1993-06-15

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 22 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



FAIR TRADE AND BENEFICIAL INVESTMENT ACT


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy and proud to present a bill in the name of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. It is entitled the fair trade and beneficial investment act. It amends the Special Import Measures Act so that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal can investigate whether the lack of enforced internationally recognized standards on labour, environment and human rights comprise a hidden subsidy to products imported into Canada. When CITT finds such a case it can slap these products with a countervailing tariff that is equal to the value of the hidden subsidy.
Second, it amends the Investment Canada Act to allow Canada to amend the performance requirements for foreign investment in Canada and lower the investment review threshold down to $10 million.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hon. member will need unanimous consent of the House to move for leave to introduce a bill on behalf of Mr. Barrett.
Is there unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Agreed and so ordered.


Steve Butland: Since I have finished, Mr. Speaker, I hope what I previously said will be accepted. I appreciate the consent from the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Butland for Mr. Barrett moves for leave to introduce Bill C-457, an act to prevent unfair competition in trade and to amend the Special Import Measures Act and the Investment Canada Act in consequence thereof.
Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Butland for Mr. Barrett moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to present a petition under Standing Order 36.
As many of us know there are a number of people in our country who oppose the concept of two official languages and who believe the decision was made without consulting the people of Canada.
Sixty petitioners from my district, in particular Sidney, B.C., ask Parliament to enact legislation providing for a referendum of the people binding upon Parliament to

June 15, 1993
Routine Proceedings
accept or reject two official languages, English and French, for the government and people of Canada.
The acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments is to be determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada together with the majority vote in the majority of provinces, with the territories being given the status of one province.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have two duly certified petitions to present on behalf of the people of Wild Rose.
In the first petition from the Banff area the petitioners seek to settle a claim for acknowledgement and redress for injustices committed to the Urkrainian Canadian community during World War I.


Louise Feltham: The second petition has been signed by constituents in my riding who are asking that the Government of Canada hold a referendum to accept or reject the entrenchment in the Constitution of two official languages.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-IVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition from 465 constituents essentially from the Bonavista area and Bayleys Cove.
These petitioners represent families who have been involved in the fishery for generations. I know some of them personally. I know this is a very well intended and serious petition.
The petition essentially centres around a federal government wharf historically maintained in good order in the Bayleys Cove area of Bonavista for the use of the many fishermen in the area and in other areas as well.
Essentially the point they make is that the distance from the main harbour is such that this wharf is used in emergencies many times. It has also been used historically by all the people in the area.
The problem is that during the winter of 1992-93 the wharf was damaged by both rough seas and severe icing
conditions. In addition, there is not much wharfage for small boats in Bonavista. It is one of the main fishing ports in Newfoundland.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to urge the government, particularly the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to immediately effect repairs to this wharf so as to enable the many fisherpersons in the area to have facilities that are convenient and necessary to ensure safety.


Mr. Ray Funk (Prince Albert-Churchill River):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present three petitions to the House signed by 800 Canadians from 23 communities including Tbronto and Ottawa in Ontario, Port Albemi, Parksville, Castlegar, Crescent Valley in B.C., as well as Winnipeg, Saskatoon and other communities.
The petitioners call on Parliament to establish a peace trust fund which would allow Canadian taxpayers who for reasons of conscience and religion choose to redirect a portion of their taxes paid to the government away from military uses and to the fund to be used, if so directed, for peace, education, research, humanitarian aid and other purposes.
This is the subject matter of a private member's bill. As a response to that bill, which is going to die on the Order Paper, I pledge myself to these petitioners that if I make it back the peace trust fund bill will be back as well.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition in the House of Commons. The petition is from the undersigned residents of Canada who avail themselves of the ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to the petitioners and with a certain assurance that the honourable House will therefore provide a remedy.
There are 29 names on this petition, 27 of them from my constituency and the other 2 from the constituency of Sarnia-Lambton.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to present a petition which is concerned about the serial killer board game.

June 15, 1993

This petition represents a great many other petitioners who signed petitions which were not formerly acceptable to Parliament. These 25 names represent several hundreds of names that were collected by Miss Donna Neufeld in my riding. I would like to congratulate her for the work she has done in this regard.
The petition calls on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada so that violent and degrading materials such as the serial killer board game can be kept from being distributed in Canada.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a petition which concerns itself with the preservation of medicare and reform of the health Care system.
It calls on Parliament to take into account the following matters: reaffirmation of a commitment to a comprehensive national health care program; discontinuation of current freezes and reductions in the funding formula; development of new agreements to consultation and negotiation with the provinces; reaffirmation of a commitment to the guarantees in the Canada Health Act; withdrawal of Bill C-91 which gives brand name drugs a 20-year market monopoly; provisions for the production of low priced generic substitutions of brand name pharmaceuticals marketed in Canada; compensation to provincial pharmacare plans for rising drug costs; reaffirmation of a major federal responsibility for health protection and promotion; development of a national co-ordinated approach to health care reform; recognition that health care reform requires remedying the structural, social and economic inequalities which are at the root of inequalities in health status; and recognition that the preservation of medicare and any changes to our health care system must be achieved through public awareness, open consultation and citizen participation.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which calls upon Parliament to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to request the Government of Brazil to expel Christine Lamont and David Spencer and return them to Canada.
This is an ongoing concern of many members of Parliament. Many people feel it is long overdue for the
Routine Proceedings
Government of Canada to request the expulsion of these two Canadians and have them returned home.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition signed by some 31 constituents of mine. They humbly pray and 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.
They also call for legislation providing for the acceptance or rejection of the proposed amendments to be determined by a majority vote of the total votes cast in the whole of Canada, together with a majority vote in a majority of provinces with the territories being given the status of one province.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition I am submitting on behalf of the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca signed by residents of his riding on the question of bilingualism.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, Questions Nos. 387 and 460 will be answered today.


Mr. Mifflin: With respect to the 1990 Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program, (a) what is the breakdown of the $584 million of moneys spent to date (b) how much of this fund is remaining and how is it planned to be spent?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: The Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program, AFAP, provides for the expenditure of $584 million over five years ending on March 31, 1995. The program containing a package of policy and program initiatives is delivered through several federal agencies. The follow-

June 15, 1993
Routine Proceedings
ing breakdown reports on the financial status of AFAP initiatives by agency.
Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) $ million
Total budget allocation	356.0
Total planned five-year expenditures and commitments as of March 31, 1993	341.6
Balance of program funds available	14.4
Over the remaining years of the program, DFO intends to target its program efforts to ensuring adjustment in the processing industry, encouraging professionalization in the groundfish fishery and economic diversification in Atlantic Canada. Efforts will focus on the means to achieve effective conservation such as through gear selectivity, further enforcement and protection measures, and optimization of the effectiveness of the current enforcement system.
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA)
Total budget allocation	90.0	millionTotal five-year expenditures and commitments as of April 30, 1993	62.3	millionUncommited balance	27.7	million
ACOA efforts under the Fisheries Alternatives Program will focus on supporting eligible projects and activities proposed by the private sector which will promote economic diversification of expansion in fishery dependent areas of Atlantic Canada.
Department of External Affairs and International Trade (EATTC)
Total budget allocation	1.6	millionTotal five-year expenditures and commitments as of March 31, 1993	1.6	millionUncommitted Balance	0.0	million
The AFAP funding provided to EAITC has been used to supplement over a five-year period the department's efforts to enhance international marketing and trade in Canadian underutilized and value added fish and seafood products. Efforts are continuing as planned.
Industry, Science and Technology Canada (ISTC)
Total budget allocation	6.4	millionTotal five-year expenditures and commitments as of March 31, 1993	6.4	millionUncommitted balance	0.0	million
The seafood and marine products sector campaign, an ISTC initiative, has been partially funded from AFAP. The campaign, a multiyear national initiative, is designed as a joint effort with industry to improve the long run international competitiveness of the Canadian fish processing sector. The initiative is proceeding as per plan and within the established budget.
Employment and Immigration Commission Canada (EIC)
Total budget allocation	120.0	millionTotal five-year expenditures and commitments as of October 1, 1992	95.5	millionUncommitted balance	24.5	million
Financial commitments under the community development fund will proceed as planned for the remaining years of the program. CEIC will also respond as required to requests from affected individuals in the fisheries sector for adjustment services and other program benefits.
Labour Canada
Total budget allocation	10.0	millionTotal five-year expenditures and commitments as of March 31, 1993	2.8	millionUncommitted balance	7.2	million
Labour Canada, through the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, POWA, provided income assistance to fish plant workers affected by designated lay-offs as a result of the downturn of the Atlantic fisheries. POWA was used as an interim financial assistance vehicle until the announcement of the Plant Workers Adjustment Program in May 1990. While POWA remains available, no further demands on the program are anticipated.
June 15, 1993


Mr. Hovdebo: What were the names of the funds deregistered from the Immigrant
Investor program of the Department of Employment and
Immigration, who were the principals behind each fund and what
were the reasons for each deregistration?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: There have been three suspensions of marketing approval under the Immigrant Investor program.
St. Jude Inc., a 5.1 million maximum fund, was suspended for misleading advertising placed by overseas sales agents. This problem was resolved and the suspension was removed. St. Jude is controlled by Mr. J.B. McCullough of Elamilton, Ontario.
Giant Bay B.C. Fund Inc. and Giant Bay Investment Fund Inc., both $20 million maximum funds under the Immigrant Investor program, were suspended during their marketing periods because a related fund, International Capital Corporation, ICC, a Saskatchewan offering, was found not to be in compliance with investment rules under the Immigrant Investor program. Both the Giant Bay fund and ICC are controlled by Mr. Reginald C. Schafer of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. ICC itself has not been suspended because the problems giving rise to the Giant Bay suspensions were discovered after the close of the marketing period for ICC.
Violations of Immigrant Investor program regulations or guidelines discovered beyond the normally permitted 18 month marketing period are dealt with by means other than suspension of approval or deregistration. In the ICC case, the matter was referred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who, following investigation, laid charges alleging fraud under the Criminal Code. These charges are now before the courts.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Government Orders



