1993-06-14

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mifflin:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to extend custodial jurisdiction for northern cod over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of a motion of my friend and colleague from Newfoundland, from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. Let us remind ourselves what the motion says.
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to extend custodial jurisdiction for northern cod over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
This is not a new idea but it is a timely one. That is why my colleague said in the motion that immediate action should be taken. The time for delaying any further on this one is gone. It is not justified. We ought to move.
I was looking back over the transcript of the earlier interventions in this debate. A couple of things immediately leaped out at me. One was the remarks of my good friend, the parliamentary secretary for fisheries and oceans. He said in part that the Prime Minister has played a key role. Indeed, the Prime Minister has played a key role in this. I will come back to that in a moment.
First, I want to make reference to some words by my good friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan who I see in the Chamber. He said in part: "This is not a new problem. It
has existed for a decade and a half at least." As so often with the members in the NDP, they are half right. He said two things. "This is not a new problem" and he is right. Then he went on to say: "The problem has existed for a decade and a half".
I say to him, not quite, but I understand where he was going. Listen to the next sentence and you will see what is always and forever the NDP agenda. The next sentence says: "We have had Liberal governments and we have had Conservative governments and both have given assurances that the problem is being worked on". I say to him that is a good line. It is a great line and part of their continuing strategy to lump us all together. The facts have never really stood in the way of members of the NDP when they wanted to do that. Let us look at the facts. He says: "The problem has existed for a decade and a half". In other words 15 years, and that would take us back to about 1978.
He will want to check the facts on this but we did not have overfishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks in 1978. The reason we did not have overfishing at that time was because of the Liberal government of the day led by Mr. Trudeau and the efforts spearheaded by the late Don Jamieson whom I succeeded in this particular seat of Burin-St. George's. These men and others in the cabinet of that day succeeded in getting the jurisdiction extended to 200 miles. With it and with NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, there came a very orderly pursuit of the fishery by all the countries involved, including the countries of the European Community, particularly Spain and Portugal.
The gentleman from Nanaimo-Cowichan has access to this information, he reads well and he knows this information. He skated on it here but he knows the information. The information is clear. It is not in dispute. It is information from the statistics of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. For the year 1978-79, which he was talking about, there was no foreign overfishing. The Spanish stayed within their quotas. The French stayed

June 14, 1993
Private Members' Business
within their quotas. The Portuguese stayed within their quotas. Everybody without exception stayed within their quotas from 1978 to 1984.
The quota for the cod stock we are talking about in this resolution in 1984, for example, for the European Community was 23,200 metric tons and that is what the Europeans took. They stayed within quota.
What did they do the next year, 1985? There is the rub. In 1985 the quota for the European Community was also 23,200 metric tons and they took 172,000 metric tons. They took eight times their quota. In 1986, they took 12 times their quota.
Has the problem existed for a decade and a half? No, I say with respect to my friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan. It was a good point to try to lump the Tories and Liberals together again. It is a good try and a good NDP tactic, but as most NDP tactics it is fairly hollow and not based on a lot of facts. I say to the hon. member, the problem did not begin a decade and a half ago.
The problem began nine years ago and that is where I now come back to the earlier original quote by my friend the parliamentary secretary who said: "The Prime Minister has played a key role". Indeed he has played a key role in this one. The new prime minister to be, the now minister of defence, did play a key role as did others.
I come from an evangelical tradition in which we talk not only about the sins of commission but also the sins of omission. It is one thing to do the things you should not have done but it is equally wrong to omit to do the things you should do, the sins of omission.
The gentleman from Baie Comeau, the Prime Minister; the lady from Vancouver, the prime minister-designate; the runner-up in the weekend leadership, the Minister of the Environment; the minister of fisheries from Newfoundland, and I could name others, by their sin of omission, by failing to do something about this problem, allowed the problem to come to the impasse it is at today.
.(1115)
We have to be particularly critical of the people who have been here since 1984.1 recognize that the lady from Vancouver did not make it here until 1988. She became somewhat of an accomplice after the fact. She continued to aid and abet the sin of omission. However the
gentleman from Baie Comeau, the Prime Minister, and the gentleman from St. John's West, the minister of fisheries, are the people who, as my friend the parliamentary secretary unwittingly said, played the key role by standing idly by and allowing the European Community, the Spanish and the Portuguese to take eight times their quota in 1985 and 12 times their quota in 1986. That is the key role they played and that is the key role we will not allow them to forget.
Why present this motion now? This is not the first time we have presented such a motion. I moved a similar motion in March 1992. We have been trying for some time. The reason I moved it in March 1992 was that I took some encouragement from the words of my friend, the minister of fisheries. While he did not say it in the House, he did say outside the House that he foresaw that the taking of custodial management would be the only alternative. That was what he was telling his friends in Newfoundland in small groups. We never could get him to say it here but he said it in fairly public ways back in Newfoundland.
It is only a 10-minute speech and I have received the signal that already, although I was just warming to the subject and getting comfortable with it, my time is just about up. Good morning. We are here every Monday morning this time. Thank you for dropping in. Good to see you.
The point of this resolution is that the time has come to act. The time has come for us to do what has to be done. We have tried every other route, and we are not advocating that we abandon any other routes. Let us keep talking if that helps. If more diplomacy does something then let us do it. In the meantime, let us now give notice that we are tired of waiting, we can no longer have our fishery pillaged and we can no longer stand idly by while thousands of our fish plant workers and fishermen are walking around jobless, not because they are lazy but because there are no fish out there.
Why are there no fish out there? It is because the Spanish, the Portuguese and the French have taken them. Why have they taken them? They have taken them because of the key role played by the Prime Minister in standing idly by for years and years and allowing it to happen. We are saying in this resolution that the time for that kind of key role is over and the time for standing idly by is over.

The time has come now for people of good will, for people of all parties to get behind the fishermen on the south coast of Newfoundland and throughout Atlantic Canada, to get behind those plant workers, to stand up for our sovereignty, to protect our fish stocks and do what has to be done to now assume custodial management over those stocks. They are really our stocks. I know they spend some time on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks but they are our stocks. This is the vehicle by which we can move.
I invite members of all parties to join with us in this important resolution.


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased this morning to take a few minutes to talk about the motion of the hon. member who represents a riding in Newfoundland. Of course, this issue of fisheries is of particular interest to me because the eastern part of the riding I represent is heavily dependent on the groundfish fishery.

I would like to take a few minutes to address the House on this issue due to the fact that several communities in the eastern part of my riding, in the area known as the lower north shore, are dependent on groundfish activities, mainly codfish. I would like to point out some facts relevant to this issue.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has risen in this House on more than one occasion to describe what would happen if Canada unilaterally extended its jurisdiction for cod or any other species beyond our 200-mile limit. Such gunboat diplomacy may be in violation of international agreements. [DOT]
It would invite retaliatory action and it would threaten the co-operation we are succeeding in obtaining from many states in our efforts to develop rules for fisheries that would promote sustainable development of the fish resources on the high seas.
Private Members' Business
I am surprised that this motion has been put forward at this particular time when Canada and other like-minded states are preparing for their participation in the United Nations Conference on High Seas Fisheries.
The conference held its organizational meeting April 8 to 23 in New York City. Its first substantive session will be held in New York City from July 12 to 30. The conference is expected to complete its work no later than the fall of 1994. If it is successful it could go down in history as a major step toward conservation of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks.

This international conference is crucial not only for Canada but also for the rest of the world because, like many other maritime nations, Canada is now going through a serious crisis in the fishery. Scientific indicators show that the biomass of northern cod has reached a critical low, which has led the Canadian government to impose a moratorium on fishing for this species on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland. It has been supported in this by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, on behalf of its 14 contracting parties. In the past six years, with accumulating scientific evidence showing that the biomass of various other regulated stocks is below the threshold of viable harvesting, the quotas have been lowered every year.

All the members of this House are well aware of the costs of these declines in terms of unemployed people and plant closures. As members of this House know, we have initiated compensation and retraining programs for unemployed fishermen and plant workers as an industry restructuring program.
However Canada is not the only nation faced with declining fish stocks. This is the fate of straddling stocks in many other parts of the world: hake in the southwest Atlantic on Argentina's Patagonian shelf; orange roughy on the Challenger Plateau off New Zealand; blue whiting and jack mackerel in the east central and southeast Pacific off Chile and Peru; and pollock in the so-called doughnut hole in the central Bering Sea between Russia and the United States.
This is also happening in the Sea of Japan where exclusive economic zones have not been established and

June 14, 1993
Private Members' Business
the high seas begin at the limit of the 12-mile territorial sea. However some positive steps were taken in 1992.
While there are several causes for these stock declines including, in Canada's case, climatic change, a major factor has been unremitting and undisciplined overfishing by distant water fishing fleets. No matter how well coastal states manage straddling or highly migratory stocks inside their own waters they have no control over what happens to those stocks when they migrate to the high seas where they are subject to over-harvesting by distant fishing fleets.
The specific rights of coastal states and the obligations of the high seas fishing states are only vaguely sketched out in the Law of the Sea. The resultant legal uncertainty leaves these stocks vulnerable to overfishing on the high seas by fleets from distant water states.
To resolve these tragic situations the UN conference on high seas fisheries must result in an effective regime for the conservation and management of straddling stocks and highly migratory species. By effective I mean a regime that is workable and that does the job it is intended to do, which is to allow depleted stocks to renew themselves to levels of sustainable development.

Since 1989, Canada has made a whole series of high level diplomatic efforts to stop foreign overfishing in its economic zone. The Canadian government would like to establish better international co-operation to conserve fish stocks straddling the 200-mile line, especially cod, halibut and ocean perch, which are being relentlessly overfished outside its economic zone. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and other federal ministers have had discussions with the leaders and fisheries officials of several countries to convince them of the need to stop overfishing.

These initiatives have achieved several notable successes in the past year and a half. The European Community stopped fishing for northern cod on the nose of the Grand Banks at the beginning of June 1992. An agreement between Canada and the European Community, announced on December 21, 1992, has been hailed as a victory for common sense and sound conservation.
The European Community and Canada agreed to comply with all NAFO conservation and management decisions, including quotas. From 1986 to 1992 the European Community set for itself unilateral quotas higher than those set for it by NAFO.
The European Community will ensure that catches by its fleets do not exceed NAFO quotas. From 1986 to 1991 EC catches exceeded most NAFO quotas and in some cases the European Community's higher unilateral quotas.
Canada and the European Community will work together to end fishing by non-NAFO fleets. These fleets, largely comprising Korean and re-flagged European Community vessels, have become an increasingly serious threat to resources outside the 200-mile limit.
Canada and the European Community will work together to revitalize NAFO through joint proposals to add a dispute settlement mechanism to avoid abuse of the objection procedure.
Canada will set a total allowable catch for northern cod based on advice from Canadian and international scientists. Scientific advice indicates that on average 5 per cent of the biomass is outside the 200-mile limit. Canada and the European Community will propose that NAFO make allocations of 2J3KL cod equal to 5 per cent of the total allowable catch. Canada will retain 95 per cent of the TAC.
As the European Community will now be co-operating with Canada in conservation of fisheries resources outside the 200-mile limit, as soon as both parties have given formal approval Canada will treat the European Community in a non-discriminatory manner regarding access to ports, any surplus allocations and any commercial arrangements.
If problems arise with the agreement there will be consultations to seek to resolve them. Either Canada or the European Community can terminate the agreement on 60 days notice.

At the annual meeting in September 1992, all contracting parties of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization agreed to comply with the ban on fishing for northern cod within the Canadian economic zone. In addition, the European Community announced that it
June 14, 1993

intended to respect all the resource management decisions which NAFO would make in 1993.
At their meeting, the contracting parties also approved new management and surveillance measures to be implemented in 1993, including the imposition of a new minimum mesh size and minimum landing sizes. Furthermore, as part of an experiment, NAFO observers will be put on board ships of each contracting party.
I think that Canada in recent years has implemented measures to protect migratory groundfish stocks and of course to ensure as well that our Atlantic fishing industry will survive the present difficult period, while permitting the industry, fishermen and plant workers to meet their needs and continue to support their families.
[English\
I would like to assure the House that the Government of Canada is taking every step possible to ensure the sustainable viability of the fisheries sector. I do not think that taking custody of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks would help Canada to achieve the goals that we have set for ourselves and for our industry.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate my colleague from Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception on bringing this bill forward and having this debate today. I share his sentiments. I believe this is a measure that we must take now, simply because nothing else has worked. We are left with the only option we have, as far as I can see.
He is behind this and I congratulate him for bringing it forward. It would be very interesting to know where his opponent stands on this bill. His opponent is the former minister of fisheries from Newfoundland who went to Europe time after time to try to convince the Europeans of our case and try to get them to stop overfishing. He did that time after time and he failed. I failed. We all failed. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans failed. Everybody who tried negotiations failed.
It seems to me that it is very important to know where he stands. Does he support this, or does he support the government in saying: "No, we must not take possession of the jurisdiction of the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. We must just continue to negotiate and try to talk our way out of this. We must just try to invoke international agreements to our benefit". Does he take that
Private Members' Business
position or does he take the position of the Conservative opposition members in Newfoundland? They believe that not only must we take jurisdiction over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, but we must call in the navy, not just the Canadian navy but the American navy as well.
I listened to an interview with Mr. Matthews, the Official Opposition critic for fisheries in Newfoundland, on CBC radio two weeks ago. He said very clearly that the time had come to stop talking. On that day there were 103 foreign vessels fishing just outside the 200-mile limit. There were 103 foreign trawlers, mostly Spanish and Portuguese, fishing outside the 200-mile limit on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. It was after the election so there was obviously no election agenda, no election ploy and no votes to be gained. He said very clearly that the time had come to stop talking. The time had come to not simply take jurisdiction but to bring in the navy to enforce that jurisdiction.
He is right because this is our only option. Why is it our only option? Because this is our life. What is happening in our province now and I suspect will start to happen throughout other parts of the Atlantic region too is that we are bleeding to death. In terms of our life, our culture and in terms of what we are about as a people and what we have been, we are bleeding to death. Somehow or other we have to stop that.
I listened to the hon. member as he said: "What would happen if we did retaliate, if we did take this action? Would they not retaliate?" That seems to be the same as the Muslims saying: "If the Serbs attack we must not fight back otherwise they will retaliate", or in Somalia if the Somali war-lords attack the UN the UN must not attack back otherwise the Somali war-lords might retaliate. Sure they are going to retaliate. We have been attacked and we must fight back.
The hon. member knows just as well as I do because of where he comes from that this is our life. He knows that. He knows that this is the life of the Quebec north shore. He and I share a constituency. The people who fish north of Blanc-Sablon and the people who fish south of Blanc-Sablon share that way of life and have no option. It seems to me we have k responsibility to protect those people who cannot protect themselves. They are the real victims of overfishing because they have not been able to

June 14, 1993
Private Members' Business
catch those fish inshore and they also have no alternatives.
I want to get back to what I said about the present situation. As a result of the moratorium we have people drifting in our province now. They see no future in the road ahead. They are confused and frustrated. Some are even getting into a situation of despair about the future. Those are the people we have a responsibility to protect.
Regarding the EC agreement, we have talked to the European Community and we have some things written on paper. However, it is very clear the European Community has no control over Portugal and Spain. That is obvious.
Not only does the European Community have no control in North American waters, it has no control in European waters. My impression is that what is happening off the coast of Norway is the same as what is happening off the coast of Newfoundland. The European Community can put all it likes on paper, but it cannot back it up. It cannot put that agreement into effect because it has no real control.
The European Community at the present time is completely immersed in its own agenda. It has problems of its own. It has to try to draw some unity out of the disparate states that presently make up Europe. I hope it succeeds in doing that, but that is where its focus and energy is and that is where its problems are.
The European Community does not see this as a top priority problem at the present time. Neither does it presently have the means to enforce any agreements it makes with Canada. Those agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. If the government is putting all its hopes on the agreements that we have and the fact that we may be able to talk the Europeans into living up to those agreements, I think it is a false hope. I think that is an empty hope. It is a hope that has proven to be ineffective.
As I said at the beginning, we have tried all other options. We have tried discussion. We have tried diplomacy. We have tried agreements. They have not worked.
At the present time people who depend almost wholly and solely on the fishery, people who are vulnerable, people who have no alternatives, people who have seen
their resource destroyed through no fault of their own are now asking what we are going to do about it. They want to know if we are going to take meaningful action or if we are going to continue talking.
The only answer is the one the member for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception has put forward today. The government has to listen to this debate. It must take it seriously and act on the suggestion that has been put forward. It seems it is the only answer for us. I hope that the House as a whole will take this seriously, see the wisdom of this motion and support it.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words concerning this motion. The person who has moved the motion is the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. Bo-navista Bay, Trinity Bay and Conception Bay are three bays, enormous areas on the east coast of Newfoundland.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception represents practically the entire east coast fleet of Newfoundland. That fleet involves very small vessels compared to the foreign vessels we are talking about today.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception perhaps knows more about the ocean than any other member in this Chamber. He was a rear admiral in the Canadian navy. There are only five rear admirals in the entire country, a couple of them on the east coast. However, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception was a rear admiral in our navy.
The zone he is talking about trying to kick the foreign vessels out of is the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks. Why it is called the nose and the tail, I do not know. It does not look like a tail and it does not look like a nose. I suppose the nose and chin might be better. However, the nose and the tail are the two areas that lie outside the 200-mile zone.
About 5 per cent of Canada's continental shelf goes outside of the 200-mile economic zone. It is those two areas that this motion is about. The motion reads that Canada should extend jurisdiction and kick out all of those foreign vessels fishing on the nose and the tail of the Grand Banks, that 5 per cent of our continental shelf outside the 200-mile zone. Who is out there? Canada is the only country in the world today that has foreign
June 14, 1993

vessels fishing on its continental shelf without permission.
The last country which allowed that to happen was Namibia in Africa. Little Namibia turned around a year and a half ago and said to Spain and Portugal: "If you do not get off of our continental shelf we are going to send out our warship". It did not even have a warship. I understand it had a 30-fool vessel with a 12-gauge mounted on the front. Namibia went out there with that 12-gauge and shot a couple of shots across the bow. That is what happened a year and a half ago. That is history. One hundred and fifteen Spanish factory freezer trawlers left Namibia and went to the nose and tail of the Grand Banks of Canada with no objection from the Canadian government.
These are foreign factory freezer trawlers 400-feet long. We do not have one factory freezer trawler in Canada, not one. Well, there was one brought over from Europe, the Cape North, however we do not have any that are fishing. Why? We do not allow that technology in Canada because it destroys our environment. It destroys the bottom of the ocean. It destroys the spawning grounds. It really destroys the fishing resource.
It takes 15 years for a flatfish living on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks to reach maturity and reproduce. It takes that same fish six years off the European coast. Therefore when a spawning ground is destroyed off the Canadian coast it is being destroyed for a long time. That is the reason for this motion presented by the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
What has been the response of the Canadian government? I will tell you what it has been. There has been a press release. What did the press release by the Government of Canada this summer say? I will table it. It said: "In 1993, 50,700 tonnes of fish"-which is enough to keep five fish plants going the whole year round, and this is from external affairs-"will be allocated to foreign countries inside our 200-mile zone."
Starting now, we allow foreigners this summer to come inside our 200-mile zone and fish 50,700 tonnes of fish with those factory freezer trawlers. We will leave them alone on the nose and tail. We will also allow them in to
Private Members' Business
catch enough fish to keep five fish plants going year round in Canada.
On top of that, what else? Before the minister made that statement, there was a dandy one called domestic allocations. He listed 17 Canadian companies from British Columbia, to the north, to the east, to the central region, that are allowed to fish in 1993 inside Canada's 200-mile zone using foreign vessels.
One hundred of the same factory freezer trawlers today that are outside the 200-mile zone destroying our fishing resource are now going to come inside as well, hired by Canadian companies. On top of that, there are
50,000	tonnes just to the foreigners themselves inside 200 miles.
We look at these observer reports. One observer report is marked "secret" but it sure ain't secret after it gets in my hands, not from fisheries and oceans. What does this secret report say about these foreign vessels?
A foreign vessel is catching argentine. I have never seen an argentine; it is like a large smelt. I have seen a smelt, a silvery smelt. It is like a large smelt. It swims in the middle of the ocean. What did this factory freezer trawler from Russia and one from Cuba catch? This fellow caught 5.6 tonnes of crabs. What was he doing, digging for oil? Crabs crawl along the bottom of the ocean. He was fishing in the middle of the ocean. He caught 25 tonnes of lobster.
I did not know crabs could swim. Lobster can a little bit, backward.


An hon. member:: Like the Tories.


George Baker: No, they can't even swim. To complicate matters, 1,000 tonnes of herring were caught. Herring swims on top of the ocean.
So we have foreign vessels trying to catch fish in the middle of the ocean catching crabs on the bottom of the ocean and catching herring on top of the ocean. They must be using a vacuum cleaner. That is what they arc using, two-inch mesh size, raking the bottom of the ocean floor for as far as they can go and the Canadian government allows them to go everywhere: on the nose and tail, inside, around.

June 14, 1993
Private Members' Business
Meanwhile Canadians are sitting back, getting their packages. Canadian fishermen are not allowed to put a net in the water. Our small boat fishermen and our fish plant workers at home doing nothing have to be paid by the taxpayers of Canada. Why? Because we bend over backward to eveiy other nation in this world. External affairs runs the whole show. Where are they going to have cocktails tomorrow? That is what governs our policy when it comes to the fishery. It is a disgraceful situation.
I think all members of this House, regardless of political affiliation, should vote in favour of this motion by Rear Admiral Mifflin who is now the MP for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception. They should vote for the motion and send a signal to external affairs that we are fed up and we are not going to put up with this any more.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, could I have an indication of how many minutes I have, please?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Five minutes.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -Canso):: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to just pick up from the discussion of my learned colleague from Gander-Grand Falls on the points that he was making in his speech. I have heard my colleague on numerous occasions speak in this House and outside of this House about the problems of overfishing both outside and inside of our 200-mile zone. He has a veiy interesting, entertaining and colourful way of making what is a very serious and very important point.
I think the point bears directly on this issue that has been raised by my colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception who did a great deal of research prior to putting forward this motion on the whole issue, legal, ecological and fisheries related, to justify our taking this step of extending functional jurisdiction in these areas.
There is no question that the research has been done. We have been patient as a country for far too long with the kind of pillaging which is taking place on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks of Canada. It is time finally that this government or the successor government act on
this very important issue. It may well be too late, but it is certainly time.
I would like in the short time that I have available to raise an issue which is central to this whole debate. The issue is the distinction between what has traditionally been called utilized and under-utilized species of fish which are considered to be in excess of the needs or the capacity of Canadians to catch them.
When the 200-mile limit was declared by Canada in 1977 one of the ways in which our government at the time proceeded in order to obtain compliance from other countries and co-operation from them in not overfishing our stocks was to make it possible for these countries to catch fish which were considered to be surplus to Canadian needs. They were fish which Canadian technology could not catch at the time or which Canadian consumers could not consume, so other countries were allowed under permits by Canada to come inside our zone and fish these so-called surplus species. In addition we were hoping at the time and I think the hope was well placed that other countries would behave and co-operate outside of the 200-mile zone in the areas where there are fishing activities, principally on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
As we have seen, and it is particularly sad to say, since this government took office there has obviously been no co-operation by those vessels fishing outside our zone. The result is that the fish stocks in those areas have been decimated.
It raises a very profound and fundamental question. The question I want to bring to the floor of the House in the very brief time I have available is the distinction between under-utilized and utilized species.
I think we as a government and as a country have to begin to question the validity of that distinction because we are now learning that really all fish in the water are related in an ecological sense.
To declare, for example, that capelin is an under-utilized species and therefore can be fished by a foreign government is no longer relevant because capelin is a food fish for other fish which we use. Other fish in the
June 14, 1993

Government Orders
water live in the environment with the fish that are our traditional species.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You have 10 seconds to finish.


Francis G. LeBlanc: My
point quite simply is a plea to begin to re-examine, reassess and question this fundamental distinction which has been used to allow foreign fishing in and around our 200-mile limit. That distinction is no longer valid and relevant in this day and age.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 11.51 a.m. o'clock and pursuant to Standing Order 93 the time provided for debate has expired. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:


Mr. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, you will surely obtain unanimous consent from the members of this House to defer the vote on the private bill of the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception to the same time as the scheduled vote on the time allocation motion for Bill C-110, that is 12.30 p.m.


