Bradley Trost

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in this Parliament to give a speech. I have made some remarks, and questions and comments. As this is the first time, I want to thank my constituents back in Saskatoon--Humboldt for re-electing me to this chamber. When I was elected the first time, I received one of the more narrow margins in Canadian political history and one of the more unique circumstances.

I want to thank the people of Saskatoon--Humboldt, from Quill Lake to Saskatoon, up to St. Louis and St. Brieux, and all the towns in between, for re-electing me with one of the largest margins in the history of my region; a margin which, in percentage terms, was not exceeded since 1945, according to my research. So, I really appreciate the faith my constituents have in me. For the 50% of the constituency who did not vote for me, I will be there to represent them, not just the people who voted for me. I am the member for the entirety and will seek to serve everyone.

In speaking to the government's Speech from the Throne, the government emphasized and stated five key priorities. Five priorities, though, do not mean that other issues will be ignored. We noted, toward the end of the speech, a strong statement on agriculture.

As we emphasize in this debate the five priorities of the government, we will note that the government will take action on things that are key; things that may not be key to all parts of this country but are key to areas such as agriculture, which is important to my home province of Saskatchewan.

One of the five major priorities of the government is the accountability act, an act to bring trust, respect, and a certain degree of honesty and integrity into the public system, into the political system, one that should be there innately without any need for legislation and it is amazing that we even need to have legislation.

A second priority is child care, an attempt to emphasize to help all Canadian families. If I may say, it is child care not day care that the government is emphasizing. Frequently, a mixture of statistics have been quoted in this House stating that the majority of Canadian children are in child care, and then not noting that only about a third of those listed in child care are really in day care. All options, be it with day care, stay at home mothers, relatives, friends, or neighbours babysitting, need to be looked at because parents want what is best for their children.

The health care wait times guarantee is something which I am sure will be the feature of many debates in this House.

The cut to the GST is something that was also noted.

However, I especially want to emphasize today the government's priority on cracking down on crime, on making a very strong statement that law and order is important to this country.

I am particularly pleased to support the Speech from the Throne and the emphasis on criminal deterrence for several reasons, one of which is the importance to my constituency, the people I represent here in the House of Commons.

In my first term, I did quite an extensive survey, spread out evenly throughout my riding, and contacted 10,000 different households. One of the issues that we questioned the constituents on to ascertain their views, and again this was not a send-out self-response survey where we only get the actively interested but a scientifically spread out one, was on crime and criminal punishment.

Approximately 92% of my constituents said, in response to the questions, they thought that the criminal element in our society was being treated too leniently; they were being caught and they were being released. It is very important to me to see that the government is representing my constituents in the Speech from the Throne.

A second reason I am very pleased with the government's emphasis on justice issues in this Speech from the Throne is my conversation with police officers during the campaign in Saskatoon--Humboldt, both this one and previously. I particularly remember when I was door knocking in the region of Silver Springs in the Saskatoon portion of my riding.

I came to the door of one couple's house in the middle of a Saturday afternoon and began to visit with the gentleman. He had a considerable number of questions about the criminal justice system. It turns out he was a long term veteran of the Saskatoon police force. He said that the situation was terrible. He said that we arrest someone and before we are done the paperwork, they are back out on the streets.

It is highly inappropriate that we spend more time in being concerned about criminals being looked after than we do in defending our society. It was a concern which he wanted emphasized in the House. I am sure that if he is watching or following the news, he will be quite pleased that the government has taken this action.

Another reason is that it is appropriate for the government to be involved in the enforcement of law, the enforcement of justice. I am noted for being even a conservatives' Conservative and am not always so pleased with some of the more redistributive elements, shall we say, of economic packages that tend to go out, that tend to be a large element of our political discourse. But the government has an appropriate force to use, and that is in the enforcement of the rule of law and the enforcement of justice.

What is law? As French economist Frederick Bastiat said:

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.

It is the government, through action, through the arms of the state, that does have a legitimate right and duty to enforce that law, so I am proud to say that my government is actually doing something that government should be doing and is not interfering in the many political shenanigans we have seen previous governments engage in.

