programs are much more economically viable and are in fact making progress.
Suncor Energy for example, a company with oil sands operations in my riding, has released its third annual progress report on Canada's climate change voluntary challenge and registry program in which it states that in compliance with commitments made in the Rio accord, it is on track to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.
Other large corporations in the oil and gas industry are also making tremendous progress in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A legislated cap will only serve to jeopardize the viability of other operations that are unable to reduce emissions as quickly as the cap might require.
To force compliance by imposing harsh penalties is an extreme and unco-operative approach. Regardless this seems to be the approach the government is taking with greenhouse gas emissions legislation as well as with Bill C-65, the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act.
If the Liberal government resurrects Bill C-65 in its flawed and accusatory form, it will be a slap in the face to all of those farmers, ranchers and resource industry workers who are already participating in programs and initiatives designed to protect endangered species and who have already set aside sections of their land as wildlife habitat.
If resurrected, Bill C-65 may result in the expropriation of private land and the prevention of industrial expansion in areas housing endangered species. There is no question that these species need to be protected but private landowners must be compensated for their loss.
The recent tendency of government officials to too quickly side with environmentalists is especially frightening to those in the forestry sector. Over 800,000 Canadians are directly and indirectly employed in the forestry sector, yet the same government that claims to be so concerned with job creation strategies seems to give more credence to environmental lobby groups than it does to experts from within the industry.
Public consultation is also necessary before this government agrees to import over 100 tonnes of plutonium from Russian and American nuclear warheads to burn as fuel in Candu reactors. The recent problems with the premature failure of the Candu reactor and disclosure of the problems within Ontario Hydro by its employees and the people who run the reactors should certainly give government pause for concern over that program.
In this 36th Parliament of Canada I call on the government to stop advocating policies and legislation which are damaging to the resource industries and instead effect change that will promote the growth of the industries. The continued success of natural resource industries is in the best interests of all Canadians who benefit from the wealth and employment these industries create.
I would suggest that the government discard the same tired ideas that have been used over the past 20 years and put some faith in the judgment and ideas of the industry and individuals they were elected to represent.
Income Tax Act October 2nd, 1997
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-227, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (income deferral from forced destruction of livestock or natural disaster).
Madam Speaker, my bill is quite straightforward. For some years now under the Income Tax Act income from the forced destruction or sale of livestock as a result of a drought situation has been deferred.
I am simply proposing that the same system and rules apply to the destruction of livestock under any natural disaster circumstance.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Voisey's Bay September 29th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, all that warm fuzzy talk has simply served to delay this project two and a half years and place it in jeopardy. All of the industry knows that the precedent set in a Newfoundland court last week will put in jeopardy resource mining development all over Canada.
Again I ask the minister will his government fast track the needed changes to legislation and regulation or will he simply admit that mining in Canada really is not important to this government?
Voisey's Bay September 29th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Voisey's Bay nickel project has already produced $4.3 billion worth of investment and promises thousands of highly paid permanent jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of resource royalty revenue for Newfoundland and Labrador.
I spent four years in this place listening to this government make commitments to maintain existing regulations once a mining company has invested substantially in a mining project.
My question for the natural resources minister is why is the government threatening the viability of this project by constantly changing the regulation.
Petitions April 25th, 1997
The other petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by Canadians who are concerned that the government has used the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to create legislation, programs and bureaucracy which undermine the fundamental rights and freedoms of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.
Petitions April 25th, 1997
The other two petitions, Mr. Speaker, I present on behalf of my colleague and seat mate from Yorkton-Melville.
The petitioners urge Parliament to remove the GST from books, including the Bible, magazines and newspapers.