1993-02-22

[Stage Direction]
Prayers


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members Business:
December 1, 1992 -Second reading and reference to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope of Bill C-348, an act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).

SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The hon. member for Don Valley North is not in the House to move the order in accordance with the notice published in today's Order Paper. Consequently the order will be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence for Private Members' Business, pursuant to Standing Order 42(2). The sitting of the House will therefore be suspended until noon.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.07 a.m..


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 12 p.m.

Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I move pursuant to Standing Order 78(3):
That, in relation to Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of second reading stage of the bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the second reading stage consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Call in the members.


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Anawak	Cadieux
Danis	Maheu
Shields	"Rimer (Vancouver Quadra)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I declare the motion carried.


MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKay that Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing, be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope; and the amendment of Mr. Fulton (p. 15586).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: At the suspension of the debate the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands had seven minutes remaining.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to complete my remarks on this bill and to reinforce my opposition to this project, the fixed link in the Northumberland Strait.
My principal concern is the protection of the marine environment in the Northumberland Strait. This bridge will be constructed in the midst of a habitat which supports a $100 million a year fishery providing lobsters to North America and the world. It would also pass through one of the area's largest known scallop beds.
The bridge also threatens the physical and social environment of the island and the earning capacity of many diverse individuals and communities, including fishermen, ferry workers, retailers, food processors and tourist operators.
In 1988, the federal government promised that no bridge would ever be built without a full environmental assessment of the specific bridge design. That was its response to a number of concerns about a generic bridge design. Now, it seems to be pretending that an environ-

February 22, 1993

mental management plan, a short, vague description of construction monitoring, is an environmental assessment. So much for the 1988 promise. So much for Canada's environmental credibility.
I want to go back to the federal environment assessment review process. When the federal government is involved in a major project which could affect the environment, the activity must undergo an environmental assessment and review process.
The Prince Edward Island bridge project was deemed to be such a project and the federal Environmental Assessment Review Office convened an independent six-member panel on April 28, 1989. Its mandate was to conduct a public review of three concept proposals for a bridge. It was never explained why a tunnel or improved feriy service were not considered as part of the publicly financed review.
The panel was asked to examine the environmental and socioeconomic effects of an imaginary bridge crossing without blueprints or actual design specifications. It was also asked to determine the possible effect of the construction operation and maintenance of the project and its associated facilities.
Public hearings were held in the three maritime provinces between March 12 and March 30, 1990. Over 1,500 people attended the 21 sessions. The intensity of public participation in the hearings gave credibility to a process that islanders initially viewed with some skepticism.
After that extensive public discussion as well as in depth technical and bureaucratic consultations, the FEARO panel released its final report in August, 1990. The panel unanimously rejected the generic concept of the bridge presented to it by Public Works. Its rejection was based on numerous significant concerns.
Let us understand what has happened. There was an environmental assessment of a generic bridge concept.
The panel recommended that the bridge project not proceed because of the following reasons: The potential impacts on marine ecosystems and agricultural microclimates arising from delayed spring ice-out; the risk of
Government Orders
damage to near shore spawning grounds; the limited knowledge of the Northumberland Strait ecosystem making it difficult to predict impacts, monitor impacts, mitigate impacts and determine appropriate compensation to fishermen; incompatibility of the project with sustainable development; inadequate consideration of cumulative impacts; difficulties in finding socially acceptable solutions for displaced ferry workers and fishermen; inadequate consideration of the environmental and ecological impacts of the island on the predicted type of tourism and growth; and the need to resolve numerous land use issues in Prince Edward Island.
In conclusion the panel has noted there is a need for improved transportation service between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. After careful consideration, the panel concludes that the risk of harmful effects of the proposed bridge concept is unacceptable. The panel recommends therefore that the project not proceed.
What has this government done now? It has put forward an ice panel which refutes what the FEARO panel recommended. It is now trying to put forward and push this specific bridge concept ahead without environmental assessment. It is no wonder the people of Canada are cynical about the way this government operates.
I would also like to point out that there are considerations other than environmental. A Financial Post article of February 17 states:
The federal government has not done the math to support building a bridge to Prince Edward Island.
The September 1992 report by Halifax-based Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists says a key 1987 economic feasibility assessment of a fixed crossing has several flaws.
If economic viability is an important criterion for proceeding with the project, then it would be advisable to conduct a more rigorous analysis.
In conclusion, this bridge concept is not environmentally sound nor economically sound. It should be shelved until a full environmental impact assessment has been done on the particular project. Anything less is a repudiation of this government's own environmental assessment review process. It puts into doubt the whole environmental assessment review process put forward by this government.
I urge the House not to support Bill C-110.

Government Orders


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-110 is the enabling legislation for a major infrastructure project that not only is immense in scale, but is also unique in its approach. This project is going to bring many benefits to the people of the maritimes, the Atlantic region. All provinces in the Atlantic region will benefit, but Prince Edward Island will in particular.
It is not just the people of the maritimes who will benefit. Taxpayers generally will benefit from this. What is not commonly understood across Canada is that it is a constitutional requirement that the federal government provide ongoing subsidy or support for the people of Prince Edward Island to maintain the service between the mainland and the island.
This is something that constitutionally will never cease as long as the ferry service continues. However, if the project proceeds that this legislation is dealing with, we have a situation where the ongoing cost of the ferry service will be maintained as a subsidy for 35 years. At that point in time the subsidy ceases.
Instead of the situation where for time immemorial the taxpayers of Canada will be required to maintain the ferry link between the mainland and Prince Edward Island it will in fact be fulfilled with the fixed link. There is another thing that is quite unique about this project that should be of interest to all taxpayers across Canada. It is not going to be funded in this case by the taxpayers of Canada. When they think of these major projects, they immediately perceive huge tax dollars being demanded of them. In fact, the tax dollars to support this will be those that are equivalent to what would have been paid out in the ferry service over the next 35 years.
This project will be funded, built and operated by three enterprises for the next 35 years. If we proceed successfully with this, there will be many people watching to see if this may be a framework for other major infrastructure programs. It is not just the taxpayers of Canada who will benefit. The users of the existing ferry service and the new fixed link will also benefit from it.
Something that is not commonly understood about this project is that the toll charges that will be paid by people who cross the link from the mainland to the island or vice versa will be feed so that they cannot increase to anything greater than three quarters of the inflation
factor. This means that generations to come in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick will benefit from lower rates than they would otherwise experience. To put this in perspective, if over the last decade we had had an agreement that the ferry tolls could not increase by more than three quarters of the inflation rate then the current ferry rates would have increased by less than one third of what they actually increased. It is of significant benefit to those people who are habitual users of the service.
There are other economic benefits, those that will be returned primarily to those in the maritimes. I will refer to it as the Northumberland Strait one-two punch. Punch No. 1 is that construction of this massive project will create jobs and business opportunities starting immediately and continuing through the next four or five years.
Punch No. 2 will be that in the longer term, after the link is completed, it will enhance the province's growing tourism industry and result in cost efficiencies for agriculture and many other enterprises. Construction itself is expected to generate from 3,500 to 4,000 person years of employment over the next five years.
One condition stressed by Prince Edward Island and other Atlantic provinces was that maximum employment opportunities should and would accrue to the region as the project proceeds.
It is estimated that 95 per cent of the jobs will be supplied from within Canada and over 80 per cent of those jobs are expected to accrue to the Atlantic provinces. This will have a phenomenal impact on an area of Canada that is habitually hard-pressed and deserves this improved situation. For instance, it is estimated that the unemployment rate in Prince Edward Island will decrease by over 1.3 per cent, directly attributed to the fixed link. In all, the construction of the bridge will result in a direct expenditure of about $850 million. When the effects of respending that normally take place are figured into the economy of the island, the project will represent a stimulus to the Canadian economy in the order of $1.3 billion. There will be tremendous opportunities for businesses, not only in Prince Edward Island but in New Brunswick and, in fact, across the country. I think the principal beneficiaries, as I mentioned earlier, are going to be in the maritimes.
February 22, 1993

The selected bridge design means that almost 95 per cent of the construction materials and related services can be supplied from within Canada. Even more important to the people in the maritimes is that they expect 80 per cent of it can be provided by the local suppliers. That means that opportunities will be created for a range of products and services, including supplying cement, the aggregates of the steel, selling and leasing heavy equipment, fabricating and finishing reinforcing steel, the construction of roads leading to and from the fixed link and a whole variety of other services. Many of these services are ideal for smaller local-based companies.
The immediate response from Prince Edward Island in particular has been extremely positive. By the end of January, nearly 400 Prince Edward Island businesses had expressed interest in participating and most of them have shown that interest through the Prince Edward Island Business Development Agency.
A number of firms have already directly contacted the developer as well and the response there has also been positive.
One of the key requirements for the project is that the developer maximize the use of Atlantic Canada suppliers. In fact, SCI is currently preparing an industrial benefits plan which must be submitted to and approved by the federal government before the final contracts are assigned.
There is no doubt that this bridge construction will generate substantial immediate economic benefits for all of the maritime provinces and in fact for Canada. However, I would be remiss if we did not look further down the road. What are the long-term benefits that we see? When the bridge is in operation, there will be benefits and they will be substantial. The bridge will significantly reduce the amount of time taken to transport vehicles, passengers and goods between the two provinces. Crossing time will go from a current average of over one and a half hours to the neighbourhood of 15 minutes for crossing. This will provide an extremely important benefit to all of the users.
A factor of this crossing that I had not thought of until it was pointed out to me is that there is a very significant energy saving from the link. The energy consumption will be reduced to less than one-sixth of the amount that
Government Orders
would be required if the ferries were still in operation. Of course many other sectors of the Prince Edward Island economy will be affected, in particular tourism.
Tourism is the province's second largest industry. It is expected to grow as a result of the relative ease of access. The bridge itself will become, like so many other major projects that have been built in North America, a destination. Tourists will come to see and to cross the bridge. This will draw visitors not just from Canada but from around the world.
Other major beneficiaries will be those industries that transport their goods from the island. Agriculture, fisheries and all the associated processing facilities will benefit by way of cost reductions, greater efficiency and, very important, improved reliability of delivery.
The Prince Edward Island trucking industry has gone on record with its forecast that it expects to save in the order of $10 million annually as a direct result of the bridge's construction.
There is no question that the economic arguments for proceeding with the link are strong and compelling. It represents a project that at absolute minimum cost to the taxpayer will bring both short and long-term benefits and hope for the renewal of the citizens of Canada's smallest province.
To be sure there are those islanders who oppose the project, fearing that the bridge will somehow change the province's way of life and its unique character. Similar concerns were expressed by the people of Cape Breton prior to the building of the Canso Causeway. Yet this region has seen no diminution of its distinctive character in the years since. Its tourism and other industries have clearly benefited.
The bridge will be a change to Prince Edward Island for sure, but my expectation is that it will be a change for the better.
I believe future generations of Prince Edward Island citizens will have reason to thank those who had the foresight and determination to press ahead with this great engineering undertaking.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary.

February 22, 1993
Government Orders
I know he was performing his function in his usual capable way and also that his riding is in British Columbia, which is on the other side of the continent. I listened with interest to many of his statements.
First, I would like to ask him a question about some of the concerns. In P.E.I. business is basically in favour of this move. The public has been divided. The referendum results were 60-40 in favour of a link, although not necessarily a bridge.
Let us look at the figures, which really give me concern. How can the parliamentary secretary stand there and say that the taxpayer is not going to be involved? The computed annual subsidy, which has been down to about $21 million a year, is estimated by Marine Atlantic to be $29 million over the 35-year period. Yet under this bill the Government of Canada is going to pay $42 million a year for that 35-year period. With the $29 million a year subsidy over 35 years we get a total subsidy of $1.05 billion. With the $42 million annual subsidy over a 35-year period we get a figure of $1.47 billion.
How can the parliamentary secretary and the government say that the Canadian taxpayer is not going to help the financing of this project? Why does the hon. parliamentary secretary keep saying, as the minister did when he opened the debate on this bill, that the cost of the project is going to be $800 million or $850 million? Those questions come first.
Second, I know the parliamentary secretary will be most aware, in view of recent news reports, of the Lions Gate Bridge in British Columbia. He talked about the great project of BOT: Build, own and then transfer back. This is a unique project. There has been no track history of this BOT, which is the jargon of build, own and transfer.
Let us assume that everything goes ahead and after 35 years it is transferred back to the government or the Canadian taxpayer who has helped foot the bill. Does the hon. parliamentary secretary not see the maintenance problems on a bridge over salt water?
A report this week said that there was an $18 million maintenance cost for the Lions Gate Bridge this year. He and I both know, having lived in British Columbia, that there is ongoing maintenance on bridges, especially over salt water. Is the Government of Canada going to get a 35-year old steel relic which the taxpayer paid for?
Regardless of all the interesting economic positives that he referred to on the island, how does the hon. parliamentary secretary rationalize what the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands said? She said that there was an environmental study commissioned in accordance with the Government of Canada's own laws.
There were hearings. However, as the parliamentary secretary must know, the summary and conclusions of the report mentioned by the hon. member for Saanich- Gulf Islands said that the admitted positives were outweighed by the negatives. The panel came out clearly and said not to proceed with the bridge.
It suggested more study of a tunnel or an improved ferry system so that the people of the island would still have their constitutional link.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I will try to cover all three points as quickly as possible.
I say the taxpayers will benefit because I sincerely believe they will. The ongoing costs of the ferry service are in the neighbourhood of $30 million or $32 million. If we are going to continue to provide the service the support of the federal government goes beyond the provision of the existing ferry link. There will be a time when new ferries must be built, and that is the responsibility of the federal government.
The subsidy is the long-term responsibility of the federal government, and it is calculated to be at $42 million a year. It is good for the taxpayer because the construction of the project will proceed on private enterprise funding. As the ferry service is removed the subsidy will be put into effect and will continue for 35 years.
That is the subsidy that the federal government would be responsible for anyway. We are providing the subsidy to fulfil the commitments we would have anyway. At the end of 35 years we would no longer have that commitment.
I say as a taxpayer of Canada, and as the member has pointed out as a taxpayer from the other part of the country, that is a good objective.
There are a number of differences from Lions Gate Bridge. If we had to go back to taking ferries across it would be untenable. A major difference in the design and structure is that the Lions Gate Bridge is steel. The bridge to Prince Edward Island is being designed to last
February 22, 1993

at least 100 years and is a concrete structure. It will not be subject to the same kind of weather.
The third question concerned the panel. The panel did recommend against proceeding, based on the assumption that there was a longer than two-day delay in the ice. However, it said its position would be different if it could be achieved within the two days and it made a number of recommendations. Since that time the government, the contractors, and the provinces have been proceeding following those recommendations to a letter.
No project has had more ongoing environmental reviews. There continue to be reviews and if it is not environmentally sound the project will not go ahead.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary how the government can proceed without doing an environmental assessment on this specific proposal.


Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, there is an ongoing assessment. It started with the generic but it is done on every stage this project has undergone.
The environmental considerations have been examined along with it and continue to be reviewed. As one of the commentators from the maritimes has put it, if we took all of the material that has been studied, printed, published, and written about the fixed link over time there would be enough material to put a solid link across the strait.
There has been and continues to be serious environmental assessment made at each stage of this project.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this very important debate today, particularly in view of the fact that I am from New Brunswick, which is one of the provinces that will be directly involved in the construction of this very important structure.
Much has been said about the economic and other benefits that will accrue to Prince Edward Island. Much should be said about them because not only will there be economic benefits to Prince Edward Island but there will be a significant spin-off effect to the entire province of New Brunswick, the entire Atlantic region, and to Canada as a whole, as was mentioned by the hon.
Government Orders
parliamentary secretary. I will attempt to deal with some of those matters.
I believe that the benefits are substantial and self-evident. However, we must look at the entire project on a much broader scale and come to terms with what it is going to mean to us as Canadians and to our reputation as a whole.
Canada has garnered an enviable reputation throughout the world for megaprojects on a grandiose scale. We only have to think of the SkyDome and the CN Tower in Toronto and now we will have this magnificent link between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
From India to China to the Philippines Canadians have been involved in major projects such as dams, power generation installations, roads, telecommunication networks and so on. As a result we as Canadians have garnered a super reputation throughout the world for our capacity to be able to deal with projects of this nature and to complete them successfully.
It has brought about a significant amount of self-respect and international respect for Canadians for our ability to tackle large and challenging projects. Make no mistake, this link is big by any world standards.
What we are talking about in the Northumberland Strait bridge will be the largest bridge that will have ever been built in North America.
Let us take a look at some of the pieces of equipment to demonstrate the magnitude of what we are speaking about. The crane that will be used to put the pieces of this project together will be 325 feet in height. It will be one of the largest cranes that will ever have been built in the world.
The bridge will require 200,000 tonnes of cement,
53,000	tonnes of reinforcing steel and 130,000 tonnes of asphalt. It will be built in 183 separate parts. When it is completed this structure will be 10 times as long as San Francisco's famous Golden Gate Bridge. The project will be watched, it will be studied and it will be envied by engineering firms and governments around the world.
The Strait Crossing Incorporated is a Canadian firm which has already earned an international reputation in the design of bridges and other such structures. As it is being undertaken by a firm of such international reputa-

Government Orders
tion this will only serve to strengthen Canada's reputation for engineering excellence.
I believe people will come from all over the world, just as they have for the other projects we have undertaken in this country. I have already mentioned the SkyDome and the CN Tower.
I believe that people will come from far and wide to see what it is that we are doing once again here in Canada, which has contributed so substantially to our reputation.
There is something about bridges that catches the public imagination. It is true that people rarely write songs or write poetically about sewers or pipelines but bridges are different. They do catch the imagination of people. It has happened in the past. They have caught the fancy of poets, writers and singers from time immemorial.
Perhaps that is because bridges speak to the human aspirations of each of us in reaching out for unattainable goals and objectives. They break down the barriers that separate us and bring people closer together. When this bridge is completed there is no question it will take its place as one of the greatest bridges in the entire world and that it will be one of the great engineering undertakings of the late 20th century.
There is no question that there are some lingering concerns on the part of some of the people of Prince Edward Island. It is perfectly understandable that some people are concerned about what sort of effect this project will have on their lives and on their culture. These are natural concerns but by no means unique.
As a case in point I mention the bridge that connects Oland Island in Sweden with the mainland. This bridge crosses the Baltic Sea. Some 25 years ago this same type of controversy occurred in that particular community in Sweden. That bridge was eventually built and is the largest bridge in Europe, although it will be less than half the size of the Northumberland Strait Crossing. Nonetheless, as with the P.E.I. crossing, that bridge was talked about and argued about for decades before construction actually took place. There was a lot of passionate dissension about the ramifications of the bridge from some quarters before construction began,
just as there has been in the case of the Northumberland Strait Crossing.
A Canadian government committee which studied the Oland bridge and a few other projects a few years ago found that it was virtually impossible to find anybody today on that island who is in disagreement with the fact that the project went ahead.
Any major commitment is to some extent a leap of faith. However this project has been carefully planned and carefully studied, and there has been a maximum of consultation with both the Government of Canada and the Government of Prince Edward Island. I know the Government of New Brunswick has also been consulted. Most important, there has been a maximum of consultation with the public involved. It is a sound and economically viable project. It is a sound and economically sensible project.
As I mentioned when I began my remarks, I look forward to the economic spin-offs for the province of Prince Edward Island and the adjacent province of New Brunswick. I ran through some of the figures about the amount of cement and steel and things of that nature which will be put into this bridge. I mentioned the size of the crane. In the short term, let alone the long term, this means jobs which are vitally important to all of our economies, particularly to Prince Edward Island at this crucial time and New Brunswick.
I can only say that besides the obvious advantages of having an important transportation link finally take place, which has been talked about for a good many years and which will take place after an extensive and exhaustive examination of the details of any problems that might occur, we have been assured that the concerns about the project can be put aside. I am happy to support this bill.
Although it is not a bill about whether we should go ahead with the construction of the link but rather a bill that will put in place the mechanics so that we can deal with the financing that will be required, I am delighted that this government has taken the initiative to ensure that this will become a reality.
I want to express appreciation on behalf of the people of New Brunswick, who will be extremely pleased when they have the opportunity to take part in the actual construction phase. I know that the people of Prince Edward Island will echo those words. It is a project of the
February 22, 1993

future and Canadians will benefit from it. It will happen in the very near future.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: I listened with interest to the comments from my colleague, who is the chairman of the transport committee and a sailor of some note. I find it a bit disturbing that he is up in the House promoting a bridge that will replace a marine enterprise.
I want to raise with him the question of jobs. He will know that during the five-year construction phase of this bridge, should it come to be, roughly 1,000 jobs will be created. We heard the previous speaker talk about somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000 person-years of employment.
Can he explain why that is better than the 600 permanent maritime jobs that exist today for people on P.E.I. and in New Brunswick? Those jobs are going to be eliminated. Is he saying that it is more important to have
1,000	people working today for a short time than it is to have 600 people able to support their families not just for four years or five years but basically for a lifetime?
That is really the trade-off between these two. Is he saying that he supports the elimination of these 600 maritime jobs just so 1,000 construction workers can be employed for a little while?