Mr. Mifflin:: I agree with my colleague's proposal.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.
Division on motion deferred.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) moved:: 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 report stage and one sitting day to the consideration of the third 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 report stage consideration and on the day allotted to the third 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 necessaiy to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


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


PAIRED MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. As agreed earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on Motion No. 677 under Private Members' Business.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mifflin:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate action to extend custodial jurisdiction for northern cod over the nose and tail of the Grand Banks.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Following the adoption of the 24th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, Wednesday April 29, 1992, the division will be taken row by row starting with the mover and then proceed with those in favour of the motion sitting on the same side of the House as the mover; then those in favour of the motion sitting on the other side of the House will be called. Those opposed to the motion will be called in the same order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, June 10, consideration of Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 1, 4, 7, 18, 21, 57, 60 and 63.
Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be given the opportunity to take part in this debate today to establish the fixed link between Prince Edward Island and mainland Canada, a permanent link. The Fathers of Confederation in 1867 came to the agreement that made this nation the country it is and established the foundations of Confederation that have served us so well since that time.
Efforts to connect Prince Edward Island to mainland Canada go back to 1885. Prior to Prince Edward Island joining Canada, the question of the fixed link was first raised in the 1830s. From the 1830s onward summer steam vessels and winter ice boats provided a sporadic kind of link between Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. When Prince Edward Island finally became a province of Canada in the spring of 1873, one of the terms of confederation dealt with that link. In it Canada assumed a constitutional obligation to provide a continuous connection to the mainland. The terms of union clause reads:
That the Dominion Government shall assume and defray all charges for the following services, vis., efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland in the Dominion in winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the intercolonial railroad and the railroad system of the Dominion.

June 14. 1993
Government Orders
In 1885 the idea of a tunnel under the Northumberland Strait was proposed. This was supposed to ensure year round communication. The tunnel concept was studied and analysed off and on for the next 30 years but never really got beyond that stage.
In 1966 construction was actually begun on a bridgecauseway combination. Access roads were built. Before work on the actual bridge-causeway got started the project was scrapped. That is when the province of Prince Edward Island signed a development agreement with the federal government in lieu of continuing with the causeway bridge concept.
The latest round of discussions began with a Public Works study in 1982. On January 18, 1988 Islanders voted. The results were 60 per cent in favour of the link and 40 per cent opposed.
On June 10, the premier of Prince Edward Island, a former member of this House whom I respect and admire not only because I know her and the work she did here in the Parliament of Canada and her principles and dedication to hard work, took on the premier's mantle in Prince Edward Island as the first elected lady premier in this country. She introduced a measure before the Prince Edward Island legislature to comply with a March court ruling and these measures clear the last obstacle for this project.
The Northumberland Strait crossing project, or as it is commonly called the fixed link, is without a doubt the single most important project to be undertaken involving Prince Edward Island since it joined the Canadian Confederation.
It is estimated that over 90 studies have been conducted on various aspects of the project. Most of these were in the last five or six years. Since 1987 there have been 55 studies by Public Works Canada on the Northumberland Strait crossing project itself. There have been 19 studies done by Public Works Canada for the Northumberland Strait bridge project and the concept assessment supplement, including documents. There have been 4 studies through FEARO and related reports. There were 3 miscellaneous reports, 7 through Environment Canada and related documents and 4 from Strait Crossing Incorporated and related reports. This does not include the days when the causeway was being considered or the days when the tunnel was considered back at the turn of the century and even earlier.
Prior to the vote former Premier Ghiz wrote to the public works minister, Stewart Mclnnis, November 6,
1987-that was the actual date of the letter- and indicated on behalf of the Government of Prince Edward Island that the support for the link was contingent upon the satisfactory address of 10 principles. The 10 principles had to do with: highways; the Woods Island ferry; the submerged lands; tolls and how they would be arrived at; the displaced workers at Borden-Cape Tor-mentine; economic development for the town of Borden; the Atlantic content in the materials that would be used and the labour required; an environmental impact study; the fisheries that were very important to Prince Edward Island and the utilities. That was the utility corridor to be used at no cost to the province.
These 10 points have been addressed to the satisfaction of both Premier McKenna and former Premier Ghiz. On the list of concerns the environment has moved to the fore. In fact the environment has always been one of the main concerns of building a fixed link of any sort across the Northumberland Strait. To show environmental compliance the following clauses were included in the federal-provincial agreement. I think these clauses are extremely important and I will quote them in their entirety. Clause 6(1) reads:
Public participation in the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process, commonly known as EARP, was undertaken to the satisfaction of Canada, P.E.I., and New Brunswick.
Canada through its Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada and Transport Canada, in conjunction with the provinces of RE.I. and New Brunswick, had deemed that a fixed crossing can be constructed in an environmentally friendly and acceptable manner.
Clause 6(2) reads:
The construction and operation of the fixed crossing shall comply with the environmental laws, regulation and relevant environmental codes of practice of the provinces of New Brunswick and P.E.I. and the government of Canada, as well as other specific requirements identified by means of the evaluation conducted under the federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process.
Clause 6(3) reads:
As a condition of the coming into effect of this agreement and prior to financial closing, the developer must obtain the necessary approvals under provincial and applicable federal environmental assessment legislation and complete an environmental management plan acceptable to Canada, New Brunswick, P.E.I. and the province of Nova Scotia.
June 14, 1993

In conclusion I do not think we can underestimate the positive economic impact that a fixed link would have on Prince Edward Island. Everything indicates that if we are to improve or even maintain our standard of living we must also become more self-sufficient. We must have a greater degree of economic independence and we must become more competitive. An improved transportation system is crucial to Prince Edward Island becoming more competitive whether it is for manufacturing, the processing sector, the agricultural sector, the fishing industry or tourism.
Economic activity will grow not only during construction but in the years afterward. The link will generate industrial expansion and create jobs. The link will generate growth and tourism. It will create jobs for that region of Canada.
I have always been very proud as a Canadian to sit in the House with colleagues from every province of Canada. This time is no exception. I am very proud of the people in Prince Edward Island and their contribution to the development of this nation.
It makes a lot of sense that we should work to pass this bill and let them establish a permanent, long-lasting, meaningful link to bring together the seat of Confederation with the rest of this country to pull it together at this time of uncertainty ahead of us.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I really want to take up where my colleague left off and say that indeed one of the primary reasons for building the fixed link to Prince Edward Island is to join together the mainland of Canada with Prince Edward Island which was the birthplace of Confederation.
We who live in the east, and not necessarily those of us who live in Labrador but those of us who live or have lived on the island of Newfoundland from time to time, know something about islands, distance, isolation and the need for togetherness.
I fully applaud the efforts of those people on P.E.I. and here too on both sides of this House who initiated this project. There is a need to do this project.
I am satisfied as many others are that environmental precautions have been taken and that the proper environmental hearings have been held. The environment is
Government Orders
naturally a concern. We must study that. We must examine it. We must make sure it is protected. However there are other things that must be protected too and those are the lives, homes, livelihood and future of the people who live on Prince Edward Island.
What they need is an opportunity to compete in Canada and indeed in the global marketplace. If they are to compete in terms of the resources that they have, which include fish, potatoes and tourism, they need infrastructure. My leader and my party have been speaking very strongly about the need to put in place infrastructure in terms of the various parts of this country that need it.
That means roads, bridges, wharfs, water and sewer services. In this case it means a surface link to the mainland so that P.E.I. can both attract goods and services that come to it and send back to the mainland of Canada goods and services that it has to offer.
That is of fundamental importance so that the people on Prince Edward Island can compete. It is important in other parts of Atlantic Canada too. What I like about this move and what we have before us today is that it can be a model for building infrastructure in other parts of the Atlantic and indeed in other parts of the country.
The model is not new. Where I have lived from time to time on the island of Newfoundland we have traded boats for roads before. There was a time when we did not have on the island of Newfoundland a road across the island. There was a time when we did not have roads down the various peninsulas. All of the island was served from the sea by boats.
The Government of Canada in 1949 took on that responsibility and has been subsidizing that sea service. Where I live in Labrador we still have that sea service as well. We still get our goods and materials by sea from the island of Newfoundland. We have the beginning of a road in Labrador but we do not have a road across Labrador.
We do have the beginnings of a road from Labrador City to Goose Bay. This year we have shown that the use of that road has reduced our costs in Goose Bay by 30 per cent. By bringing in our goods and materials over that road, mostly from the province of Quebec but hopefully from other parts of Canada too, we have reduced our

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
cost of living in Goose Bay and in the central part of Labrador by 30 per cent.
What I like about this particular measure that is before us in the House today is that it provides a model whereby we can think about other forms of infrastructure too. In my own area I would like to see us examine this model and apply it to the Labrador situation. We need that road if we are going to compete.
The way to get that road at a time of restraint and fiscal difficulty is to use whatever means we have at our disposal. One of the means that we have at our disposal is Marine Atlantic. I know that there are people who work with that service and who have given yeoman service over the years. They are people who have given the kind of service that if we did not have it then we would be very badly off indeed. We have been served well by Marine Atlantic.
Today costs are escalating such as the cost of fuel and capital construction. We realize that the cost of building a ship today is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. When government is faced with that kind of cost for continuing a marine service, then it is effective, expedient, useful and the best option to put that kind of money into a surface link. That will happen in P.E.I. I believe that when this link is built in P.E.I. it will experience the same savings that we have started to experience in Labrador.
I hope that in Labrador we can continue the construction of the Trans-Labrador Highway right down to the Strait of Belle Isle so that we have a road right across Labrador. The way to build that road, and it will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, is to make use of the Marine Atlantic subsidies.
The pattern and the model that is being used in P.E.I. is to go to the private sector and ask an engineering consortium to raise the capital in the marketplace and build the link. We would pay it over a period of 25 years with the money that we would normally have put into Marine Atlantic.
I want to take that model and apply it elsewhere and say to other engineering firms that if they were to go to the marketplace and raise the money and build a road across Labrador we would be able to eliminate maybe not all, but a great part of our marine service. This is a marine service that is getting increasingly expensive. We would be able to eliminate that and we would take those subsidies that we have been paying into those services. We would take the capital cost that we would have to pay
out for new ships and pay it to the private contractors over a period of 25 years. In that way we can have our surface link too.
This is an important measure. An important measure for Prince Edward Island. I want to support it for that reason. I believe it needs this kind of infrastructure in order to make it competitive in modern society. I like it too because it provides a model that we can use elsewhere to build other forms of infrastructure in the Atlantic. Other roads and surface links in the Atlantic will be important to us and will allow us to compete in the 1990s and on into the 20th century.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am happily joining this debate today because I think that the superficial speeches that we have been hearing, particularly from the Liberals, avoid the reality of what is going on constitutionally and environmentally in terms of this project.
Members of this House should be aware that the assembly in Prince Edward Island has only just moved by Walter McEwen and seconded by Catherine Callbeck an amendment to the Constitution that deals with the guts of this matter. This is not going to be dealt with until tomorrow night.
I do not think that we should forget that the Federal Court of Canada, Madam Justice Barbara Reed, has made several orders in relation to this project that certainly the Liberals and the Conservatives seem to want to pay no attention to.
The proposed amendment to the Constitution of Canada that has been tabled in the Prince Edward Island legislature to be dealt with sometime late tomorrow says the following.
The schedule to the Prince Edward Island terms of union is amended by adding thereto after the portion that reads: "and such other charges as may be incident to and connected with the services by which the British North America Act 1867 appertain to the general government and as are or may be allowed to the other provinces" the following: "that a fixed crossing joining the island to the mainland may be substituted for the steam service referred to in this schedule. That for greater certainty nothing in this schedule prevents the imposition of tolls for the use of such a fixed crossing between the island and the mainland or the private operation of such a crossing". This amendment may be
June 14, 1993

cited as the Constitution Amendment 1993, Prince Edward Island.
We have the Parliament of Canada proceeding to pass Bill C-110 under the constraints of the guillotine before there has been a proper specific assessment of the bridge that is proposed by SCI, Strait Crossing Incorporated, which I would remind this House is 70 per cent foreign-owned in Great Britain and the United States.
I do not think any of us should forget for a moment that the great beneficiaries of the fixed link are not going to be Canadians. They are going to be people who live outside of Canada. MPs from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have never bothered to tell any of their constituents about the reality of the beneficiaries should this go ahead.
Let us deal for a moment with this contempt of the people of Canada, of this Chamber proceeding to pass into law something that will tie the taxpayers of Canada over the next 35 years to a contract that will require the provisioning to SCI, Strait Crossing Incorporated, a foreign-owned corporation, $1.47 billion in 1992 dollars: $42 million a year for the next 35 years.
The Constitution of Canada says that the service is to be provided to the people of Prince Edward Island without cost. What are their MPs, Liberal and Conservative, doing? Not only are they abandoning their responsibility to stand up for Canada's Constitution in the Chamber today, the official spokespersons for the Liberal Party have never stood in this Chamber or outside of this Chamber and asked for a full, proper, public environmental assessment and review of the specific bridge proposal.
They are glad to do it in other provinces. They are glad to talk about Clayoquot, they are glad to talk about other issues. When it comes to pandering to a foreign-owned corporation the Liberals know no depth to which they will plummet. They are completely and totally unprincipled in terms of the environmental assessment of this project. Mark my words this will come to haunt the Liberal and Conservative Parties in the years to come.
Government Orders
Let me return to the constitutional matter for a moment because I think we should take a look at just exactly what Madam Justice Barbara Reed had to say. I am quite confident because this matter again goes before the Federal Court later today.
The court will be interested to know just exactly how scurrilous the activities in this Chamber as led by the government House leader have become in terms of this project to pay off SCI. I predict that in the years to come when historians are investigating SCI and its links to members in this Chamber, in particular its links to the government, they are going to find some very interesting facts.
Why is it that this government is prepared to tie the taxpayers of Canada to a bill for $1.47 billion and rise blithely in this House and say that is only the annual costs of providing ferry services between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick now. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Auditor General confirmed that last year's costs for that ferry service were $21 million. Why is it that the government plans to give $42 million a year to SCI? This is corruption at its very worst, contempt for the people of Canada on a constitutional issue, contempt by the Liberals and Conservatives on a matter of environmental assessment review. Let no Liberal or Conservative come to my province or any other part of this country and say they stand for environmental assessment and review of major projects. They have let every Canadian down by not standing four square for a full environmental assessment and review of the specific bridge project.
The generic bridge project was turned down by a full panel, rejected out of hand. This is absolutely mad. This has now been buttressed and backed up by the Federal Court ruling. Let me read from the ruling made by Madam Justice Barbara Reed. "It is hereby ordered that the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Transport, and other representatives of the Government of Canada shall not make any irrevocable decision relating to the specific SCI proposal until after a section 12 decision is made and the documentation relating thereto is released

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
to the public pursuant to section 15 of the Environmental Assessment Review Process guidelines".
That has not been done. Where are the Liberals? They are reading written speeches. Who were those speeches written by? I suppose they were written by Allan Skales. The Liberals say he is not in a conflict of interest. Come on. He is appearing in a Federal Court action on behalf of the government of Prince Edward Island and he is also the chairman of Marine Atlantic. Give me a break. It is the most blatant conflict of interest one can dream up, but the Liberals are silent about it. The Conservatives are silent about it.
What gives? It is a straight pork-barrel hand-out to SCI, a foreign-owned corporation. Not only do the taxpayers of Canada pay for the whole bridge, give it over to SCI with no risk whatsoever, but the shareholders in this bloody company get to collect tolls on the bridge. At the end of 35 years after ripping off every man, woman and child in P.E.I. and New Brunswick and every other Canadian, they get the tolls. They get all the money for building and maintaining the bridge. After that they give us the bloody bridge back, a rusting hulk, 35 years from now.
There is not a single significant comparative study on the face of this earth that shows that bridge can stand the kinds of ice pressures, winds, weather and high intensity atmosphere that is found in crossing the Northumberland Strait.
We have one of the most intriguing situations of skulduggery and corruption and contempt that I have ever run across. The Liberals in this House during the last debate rose and said they supported environmental assessment and review. Then they very quickly buried that. The MPs from Prince Edward Island leaped all over each other and tried to pull their tongues out, rewrite history, rewrite their speeches and tell everybody that was not what they said. We know they did say it but it is not what they meant.
We know what the Federal Court has said. We know about the sneaky jiggery-pokery going on with Catherine Callbeck and the Tories. Liberals and Tories are no different whatsoever. No Canadian should ever get mixed up about that. These are the twin parties of corruption and contempt on these kinds of environmental and legal matters.
Let us take a look at what Madam Justice Barbara Reed was talking about. On Friday, March 19, 1993, the
Federal Court of Canada ruled with respect to the proposed fixed link between P.E.I. and New Brunswick that: "The Minister of Public Works has failed to comply with the requirements of section 12 of the Environmental Assessment Review Process guidelines order". The minister was found to be a failure.
What about this great Minister of the Environment who just ran to be Prime Minister as recently as yesterday. He wrote to me on March 10, 1992 and said: "The requirements of the environmental assessment review process have been fully satisfied with respect to that proposal".
That is not what the court found. That is not what the fishermen in New Brunswick and P.E.I. believe. That is not what the Friends of the Island believe. That is not what any clear-thinking environmentalist or for that matter Canadian citizen would believe in relation to the approach that has been taken.
When we are talking about the Minister of the Environment, where is Bill C-13? We had to sit late nights a year ago. I understand the law list has been shredded in the interests of certain corporate interests.
Let me conclude my remarks in this section of the debate by saying how sad I am that we are now launched on a process that is a contempt of this Parliament. This is contrary to Canada's Constitution as it now reads. Even the constitutional amendment by the P.E.I. legislature will not be dealt with until tomorrow night. The Federal Court made an order that we are heading toward a direct non-compliance. That is contempt in its most vulgar form. We should not be doing these kinds of things. All of this is quite aside from the arguments I will make later today about the environmental aspects of this foolish proposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.
June 14, 1993


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Accordingly, Motions Nos. 4, 7, 18, 21, 57, 60 and 63 are also negatived on division.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West) moved:: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-110 be amended in clause 4 by striking out line 15 at
page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"Minister considers desirable, including terms and conditions to avoid or limit adverse environmental effects that may result from the implementation of the agreements".


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie) moved:: Motion No. 12
That Bill C-110 be amended by deleting clause 4.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, in speaking only on Motion No. Ill want to make it clear that this motion comes forward at this time because stronger motions with respect to environmental protection moved by my colleagues in committee were ruled out of order.
The position of the Liberal Party on this fixed link has been quite clear for some time now. From the beginning we have said that we are in favour of the fixed link if it can be demonstrated that it can be accomplished without damage to the environment and the fisheries.
On this matter we have on record the statements of the Leader of the Opposition, who happens to be the member of Parliament for the riding in New Brunswick in which the bridge will end. This has also been the consistent position of the premier of New Brunswick and two premiers of Prince Edward Island.
We felt in committee that requiring amendments to the agreement to ensure the protection of the environment, which we have sought, was the appropriate way to go. However those amendments were ruled out of order. Therefore we put forward amendments to ensure that the minister does have the authority, if he chooses to use it, to include environmental conditions in all agreements
Government Orders
signed with respect to the Prince Edward Island fixed link.
While this is only permissive legislation that only allows the minister, but does not compel the minister, to include environmental conditions in the agreement we trust that it will ensure that the issue of protection of the environment and protection of our resources will be something that the minister must take into consideration in signing these agreements, now that he has the authority to specifically include conditions.
I want to comment a bit on the process of this project. The federal government, as the courts have now told us, has done as it has on so many other projects and jeopardized this project by its lack of commitment to conduct a full and thorough environmental assessment prior to proceeding with the project. We had this whole issue back before the courts several months ago. The courts, as they have with numerous other projects such as the Oldman River dam and Rafferty-Alameda, told the government that it is disobeying the legislation of this Parliament by not carrying out a full and thorough environmental assessment process.
In this case, the court went the extra step and told the government that it was acting contrary to the Constitution. That failure is being corrected, hopefully in the next 48 hours, by the legislature in Prince Edward Island. However because of the way the government has handled this project from the beginning it is once again before the courts.
We know that the proper way to plan a project and build environmental protection into the project is to do it right at the beginning, not to try to get away with it and try not to do it and then have the courts say that we have to.
The government by its failure to obey the legislation of this Parliament to protect the environment has caused delays and extra costs. It is not going to get away with it. The courts have told the government that when it is not done right the first time it has got to go back and do it all over again.
The government may very well have left a mess for a Liberal government to clean up because this is back in court again. An injunction is being sought to stop the project from proceeding any further pending further environmental studies. We do not know whether or not that court process is going to succeed but we do know


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, anyone who has followed this issue at all knows the position being taken by the Liberals on this issue is contemptuous of the intelligence of everyone in this country. They pretend that giving a minister powers to attach some conditions to a project is in some way a replacement for a full environmental assessment and review of a specific project.
The Liberals might think that everyone in Canada is stupid, but they are not. Some day soon the voters in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick will reflect upon the fact the Liberals and Conservatives have joined forces to try to obfuscate and sleazily drag this project into being, without it ever meeting the basic constitutional, legal or environmental requirements of this country.


An hon. member:: Sleazily. What a great adverb.


James Ross Fulton: It is a good adverb. The Tories and Liberals often operate sleazily.
On Monday, February 8, 1993 this House heard from the member for Moncton speaking for the Liberals. I asked him a question. I quote from pages 15582 to 15591 of Hansard. I said: "Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the Liberal member from the area just exactly what the Liberal position is on environmental assessment. The member is aware that there has been no environmental assessment and review done on the bridge proposal contained in Bill C-110,"-the bill that is before us-"that the generic bridge proposal was turned down by the FEARO panel".
The hon. member answered as follows: "I stated the position of the Liberal Party very clearly and straightforwardly. We support this project. We want this project to go forward. We have supported this project over the years that it has been discussed-but we also want a full environmental assessment of this particular project and this particular bridge".
He did not say that was his personal position, or his leader's position, or Catherine Callbeck's position. He said it was the position of the Liberal Party.
This bill came back before the House last week on June 10, 1993. Beginning on page 20654 of Hansard there is a speech by the member for Hillsborough. He ends his remarks with the statement: "Let us proceed with this project. We feel that all of the necessary commitments have been met and it is time to go on and see it through to fruition".
There is no mention whatsoever of a full environmental assessment and review of the project. Let us deal again for a moment with what Madam Justice Barbara Reed ordered.
At some point Canadian taxpayers would like to know that at least the 295 members who occupy seats in this Chamber have some intention of following the law. What we are talking about and what we are doing today is a violation of Canada's Constitution and law. I for one stand in my place and say that means something.
The Liberals want to squeeze and sleaze their way and get a few extra votes out of a few seats in the maritimes. The Tories want to use the fixed link as a banner to wave around the maritimes saying they are going to do something big for all the voters out there. They are going to spend $1.47 billion building a bridge that has never been assessed.
They do not want to talk about that. They want to pretend that everything is above board. It is not. This Chamber is well on the road to acting in contempt of court. It bothers me and I think it should bother the Canadian public that this place has become so entirely out of touch that the law does not seem to matter.
It is like the person who has just become Canada's Prime Minister, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. She said before her campaign began that she had smoked marijuana. When asked during the leadership campaign she said she had smoked marijuana but she did not break any law by doing it. Every dean of law in the country said
June 14, 1993

that was not true. If one smoked marijuana, one broke the law.
Five hundred and thirty thousand Canadians have a criminal record for smoking marijuana. They are all supposed to keep their criminal records. They cannot get bonded jobs. They cannot do anything but it is okay. A person can be the Prime Minister of Canada and break the law. Also, you can say that because you are who you are you did not break the law.
Canadians are getting really sick of this stuff. I am getting really sick of it. There is one law for the grand elevated elite who sit on the government side as prime minister or whatever. The law applies only to the great unwashed. It applies to those Canadians who have to pay the taxes and the piper.
Here is a chance for Parliament itself to do it right. This project from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island has never been assessed. It is the law in Canada. The Liberals say they will attach some conditions. This is the same bunch of environmental thugs, SCI, who were involved from start to finish in the Oldman River dam in Alberta.
Twenty-four conditions were attached following the order of the highest court in Canada that there be an assessment. Has the SCI, the Minister of Transport or the Minister of the Environment ever lived up to one of those requirements? The number one recommendation was to tear down the dam. That is what the panel found.
It was neither environmentally nor economically sound. However the government said we have to go ahead. SCI, a foreign-owned corporation, is our friend. What about the other 23 recommendations? Will the Minister of Transport at least live up to one of them? He has had more than a year to live up to the other 23 and has not lived up to a single one. That is contempt of court and contempt of Parliament.
Does Parliament do anything? No. When are these people going to be put behind bars? Are we just going to carry on and become like the United States? The level of trust among American citizens for their own institutions is borne out by the number who vote. Less than one in two adults in the United States even bothers to turn out to vote because there is so much corruption in the
Government Orders
legislatures in that country. It is fast dropping in this country. Canadians out there are sick to death of this kind of blatant obfuscation and contempt of Parliament, the laws of this country and the environment.
People ask why the cod stocks in Atlantic Canada have collapsed. I will tell you why. I have been here for 15 years. I have listened to Liberal and Conservative ministers of fisheries saying that the fisheries scientists do not know diddley squat. We are going to double and triple the catch. We are going to give more to Cuba, Spain and the Russians.
Now there is no more cod. We are giving hundreds of millions of dollars in welfare to Newfoundlanders who do not want welfare. They were proud and for centuries they went out and fished. However in order to be kind to National Sea and their friends in the corporate sector the Liberal and Conservative ministers of fisheries encouraged, legislated and regulated overfishing.
[DOT] (U35)
What about the lobster and the fishery in Northumberland Strait? Professional scientists have said this project is crazy. Young lobster fry float on the surface in Northumberland Strait. If the ice is late moving out because it is blocked by the piers of the bridge, the lobster fry will die or fewer numbers will survive. There will be ice scour on the ocean floor as a result of the piers on the bridge. Why were these four ice scientist experts brought in by the Minister of Public Works not put on to muddy up the refusal?
The environmental assessment and review panel said no to this bridge and yet Parliament is about to vote $1.47 billion, plus a right to tollgate. No one in the Maritimes has been told how much these tolls are going to be. Will it be $10 per person, $50 per person, $100 per car or $500 per truck? This is a right to blood suck for 35 years on the economy of the Maritimes of this country and I will not stand for it. At least I can tell the truth in here. It might not mean a damn but I am telling the people of Canada that what is being done here today is a contempt of Parliament and the laws of this country. It may well be found to be both illegal and unconstitutional in the days to come. That is what a committee of this House found about Alcan's Kemano project in my riding.

