Gerald Keddy

[Agriculture, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, after much pressure from the opposition, the minister of agriculture will finally announce a support package for producers.

There are three problems that the minister must address. First, there is still an unlevel playing field for Canadian farmers today. Canada spends 0.78% of its GDP on agricultural support while the U.S. spends 1.07% of its GDP on agricultural support.

Second, input costs are going up at an alarming rate. The cost of putting fuel in tractors, combines and other farm equipment went from 37 cents a litre to over 50 cents a litre for the crop year starting in 2000. Nitrogen in some cases has gone from 16 cents a pound to 40 cents a pound this spring.

Third, the value of the commodity has gone down drastically. In 1996 a producer received $5.50 a bushel for wheat. Today that same bushel of wheat is returning $2.45. The same year canola returned $10 a bushel and today it is $5.18 a bushel. We need two more things—

[Fisheries, February 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should be familiar with the Cobequid hatchery. He should be familiar with Coldbrook hatchery and the Mersey hatchery because lots of questions have been asked on them before.

The issue is simple. His government and his department gave Salmon Care hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of supplies, juvenile fish and other things, and it was a colossal failure, a complete and utter failure. What was the total cost to Canadian taxpayers and where is the new plan?

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, how do we consider a finite resource is sustainable? All resources ultimately are not sustainable and we will end up using every resource on the planet.

When we talk about sustainability of finite resources and if we are speaking about fossil fuels, the issue becomes how we better utilize the fossil fuels in the ground today. We have new technologies. We have new ways of getting more gas and more oil out of the ground. We have found ways to develop the tar sands that were not in existence 20 years ago.

The finite resources may not be as finite as we once thought, but it is an issue we have to deal with. The government has to deal with it. We simply cannot continue to ignore it.

In the future, energy sources will become even more valuable than they are today. We will depend upon larger sources of electricity. We will be using more electricity as the IT sector takes off.

We have done it in every other resource. We do not use less energy; we use more energy. Some people would argue that we use too much energy. The fact remains that we use energy and we have to find ways to produce it, more sustainable ways not only of finding alternative and new energy sources but new ways of utilizing and extending the energy sources that are there already.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I start into the bulk of my speech on the Canada foundation for sustainable development technology, I will comment on a couple of points made by my colleague from Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore. My colleague in the NDP could not resist the urge to take a swipe at the Conservative Party.

First, the Conservative policies did recognize climate change and climate warming on the planet. We were the people behind the Rio summit and we started the whole operation.

My colleague also mentioned a small problem with potato blight. If he was a farmer in P.E.I. with a million dollars worth of potatoes in cold storage, and if he was looking at $10 million that the Liberal government put into a composting program while it did absolutely nothing to help farmers in P.E.I., he would not think it was a small problem.

I am getting off subject, but as far as the tar ponds go, I spent a good part of my life mixing mud on oil rigs and know a little bit about how to make mud. Anybody with a couple of tons of barite, a couple of tons of gel and a little bit of resinex could mix that stuff in the tar ponds and would have had it pumped out of there long ago.

What we had was an abrogation of responsibility by the former Liberal provincial government of Nova Scotia and by federal governments in Ottawa that did not deal with that issue. It could have been dealt with, the waste could have been incinerated and it would have been gone and we would not be dealing with it or discussing it today.

Back to the point of the debate, the Canada foundation for sustainable development technology act is a bill that would establish a foundation to fund innovative projects specifically in the areas of climate change and air quality. Those are two areas we must deal with. We were never able to ignore the fact that climate change was taking place, but we can no longer afford to look the other way and not deal with it.

I was quite shocked to hear that the bill could not get at least tentative support from the NDP to go to the committee stage. My tendency, as critic for the Conservative Party, is to at least support the bill going to committee stage where we can have a look at it, debate it much more indepth and then see what comes out of committee.

The purpose of the foundation will be to support the development or demonstration of new technologies or innovations that will help to reduce the impact of climate change, whether through energy efficiency, alternative energy sources or other developments. It is a lofty and commendable objective since we all know that Canada needs to do its share to help reduce climate change worldwide.