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works) moved: that Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing, be read the third time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is time to get on with the job of building a bridge to Prince Edward Island. Bill C-110, an important part of that process, is being considered for third reading. I am very proud to speak in support of the legislation.
Some members will recall perhaps not directly that about 30 years ago there was an important initiative to build a link to Prince Edward Island. In fact certain preparatory work was done. At that time, to put things in perspective, it was decided by the then government to trade off the funds and instead indulge in or promote a comprehensive economic development plan for the island province.
This economic development plan has done a lot of good. Perhaps at this time the very growth it engendered makes it even more important we proceed with this link in order to take advantage of the potential for economic development that exists.
This is the most far-reaching and important project I believe Public Works has been associated with in many years. As a resident of Atlantic Canada I am very proud to be part of the project which will benefit Atlantic Canadians, people from Prince Edward Island and indeed all Canadians long after those of us who are in the House have passed from the scene and have been forgotten.
This project has the support of a clear majority of people from Prince Edward Island. Polls indicate that. A recent CBC poll taken earlier this year showed 63 per cent in favour. I suggest that any government in the democratic world that had that kind of popular support would think itself very fortunate.
This project initiated by the private sector and by our government has the continuing and constructive support of both past and present Governments of Prince Edward

Government Orders
Island, the Government of New Brunswick and the Government of Nova Scotia. The Northumberland bridge project stands as a prime example of how governments in the country can work together for the greater public good.
Business organizations and most Atlantic unions have been very vocal in support of the project. Other voices that have been raised in opposition in the House have been quite muted, perhaps not in volume but in number, and mostly confined to members of the NDP.
This party, it is worth noting for the record, has never elected a member in Prince Edward Island, ever, and probably never will. It enjoys the support of about 3 per cent or 4 per cent of the electorate, to the point where even the leader of the NDP of Prince Edward Island has found it necessary to take a summer job to save his party money, he says, but unfortunately it comes from the UI fund. This is not a good example, I would suggest, of some of the financial savings they keep urging on the people of Canada at the expense of the link.
These naysayers have suggested the government will inherit a rusting and decaying structure at the end of 35 years. In fact the bridge will have a design life of 100 years without a major refit. During the 35-year concession period, annual independent inspections of the bridge will have to confirm the necessary maintenance and repairs have been carried out before the developer can receive toll revenues. This is a very strong incentive, all members will agree, for the developers to build it right and to maintain it in good working order during the period of their stewardship.
The NDP has said that the proposed $42 million annual subsidy was too high. In fact its own witness at the all-party legislative committee examining the bill admitted the figure which was carefully worked out by Transport Canada was "fairly credible, given that the ferries are going to have to be replaced". Several of the ferries will have to be replaced. It is evident today the cost of replacing a modem ferry is going to be several hundreds of millions of dollars. Somehow this is never brought into the equation by the members from British Columbia who are speaking on behalf of the NDP.
My good friend from Skeena, and he is a good friend, in some of the more lofty flights of rhetoric he indulged in when speaking on the bill, said the following on February 8 when talking about what they do in British
Columbia. Isn't this terrific? He said: "There we try to make tourists and passengers happy while they are waiting for the ferry. We sell them a hot dog, give them a cup of coffee, let them buy some local goods, have a few people playing guitars, give them newspapers and have a little fun". I like this.
I invite my friend from Skeena some cold, rainy day to come to Prince Edward Island to see a bunch of outraged truckers and business people waiting to get across to do business. He will see how many will be made happy by some hot dog purveying, guitar strumming coffee merchants. He can tell them this is what they should be happy for instead of having a bridge.
My good friend, and he is also a good friend, from Annapolis Valley-Hants gave a speech the other day. He indicated that he thought it would be more to the point to connect Vancouver Island to the mainland than Prince Edward Island to Canada. I am not against that. If the private sector can come along with a good scheme that would not cost the taxpayers money, I would applaud it, but I remind my good friend there is no constitutional obligation, unfortunately perhaps, to make sure that Vancouver Island is put in the same position as Prince Edward Island. He knows that.
For those who argue that this is a risk-free enterprise for the developer under the agreement, that is not true. The developer will assume most of the risk for the project, including financial, design, construction, maintenance and cost overruns.


Mr. Fulton:: None.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: My friend says: "None". If it were none the Auditor General would insist it be booked as an expense of the Government of Canada. It is the developer's risk.
He also said it as if there were some sin in foreign investment coming in and owning part of it. So what? This is a private sector initiative, one that is good for Atlantic Canada and good for Canada. As well, if this bridge is not ready on time, it will have to be financed by the operators. All kinds of safeguards are in place.
This head in the sand attitude toward an endeavour which is widely popular with both the people and governments concerned helps explain in part why-and my friend and I have talked about this jokingly-the NDP has about 4 per cent or 5 per cent of the popular vote in Prince Edward Island and is unlikely to change that in the near future. It is a non-existent party in all of
June 15, 1993

Atlantic Canada. This is part of the reason for this back to the future attitude it has.
The project's economic benefits both short term and long term make a powerful case for moving ahead with all speed. In the shorter term the cost of constructing the bridge will be about $850 million, representing a stimulus to the Canadian economy in the order of $1.3 billion. The project will create between 3,500 and 4,000 person-years of employment over the five-year construction period. Almost all of it will come from the Atlantic region and will contribute about $450 million to the region's economy.
An estimated 70 per cent of the purchasing of goods and services will be done within Atlantic Canada and more than 80 per cent within Canada as a whole, which in itself makes it a rather exceptional project of this magnitude for this part of Canada.
Building a bridge will provide a much-needed shot in the arm for the Atlantic Canadian economy. However the main benefits will be those occurring year after year once the structure is in place and the transportation arteries are unblocked. Then the people of Prince Edward Island can build and develop the potential of this magnificent island province which is now stunted.
It is no coincidence that the unemployment rate, as my friend from Prince Edward Island will agree, is higher than the unemployment rates in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick simply because an important tool of economic development is not being utilized.
Long-term economic benefits include an increase of about 25 per cent in annual tourist traffic. Many members in the House may not be aware that when this bridge is built there will still be a perfectly adequate ferry service to Prince Edward Island operated by the private sector, Northumberland Ferries Limited, which does a fine job. Next week it is putting a new vessel in service. About $15 million of improvements have been made to the docks of that ferry service despite the impression left that the government has somehow been starving the existing ferry service for modem facilities.
Government Orders
Prince Edward Island's agricultural and fisheries industries will see a major reduction in costs for transporting their products as well as greater certainty of delivery.
The P.E.I. Trucking Industry Commission has estimated annual savings of $10 million a year as a result of the bridge. The utility operators such as the electric power and telephone companies will save from the permanent utility corridor which is part and parcel of this bridge. The list goes on.
Suffice it to say, the completion of the fixed link will have a positive and lasting effect, an economic benefit on the economic opportunities for the people of one of Canada's poorest provinces. These benefits will ripple out to all the Atlantic region and to Canada as a whole.
Much has been made by opponents of the project concerning the possible environmental impact of such a major engineering undertaking. The proposed bridge has been subjected to the most thorough environmental assessment of any such project ever undertaken in the country. It was the member for Cape Breton-East Richmond yesterday who dealt extensively with this point. I believe he tabled a list of the literally dozens of studies that have been made in connection with the link to Prince Edward Island. It has also been the object of the most comprehensive public consultation program, with some 64 public meetings held on both sides of Northumberland Strait.
There are those who will never be convinced. I think the member for Egmont, when he spoke in February, made reference to this fact when he quoted Cathy Edward, one of those who had been charged with giving an objective assessment of the project. She has been quoted, and I believe accurately because my friend would not quote inaccurately, as saying:
We can do something about ice. It is called mitigation. I doubt
that there are mitigating measures for the heart. The heart has its
own reasons.
There is nothing wrong with the heart having its own reasons. There is nothing wrong with being philosophically opposed to a link, any link, to Prince Edward Island. However to clothe this sentimental attachment in some kind of specious argument based on economics is intel-

Government Orders
lectually dishonest and I think we should all keep this in mind.
Public Works Canada has carried out or commissioned over 90 studies relating to environmental assessment and project feasibility. Most recently, in response to a Federal Court order, the proponent, Strait Crossing Incorporated, prepared a specific environmental evaluation of its bridge proposal. Subsequently my department held public meetings and set up a toll-free telephone line to facilitate receiving advice from the public.
The specific environmental evaluation was carefully scrutinized by my department and many others. I reviewed SCI's proposal, the report of the independent ice specialists, the expert advice from other federal departments and agencies, and the comments received from the public. On May 13 I concluded the potential environmental effects that may be caused by the proposal were either insignificant or mitigable with known technology. The more this is studied, the more evident this becomes.
I am currently reviewing any further public comment that may be received. I will be announcing in the near future whether the project should be referred to a public review by a panel. After all this the opponents of the project still claim that we have not complied with the process and have initiated yet another court challenge. This matter is now before the judiciary.
I am all for open and full debate. I also firmly believe that the major public concern must take precedence over the narrower views of single interest groups which have been so vociferously put forward in particular by the NDP.
Bill C-110 is an important element in the over-all project in that it spells out the financial terms and conditions under which the project will operate. The arguments have been made. While I realize the rules of relevance are interpreted widely here, members' speeches have not focused on this simple enabling statute which is part of the process. This bill ensures that neither future federal governments nor the Canadian taxpayer will be subjected to undue or unsuspected costs.
The subsidy of $42 million annually has been carefully worked out by Transport Canada and represents the sum
of direct costs paid to Marine Atlantic, such as the administrative overhead, the replacement of vessels, and the refitting of boats in land based facilities.
Again going back into the future, the sixties as the NDP would like us to do, it is worth noting with respect to Marine Atlantic that there was an effort made to build a bridge or a causeway at that time. Suddenly the subsidies for Marine Atlantic and the service seemed to improve, things got a bit better, but once the project was shelved and a comprehensive economic development plan was put in place Marine Atlantic subsidies began to climb. This is a matter of record and can easily be ascertained if anyone cares to check.
When the bridge is built the federal government will get an $850 million bridge in good operating condition after 35 years. At that time there will be many options available as to what is to be done but it will be owned by the Crown. I suspect many of us in 35 years will have only an academic interest in what the government of the day will decide what is best.