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
The only project in the history of Canada to be exempted from environmental assessment is Alcan's Kemano II project. It was found illegal and unconstitutional by this Parliament. Has this government withdrawn its licence? No, and there is corruption at the very highest levels as well as pay offs and kickbacks but it does not seem to mean anything. There will not be a jot or a tittle on the radio or TV tonight about what is going on. This place hides behind a veil of secrecy as these kinds of deals are cut. The odour arising from this fixed link legislation is worse than methane, a greenhouse gas that I know we fear.
Let us take a look at what the Liberals are proposing here. The Liberals said they stood for a full environmental assessment review in February in this House and they have thrown that to the wind. We heard from the Liberals this morning that one of the principal reasons is that this bridge joins their leader's constituency with Prince Edward Island. How sweet and dear, while I am chastised in this House by Liberal members from the Maritimes who say I am from far away and only come to the Maritimes once in a while so I have no right to speak out against the project.
That is not how this place works. We are supposed to work collectively to try to do the best for the country and make sure that what is done is in the constitutional and legal framework that is best for the country. My Liberal friend's amendment is too little too late. It does not mean a damn and should be voted down for those reasons.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to what the member for Skeena has had to say in this House as well as the previous speaker.
I concur that the member has every right to speak out against any issue he chooses to. But I think it is terribly important that the member accept his responsibilities to fairly and accurately put before this House and the people of the nation what has gone on with reference to the proposals that are leading up to the development of this link. For a long time it has been shoved aside by this Parliament which has been dominated by others from other regions for whatever reasons but very few reasons have been environment concerns.
A tremendous amount of work has gone into the environmental review process with reference to the
project. The developers were called upon at the very beginning to submit an environmental impact study and this was done. That report was made public by the Department of Public Works and the public was asked for input into the entire issue. This document was finally scrutinized by a lot of people, including an independent committee of ice experts.
I think it is important that the people in this House as well as those who are concerned about this issue are aware that expert advice was received from numerous government agencies and departments, including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment.
When it comes to environmental issues I want to remind the hon. member that this government has done more with reference to environmental protection of those sensitive areas of our country than any previous government in the history of the nation.
Witness the green plan, for example. What sorts of proposals have we heard from the NDP except scrap this, scrap that and do nothing? When we talk about putting the country back to work it says we have to do an environmental assessment review and hang the jobs, even when it comes down clearly on the side of the environment. Forget all about it and let the region drift off into the ocean.
It is time to get on with this project. This is a good solid project. Fishermen themselves who have every right to be concerned will be invited to sit on the board which will manage a $10 million trust fund that will be set up by the developer of the project.
We have studied this project from the beginning and now it is time to end it and get on with it. All the conclusions that have been developed and supported by the provincial governments of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island say to move ahead and get on with it. If we want to stand up and fairly criticize the project, that is good enough. Let us live up to our responsibilities as members of Parliament and do that but make sure we deal with all the facts.
There are concerns about this project and rightly so. Those concerns have been fairly scrutinized and now it is time to get on with it. I say this government's record speaks for itself when it comes to environmental issues. It would not allow a project to move ahead if it felt there
June 14, 1993

was not good cause for concerns about environmental sensitivity to be set aside.


Mr. Raymond Skelly (North Island -Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I could not resist getting up on the heels of the statement by the previous member for Fundy-Royal in New Brunswick.
It is an amazing distortion of reality, whether we are dealing with the Oldman dam project, the Rafferty-Ala-meda or Kemano II. I would like to speak to Kemano II in British Columbia as a comparison when he says this government has done incredible works with the environmental issues and it would not consider creating damage in an area of environmental sensitivity. I wish he was going to stay here because his information is so incorrect.
The Kemano II completion project has lowered the flow of the Nechako River to 14 per cent of its original level and damaged the salmon stocks in that river; salmon stocks that would go on forever. This was not done through an environmental assessment or review process. This was done by the hon. member from Richmond when he was Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He simply went behind closed doors with a proponent and signed off approval for this disgusting project that has cut the level of the Fraser River by three feet at Hell's Gate. This has created enormous damage to one of the strongest producers of salmon in the world.
It is one of the most destructive things that has been done environmentally by any government and it happens to have been done by the Conservative government. There should be no more of this absolute rubbish of standing up and saying the green plan and our environmental record stand for anything over there.
The Conservative government has probably the worst record in Canada in terms of environmental abuse and that is really saying something when we consider what has been done in the past by the Liberal Party.
The hon. member who has put the present amendment forward, as my colleague from Skeena characterizes it, supports too little, too late. It is kind of interesting. She justifies this project. One of its main reasons to recommend it is that the tail of the bridge is in the riding of her leader, the member for Beausejour. He is the former member from Quebec who did not have the guts to run in his own home province. He had to run in
Government Orders
one of the strongest Liberal ridings in New Brunswick to guarantee that he might get back into this House of Commons. This is her rationale for why this bridge should be built.
She did go into many of the problems that brought this project before the courts such as the improper process that was used to assess it and review it environmentally. Again my colleague from Fundy-Royal says that there has been an enormous and tremendous evaluation. Certainly the courts have not adjudicated that way. Again my friend from Skeena characterizes this kind of behaviour where the House of Commons is now considering a government bill to approve it even though it has not gone through a process that is acceptable to the court in following the laws of Canada and following the Constitution.
It is ironic the rubbish that has been placed before this House by the Liberal speaker who has proposed this amendment. She says that the reason we should vote for this as members of the House is because the bridge goes into her leader's riding in Beausejour. This is absolute rubbish.
There are a couple of other points that are important. The previous speaker from Fundy-Royal says this will be a tremendous boost for the economy of Prince Edward Island. There is absolutely no evidence of that. The clear evidence is that if they remove the ferry then 600 jobs are going to be lost. They talk about 1,000 mythological jobs that may or may not arise on the Island but on the other side of the coin there have been as many good arguments that in fact business will go off the Island and there will be a job loss associated with it. The economic studies are inconclusive at best and certainly point to some concrete job losses as certainties. Those are the 600 jobs associated with the ferries.
My colleague from Skeena brought forward the issue of the toll provisions in the bill. We know what user-pay means to a Conservative. It is gouge and gouge again. There is the constitutional provision of providing a ferry and of assisting the province of Prince Edward Island because of the Island location and the terms of union. Certainly the user-pay approach is going to cost that province dearly. If the example pertains to where they

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
have used the approach of fee for service in other areas of the economy, it is going to be very harmful.
It is interesting when one goes through Prince Edward Island to see the GST impact on the economy of that province. It has really devastated it. Tourism is way down. Unemployment is way up and the economy basically because of the Tory GST is way down. Wait until every single thing that is brought to Prince Edward Island to be sold or every tourist going there has an additional $10 or $20 toll across a toll bridge. This is going to have another negative, regressive and harmful effect on Prince Edward Island.
All things considered I think that my colleague from Skeena has done an admirable job in summarizing the real complaints that we have with the amendment before the House and indeed the bill that has been proposed by the government. He points out that in his opinion and in the opinion of many others, that bill is illegal.
We should not be dealing with this legislation until the concerns of the courts are met, until the environmental review and assessment process has been completed to the satisfaction and requirements of the law of this country so that we do not wind up back in the courts again.
The hon. member for Skeena points out that the Constitution and laws of Canada have been violated. I do not think this House can countenance that kind of thing and certainly we will be voting against this bill.
They speak of this as being an environmental disaster with the complicated environment around a 13-kilometre bridge. There will be enormous winds in the winter and scouring ice. There are definitely going to be major engineering problems with it.
There is the environmental problem of the effect on the fishery in the Northumberland Strait area. This is again something that is wide open and could easily be damaged. He talks about a $10 million environmental trust fund. My colleague from Skeena was speaking the other day on the oil pollution funds that were put forward by governments to protect against oil spills. It has been completely pillaged by the government in its scouring of funds put there for the purpose of protecting Canadians against oil spills and providing them with some financial assistance for the clean up. The government has stolen those moneys from that fund. It will
undoubtedly steal moneys from this pittance that is put into the environmental fund in Prince Edward Island.
We are looking at guaranteed job losses. Some 600 jobs associated with the ferry service are gone. There is the promise of a mythical 1,000 jobs that may be created. Believe me, if it is like any other Conservative promise then there are not going to be 1,000 jobs for those people in P.E.I. who are looking for this.
Again we have the other problem of the harsh government policies that the Conservative government has already inflicted on Newfoundland, not the least of which is the GST. They complain bitterly in that province that it has harmed tourism; that GST at 7 per cent cleans out the entire economy and is going to be coupled with who knows what. Will it be a $10 toll or a $20 toll to drive a car across or to drive freight across, so that anything going in or out of that province is going to be taxed again?
The economic benefits that are preached by this government are certainly serious problems.


An hon. member:: Time, time.


Raymond John Skelly: Time? We have just started. There is just a minute left, Mr. Speaker? Okay, we will get to the salient points.
My colleagues and I have heard many, many arguments made in this House that were cogent and intelligent. However, there is the argument by the proponent of this particular motion to vote for this bill because its origin starts in the riding of her leader, the member for Beausejour, who does not have enough guts to go back and run in his own native province because he will not be re-elected.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by saying to my friends in the New Democratic Party that unfortunately I will not be here tomorrow to participate in third reading debate as there has been a death in my family. In the few minutes that I have I want to put some statements on the record.
I know of the disdain that the New Democratic Party has for those of us who live in Atlantic Canada.


James Ross Fulton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that the point the member just made is absolutely and totally false.
June 14. 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order.


David Charles Dingwall: As I was saying, the disdain that my colleagues from the New Democratic Party have for those who reside in Atlantic Canada is best shown not by remarks that I may make but by those made by members from their own particular party. In fact, they made the unbelievable statement in this Chamber not long ago that no one has given an assessment of the fixed link. That was the intellectual snobbery of the New Democratic Party as evidenced in this House.
I know the member for Skeena is going off to another job and another vocation and I wish him well but for God's sake he should not misrepresent the decisions that people in Atlantic Canada have made with regard to their future, whether they are in economic or environmental terms. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that consultations took place in November and December 1987. I am going to table this. In January 1988, 12 public debates were held on Prince Edward Island by the province. In January 1988 the Prince Edward Island government held a plebiscite. If there is not an assessment done what better example can I give to my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party than that the people of Prince Edward Island have decided in a plebiscite that they want the fixed link? What intellectual snobbery from the hon. member for Skeena to suggest otherwise. [DOT]
As we can see, this particular subject matter is of passing interest to those of us who come from the great province of Nova Scotia. However, to stand in this House and to allow the perception to go on that nothing has been done to look at the environmental assessment of this particular project is not only false but it is a distortion of the facts and it is unbecoming of the hon. member who sits to my left.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


James Ross Fulton: A point of order.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, am I going to be continually interrupted by this individual who had his opportunity to speak-
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have to go ahead and listen to his point of order and I will rule on it.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just for the public record the environmental assessment and review turned the generic bridge proposal down.


David Charles Dingwall: I think I have hit a raw nerve.


An hon. member:: It is the truth.


David Charles Dingwall: The hon. member would not know how to spell truth let alone talk about truth. This is the same party that comes to this House day in and day out talking about the opportunities that we in Atlantic Canada must have in order to survive and prosper. With the first economic project that comes along what does the New Democratic Party do? It does a filibuster not only in this House but it writes to Canadians across this country in order to preclude this project from taking place.
I want you, Mr. Speaker, to note these dates: December 1987, January 1988, June 1989, March 1990, April 1991, January 1993, April 1993 and May 1993. Those are the public consultations which I will table on the completion of my speech. This is the same party that stands in its place and says that no environmental assessments have been done on the marine aspect and on the fisheries. There have been not 1, 2, 3, 10 or 20 but 24 different studies done. I will table those for the benefit of members opposite and members in this House.
This is the same hon. member and the same party standing in place saying that no environmental assessment has been done with regard to ice. There have been not 2, 5, 10 or 15 but 17 different studies done on ice. I table that for the hon. member opposite.
There is the wind and tide. Something that the hon. member is very familiar with is wind. Have there been any studies done with regard to wind? There have been not one or two but four comprehensive studies done with regard to wind.
What about the social and economic benefits of this particular project? Have there been any studies done by the Government of Canada, the Government of New Brunswick and the Government of Prince Edward Island? If we listen to the hon. member down in the left corner, where his group will remain for centuries to come, there has been not one or two but nine different socioeconomic studies done with regard to this particular

June 14, 1993
project. I table that for the hon. member to reflect upon during the next 24 hours.
What about miscellaneous reports done by such distinguished groups as the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, the Atlantic Geoscience Centre, Coles Associates Limited, Environment Canada and Geo-Consulting Engineers? There were not 1, 2, 3, 10 or 20 but 23 different studies done with regard to this particular project. I table that for the hon. member in the left-hand corner of this House who will remain there for an indefinite period of time.
What about the FEARO and related reports? Four studies have been done with regard to that. I am a member who is not like those intellectual snobs in the New Democratic Party. There have been 10 terrestrial studies done. There have been four reports done on the list of strait crossings and there are related reports. Therefore I table all of these reports, both consultations and substantive reports, for the hon. members opposite as well as those in the New Democratic Party so that they can reflect on them.
Hon. members must understand why I will not be here tomorrow, but in the final moment I have now I would like to say that the height of hypocrisy and the height of disdain for those of us who live in Atlantic Canada comes from that group in the corner of this House that is trying to dictate to the people of Atlantic Canada what is important about their futures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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, first of all I would like to congratulate the Hon. Kim Campbell for winning the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party.
I also want to pay special tribute to the hon. member for Sherbrooke for the excellent way in which he conducted his campaign.
The competence and performance of our candidate has increasingly impressed Canadians. Many people attribute this to his relaxed attitude, his comprehensive grasp of current issues and his clear vision of the future. After yesterday, we can also admire his courage, frankness and diplomacy.
Today is another day for this admirable member of Parliament and together we will develop strategies for change within the Conservative Party.
We were and we still are proud to support our candidate. Thank you Jean, thank you Michele, thank you to the volunteers in the Charest team across Canada and in Quebec, and thank you to the people of the riding of Sherbrooke. See you soon.


HON. KIM CAMPBELL
Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the newly elected Conservative leader who will be sworn in as Prime Minister in a few days.
The party leadership convention is over but a far harder test faces the new leader: the challenge of running the country. The new Tory leader is on record as being 100 per cent committed to continue the policies of the Minister for International Trade, including the GST, the FTA, the NAFTA and 38 tax increases.
She sat and agreed in cabinet while the government played demolition derby with Atlantic Canada. It closed down the fishery, closed down the transportation system, closed down post offices and drastically reduced provincial transfer payments to cause reductions in health services and increases in tuition fees.
The biggest questions now are: How will the Conservatives recast themselves after nine disastrous years in office and how will Canada be positioned for economic growth and job creation?
June 14, 1993

There is plenty of scope for quick action by a new Prime Minister, but since there is no mandate the clear priority is first and foremost to call a federal election and allow Canadians to pass judgment.
-k	*k


CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Madam Speaker, as chairman of the B.C. caucus I am delighted to congratulate the soon to be 19th Prime Minister of Canada.
Not only is Kim Campbell the first woman to hold that position, but she is also the first person born in British Columbia to hold the highest elected office in the country. I am sure all British Columbians and all Canadians will wish her well in her new office. We know that all of Canada will benefit and prosper under her leadership.
At the same time I would like to congratulate all the other candidates for their outstanding contributions to the campaign and, more important, to Canada.
I would particularly like to express my appreciation to the hon. Jean Charest for his excellent campaign. I am looking forward to the major contributions that he will no doubt make in Canada's future. A great future for Canada is assured with quality people like those who participated in our leadership race these past few months.



Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Madam Speaker, while the Conservative Party will now be led by new Tories for Canadians across the country, especially in Ontario, it really is the same old story.
There was the new leader Banked by the trade minister. Imagine embracing the father of the GST, the FTA, NAFPA, an economic agenda that has cost so much economic pain and betrayal. So much for her so-called new politics.
Imagine embracing the member for Don Valley North, the mother of the Tory solution for combating poverty whose answers lie in reducing the poverty line and damning the food banks. So much for her politics of inclusion.
Imagine embracing the outgoing Prime Minister, a man who was the star of the Tory convention yet is
despised by Canadians across the countiy. So much for her being in touch with the aspirations of ordinary Canadians.
No, the Tories did not turn the page. The chapter in this unfortunate saga continues.
They had an option yesterday. They could have said no to their old ways. However in rejecting a new course they merely confirmed that the new Tory is really an old Tory, which is nothing but the same old story.



Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of National Defence, Canada's soon to be 19th Prime Minister, for her historic victory this weekend.
My colleagues who let their names stand in the leadership race also deserve credit, particularly the hon. Minister of the Environment whose own campaign sparked enthusiasm and interest and generated tremendous excitement in the selection of Canada's 19th Prime Minister and the new leader of our party.
It is a great moment in both Canadian political and national life. Rest assured that today the PC Party stands strong and united and is prepared to move into the future and win the next election.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, like all members in the House I would like to offer my congratulations to the newly elected leader of the Conservative Party and the soon to be Prime Minister.
I would like to remind the House that when Bill C-113 was being introduced we predicted that it would affect women the most. Metro Toronto figures are now bearing this out.
In the month of May there was a rise of 4.3 per cent in the number of employable single females requiring UI compared to a .4 per cent increase in the number of employable single males requiring assistance. There was also an increase of 3.5 per cent in the number of female family heads requiring welfare.

June 14, 1993
As many witnesses testified during hearings on Bill C-113, women are far more likely to be forced into quitting their jobs because of harassment, child care or the need to follow a spouse.
The so-called just reasons are often not accepted by the commission-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The member's time has expired.


CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to rise in the House today to congratulate my colleague, the hon. Kim Campbell, on her historic leadership victory yesterday.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party are very fortunate to have had such a strong field of candidates to choose from. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleagues, the hon. Jean Charest, Jim Edwards, Patrick Boyer and Garth Turner. The quality of their campaigns, which focused on policy and serious issues, and their dedication to the party and to Canada deserve special mention.
However the highest congratulations must go to Kim Campbell who has shown that she has support in every part of this country and from every walk of life. All of us on this side of the House support Kim. We are confident that she will lead us to a third consecutive majority government.


MONTREAL ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Conservative Party elected a new leader, Congratulations.
Will Quebec be better represented by this new leader? The answer obviously is no. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has supported the GST, a monetary policy that was absurd, free trade and all the other policies as a result of which today Montreal is the poverty capital of Canada.
Thanks to these policies, which were defended by the minister of defence, more than 220,000 people in Montreal are unemployed and more than 22 per cent are
living below the poverty line. More than 20 tons of food are distributed daily in the metropolitan area.
Even with a new leader, Quebecers and Canadians will massively reject the Conservative Party which is repons-ible for this disaster. What Canada needs is an election and a new government.


HON. KIM CAMPBELL
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, on Sunday, June 13 Progressive Conservatives chose the hon. Kim Campbell as our next national leader.
In this race there were no losers. Runner-up Jean Charest has dramatically increased his stature, as have Jim Edwards and Garth Thmer. Our national party has also gained as all Conservatives are united behind the first woman Prime Minister of Canada and the first Prime Minister bom in British Columbia.
Kim Campbell won this leadership because she is competent, highly qualified, decisive and an excellent communicator. There is tremendous significance in this decision for all women in Canada. It means that any person in this country can aspire to the highest political office in this land.
Our challenge now will be to win the trust and confidence of all Canadians as we pursue our agenda: a confident, competitive country that offers the highest of opportunities and quality of life to all its diverse people. Congratulations, Kim.



Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate the member for Vancouver Centre on being selected as her party's new leader and Canada's first woman Prime Minister.
Westerners are particularly interested in this new leader. We will be watching with interest to see how she turns around Tory policies that have ignored the collapse of our grain industry, refused to respond to the needs of our large aboriginal population, refused to deal with the crises in our air and rail industries, refused to aid job
June 14, 1993

creation, refused to deal with the collapse of Senate reform, and most important, refused to deal with the fiscal crisis brought about by the mismanagement of the economy and the federal debt.
While the west welcomes one of its own what it really wants is a new government.


SOMALIA
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, unfortunately this weekend UN forces in Somalia reportedly fired into a demonstration, killing 20 Somalis. Among those killed were a 12-year old and a 2-year old child.
Relief officials in the area are worried about the impact of this incident on the fundamental role of the United Nations. Jaimie McGoldrick, deputy field director for Save the Children Fund in Britain, said:
These are not tactics to rebuild. These are tactics to destroy. Unless
the United Nations gets its act together, it's lost all credibility.
We in Canada know of some of the problems there and in the relationship between the peacekeepers and the people of Somalia. Given the long-term objective we would call on the government to take a look at the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs report tabled last week in the House and consider the recommendations that it publish its views on the future role of UN peacekeeping.


THE LATE GERARD COTE
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, today the international sports world in Canada and Quebec is in mourning. A four time winner in Boston, Gerard Cote went through the finish line at his last marathon this weekend. In Saint-Hyacinthe, as we walk along the avenue that bears his name, we remember his ready smile, his solid determination and his extraordinary generosity.
Madam Speaker, I am sure all members of this House will join you, since he was a personal friend of yours, in extending to his wife Lucille and members of his family our sincere condolences and the assurance that we will always remember him.


CAMBODIA
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, the Cambodian people turned out to vote in incredible numbers in the recent election despite the threats of intimidation and acts of violence to which they were subjected.
Although 10 per cent to 15 per cent of Cambodians were not able to vote due to Khmer Rouge opposition and despite the fact that an estimated 200 deaths occurred during the campaign itself, mostly due to government attacks on opposition party workers, the election results should be accepted as being the will of those voting.
Sadly, however, the Huan Sen government is now refusing to accept its defeat. Faced with renewed threats of violence from government troops and widespread looting, UN civilian personnel are being withdrawn.
The people of Cambodia have suffered almost unthinkably in their past. Their hope now depends on the ability of a new government to implement its policies.
The international community must do whatever it can to ensure that the will of the people is respected. If that is not the case, there will once again be civil war in that much too troubled land.


THE DEFICIT
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the deficit. Unfortunately, these days at practically all political levels the deficit is seen as one of the causes of our faltering economy. I feel I must point out that the deficit is not a cause but rather a consequence of misdirected policies. We should deal with the causes instead of treating the deficit as the main problem.

June 14, 1993
Oral Questions
These misdirected policies are economic, financial and fiscal in nature. For instance, government budgets at all levels are financed with the help of foreign loans. Our monetary policies are designed to protect the interests of foreign investors, instead of meeting our domestic needs. Furthermore, there is a total lack of control over all kinds of foreign investment.


HON. KIM CAMPBELL
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, we in this caucus also wish to congratulate the new Socred Prime Minister of Canada.
In this political leadership contest the new Socred Prime Minister narrowly defeated the tortoise from Sherbrooke. However in another leadership contest a number of years ago this Socred Prime Minister of Canada was judged by her peers as less competent and less capable than another well-known Socred, Bill Vand-er Zalm.
The Prime Minister is also the first woman Prime Minister of Canada. However she has failed the women of Canada on the Court Challenges Program, on the choice issue, on the national child care program and on pay equity.
The women of Canada will suffer under this new Prime Minister as will Canadians in general. The fact she is a Socred is more important than the fact she is a woman.
At least we can all be thankful that this new captain of the Titanic and this old Tory government will shortly have an appointment with an iceberg.