Canada committed itself at Kyoto to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1992 levels. I will address today whether establishing the foundation is one way of achieving that objective, but I will also be closely examining it at committee stage.

There are numerous alternative energy sources available on the market but getting them into public use or making them cost effective can be challenging. Canada may be a world leader in some areas, such as the Ballard fuel cell or solar technology, but I question whether we are fully exploiting these capabilities.

The United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change, which was mentioned earlier, released its assessment two weeks ago. In its report it states:

There is now new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

I do not think this is anything new but it is very damning evidence when a number of countries and industries on the planet say that they are not contributing to climate change or, even worse, that climate change does not exist.

Capitalizing and exploring opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be a challenge for Canada. Although Canada offers generous tax credits for research and development, the private sector has been slow to embrace the new technologies.

We may have the ability and the ideas but we are not bringing them forward or pushing them into mainstream applications. There are large markets for these technologies or ideas if they can be shown to be effective. However, Canadians need to be encouraged to bring forward ideas, to seek new solutions and to develop them for the market.

If the research and development tax credit has failed to spur innovation can the proposed foundation overcome the obstacles and help bring new ideas to the market stage? That is the gist of what this is about, and it is really the issue we are talking about.

Andrew Weaver made an interesting argument for more action on greenhouse gas reductions in his article in the Edmonton Journal . In asserting that countries should continue to try to meet their Kyoto commitments, Mr. Weaver stated:

The reason lies not so much in the carbon-dioxide reductions that will ensue, but rather through the spawning of new technologies which will lead us to a less fossil-fuel-based society.

This is precisely what the legislation hopes to accomplish in some small way. With $100 million to allocate over a period of time that will likely span five to seven years, it will be a job for the foundation to ensure that the money is used in the most effective manner possible. By leveraging projects at a 25% basis there is a maximum potential to spur $400 million worth of new projects.

As members of parliament we all know many people are seeking government funding for good ideas. Projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, however, are the target of the legislation. It will be up to a board of directors and a board of members to make decisions about which projects receive funding.

It should be noted, as was noted by other members who spoke to the legislation, that one of the items in the bill we really do not fully understand is the remuneration that will go to board members. The per diems that will go to board members will be the same as those that go to any federal employee.

We also need to find out at committee stage who comprises the board. We know that seven of the fifteen board members will be appointees of the federal government. Who comprises the board? Who picks the board? How much industry representation will be on it? How much exactly will the board cost Canadian taxpayers who take the money out of their back pockets to run this operation?

As I mentioned, the foundation will be provided with $100 million that it will have to allocate over a period of time with the aim of helping those projects that best meet the qualifications.

One of these qualifications will be that the development or demonstration be widely applicable and not limited to a single application. Since the objective will be to help Canadians, the idea and the developing technology must be made available to other interested parties. That is why the issue of intellectual property, while not belonging to the federal government or the foundation, will have to be discussed by the partners to ensure accessibility for anyone else who would like to utilize this technology.

I would like to take the time to highlight a few technologies and ideas which I think are relevant to this discussion. One example is LNG, liquefied natural gas. It is a gas that has been cooled to a liquid state, meaning that the higher volume can be stored in a smaller space. There is improved fuel economy and lower emissions because there is greater optimization of engine performance with liquefied natural gas. Obviously this is one option for helping to reduce emissions and ultimately improve air quality.

There are limitations, however, with liquefied natural gas. The gas has to be cooled to -125°C, presenting some challenges and some additional costs. Otherwise vaporisation would occur and some of the fuel would be lost. That is one of the reasons why this fuel is geared toward long distance, heavy duty vehicles which could conceivably handle the storage challenge. These challenges, however, are being addressed with a growing emphasis on alternative fuel sources. There may be greater attention paid to developing more practical applications of liquefied natural gas.

