Julian Reed

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, China is a very interesting country. The last time I checked it was installing hydro units at the rate of 15,000 a year. China is the world's largest producer of hydraulic turbines. It builds good stuff, incidentally.

There is a pent up demand for energy in countries like China that far exceeds our ability to comprehend. We should be able to turn it to our advantage. Whether it is petroleum export or whatever, I do not see forms of energy competing against one another per se. As a matter of fact I see them complementing one another.

In terms of petroleum I would suggest that Sheikh Yamani was right. The commodity itself is probably too precious to combust. We can look at the clean air targets. The business of

coal combustion, for instance, is something we are probably shying away from because it is a direct contributor to greenhouse gas.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for that question.

I can remember sitting on the Ontario Hydro select committee during 1976 to 1980 when the debate raged over the construction of the Darlington nuclear plant. I remember that from our perspective Darlington was too expensive to contemplate. After the debate we realized that the utility had gone ahead and committed something like $500 million toward Darlington, a facility that has now cost about $15 billion, which is absolutely ludicrous.

I remember being quoted in the paper as saying that sometimes when we get so far into something it is very hard to get out. I expect that one could say something similar. We inherited the Hibernia project. We did get out of the Lloydminster heavy oil issue. We were able to extract ourselves from it. We are living with what is reality at the present time.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member. I should point out to him that in any function of government when questions are being asked as to how we tackle a situation and what areas we consider in a situation, all sorts of proposals are made. Whether they are adopted or rejected is yet another thing.

At this stage I certainly do not know that any consideration would be given to such a tax. However I think it is valid to debate the subject and to look at it as being on the table and worthy of debate, not in a dissimilar way to what the minister of finance tried to initiate before the budget last February. Remember, we all participated in a prebudget debate. There was consultation, albeit too brief at that time, to try and bring in the business and corporate sector.

Public consultation is something that has not been generally practised in this country in the past. More is the pity because now when we enter into public consultation and try to glean from it ideas and concepts that will guide us, cynics say that it is a bit of window dressing and the government will go on and do whatever it wants anyway.

As the member knows, the gun control issue was another one where public consultation was undertaken by the ministry. People travelled across Canada all summer long and talked to Canadians. I point out that in the previous firearms acquisition bill the former minister would not even entertain a written brief, not one written brief.

This is a new exercise for Canadians. If the government treats this process with respect, then we all gain.

The member talks about a two cents a litre tax. I also read the newspaper article and I have no knowledge that any such thing is contemplated, but I certainly would welcome a debate on it.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, a very few minutes ago I was given the honour of addressing this bill. I appreciated very much being a member of the natural resources committee and watching history being made.

One of the significant aspects of this bill is the tying of the forestry industry with the rest of the resource industry. In this day of information accessibility, the information highway, the move toward high tech and all those wonderful things that will present miracles to our children and grandchildren in the future, our country does and will in the future rely on its natural resources providing that we provide a sustainable base for the continuing preservation and enhancement of those natural resources.

The other reason why it is significant is that in the future, maybe 400 years in the future if my hon. friend is correct, I think with the acceleration in population on a global basis and the increasing demand for energy the future for renewable energy will be upon us in the twinkling of an eye. Therefore, because Canada produces probably more, if you will pardon the $25 word, biomass than perhaps any other country on the face of the earth, it is only natural that the forest industry and the production of cellulose and energy become inexorably tied under the wing of one ministry.

We are not very many years away from when we will be able to produce motor fuel from cellulose in a very competitive and environmentally sustainable way. I think the connection that has been made with the creation of this new ministry is very positive.

I should point out to my friends in the Bloc who from time to time worry about the jurisdiction that there is no change in jurisdiction in this bill. In other words, it is recognized that the provinces have jurisdiction over those industries.

Our nation has a requirement to provide a voice internationally, particularly at the present time, to overcome some of the negative feedback that we have been getting from places like Europe and so on which were prompted to worry about the forest practices in Canada.

