Bradley Trost

[Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, as you noted, prior to question period I was dealing with the Donkin coal block development opportunity act. For the benefit of members who may not have been in the House at that time, I will quickly go through the essence of the bill and then move to questions and comments.

The basis of this bill is a coal mine that was previously built and flooded over. It runs under the surface of and offshore the coast of Cape Breton. For economic reasons it had previously been shut down, but for economic reasons there is now a possibility of reopening it.

Offshore jurisdiction normally falls under the federal government, but because this mine is very close to the shore and most mines are on shore, there is a bit of a jurisdictional overlap between the provincial and federal governments. The purpose of this legislation is to sort that out and make possible the development of this mine off the coast of Cape Breton.

While there are many technical points regarding health and safety, economic development, et cetera, in general it may be said that the purpose of this legislation is, for legal purposes, to expand the jurisdiction of Nova Scotia a little way offshore in a broad non-technical sense. One may think of it in a legal sense as being very similar to a mine that is on ground, shall I say, in Nova Scotia, and not under the water.

My understanding is that all members of the House support the bill. It is a very good bill as far as respecting jurisdictions and promoting the rights of the province. It is a very good bill with respect to economic development. It is very fitting that today this bill is being debated on mining day here in the House of Commons.

In summary, let me say again why this government has proposed this bill and why I believe all members should, and hopefully will, support this bill.

It helps to support economic development in a region of Canada that needs it. It is not that all regions do not need it, but this area, where coal historically was king, can very much use economic development.

It helps to continue to build our mining sector and export oriented industry. While some of the coal will be used domestically, there is a very good probability that a large percentage of the coal will be exported, possibly for metallurgical or thermal purposes. The coal has the potential to be used for both but can be used either way.

This bill is also an example of cooperation between the Nova Scotia government and the federal government. Governments can work together. We have a complex federation. We have a complex series of governments to deal with the nuances and the needs of each region, to respect the local desires and needs, and yet unify our country as one grand confederation. This bill builds on that, both pulling together across the country and developing locally. It provides for the clarity and stability that all businesses need when they are doing it.

It is a bill that is good for Canada, good for Nova Scotia, and good for Cape Breton. There may very well be 275 indirect jobs created through private sector investment and 700 direct jobs. I congratulate the people who are showing the initiative to redevelop this mine, the people of Cape Breton whose industry and initiative are pushing this forward and the members who have supported it.

I urge all hon. members to support this legislation and future similar legislation from this government.

[Donkin Coal Block Development Opportunity Act, November 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to address this bill for a couple of reasons.

First, what a lot of people who may watching or later reading in Hansard do not know is that today is a day with special emphasis on mining issues on the Hill. It is partially coincidental, though not totally, that today we are dealing with the Donkin coal block development opportunity act, a piece of legislation that is specifically meant to assist in the growth of a particular project in Cape Breton, just off the coast of Nova Scotia. It is very important for that specific reason.

While we are talking about the overall general theme of mining today on the Hill, with people from the industry, workers, et cetera, we also have the privilege of dealing specifically with a bill that would help build this industry in a particular location for a specific town.

The second reason I am particularly pleased to speak to this bill is because of my personal professional background. Prior to being elected to the House of Commons in June 2004, I had previously worked as a mining and exploration geophysicist, having obtained my geophysics degree and graduating previously from the University of Saskatchewan.

I had the privilege of working in all three of Canada's northern territories, the wonderful territories of Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. I also spent some time working in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. My final project before I was elected was in a place called Salluit in the most northern town of the province of Quebec where I worked on a nickel sulfide project.

It is a great pleasure for me to speak to a piece of legislation that is in some way related to my previous profession. People need to understand that mining is important for Canada. It is important for Canada historically and in the present.

While the fur trade was probably the first industry that really flourished in Canada from coast to coast and pushed inland the exploration, mining was not far behind. Some who have read their history books may remember that some of the explorers who came to Canada came specifically to look for mineral deposits, gold, diamonds and copper.

In fact, one of the more amusing stories in Canadian history is how some of the early explorers from France became very excited when they thought they had discovered massive diamond deposits in Quebec. They filled up many barrels of these diamonds and returned home. However, after a little investigation, they were not quite sophisticated enough to tell the difference between quartz and diamonds.