The government's overall approach has been based on principles of justice. What are those principles of justice as I understand them, speaking as the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt?

One of the principles is deterrence. We need to make sure that when we have a justice system, there is a deterrent, so that when a criminal weighs the decision to commit a crime--and admittedly, not all of them do it on a rational basis--he will understand the consequences.

The punishment must also be appropriate to the offence. It should not merely be a slap on the wrist for something serious. It has to be balanced between what is insubstantive and what is substantive.

Justice also has to say something about the valuation of society. One of the things that most disappointed me about the legislation of previous governments was in issues dealing with the protection of children from sexual exploitation. By not taking a firm enough stand on these issues, previous administrations have said that they do not value the protection of children enough. That is a concern I had previously and I know that it will be dealt with again in this House.

There is, of course, protection. When a criminal does something, we put him away not just for the deterrence, not just because society is making a statement about values, but for protection. Some criminals, sadly enough, are beyond the point of redemption. There are times when it is necessary to lock them up and throw away the key. It is a sad instance for any human being or any life, but for the protection of all of society, it is necessary.

What are some of the applications the government will be making to enforce its justice policy and to make it a practical application for Canadian society? One of the things we will be doing is imposing mandatory minimum sentences to state that there are certain bottom lines that need to be raised for punishment. When we commit a crime, when we take someone's life, when we damage someone's freedom, when we threaten society, and when we create an atmosphere of fear, there is a certain minimum punishment that is necessary to provide those principles of justice that I spoke of earlier. That is one practical aspect the government will be doing.

The other practical aspect will be providing resources. Resources are needed in our society to help provide the elements for the forces of law enforcement to do their job. Particularly, we will provide support to police and to the RCMP, who have had problems in always getting the resources they need. These are some of the very practical elements. They will affect my constituency, because I have spoken in the House before about the need for funding for the RCMP.

To state it again, as the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt I will be quite proud to support the Speech from the Throne. It has dealt with five major themes while still noting other themes that will be taken care of by the government, but it has put as one of its primary emphases the defence of justice, the protection of the innocent. That is something which every government should make a primary priority. It is something that we, as members of the House, should be proud to support.

[Agriculture, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Chair, I would like to start my question with a bit of a preface and introduction so the member know where I am coming from.

I represent a rural Saskatchewan riding and I come from that background. In 1929 my great grandfather first purchased the land, which is still in our family. Therefore, it is very personal to me to watch the devastation in the agriculture industry, in particular the grains and oilseeds sector which is suffering greatly and at great magnitude after many years. It is an industry, in particular the grains and oilseeds and agriculture in total, in which the government will stand behind farmers in every way possible.

One thing was mentioned tonight on which I would like to get the member's opinion. Young farmers are exiting or not entering the industry. I grew up on a family farm. I still go back to help my father swath and harvest. The option was not there for me. Financially it would be impossible for me to take over the farm from my father.

It has been observed that instead of worrying about exit plans for older farmers, if we had an entry plan for younger farmers, the problem of exiting would be solved. We need to build this industry.

The major problem with the CAIS program was, with the reference margins, young farmers were left out. People did not have enough years to meet the reference margins.

Would the hon. member and his party support the government's efforts to ensure that provincial agriculture ministers come on side to help make changes to get rid of the CAIS program and build a program for younger farmers? Will the hon. member and his party support programs to help bring young farmers in and make changes to eliminate the CAIS program so young farmers are looked after?

[Question No. 209, November 14th, 2005]

For the fiscal years 1993-1994, 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, from all departments and agencies of the government, including crown corporations and quasi/non-governmental agencies funded by the government, and not including research and student-related grants and loans, what is the list of grants, loans, contributions and contracts awarded in the city of Regina and in the riding of Wascana, which includes the cities of Sedley, Francis, Vibank, Odessa, Kendal and Montmartre or which have postal codes starting with S0G, S4N, S4P, S4R, S4S, S4V, S4Y and S4Z, including (i) the name and address of the recipient, (ii) whether or not it was competitively awarded, (iii) the date, (iv) the amount and the type of funding, and (v) if repayable, whether or not it has been repaid?