Although the first patent for liquefied natural gas was issued in 1914, it was not until the 1990s that it really moved beyond the experimental stage to the point where today its application as a fuel alternative is being seriously examined and tested. By offering a fuel alternative with lower emissions, it is an example of the type of innovation that the legislation would want to promote and encourage.

Another example that is more broadly familiar to Canadians is the Ballard fuel cell. Ballard Power Systems began in 1979 but it was not until 1983 that it began testing the concept behind fuel cells, mainly the combination of hydrogen fuel and oxygen to create electricity. With heat and water vapour the only byproducts of the combustion process, fuel cells show immense potential as a means of reducing greenhouse gas.

A prototype vehicle powered by Ballard fuel cells was unveiled in March 1999 and can travel 450 kilometres before refuelling. Ballard hopes to have fuel cell powered cars on the market for public use in 2003 to 2005 from major auto manufacturers such as Ford, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, Honda and Toyota. Although not yet available on a commercial scale, the focus for Ballard will be to help develop viable alternatives and applications on a wide scale mass market level. If cost reductions could be achieved by mass marketing, this technology would allow the advantages of the product to be widely applied.

That is the point behind the government's bill. It is to take good ideas and good concepts that are not mainstream now, put them out there and apply them on a very wide scale. It is this type of innovation that the legislation before us today hopes to promote and encourage.

Much room exists for renewable energy sources. Currently renewables make up only 2% of the global energy supply, but the International Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development suggests that by 2020 it will make up only 3% of the global energy supply.

We can see from that statement that the world and certainly Canada, the United States, the developed countries and the G8 nations are moving painfully slow in the direction of renewable energy.

If we are to improve the projection, it will be imperative for the Canadian government to encourage the development of new technologies and to encourage not just new ideas but to challenge people to think of new applications for the regional, national and global markets.

Energy demands are increasing as a result of our increasing reliance on the high tech industry and its immense need for electricity. If any of us need to think that over, we best think about brownouts and blackouts in California where the high tech industry for the entire world is situated. The fact is they use so much electricity in that field that they are taking more electricity than the grid can offer.

In addition, the rapid industrialization of developing countries will also increase global demand for energy sources. If there are new options that provide cleaner fuel sources or that use alternative energy sources, we could take steps toward reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. It is a challenge for everyone but the federal government needs to be taking the lead if it wants to demonstrate any commitment to meeting its Kyoto standards.

The legislation is another step, but further study will help us to determine if it is truly a step in the right direction or simply another government initiative that looks good but really does not accomplish its objective.

Questions were raised before that there was not enough money, that $100 million was not enough money. If members would do their research on the legislation, they would recognize that it dovetails with a lot of other existing legislation.

I would like to review the other legislation that the new piece of legislation would dovetail with. The existing federal technology programs all have features that distinguish them from the sustainable development technology fund but are complementary in nature.

First, the program of energy research and development has an allocation of $58 million.

Second, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada does not fund development or demonstration projects led by the private sector as the SDTF will.

Third, there is a budget for the Canada Foundation for Innovation of $2.4 billion, quite a substantial amount of money.

Fourth is Technology Partnerships Canada with another budget of $300 million.

Fifth, the industrial research assistance program funds for small and medium size enterprises to help them improve their innovation capacity through research and development projects that could span the full spectrum of technological and industrial sectors. It has an annual allocation of $7 million.

The technology early actions measures funds technology projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nationally and internationally while sustaining economic and social development. Its allocation of $57 million over three years is basically now depleted. I suspect the $100 million may dovetail quite nicely into that program.

A lot of federal funding is going into sustainable energy and alternative energies. There is a lot of commitment by the government and previous governments to deal with the issue. We have to ensure any time we are spending taxpayer money, and ultimately it is always taxpayer money, that the money is allocated in a proper manner and that the government spends it responsibly.

The issue if there is one with the $100 million fund is certainly that there are a number of other programs out there now.