BREAST CANCER SOCIETY OF CANADA
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia -Lambton):: Madam Speaker,
I too would like to congratulate our new Progressive Conservative leader, the Lion. Kim Campbell. I know that she and all members of the House will be interested in my statement today.
I rise today to bring to the attention of all members of the House and indeed all Canadians, the activities and efforts of the Breast Cancer Society of Canada. The goal of the society is to fund research into the prevention, detection, treatment and the cure of breast cancer.
At this time the group needs computers, supplies,
equipment and so on. But what the Breast Cancer Society of Canada needs most is the time and dedication of interested volunteers, Canadians from coast to coast, to make this a truly national effort and organization.
If members of the House or Canadians across the country are interested in information on becoming a part of the Breast Cancer Society of Canada they should contact the president, Mr. Lawrence Greenaway, at 401 St. Clair Street, Point Edward, Ontario, N7V 1P2, or call the national headquarters at 1-800-567-8767.
Today I encourage all Canadians to get involved in this worthy cause.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes the same mistake his colleague made a little while ago.\nThey dissociate SEED from the Challenge program which in fact has increased over the years, bearing in mind that some of the moneys have been allocated to the high drop-out situation we have in Canada which is absolutely scandalous. It was discovered at that time the drop-out rate was 33 per cent. We know that the most important tool that the students require is a good\neducation so that they can face the challenges that are upcoming.\nThis year alone the budget was increased by $5.1 million, preceded by $3 million the year before and $3 million the year before that. Again the moneys have been increased and are increasing. I did fight in cabinet for it and that is why it increased.']
Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal Party and our leader, I would like to offer congratulations to the Minister of National Defence on her election as leader of the Conservative Party.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Roy MacLaren: Let me also congratulate her challengers, in particular the Minister of the Environment, for their spirited campaigns.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. President Clinton has now admitted that the negotiation of side agreements to the NAFTA is "at an impasse". The United States is demanding that tough trade sanctions be included, but so far Canada has opposed any such plan.
Canadians deserve a clear answer to this question. Is it the policy of the government that it will refuse to proclaim NAFTA rather than accept trade sanctions, yes or no?
June 14, 1993


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: First, Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his gracious remarks on behalf of his party. I am sure the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of the Environment and the members of caucus who were candidates in the leadership are most appreciative of his remarks. It was a very stimulating and successful weekend. I am sure there are major challenges ahead for all of us and we look forward to those challenges.
Let me respond to the question the hon. member has posed on the matter of sanctions. We have made it very clear that the agreements on the environment and on labour should be subject to some form of mechanism to ensure compliance. We have stated very clearly that we are opposed to trade sanctions. However, we have asked to see whether the negotiators can find some common ground that would satisfy the needs of all parties in order to ensure there is compliance with the agreement.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, the minister has claimed repeatedly that the NAFTA will not be altered by the side agreements. However, the United States administration is now demanding a third side agreement, an agreement on import surges.
The minister knows that such an agreement would modify the existing provisions of NAFTA which could in turn require amendments to the Canadian legislation which the government recently pressed through the House of Commons.
How can the minister continue to assert that the side agreements will not affect the nature of NAFTA?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: will say it again for the benefit of my hon. friend and others. All three governments are committed to not reopening the NAFTA.
We believe, and it has been said by the United States itself, that sections 701 and 702 of the NAFTA provide very strong protection on import surges. The proposals the United States put forward may enhance the nature of those, but they certainly will not result in the reopening of the agreement itself.


Roy MacLaren: Madam Speaker, the minister knows a prerequisite for Cana-
Oral Questions
dians to benefit from any freer trade is to remove the barriers within our own country to the free movement of people, goods, services and capital.
However five years after the U.S.-Canada free trade agreement the British Columbia government has said that provincial regulations concerning regional development and local jobs are non-negotiable.
Is the government prepared to say today that it will move unilaterally on free trade within Canada to meet its own deadline of June 1994?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, that deadline has been set in consultation with the provinces. As my hon. friend has just pointed out, these are provincial barriers that must be eliminated with the full consultation and co-operation of the provincial governments.
Collectively we have approved a comprehensive negotiating process supported by all the provinces, including British Columbia. It is in that regard we will be commencing negotiations starting July 1.
We expect that even though the number of barriers we have to negotiate is formidable we can, with the proper will and the power to all concerned, meet the deadlines we have set out.
I could not agree more with what my hon. friend has said. It is very important that we have free trade within our borders as we see our boundaries open up with the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA, but also with the Uruguay round that is going to be with us in a very short period of time.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. We know that the U.S. Congress does not intend to approve NAFTA. Why does the minister refuse to negotiate a binational agreement to protect jobs in the steel industry? Why?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is well aware of the efforts this government has gone to in order to seek the support of the United States steel industry, the United States unions and the United States administration.

June 14, 1993
Oral Questions
Unfortunately at this point in time they are not willing to discuss this matter. It is something we continue to press with the administration at the government level. We have also asked the companies and the unions at every opportunity they can to propose the same sort of discussion and dialogue with their counterparts.
I am hopeful once we get through the trade remedy actions that are under way we can see some movement in this file.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, the minister must know that literally thousands of jobs in my riding, throughout Ontario, the maritimes, Quebec and the west are dependent on the Canadian steel industry.
He knows he has options. He knows he could make an extraordinary challenge under the GATT. He knows he could replace the chairman of the tribunal.
Why will the minister not act now to save these Canadian jobs and to tell the world that Canada is not a dumping ground for steel?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, most people in the House would understand that the options my friend has just put forward are not workable options if one would think about them for just one minute.



Hon. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
First, on behalf of my party I extend our congratulations to the Minister of National Defence for winning the leadership of her party and commend the other candidates for their campaigns.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Minister of National Defence said on the weekend that she wants to restore confidence among the Canadian people. If we have to restore
confidence, it means that confidence must have been shattered in the past, likely by government policies that have left people in unemployment lines and welfare lines.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether or not the government is planning any new directions or new policies to create jobs in Canada or is it just more of the same from the same old government and the same old gang?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, may I say thank you to the hon. member who has expressed best wishes and congratulations on behalf of his party to our new leader and to all the candidates who participated.
The hon. member knows very well that we have gone through a very difficult period, a global recession. Many industrialized countries are deep in a downturn in their economies. As I indicated in the House the other day, the European economies are trying to contract in 1993 and that is the first time in over 30 years.
We have a pretty clear indication that growth is taking hold. We have just seen the composite leading indicator increase by the greatest amount in two years. We have had strong performance in growth in the fourth quarter of 1992. We have had strong performance in growth in the first quarter of 1993.
What is most encouraging is that growth is occurring in the goods-producing sector which is creating jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector. All of this is given to a large extent by our ability to export more because of improved competitiveness and improved productivity.
The fact that those fundamentals are in place augurs well for the future.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, government policies like the GST, the free trade deal and NAFTA are what have shaken the confidence of Canadians.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell unemployed Canadians today whether there will be any changes in these fundamental policies that have shaken the confidence of Canadians, or can we expect the same old policies that have brought this country to its knees?
June 14, 1993


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about the GST.
For the last 20 years his party has been advocating the scrapping of the manufacturers' sales tax and replacing it with a broad base sales tax that would not impair our ability to compete abroad, particularly in the manufacturing and processing sector.
The reason we are experiencing growth and job creation in the processing and manufacturing sector is that we have put those industries on a more competitive playing field. Furthermore, the reason we are doing well on the manufacturing and processing side is that we do have a free trade agreement with the United States. We intend to expand that under a broader North American free trade agreement which will provide a greater and more secure access.
The hon. member comes from an agricultural area. He should be interested in knowing that since the free trade agreement came into effect agrifood exports to the United States have increased by 67 per cent. Why would he want to kill a policy that has provided that kind of support for the agricultural industry?


HEALTH CARE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, it is the same old policies from the same old gang.
The new leader of the party has talked about change. One change she talked about was the possibility of allowing the provinces to charge user fees in medical care. User fees do not work. We know that.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House today that the change the government has in mind will not allow the province to impose medical care user fees or deterrent fees which would be nothing more than a tax on the sick?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I think the new leader has made it very clear she intends to work closely with the provinces in dealing with the deficit and the debt situation and in dealing with the number of challenges we face in bolstering economic growth and in achieving social justice.
Oral Questions
I can assure my hon. friend that kind of consultation and close co-operation will prevail for the betterment of all Canadians.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Madam Speaker, last summer in Nova Scotia the unemployment rate for students was 23.8 per cent. The government has cut the budget of SEED by 44 per cent since 1985 and the total jobs created under SEED has dropped by 40,000 over six years.
The new leader speaks of inclusion. My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why has his government failed to include young people in the Tory agenda?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Again, Madam Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister says, they were not excluded. They were pretty well included and inclusive at the convention this weekend.
Whenever the opposition refers to the SEED program it isolates the SEED part of the program from the total Challenge program which was redone in 1988 by the then minister in order to deal with the students at risk, the ones who were dropping out of school. The moneys have not been reduced. They have been increased this year alone by $5.1 million.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Madam Speaker, talk is cheap. Indeed, some of those fine young people, and they are fine young people, who were at the Tory convention will be back in my office next week still looking for summer jobs.
This government has been promising reforms to the Canada Student Loans Program for two years, but students are still stuck with a 3 per cent tax and the removal of the six-month grace period for repayment. The government speaks of competitiveness and prosperity but does everything possible to hinder such projects.
I ask the minister this: Since this government is clearly doing nothing for students, why not simply call an election and end an illegitimate government?

Oral Questions


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, I would be very surprised if those students who were at the convention end up in the hon. member's office. I am sure that those young students are also looking forward to an election very soon because we will be back in office for a third consecutive majority term and the member will still be sitting there.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I also want to pursue this issue of youth unemployment.
Students need jobs to finance their education but they are finding there is no room for them in this Tory economy. In my home province of Manitoba youth unemployment stands at over 16 per cent. There is no evidence of a turn-around and no hope from a tired old government with no mandate from the people.
My question is this: Why has the government failed students in the west, and in particular Manitoba?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Again, Madam Speaker, this government is working not only for the students of Canada but all Canadians. One of the best ways to make sure that our young people, particularly students, have a chance in the future is to put all the instruments in place so that they can face the challenges they will be facing all their lives, bearing in mind all the changes that are coming about and bearing in mind the situation they will be faced with in the year 2000.
That is exactly what we are doing, and in particular in Manitoba.


John Harvard: A supplementary, Madam Speaker. A lot of students in my riding are confused over what this government says and does. On the one hand the government talks about the importance of youth employment. On the other hand it has taken millions out of the youth summer employment program. Moreover, universities in Manitoba have suffered serious cutbacks and students have had to pay steep increases in tuition fees.
My question is: Does the government have any plan whatsoever for students or is it just waiting for its own demise?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, the weekend demonstrated very clearly that we are far from waiting for our demise. On the contrary, I think the hon. member will feel that those benches are very comfortable when we come back after the election.
The money was not cut back. This year alone the budget was increased by $5.1 million. If the students in my hon. friend's riding are confused, perhaps they spend too much time in his office.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The announcement of the panel on Friday last about the American import of Canadian live hogs shows, if nothing else, that the Americans are determined not to give open access to Canadian produce but rather to keep fighting every battle until they have won the war.
Does the minister still believe in the dispute settlement mechanism as contrasted to a definition of subsidy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, like the hon. members, we are disappointed in the decision that has been handed down by the panel. I should say to my hon. friend that the circumstances in this particular panel were different from previous panels where we were successful.
We as always have tried to work with the industries involved and with the provinces where they have taken an active part in putting our best foot forward. We will continue to do so in any of these situations that get referred to free trade panels.
June 14, 1993

The simple answer to my hon. friend's question is yes, we have something with the free trade panel system that no other country has today and it has served us very well in this country.


David Stupich: Madam Speaker, it seems to me the minister mentioned a very crucial difference when he says we lost. That is quite different.
We are dealing with an industry with 30,000 employees. One-fifteenth of our production of hogs has been going to the United States. This is going to be a dramatic blow to the farmers producing those hogs.
Does the minister have in mind any changes that can be made within Canada so that we will not lose our access to that American market? There are three more years being studied. At $18 million a year out of sales of $175 million, three times more, that is another $54 million; $72 million in total. The farmers cannot stand that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, let me point something out to my hon. friend before he throws all sorts of doom and gloom on this whole picture.
Canada has won five of the panel decisions on agrifood issues. In that regard I think my hon. friend would rightly agree with me that the panel system has served the agricultural sector extremely well in this country.
My hon. friend has asked whether there are some changes that should be made. If he has some proposals lo make in that regard, we would be very happy to listen to them, but they obviously have to be consistent with international trade rules.


FISHERIES
Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my friend, the minister of fisheries.
His fisheries adjustment measures in the gulf have to be a real cruel hoax. The plan does not come anywhere near what is needed there. The criteria are quite unreasonable and discriminatory. Thousands of fishermen and plant workers will not qualify for the compensation. To add insult to injury, because of the bungling of
Oral Questions
the minister and his department nobody even seems to know who qualifies for these measures.
I want to ask the minister: Will he now agree to review the program so it can be delivered quickly and a little more fairly than is the indication right now?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Madam Speaker, this is a program of assistance in areas outside the northern cod area where the situation is quite complicated, where there is no moratorium on the fishery, where the allowable catch levels have had to be reduced because of the state of the stocks, where there is a mixed fishery, where for the most part fishermen do not fish just for groundfish but other species as well.
We are attempting to assist those who are dependent primarily on groundfish. The criteria are not that complicated. The fisherman who got 50 per cent of his landings of fish last year from groundfish stocks is eligible for assistance. We think about 2,000 fishermen will qualify for the assistance. That is about 5 per cent of the 44,000 active inshore fishermen in Atlantic Canada. There are a great many others receiving the northern cod assistance. There will be 5,000 to 5,500 plant workers who are working in plants that receive at least 25 per cent of their throughput in groundfish.
In addition we are reviewing the situation to see if more needs to be done. There is never enough time for fishermen or fisheries. We are reviewing the program to see if any more needs to be done or what more can be done to assist in this complicated situation.
Never in the history of Canada have such large programs of assistance been put in place for the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, the minister should talk to his department. He in his own mind may know who qualifies. He may know what the criteria are, but why does he not go and ask his department why it does not have the paperwork done on this? The department is still fumbling around as to what the procedure ought to be.
Tonight at Port-aux-Basques there are going to be community leaders, fishermen and plant workers by the hundreds on the southwest coast of Newfoundland demonstrating against this latest bungled effort of the minister. They are doing so because they have been

June 14, 1993
Oral Questions
victimized by the quota cuts and by the unfairness of the program that the minister has just been talking about. They know that in the end most of them are going to be denied funding assistance under this latest program.
I want to ask the minister when he is going to finally answer their cry. All they are asking for is some help. His latest promise was that he would have this program in place by May 15. Tomorrow is June 15. When is he going to get moving on this one?


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, you will realize that the the hon. member's comments are grossly exaggerated.
Yes, there will doubtless be a demonstration in Port-aux-Basques and there will be demonstrations all over Atlantic Canada as the demonstrators say that the assistance they are getting is inadequate. It was ever thus. If we double the assistance there will be demonstrations saying that the double assistance is not enough. If we quadruple or quintuple it there will be demonstrations to say that the assistance is not enough.
Why does the hon. gentleman not make some constructive suggestion? Why does he not suggest to the provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador that it do something to assist. There is no law that stops the provincial governments of Atlantic Canada from assisting. Why do they not supplement our assistance? Why do they not do something about the fish processing industry? Why does the hon. gentleman not turn his attention to the Liberal Government of Newfoundland for failing the people of Newfoundland abysmally?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, that is a real rant.
My question is for the Minister for International Trade. Last week the government struck out again in its relations with the United States when the United States imposed a countervail duty of $20 per hog for the 1989-90 year. This is going to cost the Canadian pork
producers some $14 million dollars over and above the $4 million which they have already paid.
I want to ask the minister: Is this not simply another failure of the free trade deal? What is the government going to do to stop this constant harassing of Canadian pork producers which has been going on since 1985? What is the minister going to do?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend delights in talking about failures. Let us talk about the successes. Let us talk about the fact that agrifood exports are 67 per cent higher under the free trade agreement than was the case before 1989.
Let us talk about the export value of beef cuts being up 127 per cent under the free trade agreement. Let us also talk about the five panel decisions that came down in favour of Canada in the agrifood sector.
These are the things that my hon. friend will never talk about because he does not like success.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Now that the binational panel has ruled that the tripartite stabilization program is illegal and subject to a countervail duty by United States law-and of course this is only one, it covers beef and many other commodities as well-I want to ask the minister if he is planning to take any action to make sure that stabilization programs by the government are not going to be constantly harassed by the United States as they have been with pork since 1985.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, we have had some problems with the Americans on national tripartite, but to point out again, we won two panels on live hogs and pork that saw I think over $20 million of refunds to Canadian producers.
I should tell the member that the department has been doing some work with various provinces. We hope that at the federal-provincial meeting coming up in the early part of July we can make some pretty good progress in getting additional commodities to be part of the NISA process as a way of supporting.
June 14, 1993

The prospects for both beef and horticulture are good. The hon. member will know what I am talking about because he has been very involved in this. We appreciate his involvement. Hopefully if we can make the progress we think we can, it will be a much better program for producers. Certainly it will be more in compliance with the international trade rules.
We are making some progress in the area about which he is showing some concern.


SMALL BUSINESS
Louise Feltham: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism.
We recognize that small business is the greatest creator of new jobs and that many small businesses have expressed concerns about the availability of funds under the Small Businesses Loans Act.
My question for the minister is this. What assurances has he received from Canadian banks that they will promote the Small Businesses Loans Act and help small business to obtain the financing it needs to create jobs?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, what a fine question that is.
It is relevant because she knows that 85 per cent of all new jobs created in Canada have been created by small business. It is the engine of the economy.
I want to tell her what happened last week. I met with the banks to ask them what they were doing to promote the Small Businesses Loans Act. They indicate that all their branches are fully trained now. They have their brochures out. The Government of Canada will have a stuffer in its national revenue mailings.
More important than that, in April registrations under the act were up 47 per cent over the previous year. In May they were up 88 per cent over the previous year. The banks now predict they are going to do over $1 billion more business under the SBLA this year than they did last year.
Oral Questions
This program is working extremely well. It is a strategic and effective way to stimulate the economy through the small business sector.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the subject of UI appeals.
I have an example of many thousands across the country. A group of workers at a local paper mill in my constituency won an appeal at the board of referees recently. The government has decided to appeal this positive decision, thus suspending the benefits for the workers.
We are not surprised with the actions of the government but we are surprised that the appeal at the umpire will be held in two to three years. Was the minister aware of the delays? If so, does he accept them? If not, what is he going to do to clear up the backlog?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member refers to a government decision.
We had a very long meeting to decide whether or not to appeal it. The hon. member is trying to picture this as something out of the usual course of administration of the UI act.
The question of delays will be addressed because contrary to what members argued when we tried to reform the UI act a few years ago and most recently in Bill C-113, the number of cases being appealed is not actually increasing as was predicted would happen. The early numbers indicate a drop in appeals. That should result in fewer delays for appeals.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I am glad the minister paid particular attention to this appeal. He is likely aware there are 4,358 cases waiting to be heard across Canada at the umpire level. Earlier this year the minister stated: "The vast majority of cases are being dealt with expeditiously and within a reasonable length of time".

June 14, 1993
Oral Questions
We had a labour dispute at Algoma Steel in 1990 and the appeal may be heard in October 1993. How can the minister possibly defend a backlog of three years and 4,358 cases?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, Canadians should know that a little over 3,000 cases-


Some hon. members:: Four thousand cases.


Bernard Valcourt: -are part of 3.5 million decisions that are being made and handled by the department.
I am not saying that the question of delay is not important. We are concerned about Canadians getting quicker service. The department is trying to see how we can improve the situation so Canadians get access to the benefits they are entitled to with the least possible delay.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Two weeks ago in a speech to the National Airline Commission in Washington the president of Air Canada called on the government to end the destructive competition that is harming the airline industry in Canada by introducing price regulation.
Incredibly last week in this House the Minister of Transport replied by saying essentially that the government's policies are working. Is the minister telling Canadians it is government policy to allow two large carriers to continue a process of destructive competition, causing loss of jobs and leading ultimately to the collapse ol one or both major national airline carriers in this country? Is that government policy?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I would ask the hon. member this question. Does his party want to completely abolish competition in this country? In other words, is he on the side of the air carriers or is he on the side of the passengers?


John Paul Manley: Madam Speaker, we have heard ridiculous answers before but that one takes the cake.
If there is going to be a monopoly, there will not be competition. The minister knows that. What we are talking about is the survival of a competitive Canadian-controlled airline industry.
The minister and the government have a few days left to make an important decision on this issue. Are they going to do so? Are they going to announce it? Do they favour a competitive Canadian-controlled airline industry? If so, what are they going to do to see that occurs?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, in its recent report, the NTA indicated that it has examined whether the proposed transaction is in the public interest. It has concluded that it is in the interest of the Canadian public.
It has also referred to the competition aspect of the policy on transport and has agreed that the best way to maintain competition is to allow this transaction to happen.


CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent -Cartierville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship. It is hard to understand why a child born abroad of Canadian parents automatically has Canadian citizenship, while a baby adopted abroad does not have that status. The parents have to wait more than two years. Do these children represent some kind of risk for this country? Why did the minister fail to amend the Citizenship Act as he promised?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Madam Speaker, I was not aware of this particular case, but last February I established a procedure-

-to handle these types of cases quickly and compassionately.
If there are no documents missing, we should be able to do this kind of case in five to six weeks. I will personally look into this case and get back to the hon. member at the earliest possible moment.
June 14, 1993


Shirley Maheu: Madam Speaker, in this particular case a family in my riding adopted a little girl in China. She was only a few months old when she arrived in Canada last May. So far the family has received no assistance from the bureaucracy in the minister's department. The parents will have to wait another year. I am glad to hear the minister say he will use his discretionary powers. I hope he will do so before the end of his term and help this family which is suffering the consequences of this government's inefficiency.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: I want to thank the hon. member for raising this matter. As I said, I will look into this particular case and get back to the hon. member in the not too distant future.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Amnesty International's update report of June 1993 entitled "Mexico: The Persistence of Torture and Impunity" which I sent to the minister this morning states: "The Mexican government has repeatedly promised to defend human rights and to punish those who violate them. Yet torture is still widespread and to the knowledge of Amnesty International nobody has yet been sentenced for the crime of torture in Mexico".
My question to the minister is this. What action has the minister taken to insist that Canada's proposed partner in the North American free trade agreement begin to enforce the human rights principles that President Salinas has claimed to uphold for five years?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, when I was in Mexico just over a week ago I stressed again what the government has been stressing with the Mexican government, including in my meeting with President Salinas, our concern for human rights in Mexico and in other countries in the region and our encouragement that they
Oral Questions
continue down the path of trying to better their human rights record in Mexico. I want to assure the hon. member, knowing his interest in the subject and my own,
I think we have some mutual ground on this.
There has been considerable progress in Mexico. President Salinas and members of his cabinet regard it as fundamental to the kind of changes they want to bring to Mexico, that they open up their legal processes, improve them, improve their policing and all of the things that matter in a democratic society where human rights are respected and encouraged.
One of the facts we are encouraged by is that the Mexican National Human Rights Commission, which we in Canada have assisted to set in place, set some parameters for and worked with, has reported that complaints regarding torture have fallen dramatically. It is not at zero. It should be at zero. The president knows that and so do we. We will continue to work along these lines.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, still the sentences are at zero after five years of promises like the one we have heard.
My supplementary is for the Minister of International Trade. Since this government signed the North American free trade agreement, giving up some of Canada's sovereign control over our natural resources and our trade to a North American administration shared with the government of Mexico, is this government aware of the continued widespread, unpunished human rights violations by Mexico's police since President Salinas took office five years ago? These are violations of the rights of peasants, trade union members, journalists and opposition politicians. How does the minister condone by silence in his negotiations the brutal practice of oppression by the Salinas government and how can the minister assure this House that we-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid the question has been asked. Would the hon. member please end it?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Yes. The question is how these unfree workers and unfree peasants of Mexico are now being forced to provide unfair competition to Canadians.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, the second question really does not reflect the reality of the negotiating stance this government has taken or the kind of commitments that have been made by the Mexican government.

June 14, 1993
Routine Proceedings
We always walk a fine line between trying to encourage human rights in other countries while not isolating them. The important thing is that through the negotiating strategy this has been discussed at every other venue that we have with the Mexican government. The encouragement that Canada has provided has had tangible results.
Of course we would like to see more. So would the Mexican government. I think by continuing to press the issue and to work with them as partners and not isolate them in the international economic arena we will have a lot more impact than by sitting outside or simply trying to punish them.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Youth.
The minister knows the unemployment rate among young Canadians is at a horrendous level. Although the minister has made reference to the fact that SEED funding has increased for this fiscal year it is nowhere near the level it was in 1985. In point of fact, there has been a 44 per cent decrease and 40,000 fewer jobs were made available under the SEED program.
Why is the Minister of State for Youth not fighting for additional funding in cabinet in order to provide much needed assistance to our young people who need that kind of economic opportunity to pursue their post-secondary studies as well as return to high schools and other kinds of training in this country?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes the same mistake his colleague made a little while ago.
They dissociate SEED from the Challenge program which in fact has increased over the years, bearing in mind that some of the moneys have been allocated to the high drop-out situation we have in Canada which is absolutely scandalous. It was discovered at that time the drop-out rate was 33 per cent. We know that the most important tool that the students require is a good
education so that they can face the challenges that are upcoming.
This year alone the budget was increased by $5.1 million, preceded by $3 million the year before and $3 million the year before that. Again the moneys have been increased and are increasing. I did fight in cabinet for it and that is why it increased.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 35 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CENTENNIAL FLAME RESEARCH AWARD ACT


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two reports.
The first, which is in the usual format as well as in the alternate formats of Braille, computer disc, large print and audio cassette, is the first annual report pursuant to clause 7(1) of the Centennial Flame Research Award Act. This annual report includes the report of the first recipient of the award, Ms Sharon Houlihan from Whitehorse, Yukon. She has written a report on Ms. Judi Johnny, an impassioned advocate for the rights of aboriginal persons with disabilities.



HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE STATUS OF DISABLED PERSONS


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in the usual format as well as in the alternate formats of Braille, computer disc, large print and an audio cassette the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons entitled Signposts.
June 14, 1993

This report represents an assessment of the work of the committee during the 34th Parliament and suggests future priorities for the committee including a strong recommendation that it be maintained in the next Parliament.
[.Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



INCOME TAX ACT


Donald Frank Mazankowski: for leave to introduce Bill C-136, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.


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



BARLEY MARKETING PLEBISCITE ACT, 1993 MEASURE TO ENACT

['Agreed.']
John Harvard: for leave to introduce Bill C-456, an act to provide for a plebiscite respecting the marketing of barley by the Canadian Wheat Board.


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


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, this bill is clear and straightforward. It would provide for a plebiscite for the marketing of barley. Barley growers would be asked if they were in favour of retaining the current marketing mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board for barley.
I brought this bill forward because prairie farmers are frustrated. Without any mandate from producers this government has moved to a continental barley market effective August 1. Farmers feel that this is wrong and that it will undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. Producers feel they should be given the final say in this
Routine Proceedings
matter through a plebiscite and this bill would provide exactly that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Harvard 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.



Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this petition has to do with the unfair high gasoline prices in the national capital region.
Over and over again constituents from Ottawa Centre as well as constituents in the national capital region are outraged with the unfair high gasoline prices. They are once again calling on this House to urge the government to take all necessary steps in order to correct this injustice for the people of this region.


Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am proud to present two petitions, both of them certified correct as to form and content.
The first is from constituents mainly from Ponoka, Thorsby, Leduc and Tees, who call upon Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada.


Wilton (Willie) Littlechild: The second one is mainly from Ponoka, Red Deer, Wetaskiwin and other areas like Prince Rupert and Bluffton.
These petitioners ask Parliament to establish a peace trust fund which would allow Canadian taxpayers who for reasons of conscience or religion choose to redirect the portion of their taxes paid to the government away from military uses and to a fund which would use the resources so directed for peace, education, research, humanitarian aid and other peaceful purposes.

June 14, 1993
Routine Proceedings VIOLENCE


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by dozens of petitioners in east metropolitan Toronto.
Occasioned by the recent release of a repeated child molester in Ontario, they ask Parliament to address reform of the Criminal Code, the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act.


Mr. A1 Horning (Okanagan Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present seven petitions with 240 names on behalf of a group of my constituents who humbly call upon Parliament to enact legislation which would allow a referendum of the people calling upon Parliament to accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and the people of Canada.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of the Ottawa area protesting the high cost of gas in this region.
I can say that in Kingston on Thursday evening gas prices went from 49 cents a litre to 56 cents a litre at many of the major distribution points. This is purely an attempt at gas price gouging for the weekend because the prices generally go back down on Mondays. This is the third or fourth time at least this year that this has happened.
These constituents protest this kind of pricing, which is predatory and unfair pricing, that is being engaged in and have signed this petition calling on this House to do something to bring this kind of situation to an end.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a number of different petitions.
The first is 198 petitions with over 8,000 names of petitioners who call upon the government to reinstate as soon as possible the Court Challenges Program. I think that this would be particularly significant given the recent developments in the Conservative Party.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I have 67 petitions with over 2,600 names in which people from all across the country 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.


Mary Catherine Clancy: The last group of petitions with over 4,000 names asks the Government of Canada to reinstate funding for housing projects, in particular the co-operative housing program.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a very lengthy petition from the riding of York West which I have the honour to represent.
Constituents are complaining that their postal station Downsview C was closed but also closed without-and I underline the word without-any public input at all. Canada Post is supposed to serve those Canadians.
They are asking that it not only revisit this decision of closing Downsview Postal Station C but that it amend the process so that Canadians can be part of the equation and not told at the end that the service their tax dollars are paying for is no longer in operation.


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, I have petitions to present that have been certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk.
The petitioners argue that Canada has enacted legislation providing for two official languages, that the concept of two official languages has been entrenched in our Constitution and the major political parties have acted in concert in the aforesaid matters without consulting with and receiving a mandate from the people of Canada.
They say that the report of the citizens' forum conducted by Keith Spicer as part of the referendum indicated that a substantial majority of Canadians is opposed to two official languages and the actions of the government and the continuing actions of the political parties have disenfranchised the people of Canada on the subject of two official languages.


June 14, 1993

Government Orders
The petitioners call upon Parliament to have a referendum on the question of whether or not we should have two languages. The acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments would be determined by a majority vote of those votes cast in the whole of Canada together with a majority vote in the majority of provinces, with the territories being given the status of one province.
While I may not agree with the petitioners they have a right to be heard in Parliament and I am pleased to present these petitions.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 318 and 423 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 318 and 423 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Young (Acadie -Bathurst): 1.	For the 1990-91 fiscal year, with respect to the development and maintenance of Electric Data Processing (E.D.P) systems in government departments, (a) what was the cost (b) what were the delails of purchases?
2.	Since 1985-86 to the present, have any E.D.P. specific purpose systems been developed that have, or will, cost over $500,000 and, if so, (a) for which departments (b) what is the purpose of each system and, in each case for each system, completed or uncompleted, (i) what were the original and actual costs (ii) what were the original and actualy completion dates (c) what systems have been developed in-house?
Return tabled.

Question No. 423-Mr. Young (Acadie -Bathurst):
For the fiscal year 1989-90 and 1990-91, were any sole source contracts awarded by departments other than Supply and Services and, if so, (a) how many (b) how many were personal services contracts (c) for each department, what was the total dollar value of such contracts?
Return tabled.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 11 and 12 (p. 20737).
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak this afternoon on Bill C-110. Although I am the critic for government operations for our party I have not yet spoken on this bill to date preferring, as we all should, to ensure that my colleagues from Atlantic Canada, particularly those from P.E.I. and New Brunswick, be given the first opportunity to speak on this very important issue for their region.
I want to endorse whole-heartedly the comments of my colleagues from P.E.I and those that have been made by the premier of P.E.I. the Hon. Catherine Callbeck, former member of this House and current premier of that province.
A vast majority of the people of Prince Edward Island favour the adoption of this bill, and so do I. The people of P.E.I., through their legislative assembly, are in the process right now of adopting the constitutional amendment that is required pursuant to a recent court decision. I would like to quote from a speech given by the premier of P.E.I. I know that our colleagues in the NDP would want to listen to this, at least I hope they would want to listen to this. I should not be so presumptuous as to say that I know they would want to listen to it because one never knows with the NDP.
When the premier of P.E.I. introduced the resolution she said in her speech to the legislature: "Madam Speaker, a clear majority of Islanders support this project. The federal government supports this project

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
and this government supports this project. After seven years of extensive debate, study and consultation Islanders want this project to proceed". The premier went on to describe how the project was needed and how the resolution would then be debated in the legislative assembly of that particular province.
This morning all members of this Elouse and all Canadians were listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena in which he alleged corruption, impropriety and virtually everything else on the part of everyone except him. Those are the very sad comments we heard. Presumably his comments were also with reference to the people of that region, to those who represent them in the legislative assembly and to those who represent them here in Ottawa.
I do not think that many members of this House have a lot to learn in the way of ethics from the hon. member for Skeena, who crossed the floor and put a dead fish on the desk of another member of this House. Nor do we have any lectures to take from the NDP on ethics, particularly not the NDP in Prince Edward Island of all places. We know that in P.E.I. and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada being a member of the NDP is not very popular. It is about as popular as being a member of the Marxist-Leninist Party or the Rhinoceros Party. None of those people enjoy any support at all.


Steve Butland: Out of order, Mr. Speaker. That is not relevant.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the member for Sault Ste. Marie says that those remarks are not relevant to the debate. He should have been here to heckle the member for Skeena this morning. I do not know whether the member was here this morning, probably not, because he would have heckled his own colleague right out of the House at that time for the comments he made.


Steve Butland: Shame.


Don Boudria: I know he says "shame" and I agree with him. They were indeed shameful comments that were made at that particular time.
I thank the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie for supporting that proposition that the comments of the member for Skeena this morning were inappropriate.
What we are here to talk about is the amendment proposed by my colleague from Ottawa West and the bill in general.


James Ross Fulton: Where is she?


Don Boudria: I whole-heartedly support the comments of the member for Ottawa West, the amendments that she proposed to this bill to give greater authority to ensure that the environment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is a little warm today in Ottawa, and I know it is a little warm in here. However I do not want to reprimand the hon. member for saying who is and who is not in the House. He knows that, he has been here a long time. I would appreciate if we could have a little decorum.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but what do you expect from someone who puts dead fish on other MPs' desks?


Steve Butland: One-sided, Mr. Speaker.


Don Boudria: One side of the fish only? Perhaps. Nevertheless the dead fish was there from the deadbeats of the New Democrats.
If I can get back to the issue at hand, we support this bill. We feel that some amendments could make the bill, which is a good bill, even better. That is the position that we in this party have constantly taken. That does not mean that we do not want proper and rigorous environmental assessments. Approximately 22 of those studies have been done already, a stack of them probably as high as the hon. member for Skeena is tall, and that is a pretty tall stack of studies.
We have had all these environmental studies done and we in the Liberal opposition want to join with the people of P.E.I. who want to see their lot improved. We want to join with the people of New Brunswick who also want their part in this project. We want to join with all Canadians from Atlantic Canada in wanting things to be better in that part of the world.
I know that we cannot please everyone. We cannot please people like the member for Skeena or others who come pontificating from afar on how they feel about something thousands of miles away that is going to be in the best interest of the people from that region. They are going to say that they do not think this is appropriate and they are going to leave, probably never to come back.
June 14. 1993


James Ross Fulton: And who are you?


Don Boudria: Who am I? I am the critic. I think that gives me some authority to speak in favour of this bill. Certainly as much as the hon. member for Skeena who this morning made disparaging remarks against every member of this House except himself, the people of P.E.I. and the legislatures and elected people at the provincial level in those two provinces and presumably all others who disagree with him. We do not take very many moral lessons from the likes of that.
I want to conclude my remarks very briefly. This is getting to the end of this session. I want to say a word about the member for Central Nova, the Minister of Public Works. I have had the opportunity to be a critic in this House for quite some time and I want to take this opportunity to give my good wishes to the Minister of Public Works.
When I came here in 1984 it did not take long to discover that those who were holding power in that department at the time were not doing a very good job of it. I do not want to dig up everything that was said in 1984, 1985, 1986 and so on about the administration of the Department of Public Works. It was in a pretty bad state at that lime.
However I am pleased to see that things have improved quite a bit over recent years. No doubt a certain amount of that credit goes to the present minister, his parliamentary secretary and some of the people they have hired to straighten things out in that department. Things were very bad a few years ago. We all remember what they were like and there is no purpose in rereading all of that into the public record now. The record stands and unfortunately we all know what it was like at one time.
I just wanted to take a moment to add that before this Parliament ends, which I understand will be in a very few days from now. There may very well be a new session. If there is one under the soon to be appointed new Prime Minister then that particular session would be very short prior to the next election. I suspect that there may not even be a recall of Parliament after the new Prime Minister takes over. We will be in an election soon.
I wanted to take the opportunity to state that, to bring it to the attention of the House, and to urge my colleagues to do everything in their power for the adoption of Bill C-110. Let us do our small part in this House to give opportunities to the people of Atlantic
Government Orders
Canada. We have the opportunity to do that now, to safeguard the environment and at the same time to do a bit of good. We can safeguard the environment and at the same time create job opportunities. It will protect the great riches that we have there and at the same time will make life better for our brothers and sisters who live in that part of this great country.
I am pleased to be a member of the Liberal caucus that supports this initiative. We want the initiative to be even better but we will stand by the people of Atlantic Canada at this time when they want and need the help of all members of this House. It is not a time for the disparaging and insensitive remarks that we heard this morning from the hon. member for Skeena.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I would like very much to speak to the P.E.I. bridge. I would like to speak to the link, as it is called even if it is a generic bridge, and the generic studies that were done.
We are certainly getting off topic. I hope the condescending tone as exemplified by the previous speaker will end.
He took great delight in raking my colleague from Skeena over the coals and I think misplaced censure of his comments. The fact that the member for Skeena happens to be very passionate in the area of environment does not lend itself to the necessity of stooping to this level of debate.
Let us bring the debate back to what we are really talking about. It is the P.E.I. link and the New Democratic Party does not make any excuses or offer any apologies for speaking to this.
I have a great deal of respect for the members from P.E.I. I think they are some of the finest gentlemen I have met in this House. However last week one of the members said: "How dare you come into this House and pontificate to us from P.E.I.? How dare you do this when you are from a thousand miles away?"
I take exception to that. Normally we do not operate under that kind of environment here, if you will excuse the term. We are allowed to speak about one another's areas of expertise, projects, initiatives and legislation that applies to constituencies across this country. I hope the members of P.E.I. will allow us in the New Democratic Party to speak to this issue without denigrating us

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
and saying we have no business talking about this and we are against Atlantic Canada.
I want to point out that a plebiscite was held several years ago about some kind of link. The vote at that time was 60-40. I do not know what it would be now but I would really like to find out. The bottom line is whether it is wrong to stand up and speak on behalf of that 40 per cent of the people. Do we have to apologize and say we do not live in P.E.I. or on the east coast? I am sorry but I am going to speak for these people.
Believe me at committee there were lots of people willing to come forward. Those who were allowed to come forward spoke very passionately in opposition to the link therefore we do speak for some people. We are not here to just obstruct the project. We are here to represent some people.
I respect the member for Skeena. He is our environment critic and he is a darn good environment critic. Members of the House have said from time to time recently they are going to miss him. He is an environmental conscience for a lot of people in this country.
I am happy to speak to the link and why we are opposed to it. This bill brought forward is very narrow in scope. Any amendments we brought forward that would have had any impact were ruled out of order. That has to give us some concerns.
This is not a mini project. It started off with $600 million. It has gone up to $850 million which is the amount the proponent is going to raise to build the project. I understand it has burgeoned to a billion-plus dollars and yet we are told we should not be speaking to this. It is not our project.
One of the rationale given to support it was that it ends up in the riding of the Leader of the Opposition. That is great rationale for why we should support it. He is not upset, along with a couple of premiers of the Atlantic provinces. They each have one vote and one opinion just like the rest of us.
I feel very assured coming forward. Last week after I rose people from Prince Edward Island called and told me to keep it up. A lot of them appreciate what we in the NDP are doing on this initiative. They are not all in
favour of the fixed link. Surely all sides of the House are prepared to listen to the opposing viewpoints.
Certainly from the government's side the silence is somewhat deafening. It told me very bluntly it is in our ball court. The intimation was to get this over with, deal with it as quickly as possible and get it to third reading. Let us have a vote and get it over with. We are all in a huriy for the summer recess.
This is not a small project. This is a megaproject. As I have said from the beginning, a developer came forward and said: "Well, look folks. We want to build you something. We want to build you a bridge". A developer came forward and said in altruistic fashion: "We want to do this for the people of Canada. We want to do it for Atlantic Canada to create jobs".
There are altruistic developers out there, but not all of them. Some of them are in the business of making a great deal of money at the expense of others. We are just putting it forward. What if this is a $1 billion boondoggle? What if 35 years down the road the people of Canada are left with this monstrosity? What if within the 35-year limit the ice does cause the damage that the Friends of the Island and the people who work out there say could happen. What if that happens? It is going to be too late then.
It is imperative that we bring these concerns forward and let people know about the many amendments we proffered that were ruled out of order because the government said they went beyond the scope of the bill. I cannot help but be reminded of the NAFTA agreement. The government said this is the bill but you cannot have any of these labour or environmental accords. I think the analogy is a veiy good one.
This bill only deals with the contractual part of this bridge. It is a business piece of legislation, but we cannot bring anything in about the environment because it goes beyond the scope of the bill. My friend from the Liberal Party has brought forth an amendment but I am sure she would acknowledge the fact that it really does not say anything. I know she cares about the environment but this particular amendment is full of weasel words that really do not add anything to what the bill could say.
s
June 14, 1993

We are attempting to at least get the debate on the floor and delete the clauses one by one because the amendments with any substantial content in them have been ruled out of order. We really resent that.
I have not gone into many of the reasons why we oppose this bill. Here is just one of them and people can accuse us and say it is a red herring. Here is a report from the Department of Tourism in P.E.I. in 1988. It is not that long ago.
Visitors will be encouraged by creating attractions appropriate to our environment and activities in harmony with the conservation and preservation of that environment. It does not appear possible that a concrete and steel megaproject will be consistent with the Island's pursuit of this goal.
A massive concrete and steel structure spanning the waters of the Gulf will impair perception of the Island as a natural and tranquil place.
The Department of Tourism in P.E.I. said this in 1988. It is not something only we are bringing forward. Because of my interest and because of the accusation that I have never been to P.E.I. or read Anne of Green Gables I took the book out. They motivated me to read the book and at third reading I am going to read to some of the members to make them aware and mindful of the beauty and tranquillity of the Island. There are many on the Island who want to appreciate that forever and ever.
I know some of the members do not really want to hear this. It is a $1 billion dollar plus project that not everybody is in favour of. There are business people who came forward from the Island and said this will really destroy the character of P.E.I. It has not touched upon displacement of workers, the extra cost of the financing and the sceptical net benefit of the entire project. It has not touched upon the environmental specifics of the project for which we have grave concerns that the member for Skeena has brought forward.
This is why we have proposed the multi-amendments and unfortunately most of them have been ruled out of order. Nevertheless we want to proffer them for the benefit of the House but more importantly for the people of Canada and the unknown percentage of people in Atlantic Canada and Prince Edward Island


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not want this bill to go by
Government Orders
without saying a few words about it. What we are talking about today is yet another phase of Confederation itself. The history behind the building of the fixed link with Prince Edward Island goes back to its entry into Confederation in 1873 and for several decades before that.
Everything we seem to do or try to do to enlarge on Confederation or the transportation system of this country seems to become a great issue with Canadians. They want to discuss it thoroughly. Today there is a lot of concern about environmental issues and they will be and have been addressed. There will be considerable discussion on those yet as they proceed.
The commitment Canada made to Prince Edward Island when it entered Confederation in 1873 was that a continuous transportation system would be put in place between the island and the mainland. At that time steam boat was the main means of transit and since then there have been attempts to bring in a highway or causeway. In the first election campaign in which I ran in 1965 believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, the causeway between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island was one of the big issues. This is not a recent issue. It has been an ongoing issue since Confederation.
My experience with the transportation system to Prince Edward Island is one of sitting in one of those great line-ups of traffic waiting for a place on the ferry. Certainly I could not help but imagine what it would be like for business people trying to do business between the Island and the mainland when they had to sit there sometimes for hours on end waiting for transportation to the mainland.
There comes a time when the nation must grow. There comes a time when Confederation must be expanded upon. There also comes a time in the over-all picture of Canada when we have to look at the over-all national transportation system.
Regions of this country have recently lost their railway transportation, their passenger service and their link to many areas outside their particular regions. That is a negative growth for Confederation. The main underlying feeling in all discussions at the time of Confederation and as provinces and territories came into Confederation was that a national government has a responsibility to build the various parts of this nation and link them together with transportation facilities.

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
Even today in my own Ottawa valley we are about to lose the Canadian Pacific Railway link between Mattawa and Smith Falls. It was completed between the early 1880s and 1885 as part of the first transportation link across this country. This is a time of great emotion for many people. It is a time of change for those communities which will be losing their railways.
Therefore, while we talk about building facilities in one area of Canada, we must also at the same time talk about losing facilities in other regions of the country.
I want to join with others in the Liberal Party in supporting Prince Edward Island and indeed Atlantic Canada in the building of this link to Prince Edward Island. This project will mean a great deal to that island. Yes, it is going to change their way of life when it is completed because it is going to speed up the process of operations of day-to-day living in that province. Undoubtedly it will bring more people to Prince Edward Island. It will be part of getting to know our nation better. Canadians should be travelling their country today and learning more about it.
My experience, having visited Prince Edward Island on many occasions and doing business with people there, is that they are very accommodating people. They are very kind-hearted and very proud of their history. In this day and age when history receives so little attention at times, it does my heart good to see a part of this country that is really appreciated by the people for its background and its historic perspective.
It was mentioned by a previous speaker that on a referendum held in Prince Edward Island they voted 60 per cent to 40 per cent in favour of a new transportation link. It is also said today, rightly or wrongly, that if another referendum were taken today it could very well be 70:30. We would not know that of course until such a vote was taken, but it shows there is a consensus to build a new link in order to have a better transportation link with the other parts of the nation.
Ways of life will change in Prince Edward Island as they have changed in other parts of Canada. When we visit Prince Edward Island from other parts of this nation we learn that P.E.I. is a unique province. We are talking today about a fixed link that is going to be part of that
national transportation system. It has been talked about for years, as I mentioned.
In 1873 when the people of the day worked on bringing P.E.I. into Confederation they had a vision for the future of Canada. They were able to project their views into that future. Today, as Canadians, I sometimes think that we are so tied up in the day-to-day issues, we are so worried about what happened yesterday, what is going to happen today and what will happen tomorrow that we are not giving the proper, in-depth vision to the real future of this country. It is time we did that. That is why I am glad to see so many people supporting Prince Edward Island's desire for a better transportation link with the rest of Canada.
As I said in the beginning, this is a part of the continuation of the building of Canada's Confederation. Surely those of us in the House today, those in the provincial legislatures affected in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in particular, will look to the future with a renewed vision as to how they can improve their part of Canada.
No matter where we live in Canada it is up to Canadians, who have a desire to have unity and communication with people, to support the desires of people who need good transportation links in other parts of the country as well.
It is not fitting today I know for me to talk about the railway system that we are losing in my part of the country in the Ottawa valley but I hope I will have another opportunity to do that.
Mr. Speaker, you have been very kind to let me say a few words on the Prince Edward Island issue today. I wish the new premier and her new government every success as they grapple with this issue.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the fixed link I would like to compliment my hon. colleague from Pembroke and to say we are delighted he is back here with us in the House. We are always delighted to listen to his words of wise counsel.
I want to talk about two things in my remarks today. The first is a little bit of history. Twenty-five years ago, in 1968, along with a group of students from Nova Scotia I
June 14, 1993

took the old ferry, the Abegweit from Cape Tormentine in New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island. It was in February, in winter, and we got stuck in the ice for between four to six hours.
I probably neglected to say I was going to Prince Edward Island for an Atlantic provinces student Liberal meeting. When we finally got to the other side we were met by the former premier of Prince Edward Island, the Hon. Alex Campbell, now Mr. Justice Campbell of the Prince Edward Island Supreme Court.
In his welcoming remarks to the students, he made what I can only call an impassioned plea for a fixed link because, as he said, what had happened to us that particular night happened all too frequently, whether people were coming to Prince Edward Island on business, as tourists, bringing truckloads of materials or trying to get off the island with materials, potatoes or anything else.
I want to say something about the way we are in Atlantic Canada. I listened with interest to the comments of the members from Skeena and Sault Ste. Marie, members for whom I have both a modicum of affection and respect in spite of their poor choice of parties. I want to say something to them. Perhaps I do not say it in as dramatic terms as my colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond did, but I say it to them nonetheless. With the greatest of respect and affection, those gentlemen are talking through their hats.


An hon. member:: I never wear one.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Maybe you should wear a hat. The point is that there are studies. My colleague from Cape Breton-East Richmond in his impassioned remarks earlier today listed the scads of studies that tell us with a few fairly minor exceptions that the fixed link will be in the main benign. What is not benign, what is malign in Atlantic Canada today is the unemployment rate. I was up just a few minutes ago talking about the fact that the unemployment rate for students in Nova Scotia last year was 23.8 per cent. That is just for students.
In parts of Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada the unemployment rate is as high as 30 per cent. What are we talking about? What are my colleagues in that comer talking about if we say that a project that is going to provide jobs to great numbers of maritimers, to Atlantic
Government Orders
Canadians in general, is something that must be stopped at all costs.
With the greatest of respect, those of us from Atlantic Canada turn, face these people and tell them to mind their own business. We need this project. My former colleague from Malpeque, currently the premier of Prince Edward Island, the first woman elected premier in this country is not-and anyone who knew Catherine Callbeck in this House knows I speak the truth on this-someone who looks at the future of her province, whether we are talking about its employment future or its environmental future, lightly. She does not make rash decisions. Indeed, if there are two words that are mutually exclusive in the language they would be "rash" and "Callbeck".
The premier of Prince Edward Island asked me specifically to speak in favour of this. She did not have to because I understand. But I am grateful that she would want my support and she has it, as do my colleagues and the people of Prince Edward Island along with, indeed, the people in Atlantic Canada who are going to get much-needed jobs out of the project.
I cannot underline this word too often. The word is jobs. That word in Atlantic Canada with the majority of the policies of this government over the last nine years, has been a word that has been far too often absent from the Atlantic Canadian lexicon.
On top of the whole question of jobs and the spin-off from those jobs is the whole question of the isolation of Prince Edward Island because of the strait. There is the whole question of the fact that when the ice fills in the Northumberland Strait in the wintertime one can, as I did in that winter month in 1968, spend four to six hours or longer trying to get across the strait. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that this could be counter productive for business on Prince Edward Island.
There are also problems with airline service to Prince Edward Island. Do not even get me started on the problems of airline service in this country generally. I say, don't press your luck, to my hon. colleague from Sault Ste. Marie.
The transportation problems in this country are mammoth: the distances, the costs, the geography and the climate. Every single one of us in every region of the country knows whereof I speak. We have all spoken about these things millions of times in this Chamber over the years. This project is needed.