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague essentially asked me to comment on the government's administrative competence. The government has no administrative competence. It is completely incompetent. It has made a mess of issues. We are seeing ad scam today. We see the gun registry. The list goes on.

Do I expect the government to be inefficient, wasteful and to do a very poor job of administrating the program? I most certainly do based upon past experience.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. I dealt with that a bit in my speech.

The outlying areas of the country have been forgotten. This plan does not take into account people who use fuel more than others. If the member's rural area is anything like where I come from in rural Saskatchewan, people cannot get around with small vehicles. They need trucks to do their work. Farmers need trucks to do their work. Part of their basic ability to survive is using fuel in a more intensive way than someone living in an urban area who could walk to work or take a short drive to work.

I particularly appreciated his remarks about seasonal workers, which brings me to the point that there is often no overall tax relief for the working poor. People are going to fall through the gaps with this legislation. It is based on seniors GIS eligibility and someone getting the child tax credit rebate. The working poor, particularly in rural areas, are being hit with high costs. They are not getting any relief in income tax, in EI, or at the pump in a direct tax cut.

The hon. member also mentioned the fact that the government has no overall plan. There was no thinking. He referenced Kyoto and so forth and the fact that nothing seems to be getting done. That was the point of my speech. The government has no overall plan in anything it does. It has a firefighter mentality, but not a fire prevention mentality. When it sees a hot spot, it will put some water on it to take care of the problem. However, those members do not think about how to construct the house, so it does not burn down or how to make the house safe so it will not burn down. When the house is burning, the government will sprinkle some water on it and say the problem is fixed. It will not worry about it the next year or the year after that.

I appreciate my colleague's comments. The regions were forgotten, and there is no plan. I am completely in agreement with his comments.

[Energy Costs Assistance Measures Act, November 1st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to deal today with an issue that is very important and very crucial to the future of Canada as well as the prosperity of the nation and the well-being of its citizens.

Bill C-66 is a bill which deals with a very small portion of our energy policy. This bill is long overdue. We need a debate on energy policy in this country. We need a debate not only dealing with very small elements, rebates, a little bit of retrofitting for houses and urban transportation, but an overall comprehensive debate of where we have been, what we are doing and where we are going. These are all facets of energy policy, not only one specific area. We must do this because the government tends to get into this crisis mode. It is only when there is a problem does the government act.

Today we are being somewhat distracted by events outside this House, but again they reflect the general principle. Something happened. The problem had been going on for years. Only after the government got caught, only after something came immediately to the surface did the government act. This is the same principle that the government has applied to its energy policy.

When I was first elected to this House, the Conservative Party began to deal with our energy problem by setting up an internal energy caucus over a year ago. It began to look at the specific long term and short term issues that are involved.

The Liberal government which has been in power for years talks about its energy framework in 2000. It has talked about updating it, but really has no plan, no agenda and no way of looking at it. It was only this summer when gasoline prices began to spike because of the run up in crude oil prices and the refining problems in the gulf coast did the government begin to think of this problem.

It has been known for years that we are going to have particular problems with home heating costs because of the rise in demand for natural gas and the inability of supplies to meet it.

My hon. colleague noted that in prior years $2 or $3 per million BTU was the price for natural gas. I believe the last numbers I saw were $13 or $14 per million BTU. That is an enormous run up in cost. It is one area in particular where the government should have been able to deal with the problem through long term thought and foresight to begin to handle this issue.

I understand crude oil prices are an international commodity. We ship to one place and we ship to another. It is an internationally set price because it is a very fungible commodity.

When dealing specifically with home heating prices and natural gas, which has tended to become the fuel of choice for most of the country for many consumers, the government could have thought ahead. It could have had a priority and could have had a plan, but the government chose not to. It chose to ignore it. It used the exact same procedures that it followed in the ad scam problem. The government did not worry about anything until it was caught in front of the media.