Historically, mining has been very important to Canada. We export somewhere in the neighbourhood of 77 different products. We are internationally known for our uranium deposits, potash, nickel and coal. We have seen the rising price of coal impact on our dollar. This is an industry which impacts every region of the country, be it oil and gas, hard rock mining or whatever.

We have particular expertise in this country for the development of our laws, geological infrastructure, the Geological Survey of Canada, the well done mapping programs and the organization and stability of our programs. That is one of the reasons why, not only in Canada but around the world, Canadian mine engineers, geoscientists and all others are recognized as experts in this field. That is just an introduction.

Today we are dealing with a particular piece of legislation that deals with a specific situation off the coast of Nova Scotia, which makes it an important bill for Cape Breton and, indeed, for all of Nova Scotia. This legislation deals directly with the prosperity and jobs in the region of Cape Breton. I am pleased to stand and support this bill.

The development of the Donkin undersea coal resource located off Cape Breton Island has the potential to bring significant economic benefits to the Cape Breton region and to all of Nova Scotia.

Both the province of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada contend that they have legal obligations regarding matters such as regulating resource development, labour matters, occupation, health, safety, et cetera. In December 2005, Nova Scotia announced Xstrata Donkin Mine Development Alliance was successful in its bid to explore and develop the Donkin coal block resource. After more than one year of exploration, Xstrata will make its final decision on the development, in August 2008.

Neither the federal government nor the provincial government wish to see issues of jurisdiction hamper the prospects of this project. We do not want red tape to kill jobs with people of Cape Breton. However, for the commercial operation of the mine to proceed, an effective regulatory regime is needed. The bill is about that. What we need is a clear understanding among all parties affected, proponents and possible employees and the community at large as to what the rules of operation are going to be on this project.

The federal government sees it as necessary to find a way around this impasse. I believe it is important to understand the process that brought us to this point of view. In my view the legislation is an example of good will and commitment by both levels of government, provincial and federal. Consequently both levels of government have put the question of jurisdiction aside to collaborate on a mechanism permitting the development of a safe and efficient mine.

Representatives of the federal government and the Nova Scotia government worked together for a year to develop the proposed legislation. Starting in March, federal and provincial officials agreed on an approach to develop an appropriate regulatory regime to develop the Donkin coal block. The agreement involves the incorporation of provincial statutes by reference into federal law of laws related to coal and coal bed methane resource management, labour relations, labour standards and occupational health and safety.

Prior to this, Nova Scotia agreed to amend its occupational health and safety laws to ensure that subsea coal miners would have the same level of protection that they have under federal legislation.

Also under the agreement, administration of the new federal laws will be delegated to a provincial government official or authority. This helps us to move forward to clear the path, to move forward for the development of the Donkin site if the private sector decides if the mine is a viable, profitable operation. Again, to be clear for everyone who is listening, the legislation only enables and takes away the red tape so that the private sector can have its own initiative to grow and develop these necessary jobs.

Public meetings were held this past April to discuss the regulatory framework. These sessions resulted in assurances that labour, community and industry groups understood and supported the proposed regulatory regime. The outcome is this bill, the Donkin coal block development opportunity act, introduced in this Parliament by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources.

Dealing with the issues of health and safety, we know there are dangers faced by coal miners and we know safety is paramount for them. Throughout history worldwide, I think of some particularly tragic incidences in Canadian history. We do not want any dangers or loss of life to happen again to our miners. Bill C-15 would clarify the occupational health and safety regulations that would apply to the Donkin resource. By eliminating confusion over who would protect these workers, we hope to protect each and every worker better.

The proposed legislation will permit the incorporation into federal laws of existing provincial laws regarding such matters as labour standards, labour relations, occupational health and safety and coal and coal gas resource management. The administration and enforcement of these laws would then be delegated back to the province of Nova Scotia. This provides a clear and stable regulatory system, the Donkin coal development. It also permits both levels of government to retain their positions with respect to ownership and regulatory jurisdiction.