Mr. Nowlan:: I will still be here.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I will be here if the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants is here. We will make a wager.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: With Anne of Green Gables.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: This will be the span of green gables. If the bridge is not built the government will have to continue spending $42 million a year in the foreseeable future. I would not say in perpetuity because that is a long time, but the government will have to pay for a long time. It does not take a rocket scientist to see which option is a better deal for the Canadian taxpayer.
The agreement stipulates that over the first 35 years the developer may not increase tolls by more than three-quarters of the Consumer Price Index. This means that over time the relative cost to users of the bridge will steadily diminish.
By enshrining these and other terms and conditions into legislation we will provide clear guidelines to the developer of his responsibilities and restraints. We will ensure that future governments have the tools to keep federal expenditures to a minimum.
June 15, 1993

As I have said this project represents one of the finest examples of positive, constructive federal-provincial co-operation. It has been a pleasure for the Conservative administration to work with the private sector and with the Liberal governments of Atlantic Canada. There is tremendous co-operation and a feeling that we are doing something positive for a region of Canada that really needs this kind of stimulus. More important it needs an upgrade and improvement of its transportation system.
Everyone, and I believe that includes my good friends in the NDP, have said from time to time that transportation is an integral part of economic development. Without good economic development there is no hope for the future, particularly those regions that do not have some of the natural advantages that exist in certain more favoured parts of our country.
I want to thank and congratulate the former premier of Prince Edward Island, Mr. Joe Ghiz. I wish to express my gratitude to P.E.I. Premier Catherine Callbeck and New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna for their support of this initiative and their willingness to work with us in sorting out the details of such a huge and complex undertaking.
I remind members of the House that Bill C-110 is only one element of this project. There are other elements, constitutional and financial, that are still under consideration. However without this piece of legislation the project lacks a certain security and the developers would not be permitted to raise funds and get on with the job when the other matters are sorted out.
As the House knows, we have achieved a comprehensive tripartite federal-provincial agreement covering a whole range of key areas including environmental soundings, fishermen's compensation, tolls, the fair treatment of ferry workers who are affected and so on. I am confident this agreement will enable us to proceed in the same spirit of harmony and co-operation we have seen to date.
Last week the Government of Prince Edward Island introduced a motion in the province's legislature which in effect stated that a toll bridge was an acceptable way
Government Orders
for the federal government to meet its constitutional commitment to keep Prince Edward Island in continuous communication with the rest of Canada. Perhaps it would be more accurate, for the benefit of my friend from Egmont, to say to keep the rest of Canada in continuous communication with Prince Edward Island. Either way it is important.
I propose that we introduce a similar resolution in the House later this year and thus clear away any remaining constitutional impediments to terminating the Borden-Tormentine ferry service, keeping in mind there will still be a perfectly adequate ferry service between Wood Islands and Caribou.
It is worth putting on record some of the words of Premier Callbeck of Prince Edward Island when she spoke on this matter last week in her provincial legislature. She said the following when she was talking about the government's goal of economic self-reliance and self-determination, something that is very important to the people of Atlantic Canada and particularly to the Government of Prince Edward Island at this time when it is faced with high budgetary deficits and needs every bit of help possible to develop its economy. She said:
Transportation is an integral part of this equation. No longer will we be subjected to an intermittent transportation service; no longer will we be subjected to transportation uncertainties; no longer will we be subjected to divisive and protracted debate; and no longer will we be subjected to unfettered toll increases. In tandem with Canada and SCI we are embarking upon self-determination and self-reliance in our transportation link to the mainland in a responsible and businesslike manner.
The time for protracted debate is over; the time for action and decision is now. Let the project proceed.
That is what Premier Callbeck of Prince Edward Island had to say. It is important that we pass this legislation now and bring that bridge one step closer to reality. This is a good project and a sound project. It is a project that is a partnership. I highly recommend it to my colleagues in the House of Commons.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to put a few questions to the minister on this important bill.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no unanimous consent.

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
Under Standing Order 74 the first two speakers have 40 minutes without questions or comments and then speakers have 20 minutes with questions and comments.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset how privileged I am to be the first speaker from my party on this bill at third reading.
As a member of Parliament from an island province I can say in all modesty that those of us who come from islands have a greater understanding of some of the major issues involved in this outstanding project. Given that we have a better understanding of them we could be involved in the decision-making process and are able to understand the very difficult judgment factors involved in this historic project, as I believe it is safe to call it.
Second, I want to thank the hon. Minister of Public Works for his presentation. In his brief report to the House on third reading he addressed the issues involved without any frills and without any wool. I think the House should take note of his final comment which referred to the premier of Prince Edward Island. With her government representing all but one of the seats she certainly understands the way Prince Edward Islanders feel on this subject. That in itself would give an indication of how the litmus test should be applied to this project.
Third, I have discussed this project at length with my three hon. colleagues from Prince Edward Island, the members for Egmont, Hillsborough and Cardigan. They have demonstrated the amount of homework and difficult decisions they have had in the final analysis in essentially doing what they believe was best for their constituents. I know they have had some difficult conversations in their studies of the projects to look at the pros and cons.
They did not ask me to speak for them this morning but my assessment is that in their considerable and very sensitive deliberations they support what they objectively believe in the totality of all the considerations is right for all their constituents. Regrettably in this case decisions had to be made on a project that goes back more than 100 years and probably goes back to even when Prince Edward Island first became a colony in the 1700s. It is a very controversial and contentious issue.
I have admiration for the way they have tackled the issue, for their judgment and for the way they have shown consideration for all aspects of this important project, which regrettably has to be discussed in the dying days of Parliament and has to be subjected again to the infamous jackboot time allocation motion the government has put on the deliberations.
Those are my three introductory remarks. Now I want to give an outline of what I hope to do here today. I will be a little longer than normal because I believe, as the main speaker on the third reading representing the Liberal Party of Canada, the members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island and the premier of Prince Edward Island that it is very important to set the record straight and to cut through some of the confusing and somewhat negative comments that most of the members from the NDP spewed forth yesterday. I expect we will hear them today.
I am not saying that I am the harbinger of bad news or the bearer of tidings of good news. I do want to say as objectively as possible and as someone who is not a Prince Edward Islander that I would like to give some objective background to the project. Once the background is finished I would like to look at the bill and then provide some commentary, which I will provide as objectively as possible. With my concluding remarks I look forward to the rest of the debate in the House on this subject today.
Bill C-110, the act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing or the fixed link as it is now being called, was introduced by the Minister of Public Works and received first reading in December last year. The act essentially authorized the minister to enter into agreements with the public sector builder and the operator respecting that Prince Edward Island bridge crossing, including provisions for the annual subsidy and a mechanism for establishing tolls for the first 35 years, as well as authorizing the regulation of toll charges after onus for the bridge reverted to the Crown.
With that introduction the first thing that jumps to mind is that this is not the normal way of doing business. One of the difficulties with this project is that it has not been a standard government contract. It has not been a standard piece of legislation because private industry is
June 15, 1993