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, the workers at Marine Atlantic will know, not only because of my fondness for maritime traditions and the sea but also because of the excellent service they and Marine Atlantic have given the residents of Prince Edward Island and the travelling public over the years, of the efforts that I have exerted on their behalf to ensure the continuity of those jobs.
I believe with substantial confidence that Marine Atlantic will work to ensure that a significant number of the 600 jobs the hon. member is referring to-although I am not certain that figure is not a little on the high side-will be assimilated into other phases and areas of the work place, either with Marine Atlantic or in the operation of the bridge after it is completed.
We are looking at the passing of an era. There is no question about that. What we are replacing it with is an opportunity for additional industry and additional infrastructure, whether it be in tourism or related areas either
Government Orders
in Prince Edward Island or in New Brunswick. There will be the creation of an infrastructure to support the bridge. It is possible that an entirely new community may be developed just somewhat north of Cape Tormentine, which will also provide opportunities for additional jobs.
In the final analysis, if one did a model of the economic scale we would come to the conclusion that not only will the majority of the workers who the hon. member has expressed a concern for-and I know that concern to be genuine having served with him on the transport committee and know that he is very dedicated to the community that he represents-will not only be assimilated into new and exciting jobs and possibilities but that many more hundreds of jobs will become evident as we proceed with the project and the project becomes a reality.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to ask a question. I appreciate the hon. member's prowess on the high seas. I also know that he is a very real fiscal Conservative who really does not like to sugar-coat the public with a lot of false numbers when it comes to taxes and costs of projects.
I admit full well all the glowing things he said about the magnitude of the project, no one is denying that. Obviously many people on the island believe it is going to be an asset in terms of construction. Obviously it is going to provide jobs. Does he not think in this time of fiscal restraint, when the government is saying it does not have money for so many things that are laudable, that there is a little hocus-pocus going on here when there is almost a $220 million difference between the subsidy that is going to this private enterprise and the cost to the ferries?
He is the chairman of the transport committee. I have certainly had experience on that committee. The average is anywhere from $21 million to $29 million and it has been going down. The average now is $29 million and yet the subsidy is going to be $42 million for 35 years. Without getting into the subsidy, I would like him to state what it means in terms of his taxpayers and to come clean on this thing. Part of my problem with this project is the sugar-coating of the real costs and the fact that the public taxpayer is going to be involved, not only in the construction but in a continuing way.

February 22, 1993
Government Orders
The minister who introduced the bill said that it was an $800 million project. The parliamentary secretary said today that it was an $850 million project. I would like to remind the hon. member, since I imagine he is aware of the study of 1987, that Woods Gordon said that the project was going to cost $1.3 billion. Does the member honestly think that the costs of a project from six years ago are going to go down? Why are we concentrating on $800 million to $850 million for the project? The main study that justified this approach in 1987 from Woods Gordon, and I can give the quote which I hope to do when I make my speech, estimated that it was going to $1,311 million.
If we are going to face facts and be realistic with Canadians, let us not tell them that it is not going to cost any money. How can you say it is not going to cost any money when you do not agree that there is such an error in the estimate of the cost of the project?


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of substance in what the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants asked. Since I can no longer see a clock opposite me, I am not certain I have time to answer everything that was asked. I will seek your guidance as to just how much time I have to deal with it.
To begin with, I have no reason to doubt that the figures that have been projected as the final costs by the firm that has put together the bid on this project will indeed be the final costs.
I have already expressed to the House how pleased I am that this engineering firm of international stature was the consortium that was successful in having its bid to construct this megaproject accepted by the federal government. This did not come about overnight nor did it come without a substantial amount of study and investigation on the part of the people responsible for the fiscal purse.
I think we have to hearken back to the comments that were made by the parliamentary secretary when he reminded the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants that not only must we take into account the annual subsidies that are paid for the ferry crossing, but we must take into account the capitalization of those particular pieces of infrastructure that are in place, including the docking facilities, wharfage, the vessels and any other infrastructure that is currently required such as the toll
booths and the parking areas, all of which require not only maintenance but replacement sooner rather than later. We are not talking about penny-ante stuff here. We are talking about replacement of a vessel which is going to cost tens of millions of dollars. Over a period of 35 years, forgetting about the built-in guarantees that are not only held in performance bonds that are required by the contractor but actual cash that is in the kitty, this particular infrastructure not only will be maintained and operated for the amount of dollars that they suggest they are going to be, but at the end of the 35 year period will be passed over to the taxpayers of this country with a guarantee that the condition will be substantial enough to carry it through to the 100-year peak.
The hon. member is absolutely correct. I am concerned. I am a fiscal Conservative. I feel that in the total picture of things this is going to be a boon for the taxpayers rather than a burden.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak at second reading of this bill today. I do so because of a strong belief that what this government is doing is wrong. That is a belief that is based not just on my assessment as a transport critic for my caucus, but is based on discussions I have had with people in P.E.I., the New Democratic Party on the island, friends of the island, labour leaders and others who are really concerned about a number of elements of this proposal.
Let me put this into a very personal context. A moment ago I raised with the chairman of the transport committee the question of jobs. When we talk about jobs, it seems like it is sort of a broad label. We do not talk about Joe Smith or Mary Smith by name. Let me bring it down to a local level.
In terms of the marine Atlantic employment on P.E.I., here are the communities and here is the payroll. It is the impact on these communities, not just at the funnel where the bridge will go but throughout the community.
Wilmot has 14 workers with a payroll of $436,000. Wellington has 11 workers with a payroll of $432,000. Summerside has 89 workers with a payroll of $2.6 million. St. Eleanors has 30 workers with a payroll of $895,000. Miscouche has 13 workers with a payroll of $513,000. Kin kora has 26 workers with a payroll of
February 22, 1993

$750,000. Kensington has 19 workers with a payroll of $646,000. Crapaud has 14 workers with a payroll of $513,000. Cornwall has 29 workers with a payroll of $1,037,000. Charlottetown has 42 workers with a payroll of $1.4 million and Borden has 115 workers and their families with a payroll of $3 million.
That puts it into context. These are real people and real communities. They are going to lose their jobs because they are not construction workers. While some may currently be employed in the collection of cash and the selling of tickets and may logically move into employment with the bridge operator, I know of nothing that is written in ink and signed by lawyers and verified, no legal proof that guarantees any of these jobs for the current workers.
Certainly on the fishery side, even though there is talk about some kind of fund-a figure of $10 million has been used-there is no guarantee that will work or that there will be anything for them to do if the fishery is destroyed.
Let us take a look at the numbers. I want to run through them again. The estimates we have heard in this House and elsewhere suggest that on the construction side we have a five year period when the work will proceed, anywhere from 2,000, 3,000 to 5,000 person-years of employment, or roughly working out to 1,000 construction jobs. Clearly there are spin-off jobs as well because the suppliers of steel, gravel and concrete all have part of that. Quite frankly I am not sure if that is included in the 1,000 or if it is over and above the 1,000.
Compare that to what exists today: somewhere in the range of between 500 and 600 ferry workers, good paying jobs, union jobs primarily but also some non-union jobs, jobs that have kept those people and their families alive, jobs that they were thinking about retiring from, whether it is in 5 years, 10 years or 20 years, depending on where you are on the seniority list. If this project goes through, they are gone. We know that the unemployment rate on P.E.I. is one of the higher ones in our provinces, so on one hand we can understand why government, whether it is the federal government or the provincial government of P.E.I., is looking for employment opportunities. That is what we are here for, to try and assist in the
Government Orders
development of greater opportunities for people to work.
What we are seeing with this project is that those permanent jobs are going. They are out the door. They are over the side. There will be some temporary replacements over five years for the construction. I do not know what the numbers are for the operating side, but I would suspect it is not 600.1 would suspect it is not 500, not 400. Perhaps in committee that is one of the things we can get answered so that we can have everything on the table and know what we are dealing with.
P.E.I. itself is not going to be the great beneficiary of those construction jobs. The estimates I have seen show a range of 9 per cent to 35 per cent of those construction jobs going to residents of P.E.I. The rest one would assume would start in New Brunswick, but also elsewhere in Atlantic Canada, and who knows where else in Canada those jobs will go. Quite frankly, there will be people who want those jobs because people are hurting out there.
P.E.I. is not going to be the beneficiary to the same degree as other parts of the country. That is the job side. I have not even touched the fisheries workers and the impact on them and the numbers and the families. Nor have I touched on the environment. My colleagues who have spoken before me have dealt with those issues, so I am going to deal with other aspects of the process.
Let us take a look at the dollars and cents. We have had some questions and answers about that already, but let me put it in the context of what they are paying now and what we are going to be paid if this project goes forward.
Currently the cost of operating the ferries is around $41 million. About $17 million of that comes from fares. That is what the people who use the ferries pay to transport themselves and their vehicle across the strait.
The taxpayers' subsidy is roughly $24 million. Quite frankly, Marine Atlantic has done very well in terms of reducing the level of subsidy. In 1988, for example, it was $24.4 million. In 1989 it was down to $22.6 million. In 1990 it was back up slightly, to $23.8 million.

Government Orders
Revenues are moving up very well. In 1988 total fare revenues for both services were $13.9 million. They moved up to $15.1 million in 1989, and by 1990 they were at $17.1 million for a total cost of $40.9 million. Marine Atlantic was doing very well in raising their revenues.
We have $24 million from the federal government and $17 million from the passengers, for a total of $41 million. This proposal for the fixed link for the bridge will require, we are told, in addition to the private capital an ongoing operating subsidy from the federal government of $42 million a year for the next 35 years.
The parliamentary secretary talked about how in the long term that was going to save money. Even though we are going to be paying out more, in fact we are going to be paying out the equivalent of the amount that the users of the ferry are paying now, an additional $17 million a year, at the end of the 35 years that subsidy will stop. I assume that is when the bridge will become ours, that is the taxpayers of Canada, as part of the BOT that my friend from Annapolis Valley-Hants was talking about. That is one way to look at it.
Currently for those 35 years we are going to be paying out an extra $600 million. We are going to save money by spending $600 million more. That is an interesting perspective. If we were to keep the ferries in operation, that $600 million would provide another 17 years of subsidy, assuming the same level, on top of 35 years.
I do not expect to be here in another 50-odd years but that money would provide ferry services to Prince Edward Island beyond my lifetime.
The other aspect of this financing, and it was mentioned again in some of the government's speeches, is that you have to re-equip. It is an aging fleet and at some point we have to replace those ferries. Friends of the Island would argue we should be adding to the fleet right now to improve service, eliminate line-ups and delays. Those are some of the economic negatives of the current system.
It has been calculated that if we replace the equipment now because of the 35-year life span, the subsidy would only go up to $25 million a year assuming we bought offshore from Korea, Brazil or Japan. Unfortunately
there are not many places left in Canada where we build ships and certainly the vast majority of the ships we build are government sponsored ships. It would be $1.2 million extra because it would be amortized over the 35-year pay-back period. If we were able to produce the ship in Canada the subsidy required would be $28.5 million.
It would cost more, but a $28.5 million subsidy is still a lot less than a $42 million subsidy which this government is prepared to pay for the next 35 years to provide a fixed link to Prince Edward Island. That does not include what it is going to cost us when we accept responsibility for the bridge.
There was some dialogue back and forth that this is a concrete, not steel bridge and therefore one cannot compare it to others. In one of my previous occupations I was a construction inspector for the Ontario Department of Highways. I supervised the construction of bridges. I did the concrete. I did the steel.
I was involved in supervising the building of a bridge in Thunder Bay which was completed around 1968-69, roughly 22 years ago. For the last two years they have been pulling off the old concrete. They have been replacing the walls along the side and have redone the deck. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? The road salt in Thunder Bay ate away at the concrete and reinforcing steel. That is after 21 or 22 years over fresh water.
What is the cost going to be to the taxpayer 35 years from now for a bridge that has been operated by those in the private sector? They will minimize as much as possible the maintenance they do, particularly the structural maintenance, because they know in another 5 or 10 years it will not be their problem any more. They are going to give short shrift to any replacement of the abutment walls, guardrails or driving surface and the taxpayers will be stuck with the tab.
We cannot just look at the dollars and cents today. It is our job to anticipate the future costs to the taxpayers. That is what we are elected to do. If we do not look at that, or if we turn a blind eye to it and say: "let us go for it, we need a quick fix, we need a quick pre-election hit in terms of jobs in P.E.I., New Brunswick and elsewhere", then we are selling the taxpayers short.
February 22, 1993

At the same time and perhaps it is not so much for me to say as someone who comes from P.E.I., but I think a fixed link to Prince Edward Island will change that island.
There are the psychological and sociological implications; the raison d'etre of P.E.I. and the lifestyle. There is a transition and whether one flies in or goes by ferry, there is not the rushing in there on four wheels with the intensity we find elsewhere in Canada.
I have been to P.E.I. a number times. It is quite a remarkable part of this country. I think a fixed link will destroy that. Only time will tell what P.E.I. will become, but it will never be the same. We have to recognize that too. As one letter to the editor suggested: "Do not forget, there is a reason why it is called Prince Edward Island". We have to be cognizant of that.
The plebiscite was held and slightly more than 50 per cent voted in favour of a fixed link. They did not vote in favour of a bridge. They did not vote in favour of a tunnel. They voted in favour of some kind of fixed link.
My community had a similar experience in terms of how plebiscites can be used for the purposes for which they are designed and that is to get your own way. Back in 1969 the province of Ontario forced the amalgamation of the former cities of Port Arthur, Fort William, Neebing and McIntyre. We had a plebiscite to change the name. That is much different and much less important than whether or not there is a bridge between P.E.I. and New Brunswick but I think the example stands.
We had a choice between Lakehead, The Lakehead and Thunder Bay. As this House knows, if there are three elements in an election the result is a split vote. More people voted for a combination of Lakehead and The Lakehead than Thunder Bay, but Thunder Bay was the top of the list and that is our name.
In the same way, the plebiscite that was put out was ambiguous. It did not say: "Are you in favour of a bridge? Are you in favour of a tunnel? Are you against any form of fixed link?" That would have been the fair way.
Government Orders
Prince Edward Island New Democrats have continued to call for a second plebiscite to see whether or not there is support for the bridge type of a fixed link. I suspect the vast majority in that province would say no to it.
It is extremely important that the committee hear witnesses. It is unusual for a legislative committee, but we have a moral responsibility to the people of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick to have committee meetings in those provinces. It is their way of life. Regardless of what I may think or of what I may feel it is going to affect them. It is not going to affect me in Thunder Bay. The committee has a responsibility to hold public hearings on the island and in New Brunswick so we can hear both sides of the question. Then we can come back to Ottawa and deal with the question of the legislation itself and any amendments required that affect whether or not it is passed through this House.
It is an important issue. I believe this House has a responsibility to follow through in that way. I also believe this House has a responsibility to say no to this bill, vote it down when it comes up for a vote tonight and make sure we put an end to this idea once and for all.


Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure for me to take part in this debate. I have been waiting for this debate for many years.
Bill C-110 provides the authority to enter into agreements and provides financing agreements to allow the fixed link to go ahead between the province of New Brunswick and the province of Prince Edward Island.
I have an unique perspective on this because I live exactly at the intersection between the province of Prince Edward Island, the province of Nova Scotia and the province of New Brunswick. I have relatives, friends and business acquaintances in each province and I often deal back and forth. I am very much affected by interprovincial trade barriers.
The Northumberland Strait is probably the biggest interprovincial trade barrier we have in the maritime provinces.
Many people consider this fixed link as a stand alone project. In my view as an Atlantic Canadian member of Parliament who is very much committed to Atlantic Canada and believes in it, we cannot compete. We can never pull ourselves up to take part in the strength of the

Government Orders
Canadian economy without a proper transportation system. The proper transportation system must include a fixed link between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
I would like to ask members to think about something. On one side of the Northumberland Strait is Prince Edward Island and on the other side is New Brunswick. They both share the same work ethic. They both have the same resources available and the same opportunities.
On one side of that body of water in Prince Edward Island, the unemployment rate is 16.2 per cent. On the New Brunswick side of that body of water it is 12.1 per cent. The only difference is a transportation handicap for P.E.I.
I hear some members talking about jobs lost on the ferries and competing with jobs during construction. To me that is just the tip of the iceberg. The jobs lost because P.E.I. is not competitive are in the thousands, not in the hundreds.
We talk about hundreds of ferry workers and hundreds of fixed link workers but the fact is that with an unemployment rate of 16.2 per cent P.E.I. has thousands of unemployed it would not have if its people had the same opportunities as those of New Brunswick. As an over-all concept and project for Atlantic Canada it is an integral part of our transportation system.
I compared the unemployment rate in P.E.I. with the unemployment rate in New Brunswick and it is just going to get worse. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have identified transportation, and specifically highway construction as the most important economic development tool we have.
Put aside all economic development incentives, regional development programs and everything else. If we in Atlantic Canada do not have a viable transportation system we will not achieve our goals no matter how much money is put into our area. Without transportation we cannot compete.
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have acknowledged that. They have made every effort and are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on our TransCanada highway. If P.E.I. is left isolated without the fixed link, it will just slip further behind. Instead of having an unemployment rate difference between 16.1 per cent and 12.1 per cent, it will get even worse as the economies of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick improve.
Of all the three maritime provinces, P.E.I. has the lowest average income. The only province with a higher unemployment rate and lower average income has longer ferries, and that is Newfoundland. Perhaps there is some connection between the length of ferries, unemployment rates and average income.
For P.E.I. to become part of our economy and take its appropriate place we must have a fixed link. The fixed link is just a part of our total approach to transportation. We spend a lot of time here asking the federal government to help finance highways in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick because we know that is where our future is.
Without the fixed link as an integral part of our area we will not have the transportation system we need to go into the coming decades with global competition the way it is.
As a business person in Atlantic Canada living right at the intersection of the three provinces, I can attest to the handicap because of the ferry system. Maybe the ferry system is the best in the world but it still means hours and hours of delay if one is shipping a product or on a service call. It means inconsistency mostly.
Many people say it takes an hour to catch a ferry but that is not the case. Often people will wait three or four hours. If someone is trying to compete by shipping products or providing a service there is inconsistency and potential delays.
I talked to a major manufacturer's representative from central Canada this summer. He had approached me about a project in regional development and was visiting all three maritime provinces. He had just come from Prince Edward Island and had been caught in one of those line-ups at the ferries.
Without assessing it or talking to the provincial authorities or anyone, he knew he could not compete if he had to face that transportation handicap. He left the island without even a consultation and visited New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I predict that he will set up a manufacturing facility in one of those areas. It was the transportation link handicap between New Brunswick and P.E.I. that drove him away.
February 22, 1993

In summary, certainly for the economy of Atlantic Canada we must have an up-to-date, modern transportation system throughout the whole region, and that includes a fixed link as an integral part.
I want to address some of the environmental issues that have been raised by other members. An environmental study on this particular design was requested a few moments ago by another member. If I am not mistaken, there have been seven environmental studies performed on this project. The major environmental study-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry, but it being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, early this month I was advised in writing by the House of Commons that my main budget for 1993-94 would be increased by 3.16 per cent, pursuant to the economic and fiscal statement made on December 2, 1992 by the Minister of Finance. This represents an increase of $5,290 which I refuse to accept, speaking on behalf of Canadian taxpayers.
According to the notes on Bill C-113 provided by the Department of Employment and Immigration the purpose of these amendments is to limit unemployment insurance spending to an amount equal to 57 per cent of weekly earnings, in other words, a cut of 3 per cent for Canadian workers.
The purpose of my decision today is to limit my spending for the sake of Canadian taxpayers.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, a report by Le Journal de Montreal today projects a loss of $490 million for the Montreal area economy alone between 1990 and 1994 from this government's legislative changes to unemployment insurance. This loss of purchasing power is devastating to small business, creating a spin-off of job losses that will be most severe for women and young people.
The minister suggests that cutting UI benefits from 60 per cent to 57 per cent and depriving anyone who has quit or been fired from receiving benefits will save the taxpayer money.
The government had better wake up to the fact that the taxpayer will actually pay more if these ill-conceived cuts to UI are not withdrawn.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, in 1987 the House debated a motion that would have allowed the state to use capital punishment. I voted in favour of the motion because I believed that the state should have the option to execute anyone convicted of first degree murder. Today my position remains the same.
The present law provides that anyone convicted of first degree murder will be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for 25 years. However, it is troubling that a person convicted of several first degree murders is also eligible for parole after only 25 years.
Therefore I call upon the government to bring forward amendments to the Criminal Code that will ensure anyone found guilty of more than one first degree murder charge will serve a minimum of 25 years for each conviction and that all first degree murder sentences will be ineligible for judicial review.


CANADA POST
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, Canada Post seems to have lost its sense of why it exists. Service to Canadians has always been and should continue to be the primary function of this Crown corporation.

February 22, 1993
However, the latest misguided practice announced by Canada Post leads Canadians to believe that corporation's drive for profits has pushed aside common sense. If a letter is mailed to the wrong address Canada Post will not permit Canadians to simply alter the address and send it along. Instead, we are to pay for a new envelope and a 43-cent stamp to redirect the letter or the letter could be returned to the sender.
If Canada Post showed common sense it would permit delivery to the correct address rather than going back to the sender. There would be no difference in the cost regardless of the letter's destination. Current policies are being designed to fleece Canadians, not to serve them.