As well, the bill would ensure that coal and coal bed methane royalties associated with exploitation of the offshore portion of Donkin could be collected by Nova Scotia and then remitted to the Government of Canada. In turn, a remittance of an equal amount would then be made by Canada to the province of Nova Scotia. It is my understanding that is being done to be in compliance with other previous acts and legislation even though to the untrained ear it sounds somewhat cumbersome.

As all members can see, the immediate objectives of the bill are to facilitate provincial management of the Donkin coal block and provide a clear regulatory regime to govern its development

Moving on from health and safety issues, we need to talk about the economic advantage. We know not all areas of the country are equally advantaged with various economic assets and so forth. Cape Breton is one of those areas that, in spite of the ingenuity its people, has had on few more challenges, so these jobs and this growth is very important for this area.

The legislation provides Cape Breton with an opportunity to advance its own economic development to let the people of Cape Breton continue to be masters of their own house. Nowadays, clean coal burning technology exists and we have an opportunity to employ hundreds of experienced people from the coal mining industry.

By facilitating a return to Cape Breton's time honoured tradition of mining coal and by creating up to 275 direct jobs and 700 indirect jobs, the Donkin enterprise will give us another chance to revive the coal mining industry in Cape Breton.

The legislation for the Donkin mine would ensure that local people, who know the resource, would be there to inspect these mines and inspect them in a timely manner. As well, the project could generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the provincial economy in salaries, equipment purchases and so on, all very good things for the economy of Nova Scotia and Cape Breton.

Finally, as far as the specifics of the bill, the Donkin coal block development opportunity act is an outstanding example of federal-provincial cooperation. We are pleased to see that similar legislation already passed in the Nova Scotia legislature. It is now up to us, as federal members of Parliament, to do the same thing.

While that sums up the specifics about the bill, let me also add a few other things.

As I said when I started out talking about the broader issues of mining, mining is a part of Canada's heritage. We see this very clearly in Cape Breton. I am not all together perfectly acquainted with Cape Breton, being a prairie boy who has worked across it. However, the image I have of it has to do with coal mining. When we think of the interior of British Columbia, we think about the mining and the resources. We go to places in Canadian geography, names we know of but many us have not been to, places like Flin Flon, Trail, B.C. and areas farther north. We see the new diamond mines in the north. Mining is a part of who we are as Canadians.

We are very proud of our high tech and knowledge based economy, but we also need to understand that this high tech knowledge based economy interacts with our natural resources economy and our mining economy. Canadians are world-class leaders when it comes to geological sciences to geophysics.

We look at the work of the University of Toronto in developing things, projects that were started in the second world war for military applications for mining and mining for the military. These things have developed because of the mining infrastructure and the knowledge that we have in Canada.

It is important that we continue to develop and build this industry. It provides jobs from coast to coast. It will continue to provide economic development. It is one of those core elements that we need. We need agriculture and food to live. We need elements to provide shelter. For our industrial and manufacturing production, we ultimately need minerals.

That is how I would like the people of Canada and those listening today to view the bill, not specific legislation on its own, standing for one area, but as a symbol, something to speak to the whole broader issue to develop our act.

I am very glad the members for Cape Breton have supported it. I am not quite sure I credit—

[Business of Supply, November 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's remarks and have a few questions and comments that she perhaps could respond to.

In her comments, she criticized the government's business tax cuts. I am curious to know if she is aware that the previous NDP government in Saskatchewan had recently been pursuing that strategy. Does she think that when New Democrat governments cut taxes they also are wrong when they cut business taxes? That is my first question.

My second question is about the low national unemployment rate. Does the member not recognize that the country has one of its lowest unemployment rates in 30 or 33 years? The government does believe, for reasons of compassion and reasons of regional development, in assisting certain people, but the member should realize that nationally overall this nation has its overall lowest unemployment rate.

Finally, the member commented about the high dollar. What specifically does the NDP urge us to do to interfere with the dollar? We have seen how countries in Latin American and also Boris Yeltsin's former regime interfered with their currencies in direct ways. We saw those problems. We also understand that if we do interfere with the dollar, instead of letting the market control whether the dollar goes up or down, there will be higher prices for things like fruit, fuel and gasoline. What specific things does the NDP want to do to interfere with those macroeconomic elements?