Many of those programs would dovetail very neatly into the existing program. I should like to find out more about the other existing programs at the committee stage before we support the bill when it comes to a vote in the House. I certainly encourage and applaud the government for moving in the right direction with the bill. We will take into consideration at the end of the day whether or not we will support it.

[Fish Farming, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to address Motion No. 119 of the hon. member for Davenport which pertains to a study of fish farming and ecosystem health. I think that issue has been discussed in parliament. Certainly it has been discussed at the fisheries committee for some time. There are several areas that need to be looked at.

I should like to make a couple of points before I get into the gist of my speech today. I should like to comment on the documentary on the David Suzuki Foundation that was aired earlier about ecosystem health. It was very anti-fish farming.

All of us have a responsibility in this place to understand the facts as best we can and to present them in a manner that shows both sides of the story, not just one side of the story. A number of issues deal with fish farming in Canada. A number of issues will continue and will be ongoing.

I will quote from Suzuki's report. I have a serious problem with some of the science in that report. I also have a serious problem with members of parliament who simply want to quote something verbatim without taking a long, hard, serious look at it.

In the Suzuki report there was mention of the salmon that were tested. This is a major report which causes some doubt about a major food source on the planet. Millions of tonnes of salmon are grown every year by Canada, Norway, Scotland, Ireland and Chile. We also have some very serious salmon farming operations in New Brunswick, some in Nova Scotia, and a lot of salmon grown in B.C.

The Suzuki Foundation tested just eight salmon, four wild salmon and four farm salmon, and put out a report. That is far too few to reach any scientifically defensible conclusions about contaminant levels.

That does not say that we should not be worried about contaminant levels, that we should not be vigilant about contaminant levels, but it certainly says that it is based on bad science. The Suzuki study has been neither independently reviewed nor published and the organization has not released any of its findings to date.

The Scottish study to which he referred found no discernible difference in the PCBs and dioxins found in wild and farm salmon. The author of the Scottish study, Dr. Miriam Jacobs, has called the BBC 3 show claim absolute nonsense. The levels of the PCBs and dioxins that the Suzuki Foundation reportedly measured in farm salmon were well below the safety standards set by Health Canada and enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

We have to question both on a scientific basis and, more important, on a public basis the use of limited, unpublished and unsubstantiated data purporting to claim health concerns respecting farm salmon. If there are health concerns, we should be the first people to be concerned about them. If there are not, we should not be supporting a bogus claim of such.

After that little statement on Suzuki's evidence, I make clear that I grew up on a small salmon river in Nova Scotia called the Gold River. As a young boy I was able to catch salmon in that river. We actually still have a few wild Atlantic salmon that return to that river every year. That should indicate that I am very friendly to the Atlantic Salmon Federation and to anyone who supports wild salmon.

I learned a long time ago to be very cautious in the aquaculture industry not to point the finger of blame at some place that it may not quite belong. Do we have some problems in the aquaculture industry? Absolutely we do. Have those problems been attended to, reported and looked at in a very serious manner over the last 10 years? A lot of them have. Do we still have problems with escapees, with algae bloom and with feces on the bottom? Yes, we do. Have most of those problems been attended to? Yes, they have.

I should like to break that down into a bit of detail. Last year the fisheries committee proposed a study on aquaculture. We finished the majority of that study, although we did not finish it all. We visited the west coast of B.C. and Washington State. The report will tell hon. members that we also visited the east coast. We were there for two days. All members were not able to attend. We were in Maine, New Brunswick, and had one quick stop in Nova Scotia. It is a long way from being an indepth study on aquaculture on the east and west coasts.

We also spent six days in Scotland. While we were there we were able to meet with the minister responsible for aquaculture in Scotland, the minister responsible for aquaculture in Ireland, and a number of officials in Norway as well dealing with fin fish aquaculture. That is another difference that needs to be explained. We are dealing with two totally different types of aquaculture. It should be made very clear to the listening public that we do not want to get the two mixed up. Fin fish aquaculture and shellfish aquaculture are two entirely different things.