TREATMENT OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, February is heart month. Three million Canadians suffer from cardiovascular disease. Every year, about 75,000 Canadians die as a result of heart disease or a stroke.
This government is proud of the fact that Canadian scientists have led the way in the progress that has been achieved in the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Thanks to their discoveries and improvements in preventive care, the percentage of deaths due to heart disease and strokes among Canadians under 65 has dropped by 36 per cent since 1955.
Under its national health research and development Program, the Department of National Health and Welfare funds the heart health initiative launched with provincial governments and other partners, including the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and volunteer and professional organizations in the health sector. The federal government will spend nearly $13 million on this initiative over five years.
Furthermore, during the past five years the Medical Research Council has awarded about $79 million for cardiovascular research.
There are still major challenges to be met, since this type of disease is the main cause of death in Canada. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you will join me in wishing them good luck during heart month.


RADIATION
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention by one of my constituents that the Government of Sweden is now developing new regulations for radiation exposure which are expected to be between two and ten milligauss. This came about as a result of studies which found that children exposed to a field of two milligauss from power lines have a threefold increase in their cancer risk, while children exposed to three milligauss have a fourfold increase in their risk of cancer.
In another study carried out in Denmark it was found that people exposed to three milligauss are 64 per cent more likely to develop leukaemia.
In summary, the evidence revealed that chronic exposure to weak electromagnetic fields of two to three milligauss may cause fatal sickness.
At present the Government of Canada uses a set of guidelines developed by the International Radiation Protection Association of 1,000 milligauss for public exposure and 5,000 milligauss for occupational exposure.
Without commenting on the merit of the European studies, I am calling on the government to examine these findings and, if needed, to develop new radiation standards to ensure the protection of our citizens.


GOODYEAR
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, jobs, jobs, jobs. Over 550 new jobs have been created since 1990 at Goodyear in Napanee. These are high-tech, well-paid jobs, created to supply state of the art automotive tires to North American and European markets.
Goodyear would like to expand its facility creating up to another 450 jobs. This new expansion is being threatened due to the high cost of electricity which has increased over 40 per cent in the past four years. This increase in electrical rates not only affects our competi-
February 22, 1993

tive position to export but also threatens all small businesses and places serious burdens on home owners.
I urge the Government of Ontario and its Crown corporation, Ontario Hydro, to honour the verbal agreement and forecasts made to Goodyear that rates would not increase past the rate of inflation.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, as the implementation of the North American free trade agreement grows nearer this government's blarney blossoms like a wild flower. In fact if the collective noses of the Tory cabinet were to grow like Pinocchio's there would be no need for the fixed link to P.E.I.
A cursory cosy review done by internal federal bureaucrats is now hailed as a full environmental assessment. Wrong. The language of the NAFTA is now claiming to guarantee that countries will not lower environmental standards to attract investment. Wrong. In the latest twist, environmental regulations are being reviewed to ensure that they will not hinder trade or do not exceed those of our other trading partners. In short, get out of the way we are levelling the playing field.
Incredibly the regulations under review cover such sensitive areas as ozone depleting substances, transportation and storage of hazardous chemicals, pulp mill effluent and ocean dumping.
This government has fundamentally failed to understand the concerns of average Canadians, people who are looking for increased safety and health regulations, not the abandonment of our air, land and water to a dangerous chemical cocktail.


BILL S-8
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, because of a presentation in my riding I missed the debate on Bill S-8.1 would like to put some concerns on record about it.
Bill S-8 does not address the double standard applied to motor vehicles in Canada, depending on whether the car came through the American system or the Canadian
system. Essentially a Canadian car meets the Canadian standard and U.S. cars must meet the American standard with some upgrades, but they are not the same.
In principle I do not think Americans should be allowed to sell products in Canada that Canadians are restricted from selling by law. From a consumer's standpoint the result will be a diluted and inconsistent safety recall notice procedure. From a competitiveness point of view the Canadian car industry is required to meet more expensive standards than its competition from the U.S. I will be working to establish one safety standard for vehicles in Canada, no matter where they came from, through contacts in the Department of Transport.


CANADA POST
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, Don Lander, president of Canada Post Corporation at a salary of almost $300,000 a year, has found yet another new way to infuriate Canadians when it comes to the delivery of mail.
Canada Post says that if a letter is delivered to you in error it is now your responsibility to place it in a new envelope, re-address it, pay for the stamp, and put it back in the mail.
The hon. member for South Shore makes the following statement:
It is nonsense. It is an outrage with which Canadians will simply
not put up, nor should they. This measure will not result in Canada
Post getting its revenues in order. It will simply result in a lot of mail
being thrown out that should be delivered.
I agree with my colleague opposite. This proposal should now be redirected to the garbage bin or, to quote a minister's look-alike, returned to sender.


JUSTICE
Mr. Scott Thorkelson (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents are concerned about the safety of their communities. Like many Canadians they have lost faith in the criminal justice system. They believe that it places the rights of offenders above the protection of society.

February 22, 1993
The Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General are to be commended for the parole reforms which they have initiated. Praise for these reforms comes from many sources including my constituents.
Most first-time non-violent offenders respond well to rehabilitation and reintegrate fully into society. My constituents' concern however is about the violent, repeat and sexual offenders. Occasionally an offender is released from prison even though corrections officials know the offender is still dangerous to society.
I urge the Solicitor General to pursue actively the option of keeping designated dangerous offenders in prison beyond the end of their sentences and expanding the definition and use of serious harm provisions.
This solution would protect the public from those very few truly dangerous individuals who simply cannot be rehabilitated.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, the city of Sudbury has passed a resolution requesting that the federal government reverse its decision to freeze grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities.
Canadian municipalities are crying foul over this government's back door approach to passing on debt time and time again.
The federal government has arbitrarily and without consultation decided to freeze these grants at 1992 levels and has proposed to amend the formula for calculating these grants.
As a result the city of Sudbury along with all other Canadian municipalities is faced with a combined loss of $80 million in the next two years, which will show up as a savings on the federal books.
One level of government cannot pride itself on tackling the debt by passing it on to another level whenever it suits it. Canadian debt is owed by all Canadians no matter at what level. It is time this government took responsibility for its share of the debt and co-operated with all other levels of government to deal with the serious problem of the total level of debt we face as Canadians.


THE RIGHT HON. MEMBER FOR YELLOWHEAD
Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents from Cariboo-Chilcotin I want to pay tribute to a truly great Canadian.
I recall the first time I met Joe Clark back in the early 1970s on one of his several visits to the Cariboo. We stood together leaning over the snake fence that surrounded the stampede grounds. That conversation was the first of many, and the more I got to know my colleague the more I came to respect him.
Joe Clark is a man whose love of his country has earned him respect from coast to coast, but it goes beyond his love of country. In an era where nearly all politicians are held in low esteem Joe Clark has been one politician who is seen by the people of Canada as having retained his honesty and integrity.
Joe Clark will be missed by his colleagues on the Hill and he will be equally missed by the many Canadians whose lives he has touched. The people of Cariboo- Chilcotin wish him well.


EXPORTS
Mr. David Barrett (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to challenge the government's phantom increase in merchandise exports to the United States.
The government claims that our merchandise exports to the United States have risen 11 per cent and this is the greatest surge in exports since 1984.
I cannot help but notice that the Canadian dollar dropped in value relative to the U.S. currency by 10 per cent, more than any single year since the 1970s.
This of course means that a Canadian product sold in American markets and in U.S. dollars brought 10 per cent more in Canadian in December 1992 than it did in December 1991. A Canadian exporter can realize a 10 per cent increase in sales value without any increase in sales volume.
This kind of export increase means no increase in jobs or standard of living for Canadians. While these export increases are phantoms the job losses, the business closures and the capital flight have been all too real for millions of Canadians. While we cannot blame all of

February 22, 1993

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
Canada's woes on free trade, we can observe that while Canada is not working neither is free trade, nor are the Tory and Liberal parties that embrace it.

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents have written to me concerning the sales of so-called serial killer cards. These cards are allowed into Canada. They object strongly to the distribution of them.
Card collecting has been a pastime for young people for decades, but killer cards salute and extol those who inflict pain and death. Many Canadians consider these cards to be potentially harmful to the development of their children.
I wrote to the Minister of National Revenue on this issue and was greatly disappointed today to receive a letter in which he says that only one of three series of killer cards examined by his department meet the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada in terms of obscenity and will be banned.
I urge the government to review the legislation which is obviously out of date so that it will reflect the majority view that these killer cards are obscene and should be banned from importation into Canada.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, our trade figures for 1992 are out and they look pretty good. In fact, they are so good they should be placed on the record.
As reported in Friday's front page article in The Financial Post, exports reached an all-time high in 1992, $157 billion, an increase of 11 per cent over 1991.
As well, our exports to the United States are up, as is our trade surplus with the United States. In fact, our over-all trade surplus increased by $1.8 billion over 1991 and the numbers are looking even better for this year.
I think our policies are working.


MONTREAL'S ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. According to an independent study obtained by the Mouvement action-chomage and done for the City of Montreal, the combined effects of the two reforms to unemployment insurance by this government in 1990 and 1993 will deprive Montreal's economy of over $490 million. Once again, the government is putting the burden of the debt on the unemployed and the least fortunate.
How can the Deputy Prime Minister justify taking nearly $500 million from the economy of a region which has 225,000 jobless and where the unemployment rate is over 14 per cent?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have not had an opportunity to examine the study to which the hon. member is referring. I suppose that the alternative is to ask the question differently. How much does it cost Montreal taxpayers to have their unemployment insurance premiums frozen? How much does it cost Montreal taxpayers to save, thanks to the measures announced by my colleague, on the additional UI premiums that they would have had to pay in 1993 for more beneficiaries or an extra payment charge?
All these measures benefit not only Montrealers but the whole province of Quebec and other parts of Canada. I know that the member does not care about the tax rate people pay or the national debt, but many Canadians and Montrealers do care.


An hon. member:: That's false.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, the minister may be forgetting that in 1990, his government withdrew from funding unemployment insurance, with Bill C-21, leaving the system with a shortfall of over $2 billion.
I would like to ask him the following question: How does he think he will revive Montreal's economy when he withdraws almost half a billion dollars just in unemployment insurance? How will he help Montreal's economy recover?

Oral Questions


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Liberal Party of Canada surely cannot agree on this point because he is arguing the opposite. They think that economic renewal would require treating a world-wide recession affecting all countries in the world as they dealt with the 1981-82 recession, with interest rates at 22 per cent, a galloping debt and a higher unemployment rate than today. That is the Liberal Party's recipe. Interest rates of 22 per cent do very little to help small businesses and companies in Montreal create jobs and we have rejected that recipe for the sake of Montrealers.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, according to an independent study commissioned by the city of Montreal, the combined effect of the government's reform of the unemployment insurance program will deprive Montreal of $490 million.
Assuming the government has already examined the effects of its own legislation, can the minister of employment tell us how much money is being removed from the economy of Toronto or other major cities concerning this legislation? Major cities and urban centres have a lot of unemployed people. How much money is this government taking away from the urban economy?


Bernard Valcourt: Whether the question is in English or in French, the answer is the same, Mr. Speaker.

How can we ensure that the small business sector in Canada will be allowed to create jobs without an increase in taxes in 1993, by freezing premiums, by giving them a tax credit for those unemployment charges in 1993? How could we spend $260 million more to train unemployed people in urban centres in Canada? How could we target $300 million out of the UI account to help displaced workers in this country?
Well, there was an alternative: Increase the deficit or tax the people more, the recipe of the Liberal Party which we have rejected.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind this minister that it is not the government's money that is being spent; it is the people's money that is being spent.
Montreal has been called the capital of urban unemployment in Canada. There are 250,000 people out of work. Women and young people are the hardest hit in the economy and touched by this government's trickle-down policies.
How can this government defend $490 million taken out of the unemployment insurance fund when young people and women want a chance to work? What do you answer them with your trickle-down policy?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, it is not even funny. When we had the free trade debate, they were talking about Americanizing the Canadian way of life. They heard the term trickle-down in the United States and are now using it in Canada. This is the Liberal Party.
Creating jobs in this country is done every day by the private sector. With the economic policy of the government and the measures put forward, how can we best ensure that the unemployed reintegrate into the labour market? By training them.
We are spending $3.8 billion of taxpayers' money to retrain Canadians, a move that was opposed all the way by the Liberal Party of Canada.
Stand up and be honest with the people. Tell us where you stand on UI activation.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, that answer makes me quite sick and the people of Canada are sick and tired of a government that will not answer for its policies that are creating the kind of situation we presently find in Montreal.
I will tell you that we have a chilling picture of 250,000 people in Montreal out of work and you have taken $490 million-


Mr. Speaker:: I know hon. members feel very strongly about these matters. I would ask hon. members to put their questions and their answers through the Chair.


Sheila Finestone: My question is: Will this minister please go to the east end of Montreal and see the poverty? Will he go to Cote-des-Neiges and see the desperation? Will he go to the food banks and see the hunger? Will the minister and this government put back into the economy $490 million and put Canadian men,
February 22, 1993

women and children, particularly in Montreal, back to work?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, how seriously can we take the Liberal Party of Canada now talking about unemployment in Montreal when, for example, on a measure by which they were sure to see hundreds of millions of dollars invested in Montreal to create jobs-I am talking about the pharmaceutical bill-they opposed it all the way?
How can she stand here today and argue that we are not helping the unemployed when we know, Canadians know and in eastern Montreal they know that how to best help them is to give them training and programs that will help them reintegrate into the labour market.
When we tried to increase the amount of taxpayers' dollars to help them reintegrate into the labour market, it was opposed by Liberals all the way. I think the hon. member should look at what is being done.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In its latest economic statement, the government accepted an unemployment rate of 11 per cent, a rising deficit and slow growth.
We know that unemployment costs dearly and that the only way for the economy to recover is to put people to work. That is fundamental. Can the government say how much it costs to keep unemployment at 11 per cent?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I did not indicate I was satisfied with an unemployment rate of 11 per cent. We have to be realistic about what is going on here.
We are not only coming out of an economic downturn, we are going through a massive economic restructuring as a result of the changing world economy. While the employment figures are not as robust as I am sure the
Oral Questions
hon. member or I would like to see, the facts still remain that some 161,000 new jobs have been created since August. We have had employment growth in eight out of the nine last months.
What I find rather strange is that the proposal of the hon. leader of the NDP would reduce job opportunities because there is the suggestion that Canada can withdraw into isolationism without trading with other nations. The NDP would withdraw from the free trade agreement, it would withdraw from NAFTA. Canada is a trading nation. Every $1 billion worth of exports generates 15,000 jobs. That is why we are so concerned about trading our way to prosperity. That has been Canada's success in the past and that will be Canada's success in the future.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the difference between the trade policies of this party and those of the government is that we see trade policies that create employment and not unemployment, which is what this government has done.
I want to say to the Minister of Finance that the reason we have 11 per cent unemployment is because the government has chosen policies, trade policies and interest rate policies, that have created an unemployment level of 11 per cent and more. The cost to the taxpayer of maintaining that is $27 billion a year.
The Minister of Finance often speaks of the fundamentals and getting the fundamentals right. The fundamental for every economic policy should be to ask the question: Where are the jobs? Will the minister in preparing his next budget do that and look at a full employment strategy?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the success that her friend the premier of Ontario has had with his job creation effort. He proposed $1 billion to create jobs and I think they created 675 jobs. That is an absolute waste of money.
I have tallied up what the hon. member is suggesting. She is suggesting that they could spend $100 billion over the next five or six years and through some magical wand-I am not sure of the precise figure-we would end up with an improvement in the deficit of between $8 billion and $11 billion, depending upon whether you are

Oral Questions
using the statement of the hon. leader of the NDP or that of her economist, Mr. McCracken.
The fact of the matter is that the Conference Board of Canada indicated that the policy stance that we are following would generate more jobs than the policy stance the NDP has proposed and for a heck of a lot less money.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the policy that this government has carried out has created the highest number of people unemployed in this country, the highest number of bankruptcies and the highest debt. It seems to me that Canadians deserve a change and deserve a change in economic direction.
We know the budget is coming up. He has asked for Canadians' suggestions. I want to ask the Minister of Finance if he will seriously consider looking at a full employment strategy in his budget? Will he look at measures which will not lose jobs for Canada, but create and maintain jobs and take a new turn in policy direction which will be in the interests of this country and its people?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, of course I will always listen to good sensible suggestions, not those conceived in Disneyworld, but some that really reflect the realities of our time, the changing circumstances and changing conditions.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member from Winnipeg knows as well as anyone else that the economy is changing. We must adjust. We must adapt. We must retrain. We must improve our educational skills. That is precisely what we set out to do in the December economic statement.
If the hon. member has any sensible alternatives I will certainly entertain them. But the package presented last week is really the product of a dream world, believe me.


PEACEKEEPING
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence.
On Friday the Security Council, concerned over the security of peacekeeping troops, passed a resolution authorizing all UN troops, in the former Yugoslavia to use force under chapter VII of the charter. It also instructed the Secretary General to discuss with contributing states, including Canada: "Measures to strengthen the security of troops of UNPROFOR by providing the necessary defensive means".
What concrete steps is the minister taking to enhance the equipment and security of Canadian troops serving in the UN forces in Bosnia and Croatia so that they can fulfil this expanded mandate while ensuring their safety and security as requested by the UN Security Council?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the Second Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment is one of the most heavily armed battalions in Yugoslavia at the time. At this date I am advised they are sufficiently well armed and protected to meet any kind of threat that they anticipate. I will however continue to consult with the members of our military staff.
We have a fundamental policy that we will not put Canadians in situations where they are incapable of protecting themselves. That is a fundamental policy and we rely on the expert advice of our military to ensure that we have that equipment for our Canadian forces.


Lloyd Axworthy: supplementary, Mr. Speaker. At a parliamentary committee meeting last week I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to explain the growing gap between our increasing peacekeeping commitments and the substantial reduction or shortage of manpower and equipment in our Armed Forces. The minister at the time answered: "Do not ask me; ask the minister of defence".
So I turn to the Minister of National Defence with a very specific question. Why is it that one week she rejects any proposals for enhancing or improving peacekeeping training facilities in Canada and the next week has thousands of reservists go down to California to be
February 22, 1993

trained for new risky missions to replace regular troops because there are not sufficient regular troops in the Canadian Armed Forces? When is this minister going to stop and take time from her extracurricular political travels and present a policy paper to Canada on new security and peacekeeping requirements?


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, that very clear and direct question had a variety of facets. I will try to deal with them directly.
First is the question of training of our peacekeepers and the hon. member knows who the peacekeepers are. We have the total force policy in which we are shifting the balance between regular forces and reserve forces in Canada. This is part of the defence policy and it is designed to meet the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces.
The whole point of having reserves is to have them available to call up, to be used in various projects around the world. Ten per cent of our peacekeepers are reservists. They are sent abroad after a 90-day period of training which means that they are highly trained military people. Many of them have skills in trades that are important and that we call on from time to time when needed. That is part of sensible armed forces planning, as the hon. member will know.
In so far as we have members of our Armed Forces training in California, it is not a question of not being able to have the facilities here. Alas, we do not have the weather in Canada at this moment to train peacekeepers by the end of March to fulfil a springtime mission in Croatia. It will be springtime when they get there to serve. Alas, it is not springtime here in Canada while they are training.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, the reserve forces the minister just spoke about in fact get 12 weeks of training and they do make up 10 per cent of our peacekeepers. For the relieving battalion for Croatia, reservists will make up 55 per cent.
Oral Questions
Last week on the subject of peacekeeping, the minister of external affairs told the standing committee: "This system threatens to become seriously overloaded, not just in terms of the management of all these crises but also in terms of the personnel and financial resources needed to deal with them on the ground".
I want to ask the Minister of National Defence what she is doing about this serious challenge and warning that has been given by her cabinet colleague.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I think in fairness one ought to quote my colleague correctly.
I think all of us in the government have made it very clear that with about 4,700 peacekeepers deployed around the world in 15 different locations, we are gradually reaching the limit of Canada's ability to say yes to requests by the United Nations.
In some instances we have in fact redeployed people to areas where the United Nations has regarded our services of greater urgency than where they were at the particular time.
It is largely a question of what Canadians are prepared to spend. We have an armed force. It is designed to meet our domestic concerns and our security concerns. When they are not needed on active deployment we make them available to the United Nations. This incurs costs to the Canadian people.
We have had serious reductions in our defence budget over the last couple of years to try to meet our fiscal goals. If Canadians were prepared to spend considerably more on the Canadian Armed Forces we could accept more engagements.
What we will do in Canada is the maximum that we can to meet our international obligations, consistent also with the proper equipment and training of the men and women we send abroad to fulfil those obligations.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, the whole point of this debate and the questions is that a lot of concern is being shown over the manner in which we deploy our peacekeepers right now.
More peacekeeping operations have been approved in the last five years than in the previous 40, as the minister knows. This is at a time when government policy is to reduce our regular soldiers by 4,000. United Nations command and control is being publicly criticized. The minister should know by now that two of our serving

February 22, 1993
Oral Questions
generals, not one but two of them have spoken out in public. They have criticized the manner in which the forces are deployed.
I want to ask the minister what effect this concern has on the morale of our troops in the field.