[Economic Statement, October 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, tonight is Halloween, a night when we expect to be frightened, a night when we expect to be spooked. Therefore, we should not be surprised at the opposition's reaction to yesterday's tax cuts.

The NDP was terrified that someone gave working families a tax cut. The Bloc Québécois was spooked that tax dollars would go to Quebeckers instead of staying in Ottawa. And the Liberals? They were horrified to discover that Canadians would be keeping their own money, money that Canadians work hard for, money that Canadians deserve to keep.

What is truly frightening is the attitude of the three opposition parties, an attitude that says hard-working Canadians should not keep their hard-earned money.

There is, however, one thing that does terrify the opposition, but that is why taxpayers have no need to be fearful: irrespective of the opposition tricks, tonight taxpayers will be getting a treat.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I will put my hon. colleague's comments and question into context on a few things.

First, as the bill provides, should the damages on a potential low risk incident rise above $650 million, Parliament would be brought together to discuss it. I want to put that $650 million into context.

Studies have been done on whether or not there would be liability in the event of a major incident and what that liability would be. The incident at Three Mile Island in the United States was looked at. Translated into Canadian dollars, real dollar value now, the liability from that incident, which was viewed as a major incident, was about $100 million.

I would like to add to the basic background to give some sort of an idea of what sort of damages we may be potentially looking at.

In 2003 the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission contracted an independent firm to study what the economic loss, the personal loss, et cetera would be from a major incident. It went through the criteria, looked at a possible major incident in a plant, and I believe that Darlington was the plant that was used as the model, and it came to the conclusion that as a worst case scenario, it was looking at $100 million with what we have in Canada.

While I am very open to hon. members thinking that $650 million would not compensate, independent studies in 2003 indicated it would be well below that level. There are other aspects available for other funds, and also, there is a provision in the bill where every five years the minister would be required to review it. I believe the $650 million figure could rise, which is something that has not been noted in the bill yet, and if in the future it was felt this amount was insufficient protection for taxpayers, the limit could be raised.

Looking at the numbers, $100 million is what the amount has been in the past and what has been estimated would happen. I think that $650 million, with the potential for that amount to be raised, is sufficient before the issue would be brought to Parliament to be looked at further.

[Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, October 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity today to comment on Bill C-5 and the modifications of Canada's nuclear liability framework.

Canada was, and if I may say so, is a pioneer in the development of atomic energy. We were at the creation, so to speak, in the 1940s at Chalk River and Montreal. During that period nuclear energy was developed through the cooperation of scientists in a few countries. We continue in that mode today but in a much wider circle.

I would like to centre my remarks on the international aspects in comparison of Bill C-5. I want to put the changes proposed by this piece of legislation into a broader global context. They relate to modifications in international conventions that were first influenced by events abroad. I would like to comment on these conventions and their relationship to Canadian interests, both domestic and international.

Let me begin with the proposal that Canada's nuclear compensation and liability legislation should be consistent with international nuclear liability regimes. This requirement goes beyond mere financial issues related to liability and compensation. It extends to definitions of what constitutes a nuclear industry, what is compensable damage and so forth.

Consistency brings Canada broader national benefits. It makes possible for us to subscribe to international conventions we do not already belong to and makes it easier should we wish to subscribe to them in the future.

There are two such conventions which are important and relate to this legislation, both of which date back to the early 1960s. The first is the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy. Adopted under the auspices of the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, it is very much a European accord. It was reinforced by the Brussels Supplementary Convention. The second accord is the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage. This is a product of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body. It is modelled after the Paris Convention but is open to all members of the UN and is not merely concentrated on Europe.

Canada is not a party to either of these conventions. However, the Nuclear Liability Act is a sensible step in the direction of these conventions. It is important for our liability framework to remain consistent with these conventions as they evolve with our international partners.

The two conventions establish compensation limits. In the case of the Paris-Brussels regime the maximum compensation is approximately $500 million Canadian--but may I say that with our rising dollar, who knows where that number will be--and is available through a three tier combination of operator, public and member state funds.