June 14, 1993
Government Orders


John Carnell Crosbie: You're speaking and we're doing.


Mary Catherine Clancy: I cannot believe that the hon. minister of fisheries does not support me in this. I cannot believe the hon. minister of fisheries is heckling my support for a government project. I am crushed. I may even say that I am hurt in my finer feelings. However, I shall somehow try to soldier on in spite of the comments of the hon. minister. He had best look to his laurels.
I shall continue to ignore assiduously his comments as I speak in support. This is one of the few things I have ever supported. Heaven knows in the dying days of this government that justly deserves to die I will probably never do so again.
However after I was so rudely interrupted by the hon. minister I go back and say how important this project is to the economy not just of Prince Edward Island, not just of New Brunswick but of Nova Scotia as well. The spin-off, the jobs created, the general boost to our economy in maritime and Atlantic Canada is unquestionable. We must have it.
While I appreciate that hon. members in the New Democratic Party want to do what is best for the people of Atlantic Canada, let me say that there are 20 of us here in the Liberal Party who represent the interests of Atlantic Canada. I think that we know what our constituents want and we know what is best for Atlantic Canada.
We also know that the environment must be preserved. We know how important these matters are. I can only reiterate that this project must go ahead.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make it clear that I was not disagreeing with the hon. member's support for this bill. I just wanted her to admit that they are supporting something that the government is taking action on.
Those in the Liberal Party of Canada have talked about the fixed link to Prince Edward Island for 20 or 30 years. God knows, they were in office from 1935-there was the Diefenbaker interregnum-basically until 1984. Despite all their promises they never did a single thing to carry out any of them. Now this great project is being
carried forward by my colleague on the right, the hon. Minister of Public Works.
We are glad to see that there are some people in the Liberal ranks opposite who are prepared to support this bill and see it go forward.


Mary Catherine Clancy: He does not want our support.


John Carnell Crosbie: I dare say they do it because of a guilty conscience over the fact that they did nothing for the last 40 or 50 years in this direction. But at least they do know-


Mary Catherine Clancy: John, magnanimity becomes you.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am trying to be nice about the Liberal Party, which is not easy. This is a very formative experience in learning something about politics, right? You get into the Liberal Party for a few years and you are on to every trick in the book. Then you move on to a real party where you can express your idealism and principles.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Which one would that be?


John Carnell Crosbie: You come over to the Progressive Conservative Party.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Did you join the Reform this morning?


John Carnell Crosbie: To get on with my question, at least it is obvious that the members of the Liberal Party who represent districts in Atlantic Canada are fully supporting this. Compare that to the miserable show of the NDP in this House which has no members now in Atlantic Canada. It is quite easy to see why it has no members in Atlantic Canada. It will not support things that are good for Atlantic Canada. It is critical of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
The NDP opposed the Hibernia project. If it were not for the Hibernia project, it would not be a question of the GNP growing in Newfoundland in the next five years, it would be a steady downward spiral. The NDP did not care about that. That is why it has only one member I suppose in the whole Newfoundland legislature. The most it has ever had is one person and that is all it is ever going to have because it is not cognizant of what needs to be done in Atlantic Canada.
I congratulate the hon. member for Halifax. It is the first time I have seen her take a constructive position in this House in all her years here.
June 14, 1993


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Trinity Spadina it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the Elouse that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie-steel industry; the hon. member for Fredericton- York-Sunbury-job start program; and the hon. member for Don Valley East-multiculturalism.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this motion. In spite of the interjections of the hon. minister I believe it is an unwise motion for all concerned within Canada, but most of all for the people most directly concerned.
It is a motion to spend about $1.5 billion over 35 years to build a bridge from New Brunswick across the Northumberland Straits to Prince Edward Island. While we have heard arguments in favour of it, I believe there are two serious arguments against it.
The first argument is the inadequately studied effect on the environment. Yes, there have been many studies. By the law passed by this government there is the environmental assessment and review process that looked at the other studies. About 150 people spoke to the matter and gave many points of view. They were from the Island mainly, but from elsewhere also. The conclusion was that the idea of a bridge-not a particular bridge but a bridge idea-should not be approved at this time.
The point of the government setting up an environmental review process was to have that sort of thing heard. I mentioned that 150 people spoke but I believe ten times that many attended. The environmental review process had to take all those points of view into account.
Some of the points made by the environmental review process were that there was risk of damaging the near shore spawning grounds. Also there was a general feeling it could be incompatible with sustainable development. There were difficulties in finding socially acceptable solutions for the displaced ferry workers and fishermen, and I will come back to that.
Government Orders
There was concern generally that not enough attention had been given to the environmental impact on the Island, even on how tourism might be affected by the bridge. My colleague from Sault Ste. Marie mentioned the opinions expressed by Islanders, including business people as to what the bridge might do to tourism.
We have heard about the benefits of putting a community in communication. It has often been found in Ontario and also out west that it works two ways. Communication, travel or information can bring activity to a community, or it can suck activity out of a community. The concern was that it was not at all clear which way the bridge as contrasted with the ferry might affect Prince Edward Island.
Those are only some of the environmental concerns but they are very serious ones.
There has been a great deal of discussion over the past decade or longer about the fisheries off the Atlantic coast particularly off Newfoundland. The argument continues as to where the cod went. We should at least take warning that if we do not seriously consider the possibility that these sources may be destroyed perhaps forever, we could be very sorry later on.
This brings me to the second argument. A number of the Islanders who are very directly concerned, particularly the ferry workers and fishermen, oppose this project.
We heard about jobs. Somebody has estimated 1,000 jobs. Well 700 jobs stand to be in danger. Whether there is any sure basis for 1,000 construction jobs has not been made clear. We know the company doing this project is foreign based. From experience we can expect that it will do its best to make sure most of the profit and if possible most of the jobs go to the United States or Britain where that company is based.
We have often been disappointed by rose coloured prospects of jobs from foreign investments that turned out the other way. They sucked jobs out of the country instead of putting jobs in the country. To drop 700 ferry jobs for an unknown number of construction jobs may not be wise. That is 700 jobs per year for the ferry crews contrasted with an unknown number of construction jobs per year over the next 35 years and unknown indirect effects on jobs and businesses on the Island itself. Perhaps more jobs will be gained, perhaps not.

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
Therefore I support the motion of the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie that clause 4 of the bill be deleted. That is the clause by which Parliament gives up all concern for any effect of this bridge on employment, the environment, or anything else. It simply says the government can sign a contract with a company and that is it.
In particular, clause 4 indicates: "The minister may on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada enter into one or more agreements in respect of the crossing. These agreements entered into under this section may include (a) provisions respecting the design, maintenance, financing, development, construction and operation of the crossing''. In other words, from now on Parliament will have nothing to say about any of those important matters.
Clause 4 continues: "(b) undertakings in relation to industrial and employment benefits"-a pig in a poke-"(c) provisions respecting the tolls, fees or other charges that may be imposed in respect of the crossing". In other words, we do not know what this bridge is going to cost Islanders in terms of prices of products to be brought across the bridge instead of being brought as now by the guaranteed ferry service.
It is unfortunate that many of the other amendments were ruled out of order, but I can understand that clause seems to have that effect. I hope members will delete that clause to at least leave open the possibility of looking at various matters that have not as yet been looked at, such as halting the proceedings until the Friends of the Island court case has been completed.
This morning an hon. member for the Liberal Party referred to the problem of delay that can be caused by a court case. It is better to look at it first rather than afterward. There is the uncertainty of the constitutional amendment that has not been passed. Another matter is asking the National Transportation Agency to show what the cost of the ferry will be as compared to the cost of the subsidy for the new bridge.
A number of other matters should be considered by this House not only because of the cost of $1.5 billion that will be laid upon the whole of Canada, but also the benefits that should be secured.
For example, there should be a plan for re-employment of at least half of the ferry workers. There should
be a plan to deal with the ice problem, so that it does not destroy the fisheries. We cannot rely on SCI, a foreign corporation, to take care of those things adequately. It is not clear that the government will negotiate them adequately. Therefore Parliament should have the opportunity to speak and decide on those points.
While I recognize that quite possibly a majority of the people on the Island are in favour of this, there is a minority who are against it. There are times when the minority has been right. The minority voice should be heard, especially when it affects far more than just the people on Prince Edward Island.
I hope the government will reconsider this bill and at least allow this amendment which opens the way for bringing back those vital concerns I have mentioned.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this bill, the purpose of which is to build a bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
My NDP colleagues seem to project a negative attitude to a bill that is supported by two Atlantic provinces. I wonder why members from other provinces insist on interfering in such a negative way in the affairs of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
As a member from Ontario, I think the plan to build a bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick is an excellent idea and one that should have a very positive impact. The private sector is prepared to take on the project, while the government would guarantee the necessary loans.
We all know that the governments of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick support this plan. We also know that the premiers of both provinces support it. According to the results of a plebiscite in Prince Edward Island, nearly 65 per cent of the population is in favour of building the bridge. It seems that if this plebiscite were held again today, it would probably be around 90 or 95 per cent.
As the NDP member just said, a minority is opposed to the project. Of course there are always people who like peace and quiet and don't want to be disturbed. They just want to be left alone. They are quite satisfied the way they are and they want things to stay that way. And so,
June 14, 1993

why build a bridge? I would ask those who are opposed to the project whether they have ever been to Prince Edward Island. Did they notice how difficult it can be to get to the Island at certain times of the year? Did they ever wait in line to get on the ferry that takes them there?
Did they consider the truckers who carry produce and who may have to wait one, two, three or even five hours? This doesn't do the produce any good, but just think what it costs per hour when those huge tractor trailers line up to cross with Canadian produce for foreign markets and are held up for several hours. A bridge would accelerate the transport of Canadian produce.
We tend to forget that we have a Trans-Canada Elighway in this country. Should we deny Prince Edward Island a link with that network? Should we deny Prince Edward Island, the smallest province in Canada, this project? Should we leave this small province out in the cold just because we as residents of other provinces like Ontario, Quebec and the western provinces can easily vote down this small group of people?
Here in the House of Commons we should take a broader view and consider all regions. The Atlantic region lacks jobs. We have a fantastic opportunity to create jobs in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. What are we waiting for? There are people who say we should keep the ferries. Did they consider that repairs might be necessary or new ferries might have to be built? What would it cost to build these ferries, and I am not even considering maintenance costs?
If we have to choose between building new ferries at a tremendous cost or building a bridge, does it not it make more sense to build a bridge and avoid all the problems we have now with the ferries? The position taken by the NDP member who spoke previously is certainly not shared by the people in the Atlantic provinces.
Mr. Speaker, as a member from Ontario, and I repeat this with pride, it is with pleasure and a sense of duty toward my colleagues from the provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick that I support a bill they want and need. Canada as a whole should applaud this initiative.
Government Orders


David Stupich: Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader for the opposition in making his remarks today talked about the number of studies that have already been done. I wish I had been able to take notes as fast as he was referring to them but I just do not have the list.
In some cases some issues were studied four times. In one case one issue was studied something like 29 times. It makes me wonder about the nature of the studies. What were they studying? Where they studying the whole picture or where they studying little bits and pieces of it? If one has to have a second study after the first study has been done on the same issue then why the second? Is it because one doubts the credibility of the person who did the first study or because they did not do a good enough job?
We do not know. He did not tell us anything about the studies at all except to say how many had been done. It was as though the fact that there had been in total something like 100 studies done meant that was enough studying. It might be that one study done properly on the real questions would be plenty. If a credible consultant did the study then that is all one would need. When there are almost 100 studies then either one would think the studies have not been good enough or they have been too small and inconsequential to be of any real value in determining whether or not this project should go ahead. Even then can we be certain? That is the part that worries me.
I have a copy of a recent letter from the Central Northumberland Strait Fishermen's Association addressed to the Hon. Jean Charest, the Minister of the Environment. I do not intend to read the whole letter but there are some parts of it that I do want to read into the record. Reading from page two:
For the record, the members of my organization and the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association are not satisfied with the amount of information that has been gathered.
They know that we have all those studies but they are still not satisfied. This is what they want:
In particular, we share the concerns of DFO scientists about existing deficiencies in our knowledge of the Strait which include: serious data gaps in our knowledge of productivity, the dynamics and ecology of phytoplankton and zooplankton and life and history dynamics of all commercial species.

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
I would suggest that we are deficient in that kind of knowledge in all fishing areas. There are many arguments and ideas put forth as to what happened to the North Atlantic cod. Where did they disappear to or why did they disappear?
Why are they at the point of extinction? We just do not know in spite of all of the studying. Either we have not done enough studying or we have not gone far enough with our studies. We just do not know at this point but we do know that they have gone. They are not totally gone and not beyond recovery we hope.
Certainly that same thing could happen with respect to the Northumberland fisheries. It is valued at something like $100 million if we make a mistake and do something that is a disaster from an environmental point of view and destroys that fishery. There is that danger.
Is it worth going ahead with the project knowing that that could happen? We do not know that it will happen but are simply afraid that it might happen if we go ahead and construct this causeway between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
Here are some other points:
unqualified variation in ecosystem components against which impacts of structure will be impossible to measure.
They may not be right but they are saying that no study can give us the answer. It is just impossible to measure what the effect would be.
urgent priority to calibrating a correlation between lobster larval surveys and lobster landings to be used as a tool for measuring environmental change.
From this one can only assume that, in spite of all of the studies that have been referred to by the hon. House leader for the opposition, we still do not know some critical information. We do not know the facts.
lack of long-term, well-focused research on effects of the physical environment on the marine ecosystem making it impossible for the Science Branch to attribute any observed changes to any specific undertaking.
Certainly reading that one has to have some real daubts about all 100 of the studies.
many unknowns and unanswerables which preclude the prediction of impacts on invertebrates.
paucity of knowledge of distribution and movement patterns of larval and juvenile herring.
lack of peer review of ice analysis.
The conclusion that loss of a single year-class of herring would be a small impact is unacceptable.
These are the fishermen speaking. I think we should listen to them. There is danger. We do not know the answers. We do not even know if it is possible to get them but we certainly know that we have not done enough to get the answers that we would need before committing close to $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money on a solid connection between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
I emphasize the world Island because it is an island. What is an island? It is some real estate that is surrounded by water. Part of the romance of travelling to Prince Edward Island- certainly tourism is extremely important there-is the knowledge that there are two ferry routes. That is part of the romance of Prince Edward Island. As someone said, that is where the founding convention for Canada was held. However, it is also one of the oldest provinces with the longest term populations.
My ancestors on one side came to Prince Edward Island several hundred years ago from the Isle of Skye. They came to an island. Once we tie it to the mainland with a bridge or a causeway then it is no longer an island. It is a peninsula perhaps or a projection from the main continent but no longer an island in the true sense of the word island.
What are we achieving by having this new connection? Perhaps it will be good for a few people. Perhaps it is going to be good for some businesses but I suspect that there will be a loss as well. Leaving aside for the moment the unknowns about the potential loss in the ocean itself and what it is going to do to sea life, we do know that it is going to change the pattern of life on Prince Edward Island.
I have not talked to my relations about it. I do not know how they feel about it but neither have they approached me to urge me to support or reject this proposal. We really need to know what the effect will be on the sea life and on the Island itself and put some figures on it.
June 14, 1993

We heard different speakers. We heard the hon. member for Skeena say that it is going to cost $1.4 billion. If it is extended a little further it is closer to $1.5 billion than $1.4 billion in the multiplication. Whatever, it is a lot of money to put into connecting an island with a population of something like 130,000 people to the mainland. Even among the 130,000 there is evidence that a significant number of them do not appreciate what Canada wants to do to them. A lot of them would rather be left as an island.
Is it worth dividing the Island's population further on this issue? Is it worth risking what we might be doing to the fisheries environment? Enough damage has been done to the fisheries of the east coast already and more damage is contemplated with respect to the fisheries on the west coast. We cannot take a chance on these issues. I would urge the House to vote against this proposition.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, is a pleasure to be able to speak on this bill and to express my support for this project. I am glad to see that the minister for Atlantic development and fisheries is among us this afternoon listening carefully to our debate. I know that he is probably contemplating the creation of a fixed link to Newfoundland. That is in the future.
Today we are considering the project of a fixed link linking New Brunswick to Prince Edward island. To begin with I would like to say why I support this project because I have not been involved with the project in detail. I am supporting this project because first of all it is supported and has been supported by the vast majority of the people of Prince Edward Island after a great deal of public consultation, a plebiscite and a great deal of thought by Islanders about the impact this development would have on their way of life, their economy and the ecology of the Northumberland Strait through which the fixed link will pass.
It is not something that the people of Prince Edward Island take lightly. They have given this a great deal of thought. They have weighed all the issues and have come out strongly in favour of this project. I trust their very good common sense.
Government Orders
Second, I am supporting this project because it has been thoroughly studied. It has been the subject of a FEARO environmental review and many other environmental studies including a special panel which considered what effect a fixed crossing might have on the ice conditions in the Northumberland Strait.
It is true that the FEARO study which reported on this project in 1991 initially recommended against the project unless certain conditions were met. I am given to believe that those conditions have been met in the current project proposal. With the safeguards that have been made to preserve the environment, this project has all the necessary and reasonable precautions to ensure that the environment will not be unduly damaged.
I also support this project because it will demonstrate a new and innovative way of financing a major infrastructure project. It is a way of financing infrastructure which I think we in Canada and those in other countries will have to look at more carefully in the future. The idea that consortia can self-finance major projects of this type through revenues that the project will generate-in this case tolls on the bridge-is an idea worth considering and worth exploring and developing in these times of fiscal restraint.
This project is an example of that and for that reason it merits the support of this House. Those are the main reasons why I support this project. In addition it should not be forgotten that the project will be a major boost to the Atlantic economy in the form of construction work for a number of years.
It will stimulate the economy of a part of the country which I am sure the minister knows is severely depressed at the moment and which badly needs stimulus. The construction jobs will be very valuable to the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, RE.I. and elsewhere in Canada. Therefore I support the project on economic grounds. I am confident the environmental precautions have been taken and that it has the required support of the people who matter most to this project, the people of Prince Edward Island.
The previous speaker from the NDP mentioned his concern with the island way of life, that the Islanders should not have this fixed link imposed on them because they would lose their way of life.

June 14. 1993
Government Orders
I come from another island, the island of Cape Breton, which has a fixed link. That fixed link is the Canso causeway which was built in 1953, about the time I was born. I do not really remember and have no direct experience of the debate which preceded the construction of the Canso causeway on Cape Breton Island and particularly the concerns there may have been at that time, that by creating a causeway linking Cape Breton to the mainland somehow we would cease to be an island.
The people on Cape Breton Island feel quite comfortably that they are islanders and they remain islanders even though the Canso causeway links them to the mainland. They certainly talk of themselves as living on an island. We have a song we call our national anthem which is called The Island and talks about Cape Breton as an island, a rock in the stream. It is very much a part of our culture 40 years after the construction of the Canso causeway.
I know as well that for the people in the communities of Cape Breton Island who find that their movements are limited because they have to cross bodies of water by ferry it is a major inconvenience. It slows their economy. It disrupts communication. I know those people, some of whom are in my riding since there are several ferries currently operating in my riding, are awfully anxious to have fixed links across those bodies of water.
I do not think we can say, certainly in the face of the overwhelming support that this project has on P.E.I., that because there is a link connecting P.E.I. to the mainland somehow that is going to mean that P.E.I. will cease to be an island. We have the example and the experience of Cape Breton Island to demonstrate the contrary.
I would like to close my remarks by returning to the question of whether this project has been adequately studied from an environmental point of view. When it comes to examining the environmental consequences of big projects of course one has to be thorough and try to see far into the future and examine these projects from a wide range of consequences.
We have to preserve and be mindful of concerns that perhaps many years ago we would have taken for granted, such as life on the bottom of the ocean, crustaceans, fish or the movement of natural habitat. All
those things have to be given the same kind of priority as economic development.
There is a point at which one has to realize we cannot strive for certainty. There is always going to be an element of risk. There is always a balance that has to take place at the margin in assessing projects from an environmental perspective.
There was a concept which was current in discussing environmental analysis that was very often used to abort, prevent or paralyse real projects for which there was broad public concern. That term was called analysis paralysis. There is very often the risk that projects such as this will be subject to analysis paralysis. As a matter of fact when I think of the Canso causeway experience I wonder, if it was to be contemplated today, whether or not it would be built even though it is quite feasible technically. Would it have been delayed indefinitely because of analysis paralysis? We have to watch that it does not happen even though we want to make sure we are thorough and comprehensive in our environmental assessment.
We have a project here that has been thoroughly assessed and evaluated and has received the blessing of those whose future depends on it the most.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, before you know it my friend from St. John's will want a fixed link from Newfoundland over to Prince Edward Island or something of that sort.


John Carnell Crosbie: A fixed link to Saskatchewan.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Maybe he will want a fixed link over to the province of Saskatchewan.
I would like to say a few words about this issue as well. Bill C-110 is the proposal to build a bridge or fixed link from Prince Edward Island to the province of New Brunswick, something that has been talked about for many years off and on, going back to around the turn of the century.


James Ross Fulton: 1830.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1830, almost 160-odd years. It is a long time, Mr. Speaker.


James Ross Fulton: Since John was a small boy.
June 14, 1993


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not think the minister of fisheries was a member of Parliament in those days, or even around in those days. It was 1830, not 1930. That is a long time anyway.
In those days people were looking at the idea of replacing the ferry service with some kind of a fixed link, be it a bridge or tunnel. My recollection of the history of that period is there was a great debate as to what it should be.
Prince Edward Island did not join Confederation in 1867. It waited a few years until it had more negotiations with Ottawa. Part of the terms of union at that time was a guarantee in the Constitution of a transportation link between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.


James Ross Fulton: At no cost.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That was a provision to entice the people of Prince Edward Island into Canada.
The negotiations in those days for Confederation took place in Charlottetown. Despite the fact the negotiations were in Charlottetown, in a very historic building, Prince Edward Island did not join. One reason P.E.I. joined was to have this transportation service, not just for passengers but also for mail between the Islanders and the rest of the world, established on a daily basis between that province and New Brunswick guaranteed in the Constitution of Canada.
I hate to mention that c word again but it is the Constitution that guarantees this to the island. If we are going to be changing our ties with Prince Edward Island there eventually will have to be a constitutional amendment. I think that constitutional amendment now has been tabled in the legislature in Prince Edward Island-


James Ross Fulton: It will be debated tomorrow.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It will be debated tomorrow. It is not passed yet but it will be debated in the province of Prince Edward Island. We are going to have to look at the possibility of whether it should also be debated in New Brunswick. It also affects that province because that is were the ferry service goes.
Of course under section 43 of our Constitution it must also be debated and passed by the House of Commons and the Senate in a joint resolution. That is one thing that has to be done if this bill is to go through.
Government Orders
Another concern I have about the bill is that an assessment study is actually under way. That study has not been completed. It reminds me of the situation of the Rafferty-Alameda dam in my own province where construction of the dam was taking place before the assessment study had been completed by the federal and provincial governments. It is really putting the cart before the horse.
If the assessment study comes up and says we should not be proceeding because of reasons a, b, and c, then there is a tremendous waste of taxpayers' money that has gone into the preparations of the project, into some of the road-building for the project, some of the expropriation for the project and so on. Second, since the study is still going on and construction is under way there is tremendous pressure on the panel doing the study to come up with an approval for the project because if it does not there is once again a controversy over a waste of public funds that have already been expended.
I have seen that in my own province of Saskatchewan with the Rafferty-Alameda dam. It is not in my riding but is in the riding just south of mine. To this day it is still a very controversial project in Saskatchewan. The dam by the way is located in the riding of the former premier, Grant Devine, the Estevan riding. It was one of his pet projects and a deal that he made with the present Minister of the Environment.
It was interesting to note yesterday at the convention that one of the big cheerleaders for the Minister of the Environment was Grant Devine, the former premier of Saskatchewan. These are very interesting linkages and we are seeing again a replay of some of the things that happened at Rafferty-Alameda in Saskatchewan with the fixed link in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
That is one concern I have about this project and it is one reason why we think it should not be going ahead at this time.
Second, I gather there is a court case that is still outstanding. It seems to me that before we pass a law in the highest court of the land, which is the Parliament of Canada, we should make sure that the court case has finished its course, that there is a judgment, that we have

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
that judgment before us and then we use the wisdom of the decision to guide the Parliament of Canada.
Once again we are putting the cart before the horse. We are making a decision on this bill before we hear from the court. Not only do we not have the completion of the assessment study, but we also have an incomplete judicial process in an outstanding court case.
I have already mentioned the third reason why I am concerned and that is the constitutional reason, the terms of union when Prince Edward Island became a province and the fact that if we are going to go in this direction there has to be a constitutional amendment under section 43 of the Constitution Act of Canada. Those are three of the concerns that I have.
A fourth concern is the massive government subsidy of a private developer. This fixed link, if it goes ahead, is going to cost the Canadian taxpayer some $42 million a year for 35 years. That is a lot of money which is going to be going from the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer to a private developer. I question the value of that in terms of an investment in a megaproject in a country that has a tremendous debt.
Under the Conservative government we have seen the debt go up from $150 billion-$160 billion to $458 billion. I question the wisdom of committing that $42 million a year for 35 years to a project that is capital intensive, that is not going to provide many jobs, that is going to cost taxpayers in Yorkton, Saskatchewan or Corner Brook, Newfoundland, or Sherbrooke, Quebec a lot of money over 35 years for a questionable return.
We have an obligation to the people of Prince Edward Island. That obligation is a ferry service that has been going very well, that has been very efficient and very effective over the years. Now we are taking a great leap into the unknown with a fixed link that possibly has environmental consequences in terms of ice, marine life; the environment in that very precious part of the world. It does not seem right that we should be going headlong into a decision to go ahead with this fixed link before we have the total, complete and full environmental assessment of what is going to happen to the environment in that part of the world.
I would like to see before we go ahead with this bill government members get up and justify why we would be rushing headlong into a project before the completion of a court case and before the completion of the environmental assessment study.
I refer once again to the Rafferty-Alameda dam that is being built and the millions of dollars that have been spent. It has a reservoir that may never be filled because of the drought and the dry conditions in southern Saskatchewan. It will have some dire environmental consequences for Saskatchewan and many of its communities for many years to come.
I close by saying, Mr. Speaker, if you were sitting here with me you would be up in the House saying the same thing I am today.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate today and talk about some of the reservations we have about this particular project.
Regardless of what posterity may bring, we are rendering a service to the House and the Canadian people today by putting the arguments against this particular link.
I notice, as we have experienced a number of times in the House lately, the Liberal opposition and the government are as one on this as they were last week on telecommunications and as they were the week before on Bill C-106, an act to remove the last requirement for Canadian ownership under the Canada Lands.