involved and there is ministerial authority in a different manner.
There are other aspects that impinge on the passage of the bill which make it somewhat different from the normal process. My experience when any project, particularly a project as sensitive and as complex as this one, deviates from the normal way of doing business is that it adds complexity and confuses the main issue. I am hoping we will be able to cut through that this morning.
As far as the background is concerned, it is well known but I just want to cover the highlights. Prince Edward Island became a colony in 1769. I doubt if people had an idea of a bridge in those days but certainly an island colony was established as far back as then. In 1832 the first link was established between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.
There were 30 milestones. I counted them in my research last night. I am not going to indulge the House with all those milestones. The next real milestone happened in 1885 when the very idea of a fixed link or something that was permanent between Prince Edward Island and the mainland came about. Senator George Oland was involved in it. It is safe to say that discussion of a fixed link started in 1885, which is more than 100 years ago.
The debate has been going on for 128 years, probably every day in one part or another of Prince Edward Island, as well as on the mainland and in federal, provincial, municipal and all other forms of government. Therefore this legislation is not about to pass in the House without some controversy and without some differing opinions. I believe people are allowed and should have different opinions. I hope to address some of them this morning.
When Prince Edward Island joined Confederation in 1873 the federal government undertook certain expenses. Pertinent to this discussion this morning, the first one was that it would protect the fisheries which were very important to Prince Edward Island. The second was to maintain an efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland of the dominion in winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communications, and those are the key words, with the
Government Orders
inter-colonial railway and the railway system of the dominion.
One of the difficulties in establishing this continuous communications with the mainland railway or the road system was caused by ice conditions that develop in the straits during the winter. Again, I am very familiar with the difficulty caused by ice in a channel or a strait connecting an island to the mainland.
I remember as a young midshipman in the navy in my training days having to wait in North Sydney. It was a great experience. It is a wonderful place with great hospitality. I had to wait three days in order to catch a ferry in the spring. I believe it was in May. For the first time the impact of the inconvenience caused by having to cross from the mainland to an island was brought home to me in a very personal and poignant way.
As early as the late 1880s, there is some question about the date, the Canadian Department of Public Works commissioned a British engineering firm to conduct a feasibility study on a tunnel. The development of efficient ice-breaking ferries supplanted the tunnel notion and in 1917-18, at the end of the Great War, the first year-round ferry service began with the advent of efficient and effective ice-breaking services.
I am going to skip all these 28 other milestones I reviewed with interest last night. While they are of interest I am sure those who are engaged in the debate would be cognizant of them. I leave the rest to review their history books if they are interested in it.
To jump very quickly to the debate on the present project, I suppose we could say it was most actively pursued in the mid-1980s when the federal cabinet authorized financial, socio-economic and environmental studies on the feasibility of a fixed crossing. To use vernacular terms we might say the system had decided to bite the bullet. A proposal call was issued in the spring of 1988, just before the last election was called. Three of the seven proposals were accepted.
In January 1988 the Government of Prince Edward Island held a plebiscite on the fixed crossing. Democracy went to work and a majority of islanders voted in favour of the concept. At that time there were both tunnel and bridge concepts. In the development of events, as I will point out, the tunnel project gave way to what we now have as a single option, a bridge. Part of the controversy

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
was whether the tunnel and the bridge would have been treated with equal measure, but I will not dwell on that.
In January 1989 the project was referred to a Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office panel. In August 1990 the panel reported that the risk of harmful effects had some difficulties under the existing terms of the project. I hasten to add that it did set an acceptable level of risk which would include an ice delay of no more than two days. I spoke earlier about the difficulties of ice. By that it meant the retention of ice in the Northumberland Strait for two days longer than normal in any 100-year period. That is considerable latitude. It certainly sounds reasonable to anybody who understands ice, sea and probability.
Essentially this meant that the project had to be designed so that it did not cause significant change in prevailing ice conditions, as well as being able to withstand the forces generated for constantly moving ice. The idea was that if the presence of the bridge structure were to cause increased ice accumulation in the strait by its being there, or result in a delay of ice-out as is the term used in the business, there might be a negative effect on the over-all marine environment in the area with possible implications on the existing strait fishery.
The Northumberland Strait fishery is of considerable value to the island economy and consists largely of lobster, scallop and herring. I have a great deal of consideration for the fishermen. I deal with them not just daily but almost every hour of every working day. Prince Edward Island is world famous for its lobster fishery and about 75 per cent of that takes place in the straits.
To the fishermen, depending on what sort of a season they have, it is worth anywhere from $45 million up to $60 million or more. When we look at unemployment and the state of the fishery today, that figure is a very serious one. It is one that has to be taken into consideration when we look at its over-all socio-economic effect. I am also familiar with the existence of scallop beds in the straits which is a consideration as well.
In January 1991 cabinet approved proceeding to select a developer to construct and operate the bridge. A committee of ice experts was formed. In April 1991 the
ice committee reported that a bridge could be installed across the Northumberland Strait with no significant ice-out delay. Subsequently three developers made initial proposals. By January of last year, that is to say about 18 months ago, all three proposals were found to meet the environmental requirements.
In May 1992 when the three companies submitted their financial and security packages including the required level of federal subsidy, Public Works Canada declared that all three bids were non-compliant with the terms in the call for the project.
In July 1992 cabinet authorized discussions with a company called Strait Crossing Incorporated, SCI, for short. It was the lowest bidder. SCI was asked to determine whether its proposal could be modified to come within the parameters set out by the federal government.
In November cabinet authorized the negotiation of a contract with SCI. The Minister of Finance announced in his December 2 financial statement that advance engineering and environmental work would be undertaken to allow construction of the fixed link to begin in the spring of 1993.
As I said earlier, this fixed link project is unlike any other infrastructure project because it is financed, constructed, owned and operated by a private sector consortium which after 35 years of operation will transfer it back to the federal government. This approach, which I believe stems from the original 1985-86 proposals, essentially means that the project is being watched very closely to determine whether the funding mechanism is applicable to similar public infrastructure projects. If this works it will be a pilot project of some magnitude.
The bridge itself will derive revenues from two sources. One source will be the talked about $42 million a year subsidy from the federal government which will be payable for 35 years. This approximates the annual subsidy that would have been paid for a ferry operator and adjusted by approximately 50 per cent for various factors. The other source is a toll that will be levied on users as calculated on either 1990 tolls adjusted by the Consumer Price Index or on the tolls collected by the
June 15, 1993

ferry operators in the last year of service. Anyway it approximates $18 million to $20 million a year.
This brings us to the real crux of the debate today at third reading. Just before Christmas last year, on December 16, a tripartite agreement was reached among the Government of Canada, the province of Prince Edward Island and the province of Nova Scotia for a fixed link. It was based on 10 conditions set out by the premier of Prince Edward Island in a letter written in 1987 to the Minister of Public Works, which I read last night. It was a very clever idea to submit that letter. It addressed a lot of the proposals people had before 1987. While the proposals are well known to my hon. colleagues from Prince Edward Island and those involved in the discussion, I think for public debate it is worth while just to mention very briefly what these were.
Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick would both receive funds for upgrading their highway systems. It worked out to $20.4 million each. The ferry service between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia would continue to operate. That was the Wood Island-Caribou ferry. Land to construct the approach roads would be assembled by the federal government and transferred to the provinces. Tolls would be fair and reasonable. That is very important to the economy of the island and to those people who would use the bridge.
The developer would offer new jobs to displaced ferry workers who were qualified on the fixed crossing. It would develop an appropriate assistance program for ferry workers not receiving new jobs on the fixed link.
I could not pass over that without highlighting the importance of looking after those people who through no fault of their own sacrifice their jobs for the betterment of their society and Prince Edward Island. I do not think there is any question the onus is on the system to ensure they are looked after. They should not be looked after in a perfunctory fashion or given a minimum package but looked after in a dignified, reasonable and respectable way, bearing in mind what their earning power and potential for finding other jobs would have been.
The two communities at either end of the ferry service, Borden and Tormentine, would receive up to $20 million of special development funds between them. The eco-
Govemment Orders
nomic benefits to the Atlantic region would be maximized.
The developer must complete an environmental management plan acceptable to the federal government and the three maritime governments would also agree with it.
The next point is veiy important. Fishermen adversely affected by the construction of the bridge would be compensated by the developer.
I mentioned the importance of the lobster and herring fisheries, the existence of the scallop bed and the tremendous contribution fishermen make to the economy of Prince Edward Island. Finally the utility corridor would be incorporated into the design of the bridge.
Those 10 conditions certainly have indicated to me the concern the Government of Prince Edward Island has shown for the well-being of those people, communities and industries that would be and will be affected by the project.
Going back to the constitutional obligation of the federal government contained in the terms of union there is still a hangover from some interpretation there. In my mind that interpretation with respect to the agreement and the limitation of the constitutional obligations of the federal government contained in the terms of the agreement were covered by a recent presentation by the premier of Prince Edward Island. That was an important aspect of the whole project.
Time is rolling on and there are other aspects I would like to cover. I cannot leave this without saying I am cognizant of the socio-economic impact this has on the people of Prince Edward Island, mainly those who did not favour this link in the plebiscite.
It is my opinion that while in a democracy the majority does speak we cannot ignore the concerns of those people who for their own reasons, beliefs and judgments do believe that given the choice they would rather not participate in this project. They argue the government has not complied with the environmental assessment review process guidelines. In addition they claim Canada's agreement with Prince Edward Island and the company SCI would contravene the terms of union both