A. Kim Campbell: Mr. Speaker, once again I think the hon. member does not do justice to the things that have been said in public by senior members of the Armed Forces with respect to our role in peacekeeping.
The bottom line is that Canadian men and women are serving with distinction around the world in 15 locations to meet international obligations. The world is changing dramatically and rapidly.
From the perspective of the Department of National Defence, the Department of External Affairs and my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs who has been working tirelessly on this question, we are trying to participate in the creation of a new world order. We are trying to develop rules of engagement that will enable the world to respond quickly to difficulties that now arise as a result of the loss of discipline of the cold war.
The Canadian Armed Forces must be well trained and well equipped. We cannot increase the person-power of the Canadian Armed Forces without a concomitant investment in capital equipment. That is why we are trying to raise the proportion of the defence budget that we spend on equipment, an exercise that does not meet with a great deal of assistance from members across the House.
We will continue to do this. Largely it is a question of what Canadians feel they can afford to spend in order to play a role around the world. I must say for the capacity that we have we play a role that is disproportionate to our size, and that is a credit to all Canadians.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Rhys Eyton, chairman of Canadian Airlines, issued a plea last week. He said: "Mr. Minister, call me. Call Hollis Harris. If necessary, knock our heads together so we can do something about airline overcapacity".
Thousands of airline jobs are at stake. Has the minister called?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that the hon. member would ask the government to do what the management of the company knows it needs to do. Why does the company not do it?


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that we would not be in the overcapacity situation if this government had not turned the regulation of the industry over to the airlines and therefore set up the scenario we now have.
The government has a responsibility to the tens of thousands of airline employees and to the communities they serve to do something about overcapacity. The minister has said in this House that he wants the airlines to do something about overcapacity. They have not acted.
I want to know, the employees of Canadian Airlines and Air Canada and all the people of Canada want to know, what steps is the minister going to take to make sure that something is done about overcapacity which is killing both airlines?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, certainly the hon. member knows that the whole airline industry across the world is going through a very difficult period. It is not only in Canada that airlines are experiencing difficulties. One of the largest American airlines announced last week that it would have a $1 billion deficit this year.
Overcapacity is a matter the airline industry and managers in the airline industry know about. They have the liberty to do it themselves. They do not have to ask the Minister of Transport to do what they can without any interference by the minister.
February 22, 1993


PORT OF CHURCHILL
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it concerns the future of Churchill.
Recent reports have indicated that the federal government is no longer going to use Churchill as a major supply route for the Northwest Territories. If this is true, it is going to cost the Manitoba economy $100 million and put in jeopardy all the airline routes into the Northwest Territories.
Will the minister give his assurance to the House that this government is not making this consideration but will continue to use Churchill as its major port for the north?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, the question of the port of Churchill has been a concern of Transport Canada for a number of months. The crux of the matter is whether there will be some grain that will be handled by the port of Churchill.
We have undertaken a number of studies with the different stakeholders. The question that comes at the bottom line is whether there will be grain handling at this port in the future. If we can determine that a sufficient volume of grain can be handled at Churchill, then the problem will not be there. If we cannot do that, then of course we have to examine all eventualities.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised at the minister's response. The minister knows through his control of CN, through the government's control of grain movements, through the control of Transport Canada's purchase of heavy fuel for the north, through the purchases made by northern affairs that the government does control the future of Churchill.
Will the minister give his assurance? For the last eight years, the people of Churchill, the people of Manitoba, the Government of Manitoba and members on this side of the House have asked this government what it is going to do about Churchill.
Will the minister give an unequivocal reassurance to the House that the future of Churchill is assured under this government?
Oral Questions


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that over the past couple of years we have maintained the port of Churchill open in search of a viable permanent capacity of this port to handle merchandise, mainly grain.
We are continuing to look at it very seriously. We have no intention to close the port of Churchill in the immediate future but we are looking for a long-term solution.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my friend, the minister of fisheries.
When he reached an agreement last December with the European Community to end overfishing of straddling stocks off Newfoundland, many of us were a bit skeptical and for very good reason.
We now hear that the Spanish and the Portuguese are up to their old games. They are ravaging the undersized codfish and they are selling hundreds of tonnes of one and two-ounce fillets on world markets.
Does the minister realize that all of the sweet talk and diplomacy he has engaged in has not worked and is not working? Is he now prepared to get serious about this issue and take steps to end once and for all this piracy on the high seas off Canada's east coast?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all realize that the hon. gentleman's rhetoric is a bit on the extreme side.
There are reports that there have been very small codfish offered for sale on international markets by Portuguese owners or people of Portugal. We are checking to see whether or not that is the case.
I can report to the House that the European Community, Spain and Portugal, have not fished for northern cod in the area 3L outside the 200-mile limit since early last year. They are observing the moratorium. If this is Portuguese-caught very small fish it could possibly be caught on the Flemish Cap, 280 miles off our coast. We are asking the EC to check on this and to take action

February 22, 1993
Oral Questions
because if it is Portuguese and the fish were taken in that area of that size, it would be contrary to the regulations and clearly it would be subject to a penalty.
I notice that the Leader of the Opposition was in St. John's several days ago and said: "A Liberal government in Ottawa would take control of the disputed nose and tail of the Grand Banks if it could or if it were possible. The trick is figuring out how to do it legally".
I have not had one suggestion yet from anyone opposite as to how we could take over control of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, legally or otherwise. Every other nation in the world would oppose it, including the United States, Russia, West Germany, Britain and the European Community. I could name just about every other nation in the world. If that is the Liberal solution, give us a little more detail. He would do it if he could. Can he or can he not? That is the question.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows a bit about rhetoric and I say to him that this slow waltz with the European Community has cost Newfoundland millions of pounds of fish and thousands of jobs.
It was not the Leader of the Opposition who originated this idea. The minister was going around St. John's this last year or so, muttering this same idea, that if push came to shove he was prepared to take custodial management. Maybe the question is for him since he is in the administration. How would he achieve it and is he prepared to extend custodial management if the upcoming conference at the UN does not solve the problem for him?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if I might actually quote the Leader of the Opposition from The Evening Telegram, February 19, 1992: "Mr. Chretien said a Liberal government would like to extend Canada's jurisdiction outwards to encompass the Grand Banks. The trick is figuring out how to do it legally".
This is a marvellous policy. This is a policy of great specificity. We would like to extend jurisdiction if we could do it. If we could figure out a way to do it legally. If the rest of the world would let us do it.
While the Leader of the Opposition is giving off this specious nonsense trying to fool the electorate, we have originated a UN conference on overfishing. We had a meeting of 58 countries that think in a like way to us in St. John's several weeks ago to take steps to control fishing on the high seas. We have an agreement with the European Community. We have called in South Korea and asked them to remove their ships from the NAFO area. We are doing things while the Leader of the Opposition is trying to con the people of Newfoundland.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Forestry. On February 11 and 12 a panel reviewing the question of whether or not Canada subsidizes its softwood lumber exports to the United States heard evidence from Canada and the U.S. In discussions with officials from both sides in this dispute, it now appears certain that the Americans are planning an extraordinary challenge if a decision favours Canada.
Has the government received assurances from the Clinton administration that an extraordinary challenge will not proceed and that the ongoing harassment of our softwood exports will end?
Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we continue to take comfort from the fact that we have a special dispute settlement mechanism which has been engaged to resolve this dispute. We are perfectly comfortable with the fact that our position will be vindicated at the end of this process.
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister on the same ongoing problem with our softwood exports to the United States. The harassment has continued under this government and under free trade and really points out the failure of that agreement.
Can the minister confirm to the House that the GATT panel dealing with this dispute filed its final report on Friday. Will he make that report public? Will he tell the House if the government will continue to challenge through GATT, and assure us that the Americans cannot get at our raw logs, that they are here for us to process in Canada.
February 22, 1993


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the harassment began before the free trade agreement was even conceived. The free trade agreement will be the solution to the harassment.
As far as the GATT panel is concerned it produced some good and some not so good news for Canada and of course all of the panel's findings are made public.


EDUCATION
Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Scholarships Program each year grants scholarships to outstanding high school graduates who plan to study scientific subjects in university. This is an excellent program, yet there is no way to measure how the applicants across the country compare.
I ask the Minister for Science if he would consider implementing a test to be taken by Canada scholarship applicants so that we can determine how well our educational systems are performing across the country.


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Science, I am pleased to respond to this question. I realize that 2,500 Canadian students from across Canada participate in this program each year and we have now added some 800 extra students from the colleges who participate in it.
I think the member's idea is a good one. The government intends to look into it and will study it as a means of solving the problem to which he is referring.


Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and concerns economic recovery, more specifically mining exploration in Abitibi-Temiscamingue and in Quebec. For several years, tax shelters and flowthrough shares have been at a very low level. I ask the
Oral Questions
minister what the government will do in the federal budget for economic recovery, in Quebec or in Canada.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the hon. member on the work he has done on the Canada-Quebec mineral development agreement which was signed last month.
An agreement was reached last September at the mines ministers' conference in Whitehorse for the federal minister, the provincial minister and the industry to sit down together and look at the over-all approach and the problems faced by our industry.
Meetings have been taking place. There will be another meeting in Toronto at the prospector and developers annual meeting at the end of March, where we will be looking at both land use, taxation, environment and financing for a very important industry.


MARKETING BOARDS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
One year ago this week 40,000 farmers gathered on Parliament Hill. They were concerned that the government was going to sell out their supply management marketing boards in the GATT negotiations.
Now the chief negotiators for Canada are telling private meetings of press and other people that Canada is softening its position, that in fact Canada is losing support.
Does this mean that the government is going to sell out the supply management marketing board farmers? If not, what is the government doing to support them in these GATT negotiations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, Canada's position with respect to the GATT as it relates to article 11 in the supply management industry has remained the same. The hon. member knows that. There has been no change.

February 22, 1993
Oral Questions
There has been some waning of support internationally. Several countries were supportive of the Canadian position but that seems to be waning. However it does not detract from the resolve of Canada to try to deal with this issue in an effective way.
The supply management industry is a fundamental part of the Canadian agricultural sector. The hon. member knows that, I know that, and we intend to pursue that policy.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, just over a year ago the House passed a unanimous resolution supporting supply management. It called on the Prime Minister to meet with the President of the United States to secure his support for our position in those GATT negotiations.
Since the Prime Minister recently met with President Clinton, I wonder if he was able to secure support for Canada's position for a stronger supply management system, article 11 and so on. Was the Prime Minister able to get the support he was asked to get by the unanimous resolution of the House of Commons?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has attempted to fulfil in every way, shape, or form the spirit of that resolution. The Prime Minister of Canada has not only raised it with the President of the United States, he has raised it as well with all the G-7 summit leaders.
At a meeting I attended in Munich in July, the issue of the GATT agreement and how we might proceed with its conclusion was very much an issue. The position of Canada has been clearly stated and continues to be stated by the Minister of Agriculture, by the Minister for International Trade and by the Prime Minister.


MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works.
The minister will be aware that the freeze in grants in lieu of taxes which the government announced December 2 was not only unilateral but it was made at the time of year when municipal budgets had already been approved in many cases.
I want to ask the minister if his government will withdraw the measure in question which will cost municipalities $80 million over the next two years, or at the very least will he delay it one year to permit municipalities to have some lead time.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: The hon. member knows, because he is a knowledgeable member, that the grants in lieu of tax accounts which the federal government has been obliged to pay have risen dramatically. Reluctantly I have to tell him and members of this House that, no, we cannot accede to his request in this respect.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton said in a letter to the Minister of Finance that this move by the government represents "an unprecedented intrusion into the municipal domain of setting property taxes".

I now want to ask the Minister of Finance my supplementary question. Since Canadian municipalities will lose $80 million over two years, how can the minister explain to them that he is passing his government's deficit on to them?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, what is unprecedented about this issue is the fact that the grants have doubled since 1987. Discipline has to be imposed. All Canadians are being asked to sacrifice and to cut back; provinces are, municipalities are. We all have to participate and contribute to this exercise. I would ask for the hon. member's support.
If he would like to have all the details of the growth in this particular sector, I would be pleased to send him all the information. Perhaps he can join the Government of Canada in trying to deal with the fiscal problems we have in a responsible manner.


JUSTICE
John Henry Reimer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
In 1989 as part of Canada's drug strategy, Parliament passed a law that allows police to seize the profits of crime of drug traffickers. However the law lacked a coherent plan to manage these funds. More important, local police forces do not have the resources to combat
February 22, 1993

fully the wealthy, ruthless and sophisticated network of drug traffickers.
Can the Solicitor General assure the House and the people in my riding of Kitchener who want the police to have all the possible resources in their battle against the drug trade that 90 per cent of the cash assets realized by drug traffickers will be turned over to the local municipalities?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my hon. friend for the effort he is putting into combating this very serious problem in his community.
The government is actively pursuing a consultation process with the municipalities and the provinces with a view to sharing the proceeds of crime among the three levels of government. I should point out that the proceeds would go to the paying authority and not the actual police forces.
At the same time we are actively pursuing an office of asset management in order to look after the assets as they proceed from seizure to forfeiture. We expect to be ready to proceed in the House in the very near future.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In her answer to the question from the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception I submit that she revealed the fatal flaw in the government's present approach to the defence policy.
She tried to justify continuing pouring billions of dollars into the reserve program, which the Auditor General said is a complete shambles. Second, she continues to justify increasing capital spending on cold war equipment which is no longer relevant in a period when the government is actually beginning to finally decrease the money it is spending on defence. She cannot have it both ways. Something has to give.
Will the Minister of National Defence not agree that the peacekeeping capacity of Canada is what it is giving
Oral Questions
and that the defence policy of this government needs a complete review?


A. Kim Campbell: No, Mr. Speaker.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it shows how you can stay in office for a month and you can already say no. When she was appointed Minister of National Defence one of the things she was quoted as saying was that there should be a public review of defence policy. Has the minister changed her mind?


A. Kim Campbell: No, Mr. Speaker. I simply do not accept the premise of the preamble, with respect to the answer to the second part of the question.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, reports out of Montreal have made it clear that the UI reform will cost that city in excess of $490 million.
Would the Minister of Finance table in the House the impact studies which have been done on this UI reform, not only for the great city of Montreal but indeed for every urban centre across this country? Will the Minister of Finance table those impact studies?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration has responded to those questions earlier in the Question Period.


PUBLIC WORKS
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. It relates to the spec system for engineers and architects who apply for government contract work.
It seems that the spec system works better for the larger firms and in some ways excludes or puts the smaller firms in not as good a position as the larger firms.
Will the minister review this program to ensure that the smaller firms can have access to government contracts as do the big firms? That is where they get most of their experience so they can build and progress.

Routine Proceedings


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a good question.
After consultation with the building and trade associations about four years ago, our department implemented a contract selection process based on a computer generated selection for contracts below $1 million. We would like to continue to improve the fairness, the transparency and the efficiency of this type of award.
We would welcome any suggestions the member has. It is difficult sometimes to achieve the kind of balance that he wishes, but we would be glad to work with him on it.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of State for Finance on a point of order.


POINT OF ORDER
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it is expedient to introduce a measure to implement the North American free trade agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States of America entered into between the Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of the United States of America and signed on September 17, 1992 and in particular (1) to impose custom duties in accordance with chapters three and seven of the agreement, (2) to authorize the imposition of temporary duties on agricultural goods in accordance with chapter seven of the agreement, (3) to authorize the imposition of duties for emergency action in accordance with annex 300-B of chapter three and chapter eight of the agreement, and (4) to revise the provisions in the Special Import Measures Act respecting the imposition of anti-dumping, countervailing and provisional duties relating to goods imported from Mexico and the United States of America.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 11 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.] CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved: for leave to introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Andre moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.



BROADCASTING ACT


Scott Jon Thorkelson: for leave to introduce Bill C-407, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (religious broadcasting).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Scott Jon Thorkelson: Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere pleasure to introduce this bill to amend the Broadcasting Act. Over the past few years small religious broadcasting stations have operated in several Canadian communities. These stations were recently shut down by the CRTC,

their only crime being they were operating without a broadcasting licence.
Unfortunately these stations cannot obtain a broadcasting licence. By definition the program of single denomination religious broadcasting station is contrary to the intent of the Broadcasting Act and subsequent CRTC guidelines with respect to balance, fairness, public property and Canadian expression.
In October 1992 the CRTC began public consultations into its religious broadcasting policy. I believe this is an acknowledgement by the CRTC that the conditions have changed so much since the policy was developed that a policy review is now appropriate.
The amendment proposed by this bill would enable single denomination religious stations to obtain broadcasting licences. It would also recognize a fundamental right that Canadians enjoy in every other communications medium, the right to freedom of expression.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Thorkelson moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition from residents of Val d'Or, Sullivan, Sainte-Gertrude and Amos, in the riding of Abitibi, who say that films depicting violence on television are dangerous and therefore unacceptable because they act as a stimulus for violent behaviour.
The petition also says that all toys that incite children to play violent games are unacceptable and their manufacture should be banned. It is also pointed out that repeated broadcasting of news about acts of violence on television, on all channels, and on radio may act as a stimulus for further identical violent behaviour.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to pass the appropriate legislation in order to
Routine Proceedings
eliminate violence in our society and thus protect our children and give all citizens a better quality of life.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present today that has been certified as to form and content.
The petitioners state that on November 24, 1989 the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion stating:
That this House express its concern for the more than one million
Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the
goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year
2000.
Poverty among children inhibits learning and preparation for employment, constituting a cost to future national productivity. Sound national financial management demands the prevention of poverty. Child poverty is a fundamental reality of family poverty. Canada has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and has a moral obligation to seek the elimination of child poverty in Canada. A political commitment to eliminate child poverty in Canada requires public commitment and initiative among broad sectors of the Canadian population at local and national levels.
Therefore the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take the actions necessary to reaffirm its commitment to seek the elimination of poverty among children in Canada by the year 2000 and to develop a plan for the implementation of this commitment.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I have three sets of petitions to present today.
The first one calls upon Parliament to understand that many studies have shown a link between violence and entertainment and desensitization to violence in our society; that hundreds of women, men and children, including seniors and the disabled, are killed every year by an increasing number of people who state that they got the idea from something they saw or who did not grasp and respect the humanity of their victims; that we are increasingly becoming a culture of violence and violence has become an ordinary part of our children's lives; that part of this culture is a game called the serial killer board game; and that the laws of Canada do not

February 22, 1993
Routine Proceedings
deal with this material portraying torture, rape and murder as fun.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to consider amending the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading materials can be kept from being distributed in Canada.
This petition is signed by almost 500 people in my community of New Westminster-Burnaby.


Dawn Black: The
second petition, Mr. Speaker, is signed by people from right across Canada. It has almost 1,200 signatures.
It calls upon the government to continue the six-month interest-free period for repayment of Canada student loans following graduation. It also calls upon Parliament to reverse the decision regarding the requirements for full-time student status and to define a full-time student as one who carries a 60 per cent course load.
As well it calls upon Parliament not to remove the six-month interest-free period on student loans and to withdraw the legislation, reverting to the principles of the Family Allowance Act, and not discriminate against those parents who are students and also use the Canada Student Loans Program.


Dawn Black: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have petitions from people in my community of New Westminster-Burnaby, British Columbia. Some 200 petitioners have signed this petition calling on the government and Parliament to reject legislation implementing the North American free trade agreement.
They do not want NAFTA.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from my constituents asking Parliament to amend the Divorce Act so that a mother or father, unless there is serious cause, could be prevented from placing obstacles in the relationship between a child and the child's grandparents. In other words, they ask that
the act be amended so that it would be illegal for a parent to obstruct the relationship between a child and the child's grandparents.
They petition for further amendments to the act that would give a grandparent who is granted access to a child the right to make inquiries and be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the grandchild.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today pursuant to Standing Order 36. This petition is regarding the CBC.
The petitioners ask that Parliament recognize the tools for building a better Canada have been abandoned by this Parliament; that important national institutions have been underfunded and then privatized; and that the government has cut CBC funding by $140 million over the next four years, resulting in 1,200 job losses and the closing of 10 regional stations in Calgary, Comer Brook, Goose Bay, Sydney, Sept lies, Toronto, Saskatoon and Windsor, as well as other areas.
I am particularly interested in this matter because Victoria, a city that is close to me, is the only capital city in Canada that is not provided with CBC radio service. I agree with the petition.
The petitioners urge the government to consider restoring proper funding to the CBC so that it can fulfil its mandate and its role as the heartbeat of Canada.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I have an extensive petition that I would like to summarize.
These petitioners point out that a great number of Canadian youths who belong to middle and lower-income families are drawn out of schools at an early age due to the present financial difficulty.
They urge the government to invest in Canada's future by promoting a better educational program for students and to prepare them for global competitiveness.
The petitioners make a number of recommendations and I will summarize them very briefly. They want the reformation of the income tax law to allow middle and

lower-income parents to claim their children as dependants under certain circumstances.
They want the elimination of the goods and services tax on students' books and school supplies. They want the promotion of subsidies at the post-secondary level. They want the promotion of price control on text books and vital school supplies. They want the promotion of job training opportunities and programs for future graduates.
They want the promotion of job creation and implementation of assistance programs. They want provisions of incentives for youths to improve themselves through better education and training. They want leniency by the Secretary of State toward students whose student loans are due and who cannot afford to repay them because they have no job.
Finally, they urge the Secretary of State to involve students in all policies that affect them and Canada.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of many of my own constituents in Vancouver East and other very concerned citizens, particularly in the lower mainland of British Columbia.
The petitioners state that whereas they are concerned with many of the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act in Bill C-86, in particular they strongly oppose the provisions that allow decisions to be made retroactively which would cause many individuals and families who will already have relied upon an earlier decision to be affected in a serious manner.
Therefore they call upon Parliament and urge the government to withdraw these amendments.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I join with my constituents in opposing the government's recent budget cuts in the area of housing.
There are approximately 164,000 tenant households looking for affordable and accessible housing. My constituents and I are asking this Parliament to urge the government to immediately reinstate all the social hous-
Routine Proceedings
ing programs that were cut in the latest government budget.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, question No. 432 will be answered today.