An hon. member:: Tweedle dum and tweedle dee.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They are as one when it comes to the free trade agreements and numerous other things. This is just an example but it is an example that stands by itself in a way and deserves particular attention as to why we in the NDP caucus feel we cannot support this particular link.
I might say that apart from the particulars-I am not an Islander and I am not from the maritimes-I do consider to be charged with having responsibility for all of Canada's environment as a member of Parliament. Whether I am on my feet here defending South Moresby and Lyell Island in the province of British Columbia,
June 14, 1993

prairie grasslands or the marine environment of Prince Edward Island, I feel it is appropriate for all members of Parliament to take an interest in this matter.
There is a pattern here which I have seen in other issues that in spile of all the rhetoric after the Bruntland commission and Brazil '92, the government is still not committed to full environmental assessment before a project begins. That is one of the most basic and simplest recommendations of anyone and everyone who is seen to know anything about how we should deal with the environment these days. We should not proceed with major megaprojects or other significant decisions until we have done our homework.
The list of megaprojects in the past that received no attention whatsoever and turned out to be disasters is too long to recite. Some have turned out to be okay and have been a great boon to their particular communities or regions while others have not. Now that we have some expertise-not perfect yet-in judging what the consequences of certain projects will be, we have an obligation to do everything we can to assess a specific project, not the generic project that has been studied inadequately but the actual project.


An hon. member:: The specific.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The specific one. I understand this has not been done in this case. Therefore the concerns people have about ice, marine life et cetera have not been specifically addressed as far as this particular design or project is concerned.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville mentioned the Rafferty-Alameda where we had, from a global point of view in terms of Canada's reputation, the acutely embarrassing situation of the environmental review going on while the dam was being built. How absurd, Mr. Speaker. The Oldman River dam is another example. I am thinking particularly of another area in my home province where the government has not lived up to its responsibilities, and that is the matter of the Assiniboine River diversion.


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Other people and I are in possession of letters that were written by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to the Manitoba government which point
Government Orders
out inadequacies in the environmental assessment that has been done to date on the effects of the Assiniboine River diversion. They have had no impact on the provincial government in Manitoba. It seems committed to a kind of full steam ahead approach to this. The federal government, given its jurisdiction in the department of fisheries and perhaps through the involvement of the prairie farm rehabilitation administration should take its federal responsibilities seriously and make sure there is a full environmental assessment done of the Assiniboine River diversion project. But again this is not happening.
No wonder there is cynicism about the political process. Hundreds of people trek to Brazil to pat themselves on the backs about what a great job we have done on the environment here in Canada. We have references made, although we do not get them as often as we used to, about the Brundtland Commission and the need for sustainable development and the need to analyze everything as to how it will affect the environment. We have round tables on the environment and the economy and we have people Hying every which way across the country destroying the ozone layer talking about the next great conference they are going to have on the environment.
When push comes to shove on a project like this or other projects, when all we ask is that a full environmental assessment be done and then let the chips fall where they may, we do not get it. Why is that, Mr. Speaker?
I see the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of the Environment is in the House. Maybe he could get up and enlighten us as to why this is the case, particularly with respect to this but also with respect to the Assiniboine River diversion, which happens to be in his home territory as well as mine, except that I am downstream from the effects of the project in a way that perhaps he is not.
Once again the government is not executing the environmental assessment process the way it should. It is being pushed through the House of Commons. I understand that the constitutional amendment that needs to go with this has not yet happened but there is an unseemly rush here. I know the people of Prince Edward Island have said yes. Of course it is not an easy thing for us to get up here and say no when they have said yes but many Islanders have said no. We felt a special responsibility to speak on their behalf today.

June 14, 1993
Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski): Pursuant to ready for the question?	Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion
stands deferred.


Some hon. members:: Question.
,..	..	.	The next question is on group three, Motions Nos. 30,


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 
Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.


An hon. member:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motion negatived on division.
Motion negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than Jive members having risen:
Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-110 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 3 the following:
"(3) An agreement referred to in subsection (1) shall be laid before the House of Commons no later than the fifteenth sitting day of the House of Commons after it is made.
(4)	An agreement referred to in subsection (3) shall come into force on the twentieth sitting day of the House of Commons after it has been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to that subsection unless, before that time, a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons to the effect that the agreement be annuled signed by not less than fifteen members of the House of Commons is filed with the Speaker of the House of Commons.
(5)	Where a motion for the consideration of the House of Commons is filed as provided in subsection (4), the House of Commons shall, no later than the sixth sitting day of Parliament following the filing of the motion, take up and consider the motion.
(6)	A motion taken up and considered in accordance with subsection (5) shall be debated without interruption for not more than three hours and, on the conclusion of such debate or at the expiration of the third such hour, the Speaker of the House of Commons shall forthwith, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion.
(7)	If a motion described in subsection (4) is adopted by the House of Commons, the particular agreement to which the motion relates shall stand annuled."
Motion No. 33.
That Bill C-110 be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 34 at page 3 the following:
"(3) The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament an agreement referred to in subsection (1) not later than the fifteenth sitting day of the House of Commons after it is made.
(4) An agreement laid before each House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (3) stands permanently referred to such committee as is established to review matters relating to public accounts."
Motion No. 54.
That Bill C-110 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that those who have been following the debate on this bill on the fixed link, as we have affectionately or non-affectionately called it, sometimes wonder about the extent of the rhetoric. We have been off the topic on so many occasions and the name calling has been more prevalent than perhaps the substance of the debate.
June 14. 1993

I suspect that some of the amendments we put forward could be considered frivolous and perhaps even as a mover, my raison d'etre for putting them in there was to destroy the substance of the bill and the bill. But these amendments that are proffered now have substance and deal with the lack of substance in the bill. We were somewhat pleasantly surprised that the amendments brought forward were ruled in order because they do have considerable substance. They would serve to bring into the bill a great deal of accountability that is not present now.
I think I should refer to some of the details of the two amendments. I am told by counsel it is an either/or situation. The general concept of the either/or amendments is that once a deal has been struck between the government and the private developer, the details of the financial arrangements must be brought forward either to the House of Commons or before a committee. It is either brought to the House in full session with full debate-but we have been somewhat flexible in saying there be three hours maximum debate in the House-or referred to committee for debate of the details of the substance of the agreement between the private developer and the Government of Canada on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada. We feel that is not too onerous a task.
Once again time allocation has been invoked on this bill and people have said they have studied this bill to death and the studies will go from the floor to the ceiling.
I have a certain amount of sympathy for those who offer that argument. I agree there have been too many studies, but the ultimate study was never done. It is still not done. It is still before the courts and surely that must, or should, give all of us some concern.
A study was brought forward and people said they did not know if that was the ultimate study so we had better bring forth a study to study the study. We have done that ad nauseam, almost ad infinitum. The studies pile up.
The government commissioned a study but it did not like the results so we did not hear a great deal about that study. We had to pry the details of that study out of the government and we found out there were some environ-
Government Orders
mental concerns and some socio-economic concerns. When we really got into a corner on this one it said that maybe the private developer should bring forth a study.
Much to everyone's amazement the private developer found out in its study that there really were no environmental concerns. All the fears were allayed. It said not to worry because this is a study that shows that its project would be acceptable to everyone.
This project, almost since time immemorial, has been studied to death, and the studies do pile up. We pit ice experts versus ice experts, theirs versus ours. It is like with economists. Thke 10 economists in a room and five will say one thing and the other five will say just the opposite.
As for putting our ice experts against theirs, I want to say that our ice experts are those who deal in the area. We have been criticized by people saying: "You people do not go to P.E.I. You do not know anything about this". The people who have worked out there and know ice conditions say that the studies on the ice conditions were done in a year that had very minimal ice conditions. This is the year they should have done it.
Our experts are the experts who have gained their expertise from experience in the strait. We are not ashamed to proffer the studies of our experts versus theirs.
The bottom line is that this continues to a point, and I can understand, where people say enough is enough. However the fact that we piled the studies on top of one another, still have not finished the other studies and it is still in the courts means we did not do the job correctly. The government did not do its job.
It has been costly in every which way and it is controversial. Animosity has been created because of this but that does not make it right. That does mean that we can say it is okay now, do not worry, let us get it done in a couple of days because we all know the House is going to adjourn and we are going to have an election and so we will not worry about constitutional amendments or the environmental assessment review the government has put forward as something that must be done. The courts said this is what must be done but we are going to make do because of the faulty process this legislation has gone through.

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
Getting back to the substance of these particular amendments, they are not that onerous. They are just offering an opportunity to elected members to discuss the details of the financial arrangements struck by the private company, the private developer. I am not about to judge others but just in case it is not totally altruistic in its motives would it be too much to ask that this be debated here for three hours?
If that is too much to ask and members do not want the either, then take the or. The or is send it to committee so that the details of this arrangement can be brought forward. I am sure the details discussed at the committee will be brought forward for public debate.
It is a very narrow bill. So many substantial amendments have been ruled out of order that we said we had to accept the ruling but asked if we could be allowed a little more debate on these financial arrangements. It appears that the government really does not want to discuss those in public.
On a project of this size it is imperative that we get all of the details out so that 10 years down the road someone does not say: "Did we not know this might happen? Did you not know these were the arrangements between the private firm and the government? Did you not know that? Did anybody not care to ask at that particular time?"
This would make the implications of the legislation visible to everyone. I hope that the government will see fit to support the either or the or. That is the way it has to be, the either or the or. We have even given the government an option. So many others were ruled out of order but I appreciate the fact that these ones that have some consequence and some substance have been put forth for debate here. I hope that the government and the opposition will see fit to support the amendments.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-110, with regard to the provision of a fixed link between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
This is a great historic event that is being put before the House because for over a hundred years members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island have come to the House of Commons and proposed that there be a fixed link, an all-weather highway or road joining Prince Edward Island to the mainland of New Brunswick. This has been done by such members as the hon. member for Egmont, who has spent a great deal of time here and has
become an expert on issues such as this. He represents an agriculture-producing area and is very conscious of how important this would be for the production of agricultural commodities, especially potatoes but other products as well, in Prince Edward Island and how valuable this would be in terms of commerce, industry and so on.
There are a number of considerations with this bill. There is the whole question of the cost, the question of the Constitution and the commitment that was made when Confederation brought Prince Edward Island into the union. That commitment has to be kept. There is the whole question of the environment, which has been studied. I am told there have been at least 92 different studies on the impact of this fixed link. Both the Government of Prince Edward Island and the Government of New Brunswick, which have the primary responsibility for matters of the environment, have indicated their support for the proposal.
Most of all there is the question of the economy of the Island. Clearly no area of our country has suffered more, outside of northern Ontario, than Atlantic Canada. At no time has it suffered more than in the last eight or nine years as a result of the very oppressive fiscal and monetary policy under which we have had some 38 new taxes imposed. We have had a monetary policy that has put our interest rates at almost twice those in the United States at a time when we are trying to sell commodities to the United States.
Clearly we are supporting it because it is the one action the government has made. It will provide construction during the next five years and a commitment of funding.
Of course we are supporting it. The hon. minister of fisheries is supporting it too. He did not do very well over the weekend but he is supporting this project. His power has slipped since 1983.
We on this side are very proud of the new premier of Prince Edward Island, Miss Catherine Callbeck, who was a member of Parliament for Malpeque until a few months ago. She has taken the initiative in the Prince Edward Island legislature to bring in an amendment to the Constitution which changes, as I understand the arrangement, the term steamship to fixed link. We do not even use steamships for the ferry service now. We use diesel powered craft. Clearly those are technical matters that have to be cleared away. I understand that things are moving along very well in that regard.
June 14, 1993

I am surprised that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie is opposing this project because for those living in an area like Sault Ste. Marie, Algoma, Prince Edward Island or any part of the maritimes the great problem is to get the Government of Canada to go ahead and carry out the necessary public work. That is exactly what this is. It is a public work to replace the existing steamships or diesel ferries that provide the service.
In Sault Ste. Marie we have had a long-standing problem for many years because the Sault Ste. Marie ship canal broke down. A serious flaw developed in the structure and we have been fighting for five or six years to get the Government of Canada to carry out the necessary repairs. It is a project that only involves some $13 million or $14 million. Compare that amount to this project.
I do not know why the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie would oppose this project. Clearly it is in the interests of Prince Edward Island. There are not many New Democrats there but they are Canadian citizens. They have three Liberal members. There will be another one after the next general election because Mr. Wayne Easter, the former head of the National Farmers' Union, was nominated just last week. He will probably replace Catherine Callbeck, who has become the premier of the province.
There are so many reasons why the government and the NDP in the House should be supporting this project. In 1988 when there was a general referendum on the question some 60 per cent supported it and 40 per cent opposed it. That should be very instructive to NDP members and anybody else concerned about this issue. A recent survey carried out by the CBC shows that the percentage in favour has increased from 60 per cent to 70 per cent. Now only 30 per cent oppose it. That should impress anybody.
The member for Sault Ste. Marie has made a number of motions concerning reports to Parliament and so on. It seems to me that any kind of funding that will be required will have to come out of the estimates of the Department of Public Works. Therefore there will be rigorous scrutiny of any money that is expended by the
Government Orders
federal government either in the spending estimates or in the supplementary estimates that are put before the House.
We should really be moving with this project. Beyond the historical responsibility of the Government of Canada the whole question of modern day commerce and the movement of goods, services and people is clearly important.
It is important because Prince Edward Island is really a very special place in terms of culture and television. The whole Anne of Green Gables television series I am told is just as popular in Japan as it is in Canada. Clearly when we are inviting people from all over the world to come and visit the Island then we certainly should be providing modern transportation services for them.
There is another matter and that is just the magnitude of employment that this will provide over a five-year period. The member for Egmont or any of the members from Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick will say that employment will be essential. It will be very important to the new government elected this year to be able to provide that employment over the next five-year period.
I think on all of those counts that the long standing historical demand and need for this, the demand for modern commerce and communication, the employment involved and the fact that the environmental demands have been met make it a project which should go forward. I hope that the NDP will not hold it up any more, that the bill will be passed today and that it will get third reading by tomorrow because I think it is a project which should go forward.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the amendments by my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie. I would not be surprised if this government turned those intelligent public scrutiny amendments down, which would allow the House to have a look at the costs being levied on the people of Prince Edward Island and the people of Canada by SCI. I would not be surprised if the government wanted to hide that away. I would not be surprised if the Liberals wanted it hidden away as well.

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
We are certainly hearing from environmental groups all over this country who are keeping a close eye on this debate because they all recognize now that even in opposition the Liberals will not stand up for an environmental assessment of a project.
We know that Paul Martin, Marlene Catterall and these Liberals who pretend to always be standing up for the environment-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member knows that one does not name the person by their name but by their riding.
I just do not understand why when the hon. member for Skeena gets up there is so much noise here. The hon. member for Skeena has the floor. Debate.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, many calls have been coming to my office not only from national environmental organizations that are watching the Liberals act as Conservatives as they are wont to do, but there are also many calls coming from Prince Edward Island from Islanders who are pleased. Contrary to what we are hearing from the Liberals from Prince Edward Island who only want things said in favour of the project, they are worried that some of the things about this project that deserve public scrutiny might actually get public scrutiny and reveal the Liberals for the scallywags that they really are. They are the tail on the end of the Tory dog. People in the maritimes have long known that.
The taxpayers have long wanted to know what the truth is about the $1.47 billion. I would like to quote from The Globe and Mail from an article written by Stevie Cameron called:
taxpayers lo pay all of P.E.I. bridge bill. 'Private' project stirs control fears.
The controversial bridge to Prince Edward Island, although billed as a private project, will be entirely paid for by Canadian taxpayers.
Remember that this is The Globe and Mail. We know how close the Liberals and Tories are to The Globe and Mail so this is as if it comes from the Scriptures for them:
Strait Crossing Inc., the Calgary-based company that won the bridge contract, will receive enough government subsidies every year to pay the entire costs of the interest and principal on its loans for the S800 million project.
The federal government has guaranteed the project, even if the project is stalled or the bridge has to close for any reason, according to a confidential offering memorandum prepared for potential investors.
"What I can't understand is why this is being termed a private enterprise project," said Donald Deacon, former head of F. H. Deacon Hodgson, a Toronto investment firm and former head of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council.
Mr. Deacon, now a P.E.I. resident, has been outspoken in opposition to the project.
"This is no different" he said "than if the government put the project out to tender and owned it itself-except here they are giving SCI the rights to the profits for the next 35 years and giving them control of the operations".
The memorandum, prepared by Gordon Capital Corp., underwriters for the bridge financing, shows that the federal government will pay an annual subsidy of $42 million for 35 years to cover ail the costs of the bonds being issued to pay for the bridge. The subsidy will rise or fall with inflation or deflation.
Let us keep it clear. It is 35 years and $42 million in fixed 1992 dollars. So when we say it is $1.47 billion, if inflation runs at even a couple of percentage points we will be up over $2 billion in no time at all.
(Ownership of the bridge reverts to the federal government after 35 years.)
The document shows that SCI has been guaranteed a minimum rate of return on toll revenues for the next 35 years. The company is also allowed to raise tolls annually by up to 75 per cent of the increase in the consumer price index.
One would have thought today that the Liberals who call themselves the Official Opposition might have been raising questions, just a few questions. Why is it that the specific bridge proposal by SCI has never been subjected to an environmental assessment?


An hon. member:: It has.


James Ross Fulton: Oh? Some Liberals like to say that it has. It has not been subjected to an environmental assessment. The generic bridge proposal was and it was turned down. Under Canadian law the generic bridge proposal came before a panel that looked at these famous 1992 studies and gave it thumbs down. The Minister of Public Works hand picked four "ice experts" who did another study and figured out that some other kind of bridge might be able to do it. However, their study was never peer
June 14. 1993

Government Orders
reviewed. It never went back before the panel and it has never seen the light of day. Ever since then we have seen increasingly toxic levels of scurrilous activity by the government benches along with the incestuous relationship with their friends in the Liberal Party.
I have to wonder why the Liberals are so nervous of this? The people in Prince Edward Island are going to have to pay an unknown level of tolls. Premier Callbeck has not told the people of P.E.I. what it is going to be. SCI has not told them what it is going to be. The fisheries minister has not told them what it is going to be. It is the big secret for the election campaign.
We can be sure that it is going to be a gouge because I have tracked the activities of SCI. We hear a lot of clatter and chatter from the Liberals. Let us think about what kind of representation they have from British Columbia. None. Zero. There is not a single active member of Parliament. It is the most important province in the country.
Let us carry on and see what else The Globe and Mail had to say about this great Liberal-Conservative deal and why they are conspiring to keep the people of Prince Edward Island from knowing the truth about the project. Let me quote again:
Ronald Lloyd, an official with Gordon Capital who has been working on the financing deal for several years, explained that the deal was complicated and involved several layers of financing.
"The government originally proposed a S37 million annual subsidy but increased it to give the developers cash up front".
Well, thank you to the Tories. They pump it up so that their friends with SCI can get some cash up front. Well, is that not that nice?
What do they say after that?
"We had to create a security to amortize the stream of government payments to create something for the developers up front. No institutional investor in his right mind will take the contractor's credit for that 35-year period, so we had to take something to match the government payments and gave cash proceeds up front for the construction".
Marine Atlantic gets an annual subsidy of about $22 million to run the ferries and many people have asked why the subsidy is being almost doubled for SCI, especially when the subsidy to Marine Atlantic has been declining since 1989.
"No one has ever been able to show how the $42 million is related to avoidable costs of the ferries," said Mark Freiman.
"At a time when the government is talking of cutting the deficit it is going to increase it because there are no revenues going to the taxpayers. SCI gets all the profits on this project."
Here the tables are turned. The Liberal's official policy in opposition-we can expect it in government-is that no megaproject will get an environmental assessment or review. That is what the Liberals are saying.
In my riding I know why. Between 1980 and 1984 the Liberal environment minister of the day, Mr. Marchand, gave the largest mining company in the world, Amax, the right to dump 100 million tonnes of toxic tailings into the Pacific fishing grounds. The Liberals fought for years to ever let that information come public. Finally British Columbians joined by Canadians from coast to coast to coast stopped the project.
I predict that this is precisely what the court will ultimately do on the fixed link. What is being done is not constitutionally proper. Madam Justice Barbara Reed earlier this year made an order affecting the Minister of Transport and the Minister of the Environment which has not been lived up to.
I put the question before the House again. Why is there this sudden rush? The P.E.I. legislature did not until the end of last week put its constitutional amendments before its House. It has not been debated and it certainly has not been passed. It will not even be dealt with until tomorrow. There is nothing before this House to deal with the Constitution in relation to the obligations of Canada to Prince Edward Island in terms of the 1873 union. Why is that so hush hush around here? There is no environmental assessment of the specific project.
What about the lobsters? What about the scallops? The fisheries minister has diligently and dutifully listened to this debate. Why is it that the concerns of the Atlantic fishermen that have been raised time and time again publicly in opposing this project have never been dealt with? We could lose fisheries worth hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs. As we can see from these studies waved around earlier by the Liberal House leader there will be a net loss of jobs from the fixed link.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Ottawa Centre speaks I might just put a few facts on the record. I know he is too astute and intelligent to be misled by the hon. member who just ceased speaking.

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
Just to make sure that is the case just let me put a few facts on the record. First the tolls; the moustache that tolls. That is what I often think when I listen to the hon. gentleman who just sat down. As the NDP goes down in the polls their voices go up in this Chamber. Since there are not going to be any of them here after the next election I suppose we should listen to them with some fondness and that includes the hon. gentleman who just sat down.
Let us just deal with the tolls first. The developer will only pocket any toll revenues after an independent review has confirmed that maintenance and repairs have been carried out on the bridge. The tolls for the bridge are to be comparable to the tolls for the ferries that are operating there now and comparable to the tolls during the last year of operation of the ferries. I would much sooner pay the toll to use a bridge that I can cross at any time of the day or night than have to wait for a ferry. I would must sooner pay a comparable toll to do that than pay a toll on the ferry.
Over the next 35 years the tolls will not be allowed to increase by more than three-quarters of the consumer price index. It is a control on what increases there can be with reference to the tolls.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He said that in his speech but he made it sound a lot bigger.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not think he understood what he was saying anyway. He just wanted to come in here and make sure that he was heard. The hon. gentleman has said that he is not going to attempt to be re-elected. He was very wise. The aboriginal people in his district have told me that they are going to make sure that he does not get re-elected in any event. He has been smart enough to take a hint and he is not going to offer again. We are going to miss him.
When we look at the past trends in the ferry tolls, and I do not think that the hon. gentleman opposite has looked at them because he just wants to toll on about the ferries, it is clear they have increased at a rate higher than inflation which they will not be able to do in the future.
The federal NDP members in this House and their one unelected counterpart in P.E.I., who at the present time is on the public payroll-


Ms. Hunter:: What about the unelected Senate?