I can remember when shellfish aquaculture, which has been around for the last 20 years, was first becoming an important industry on the east coast. If anybody in the House is not aware of it, 95% of the blue mussels in the world are raised on P.E.I. A lot of oysters have been raised traditionally for the last thousand years.

I can remember in Mahone Bay in Indian Point when the Indian Point Mussel Farm first opened. There was a lot of fear between the traditional lobster industry and the farmer who was trying to introduce the blue mussels. What happened was that the mussel socks were put over muddy bottom, which is not lobster bottom. It attracted a lot of predators, including crabs and lobsters for the dead mussels that were falling out of the socks, and actually improved the habitat.

We have the same type of potential not necessarily to improve the habitat for other species by having salmon farms, but we certainly have the potential if we look at it in a smart, reasonable and responsible way to have fin fish aquaculture side by side with the traditional fishery. Will that be an easy process? Absolutely not. Is there a lot of fear out there from the traditional fishery about fin fish aquaculture? Yes, we do. Have there been some mistakes in the past? Yes, there have been.

Let us look at a couple of those mistakes. It is a fact that in the past way too many antibiotics were used on fish farms. That antibiotic rate has been cut down in the last three or four years in particular, first, with the use of more vaccines and less antibiotics. Second, it has been cut down so that probably today we can fairly accurately state that aquaculture uses less antibiotics than any other veterinary science. That is a big statement. If members visit some beef lots and some feed lots for the beef industry, and I am very familiar with those as well, they will see lots of antibiotics.

Another issue, which is a very real and significant one, is that of escapees. We have a problem with escapees. There is absolutely no question about it. If members have studied the aquaculture sites where they have significant problems with escapees in the past, they will see that problem has basically been managed. The escapee level has dropped dramatically in the last five or six years. The previous speaker said there were no incidents of escapees actually surviving. Unfortunately that is not true. There are incidents of escapees on the west coast. Incidents have also been recorded in New Brunswick and more incidents in Norway.

Do we need to protect the biodiversity and the salmon stocks that are there? Absolutely. Can we do that? Yes, a methodology can be applied that will do that and still allow for fin fish aquaculture.

The real culprit for the decline in the wild stocks is that we overfished them. We overfished them on the west coast. The government helped to do that. We overfished them on the east coast in a very serious way. When wild stocks were found off Norway, Canada, Norway and the United States fished them to extinction.

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the exact question but it was something about who owns more than 18% in Petro-Canada. We own 18.2% of the shares. The rest of the shares are owned throughout the country. This will open them up to foreign ownership as well.

The 18.2% is a non-managerial position. We do not make the decisions regarding Petro-Canada, nor should we make them.

Petro-Canada had its place. Petro-Canada helped start the Hibernia field. It helped develop Panuke and Cohasset off Sable Island. I worked in those oilfields for eight years as a driller. Petro-Canada was needed then. It was a wildcat operation with high pressure and deep wells. It had some of the iffiest wells being drilled in the world at the time.

However those days are gone. We found the gas and oil. We have better technology. We can drill faster and cheaper and can find gas and oil better than we ever could before. We no longer have the high risk in the energy sector that used to be there. It is time to move on and sell the shares.

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I realize the member is a new member of parliament and I welcome him to the House. I understand he spoke here before, but it is the first time I have had an opportunity to reply to one of his questions. We look forward to many more.

He made several points but I would like to respond to two of them. First, the member for Yukon made reference to the oil rebate and said that it helped millions of people. Imagine how many people it could have helped had it been applied fairly and with any sense of conscience whatsoever? I mean this was child simple.

The government had $1.4 billion. It wanted to give an energy rebate to Canadians who needed it most. The Liberals decided that the venue they would use to choose those Canadians was the GST rebate. It made good sense. All they had to do to make that work was ask for an energy receipt showing that people had paid their oil or electrical bill or bought fuel wood. Lots of provinces have done it. It is not complicated.