At the time it was adopted, the Vienna Convention set the minimum liability limit at $5 million U.S., based upon the gold standard, the common international exchange mechanism at that time. Today the value is approximately $75 million Canadian. However, in 1997 the signatories revised the convention to establish significantly higher limits for operators. It is now approximately $500 million. The operators' liability can be set at $250 million by national legislation provided public funds make up the difference to $500 million.

At the time of these revisions, a new nuclear liability regime called the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage was adopted under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency of the UN. This convention guarantees the availability of approximately $1 billion to compensate for nuclear damage. Half of this amount will be available under the national law of signatory nations and half through contributions made collectively by states that are party to the convention on the basis of their nuclear capacity and a United Nations assessment rate.

This convention is open to all countries regardless of whether they are parties to any existing nuclear liability accord. As a matter of interest, the United States ratified the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage in 2006.

Although Canada is not a party to either of these conventions, we participated in their review. We did so in order to monitor international third party liability trends and other issues of interest, such as definitions of nuclear incidents and the extension of time limits for death and injury claims.

For Canada the net result of these changes is a widening gap between Canada's regime and international standards. This makes it increasingly important to update and modernize our own liability arrangements. As a result, the changes in these conventions have influenced Canada's revision of the 1976 Nuclear Liability Act and many of the changes proposed in the new act bear their imprint.

International consistency in these areas benefits Canada at many levels and in many ways. It encourages investment in Canada. It also levels the playing field for Canadian nuclear companies interested in contracts abroad. These companies may be inhibited from bidding because of uncertainty about liability and compensation issues.

Consistency is important for a more fundamental reason. It demonstrates Canadian solidarity with other nations on issues of safety and liability. As a major user and exporter of nuclear power technology, Canada must uphold its reputation for uncompromising excellence, responsibility and accountability.

Bill C-5 is the culmination of a comprehensive review of the Nuclear Liability Act of 1976, which included an examination of its relationship to international standards. This examination led to the proposal of several improvements.

The current $75 million limit has been increased because it would likely not be sufficient in the event of a major nuclear incident. The $650 million that the new legislation proposes reflects the requirements as we understand them today.

Bill C-5 would also extend from 10 years to 30 years the period for a victim to claim compensation, a proposal which increases flexibility for ordinary citizens who may not immediately understand what may have affected them.

The proposed changes also include a redefinition of compensable damages to include environmental damage, preventive measures and also economic loss.

Bill C-5 is important to Canadians, the strength of our nuclear industry and our international stature. It deserves the support of the House.

[Infrastructure, May 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in the 2007 budget our government committed an unprecedented $33 billion to infrastructure. The funding will be available under the infrastructure plan, which is currently being developed.

Could the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tell the House what the government is doing right now to help communities meet their immediate infrastructure needs?

[Afghanistan, April 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House we debated the future of Canada's role in Afghanistan.

While many in Canada understand very well the necessity for international assistance to the democratic Afghan government, others do not. The critics seem to feel that we in the west somehow provoke the extremists, that it is somehow our fault and that we can find an accommodation with these extremists. Considering that the extremists cite the independence of East Timor and the conquest of Andalusia in the 15th century as two rationale for their terror, reasonable people must understand there is no assuaging them. They will find any excuse for their hate.

We are in Afghanistan for two reasons. First, we are there out of compassion to provide peace and humanitarian relief for that country. Second, we are there to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a place for extremists who hate our way of life.

Ultimately, Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan to protect what we hold most dear: life; life in Canada and life in Afghanistan.

[Senate Tenure Legislation, March 29th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for 140 years the Senate has remained largely unchanged. It is still unelected, unaccountable, and guess what? The Liberal Senators are determined not to modernize and change it.

Ten months ago Canada's new government introduced a bill to limit the terms of Senators from a current potential of 45 years to a more reasonable eight years.

Would the Minister for Democratic Reform inform the House about the status of this legislation?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

When I asked the member from Gander, who is now heckling, he did not address what he would do differently. Other Liberal members did not lay out what they would do differently.

I now ask the member for Halifax what the NDP would do differently and to actually cost it out. What would her party do differently for each province if they got the changes that they wanted?

If the opposition members are not going to cost out any changes, then by their actions they have endorsed this government's position and they should say so. Actions and words should be the same.