As I was noting, particularly with natural gas and so forth, it is a continental market and not so much an international market. That will be changing as LNG, liquefied natural gas, becomes a part of the North American experience in increasing fashion.

I will note just how much this costs the average Canadian by not thinking ahead and not planning. There was a study released the other day by the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association about the higher costs of natural gas for Canadian consumers in its totality if there was a regulatory delay of merely two years for things such as the Mackenzie pipeline and liquefied natural gas plants.

The association came to the conclusion that over 19 years it would cost consumers $57 billion. That is $3 billion a year for each and every Canadian in sum, using a rough number of roughly 30 million Canadian and I know we are slightly higher. That is roughly $100 for every man, woman and child in this country.

We are talking about energy rebates for one year, not two years, three years or four years, but for just one year. It is $565 million according to the numbers I have. We are talking about these numbers merely through lack of planning and lack of foresight which would result in $3 billion in higher costs to the Canadian economy. This is for the next 19 years, not just for one year, but for the next 19 years.

For a high flyer, a wealthy person, $100 a year per person in the family may not be very important. One of the supposed purposes of this legislation is to deal with low income earners and to help them. For a family of five, it is $500 a year for the next two decades, all because of a lack of planning and foresight. This is an area which needs to be taken seriously and looked at not just for the immediate and the now, but for the future.

There are other impacts of a poorly thought out energy policy on other elements in the Canadian economy. I wish to make special note, coming from a riding that is one-third agriculture, of the effect on farmers. Farmers use intensely more amounts of fuel than the rest of the population to fuel up a combine, to fuel up a tractor, and to drive over their fields. Be it for seeding, harvests, swathing, whatever, they continue to use up more fuel than merely commuting to and from work every day once or twice.

That is not to downplay the impact on any other consumer or any other element of society but to stress the importance of how the burden is disproportionately placed on certain elements, and this is with very low prices. Farmers are already struggling, particularly in certain elements of the agriculture community. Prices are lousy. There is very little support from the government on overall agriculture policy, and now they are being hit with higher fuel prices.

I would also note, something that the general public does not always appreciate, higher fuel prices contribute to higher fertilizer prices. Fertilizer is a substantive input. It depends on what particular methodology is used for farming, but fertilizers have a particularly high input cost for farmers. The run-up in natural gas prices directly impacts the price of the fertilizer and has for years.

This lack of planning, particularly when it came to a natural gas and energy framework policy for this country, has had particular impact on farmers, more so than anyone else. In this legislation, there is absolutely nothing for agriculture. There is absolutely nothing for agriculture to deal with the higher prices of diesel fuels, gasoline and the higher resulting prices of fertilizer. It was completely forgotten. As my colleague was noting at the end of his remarks, that is generally true for rural Canada. There is absolutely no planning or no specificity of a plan for the rural areas.

I come from the province of Saskatchewan. Per capita, we are the second largest payers of the national fuel tax, the infrastructure funding which is being juggled around between various bills. We pay 4% of the national tax with 3% of the population. We are only getting 3% of the tax revenues allocated to our province, and that is because it is disproportionately being taken away from rural communities.

Rural communities are being completely forgotten and completely left out in this plan. It is something that the government has shown repeatedly, a bias against rural Canada. That is one of the reasons why the government nearly lost all of its seats and in the next election will lose all of its seats in the rural and farming areas of this country.

Those are some of the impacts on the country. One could go on about other industries that are specifically impacted such as chemical plants and the chemical industry. With the high input costs for key feed stocks and energy stocks, they are being driven out of business along with the fertilizer industry and manufacturers due to higher electricity costs.

What is the alternative? What is the better plan? First, we need to have a long term energy framework which deals with both the supply and the demand side. I wish I had more time to deal with it because there is a lot that can be done.

There is a need for general overall tax cuts that are sustainable for the future and for everyone. This plan that the government has is a one year rebate plan. Next year there are going to be high prices again for natural gas. Thankfully the government will not be in office at that time, but we need to have sustainable tax cuts. Tax cuts help everyone. They help grow the economy. They help diversify. A diversified base of tax cuts helps everyone.