I would guess, and I do not think I am too far wrong but we will never get the real numbers out of this crowd, that 50% of the $1.4 billion or $1.3 billion, or whatever it was, was wasted. There were double cheques, triple cheques, quadruple cheques to one household. We could have a widow living on one side of the street in a two bedroom bungalow who received $125. On the other side of the street there could be a married couple who received $250. Explain to me how that got money to Canadians who needed it. Explain to me how that is fair.

It is hopeless. The government cannot even give away $1.4 billion and do a good job at it. It is scandalous. Do not try to defend that, it is not worth it. He made some good points but he should not defend the oil rebate.

The other issue is the Petro-Canada position. Now is the time to get out of Petro-Canada. Do not delay. Sell the shares. There is lots of money out there. Its shares are at a premium price. The government does not have any managerial position in Petro-Canada. It holds 18.2% of the shares. It does not make decisions any longer on Petro-Canada.

We are going to put a board and a director in place. All of those people will have stipends. All of those people will get per diems. All or some of those people will be on salary. We are going to create a bureaucracy where there is no need to create one. We have a good opportunity to sell our shares and get out from under a burden of debt. Now is the time to do it. We can get the most money for our investment. Let us move on.

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my remarks with a comment on the remarks from the member for Winnipeg Centre. He led us through an interesting discussion though I am not quite sure that he was completely on subject. Still, it was a very interesting discussion.

I think the question is not whether Canada wants to have a private crown corporation run oil firm, but how much that firm cost us. Is it responsible and reasonable to continue in that direction today? Is it time to get out from under that burden of debt?

I would like to see a tally sheet of what Petro-Canada has cost us on one side and the profits that we made on the other side. I expect to have that information before we finish the bill in committee. I think then we could get into a very interesting and hopefully enlightening debate on whether or not we should keep the company in Canada.

Bill C-3, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act, will allow for greater foreign ownership of the two companies, Petro-Canada and Cameco. That is plain and simple.

As previous speakers have said, the proposed legislation would provide greater flexibility to both companies in their respective industries. It should allow them to continue as well-respected participants in the oil, gas and uranium fields. It should also provide them with increased opportunities for strategic management and positioning within those sectors.

I would like to repeat something that my colleague from St. John's West said when he spoke to the bill in its previous life as Bill C-39. Speaking as a member from Newfoundland, where Petro-Canada has a large involvement through its development of the Hibernia project and other potential oil and gas fields, he said “Even though we can appreciate, perhaps more in Newfoundland than anywhere else in the country, what Petro-Canada has done for oil and gas development in our province, we also must realize that to grow, companies need investment. We cannot restrict that investment or we are putting companies at a disadvantage.”

I could not agree more with my colleague. We all know that we operate in a global environment. Free trade agreements, technological advances and developing countries and markets require innovative and evolving responses to new challenges and opportunities. It is not in Canada's best interest to restrict any company from taking advantage of those opportunities or from moving into new and unexplored areas and markets.

However, there are other issues respecting the legislation that still need to be studied and examined as the legislative process continues.

First, Petro-Canada is an oil and gas company in a market where the price of crude oil has significantly increased over the past year. Petro-Canada has announced record earnings for the year 2000. In a press release the company says “Petro-Canada's performance reflects both an exceptional business environment and our success in capitalizing on that environment.”

No one would argue that if the government is going to take steps to get out of the oil and gas business, now could be one of the best possible times to do that. The industry is on a high and prices reflect that reality. With annual net earnings in 2000 of $893 million, the company far exceeded its previous high of $306 million in 1997.

We all know that the price of oil and gas has increased. We are reminded of that on an almost daily basis when we fill up our cars and pay our heating bills. While this points out the reason why companies like Petro-Canada are experiencing record highs, it also begs the question of what do Canadian taxpayers get out of this deal.

If the government has indicated that it is going to divest itself of the 18% stake it continues to hold in Petro-Canada, taxpayers who funded the purchase of this former crown corporation in 1975 need to benefit directly from the government's decision to get out of the energy sector. Many Canadians are ready to let Petro-Canada be privatized completely and have that money either paid on our national debt or invested in alternative and sustainable energy.