Government Orders
by allowing the cessation of continuous communications and by failing to protect the fisheries.
I believe these are legitimate concerns but I also believe some if not all of them have been addressed. The failure to protect the fisheries has been considered by Premier Ghiz in the 10 points in his letter to the Government of Canada. The efficient service has been addressed in kind. I will speak to the terms of union before I conclude.
To summarize, the main issues surrounding the fixed link appear to be the costs, the unique means of financing, the environmental impacts, particularly the possible effect of ice build-up on the bridge and consequently the Northumberland Strait fisheries, and finally the impact of a fixed link on the traditional island way of life. I have sensitivity for the last one as I mentioned earlier.
In any impact analysis that is done on the likely consequences of something this major there are a number of ways to approach it. I do not want to and I cannot because I was not involved in the process, but I am convinced it was done objectively.
No matter how the sums are awarded and no matter how objective or subjective we are, essentially we are dealing with three things when looking at an impact analysis.
We look at the magnitude of the predicted effect. We are dealing with uncertainty. We have to take best case and worst case and do what is called a sensitivity analysis.
I am very familiar with those tools. The magnitude of the predicted effect is looked at first of all. The importance of that effect to the quality of life whether it is social, environmental or economic is looked at. The third thing to look at is the likelihood or probability of its occurrence. There are three things: how important it is, how strong it is, and the likelihood of it happening.
There are various combinations. There may be a change in one factor which would be relatively unimportant. However, it could have the same significance as a small change that would be very important to the quality of life. What I am saying is that when these three factors are taken and the sums awarded on the ice impact, the impact of winds and tides and the impact of terrestrial concerns, we are left with a number of judgmental factors. We are dealing with judgmental factors here.
This is why anything that is not judgmental or can be done quantitatively is very seldom open for criticism based on subjectivity.
The number of studies done on this matter in recent times has been phenomenal. There have been 91 studies of one kind or another on this subject: 24 different environmental assessments, 17 different studies with regard to ice, 4 comprehensive studies with respect to wind and tide, 9 different studies with respect to socioeconomic benefits of the particular project, 23 different studies done by organizations of great renown such as the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and various businesses, 10 terrestrial studies, and 4 reports on the list of strait crossings and other related reports. There have been 91 studies identified.
If we look at some of the peripheral studies like the Library of Parliament research and individual studies I am aware of but have not seen, I would say there have been well over 100 studies done on this project.
I am dealing with uncertainty. It is very dangerous when one is standing in the House of Commons to make any predictions, but I would predict that if we allowed this to go on for another hundred years there would be another hundred studies. If not a year, we would study this for an indefinite period and we would still not be able to address the subjective judgment of those who are not in favour of the project.
I respect that. I understand that. I have a feeling for it and I am sensitive to it. I have been involved in many projects where the line was not clear and it was not 100 per cent agreed upon. There were a lot of judgmental factors. That is why we have governments. It is to make judgments. When one is in a position to make judgments one makes them and goes with the effects. When one makes those judgments one should wake up in the morning and say: "I made that judgment as objectively as possible with no consideration for myself, self-gain or self-aggrandizement. I made that judgment for the good of why I had to make the judgment".
If one is here as a politician and has to make a judgment on something that important, one studies all the factors and knows all the concerns to go forward with the best information for the judgment. This is part of one's chemistry, constituency, understanding, upbringing
June 15, 1993

and education: the input factors, the whole works. Then one goes for a decision. This is what has happened here.
I am not going to spend much time on the bill. It is surprisingly a very small bill. There are very few things in the bill. The first few portions refer to definitions as any legislative bill does. There was considerable discussion on the Consumer Price Index. That is an important aspect because depending on what base one takes one could be affected downstream.
Clauses 4 and 5 really give authority for the minister to enter into and carry out the agreements relating to the fixed link. Clause 6 authorizes the minister to lease any Crown property necessary for the construction and operation of the bridge. Clause 7 provides for an annual subsidy of $42 million for 35 years adjusted in accordance with the Consumer Price Index. Clause 8 states the subsidy could not be retained as a set-off against or deduction from any sum owed to the Crown.
In order to give the potential investors the same level of assurance as with a direct government guaranteed loan, the government would forgo the possibility of withholding the subsidy in order to make good debts owed by the developers, for example in default of income tax payment. Clause 8 essentially would affect the Financial Administration Act and the right to offset for taxes owed.
Finally clause 9 allows the Minister of Transport to set tolls by regulation when the agreement with the developer has expired or is otherwise terminated.
The next thing I want to deal with is a recent occurrence in the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island.
Premier Callbeck, a colleague of ours who represented her constituency of Malpeque in an outstanding manner like her other three colleagues from Prince Edward Island, did something very important in the Prince Edward Island legislative assembly shortly after it opened. She made a speech on this subject. It was very brave for her to take this matter on in the early mandate of what she had to do. She reminded her province and the Government of Canada that a clear majority of islanders supported the project, the federal government supported the project and her government supported the project.
Government Orders
She also pointed out, as did the hon. Minister of Public Works, there had been extensive debate and 100 studies and consultations showing that islanders wanted this project to proceed. She made reference to the recent court action taken and the subsequent decision handed down. She made reference to the fact that the action was used to better the project. She made reference to the companion agreement that amended or amplified the December 1992 tripartite agreement with Canada, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. She had negotiated it and announced what it reflected.
I talked about the terms of union. The first and perhaps most important aspect was that Canada's constitutional obligation to provide continuous communication had been preserved. That was a very important aspect. Hopefully it will allay the fears of some people who have been sceptical about the project. The resolution and the amending agreement did not alter the obligation of the federal government. The obligation that went back to the terms of union, as I stated at the outset of this presentation, still pertain. Therefore there is no need for interpretation or scepticism. It is there. It has been negotiated. It has been announced by the premier of Prince Edward Island.
For the base year of operation the toll would be determined using 1992 Marine Atlantic rates plus an adjustment for the Consumer Price Index rather than 1996 rates as had been previously negotiated or realized. I was going to say it was forced upon the Prince Edward Island government, but it is too smart for that and would not accept it.
Essentially, without going into details, this clever bit of negotiation by Premier Callbeck and her colleagues means there will be a savings of about $250 million in the life of the project. There were some other aspects but those were the most important in my mind.
I have done pretty well what I said I was going to do. I just want to add some concluding remarks. The study of this project was not only interesting. It showed the passion that has gone into this project and the number of people who have been involved. Often we speak on bills in the House affecting various interest groups, certain industries, certain provinces and certain regions of Canada. It has been seldom that I have had the opportunity to speak on a bill that has been so universally of interest to all people involved. It is going to affect the way of life of

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
every person who lives now, has lived in the past and will live in the future of this great province.
There are some benefits other than the over-all benefits. I am now talking about the job creation that is going to be involved. The subsidy will be guaranteed. However from my perspective Bill C-110 is not only crucial to the fixed link financing process. I believe the fixed link will be of great benefit to Prince Edward Island.
The construction of the bridge will provide approximately 1,000 direct jobs for nine months over the next five years. It is going to be great for five years. The proportion of labour to come from within the region is 90 per cent. In addition Public Works Canada estimates that 50 per cent to 60 per cent of materials and equipment will be purchased in the region. Transportation and tourist industries also expect to see significant economic benefits as the fixed link makes travel through Prince Edward Island quicker and more reliable.
As for the environmental impacts I am not going to repeat what I said. However when we have studied something as long, as strenuously and as objectively, with 100 studies in four or five different crucial fields, we can assure ourselves as we vote in favour of the bill that life is not perfect but this is about as close to perfection as we are going to get.
In conclusion essentially the transportation aspect or the convenience of the link is after all the most important aspect. Prince Edward Island will no longer be subjected to an intermittent transportation service. If one wants to get there one will be able to get there. It will no longer be subjected to transportation uncertainties. How often have I heard people say they wished to go to the island but they were not sure when they would get there. No longer will Prince Edward Island be subjected to diverse and protracted debate. It will no longer be subjected to unfettered toll increases.
I consider it a privilege to have been given the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Liberal Party on the project. I am cognizant of the difficulties associated with the 100-year history and the totality of the project, certainly in the last five years. I commend my colleagues from Prince Edward Island who have devoted their
efforts to understanding every aspect of the issue. I commend them on their objectivity.
I ask the House to consider these points when the bill comes up for vote in the near future. We should consider that the passage of the bill is for the good of Prince Edward Island and of all Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. O'Kurley):: The next speakers will have 20 minutes, followed by a period of 10 minutes of questions and comments.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the debate on Bill C-110, as Canadians particularly from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick interested in the project know, has been very much like Alice in Wonderland. We heard this morning from the Minister of Public Works. We have heard now from the official spokesperson for the Liberal Party. Both those parties paint this bridge as having no environmental impact worthy of consideration and that the only positive benefits will be for Islanders and for the maritime economy.
I listened with care to both previous speakers. Both of them touched briefly on the concerns of what may be the majority of islanders and a substantial number of the hundreds of thousands of maritime Canadians. In both cases they quickly swept the concerns of those Canadians under the rug. In particular there are the fishers of the Northumberland Strait and the islanders who love their way of life and are quite satisfied with the ferry service. Canadians should be aware that all this talk about enormous delays and inadequacies of the ferry service is not borne out by reality. During 1992 of the more than 1,300 sailings only five were even delayed.
Where I come from on the north coast of British Columbia we are thankful if our ferry even sails once a week. In Hecate Strait we face 100-mile an hour winds. This last winter an 84-foot wave was recorded coming in through Dixon Entrance. We face just as ferocious and just as wild a marine environment as does anyone on the Northumberland Strait. The argument that a short delay or a bit of icing up is sufficient to take the kinds of risks contained in this bridge proposal is a foolhardy and dangerous approach to any kind of a major development.
The Liberals and Conservatives have gone further on the bill. I know many who watched the debate phoned and faxed me yesterday because they wondered what was going on in the Chamber. The Liberals and Conserva-
June 15, 1993

tives consistently used tag-team tactics to suggest the entire process had been proper, legal and constitutional, which it was not. They both go further to attack the NDP every time they have an opportunity for pointing out that the process to date was riddled with corruption and false arguments.
Certainly the lobbyists for SCI across the street must be happy knowing that they have found such fertile ground to till with the Velcro lips of both the Conservatives and Liberals about the real issues involved in Bill C-110 and the development of the project.
This bridge has not been assessed by a public panel. We have Liberal after Conservative after Liberal waving sheaves of paper around saying there have been 92 studies, or the Liberals now saying there have been 91 studies at a cost of $20 million over many years. There have been studies. A generic bridge concept was taken before a public environmental assessment panel. It was reviewed and it was turned down. It was rejected.
SCI has come forward with a specific bridge design on which Bill C-13, the new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, can be reflected long and hard. Once we have a specific proposal then we have a public environmental assessment and review of it. If a generic public review of a particular kind of heart surgery was turned down and the same doctors came up with a similar proposal for a specific form of heart surgery, would we not want it reviewed and assessed before it was used?
The arguments used in the Chamber by the Liberals and Conservatives make me extremely ill as a parliamentarian. It is with great sadness I have watched these two parties argue falsely and I believe corruptly and contemptuously an existing court order by Madam Justice Barbara Reed. The constitutional question has neither been addressed nor passed by Prince Edward Island or by this Parliament.


Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are rules of procedure and some words are not used by hon. members in referring to other
Government Orders
members in the Chamber. The member knows that. He has just accused members of the government and the opposition of being corrupt. If he has allegations of corruption he should put them instead of using his time to make unparliamentary comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will review the "blues" and get back to the hon. member. The hon. member is a senior member in the Chamber and should know better. If he is stepping beyond the boundary of the rules of the House, I wish he would apologize and stick to the rules.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, nothing I have said, and you will find that when you check the "blues", was unparliamentary. It is typical of the Liberals to want to butt into my time. What I have said in this Chamber I will say outside the Chamber in front of the cameras at any time.
Let me read from the ruling of Madam Justice Barbara Reed earlier this year. It is extremely germane for Canadians, particularly residents of Prince Edward Island, to know just how poorly they have been represented by their MPs from Prince Edward Island and by the government on this issue.
Let me quote from what Madam Justice Reed had to say:
Public hearings on a generic proposal are not a substitute for a specific evaluation of the actual project which it is planned to construct. If specific design proposals had been referred to the panel this might be different. It is particularly disturbing, in this case, to find that a generic design was referred to a panel when the government had access to more detailed information, respecting the three concept proposals being considered, which was not referred-
The argument that continual section 12 assessments would be required at every stage of the process is not convincing. It may very well be that continual assessment and reassessment is a convenient way of proceeding but that does not answer the fact that section 12 requires the assessment of a proposal when it is available in a form in which the environmental considerations can be fully considered.
The Federal Court of Canada then ruled that the Minister of Public Works has failed to comply with the requirements of section 12 of the environmental assessment review process guidelines order and that "a discontinuance of the ferry service which presently operates between Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick, and Borden, Prince Edward Island, without being sane-

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
tioned by an amendment pursuant to section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, would be unconstitutional".
The Federal Court then ordered: "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 to the public pursuant to section 15 of the environmental assessment review process guidelines".
This matter has been to the courts. This is what the Federal Court of Canada has said. It is a shall clause; it is not may. The court said: "Shall not make any irrevocable decision until section 12 is complied with".
The Minister of Public Works this morning rose in his place and said that once Bill C-110 had made its way through Parliament he would consider section 12. That is a contempt of court.
I have spoken to Mr. Marleau, Clerk of the House. I recognize as you do, Mr. Speaker-and I have been here going on 15 years-that this is the highest court in the land. We make the laws. We interpret in many cases what the Constitution means and where the country should go.
We have had a specific court case on the 1984 cabinet guidelines order. A finding has been made that this trickle theory of continually doing section 12 assessments but never taking the specific proposal back to an environmental assessment and review the public of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick can participate in is not on. It is just not on.
We have seen this kind of false argument-


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been enjoying my colleague's speech in the lobby. I wanted to come in and tell him it is obvious he cannot count. He is confusing section 12 with section 13.
I rose in my place and told him that in compliance with Madam Justice Reed's decision I had exercised, as Hansard will show, section 12. Members heard this. I just want to point out to my friend that there is a difference between section 12 and section 13 of the environmental regulations.


James Ross Fulton: I certainly appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but it does not deal with either part of the order made by
Madam Justice Reed in terms of irrevocable decision. The hope by the Minister of Public Works, the government benches and the Liberal benches is all the same. The Liberals should be sitting on the Tory side of the House today because there does not seem to be any serious consideration of what is required. The generic bridge proposal was turned down by an environmental assessment and specific studies were given to the panel.
We all know why SCI and the government are hiding away from a public environmental assessment. It is because of the placement of the piers. The whole question of ice-out will once again reappear. The Minister of Public Works knows why the four so-called ice experts never published their findings and never placed their findings out for peer review as is required ordinarily in these kinds of engineering and scientific matters. Hundreds of millions of dollars in lobster, scallop and groundfish are at risk. Ordinarily one would find that but not in this case; there has been no EARP of the specific SCI bridge.
The generic bridge was turned down. The Federal Court ordered that there be no irrevocable decisions by the government until the provisions of EARP had been met. EARP has been avoided continuously by this government. On Kemano II it was found that the government acted both illegally and unconstitutionally in exempting Alcan's project. Alcan led the fight for the government in the last federal election on free trade. Alcan was right there at the front. Here is its pay-back.
This House itself has agreed unanimously with the report from the standing committee on regulations that was illegal and unconstitutional, but the ministers responsible have done nothing to remedy it.
We move over to Alberta and the Oldman River dam. Who do we find there? SCI, the same corporation that is involved in the fixed link. When it came to the damming of the Oldman, SCI joined with the Government of Alberta and the federal Conservative Party in fighting against the public every step of the way until the highest court in Canada ruled there had to be an environmental assessment. When the assessment took place it ordered that the dam be taken down, that it was neither economically nor environmentally sound.
If the specific SCI bridge proposal were ever to be put before a proper environmental assessment and review I predict it would meet the same fate as the Oldman River dam. It would be turned down. This is a megaproject scam by the same corporation, with the same beneficia-
June 15, 1993

ries. It is a foreign corporation, 70 per cent foreign owned.
What of the other 23 recommendations? There were 24 recommendations on the Oldman River dam. The government has never lived up to a single one. The first one was to tear it down after it was built.
At least now we have the opportunity to sensibly, sanely, legally and constitutionally review the fixed link. No say the Liberals, no say the Conservatives, let us not have a public environmental assessment and review of the specific bridge because we would find out what was wrong with it. We want a quick fix. We want an injection of a few hundred million dollars into our constituencies. That is what this is all about. That is all it is.
For the Minister of Public Works to continually rise and say this is a private sector project, gag me with a spoon. Give us a break. This is the biggest trough, sell-off, giveaway, kick-back I have seen in years in this place, $1.47 billion. We the taxpayers pay for a bridge the Minister of Public Works says is going to cost $800 million to build, plus SCI gets to collect tolls for 35 years.
None of the Liberals and none of the Conservatives want to rise and say to the average family of four, with a car, on the day of opening of the bridge what the tolls are going to be. Should not the people in P.E.I. and New Brunswick at least be told in advance what the tolls are going to be? Another secret, another special deal.
The recent process undertaken by SCI and public works is not EARP. Nothing in the material produced by public works is of a nature to suggest the major bridge impacts are either known or mitigable. In yesterday's Financial Post we found an article headlined "P.E.I.'s fixed link going to court again". I quote:
The review was completed and released in mid-May by Public Works Minister Elmer MacKay but Mark Freiman, counsel for Friends of the Island said it made no attempt to meet the requirements of the court order or the standards set in the government's own assessment guidelines. The study included no basis for its conclusion that the bridge's environmental impact would be insignificant, Freiman said.
Government Orders
The Minister of Public Works interrupted my speech to say study section 13 of EARP. I am abundantly aware of what section 13 says, but this private little study cooked up by SCI and public works is irrelevant because it is a vacuum. The information required is not contained there to come to the conclusions it claims to reach, that there will be no major damage and that anything that could occur is mitigable. It is a false argument. It is a contempt of the intelligence of the average Canadian voter. I find it particularly awkward to continue to hear it from the Minister of Public Works whom I consider to be a good friend and a good parliamentarian.
As I have said a number of times, the Federal Court order of Madam Justice Barbara Reed has not been met and no attempt has been made to meet it. Only later today will the amendment proposed in the legislature of Prince Edward Island even come up to begin debate. There is nothing before the House and there is nothing in the foreseeable future to suggest that a constitutional amendment would just drift in here on a Friday afternoon and drift on back out again. I find that somewhat idle thinking. I do not think any court in the country that followed the Charlottetown process would think the amendments were suddenly going to start floating through this place on Friday afternoons.
The passage of Bill C-110 is part of an irrevocable decision. There is a seamless web in terms of the movement of decisions. The government is well aware of that. It will put into play a series of other actions, not the least of which will be the quick movement of SCI to get some signed contracts, making it impossible for a government that maintains the public interest first rather than the corporate interest first to review and put this back into the proper perspective it deserves, which at the very least is a proper public environmental assessment and review.
The abuse of process deserves some moments in the House because the EARP panel said no on many grounds, not just on ice. Even this so-called, cooked up ice expert panel only dealt with a very small part of the major concerns brought forward by experts who reviewed the generic bridge proposal.
The government chose to smoke-screen on the ice issue. Let us take a look at what Mr. Weale had to say when he appeared before the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-110 on March 11 of this year. He