It is important that we deal with energy issues, not just on an ad hoc basis but on a basis which addresses the future and the now. This bill has a few good things about it, but honestly not a lot. It is one of those typically mediocre pieces of legislation that we have become accustomed to seeing from this government.

[Assisted Suicide, October 31st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of Bill C-407 on assisted suicide has once more brought to this House a bill dealing with the precious gift of life.

Many in this House will express their painful choices and divulge a wrestling deep within their souls.

This issue is only difficult if one holds to a material, chance view of the universe, if one holds purely utilitarian values, and if one denies that there is an intrinsic value in human life. It can only be tortuous if one holds that the underlying validation of life is wanton service of self.

For those of us who acknowledge that life has value distinct beyond all else, our choice will be instinctive. Our choice will be the affirmation of the immense value of the most vulnerable of our society, a reiteration that every person is of immeasurable worth.

When a society in any way invalidates the sanctity of life, it throws in its lot with evil incarnate. As members of this House, let us do better. Let us choose life. Life: what a beautiful choice.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the slight to Yukon was not intentional. My former boss was the vice-president of the Yukon Chamber of Mines. If the hon. member ever gets to see Mike Power of Aurora Geosciences and Scott Casselman and other colleagues, I ask him to give them my regards and greetings. They are still doing good exploration work in the territories.

In the Yukon, the Klondike is one of the great stories of Canadian history. The Yukon is a fascinating place. If members have not been there, let me suggest that they go up and see the hon. member's riding. There are some beautiful stretches and some needed work.

The parliamentary secretary asked about skills development. If I may, I will put in a little plug for the plan that the leader of my party has put out overall for skills and trades across the country to try to increase the number of people able to go into the skills and trades. The plan is also to encourage them financially, so more tools will be tax deductible for the trades and skills. The problem was originally brought forward due to mechanics not being able to claim their tools against their income tax, but I believe that it will help overall. It will help all sorts of trades.

With regard to the specifics of increasing value added for the diamond industry, I am not 100% knowledgeable about the specifics. I will say, having dealt with other resource industries, that regulatory processes can be a problem. I found that in dealing with the chemical industry. There was a decision some years ago, which I think everyone regrets, that allowed the potential for some value added export products to be taken to the United States instead of developed here in Canada.

What I will say is that what we need to do is develop enough of a core. As we have skills in an area, they tend to attract. We have two mines in the territories in full development. As we continue to develop more mines, a natural centre of gravity will develop. That is what we need to do. Tax credits, incentives, et cetera, will bring people in. We need to use the market for motivation; they work together very well.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will preface my answer by saying that I am not the expert on all the financial aspects. I tend to have a much more hands-on working geoscience knowledge on the ground.

I will say that it is fairly important for us to have a system because this is so high risk. Mining exploration for heavy metals, diamonds and some of the more exotic minerals is much, much more risky than it is for oil and natural gas. With today's technology, such as 3D seismic and various other things, and provided one is working with a competent firm and team, one does not often hit a dry well in a well researched and well explored basin when drilling for oil and gas.

When it comes to other forms of mining, the exploration is much more risky. That is why it is important, in regard to the good provisions that have been made, to continue them. There are sunset clauses on at least some of these provisions. The provisions need to be continued.

To go back to my speech, the timeline on these things is so long and immense that it is often difficult for people not in the industry to understand. People can go for years and years working as exploration geologists without actually ever finding a mine or working on a project that will become a mine. It is just the nature of the industry. I have had the privilege of working on a project in Baker Lake in Nunavut that looks it like will become a mine in the future.

I would say these provisions need to be carried on. The underlying premise in doing this has been very good. They need to be carried on. They also need to be integrated with an overall skills package to help the people who are working in these areas take full advantage of and have the opportunity for some of the skilled positions that are coming on stream.

It is very hard. There are not that many exploration geophysicists across Canada. There cannot be one in every village. Even many mining companies bring people like me in from specialist firms. However, there does need to be something done so that the very people who work in the areas where there is development and exploration--because it is not just the mines that provide jobs, it is the exploration that goes in front of it too--are able to take full advantage of the opportunity, be that with businesses in supplying the needs of the mining companies that are coming in or by specifically working in on-site jobs in various ways.