We can stipulate certain requirements in the privatization process, in this case the location of headquarters, Canadian directors and a limit on individual ownership.

The province of Nova Scotia recently announced that it is selling its share in Nova Scotia Resources Ltd., a company established in 1981 to allow the government to participate in the oil and gas industry. Over the course of time a debt of almost $800 million has been amassed. This is a debt that Nova Scotia taxpayers have had to assume. If the $425 million deal that the government announced goes through it will be one less burden on Nova Scotia taxpayers and the government will reduce its debt load. That deal allows the government to cut its losses.

I would suggest that now is a favourable time to get out, just as it is for the federal government with respect to its position in Petro-Canada. If we are going to privatize, now is the time to do it. It also shows that unless there are public policy reasons for direct involvement, the risk inherent in the oil and gas industry may outweigh the benefits for governmental involvement.

In both cases, Petro-Canada at the federal level and Nova Scotia Resources Ltd. at the provincial level, the decision to get directly involved in the oil and gas industry stemmed from global conditions of the day, namely the energy crisis. Petro-Canada was established as a crown corporation in 1975 by an act of parliament to allow Canada to have a stake in the oil and gas industry and improve exploration and development of new oil and gas sources within Canada. This is precisely what happened. Petro-Canada went on to make purchases that led to a share in the Hibernia project and the gas discoveries off Nova Scotia, as well as the tar sands in Alberta. These are still some of the company's primary areas.

However, the federal government divested its interest over time to the point that today it controls exactly 18.2% of the shares but it has no management involvement. With no public policy reasons for its continued participation in the company, the time is seen as appropriate for a complete divestiture. This bill is one more step toward that objective.

The bill deals with two companies, Petro-Canada and Cameco. While many of the points I have already made also apply to Cameco, their respective industries are significantly different. I would like to discuss those differences for a few moments.

Cameco is involved in the uranium business. In fact, it is the world's largest uranium company. As I mentioned, the similarity with Petro-Canada is that this legislation will increase the percentage of foreign ownership on both an individual and aggregate basis, again stipulating that the head office remain in Canada, in this case Saskatchewan, and with Canadian directors. However, the nuclear industry is quite different from the oil and gas industry and Canadians remain skeptical about the safety issues surrounding nuclear power, perhaps with good reason. The auditor general recently reported to parliament and he highlighted some concerns respecting risk assessments at Canada's nuclear power generators. As well, the issue of disposal of radioactive waste remains largely unanswered.

I have been told that the legislation in no way affects the non-proliferation policy and uranium will continue to be sold only to those countries that are signatory to the non-proliferation agreement.

World markets are changing dramatically, and by loosening rules on foreign ownership, it is anticipated that this will provide Cameco with increased opportunity to take advantage of new opportunities and new market conditions.

What both of these companies highlight is Canada's and the world's dependence on energy sources, whether those sources be oil and gas or nuclear. There are a lot of exciting developments taking place in both of these sectors. The Mackenzie Delta pipeline looks like it could soon become a reality and new nuclear reactors have increased safeguards.

Canada needs to be in a position to take advantage of these new prospects and new technologies. I look forward to studying the legislation more closely at committee to see whether the legislation will benefit Canadian taxpayers and be one step toward helping these companies position themselves for future growth and productivity.

In closing, the issue here is exactly that. Does the legislation benefit Canadian taxpayers? It would be my position that the legislation does benefit Canadian taxpayers. There is a significant difference between developments in the petrochemical and petroleum industry energy sector and the nuclear and uranium industry sector.

That is what we have to take a look at in committee. This is only the first time the bill has been debated. We will have an opportunity to discuss it further, and we plan to have some more numbers to look at when we come back to parliament the next time.

[Trade, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is worried about importations to Brazil from Europe, yet the Minister of Industry continues to ban Brazilian beef.

Could the minister of agriculture tell Canadians how many products are coming into Canada that utilize European beef, beef extract or beef byproducts from Europe? How many of those products are coming into Canada today?