I must go on record, having sat on the committee studying forestry practices in this country, as saying that we are perhaps a model for the whole world in the advancements that our industries have made. Our government must now through various mechanisms take those advances and take that standard that has been set and point out to our friends who buy our raw materials, our resources or processed materials around the world that we are indeed doing a good job. Perhaps in the future we will be able to share our technology and some of the things we have learned with people around the world. We must not forget there are countries on this earth today that have virtually denuded their lands of forest cover. Is it not Madagascar that is sliding into the Indian Ocean? Countries in the Caribbean were stripped bare for their logs before the turn of the century. Only now some of those countries are very concerned about rejuvenating their forests, understanding the value of that kind of forest cover.

Canada has taken the lead role and we will continue. Admittedly we have an economic challenge. The combining of the department of forestry with what was known as energy, mines

and resources has already effected a savings of some $16 million we are told. That is only the beginning and it will go on from there. It is efficiency at its best. It is the kind of efficiency all levels of governments have to introduce and effect in the very near future. It is a pleasure to be part of that and bear witness to that change.

I would also like to mention that my friends in the Reform Party are concerned about oil consumption. They seem to think that oil consumption is somehow at risk. The member for Athabasca made some comment about the 400 years and so on.

Let me draw a scenario regarding the consumption of energy. One of the main domestic sources of oil for the United States is now in decline. That is Prudhoe Bay, which has been supplying about 25 per cent of the domestic requirement of the United States. The rest of the oil patch in the United States has been in decline for many years.

The Americans have a few choices. One of the choices of course is to buy more Canadian natural gas, another non-renewable resource and take it in increased quantities. Another choice of course is to effect more conservation through one means or another. The cheapest barrel of oil is the barrel of oil you do not use. Another is to exploit as much renewable energy as is possible which the United States is presently doing with quite large efforts. Of course the other option is to buy more offshore oil.

If anyone imagines for one minute that Canada can somehow put a fence around itself and say that we have enough for all these years and we are going to save it and keep it for ourselves, I have news for them. The world is not like that.

China presently has the largest growing economy on earth. It is double digit growth. By and large they still are riding bicycles in China but with increased communication and witnessing lifestyles based on energy consumption in other parts of the world, it will not be long before that nation will require more and more oil. They will be off their bicycles and into automobiles before we know it. If petroleum is the only option, imagine the demand if China were to expect half of the consumption that North America presently consumes per capita. The bravado about the long term availability of petroleum is rather questionable to say the least.

Another thing that should be said is that in 1979 Sheik Yamani who was the Saudi Arabian oil minister went on Canadian television and said that oil was too precious a resource to simply combust. That was a prophetic statement if ever there was one. If we look at the amount of petroleum that is now used as a feedstock in the petrochemical industry for polymers and so on, we can easily see where that precious commodity may ultimately belong.

We are now bearing witness to the very beginnings of a move from non-renewable energy consumption, which has been kind of a blip in recent history as we did not have this before coal was discovered, and it will ultimately be used up. We do not know how much is in the barrel, whether it is two-thirds empty, one-third empty, or whatever. However we do know there are some compelling reasons why we should be making this move.

It is only fitting and rather prophetic that energy and these other forms of resources are now tied together. Hopefully the development of renewables can now go on with less hindrance than there has been in the past. Perhaps instead of two ministries not communicating with each other as well as they should have, now we will have one ministry that can communicate within itself.

I am very pleased to support this bill. It is a new era for Canada. As I said initially, it will be more efficient for the process of governing but it will also bring together some of those factors we have outlined and will set a new pathway for the future of energy and the other resources in this country.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how much time we have. I was interested in a couple of

the comments the hon. member for Athabasca made. One was the question of bringing in and passing a Tory bill.

I would like to remind him of the story of Senator Hayakawa of the United States who was asked if the government of the United States should keep the Panama Canal after its term expired. He said: "Of course we should. We stole it fair and square".