It is important to keep these tax measures and the packages that are coming to a sunset rolling forward. They have worked, but if they sunset we may lose some of the benefit because of the timeline that needs to be done. Mixed in with a bit more progressive look toward employment in some of these regions, I think we can have some very positive results continuing and Canada can continue to be a world leader in mining, both in diamonds and other minerals.

[Export and Import of Rough Diamonds Act, October 25th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I will admit that the riding of Saskatoon—Humboldt is probably not the centre of Canada's diamond trade and may very well never be the centre, but I do have somewhat of a unique perspective on a bill dealing with Canada's diamond trade.

The hon. member for Yukon made a wonderful advertisement for his riding. There was a period of time when I lived in the hon. member's riding. I was based out of Whitehorse doing mining and mineral exploration. That brings me to the unique perspective I have on this bill. Even though these are technical amendments to the Kimberley process certificate scheme and the goal is to make Canadian diamonds more acceptable to that protocol, the purpose of making Canadian diamonds more acceptable to that protocol is to make them more marketable, more saleable and to make them the premier product in the world when it comes to the marketing of diamonds.

I will put in a plug for it, in that we have the world's best diamond industry. We are very ethical. It is an environmentally friendly industry up in the north. If any community ever had a chance to choose any particular mine, it would choose a diamond mine. There are no problems with tailings, processing, et cetera, and the royalty regime is extraordinarily generous because of the high productivity per tonne.

My background in dealing with the overall diamond industry comes from that of an exploration mining geophysicist. In fact, in 2000 I had the pleasure of working up in the Northwest Territories in a place called Paulatuk which is about an hour and a half to two hour flight from Inuvik, in the neighbourhood of Tuktoyaktuk. In the summer of 2000 I had been working in the territories, Nunavut, doing some gold exploration, et cetera. I had the personal pleasure of going up there and participating in Canada's fledgling diamond industry as an exploration mining geophysicist.

If the House will indulge me, I will provide a little of the background of the mining and so forth. Because this is an important industry to the north, and even though my riding of Saskatoon—Humboldt is not north of 60, I feel it is important for all members of the House to promote other parts of the country and the industries in other parts of the country, to promote growth. We are all Canadians. We are all in this together. We want to have growth and prosperity, not just in our home ridings and regions, but all across Canada.

Diamond exploration is similar to the project that I worked on in Paulatuk in the Darnley Bay region. Basically we start off with something on a geological map, something that has caught the interest of a geologist, a geophysicist, generally something done by the Geological Survey of Canada. In the instance of the region where I did some exploration work, it was a gravity anomaly and it originally had started out as a base metal play. I guess they were hoping at one time to find the next Sudbury. In doing exploration work in the region there had been some till sampling, some gravel sampling and an analysis of the mineralogy. I am a geophysicist, not a mineralogist so if some of my old professors are watching this debate, on occasion the details may be incorrect here.

They had discovered certain garnets, certain other indicator minerals and even trace micro diamonds indicating the possible presence of kimberlite in with certain chromites. The aeromag and the electromagnetic surveys done by aircraft indicated the potential for a considerable amount of kimberlite in the area.

I was working for an exploration firm and we had gone into the area and were tightening up the targets using magnetic surveys and an EM map, an electromagnetic map, colloquially known in the industry as the MaxMin method--and I have no clue how that is translated into French--to begin to tighten the targets and work there.

When we go into these towns, not only are outside geophysicists and geologists employed, but we also employ a considerable number of people in a very small town. I would estimate that Paulatuk probably has around 200 people.

We were able to employ a considerable number of young people there working on the drill rig when we started to drill our targets, once we had made a decision where to drill. We even began to train them on how to use the field geophysical equipment and work the samplings that the geologists were examining.

What is the point of saying all this? Mining is very important to the north. The diamond mining industry in particular has been good for northern Canada. As has been alluded to earlier, Diavik and Ekati have proven to be two of the world's most successful mines and have proven to be wonderful for the Northwest Territories and again, for all of Canada.