Mr. Stupich: With respect to the long term disability, LTD policy for public servants of National Life Assurance or Sun Life, for the last 10 years (a) what was the Treasury Board's and the employees' share of contribution (b) how much was paid out in disability income (c) how many employees were out of disability benefits after returning to work part-time (d) as employer, does the Treasury Board monitor the LTD program (e) how are discrepancies between the employees "deserved" benefits and "received" benefits dealt with (f) are all medical records and pertinent documents attached to the employees' file automatically available to them and, if so, what is the procedure (g) what is the average length of time someone is on LTD (h) what is the average LTD income expressed as a percentage based on the salary level at time of disability?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Share
Year	Employee	Employer1970	50%	50%1989	33 1/3 %	66 2/3 %1990	25%	75 %March 1993	15 %	85%Year	DI ($000's)	L.T.D. ($000's)1982	$ 31,054.8	$ 5,180.31983	38,635.6	5,969.11984	45,954.8	6,771.51985	53,881.2	7,635.71986	61,571.7	8,878.61987	66,953.6	9,288.01988	73,195.6	9,980.11989	79,549.4	11,161.81990	85,190.7	12,383.71991	95,845.6	13,570.5
Government Orders
c) Year	DI	L.T.D.1982	0	01983	0	01984	1	01985	1	01986	1	01987	1	01988	2	01989	2	01990	2	01991	3	0
d) Yes
(e)	It is assumed that this question deals with the recovery of overpayments from claimants who failed to report other offsettable income, i.e., CPP and PSSA disability benefits, to the insurer in a timely manner and LTD/DI benefits were therefore not reduced when they should have been.
Average disability benefit expressed as per cent of salary (gross benefit of 70 percent of salary minus any CPP and/or PSSA disability benefits
Year	DI
1982	51.3 %
1983	52.8
1984	52.4
1985	51.8
1986	50.4
1987	48.3
1988	47.6
1989	45.7
1990	47.3
1991	47.6
Using the same formula as the DI plan, the insurer of the L.T.D. plan has calculated the average L.TD. benefit, as of September 1992, to be 46 percent of salary.

Once the necessary adjustment is calculated, the employee is given options for recovery of the overpayment. These could depend on how aware the employee was, in advance, of the impending overpayment, as well as the type of agreement they may have previously made with the insurer, in writing, to refund the overpayment. The potential financial hardship for the claimant, at the time, is also considered. All underpayments are promptly refunded to claimants.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
(f)	No. All medical documents are the property of the insurer. However, upon request from the claimant, or the claimant's legally designated representative, the insurer will: under the DI plan, release the medical reports to the claimant or to a third party designated by the claimant; or under the LTD plan, release medical reports to the claimant's attending physician(s).
(g)	Average duration of all claims active at end of year, expressed in months: *
Year	DI
1982	51.42
1983	50.84
1984	51.62
1985	53.19
1986	55.65
1987	58.66
1988	61.21
1989	63.91
1990	65.70
1991	67.69
* This particular data for the L.TD. plan became available for the first time in 1990.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKay that Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing, be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope; and the amendment of Mr. Fulton (p. 15586).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: At the suspension of the debate the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester had 13 minutes remaining.


William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of my remarks before Question Period I was addressing the economics of the fixed link.
February 22, 1993

I just wanted to summarize my earlier remarks. The fixed link will eliminate an impediment to trade among the three provinces of P.E.I., Nova Scotia and New Brunswick when it is completed. There certainly is now an impediment to transportation and economic development.
The Northumberland Strait is a body of water between P.E.I. and New Brunswick. On one side of that body of water the unemployment rate is 16.2 per cent and on the other side it is 12.1 per cent. The only difference is that P.E.I. has the disadvantage of the poor transportation system between the two.
I started to address some of the environmental concerns that have been brought up over the years. I had mentioned that it had gone through seven environmental studies, the most complete of which addressed the ice-out situation. It recommended that, based on an estimate of a seven-day delay due to ice-outs, the project not go ahead.
A more specific study was done on that problem which addressed it based on a generic type of fixed link that is being proposed now. It arrived at the conclusion that that type of bridge would well meet the criteria of a two-day delay ice-out period. In fact, the period under the present plan is considered to be substantially less than the two days required by the environmental process.
The way they plan to build the bridge is interesting. They plan to build as much of it on land as possible and then take the assemblies out and place them in the water. There will be some dredging taking place during construction but there will be little. There will be less than there is now in the Northumberland Strait over a two-year period, and the bridge will be constructed over five years. Therefore, in terms of upsetting the fishery or the environment, there will be far less dredging than is being done now.
Again the design is veiy unique. It is very interesting that they have decided to build almost all of it on Prince Edward Island.
The impact on fishing will be addressed. During construction there will be a small impact on the fishery. There have been offsets put in place for the fishermen. A subject that nobody talks about is the advantage to the fishery when it is completed. There is a good chance the
Government Orders
fishery will be enhanced. Anywhere there has been a man-made structure like the fixed link with a large amount of construction being done under water as in Canso or Bar Harbour, Maine the fishery ends up being concentrated on these structures. It creates a natural habitat for lobsters and other fish after completion of the project, which runs contrary to the argument that it may upset the fishery.
Another point that is not understood is that the ferries that go between New Brunswick and P.E.I. are allotted a wide swath from P.E.I. to New Brunswick in which there is no fishing allowed at present. It is a large area and it will be eliminated. When the bridge is completed that area will be given back to the fishery again.
There probably will be a small negative impact on the fishery during construction. However a lot of people, including myself, think there will be a much larger positive impact after the project is completed. Some people suggest there will be a battle among the fishermen over the 44 abutments of the bridge. They will each want to have one or two. I expect that will be an interesting procedure.
I have attended many presentations by the president of Strait Crossing Incorporated. Mr. Giannelia has gone out of his way time and time again to meet with people in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. He will meet with anyone, he will answer any questions or concerns and he accepts advice and direction at all of his meetings. I am impressed by the way he handles questions. There is no time limit. He will take as much time as is required and is not afraid to touch any subject. He has thought this out, is very determined to go ahead with it and is determined to meet the time guidelines as outlined. Every aspect of the project has been addressed from an environmental perspective and every part has had its environmental impact addressed. It will be considered at the time of construction.
I live in one of the communities that is closest to it on the mainland side, Amherst, Nova Scotia. It is a very big and important project for us. Many people are skeptical that it will ever get started because we have had so many starts in the past. However, it now appears that it will go ahead. To say the least, we are excited. Our business communities have come together to make sure that we have the best possible facilities to address the needs of the people and the companies involved in building the project.

Government Orders
The project has met all the standards demanded by the environmental review process. It has met the standards of the P.E.I., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and federal governments. It has passed the referendum process in Prince Edward Island. It is extremely important to people in the area. It is a win-win situation for everyone as we see it.
One member said it had a one-two punch a little while ago. I would like to add a few more punches to it. He said it had one punch as a construction project, that is true, and a second punch as a tourist attraction.
Probably the most important punch is that it will be a key to our transportation infrastructure in Atlantic Canada. It will be a very integral part of the over-all transportation system and it will help us as a region to be competitive, and help Prince Edward Island specifically to be competitive.
Certainly the over-all economic impact will be substantial. We have heard figures today of $800 million and $850 million, and we have heard figures even higher than that. By the time it is done the peripheral impact and all the housing, supplies, and services and goods that must be supplied to the people will be over $1 billion. That is very attractive to us in our area.
The people of the region are most excited and anxious to see it go ahead. I appreciate this opportunity to speak on it and I certainly hope it moves along as quickly as possible and is as successful as we think it will be.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker in his remarks referred a number of times to environmental assessment and said that the project has undergone a number of environmental assessments.
That is true. The environmental assessment recommended that the project not proceed. How does he justify supporting a bill that the project proceed when the environmental assessment said no?


William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, the environmental assessment said the project should not proceed if the ice-out was going to be a seven days delay as it predicted.
When the specific environmental assessment on the ice-out was done this generic plan came up with the criteria that it would only limit the ice to two days a year.
The original reason for recommending it not proceed was that the environmental assessment panel predicted that it would take seven days for the ice to go out. That was just an assessment, and based on that assessment it should not go ahead. However, the panel said if it could meet a two-day ice-out it could go ahead. The present plan more than meets that criteria.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been in this House from the first minute of this debate. I am from Atlantic Canada and have an unusual interest in this debate. I have been taking count of the different members and have no hesitation in putting my time in purgatory for the normal switch in rotation between government and opposition members.
However, there comes a point of no return when members who are not even in the country when this debate started, let alone in this House, take priority over a member who has been here from the first minute of this debate.
With all due respect to my friend from British Columbia, whom I respect and used to enjoy when he was out in British Columbia, this is the fourth NDP member that has spoken. There have already been three. There have been three to four government members and two Liberals, and I have been here since the first.
Mr. Speaker, I would like some explanation of why you have been blind to this seat in the rear. Are you following a list? Of course you most likely are not because you do not follow a list in the theory and mystique of this Chamber.
I would like a clear explanation.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member you just recognized was not even in the House today when this debate-


David Barrett: Oh, come on.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. [Translation]
I listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants had to say, and I realize he has a particular interest in this bill which has an impact on the area he represents. When recognizing members, however, the Chair must consider the number of members representing each party.
February 22, 1993

I have been in the chair since the beginning of this debate, and we have now had four members on the government side, two Liberal members and two NDP members speak to the substance of the bill. I also recognized the hon. member twice during the period for questions and comments. In accordance with the traditions of this House, I believe the Chair will again have to give the floor to members of the recognized parties before switching to an independent member. That being said, I can assure the hon. member that I am very much aware of his interest in this debate and that at the first opportunity, I will be delighted to recognize the hon. member as a speaker on the substance of the bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is just a suggestion. You are a kind man, but the suggestion you use is the fallacy in the whole procedure. You talk about recognizing parties. If you check the rules, you will find that individual members and parties per se are not mentioned. The numbers you talked about of members taking part in the substance of the debate, with respect, is incorrect. There were three NDP members recognized before your recognition of the last member.
I would like to know for future reference, and I am serious, about people who have participated in this debate who were not even in the country. I understand how the system works. I have been around here for a few
years.
I do not mind putting in the time waiting when other members are here and you take the natural rotation, whether you use a list of parties or whatever, but there has to be an order. I am asking you as Speaker, do you mean to tell this member and other members that the time you sit in this Chamber makes no difference as to recognition by the Chair?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I do not think there is anything in the Standing Orders about speaking time being allowed on the basis of the amount of time members spend in the House. I believe I am acting in accordance with parliamentary tradition by giving the floor to members of the various recognized parties who then speak for a certain time. As for independent members, I think it is only fair to wait until a certain
Government Orders
number of members have spoken before giving him the floor. That being said, so far I have recognized the hon. member's special interest in the subject by giving him the floor several times during the period for questions and comments, and I believe I am entirely fair in recognizing once more the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. And I should be delighted to give the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants the floor at the earliest opportunity.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I must say that I have deep respect for the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants. I know that he will participate in this debate. However, to suggest that others have not been in the House is factually incorrect.
Having said that, that is against-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. It just so happens that the hon. member is not stating facts. The member for Fundy-Royal who spoke this morning was not in the House when this debate started. The parliamentary secretary was not in the House when this debate started.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order. As an experienced parliamentarian, the hon. member will appreciate that a member does not refer to the presence or absence of a colleague in this House.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you again for recognizing me for the third time. I hope I will be able to participate in this debate and I hope that others will also at the behest of the Chair.
At the outset let me say that I am opposed to the spending of taxpayers' dollars on this boondoggle. Let me further say that the government is spending $42 million a year for 35 years for this missing link. The missing link is supposed to bring Prince Edward Island together with the rest of Canada, while at the same time we are currently spending $21 million a year for a feny.
This is typical Liberal and Conservative thinking. If you want to save $21 million a year, spend $42 million a year to do it. How dumb can they get? They are spending $42 million a year to correct a problem of spending $21 million a year. The government and the opposition spend

Government Orders
all their time talking about there not being enough money for the unemployed, for unemployment insurance and no new money to create out there off the so-called money tree for projects. However, here we have a massive megaproject designed to spend $42 million a year to correct a $21 million a year problem. It is just as simple as that and I think the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants also has the same position on this issue.
We hear every single day from the Tories and from the Minister of Finance about how they are responsible for fiscal matters of this country. They say that this bridge is needed to Prince Edward Island to save money. I repeat, they are spending $21 million a year to run a ferry and now they are going to spend $42 million a year for 35 years to save twice as much money as they are losing.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Bridges do not go on strike.


David Barrett: Now this is the good thing. The Solicitor General-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Bridges will not break down.


David Barrett: Bridges do not go on strike. Now is that not interesting. This is very genius-style Tory thinking.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Thank you.


David Barrett: Bridges do not go on strike. Therefore if we spend $42 million a year to save $21 million a year we will be avoiding a potential strike. Genius at work. Tory genius supported by the Liberals in this House.
My dear friends, they talk about Tory economics. In the province of British Columbia we have the Lions Gate Bridge that needs maintenance every single year. As a matter of fact, over 50 years they have probably replaced the capital value about five times in simple maintenance.
My dear friends over here, be serious. How serious can you be if you are so dumb as to spend $42 million a year to save $21 million a year? Do you think I am exaggerating? Just look at the figures and the justification and he says: "Bridges do not go on strike". This is the same kind of stupidity that is putting up all that money for Hibernia so that the American oil companies can benefit.
Who was the consortium that is going to get the money that is being spent? Seventy per cent of the consortium is owned in Great Britain and in the United States.
Prince Edward Island has a population of 125,000 people. If you give them an option of $8,000 per person and promise not to build the bridge they will take the money. Why give this money to a consortium that is not even in the country to build a bridge-


John Carnell Crosbie: Is that the NDP policy? Is that your policy?


David Barrett: My dear friend, your policy is to spend $42 million a year to save $21 million a year. You are an ex-Liberal who is now a Tory. You speak out of both sides of your mouth because you both support it. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives support this dumb bill, this missing link policy and it is not going to solve their missing link.
Here are these so-called calm, intelligent, rational, fiscally conservative cabinet ministers screaming at me simply because I am exposing the stupidity of spending $42 million a year to save $21 million a year. I have never seen the minister of fisheries so worked up since he last kissed a cod. The minister of fisheries, who finds more ways of going around and getting into trouble, has found another one today and that is he is not attacking anybody. He is throwing money away.
I find it interesting that these so-called responsible Conservatives actually go around the country saying: "Oh, we cannot spend money on day care". No, that goes towards kids. "Oh, we cannot spend money to create jobs", although it goes to men and women. "Oh, yes we would like to help the native people", but they do not have any money for that. As for old age security they have to have a clawback. It has to save all this money so it can spend $42 million a year to save $21 million a year. Suckers like that were what P.T. Bamum described as an abnormal birth rate. This unbelievable stupidity manifests itself out of this government with support of the Liberals. This is the tacit coalition that goes along in this country. The Liberals and the Tories have no monopolies on dumb-bells. They have a common interest in them.
Why are they spending this money? What are the economic benefits? Reveal the environmental studies. The company that is going to benefit is 70 per cent
February 22, 1993

owned in Great Britain and the United States. If you are going to rip somebody off, in other words, the Canadian taxpayers, at least rip them off for the benefit of Canadian companies. However, the government does not even do that.
I can hear them down in the United States saying: "Do you know what we got those dummies to do in Canada? They are going to build this bridge from New Brunswick to P.E.I., spend $42 million a year and we got a piece of the action in the company". In the board rooms of the same construction company in Britain they are saying the same thing: "We could have given them tunnel technology, but no, they wanted a bridge. Whatever they want, we will give it to them if the suckers want to spend that kind of money".
It is $8,000 per person in Prince Edward Island. If we give the people in Prince Edward Island the option to vote on whether they want the $8,000 per person or this bridge, guess what they will go for. Give them the vote. Let us see what they go for.


Mrs. Sparrow:: They have already had a vote.


David Barrett: They did not get a vote on the eight grand. They did not get a vote on the money they could make. They do not own the company in Prince Edward Island. They are not going to get sweet boom all on Prince Edward Island except the chance to sell postcards of this long 13-kilometre bridge which probably by the time it is finished, with the amount of money and the costs going up, will be a single-lane one way.


An hon. member:: Oh, get off it.


David Barrett: Get off the bridge, she says. You explain to the people in Alberta why you are going to spend $42 million a year to save a $21 million problem. I will go to Alberta with you and we will go up on a platform together, along with my good friend from Annapolis Valley-Hants. We will stand up and say: "Okay, you tell us why we should spend the taxpayers' money on this".
It is so dumb, they take it seriously. I thought this was all a joke. I thought this was started on April fool's day and got carried out of whack. But they are serious. They really intend to do this.
We have heard of horses on the payroll, we have heard of the boondoggles that this government has put up over
Government Orders
the years and what do they say to me? "Oh, you're going to lose votes in P.E.I." If they want to buy votes, they can do it a hell of a lot better and a lot cheaper than this kind of buy-out. How many votes are they going to get in Britain from the construction company? How many votes are they going to get in the United States? If they want to buy votes, just do it right up front. Give them the money up front. Be honest about it.
Is this a matter of buying votes or is this a matter of sensible fiscal responsibility? Bridges do not go on strike, said the minister. Ding dong, it does not mean a thing.
Is there anybody in this Chamber who has got $42 million a year worth of projects they would like built in their riding? Just stand up.


An hon. member:: What about the deficit?


David Barrett: Never mind the deficit, my dear friend. This is politics. The deficit does not count when we are talking about regional voting. If we throw money at the bridge, maybe they will vote for us. I think this is an insult to the people of Prince Edward Island. I think it is an insult to the people of New Brunswick. It sure as hell is an insult to the people of Canada who have to pick up the bill for this boondoggle.


Mrs. Dobbie:: You are picking on little Prince Edward Island.


David Barrett: Picking on Prince Edward Island? Its people think it is a joke. They think it is a great deal of fun to pull the wool over Canadian eyes, saying we can spend $42 million a year to save $21 million a year. This is the new Tory-Liberal thinking.
I challenge the members from New Brunswick and P.E.I. to stand up on the platform and say: "This is the way we are going to get this country out of the financial mess. We will spend twice as much to save half as little". Will they get up on a platform and explain it that way? No, they will not. But that is the reality.
That is the absolute reality. How do they justify the Great Britain and United States company's 70 per cent consortium owned offshore? Why are we spending the money to enhance contractors in Great Britain? I do not know. Why are we spending the money to enhance contractors in the United States? I do not know.

February 22, 1993
Government Orders
I want to let you in on a secret. I know this project is dumb. I know there are politics involved and I know they are seeking votes, but there are no votes for this government in England. Those members have not even figured that out. There are no votes for this government in the United States. They have not figured that out either.
If you are going to sell out, if you are going to do something for political reasons, at least do it where you will get some votes. You are insulting the integrity of the traditional honour of buying votes by going offshore. You are buying votes in Britain and the United States. That is dumb.
Now for the Liberals, why are they agreeing with this? Do they think they are going to get votes out of it? They already have seats in P.E.I. What are they going to get out of it? Are they going to say: "Look at us. We have an edifice complex. We helped build this bridge. We can have our name on a bronze plaque" right at the level where the sea salt water will erode the quickest, we hope.
There will be all the sitting members of Parliament cemented into this bridge. There they are for posterity, every one of them. Do you know what? They are hoping that everybody in P.E.I. will come, look at their names on the bridge and say: "Mmm, I am going to vote for that guy".
They are insulting the people of P.E.I. They are insulting the people of New Brunswick and they are insulting the rest of us Canadians. I thought this kind of pork-barrel politics was over.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: What do you suggest?


David Barrett: I suggest that if you can find an extra $21 million a year, you can start spending on people who are hungry.
Spend it on kids who can go to school and have a hot meal inside their stomachs. Spend it on the education of people in P.E.I. Spend $42 million a year on university and technical schools in the maritimes. Upgrade those schools that you blab about over there all the time.
Spend money for the seniors. Spend money for the pioneers who built this country, but not $42 million a year to provide some offshore corporations with money that they can profit from to save $21 million a year.
What do I suggest? I will tell you what I suggest. Your mathematics are stupid. The project does not make sense. Also, anybody who gets up in this House and supports it by saying: "We can solve a $21 million a year problem by spending $42 million" needs their head examined by the Auditor General.
I challenge this government and the opposition to call in the Auditor General and have him do a study of this. I challenge them to say the Auditor General can show how you can save $21 million a year by spending $42 million a year.
It is the same kind of mentality as spending all that money on Hibernia to provide the Americans with offshore oil. Even the ships and the infrastructure for Hibernia are being built offshore. I do not understand it. If it is good politics, then let the people of New Brunswick and Newfoundland decide if they want the money directly in their pockets. Do they think it should be diverted through the consortium that is owned in Britain and the United States?
What are the economic impact studies? Who has done them? What of the environmental studies? Many more need to be done. What about the way of life on Prince Edward Island being the same as British Columbia? We have Vancouver Island. Do you want to spend $45 million a year to solve our ferry problems? You have not given the province of British Columbia one single penny to pay for transportation between the mainland and Victoria, not one penny.
Since W.A.C. Bennett brought in the ferry system between Vancouver Island and the mainland, not one cent of Canadian taxpayers' dollars has gone to help British Columbia's need for intercoastal ferries, not one penny. Those ferries are built in B.C. by B.C. workers in union shops. They are not on strike.
I am not here to lament the failures of past Liberal and Tory governments. I want to put that on record but how can you keep that up and deny the rest of the Canadian people an option for the same money? Is it politics? It is stupidity, absolute stupidity.
I challenge every single Tory cabinet minister who holds a seat from Manitoba west to come on a public platform with me and justify this project financially in western Canada.
February 22, 1993

I challenge the cabinet ministers from the province of British Columbia to have a public meeting in Vancouver, stand up on a platform and say: "Yes, we have decided on a new way to save money. We are going to spend $42 million a year to save $21 million in P.E.I. and you still do not get a penny out here in British Columbia".
Since 1960 we have built and run government owned ferries in the province of British Columbia, paid for by the taxpayers of British Columbia and not one cent came from Ottawa. We never once complained about the subsidies given to the maritimes. Now we are complaining that the subsidies are misdirected.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: And they took away the Polar 8.