The other thing I would like to talk about is fraud. The hon. member mentioned that the tar sands contain enough oil potential for several hundred years. I think he mentioned 400 years. What is his information base for that? Is that 400 years of Canada remaining at 29 million population or is that 400 years of witnessing the exponential curve in population growth and subsequent energy demand around the world? Is that 400 years of a population decline in Canada? Four hundred years of what? When one makes a blanket statement like that, one has to follow through with some kind of qualification to make the thing legitimate.

Since predictions like that were made years ago, the population of the world every year has increased at the rate of about 95 million people. I do not know whether he wants to keep those other people from having any of that energy and if he would prefer that, but that is not the way it is going to be.

[Gasoline Additives, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, recently the caucus task force on ethanol supported a resolution urging the Minister of the Environment to initiate a moratorium on the use of MMT as an octane enhancer in Canadian gasolines.

MMT was banned in the United States in 1978 due to the widely recognized potential for negative health effects. Canada has continued to use MMT since it replaced lead as an anti-knock agent in 1977.

The Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada has stated its opposition to the use of MMT on the grounds that the chemical degrades the effectiveness of vehicle emission control devices.

Ethanol represents an ideal alternative octane enhancer which is 100 per cent renewable. We strongly urge the minister to take swift action on eliminating the use of MMT and replace it with renewable, domestically produced fuel additives such as ethanol.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, September 28th, 1994]

The time the House was shut down with a quorum call probably resulted in another $100,000 being added to the national debt.

My comments will be brief. The hon. member mentioned a four-year dictatorship and the government keeping the backbenches in line. He should know that the government was elected in the most democratic process existing on the face of the earth. Whatever he may think about that election forming a dictatorship, I suggest he is dead wrong. If he wants to compare what happens in this country with what happens in any other country on the face of the earth he is welcome to do it. I think he should do it before he makes accusations of the kind.

I assure him the backbench is totally united on the issue. As a member who comes from the metropolitan Toronto area or its periphery and whose constituents work at Pearson, at ancillary industries at Pearson, in the airline industries and so on, I say that a successful outcome to the bill is very important.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening very passively to the hon. member's speech until I heard the word "dictatorship". It was like being hit over the head with a two by four. It brought me to attention.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, June 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have my name added to that too.

[Canadian Film Development Corporation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend seems to have a philosophical thing about state intervention. It was a major theme at the outset of his speech. I hope he will express the same views to his agricultural constituents, the farmers in this constituency. I hope he will express the same ideas on the formation of the auto pact. I hope he will express the same thing to his business constituents on the small business development corporation, or with the oil patch on the tax investments and the uncollected tax. There is the aircraft industry too. I could go on and on.

Canada has had a history of a mixed economy. There are many good reasons for it. One of the main reasons has been the size of the elephant we sleep with to the south of us. It has been considered necessary from time to time not with any ideology in mind but from a practical point of view to deal with issues as they have arisen.

State intervention is not new. I am surprised the hon. member is treating this as if it were some kind of new conjuring. It is not new. I am a little older than the hon. member. Maybe the hon. member does not remember the difficulty Canadian musicians had in being heard and the almost impossibility of getting Canadian productions over radio until the CRTC came into the picture. And that was state intervention too, I should say.

Look at what happened. Look at the result. The result of that investment is that all across Canada, whether it is in French Canada or English Canada, there is a thriving music industry today. It largely came about because those people, those performers and creators, for the first time were able to have their music heard in a large forum.

My hon. friend says that the business of granting loan guarantees will create an elitism. I respectfully suggest to him that this kind of intervention will prevent elitism, If investment money is only going to go to the strongest, the survival of the fittest, that to me is elitism. It seems to me that one of the functions of these loan guarantees is to prevent that.

Finally, I would suggest to the member that in spite of the fact that he has tried to create this illusion, this is not new money we are talking about here. This is a redirection of money. We are not adding to or increasing the deficit.

I suggest that he take those things into account.