That is the personal perspective that I bring to this industry, someone with an intimate hands on detail of the very early aspects of the rough diamond trade. That is where my overall interest comes into play here.

As I noted earlier and has been noted previously in this debate, Canada is an active member of the Kimberley Process certificate scheme which is essentially an agreement between nations to stop the illicit diamond trade, a diamond trade that was fueled predominantly through alluvial deposits in Africa in zones of conflict. There, rebel groups, terrorist groups and so on, would fund their operations, their criminal, lawless behaviour, their murdering of innocent people, through the sale of diamonds. Diamonds being the most portable, the most transferrable source of wealth that is easily taken around the world.

A handful of diamonds is very valuable and can be traded next perhaps to or even more so than illegal drugs. It is a method that is very easy to use if one needs to raise a large amount of cash and one does not have huge amounts of physical resources.

Rather wisely, if I may say so, the agreements were drawn up to begin to develop a plan to put pressure on these groups to squeeze them out of the market and to begin to focus the diamond trade in areas where human rights are respected, where there are proper standards, and where there is proper respect for the rule of law and for the people of the area. That is the nature of it.

Canada joined for a variety of reasons. The number one reason we should support the overall idea is because it is morally right. Underlining everything we do as parliamentarians should be a basic adherence to certain principles and certain rule of law. That rule of law and those principles apply both in Canada and throughout the world. That should be the first reason.

The second reason that we joined and got involved in this is to promote the sale of our diamonds. Let us be clear here. Diamonds are a very high end product. People who tend to buy them tend to have a considerable degree of income, and have the ability and often are fairly well informed about political situations, international situations and so on. They want to know that their diamonds are from a place that is moral, that has the rule of law and respects human rights.

To promote Canadian diamonds, it is necessary for Canada to get involved and to be a part of this process. It is good for business. It is good for the promotion of the Canadian diamond industry and marketing Canadian diamonds as a unique, distinct and separate brand.

That is the overall basic purpose of this bill. The details of the bill help to explain what rough diamonds are, how to measure them, and how to bring them up to the Kimberley Process certificate scheme standards. The bill will allow the creation of standards and statistics, so that Canada can more easily report its mining to the world. It will become easier to track, easier to account and easier to stop the flow of diamonds that are finding illegitimate and unworthy groups.

As I said earlier, I have a fairly personal interest in Canada's mining industry, diamond mining being one of the most successful industries in recent times. It was not all that many years ago where prominent people would say Canada has no diamonds.

De Beers used to propagate that myth for many years. More knowledgeable observers have been plugging away, doing a bit of prospecting, geophysical and geological work, and have found diamonds. We now have two mines.

Mining is an important historic Canadian industry. Canada started with the fur trade, pretty soon after came agriculture and forestry, and not long after that came mining. We must not forget that we were, and still are, in many ways the world's leader in the industry. Historically, the great mining engineers and geologists started in the British Commonwealth. Canada and Australia became the premier jewels in that crown with our expertise in geology. The Geological Survey of Canada is world renowned. The mining industry, and not just for the sake of the diamond industry, needs the support of the House. I know the member for Yukon will agree with me because this industry is important to his riding.

I was somewhat disappointed in that I had been led to believe in the last budget that there would be more financial support for the geoscience initiative. It was a disappointment to members on this side of the House because we view it as a part of Canada's infrastructure. As my colleagues know, I am fairly reticent when it comes to spending money. I believe most budgets should probably spend less rather than more. However, the geological knowledge and geological inventory of Canada is important and it must be continually worked.

Something that perhaps non-geoscientists do not understand is that just because an area has been mapped once geologically does not mean it should never be mapped again. There is no such thing as a perfect geological map except on an extraordinarily small scale which would be of almost no use. As one of my professors once said, when I was doing some mapping on a structural geology course, no geological map is accurate, most of them are only 50% accurate. That included the ones he did. They all need revision because there is so much detail and so much knowledge to be gained from going over the process.