John Carnell Crosbie: There is no gender bias in the NDP ranks. One is just as loud as the other no matter what gender they are. The only opposition to this project is coming from the NDP.
The subsidy on this operation is not to exceed $42 million in 1992 dollars. How is it calculated? It represents the projected costs of the Borden-Tormentine ferry service over the next 35 years, including capital expenditures which are not covered by the annual subsidy that Marine Atlantic gets today. If the ferry system is left in operation there will have to be new ferries.
Even the NDP expert in economics, and I am not sure who that is because as far as I am concerned the New Democrats do not have an expert in economics but somebody has that name, said that this was fairly credible given that the ferries will have to be replaced. We have to replace ferries when they wear out.
That $42 million is going to be the sum of the direct operating subsidy to Marine Atlantic. It covers the administrative overhead of Marine Atlantic, the replacement of vessels, the costs of refitting the old ferry boats, and the capital cost of the land-based facilities that have to be there such as the docks and transfer bridges on both sides of the ferry crossing. Then there are some additional expenditures on highway improvements, compensation to ferry workers and some administrative and overhead costs of Public Works Canada.
If we do not build the bridge then the Government of Canada will still have to continue spending $42 million a year, not just over the next 35 years but forever. If the bridge is built we are going to get a bridge in good operating condition after we make just 35 payments of $42 million each.
If one had the slightest iota, jot or tittle of common sense one would consider this and support the project. Why is it that the New Democratic Party persists with nonsensical approaches in a practical everyday world? The people of Prince Edward Island are going to be very much further ahead in terms of economics and ease of transportation if this fixed link is built. However all the

June 14, 1993

NDP does is oppose this project on the ethereal grounds that it has not been studied from an environmental point of view. There have been dozens of studies.


Lynn Hunter: You guys introduced environmental assessment. Why don't you respect it?


John Carnell Crosbie: We respect it. That is our problem.
Somebody mentioned we should not be proceeding because something is in the courts. There is not anything today that is not in the courts because people of the persuasion of the NDP are constantly in the courts. When they cannot win the battle of public opinion or they cannot win the battle with the public then they go to the courts. It is an environmental study. Whenever we open our mouths the NDP wants an environmental study done. I do not know what its excuse is.
It is in power in Ontario. Is it doing environmental studies before it takes any actions at all in Ontario? Of course not. Is it doing it in Saskatchewan? Of course not. It changed its position on uranium in Saskatchewan because it is in power in Saskatchewan. If it ever got into power here it would be changing its position on all these points as well. As for the deficit, there would be nothing cruder or colder than the NDP cutting the deficit if it ever got into power federally. However I do not want to get diverted.
All it is doing is attempting to save Upper Canada the odd dollar that will be spent on this bridge. I had to laugh at the hon. members opposite quoting The Globe and Mail editorial. If we followed The Globe and Mail editorials there would be a wasteland in Atlantic Canada.
We would not have the Hibernia project. We would not have a bridge to P.E.I. We would not have a thing in Atlantic Canada if we listened to The Globe and Mail. I am surprised and shocked that the hon. gentlemen who comes from a remote area in British Columbia would quote The Globe and Mail approvingly on this subject.
An editorial that appeared in the Charlottetown Guardian on May 13 in reaction to an article in The Globe and Mail said this:
Never mind that the modernization of Atlantic Canada's antiquated transportation web is a fundamental prerequisite to the modernization of this region's economy, never mind that the crossing project will bring an essential boost of activity to the Marilimes, never mind that the fixed crossing is a worth-while experiment in private sector financing and construction of public
Government Orders
projects. As far as The Globe is concerned, a dollar spent on Atlantic
Canadian infrastructure is nothing more than an Upper Canadian
tax dollar that could be better used elsewhere.
I am shocked. All that the hon. gentleman opposite wants to do is save his upper Canadian tax dollars that could be spent to improve transportation and infrastructure in Atlantic Canada.
I do not want to take too much time to go into every facet of this.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Carry on John, carry on.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the member wants me to carry on I can help him in that respect too.
Just think of the greater efficiency that there will be for every industry in P.E.I. that is sensitive to the effectiveness of the transportation system. Tourists who want to go to P.E.I. will not have to line up all summer to get on the ferries. They will just get in their cars and drive across the bridge. It is estimated that there will be a permanent 25 per cent increase in visitors to P.E.I. once the fixed link is completed.
I am running out time so I do not have the time to paint all the pluses and the attractions of this project. Seventy per cent of the $850 million required for this project is to be spent in Atlantic Canada. There will be
3,500	person-years of employment and several hundred million dollars of industrial purchases within Atlantic Canada over the next five years. All this will help to reactivate the economy down there and the NDP is up here struggling against this project rather than putting this bill through the House unanimously. It is a shameful performance and I ask New Democrats to come to their senses and let us move on to other subjects that are controversial and not the fixed link.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the government for putting forward this bold legislation before the House to deal with a question of great importance to my colleagues on this side of the House.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the MPs from Prince Edward Island who have been working tirelessly over the past four and a half years pressing for action on this issue before the end of this Parliament. The fact that the bill is before us is due to the tireless work of many members of Parliament who want to see economic development taking place in this great part of Canada, Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada as a whole.

June 14, 1993
Government Orders
Since Confederation this country has been built on give and take. As the hon. minister indicated earlier, from time to time it is the responsibility of the federal government to step in and encourage regional economic development for the sake of the country as a whole. Even if we put that aside what we are seeing in Canada now is something that we have never seen for generations, and that is a tremendous amount of migration from Atlantic Canada and rural Canada into the urban centres of Canada.
One of the main reasons why this great amount of migration is taking place is the lack of jobs and opportunities. Not too long ago I travelled with my colleague from Nepean throughout Canada in order to listen to what the municipalities and provinces had to tell us about the state of infrastructure in those provinces and municipalities.
One of the issues that came to our attention over and over again was that there is a tremendous need for federal government involvement in the area of infrastructure. We issued a report at the time and we have pressed the government for action on the question of infrastructure. The government has not taken any action to address the question of infrastructure across Canada. One has to give credit where it belongs. When it comes to the question of links between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island we have before us now a proposal that would address part of the infrastructure question with which we must deal.
This proposal would put an excess of $800 million into Atlantic Canada. Over 75 per cent of the $800 million would be spent on contractual work, material work, labour and so on. It will directly benefit Atlantic Canada and in particular Prince Edward Island.
We are not giving a handout to the provinces. We are doing what we should be doing as a federal government under Confederation. We have a responsibility to invest in different parts of the country in order to maintain what this country is all about. This is about jobs.
Not too long ago the Prime Minister was recorded in Hansard of June 1993, in an answer to a member from the New Democratic Party. He said: "In that case he would be interested in the following statement today that the leader of Prince Edward Island NDP or neoDemocrat is quitting his job for three months and
collecting unemployment insurance to save the NDP money".


An hon. member:: Shame.


Mac Harb: That is exactly what some hon. members said, "shame", and some others said, "oh, oh". The Prime Minister went on to say: "The leader, I use euphemistically, of the NDP Larry Deschenes, aged 44, says the self-imposed lay-off will save the NDP about $4,000 from his annual salary".
That is what has been happening in P.E.I. When one gets to a point where even the leader of the NDP has to go on unemployment insurance in order to save his party job, one would say that when an opportunity like this is brought before the House of Commons in order to create jobs the first group of people who should be jumping to their feet to support it should be those in the NDP.
I want to say that there is in excess of $20 million on annual basis that will go to P.E.I. and New Brunswick in order to help them with the maintenance of the highway at both ends of the tunnel. That is an investment in infrastructure.
The New Democrats have been trying over and over again to press the government for action on infrastructure. Here they have it. Let us stand up and vote for this legislation so we can help the people who need it the most. There is no question that from 1867 until now there have been discussions on a regular basis between the federal government and the provinces, and in particular the Atlantic provinces, in order to help out in every possible way so we can build a better Canada, a more economic Canada and a more vital Atlantic Canada. We can try to reverse the migration from rural Canada, Atlantic Canada into the big centres. Hopefully we will be able to reverse that by helping them out in areas where they were bom or raised in so we can build a better Canada.
I want to again congratulate my colleagues from Prince Edward Island. I would like to congratulate the government for putting forward this proposal at this time. We will be voting for it unlike the NDP. We will not be speaking from both sides of our mouth. We will be speaking from one side to say that infrastructure is a needed investment in Canada and it is time to move on with it.

Government Orders


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on group 3, Motions Nos. 30, 33 and 54. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Some hon. members:: All those opposed will please say nay?


Some hon. members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The first question is on Motion No. 12.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the vote just taken to be applied to all amendments and for the same vote to be applied in reverse to the motion for concurrence at the report stage.


Miss Grey:: Mr. Speaker, I would go along with that. I would like my vote recorded as a nay at concurrence stage.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, the recommendation is that the vote that was just taken apply to all the amendments and in reverse at concurrence. If that is the case, then we concur as well.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
nil/aucun
Andre	Attewell		
Baker	Belsher	The House	divided on Motion IBernier Bevilacqua	Bertrand Bird	negatived on the following division:	Bjornson	Blackburn (Jonquiere)	Blais	Blenkam	Bosley	Boudria	Brightwell Cadieux	Browes Campbell (South West Nova)	(Division No. 536)Catterall	Chadwick	Champagne (Champlain)	Chartrand	Chretien	Clancy	YEASClark (Yellowhead)	Clark (Brandon-Souris)	Clifford	Cole	Collins	Cooper	Corbeil	Corbett	MembersCote	Couture	Crosbie (St. John's West)	Danis	Benjamin	Darling	DeBlois	Blaikiede Cotret	Della Noce	Brewin	ButlandDesjardins	Dick	Fulton	HeapDingwall	Dobbie	Hunter	McLaughlinDomm	Dorin	Stupich-9	
Government Orders
NAYS	The House divided on Motion No. 54, which was
negatived on the following division:
Members
Andre
Baker
Bernier
Bevilacqua
Bjornson
Blais
Bosley
Brightwell
Cadieux
Catterall
Champagne (Champlain)
Chretien
Clark (Yellowhead)
Clifford
Collins
Corbeil
Cote
Crosbie (St. John's West)
Darling
de Cot ret
Desjardins
Dingwall
Do mm
Duplessis
Epp
Feltham
Ferland
Fontaine
Friesen
Greene
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hockin
Homer
Hughes
James
Jourdenais
Koury
Langlois
Layton
Lee
Littlechild
MacAulay
Maheu
Martin (Lincoln)
Mayer
McCreath
McGuire
Mifflin
Monteith
Nicholson
O'Kurley
Phinney
Porter
Redway
Reimer
Rideout
Roy-Arcelin
Scott (Hamilton -Wentworth)
Siddon
Sobeslti
Speller
Tardif
Thompson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Valcourt
Vankoughnet
Vincent
Wenman
Wilbee
Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek Winegard
Young (Acadie-Bathurst) -145
Attewell
Belsher
Bertrand
Bird
Blackburn (Jonquiire)
Blenkam
Boudria
Browes
Campbell (South West Nova)
Chadwick Chart rand Clancy
Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Cole
Cooper
Corbett
Couture
Danis
DeBlois
Della Noce
Dick
Dobbie
Dorin
Edwards
Fee
Ferguson
Flis
Foster
Gagliano
Grey (Beaver River)
Halliday
Harvard
Hawkes
Holtmann
Horning
Jacques
Joncas
Kempling
Landry
Larrivee
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lewis
Loiselle
MacKay
Malone
Masse
Mazankowski McDougall (St. Paul's)
McLean
Milliken
Moore
Oberle
Ouellet
Pickard
Proud
Reid
Ricard
Rompkey
Schneider
Shields
Simmons
Soetens
Stevenson
Thacker
Thorkelson
Tremblay (Lotbinifcre)
Van De Walle Vien Weiner White
-Assiniboia)
Worthy

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
(Division No. 537)
++YEAS
Benjamin	Members Blaikie
Brew in	Butland
Rilton	Heap
Hunter	McLaughlin
Stupich-9 Andre	NAYS Members Attewell
Baker	Belsher
Bernier	Bertrand
Bevilacqua	Bird
Bjornson	Blackburn (Jonqui&re)
Blais	Blenkam
Bosley	Boudria
Brightwell	Browes
Cadieux	Campbell (South West Nova)
Catterall	Chadwick
Champagne (Champlain)	Chartrand
Chretien	Clancy
Clark (Yellowhead)	Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Clifford	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	Corbett
C6te	Couture
Crosbie (St. John's West)	Danis
Darling	DeBlois
de Cotret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Dick
Dingwall	Dobbie
Do mm	Dorin
Duplessis	Edwards
Epp	Fee
Feltham	Ferguson
Ferland	Flis
Fontaine	Foster
Friesen	Gagliano
Greene	Grey (Beaver River)
Guarnieri	Halliday
Harb	Harvard
Harvey (Chicoutimi)	Hawkes
Hockin	Holtmann
Homer	Homing
Hughes	Jacques
James	Joncas
Jourdenais	Kempling
Koury	Landry
Langlois	Larrivee
Layton	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
MacAulay	MacKay
Maheu	Malone
Martin (Lincoln)	Masse
Mayer	Mazankowski
McCreath	McDougall (St. Paul's)
McGuire	McLean
Mifflin	Milliken
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
[Stage Direction]
June 14, 1993
Adjournment Debate
O'Kurley	Ouellet
Phinney	Pickard
Porter	Proud
Redway	Reid
Reimer	Ricard
Rideout	Rompkey
Roy-Arcelin	Schneider
Scott (Hamilton -Wentworth)	Shields
Siddon	Simmons
Sobeski	Soetens
Speller	Stevenson
Tardif	Thacker
Thompson	Thorkelson
Tremblay (Quebec-Est)	Tremblay (Lotbiniere)
Valcourt	Van De WaUe
Vankoughnet	Vien
Vincent	Weiner
Wenman Wilbee	White
Wilson (Swift Current -Maple Creek-Assiniboia)	
Winegard Young (Acadie-Bathurst)-145	Worthy
PAIRED MEMBERS	
nii/aucun	
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works)	 moved that the bill,	, as amended, be concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to ask for some elaboration from the government on a question I asked on June 1 this month with regard to the steel industry. My question was for the Minister for International Trade. He was not in the House that day. It had to do with the most recent ruling by the Canadian international trade tribunal that had suggested, as the Canadian steel industry believes, the multi countries were in fact dumping steel products into
June 14, 1993

Adjournment Debate
Canada. The CITT saw fit to suggest that despite margins of up to 130 per cent dumping was found-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. We are on the adjournment motion and we cannot hear. Would you go behind the curtain, s'il vous plait. Thank you.


Steve Butland: I appreciate your intervention, Mr. Speaker. It was somewhat difficult to carry on.
As I suggested, the Canadian international tribunal should be applying Canadian trade law that protects the Canadian steel industry. The Canadian steel producers are suggesting that American trade law is much more onerous. It is there to protect the American steel industry whereas the Canadian trade law as applied by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal is there to uphold the law rather than protect the industry.
In a perfect world we think that perhaps our system is the better system but the Americans insist on treating us unfairly as they are wont to do and have continuously done for quite a long period of time, definitely since the signing of the free trade agreement. Trade harassment has actually increased as opposed to having decreased.
I suppose the government is going to respond by suggesting that the minister has met with the steel producers and it is going to monitor very much more closely than it has done in the past the dumping process by many countries. The one that gave us the greatest concern was the United States of America which on a regular basis recently has harassed the Canadian steel industry.
All we are looking for is this level playing field that is so often touted for all of us, but we do not feel that the field is level whatsoever. All we are looking for is the fair and equitable treatment from our American neighbours that we are affording them.
No amount of monitoring by the steel industry, by the trade minister or his department will change the efficacy of American trade law and the lack of efficacy of Canadian trade law.
I hope that the member responding on behalf of the government will give us more assurances. If trade law has to be changed to deal with our American counterparts, so be it. It is not the perfect solution. It is not even
the appropriate solution but it is the only solution that we can proffer and is acceptable to Canadian steel producers. I suggest we go forward with it.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, to respond briefly to my hon. friend's question I want to note that first of all the Minister of Finance and the Minister for International Trade did meet with representatives of the steel industry just recently and discussed the concerns which the industry had and which my hon. friend has been raising in the House. They also discussed the options which may be available to that industry and to the government working in co-operation with the industry.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, but I think it important nevertheless to remind Canadians, the government of course had no part in the decisions to which my hon. friend refers. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is an independent body and the decisions of that tribunal are the final steps in what might be described as a quasi-judicial process.
As a result of that if the industry believes that the tribunal was wrong in either of the decisions then it does of course have recourse to appeal either before the Federal Court of Canada or under the FTA, chapter 19.
This government understands the industry's concern. We understand that it may indeed feel vulnerable to dumped imports in the future. We are prepared to work with the industry in ensuring that it is adequately protected should imports increase in the future.
With respect to the industry's concerns with the differences in Canadian and U.S. trade remedy law we acknowledge that there may be such differences and we are prepared to look at them. These differences, however, are not at the heart of the problems faced in the Canadian steel industry. We feel that some of those differences will be eliminated if the multilateral trade negotiations are concluded.


JOB START PROGRAM
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I want to continue with a question I directed some time ago to the minister responsible for employment and immigration with respect to the Job

June 14, 1993
Adjournment Debate
Start program which exists in the town of Oromocto, New Brunswick in my constituency.
This is a unique approach to job training in the sense that it creates an employment scenario and actually hires disadvantaged youth under the age of 24 who have been on welfare for more than one year or have been without work for more than one year. It puts them in a disciplined job environment where they are literally hired as employees.
This program had its origin in 1984 in the United Nations year of Youth which Canada had adopted. The town of Oromocto at that time took the initiative, patterned on programs which existed at the time in Winnipeg, Montreal and Halifax, to design this unique Job Start program that contained the best of those existing programs and added some additional features. They have had a remarkable record over the years to the extent that of all the student employees, as they are called, who have graduated from that program in the past five years, 74 per cent remain employed.
That is a statistic and an accountability record that is missing in so many of the job training and employment programs that exist in Canada. This factor of accountability does not seem to be a tracking that occurs with these other programs so it is hard perhaps to measure the value that is achieved in comparison. It is one of the features that demonstrates the cost effectiveness of this program where the CEIC contribution is used to maintain training staff, to pay the student employees on a minimum wage basis over a 24-week period and to subject them to all of the disciplines of employment, including punctuality and dress codes. They receive driver's licence training, CPR training and first-aid training. Many of them are advanced to the completion of their high school education requirements. At the end of the 24-week period they graduate from the employment scenario and are placed in the work place where they have this remarkable record of 74 per cent employment.
One of the criticisms has been that because they are employed at the minimum wage and deductions are made for unemployment insurance and workmen's compensation, there is a potential that these training programs will result in students who are also on unemployment eligibility after they finish the training program. This has to be a risk that is accepted for the
value of the job discipline scenario. The statistical record of the success of the program demonstrates that the risk is really very low. The 74 per cent employment factor over such a period of five years is a rationalization of the risk of the cost of the program and the manner in which it is applied.
My question and my recommendation to CEIC is you have supported the Job Start program and the Job Start design in Oromocto, New Brunswick, this one community, for several years now. Each year there are two classes or job training programs of 24 weeks duration, each involving an average of 22 students. The success rate has been remarkable. Why is this program not taken and expanded elsewhere in Canada and made a permanent component of the Canadian Jobs Strategy program design or a unique option in the very comprehensive training structure which we have at work in Canada at this time?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say to my hon. friend that the department does indeed agree that the Job Start program to which he refers has been successful. Because of that success the program has been approved to continue for another year with a budget of some $346,000.
The key answer to my hon. friend's question is that the department is most anxious to ensure the criteria for such programs remain fluid and flexible. It is understood that the job retraining requirements throughout Canada are very much in a state of flux. What is required this year will not necessarily be the case next year and it has been an ongoing process.
For that reason therefore the department prefers that the criteria and operations of the federal employment program remain sufficiently flexible so that the needs of the individuals it serves can be addressed.
I remind my hon. friend that training programs similar to the Job Start program may well be initiated and continue to be initiated in other areas under the project-based training component of the employability improvement program. I hope he will find some consolation in that.
In closing I encourage my hon. friend to ensure that success stories of this kind are brought to the department's attention. Very often the department fails to hear
June 14. 1993

of the program successes and therefore does not receive the encouragement it often deserves.


MULTIC'ULTURALISM
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, you will recall some three months ago Mrs. Mary Marko Elaskett visited Parliament Hill. Mrs. Haskett was born in Canada some 84 years ago. In 1915 at the age of six, Mrs. Haskett and her family were arrested and sent to an internment camp in northern Quebec called Spirit Lake.
Spirit Lake of course is no longer on any map of Canada. Mrs. Haskett was one of some 5,000 Canadians of Ukrainian origin who were rounded up and interned because they came from parts of Ukraine that at the time were controlled by the Austro-Hungarian empire, an empire with which Canada and its World War I allies were at war.
Although some 5,000 Canadians were treated in this fashion, there is no mention of it whatsoever in the history books of Canada. As far as Canadian history is concerned this never happened. There is no record of Spirit Lake or any other camps such as this ever existing.
When Mrs. Haskett came here for her visit it reminded me of a talk 1 had with another of my constituents who told me about the experiences of his father. His father, who was a Canadian with origins in the Austro-Hungarian empire, came to Canada before World War I. He too was arrested and interned.
This man had little formal education but he was hard working and had earned some money. He did not trust the banks. He decided to save his money. He put it into gold and not the bank. When he was interned he took his gold with him. Of course the guards at the internment camp said that he could not go into the camp with the gold and that if he gave it to them he would be given a receipt so he could claim it later, if he ever got out.
After World War I my constituent's father gave his receipt to the guards who took the receipt and went to get the gold. They came back saying that there was no gold. That did not happen just to one person, it happened to many people in World War I.
The son of this man, my constituent, investigated what had happened to his father's earnings, possessions and
Adjournment Debate
gold. He found that the Bank of Canada had been keeping these things in trust for many years, not just for his father but for other Canadians.
Of course the Bank of Canada said on presenting the receipt he would be given the money with interest. Of course the guards took the receipt. The Bank of Canada said that was too bad and it would just have to sit on that money, letting it accumulate for the benefit of who knows whom. That happened not just to one person but to a great many Canadians.
I think it is understandable that my constituent, as the beneficiary of his father's estate, would expect to get his money back. I think it is understandable that Mrs. Haskett in coming to Parliament Hill wanted an apology, wanted the fact that she and 5,000 other Canadians like her actually should be recorded in Canadian history. There should be something in the history books of Canada about the fact that these events took place.
It is not an isolated incident. In fact the Prime Minister drew attention to that when he spoke on November 4, 1990 to the National Congress of Italian-Canadians. My friend the parliamentary secretary was there at that time.
At that time the Prime Minister said: "I want to discuss a particularly sad chapter in our history that directly affected some of you here today and that concerns all Canadians. I am speaking, of course, about the harassment and the internment of Canadians of Italian origin under the War Measures Act during World War II. It was not an isolated case, in fact it was part of a pattern of discrimination practised by the Government of Canada over a period of years against Chinese Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians and others. That Canadians were interned unjustly must never be forgotten", said the Prime Minister. "It is a matter of simple justice. It is in that spirit that we will proceed."
The Prime Minister went on in that address on November 4, 1990 to say, and I quote: "I am pleased to announce today that during this session of Parliament I will rise in the House of Commons and extend a formal apology to all members of the Italian community for this unspeakable act and to other Canadians who have suffered similar grievances".

June 14, 1993
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell you that the life of this Parliament is drawing to an end. Need I say more?


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my friend for bringing to my attention and the attention of the House this important issue.
The hon. member for Don Valley East has again raised the important question of community redress. He will know that I have a very special interest in this issue which I have been working on for about six or seven years.
He is totally right in what he just said about this Parliament and the Prime Minister. I was there and I heard it with my own ears. I heard about those Italians. Some of those poor internees must be 86 years old by now. Mr. Serafino from Ottawa and Mr. Capograno from Montreal heard those words, those apologies. I wish that every community could have heard this man say this. I quote Mr. Serafino: "It sounded like music to my ears. I wish my wife was alive and here with me to hear these words".
At the request of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship met with representatives of communities whose members have concerns about treatment of some of their members by past governments of this country. By the way, on June 10 of last week it was 53 years since those things happened to my community and nothing has been done about it. The minister discussed how the government could best symbolize recognition of this treatment.
The principal groups with whom the minister met included the Chinese Canadian National Council, the
National Congress of Chinese Canadians, the National Congress of Italian Canadians and the Ukrainian Canadian Congress.
I would like to point out that this is the first government to give serious consideration to this matter. I say as a personal comment that I have been pursuing this matter since 1986. I feel that this government, our government, will be willing to take that kind of action and it is the only one that can do it, but I hope it can do it fast enough.
The government has discussed a fair and reasonable package with the communities concerned. The government has said it will move ahead if the package receives broad support across the communities concerned.
I know that some communities are playing politics on this issue. I hope they stop that because in 53 years there was nothing done about this.

When the government makes a proposal for community redress, it must also ensure that the decision is fair and equitable for all Canadians. The issue is not only about recognizing certain facts of our history but also deciding how we intend to progress as a nation founded on the principles of justice, equality and respect for all.
That is the firm commitment the Government of Canada has made, and that is why it is doing everything it can to deal with this question in the appropriate manner, and I hope that our government will succeed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Therefore, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 15, 1993