[Agriculture, February 13th, 2001]

As the hon. member said, there is, unfortunately, no long term plan and, more important, there is no short term plan.

There is an issue at stake here. We could use a couple of examples. It was mentioned earlier this evening that P.E.I.'s potato production has been completely shut down. We have a provincial program in P.E.I. to buy potatoes and compost them. We do not have any kind of program from the federal government. We have a promise but no cold hard cash is on the table. The only things on the table on a farm in P.E.I., if they are lucky, are a teapot and couple of elbows. They are sitting there contemplating their future and wondering whether it will be in the potato industry or in any other industry.

We have an ongoing issue. It is not complicated. We cannot expect our farmers to produce against the rest of the farmers on the planet, and specifically against farmers in the United States and in the EU, if we do not subsidize our farmers to the same degree that the Americans and the Europeans do, and we do not. We are a buck and change behind the Americans, and we are two dollars and change behind the Europeans.

This is not rocket science. We have to be on a level playing field and maybe then we could convince the Americans and the Europeans to drop their subsidies back. However we cannot do that when we are behind them in the starting blocks. We can only do it when we are at par. We do, without question, have a crisis in agriculture.

I would like to point out some numbers. Numbers make our eyes glaze over after a while and we start to say that maybe it is not a number issue, but it is always a number issue and it is always an issue of dollars before it is all done.

As we enter the 21st century and Canada faces new challenges and trends, some of which I talked about earlier, such as globalization and liberalization of trade forces, Canada will be forced to become more and more competitive. Farm incomes are already unstable. Infrastructure is crumbling. Access to capital is restricted. Foreign governments continue to subsidize their agriculture industries at high levels.

I used some rough figures a minute ago but I have an example here of real numbers. In 1997, for every dollar Canadians spent on farm support, the Americans spent $2.06, the European Union spent $2.14 and Japan spent $3.47.

According to Brian Doidge of the Ridgetown College of Agricultural Technology, Canada spends 78% of its GDP on agriculture support, while the Americans spend 1.7% of its GDP. The figures are based on the OECD aggregate measures of support. The figures say very clearly that we are behind and we are not doing anything to catch up.

From 1998 to September 2000, emergency income support program payments directly to growers amounted to $48.2 billion in the United States and $3.1 billion in Canada. The debate is over. With that type of a ratio it is impossible to catch up unless the government is determined to catch up and unless the government says that it is going to reach parody and that when it reaches parody it will talk about being equal and about everyone dropping their subsidies back. In the meantime, if we do not do that we will not have any farmers left. The grains and oilseeds may be the hardest hit today, but that will spread to the other commodity groups. It is only a matter of time.

A Statistics Canada report in August 2000 noted that a look at the month by month statistics since January 1997 shows that total employment in agriculture has plummeted from the fall of 1998. Agriculture employment on the prairies used to hover around the 200,000 mark. An August survey puts that number at 160,000, that is, 40,000 fewer people were working in agriculture on the prairies. That computes, then, to 22,100 farmers.

I do not mind entering this debate, but I am beginning to question why we are here, why we stand on our feet, why we continue to ask the government to deal with a crisis situation, to deal with a major problem in this country, while government members continue to sit over there and do nothing and literally sit on their hands.

We have a huge neighbour to the south that is a very powerful trading partner. It has shown us at every turn of the wheel that it will use a phytosanitary certificate for a non-tariff trade barrier. It continues to do that. It has done it in the Christmas tree industry, my background. It has done it with P.E.I. potatoes time and again. It has done it in other commodities. It has done it in lumber.

We, as the Parliament of Canada, have to better represent Canadians. We can encourage the government but we cannot force this majority to do something it does not want to do. I think the member for Peace River said it best. The members over there have to decide. The backbench members of the government have to force and lobby their own government and their own Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to respond to this crisis. If it is not done, we will see a day in this country where not only will we no longer have the family farm, we will be importing food. That is not a day I look forward to.