David Barrett: The Polar 8. We never even got that.
I agree with those critics but my agreement is something more uncomplicated. This is sheer vote buying at the stupidest level that one can think. If you want to do some vote buying, give the money directly to the people, not to a consortium offshore and not for a fixed link that makes up for the missing link that does not go with the thinking both of the Liberals and of the Tories.
You cannot justify this financially. You should all be ashamed of yourselves in supporting this, every single one of you.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca who commented about insulting the people of Prince Edward Island that the majority of people in Prince Edward Island voted for the fixed link to New Brunswick.
We have heard the NDP with its high moral pronouncements for some time now. The previous speaker just alluded to what a thin veneer that actually is.
I will go back to Hansard of February 8, page 15591, when the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands stated at the beginning of her speech: "The population of my riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands in the 1991 census was 122,051 and the population of Prince Edward Island is 129,800 people. The people of Saanich-Gulf Islands might very well ask where their billion dollar project is when you are talking about per capita dollars".
Government Orders
That means if a private corporation wanted to spend $1 billion building a bridge across to Vancouver Island, these people would be all for it. They would not be up here saying what a vote buying thing this is. We have four seats in Prince Edward Island. That is not a lot of seats in a 295-seat house.
The fact remains that if the federal government or a private corporation was willing to build a bridge to Vancouver Island, this party would be all for it. Now in British Columbia they are saying what a terrible thing this is that the people of Prince Edward Island may have good transportation but for the rest of Canada we should make it more economically viable. This is sheer hypocrisy.


David Barrett: Mr. Speaker, if this gentleman is saying this is not to buy votes in P.E.I., if the hon. gentleman is saying that four seats do not count, let me remind the member that politicians count every single seat as important. If they think that it is going to be a close election, this sounds like a good deal for New Brunswick and P.E.I. and for the governing party.
He did not address the specific problem that I raised. Why spend $42 million a year to solve a $21 million a year problem? You are a Liberal and you support it. You are up every single day in your front benches attacking this government for not spending money on the unemployed, not spending money in terms of education and not spending money on the environment. I hear hon. members from your front bench every day get up and complain as the Official Opposition, but on this deal you are in favour of it. It does not make any fiscal sense and it shows the sheer shallowness of the Liberal Party.
You are so shallow it is all surface, $42 million. That is pretty shallow, but they are at it. This party that is leading the polls and says trust us is willing to go along with that dumb boondoggle to spend $42 million to solve a $21 million problem.
You come out to British Columbia, I will go to P.E.I. and we will both state our positions. Tell me how you can justify demanding that the taxpayers of British Columbia pay 100 per cent of those ferry charges for the link between Vancouver Island which was a Crown colony and because as a Crown colony it tipped Confederation into Canada.

Government Orders
We will talk about the railroad and how you and the Liberals have taken their responsibilities for what they signed over 100 years ago and you have subsidized them too.
You have caved in on every single responsibility from the private sector and now you are going to use public money for this boondoggle.
I find it absolutely amazing the tortuous route both the Liberals and the Conservatives find to waste taxpayers money on stupid things like this. If you think you are right come out to B.C., stand up in British Columbia and tell all British Columbians why we should pay a share of this dumb idea when we do not get a single penny for our transportation costs from the mainland of Vancouver to Vancouver Island. You come out and tell us that. You come out and tell us why you should double the amount.


Dorothy I. Dobbie: Are those real tears?


David Barrett: I do not mind the heckling. I enjoy it but there does reach a point where stupidity is so transparent it even exposes the Liberals and the Conservatives.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was driven to my feet by the logic of my hon. friend.
For years the province of British Columbia has argued that the Government of Canada should run a railroad train up and down Vancouver Island on the basis that it was in the original agreement whereby B.C. came into Confederation.
My hon. friend should obviously know that in the original agreement whereby P.E.I. came into Confederation it was guaranteed access to the mainland. What we are trying to do is give them better access, access that does not break down.
My hon. friend is not from the province of Ontario where we have tourists going to P.E.I. all the time. The biggest problem is the wait for the ferry. My hon. friend does not know anything about that. In your party you maybe do not have to wait for ferries but in our party you do.


An hon. member:: You can wait for hours in B.C.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I think my hon. friend has to get it right. If he wants to apply the principle when it comes to B.C. he has got to apply the principle when it comes to P.E.I.


David Barrett: Do you think that the Tories recognized the principle of the E & N railroad when CPR closed it down?


An hon. member:: No.


David Barrett: No. We had to go to court. We did not get any help from the federal government. You are the ones that allowed the railroads to be disbanded. The passenger service that was promised when the CPR came in, it was the Liberals and the Tories that took the CPR off the hook, and never took back one single Crown grant. They gave them forest rights, they gave them mineral rights in this country, they gave them land 10 miles on both sides of the railroads and as soon as the railroad said "Oh, we are going broke" the government said "We cannot stand this. You poor railroads. We will take it over and pay for it out of taxpayers money".
Do not give me that humbug that this government or the Liberals ever stood up for the Canadian people on the original deal on the railroads. We had to go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia to get our rights to get the railroad back.
The record of both the Liberals and the Conservatives is one of consistent sell out, not only of the west but every single taxpayer in this country. To suggest that there is any difference between this government and the Liberals is absolutely a fabrication. The people of this country are getting hosed again by stupid deals that do not even have a reasonable payout to ordinary people in this country.
I cannot make it plainer than that. I challenge my good friends to stand up on any public platform in any city of this country and argue this stupidity. I will argue against it and we will see what the audience thinks.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am really very surprised at the vehemence the hon. member is showing today with respect to this question of a land transportation link to Prince Edward Island.
It is certainly not induced by political gratitude on the part of the government since the government did not receive any support by way of seats in Prince Edward Island in the last election and it may or may not receive seats in Prince Edward Island in the next election. This project is being put forward and supported by us because
February 22, 1993

it is something that was felt to be good for Prince Edward Island and the maritimes generally for the last 100 years, and it is now physically possible to do it. It is possible to do it on an economically sensible basis because it is not going to cost the people of Canada anything to operate this structure once it is up, other than what we are already paying for the costs of ferry services that now go from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island. It is a perfectly sensible proposal on its own feet.


David Barrett: You never give us a penny.


John Carnell Crosbie: Alice in Wonderland would be boggled to hear the hon. gentleman get up from the other end of Canada with wrong information and damn a project in another part of the country because we are not building a bridge at the moment from Vancouver to Vancouver Island or whatever silly, picayune objection he is making.
This is what is wrong with our country. We have so many people like the hon. member who are jealous about whatever any other section of the country gets. Gentlemen like the hon. member are jealous about it and try to create and foment trouble about it.
You are an enemy to national unity with the arguments that you presented in this House: jealous, narrowminded, picayune, selfish arguments that you are not getting something out in British Columbia-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. In fairness I give two minutes to the hon. member.


David Barrett: Not only, Mr. Speaker, would I ask the member to withdraw personal insults but I feel complimented by the minister from Newfoundland. I am not a woman so he could not go all the way.
Let me say this: He can attack me personally all he wants. He can say anything he wants about me. It does not hurt. I have been in this business just as long as he has.
They still have to justify why they are spending $42 million a year to solve a $21 million problem. If that makes me a bad Canadian then his logic is all screwed
Government Orders
up. I am fighting for the taxpayers, not for some jingoism.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, I recognize the hon. member for Calgary Southwest.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased as an Albertan to be able to participate in the debate on Bill C-110. I have to say I was quite appalled at the previous speaker with regard to how Canada works together to help its brothers and sisters from coast to coast.
This bill takes us into the future. We are not going to continue to live in the past. We are going to move forward so we can be more competitive and give the people in the Atlantic region of Canada the ability to have upgraded infrastructure to promote their agriculture and their tourism and allow them to get on with things that you and I, Mr. Speaker, take for granted because they have been in our provinces for quite some time.
The positive economic factors of this bill are far greater than any of the negatives my friend from Esquimau has been talking about. As a matter of fact it is probably one of the greatest opportunities that P.E.I. has ever had. I congratulate P.E.I. and its former premier, Joe Ghiz, as well as the former premier of New Brunswick, who worked very diligently and hard with the federal government to see this come to a reality.
I have had two or three questions with regard to the environmental review. I have to say that environmental reviews are very important with regard to all projects. This one was submitted to an environmental review. There were certain qualifications put on it with regard to the ice flow. With all due respect the government did appoint a very special committee of ice experts who said that if a bridge or the fixed link could be built with less than two days ice-out per year it would be all right with EARP or the Environmental Assessment Review Panel, which of course was done.
Let us just back up a bit and talk about this. This is not something new. It has been going on now for pretty well seven years and has been through the various environmental studies. I have to say that a plebiscite was held in

February 22, 1993
Government Orders
P.E.I., I believe in 1988, and the majority of people on the Island voted in favour of the fixed link.
We all recognize there were some who voted against it for various reasons. A lot of them would have to do with their feeling of becoming too modem or taking them into the next century where they do not want to move. It was a fair vote. It did win the majority and we will go ahead with it. As I said, the ice flow has been taken care of which then means that the environmental review does stand approved.
With regard to the subsidy of $21 million the hon. member from B.C. discussed a few minutes ago, every year it costs to operate ferries between New Brunswick and P.E.I., something in the area of $21 million or $22 million.


An hon. member:: It was $27 million in 1988.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: In 1988 it was $27 million. We also have a problem with regard to the age of the ferries and the mechanical upkeep and repair that need to be done. There have been proven documents set forth with regard to the need for four as a minimum and perhaps five new ferries. Each new ferry would cost between $110 million and $140 million. If that is prorated with the operating costs and the capital expenditures over the 35 years then we come to the $42 million in 1992 dollars. It is not a gift of the taxpayers of Canada. Indeed we are building the capital expenditures into the operating expenditures and putting out some pure facts.
I want to speak a bit about the call for proposals. Three proposals were accepted. On the final review the winning firm was Strait Crossing Incorporated with its head office in the city of Calgary from whence I come. While it is a consortium, it is a Canadian company with its head office there. Not 100 per cent but 95 per cent of the work is going to be Canadian content, with most of it coming from the Atlantic coast, which is right. Of course the engineering and design of the fixed link will be done in Calgary.
It is a private sector responsibility. The private sector designs it. The private sector engineers it. The private sector finances it. It is constructed by the private sector. It is operated by the private sector for 35 years, after which time it will revert to the government. It is all private sector.
In these specific issues the private sector assumes all the risk and the government subsidy or the $42 million is what we would pay annually anyway over a prorated 35 years. It is environmentally sound. It met the ice review committee recommendations. There will be less than two ice-outs a year. It will bring a lot of regional benefits to P.E.I., to New Brunswick and to the Nova Scotia area.
Built into the costs will be the toll rates. We will utilize the costs of the fixed link when it is completed. The toll rate will be based on the ferry crossing, increased with a CPI or an inflationary indexation period. That is all laid down specifically in the contracts.
Strait Crossing Inc., the company from Calgary, has also built in costs with regard to constant maintenance and constant upkeep so that we do not run into difficulties 10, 20, 30 or 40 years down the road, which certainly could happen. However these are the built-in costs that will be paid by the toll rates that will be instituted when the bridge is completed.
Also a performance bond has been posted by Strait Crossing Inc. and there is insurance with regard to the fisheries. It was quite interesting to hear some of my colleagues on the other side of the House worry about any negative effect it could have on the fishing industry, which of course as we all know is a major industry for P.E.I., as well as for other areas.
If we take a look at the offshore rigs down on the gulf coast or where there has been offshore activity with different types of industry, it is surprising to see how the fishing industries have not really been hurt in any way. It has been very positive with regard to the habitat and the increase in availability of the product. There is not any factual evidence showing that there will be hurt or damage done to that particular industry, but there has been a bond posted in case of a problem.
I have to say with regard to selecting the company in Calgary that this gives benefits right across the country. There will be designers and engineers in Calgary who would be working on this issue. There is a range of products and services.
There is the supplying of the cement which will probably come mainly from the Atlantic provinces and the aggregates of steel. There is the selling and leasing of the heavy equipment. There is the construction of
February 22, 1993

roads and the facilities for the on and off ramps. There is a whole variety of other services that will come out of P.E.I. or New Brunswick. Some of these smaller local businesses in existence in Atlantic Canada will forge ahead. The response we have had from industries in P.E.I., which will be producing most of the work has been extremely positive.
One of the key requirements for the project is that the developer maximize the use of Atlantic Canada. Why not? This should benefit those people. SCI is currently preparing an industrial benefits plan which is to be submitted to the government. I know my colleague in the NDP will be interested that SCI is currently producing an industrial benefits plan that has to be submitted to the government, and indeed the Minister of Public Works, and has to meet certain criteria that have been set down before the federal government will give its final approval to sign the contract and move ahead.
There are jobs for P.E.I. There are benefits for P.E.I., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, as well as the western provinces. This is part of building Canada. This is when the east helps the west or vice versa. This is part of how our country was built in the very beginning. Those who have a bit more than the others share. This represents not only an economic move forward for P.E.I., but it shows what Canadians can do right across the country.
Turning to the operating period, once the fixed link is up and operating what are the tolls? The tolls will be based on the cost of the ferry crossings, as I said, increased with the CPI or the inflation rate. There will be an agreed upon amount of capital for the repairs and maintenance of the plan. That is to be independently reviewed outside government to make sure that it meets the criteria set down. There is to be no payment made to the developer until all the criteria are outlined and have been proven.
What is most interesting is to see colleagues, one might say from both sides of the House, who appear to agree on something that is so necessary to move P.E.I. into the 21st century. It also brings P.E.I. up to some of the increased trading arrangements.
When I look to the agriculture area, as well as the fishing area and tourism, I think that P.E.I. certainly deserves all this. Indeed, we will be watching very
Government Orders
carefully as we go through the years waiting for the bridge to be opened.
As a member of the House on the government side from the province of Alberta I truly support this bill. It brings Canadians together. It moves us forward. We are not going to sit and keep looking at the past. This is where everybody can work together to make this country work.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I have received some criticism from people in Prince Edward Island who do not take kindly to a member from British Columbia "interfering with their business".
I take exception to that analysis of this. I am an islander. I see this as a union of islanders. The fishermen and the ferry workers on Prince Edward Island, the friends of the island, consider that I am speaking out for them. It is certainly not their Liberal representatives who are speaking out for them.
I also think it is my duty as a member of Parliament. When $42 million a year is going to be expended on a project, I am not interfering. I am doing my job in criticizing that project. I am also doing my job when the environmental assessment integrity process is so sullied by this government in putting forth this idea. That is doing my job as a member of Parliament.
What we have seen is that the Liberals and the government are prepared to put forward a bill which they think will guarantee their votes in the maritimes. As a member from British Columbia, a member from an island, I have a duty to respond and a duty to speak out against this project.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, like each and every one of us the hon. member was elected by the constituents in her riding. She certainly has the right to speak of their views and their wishes within this particular House. I would hope that while she does that she takes the views of all of Canada because when we come here as elected members we are representing Canada as a whole.
While it is very important to know the views and concerns of her local constituents and make sure that they are heard, a lot of the decisions we make here have to reflect all of Canada. Some parts of Canada are more blessed with certain resources than other areas. Since the beginning, long before 1867, it has been part of the Canadian way to help each other.

Government Orders
I have no problem with the member expressing the views and concerns of her people. However, I also hope the member realizes she is here representing not only her constituents from the island of Vancouver but she is also here making decisions for all of Canada.
It is very important that the hon. member look at the people of P.E.I. as well as the people of New Brunswick. Allow them the infrastructure for them to get ahead and promote their industry, be it fisheries, tourism, forestry, potatoes or agriculture.
I think it is incumbent upon the hon. member to speak for all of Canada as well as her own specific constituents.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of my friend. Not too long ago in this House we listened to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. I for one would love to be his speech-writer because he only said three things. It would not take me too long to write that.
One of the things he said was that the rest of the members who are in favour of this particular piece of legislation obviously are stupid. We are not intelligent enough to be able to see the writing on the wall. He also said that we must be trying to buy votes.
The only piece of information he gave us throughout the whole speech, which I found quite interesting, is that at present it costs roughly $21 million to transport people back and forth between the island and the mainland and it would cost roughly $42 million a year throughout the whole cost of the project and the continuous time it would take to pay it off.
What he failed to mention should be brought forward in the House. I would like to ask the hon. member if she could elaborate on this. What are some of the other economic development spin-offs created by these kinds of projects, which when added is a cost factor in itself, would help the islanders with better access to the mainland and entice businesses to want to move to the island because of the guaranteed access?
It is important for us to put some of those different issues on the record. Therefore, we do not give the impression the only thing we are doing is being stupid
and buying votes but that we do have some understanding of the economics of this issue.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the comments from my colleague.
With regard to the $42 million a year in subsidy for the 35 years, that includes both the operating and capital expenditures.
The previous member of the New Democratic Party from Esquimalt kept harping on $21 million, $22 million plus a giveaway of another $21 million of taxpayers' money. This is not true. When operating ferries there are operating costs and capital costs. There is repair and maintenance every year and every once in a while a feny has to be replaced. So what is built into the 35 years on the $42 million subsidy each year is capital costs as well as the operating cost. It is very fair and legitimate.
Second, it was said the project did not meet the EARP, the Environmental Assessment Review Panel. It did. There were certain ice-out conditions that the EARP panel brought forward. These were reviewed and certain criteria were set down by the special ice committee that was formed. The winning contractor has indeed met the specific criteria.
The infrastructure for P.E.I. is extremely important. It is for every city and every province, but specifically in the Atlantic and in P.E.I. We deal mainly with the agriculture and fisheries industries of which time and weather plays a main role. In order to get the product to market fresh and quickly obviously a fixed link, which is 100 per cent reliable, is the best way to go.
I believe tourism is the second major industry for the province of Prince Edward Island. People can come and go at their own time. They can cross over or cross back when they want to. It makes it a lot easier.
With regard to improving the infrastructure and the highway systems on both sides, be it in New Brunswick or in P.E.I., this has been taken into consideration. In fact it met one of the 10 proposals the former premier of P.E.I. set down before he would sign the particular proposal.
Sure we are building infrastructure. We are taking it into the next century. It is going to make P.E.I., New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and indeed Newfoundland, more competitive. Is that not what this country is all about?
February 22, 1993


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about the support among the fishing community for the fixed link. However, she will know that on February 6 at its annual general meeting the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association voted unanimously against the link. In fact it argued that a full environmental review should take place to assess the environmental consequences of the fixed link.
I wonder whether as a result of the unanimous opposition by P.E.I. fishermen the member would care to rethink her indications that there is so much support across Prince Edward Island for this link.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry certainly has been taken into very serious consideration because it is a major industry for the island. We recognize that.
Looking at other places throughout the globe where there has been activity, be it construction or engineering, in the areas where there is a very prolific fishing industry indeed it can be seen that it can be more of a benefit than a negative.
Also built into the trust fund by Strait Crossing Inc. is a $10 million fund specifically for the fishing industry. It is not that we are taking this lightly. We are taking it extremely seriously. None of these things have been overlooked. Therefore rest assured that fishing is a major industry and has been taken into consideration.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I would like you to designate an Order of the Day to consider the notice of Ways and Means motion tabled earlier today.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate today.
Unfortunately earlier we got into sort of a regional debate between east and west. Having practised law in the west and having children in the west and being a member from the east, I bring a very real Canadian perspective to this.
I am from the east. I am a maritimer, an Atlantic Canadian and a member from Nova Scotia. I want to declare my bias right at the start that philosophically I am against a fixed link to P.E.I. That is my philosophy.
Government Orders
Knowing a little about Atlantic Canada and P.E.I. I fundamentally believe that a fixed link will change the character of the island. Those who think this is going to be such a boon to the island are very misguided.
The boom-and there is going to be a boon and a boom-is that obviously jobs are going to occur on the mainland. Amherst, Moncton, the mainland area is going to perhaps develop beyond the construction jobs. That is where some of the suboffices are going to be. You will be able to scoot on to the island over the bridge. You will be able to drive on and off all within a day.
This could be such a fundamental shift in the whole social order of the island that the fabled Anne of Green Gables is going to become the witch of Cavendish. She very well could because of the change that will occur.
I have declared my bias. What a lot of people are missing, sincerely, I believe-we always sincerely debate in this Chamber even though we sometimes get a little political. What a lot of people are missing is that the environmental panel created by the federal government legislation assessed all the impacts, both plus and minus.
The plebiscite on the island was not for the bridge that this bill is for. It was for the vague term fixed link. It could be a bridge or it could be a tunnel. The environmental study finally was concluded and was referred to before. It was the Northumberland Strait Crossing Project report of the environment assessment panel dated August 1990.
It reviewed all the pluses and minuses and then came out and said: "The panel agrees that there is a need for an improved transportation service between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. After careful consideration, however, the panel concludes that the risk of harmful effects of the proposed bridge concept is unacceptable. The panel recommends therefore that the project not proceed".
This is the latest in the federal environmental panel. Subsequent to that there was a subsidiary ice panel that is not under the federal act which did the total survey.
The federal environmental panel itself says that improved access is needed. I am all for improved access to P.E.I. However the bridge was not approved.