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
teaches at the University of Prince Edward Island. I know that many Liberals and Conservatives get the chilly-willys whenever his name is quoted because he is one of those who has actually driven to the bottom of this file and learned just how false the arguments are which are used by the Liberals and Conservatives.
Let me quote first from page 218:
The first is the constitutional aspect of this debate. There was a clearly stated agreement between Prince Edward Island and the federal government, or the Dominion Government at the time of the province's entry into Confederation in 1873, that the federal government would agree to defray all costs associated with the operation of the province's link with the mainland. It is our contention that the handing over of the ownership and operation of this link to a private corporation and a subsequent paying of tolls by Islanders to that corporation is an abrogation of the terms of P.E.I.'s entry into Confederation. The terms of agreement are quite specific.
This is important for the record because both the Liberals and the Conservatives have misstated, and I believe intentionally, what is really said in the terms of union because here is what it says:
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 of the dominion winter and summer thus placing the Island in continuous communication with the intercolonial railway and the railway systems of the dominion.
I go down further and I read again. The Minister of Public Works recently stated in the House of Commons:
The underlying principle is that the cost to the Canadian taxpayers for the construction and operation of a bridge should not exceed the operating and capital costs of the Borden and Cape Tormentine ferry service over the next 35 years. The subsidy would be approximately $42 million annually based on 1992 constant dollars.
The minister continues to insist that the bridge will not entail additional cost to the Canadian taxpayer. Here is where the big question comes in. Marine Atlantic which actually operates the service has claimed that it could operate the ferry service over the next 35 years for much less than the $42 million annual subsidy being offered to the bridge builder.
In its brief to the environmental panel, Marine Atlantic stated:
Our plans and projections show quite clearly that government subsidies will be in the range of $25.2 million to $28.1 million per year maximum over the next 35-year period depending on whether new vessels are built in Canada or offshore. Those figures include
not only the operating subsidy but also the level of support Ottawa would give us for capital projects such as new ships.
That sort of trashes the arguments that we have heard from the minister, from his parliamentary secretary and from the Liberals that this is some kind of a cost saving device. As I said, this is a gigantic giveaway to a foreign owned private corporation. It gets $1.47 billion in fixed 1992 dollars. It could in fact be far higher if there is any inflation between now and 35 years from now. It gets all the tolls plus 75 per cent if the Consumer Price Index rises in each given year. That is just another little add-on profit.
The Gordon Capital financial analysis, which no one on the government side and none of the Liberals has gone after as being false in any way, has pointed out that the reason the $42 million was chosen was to give more cash up front to its friends who live in Houston and London. That is what the government is doing.
Let us take a look at what kind of an analysis one of the other corporations which analysed the ice question had to say. Should this pass, should this carry on in contempt of Parliament without a constitutional amendment, carry on in contempt of court without an environmental assessment having been properly carried through, here is what we should be concerned about. Let me just close with a very brief quote from Bechtel Canada Incorporated with regard to the Northumberland Strait crossing project. It says:
Our data described in the attached brief which we incorporated in our bridge design is at considerable variance with that of Public Works Canada.
The last sentence is worthy of being on the record:
The results of the studies were also at variance with other design parameters set by Public Works Canada relating to service, reliability and life of the structure. However the question of ice loading is fundamental to the integrity of the project and failure to adequately recognize this parameter could be catastrophic.
The people of Canada are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. That ferry service would maintain more jobs over the long term, vessel construction in Canada creating jobs, a more permanent protection for the environment in the Northumberland Strait for lobster, scallop, groundfish and the marine environment. It would allow us to put to sleep all the problems I have addressed here on other occasions.
June 15, 1993

I, unlike the government and the Liberals, welcome questions on this matter and my knowledge of it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to straighten out a couple of bits of misinformation in a good natured way.
The ice experts reports that my friend in his very bombastic way referred to as not being published were published. The initial one was published and the final one was published. These ice experts, world famous people, attended all the public meetings so that was not correct.
It is also worth noting that Madame Justice Reed in her decision said: "The constitutional amendment is not required until a ferry service is replaced which is several years".
To paraphrase Ogden Nash he once said that maybe the one thing for which Canadian politics would be very much the better would be a more restricted use of simile and metaphor. Let us keep this thing factual if nothing else.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, let me deal first with what the minister had to say about the ice experts and that their reports were published.
The minister may be trying to indicate it was typed out on paper and was made available to the public. This finding that they made to my knowledge-I stand to be corrected by the minister-was never published in a scientific journal for peer review. If it was I think the minister should rise and give us the date and the name of the publication in which that occurred.
On the second matter the minister suggests in terms of what Madam Justice Barbara Reed said: "A discontinuance of the ferry service which presently operates between Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick, and Borden, RE.I., without being sanctioned by amendment pursuant to section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, would be unconstitutional". I think that speaks for itself.
What the minister then fails to pay direct attention to is what the court then ordered. The court ordered that the Government of Canada "shall not make any irrevocable decision relating to the specific SCI proposal". The minister suggests that there has not been an irrevocable decision made.
Government Orders
It seems to me that one of the things the courts has to take into account is that at some point an irrevocable decision has been made. Completing the passage of a bill that provides for the withdrawal of $1.47 billion from Canada's Treasury is surely an irrevocable decision.
If the government really wanted to play on a level playing-field on this, on a whole variety of levels, environmental, legal, constitutional and public concern, surely at the front of the train would be a public environmental assessment and review of the specific bridge proposal.
I would be the first to congratulate the minister for saying finally we are starting to get the engine on the front of the train instead of at the back of the train. Let us review the specific proposal and then let us deal with the constitutional amendment. Until Canadians are assured of what are the impacts of the bridge, if those impacts can be mitigated and if they can be mitigated what the costs are, we cannot start seriously and intelligently addressing it. Instead what we are seeing is the government shoving it through this House, the P.E.I. legislature trying to squeeze a constitutional amendment through and SCI out there with its hand out asking for the $1.47 billion cheque.
What are the courts to do in this case? The Friends of Prince Edward Island have applied for injunction. At what point are the courts to say an irrevocable decision has been made? Once the bridge has been completed? No. Once the bridge begins? No. Once the decision is finally completed by Parliament? Somewhere in this very part of the debate we are talking about an irrevocable decision is about to be made in contempt of what the Federal Court has already found.


Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment and perhaps ask a question.
Hon. members may not be aware but this may be the last major speech the hon. member for Skeena is making in the House, if we do not do too much work between now and the next election.
I did not want the opportunity to go by without making a comment about a young man I knew 22 years ago who worked for me on a project in Yukon at Yukon Revenue. He showed at that time the same type of energy, enthusiasm and I might say wild disregard for the

Government Orders
environment the hon. member now shows for truth and be found in terms of particularly the movement of ice accuracy when he speaks to us in such a bombastic way. and the impact on the marine environment.
I wonder if the member would mind relating to us how that young man traversed the course I believe he has from one who had I thought a total disregard for the environment to one who now is respected quite widely regarding the concern he has for the environment, despite perhaps the exaggeration which he brings to the role as critic.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the difference between me and some members of the House is that I have the capacity to learn. Back in the days when I worked with my pal from Alberta outside Carmacks on a large gold property-I hope we do not affect the shares by talking about it in here today-one of the things he did as the boss, if we can believe it, was to get me to follow along behind a D-8 Cat. The Cat would drop its blade and a take a great gouge out of the environment. I would have a little teaspoon and I would take a scoop of dirt to put in a little paper envelope that I would give to him. Then he would sit in his trailer. Of course we were living in tents and he had a trailer. He would sit in there with his little spy glasses and other glasses that we could hear tinkling as he was working away and he would analyse it to determine whether that was a good location for us to drill.
I also worked on the drill platform at that time. We were doing percussion drilling on an old glacial alluvial plain as he is wont to say, great gold-bearing property that one day will come into fruition when we have a giant mole machine that can get the gold from underground without having to remove 300 or 400 feet of overburden. I suppose he is referring to those kinds of jobs he used to send me out on that were environmentally unfriendly.
In the good spirit of this place I must say over all he was actually a very charming and likeable fellow to work with. I wish him well in his career in this place.
In ending my speech I must say in the face of the overwhelming tidal wave of whitewash from the government side and from the Liberals on this project that I think the future will prove me right. This project should be subjected to a full environmental assessment and review. If it is I predict that major faults in the design will
As to the issues of concern of those who live in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick about the effect on their way of life, regrettably they have had no one from that area who has risen to extol the concerns they have, whether about increased tourism or reduced jobs in terms of the ferries or all the other myriad kinds of impacts there would be, not the least of which was presented by one of the witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee, and I quote:
There will be people here representing the ferry workers, but I think it is significant to recognize that the loss of approximately 600 jobs on Prince Edward Island in one fell swoop represents a loss the equivalent of which would be the loss of 60,000 to 70,000 jobs in one fell swoop in the province of Ontario. That is the kind of initial cost that we will be paying for building this fixed link.
I end this speech-it may be my last; it may not-with good wishes to you, Mr. Speaker, a great Albertan, a great Speaker; to our missing Speaker from Vancouver South; to all those on the government benches; to all the Liberals; to all my colleagues in the New Democratic Party; and to my colleague from Annapolis Valley- Hants. I have enjoyed working here the last 14 or so years. I wish you all well and I wish this institution good luck in the future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know the House will wish you well also.