An example of this is a project that I worked on in Salluit in northern Quebec. Falconbridge previously had the property. A geological survey had repeatedly been done on the property only to have nickel found by a prospector. We need to continuously invest in geoscience.

I give these examples to encourage members of the House, who are not familiar with the need for mapping and investing in geological surveys and the geoscience initiative, to support it. There is cross-party support on this issue.

I would also like to note, and I am not an expert in this area of mining, some of the financial issues that are coming up and the sunset clauses to some of the flow through shares et cetera. These financial instruments, as I understand them, have been valuable toward promoting mining companies.

There is a long lead up time in any mining project from exploration until production. These things do not happen in a matter of weeks. It takes years of patient research. Years were spent looking before Ekati and Diavik were set up in the Northwest Territories. We need to promote geoscience.

I wish to note one final aspect with respect to how diamonds impact the Canadian economy and it has to do with my province of Saskatchewan and a much larger issue that has been dealt with in the House before, and that is the question of equalization. We in the province of Saskatchewan have quite an exciting discovery at play. We are hoping that a diamond mine will be located in Fort a la Corne. There is a very large and somewhat unique kimberlite deposit in that area.

Prince Albert is the largest city close by for people not from Saskatchewan. By large, I mean around 30,000 people, well within driving distance, which would make it a unique mining town in that it would be very accessible.

There are some very great hopes that this mine will some day become a producing mine. As with most mining projects, one should be very cautious. Having worked on a project where kimberlite was found, I have to explain to some of the non-technical people that this does not immediately mean that it was going to be a diamond mine. Kimberlite is found all the time. We can find hundreds and hundreds of kimberlite pipes without actually finding a diamond mine.

There are some great hopes and the exploration is at quite a stage. There are actually some unique things such as bulk samplings and the drilling and the logging has gone on. There are prospects. There have been diamonds found and the degree of commercial viability has yet to be decided.

This is important. It has been pointed out that if the province of Saskatchewan wishes to enhance diamond exploration and encourage the development of this mine it could give a royalty holiday to the mine to encourage production. However, for the purposes of equalization, even though the government of Saskatchewan would be receiving absolutely no revenue from the royalty, none whatsoever, it would still be put into the calculation for equalization.

Not only would the economic effects of the development of the mine be put against our equalization account. Royalties not received by the government of Saskatchewan would also be calculated in at a somewhat subjective rate calculated here in Ottawa. So, the province of Saskatchewan would actually be taxed by the federal government and discriminated against for trying to cut its own tax rates, its own royalty rates to encourage development.

As all hon. members know, particularly those in the northern areas, we need to develop good mining jobs in the north. There often is not a whole lot more up there. We need them in Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, in northern Ontario, and northern Saskatchewan. Throughout northern Canada, that great area between the really far north and where most of us live, mining is a way of life and an absolutely crucial thing.

It is something that should not be discouraged, either through equalization, where this would discriminate against the province of Saskatchewan, or through a lack of support of geoscience and the mining industry.

I think those are some of the points I wish to make today. Mining is good for Canada. It is necessary for Canada. That is why we should support this legislation. It brings forward and makes Canadian diamonds a more valuable commodity. By doing the right thing and promoting our diamonds, we should do everything in our power to build on that.

Again, equalization needs to be fixed. It needs to be done so that all provinces can benefit from their mining. There are two provinces in particular that are discriminated against, British Columbia and Saskatchewan.

Before hon. members ask me, this does not strictly have to be done in the way the oil and gas agreement was done with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, though I would very much support it if it could be treated that way. That is because in the history of equalization there have been side deals done on asbestos as a particular impact under equalization and potash is not clawed back at the 100% rate. I believe former premier Thatcher, the very conservative Liberal premier of Saskatchewan, negotiated that provision. So not all resources have to be changed, even if we cannot get the ideal, which is a situation where natural resources would be taken out of equalization.

I will support this legislation. I will continue to support mining endeavours that are good for Canada, good for Saskatchewan, and good for the north. I would encourage all hon. members to do so.