February 22, 1993
Government Orders
In the summary it says: "The panel concludes that subject to a favourable independent environmental review a tunnel concept might be an acceptable transportation link between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. The panel further concludes that an improved ferry service might also be acceptable".
A bridge is not the only alternative to improve access to the island to maintain the constitutional necessity of a link to Canada. This is what is being lost in this drive to start this project.
Mr. Speaker, you are too young in the chair, and some of the members of the House are too young in the chair to remember but the concept of a fixed link with the island in the east is as old as the Chignecto canal. It is as old as linking the Fundy tides that could provide renewable power in an awesome way.
We have been through all that. I think the former member for Moncton and the mother of the present member for Moncton has a golden shovel in her basement for digging some of the foundation for the causeway back in 1966. We can actually still see some of the roadwork and/or the mudwork of what was going to be a causeway.
My point in saying no to this bill is that even though it takes time the study should be complete. I know there have been hundreds of studies but not in this modem age of technology. In effect the federal government's own environmental panel said no to the bridge and said it is for some of the alternatives. My philosophical bias is against a link. I am not an islander but I love the island. I think an awful lot of people come to that island because it is the way it is. A fixed link, especially the bridge, is fundamentally going to change it.
I have tried to be easy on this because obviously as an Atlantic Canadian, as a maritimer, I want to see jobs in an area that is in dire straits in so many ways. Obviously anything that can help in the construction itself is going to be a pump-primer. It may be for political purposes, and that is not unreal and certainly a surprise. Perhaps that is the reason we are trying to move the thing along.
I really tried to be as rational as I could. I tried to give the benefit of the doubt, to take care of my bias, and determine if the project, the fixed link and/or the bridge, will be financially and economically feasible.
This is the other general objection. I admit my bias but I am trying to resolve my bias. What I fundamentally criticize the present government for is not coming clean. My objection to this bill would not be so fundamental and I might even go along with it to get it into committee if the government came clean and did not pretend it was going to cost only $800 million when we all know it is going to cost much more.
I only have to look at the most meaningful study that was commissioned on the fixed link and the bridge by Woods Gordon in 1987. It estimated that the bridge would cost $1.3 billion, not the $800 million that the minister talked about when he introduced this bill on February 8. If that was the estimate in 1987 just imagine what the estimate is today. If members who vote for this bill are honest with their taxpayer constituents-this place is in such disrepute because we try to play with figures and smoke and mirrors. How can anyone say the bridge will only cost $800 million? That is the figure I looked up while I was waiting to be recognized by Your Honour. On February 8 the minister said $800 million and that is in the press release.
The parliamentary secretary today said $850 million. What is $800 million or $850 million? That is a long way, millions, hundreds of millions, from the $1.3 billion estimate in 1987.
Members in favour of this bill should admit that it is not going to be $800 million; it is going to be $1.5 billion. It was $1.3 billion in 1987. Let us use our common sense. Let us look at another crossing linking mainland with an island, the chunnel in Europe from France to England.
Is it not interesting that in 1987 the estimate for the chunnel, that is the tunnel, was $9 billion? Yet, in actual fact today the cost is already $16 billion. That is private enterprise. It is not supposed to involve taxpayers' money. They are having some real difficulties because of contractor fights, and I do not have time to get into that.
The point is that a $9 billion estimate in 1987 has become a $16 billion cost today with overruns along the way. Who believes that the $1.3 billion estimate of
February 22, 1993

Woods Gordon in 1987 will not grow in like fashion to not the $1.3 billion suggested in 1987 but closer to $2 billion if this thing ever goes ahead?
The other area in which there is a lot of misinformation is-and the hon. member for Calgary Southwest touched on it. The member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca made one of his typical and very bombastic contributions to this debate. It certainly was very interesting but I do not know how much light it shed. We can play with the figure of a $42 million subsidy a year for 35 years and say that is balanced against a $21 million subsidy that is actually paid to the ferries, and some years it is $21 million. However, the evidence really is that Marine Atlantic estimates that, using capital and operating costs that the member for Calgary Southwest mentioned, the figure for subsidy amortized over the 35-year period is $29.5 million. In other words, it is $30 million.
Let us assume that its figures are correct. We should not use the $21 million that is sometimes the subsidy in some years. Marine Atlantic has been great, the subsidy has been coming down and $21 million to $22 million has been the figure for the last few years. Using operating and capital costs and Marine Atlantic's own figures we get up to $29.5 million, or let us call it $30 million. Even $30 million is still $12 million less than the $42 million figure. There is an extra payment to help private enterprise of over $400 million.
There must be some frankness and openness here. Let the members who support this bill admit that the estimate is woefully low, that in 1987 figures it was $1.3 billion and it is going to be even more six years later. Let them admit that there is taxpayer money in this, that it is $42 million for 35 years, of which at least $12 million is extra and above whatever the subsidy is, so there is going to be a cost.
What happens at the end? After 35 years, after it has been built and run by the consortium, it is then given back to the Canadian taxpayer. I am not an engineer. However I certainly know about Lions Gate Bridge in Vancouver, British Columbia. Other colleagues have perhaps other ideas and knowledge about other bridges. A bridge over salt water, not to mention the salt that drips off the vehicles that are going to drive across it, has horrendous maintenance problems. While the life of the form of the bridge may be 100 years in Parliaments ahead when we are long gone the maintenance costs on an
Government Orders
annual basis will be very close to the subsidy that is presently being given to the ferry.
That is something that should be considered as members consider this bill.
This bridge is almost like a Trojan Horse. There are a lot of nice things about it. It is going to create jobs. It is going to speed up some traffic. Let us take it in like the people of Troy did before their city crumbled. This is not a Trojan Horse but it is going to be a Trojan bridge. There are a lot of deceptive things that come with this bridge that will not do all the good things that many of the speakers here in this House, in their honest belief, have said it will.
Something that I am very concerned with, and that no one has touched on concerning this link to expedite traffic back and forth, is how the bridge is going to operate. It is very interesting that in all the studies done on the subject only part deals with how this bridge is going to operate.
The Department of Public Works has a document entitled Investigation Into the Effect of Wind on Vehicular Traffic. There are some pretty sobering statistics in it as to how fast people are going to go across that bridge in view of the wind on the Strait, compared to even waiting for the ferries.
The Public Works document points out that due to the height of the bridge-63 metres or around 200 feet at its highest point-and the fact that it is over a large body of water where strong winds prevail much of the time: "At 50 metres winds of 40 kilometres will occur 84 per cent of the time; winds between 40 and 50 kilometres will force traffic to slow down to 40 kilometres, extending crossing time from 13 to 22 minutes. As winds increase from 50 to 70 kilometres more drastic measures are required, including conveying empty trucks at low speed thus slowing all traffic. Winds over 50 kilometres exist over 40 per cent of the time. Winds of 70 to 100 kilometres will see traffic slow to 30 kilometres, and empty trucks will not be permitted to cross until the winds die down. Winds over 100 kilometres will see all cars conveyed at 20 kilometres, taking 39 minutes, or conversely the bridge could be shut down".
The time that has been mentioned in this debate so far about the expeditious crossing because of a bridge, 13 minutes, is only for ideal conditions. When the winds get over 50 kilometres, which is over half the time, then traffic starts to build up behind as cars funnel onto the

February 22, 1993
Government Orders
bridge. It is not going to be quite the whizzing over and getting off, even though it is obviously a little more permanent than a ferry boat.
I believe the member for Egmont would know, but I think the ferry was only really closed down-I admit it has been delayed-about five days a year on average. I do not know if it is even five days but that is roughly the figure. Obviously people do have to wait in the summertime. The member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca pointed out that people also have to wait for ferries in British Columbia to get to Vancouver Island; two or three sailings sometimes.
In any event, that is where the notion of the Trojan Horse comes into the picture. After all the debate up and down, and it is a mammoth structure, no one really knows just how much that wind over the ice pack and the Strait is going to slow down traffic.
I have tried to be reasonable and get other justifications for it. In my own hometown there is a professor of economics who is an expert on large megaprojects. He has done a study on the bridge and did a study of the Public Works study which was the justification for proceeding with the bridge. That was the Fiander-Good study of 1987.
Professor Townley, at Acadia, questions the very fundamentals of the economics of the bridge. He argues that one of the main economic feasibility studies done for Public Works by Fiander-Good in 1987 was seriously flawed. He says, among other things, that: "The economic feasibility of the fixed link has not been established". Further he says that: "Construction of a fixed link would impose a net loss on society. From this perspective a debate concerning the magnitude of any ensuing environmental damage would seem moot. Any damage at all would simply magnify this social loss". That is what Professor Townley says on page 18 of his article called "The Weakest Link" in Policy Options of July-August 1992.
Let me mention that because of Professor Townley's article there was another economic study commissioned to look into the economic feasibility of the bridge. Just recently another group has come out supporting his conclusions. I believe as a mainlander that the social order of P.E.I. will be fundamentally changed in a negative way, when it is all shaken out, which very well
may have some negative impacts on the tourism industry that attracts people there by the droves in the summertime. Anne of Green Gables is going to become the witch of Cavendish if we do not watch out. We cannot really fully assess that. Then we look at some of the outside facts-starting with the environmental panel study that is fundamental if we believe in our own laws. You do that and it says not to go ahead. It says canvass some other alternatives and they have not been canvassed. Then you look at the fake figure of $800 million being used by the minister. Yet in 1987, six years ago, the figure was $1.3 billion. Compare that to what happened to the chunnel in 1987. It went from $9 billion to $16 billion. You are going to have the same ratio of increase. Then there is this figure you really can play with, the $42 million per year of subsidy.
In conclusion, because I know my time is just about up, on the $42 million I said you could be very reasonable. You cannot deny that $29.5 million or $30 million is the amortized subsidy. Therefore it is a $12 million difference. Politically and not getting into the buying of votes, what concerns me seriously as an Atlantic Canadian along with other Canadians, be they from British Columbia or elsewhere across the country who have been kind and good to Atlantic Canada, an area of regional and economic disparity, if I were just an ordinary taxpayer tuning on the television national news or prime time or whatever it is called now and saw that at this time of financial restraint when we are all supposed to be tightening our belts that the Government of Canada was proceeding with a fixed link that has been talked about since Confederation and proceeding against some of these reports, I as a taxpayer would have difficulty believing other things the government has said. To me in terms of Atlantic Canada which needs Canadian help it is something we should consider before we go any further with this.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, the fixed link crossing to P.E.I. is something we have talked about over the past number of years. In fact, when we look at the province of Prince Edward Island and how it came into Confederation, it was predicated on that promise of assured linkage. We have gone from the steamers that originally crossed between P.E.I. and the mainland, the province of New Brunswick, and now we have resurrected the question of a fixed link. As I have
February 22, 1993

alluded to, it is not the first time we have discussed this in the House. It had been discussed long before I arrived.
Hopefully we have come up with a plan that will work and one that I think most of us can accept once we have a chance to go through the numbers and find out what we presently have, what we are going to propose and whether or not it is a real alternative.
I will start by mentioning that in my riding of Carle-ton-Charlotte, there are three islands in the Bay of Fundy. As any member who has islands in their riding knows, it is quite difficult most of the time to visit them as frequently as you would like. Of those three islands I have Campobello Island, Deer Island and Grand Manan Island. One of those does have a fixed link now. Campobello Island is linked actually to mainland United States. Indeed, if you are a Canadian travelling to Campobello and you want to get there by automobile you have to travel through the continental United States to get there.
I can remember when that bridge was being built. It was something like the debate we are carrying on here today in the House of Commons. There are some interesting parallels between the debate to build a bridge to Campobello Island 30 years ago and the debate we are having here today. At that time there was mixed opinion as to whether there should be a bridge to Campobello Island. Of course, some of the arguments and some of the things we are hearing here today were suggested back then, such as the impact it would have on the fisheries and whether we could engineer a bridge to Campobello Island. But it was built. As I said, there was controversy at the time as to whether or not the people would accept it.
At the time, going back 30 years, I was just a very young boy, but I can remember there were some pretty strong arguments against it. At the end of the day, obviously the strong arguments for it won out.
It is interesting to note that the member of Parliament at the time who supported the construction of the bridge was defeated in the next election. Maybe the opposition members will take some comfort in that. It was a very emotional project at the time. If you visit the island of
Government Orders
Campobello today, you will find that the people of that island support it to the tune of 95 to 100 per cent. It has been good and necessary for the island.
When we look at P.E.I., they are going through somewhat the same debate today. One of the things that was done in P.E.I. was to seek support from native islanders as to whether it was something they desired. Most of us accept the level of support given on the island for a fixed link. If my memory serves me correctly, 60 per cent of the islanders are in favour of a fixed link.
The argument in regard to cost is interesting. I believe that some members in the House are not putting forward an intellectually honest argument in the sense that there will be a burden of cost on the federal government if we proceed with the project. That has to be cleared up because indeed there is a cost to the Government of Canada today. When I talk about the Government of Canada , of course I am talking about the taxpayers. As we know, these are the people who really pay the bills.
Today there is a cost of maintaining that linkage to the mainland with the ferries. That amounts to about $27.5 million per year every year. That is the annual subsidy to maintain that link today but it is not the total cost. The total cost has to consider such things as the replacement ferries. As we all know in this House, any time you are operating a boat or a ferry, at some point you have to replace it.
We are told that the replacement cost on those ferries, and the member next to me can clarify this because I know that he has done some research on that, is in the order of $50 million in the next number of years.


William D. (Bill) Casey: $500 million.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Five hundred million dollars. It is $50 million per vessel.


William D. (Bill) Casey: For half a vessel.


Gregory Francis Thompson: For half a vessel. So he is saying $100 million per vessel.
This means a $500 million replacement cost, half a billion dollars. There is indeed an added expense at the end of the day when the present vessels get to the end of their life span. They are very close to that now.

Government Orders
There is one point I wish to pick up on, and I know that the minister of fisheries mentioned this in relation to some questions from the other side of the House coming from the member from British Columbia.
This is a project that normally the opposition would be screaming for. How many times in this House have we heard the opposition talking about putting money into infrastructure? How many times? We have heard it many times in this House, talk about kick-starting the economy. Let us get some public works projects off the ground and let us get this economy moving, particularly in Atlantic Canada.
That is exactly what this project is doing. If you wish, it is going to be a kick-start. I hate to use that word kick-start because it sounds as if you are just hooking jumper cables up to the economy and off it goes, as we often have to do with our automobiles here in the heart of winter. It is not quite that easy. Nonetheless, this project will be somewhere in the vicinity of $800 million. That is not an insignificant amount of money but it is going to be money that is raised through the private sector and put to work. It is not as if the Government of Canada is going to write a cheque for that $800 million. That is coming from the private sector, so it will be a project that will sustain itself.
The annual cost to the Government of Canada will not exceed the cost that we presently have today, $27.5 million, because there will be upkeep costs and other assorted costs in maintaining a structure of that kind.
I cannot understand the opposition members' argument or opposition to this project because they want megaprojects, they want money injected into local economies and particularly the poorer parts of Canada. This is a big project. It is one I do not think they should fly in the face of.
Again it is moneys being put up by the private sector, not the Government of Canada. It is important to lay that out veiy squarely. Our costs will not exceed the fixed costs that we presently have to maintain the ferry service.
The other argument I think is a very unfair one. As I mentioned before, the fisheries minister did speak on this and took up the clinical argument that this was a political project with a political agenda behind it, the re-election of Conservative members of Parliament.
We do not have any members of Parliament sitting on this side of the House from Prince Edward Island. I wish we did. There are some members from the other side that I see here today from the Liberal Party who represent that island. There are four seats on P.E.I., none of which government members hold. There is one vacancy there and maybe we will have a shot at it but we are not doing it for that reason.


An hon. member:: You do not have a chance.


Gregory Francis Thompson: The member across is suggesting we do not have a chance at it. Maybe he is right, but time will tell. It is like a baseball game. You really cannot tell until it is over. Yogi Berra told us: "It's not over till its over".
That political argument is very shallow. I see the member over there nodding his head. He agrees it is a very shallow argument. We are doing the project and putting it together because it is the right thing to do for P.E.I. and it is the right thing to do for Atlantic Canada. We as New Brunswickers have a very keen interest in this project and want it to go ahead.
I want to step through about 10 points and these are key points that the P.E.I. government agreed to. It wanted it settled and agreement on it before it would agree to go ahead. I will go through those 10 points. I think I do have time.


An hon. member:: The Ten Commandments.


Gregory Francis Thompson: The member from Nova Scotia is suggesting the Ten Commandments. The P.E.I. government was pretty rigid in these and we did give the government and the people of P.E.I. reassurance on each and every one of these.
One, an assurance that the P.E.I. highway system would have the capacity to handle the extra traffic that will be generated, and indeed there will be extra traffic generated. It should be a big boon for the island economy.
Two, an assurance that the Wood Island ferry service would be maintained. That has been given.
Three, the right to consult with the federal government on the establishment of tolls. That has been agreed to.
Four, fair treatment of displaced ferry workers-very important-including job training, relocation assistance and early retirement benefits because many of those workers are concerned and legitimately so, especially in
February 22, 1993

an economy where there are not a lot of options. That is something we have considered. It is nice to see that assurance has been given.
Five, the federal agreement to study further development opportunities for the Borden area to offset any negative effects of the project because their economy is based on that ferry run, or a degree of their economy.
Six, the assurance that the economic benefits to Atlantic Canada during the construction phase would be maximized. We all want to see that.
Seven, assurance that the project would meet the strict environmental criteria under the federal environmental assessment and review process. We are working in that regard.
Eight, compensation for fishermen whose livelihood may be adversely affected. That assurance has been given.
Nine, assurance that the fixed link will include a utility corridor at a reasonable cost to the province.
Ten, the Government of Prince Edward Island wished to ensure that the interests of its people were taken into full account before it would agree to proceed. It did agree to proceed in December. In December 1992 the province was satisfied that the conditions it had stipulated-those that I just outlined-had been met. As far as I am concerned they have been met and it will be a green light for this fixed project.
In conclusion, all I can say is that if they are going argue, and I do not think they are arguing too strenuously on the other side of the House, particularly those from Atlantic Canada, please argue on the basis of the project. Let us not float around some of these phoney numbers in regard to the cost to the federal government because there is no cost over and above the costs of maintaining those very ferries today.
I am proud to support this project. We would all like to see that it goes ahead.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, the member indicated he supports this bill. I wonder whether he has consulted with the Micmac people in New Brunswick as to their position on the fixed link
Government Orders
because I understand from my sources that they are not in favour of it.
I would also like to ask him if he is aware that the environmental assessment of the generic project recommended that the project not proceed. If he believes in the laws of Canada why does he now think that it is all right for the government to proceed?


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any correspondence with the Micmac people regarding this project. If the member does have correspondence and concerns raised by that particular group, if I could have a look at it I could understand the basis of her argument. However, I have not had any correspondence in that regard.
Concerning the environmental aspects, there is some misinformation with regard to the ice-out factor in the construction or the use of that facility. I think that has been clarified by the federal government and environmental experts who have looked at the project.
The record clearly indicates those considerations have been looked at. I do not believe it creates a problem that would jeopardize the structure at all. In fact the life of this structure-it is important that we put this on the record-as engineered is 100 years. It is important to state that because obviously it is a cost factor to be considered, the replacement of an existing bridge. Therefore, a 100-year life span is something that we can all take some comfort in, knowing it is not an expense which we will have to look at down the road in 25 or 30 years as some are suggesting.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate in this debate as a Canadian who supports efforts to ensure that weaker regions of the country have investment in their infrastructure and investment in their economies.
I also speak as a Canadian who spent 12 years living and working in the maritimes, and feel some appreciation of the particular problems of that region. I was in Prince Edward Island last week and among other things heard from ordinary citizens in Prince Edward Island of their opposition to the fixed link.
I am pleased to support the suggestion of my colleague, the member for Skeena, that rather than go ahead because of the ineffectual and faulty environmental assessment which has taken place, we refer this

Government Orders
matter to the Standing Committee on Environment so we can fully investigate the environmental implications of the link.
At least a couple of hoaxes are being perpetrated on some Canadians and on the people of Prince Edward Island. I will go into them in more detail afterwards but first of all, the government has said an effective environmental assessment review process has taken place when in fact that is not the case. To the extent that a environmental review by independent assessors has taken place the link has been shown to fall short of an appropriate environmental response.
Second, the hoax of the economics of the issue is being portrayed as advantageous and economically a good deal for Canada, a good deal for Prince Edward Island. The fixed link falls short on this basis too as I will relate.
The fixed link is being portrayed as being something that Prince Edward Islanders want. If we look at the question that was asked Prince Edward Islanders regarding the transportation issue between the island and the mainland, we will see that it is by no means clear that this fixed link is what Islanders chose.
We have, as we so often do, a situation where the Liberal members of Parliament, in this case from Prince Edward Island and from elsewhere, support a project proposed by the Conservative government. Both Liberals and Conservatives, two peas in a pod, are arguing the same points, ignoring the environmental implications of such an important project and the economic implications of such an important project. They are ignoring warnings from their own people in Prince Edward Island about the effects of the link.
My New Democratic Party colleagues and those whom I spoke with in Prince Edward Island last week are opposed to this plan for a fixed link because we are just talking here about a bridge. We are opposed because an appropriate environmental assessment review process was never carried out. We are opposed because the company which has the most interest in ensuring that this goes ahead, SCI, has really had phoney information sessions across the province to come up with the answers that it wanted in support of the link.
I want to speak a little about the issue itself, about the problems of the ferry service. Seven hundred ferry jobs are at stake. If we take the ferry away and if we add
others affected, perhaps 1,200 people will lose their jobs as a result of this project.
While there may be 1,000 or so jobs involved in building the fixed link, there will only be jobs while the link is being built. They will not be long-term jobs.
Many have asked questions about a better ferry service, an improved ferry service, rather than a fixed link. Across the world there are hydrofoils, hovercraft, as well as conventional ferries making fast, comfortable journeys for commercial and recreational purposes, making journeys further than those which are involved in Prince Edward Island. Somehow they get by without wasting billions of dollars on a bridge.
It is well recognized that the purchase of two additional ships would deal with the present problems of delays by those attempting to use the ferry service. Two new ferries would cost infinitely less, I think around $4 million, and would provide a service without the waiting for those going to and from the island. That is a far better investment than the over $1.5 billion which is being suggested for this link.
If we were really serious about dealing with the transportation issue on Prince Edward Island, we could solve it by providing a couple of extra ferries. We could save those 1,200 jobs and provide a service which would be satisfactory to those on the island.
I would like to go on to talk about the environmental impact. Clearly we would see increased environmental impact in a number of ways. If all those cars drove across on the fixed link, the environmental impact would be far greater than the impact of the ferries crossing over. That alone should be reason for concern.
The studies which have been done concerning the environment have given rise to serious concerns which have never been answered by the federal government except to the extent that the federal government has ignored them and set them aside. Never at any time did it provide extra information, facts or back-up for the arguments and the concerns raised by the environmental assessment which has taken place.
There are problems with ice being trapped and there are problems with the fishery. They cannot be ignored. It is not clear at all from the research which has been done
February 22, 1993

that the ice problems can be solved and that they will not give rise to serious environmental damage.
The studies point to serious problems. The only response the federal government could make to the federal environmental assessment panel which recommended against building the bridge was to conclude that these ice problems were manageable. There was not any effective justification for that conclusion.
We should be concerned when the fishermen of Prince Edward Island unanimously oppose the fixed link on the grounds that it will harm their fishery. We heard a great deal today how this fixed link will not harm the fishery. Why then would representatives of the 773 island fishermen resolve at their annual meeting on February 6 to oppose the construction of the bridge until effective environmental assessment has been conducted and the true impact of the bridge could be assessed.
Surely we cannot ignore the views of those who work and live off the fishery in the vicinity of where the link will be built. Why would we want to do that? Why would we want to fly in the face of their advice with regard to the potential problems to the fishery?
In 1990 there was an Environmental Assessment Review Panel. It was the federal government's own panel. It rejected a fixed link for a number of reasons, such as the marine ecosystems and agricultural microclimates arising from the potential for delayed spring ice melting. There is the risk of damage to spawning grounds. We have limited knowledge of the Northumberland Strait ecosystem which makes it difficult to predict the environmental impact of such a link.
The review panel opposed the construction of a link because it was regarded as being incompatible with sustainable development and because inadequate consideration was given to the cumulative impact of building such a link.
The panel also opposed the link because of the difficulties in finding socially acceptable work solutions for displaced ferry workers and fishermen and because of inadequate consideration of the environmental and ecological impact on Prince Edward Island as a result of increased patterns of tourist growth. There were also problems concerning land use issues in Prince Edward Island.
Government Orders
In its conclusion, the panel said there is a need for an improved transportation system between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, something we all accept. However, after careful consideration the panel concluded that the risk of harmful effects of the proposed bridge concept is unacceptable.
The panel therefore recommended that the project not proceed. Instead of taking notice of that review panel, the federal government basically ignored it, issued a report of its own and said the review panel's concerns about the construction and operation of the bridge were either mistaken, misguided or easily dealt with.
It is a hoax to say we have had effective environmental assessment of the fixed link. It appears to be the case that both the provincial Liberal government and the federal Conservative government are prepared to turn a blind eye to any harmful environmental impacts.
I think it is clear that there are enormous gaps in information, data and understanding of how this region works. It would be totally unacceptable to move ahead without a more effective environmental review of the situation. On the basis of environmental concerns, the fixed link just does not stand up. Prince Edward Islanders deserve better from their provincial Liberal government and their federal Conservative government as well as their Liberal MPs who do not seem to be speaking for ordinary Prince Edward Islanders but for the business community and are not at all interested in the true impacts on Prince Edward Island life and the sea around the link.
I would just like to close by making a few comments about the economics of this fixed link. At the moment Marine Atlantic, which is responsible for the ferry services, is one of the island's largest employers with a wage bill of almost $17 million. Over the 35 years, the time for which the federal government would replace the cost of running the ferries with a subsidy to this private corporation which will be building and running the link, that would constitute some $588 billion lost to Prince Edward Island. That does not include any increases in workers' salaries and wages over that time.
Prince County in Prince Edward Island experiences the highest level of unemployment of all the counties on the island. The loss there as a result of building this link rather than continuing with an improved ferry service, which would be entirely feasible and economical, would be 422 jobs or some $430 million over that period of time.

Government Orders
The economic impact on the region most affected would be catastrophic to say the least.
If the ferry service was improved it would be an economically sustainable method of transportation. If we maintained and expanded it we could address the concerns of Prince Edward Islanders and those who wish to visit there for both commercial and tourist reasons.
A study conducted for the Department of Public Works also makes it clear that the economic viability of this project is a serious problem. In a report by Gardner Pinfold in 1992, the conclusion is made that if economic viability is an important criterion for proceeding with the project, it would be advisable to conduct a more rigorous analysis.
The conclusion of another report by Professor Townley of Acadia University mentioned by my colleague earlier states that the economic assessments which have been done do not establish the economic viability of a fixed crossing.
There are serious economic and environmental questions about the viability of this fixed link. When Prince Edward Islanders were asked whether or not they were in favour of a link between the mainland and Prince Edward Island they were not faced with the question of bridge only, they were faced with a choice between a bridge and a tunnel. They were also asked whether or not more research should be done on the project.
The response from Prince Edward Islanders is ambiguous with regard to their acceptability of the link. If any members care to visit Prince Edward Island they will find many islanders opposed to the link for the reasons I have mentioned, primarily environmental and because they fear that the island's way of life will be destroyed forever.
It is unfortunate that none of the Liberals MPs from Prince Edward Island will speak out on behalf of those who raised serious questions about the impact of this link.
This is an attempt to improve the economic situation of Prince Edward Island and it is to be supported. We cannot go around this country building megaprojects which harm the environment. We cannot continue to
treat the environment as if it does not count or cost anything, as if the implications on it do not have a major impact on our future way of life.
We know that our environment is in serious danger, yet the government and the Liberal Party are prepared to go ahead with this link in spite of those environmental concerns.
It would be foolhardy and environmentally dangerous, and economically it does not make sense.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, it is really puzzling to me why the NDP members are so opposed to development in Atlantic Canada and particularly in Prince Edward Island.
They drop in to my province for a few hours occasionally during the year and suddenly become experts on the province. They know very well that the labour unions in Prince Edward Island are in favour of the fixed link. I have letters in my office from the labour unions of Prince Edward Island supporting the link.
Officially the fishermen's associations would like to have an environmental assessment but many fishermen in Prince Edward Island support the fixed link. It is okay for the New Democratic Party to stand up and give all the reasons why we cannot have any development there. It is okay to support the St. Lawrence Seaway which ruined our ports in Atlantic Canada many years ago. We continue to support that seaway which goes to Thunder Bay and takes the prairie grain out to the Atlantic. It is okay to support weight subsidy for grain transport to British Columbia ports but it is not okay for Prince Edward Island to have a link to the mainland to facilitate the transport of its products to market.
I find it really incredulous that the NDP continues to harp and harp, in this manner, about a bridge across the Northumberland Strait. It is time to vote on this and take it to second reading so we can review what has been done. We can review the 92 environmental studies that have been done over the past seven years. We can review and question the economics of this proposal.
I am really tired of listening to this type of criticism from the New Democratic Party. We should vote on this and get it to second reading so we can bring in our expert witnesses from all sides. Then we can satisfy ourselves as
February 22, 1993

members of Parliament whether or not this is a feasible project.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the member has not been listening to much of what has been going on in the House today because it is clear that New Democrats are not opposed to economic development in any region of Canada. Indeed, we fully support efforts to improve the economic situation of Prince Edward Island.
It would be foolhardy to ignore the environmental implications because in the long term that will not benefit Prince Edward Island or Prince Edward Islanders.
It would be foolhardy to support the legislation to implement the fixed link in principle without fully considering its implications. You cannot go ahead and ignore the economic and environmental consequences of such a major project. It makes much more sense to make our assessments first before supporting the issue in principle.
I do not want to suggest to the Liberal members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island how to do their jobs, even though they do not like us to criticize the environmental and adverse economic implications of this link. Surely they should be a little more holistic and concerned about the total impact of something of this magnitude. They should be asking more effective questions about what the impact of this link would be.
The member mentioned the trade unions in Prince Edward Island. He will no doubt be aware of a recent letter written to the newspapers in Prince Edward Island from the president of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Labour where serious questions were raised about the economic and environmental implications of the link. His letter says: "I only hope that the Islanders promoting the bridge are right because a lot of people will be hurt and hurt severely if they are wrong". That hardly seems to constitute support for such a major project.
Let us just stop for a moment and consider the economic and environmental implications. Let us not just go full speed ahead without considering these implications.
Government Orders


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the ability to enter the debate this afternoon. I think it is important for someone from the middle of Canada to take the time to express the relevance of this specific piece of legislation to the House.
I know that this government and this cabinet minister, the Minister of Public Works, are very concerned about public transportation issues. He went to great lengths to resolve a very significant transportation issue within my own constituency.
There is a certain amount of hypocrisy coming from the NDP. When we were trying to resolve this issue in my riding the members opposite criticized the government for not moving quickly enough to resolve a transportation issue. Today the members opposite are criticizing the government for possibly moving too fast.
I would like to move into a little more reserved and detailed presentation. I would like to thank those who took the time to help me do the research on this particular piece of my presentation because it is quite detailed and it is quite important that it be added to the debate.
I first want to address the history of our transportation links to Prince Edward Island and how this incredible project will benefit the people of the island and the Atlantic provinces.
Under the 1873 conditions of union with Prince Edward Island, the government committed to, and I quote: "maintain efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers".
Since the earliest days of Confederation the federal government has placed a high priority on meeting its commitment to the province to provide a transportation link to the island.
I would like to explain how we have met our commitment to the province to link the island with the rest of Canada over the years.
Prior to 1917 the routing of marine service for the carriage of passengers and freight to the island changed with the seasons. Ferry terminals were built at Borden and Cape Tormentime to coincide with the introduction of a new ice-breaking ferry, the SS Prince Edward Island. This ferry entered service in 1917 and provided the first capability to carry rail cars to the island.

February 22, 1993
Government Orders
In 1923 the Canadian National Railway began to operate this service. The SS Charlottetown was introduced in 1923 as a companion to the SS Prince Edward Island. However, in 1941 the SS Charlottetown ran aground and was a total loss.
The first diesel-powered vessel, the MV Abegweit was introduced to the service in 1947 and was capable of carrying both autos and rail cars. The MV Confederation was introduced to service in 1962 and later moved to the Wood Islands-Caribou route.
In 1968 the MV John Hamilton Gray was constructed for the service at a cost of $14 million at which time the SS Prince Edward Island was retired. The mainstays of the Prince Edward Island fleet, the MV Holiday Island and the MV Vacationland, have been serving the island since 1971. These vessels introduced navigational efficiencies to the service because they have a unique navigation propulsion system which has proven to be both efficient and effective. In 1982 the old MV Abegweit was replaced by a new MV Abegweit, a large modem ice-breaker. I understand it was a considerable expense to the government to build that particular ferry.
When Marine Atlantic was incorporated in the mid-1980s it was entrusted with the responsibility to operate and maintain the Borden-Cape Tormentine ferry service on behalf of the federal government. While it is financially dependent on the federal government, over recent years Marine Atlantic has made some improvements to the level of cost recovery for its ferry operations, to the extent possible, given the economic realities of Atlantic Canada. This has been achieved by reducing costs and increasing revenue levels wherever possible.
It must be kept in mind though that the cost of capital acquisitions for the ferry service is high. A recent estimate of the cost to replace one of the vessels in the Prince Edward Island fleet puts the capital costs of the vessel at $95 million. I think some of my colleagues have mentioned the high cost of investment earlier in the debate; in fact, there was one commentary where one of the most recent vessels added to the fleet cost in excess of $200 million. It is a very expensive venture.
The federal government has also provided financial assistance for the ferry service operating between Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island and Caribou, Nova Scotia. This has been operating since 1938. The operation of this service has been provided by the Northumberland Ferries Ltd. since 1941.
The House may recall that the government is investing over $60 million for the construction of a new ship for the Wood Islands run. This includes the construction of the terminals necessary and all the infrastructure to get this initiative up and running. This initiative has resulted in the creation of jobs in Pictou and Caribou, Nova Scotia and Wood Islands, Prince Edward Island, in addition to providing an important addition to the ferry transportation link between the island and Nova Scotia.
It is the view of the government that the transportation sector is part of the basic infrastructure of Canada. Transportation is essential to the daily economic and social life of this great nation by joining the many regions and moving goods and people from coast to coast. The construction of a bridge to span the nine miles from Borden, Prince Edward Island to Cape Tormentine on the mainland is one of the largest private sector engineering challenges ever to be undertaken in this country.
I come from Manitoba where hydroelectridty is a very significant part of our infrastructure and I know what the results are of these significant projects on the provincial economy. The fact that a new hydro development project in Manitoba is up and running has a significant impact on all the communities throughout Manitoba, and I would expect that this construction project will have a very significant impact on the economies of all the Atlantic provinces.
I am pleased to acknowledge the hard work of my colleague, the Minister of Public Works, in bringing this important project to its present stage. He has met the challenges of a complex public environmental review process and he has studied and complied with stringent environmental criteria related to the bridge design.
The unique approach to this project whereby the bridge will be financed, constructed, owned, operated and maintained by the private sector has been developed in an effort to minimize the cost to government. While the developer will assume all normal construction,
February 22, 1993

operation and maintenance risks, in return it will receive an annual government subsidy for a period of 35 years.
It is important to note that paying a subsidy for 35 years will result in a bridge that for the remaining 65 years of its expected design life will require no government subsidy assistance at all. This represents a significant future saving to Canadian taxpayers. In addition the operation and maintenance of the bridge will be funded on a user-pay basis through the collection of tolls.
We have debated a number of times over the last while in the House on the user-pay theory that has been put forward by this government. This is just another prime example where user pay is the appropriate way to go and is in support of any one of a number of government functions.
It is important to note that an estimated 3,500 person-years of employment will be created in the Atlantic region over the five-year construction period directly related to the bridge project. We can also talk about the fact that there are significant spin-offs outside the bridge project itself.
We cannot and do not ignore the fact that there will also be an enormous impact on the present Marine Atlantic ferry workers. We hope it will be found that an acceptable compensation and adjustment package will be in place to assist these employees who have contributed so much to their communities.
Nonetheless we are undertaking this project because we firmly believe that this bridge will have an enormous effect on modernizing transportation access to the island. We certainly anticipate with optimism that the dramatic improvement in accessibility to the island will have a very positive impact on Prince Edward Island's tourism industry.
A modem Canadian transport system is important to Canadian consumers and to our industrial sectors. Efficient transportation access is directly related to the competitiveness of Canadian goods and services on markets at home and abroad. For these reasons the federal government has always been and will continue to be committed to the future of the transportation industry in Canada.
In closing, it is my hope that all members of the House will join me in supporting Bill C-110 so that we may proceed with this important and historic national under-
Govemment Orders
taking. I look forward to the question being put and the vote being taken.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to enter into the debate on the fixed link project.
The $900 million bridge proposed by Strait Crossing would replace federally subsidized ferry service between the two provinces. The government is willing to provide the developer with an annual subsidy over the next 35 years which would otherwise go to the ferry. The subsidy would then disappear with the government assuming ownership of the bridge which has a design life of 100 years.
This sizeable project of $900 million has not undergone the proper environmental studies, the proper socioeconomic studies. The ferry workers are also stating that they are unhappy with the lack of information coming from the premier's office on a compensation package should they lose their jobs to the link. They want answers and they want them soon. These are the kinds of things to be done before and not after a project is undertaken.
I come from British Columbia where there are many of these big megaprojects. I was the mayor of the city of Revelstoke when the big hydroelectric dams went in there. We had virtually three years of studies on the socioeconomic impact and how it affects communities. Where will the gravel come from for the massive amount of cement that is going to be used? What kind of environmental effects is that going to have on those parts of the country? What kinds of effects is it going to have on the communities close by? What will be the social impact on those communities? None of these questions have been answered.
In November the finance minister came in with a megaproject just before an election, a $900 million project for P.E.I., a link from P.E.I. to the mainland. He came in with this massive project. One of the main contractors is based in Calgary. Someone comments about the political impact of those four members of Parliament.
I would ask the political question: What about the donations to the federal parties? What about political donations to the governing party? A project of this magnitude is interesting. We will not find that out until the election is over and we look at the Election Expenses

February 22, 1993
Government Orders
Act to find out who contributed to the Conservative Party and who brought forward these kinds of funds. There is a long list of items.
I also want to talk about what happens when projects of this size come on stream, how they affect the communities, how they affect the hospitals that are needed, how they affect the services, the ambulance services and various other services that are required.
A community needs some time to know where the gravel is coming from, where the social base is coming from, where the education is coming from, and where the structure is going to be set in place to bring this about. Evidently the Liberals and the Conservatives have no concern about that. The main thing is to get the project on stream.
There is a ferry service in place that is handling that service, that transportation. There is no need for rushing on the part of the government to push through a project like this one. There is a need for people to go to work and the social impacts of that. We have called for infrastructure programs with municipalities. We have called for training of employees to get workers back. Why is the government not looking at these kinds of programs rather than this hare-brained idea of a fixed link to the mainland? If the government were to look at these kinds of projects, I would give it one.
There is a piece of highway from Banff National Park to Golden, British Columbia. It can only be described as a cow trail. I have been in contact with the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Finance stating that the highway should be upgraded. We have a four-lane highway from Calgary to Banff. It goes down to a two-lane highway and then hits Field, British Columbia, and can only be described as a cow trail.
There is a court case going on in Golden right now, or in the Kootenays, with regard to serious accidents that have taken place on that piece of highway which was never built to number one TransCanada Highway standards. There is 18 per cent unemployment in the Kootenays. Here is a project the government could have gone into if it wanted to bring about programs to upgrade our transportation systems and meet the needs of the future.
I do not want to say to P.E.I. that it should not have its projects or that it should not have its methods. However, surely to goodness when we have the debt structure this government is talking about there are ways to upgrade ferry services such as we have done in British Columbia, to bring that about and to look at the other programs available to us.
Infrastructure in Canada, our sewer systems, our water systems and various other systems in our municipalities, can only be described as deplorable in many areas. The municipalities want to go, in many cases the provinces want to go, and the federal government says no, that it will not participate in those kinds of programs.
We do have a problem. We have a government that is trying just before an election to come out with some megaprojects, not only to create one of its dreams in the Atlantic provinces but to provide some funding for its next election campaign from big contractors who bid on these projects and donate to the government of the day. It uses those kinds of projects to get itself re-elected. It is in a kind of dream world with regard to these types of projects.
The project will not bring about the fiscal responsibilities that should be in a transportation act. It will not provide the kind of employment that is needed across Canada. It will not provide competitiveness. Some members over there like to use the word competitiveness: "We need some competitiveness in this government to be able to be competitive in the world market". Where is it going to bring about the competitiveness? While this link is being built, Canadian Pacific Railway is talking about tearing up its tracks.
Here is the government using government money to subsidize a bridge while the railways are saying they are going to tear up the tracks. The railways should be paying for that bridge, if that is what they are going to do. If they are going to tear up that track, with all of the lands and all of the assets they were given, the railways should be the ones that are providing the fixed link so that the transportation can come by truck, if that is what the railways are deciding.
Why is the government taking the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order please. It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
February 22, 1993

Government Orders
and put forward every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the amendment lost.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I think that the House will consent unanimously to applying the result of this vote in reverse to the main motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.

February 22, 1993
Government Orders


Mr. Duceppe:: Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the main motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill is referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992.


BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION (FISCAL MEASURES) ACT, 1992 MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-76, an act to amend certain statutes to implement certain fiscal provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 25, 1992, be read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Anawak
Catterall
Danis
Manley
Soetens
Cadieux
Charest
Maheu
Shields
Thrner (Vancouver Quadra)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 6.22 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 23, 1993