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Mada-waska-Victoria in the province of New Brunswick, I welcome this opportunity to support the bill before us today which sets out to accomplish a number of things in the maritimes, and especially in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
Mr. Speaker, as we listen to the speeches in this House, and especially in this debate on a bill that concerns the region where I come from, it is somewhat disappointing when we hear some of the arguments being advanced to try and persuade members to vote against a bill that will give the Minister of Public Works, my colleague and good friend, the hon. member for Central Nova in Nova Scotia, the authority to proceed with this project for the benefit of the country.
June 15, 1993

I find this odd, as we come out of a recession, at a time when many Canadians across this country have been severely affected, not just by the recession but by the winds of change sweeping across our economy, and not only our economy but the global economy. Since 1984, during its past two terms, this government has tried to fully restructure certain aspects of our economy. In fact, we have come out of this last recession in far better shape than we were in 1982.
As we come out of this recession, with a slow but steady recovery in the manufacturing sector, it is often said that the fundamentals of our economy must be in place, and they are. Interest rates are low, inflation has been brought down to minimal levels and, as a result, we have an economic climate that is conducive to investment.
Nevertheless, every single day in this House, I see members of the New Democratic Party rise and ask the government what it intends to do. At least the Liberals are consistent, because for years they have argued in favour of major investments in infrastructure projects, to create jobs and also to create new wealth. At a time when Atlantic Canada is about to obtain the tools to improve its position as a producer and as a participant in Canada's economy, there are people who object to this, for their own particular reasons. Whether they are talking about the environment or the number of jobs provided on the ferries, the implication is that the government should look only to the past and reject proposals that would help our country and our provinces and regions improve the economic circumstances of all Canadians.
There is no one on the Liberal or the government side who would argue that this project is being supported for the purpose of destroying the environment or the way of life of our fishermen.
I was once Minister of Fisheries and Oceans myself, and I know the fishermen in this particular part of the maritimes. Far be it from us to try to impose anything or do anything that might destroy that environment.
Members opposite who object to this bill are always eager to get up there and shout that they are in favour of sustainable development. However, sustainable develop-
Govemment Orders
ment does not mean stopping investment and infrastructure development that might have an impact on the environment. The important thing is to control this impact in order to protect the quality of life of our fellow citizens and to encourage economic development as well. In this particular case, it is predicted that building a bridge between Prince Edward Island and the rest of the country will definitely stimulate the economy, not only in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and the maritimes in general but in the whole Atlantic region, and this was in fact confirmed by witnesses appearing before the legislative committee.
Of course, there are people who prefer to remember what was said by those who were against the project, but someone as distinguished as Vice-President Colin Dodds of St. Mary's University said in his testimony before the committee, confirming what many economists had concluded: "There can be a cascade of benefits-this fixed link could result in a significant restructuring of the economy and a significant restructuring of investment. So not only do we get this primary investment, we get a series of induced investments."
This project is the ideal solution and would act as a catalyst for economic renewal in the Atlantic provinces. We all say people must regain confidence in the economy. All the fundamentals are in place.
They tell me the economy must recover. What else would motivate the private sector to enter into a partnership with both levels of government to carry out this project, if not the prevailing economic climate? Investors who support the private sector project will be able to do so because of affordable interest rates and reasonable levels of inflation. People should realize that investments are being made that will create jobs.
We all know, as I said earlier, that this project is the ideal solution and will act as a catalyst for economic renewal in the Atlantic provinces.
Several witnesses appeared before the committee. According to our NDP friends, Joe Ghiz, Ms. Callbeck, the new premier of Prince Edward Island, Frank McKenna and all the other people who support this project are wrong. According to our socialist friends, all these people are working against the interests of Canada, Prince Edward Island and the maritimes.

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
I do not think Canadians would agree with this assumption, because this country and what it produces is far greater that the sum of its parts. Canada's synergy is created by its regions, which together try to give Canadians a decent standard of living and, above all, opportunity. When I say opportunity, as someone from New Brunswick, I see benefits, and not only economic ones, to the quality of life of our business community. The economy as such is not the objective. The objective is to give our people a decent standard of living, to give them jobs so they can-


An hon. member:: So they can live at home with their families.


Bernard Valcourt: Yes, so they can live with their families and watch their children grow up with dignity.
That is exactly what this will help do for the economic problems we have in the Atlantic region. The other day, they were the first to be offended and make a big scene when a government member said that there was terrible poverty in the Atlantic region. I think that poverty is no worse there than in many other regions of the country, although we do have problems.
When we want to stimulate economic growth for the social benefits it provides, those people are opposed for what I would call partisan motives. We must not hide it, everyone knows that that party sees what is going on in Queen's Park with their provincial cousins in Ontario and that bothers them quite a bit. It is better, in their view, to object to a major investment project that will create thousands of jobs, directly and indirectly, in the maritimes and seem to be defending the ferry workers. We are not doing this because we want to make trouble for workers who earn their living on the ferries. That is not the purpose. Those people will be helped and assisted.
We must look at the whole picture and all the maritime provinces will benefit from this. Every day throughout the country, speeches are made on the importance of the free movement of goods, capital and people. Here we want to encourage the free movement of goods and people with a fixed link between Prince Edward Island and the rest of Canada, but some people oppose it.
Fortunately, there are economic, social and even cultural arguments, and I think that the fixed link in itself will enable many Canadians and foreigners who come to visit us to discover much more easily this gem, Prince Edward Island. Not only Islanders will benefit from this fixed link but many mainlanders will now be able to discover our relatives on the island and see for themselves what makes the Islanders a special people.
Mr. Ghiz, the former premier of Prince Edward Island who is now retired, nevertheless attended the committee meetings to reiterate the importance of this project for the island's economy. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Ghiz; I believe that during his term on Prince Edward Island, he did a lot for his people. He said: "It is for the good of Prince Edward Island, for the good of the region and for the good of Canada". Despite what some would have us believe or what we would tend to think from what they say, the people of Prince Edward Island are Canadians first; they are people from the Atlantic region who want to be proud participants in our country's success.

With reference to the issue of cost, just the cost of doing business will be lower. The P.E.I. trucking industry alone will have annual savings of about $10 million once the bridge opens. There will be no more hours wasted in a line-up waiting for the ferry. The truckers will simply take a 15-minute drive across the bridge.
I am sure the long wait for the ferry has discouraged many tourists from even visiting P.E.I. With the bridge, tourism on the island will surely increase. Even the bridge itself, which will be one of the longest in the world, will be a tourist attraction.
Clearly the economic arguments in favour of this project are convincing. This project will bring direct and indirect, long and short-term benefits to a region of our country that is reaching out for opportunities to revive its economy. Future generations of Atlantic Canadians will be thankful to those who had the foresight to pave the way for such a great undertaking.
I am glad to see our colleagues on the other side of the House in the Liberal Party are supporting this initiative. Notwithstanding their commitment to sustainable development they know we can have economic development
June 15, 1993

in a sustainable way. I think this bridge will be proof it is possible.
For all of these reasons I will be pleased later today to stand up proudly as an Atlantic Canadian, as a New Brunswicker, as the member of Parliament for Madawas-ka-Victoria, to vote in favour of the bill.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to rise today to debate this particular issue at third reading. I would like to do something very unusual and commend my colleague opposite, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who just spoke in support of the legislation. As a fellow Atlantic Canadian he certainly understands the importance of transportation infrastructure for our economic development.
I also want to give some praise to the Minister of Public Works from Central Nova. He and I have crossed swords many times in the House and in the riding. I cannot in all honesty at the end of this particular session indicate that at least on this occasion he has not had the best interest of Atlantic Canada at heart. He has pursued this project vigorously. He has worked against a lot of odds, I am sure both in his caucus and within the region, to allow this project to go through and have assessments done. It is indeed one of the few projects that may lead to real economic advancement and opportunity in the long term in Atlantic Canada.
I also want to give some credit to a former colleague of ours in this place, the now premier of Prince Edward Island. I remember when the debate first started about a fixed link to Prince Edward Island. Coming from Cape Breton Island I certainly had a lot of interest in the debate that was raging because this project would certainly lead to a significant amount of economic development and infusion of revenue into Atlantic Canada, most particularly Prince Edward Island and I guess New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, as well as many jobs.
I thought Ms. Callbeck, the premier of Prince Edward Island and then member for Malpeque, would have been on her feet quickly to support this proposal but she was not. The minister opposite knows that. Indeed the members from Prince Edward Island decided that before they voiced their opinions there were certain things they wanted to see done, as did the government. Those things by and large have been looked at.
Government Orders
The member from British Columbia would have the Canadian public believe that everybody in Atlantic Canada has been co-opted by the project because it is going to provide a substantial number of jobs during the construction period. It is quite the contrary. With this proposal there was an absolute requirement put forward by both governments, federally and provincially, members of the P.E.I. legislature and members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island, that a number of factors be examined vigorously before they would give their stamp of approval. Early on there was even a plebiscite put forward in Prince Edward Island by then Premier Ghiz to ensure this project would take the province in the direction the people wanted.
I commend all four of my colleagues from Prince Edward Island, one of whom is now premier, for doing the right thing and not doing the expedient thing which was to jump on the band wagon early and try to pass this right away. They understood this proposal would fundamentally change the economy of their part of Atlantic Canada and that the citizens of Prince Edward Island who would be affected the most had to have a say. A lot of process had to be gone through before they would finally put their stamp of approval on this particular project.
We have heard a lot from other people about the processes going back to the time of Confederation. The Charlottetown Conference in 1864 was about maritime union. It evolved into Canadian Confederation. One of the items on the agenda for discussion at that point was transportation and communication: a link from that island, the garden province, to the mainland. They understood there was more to be gained than lost by ending transportation isolation and improving links to the mainland.
In 1864 the leaders and people of Prince Edward Island understood that it was a delicate balance but they had to have modem, convenient and efficient transportation links. When they entered into Confederation in 1873 that was the condition of their joining the union.
We have heard through the debates that it was pretty tough at least in the early days. They had to use ice boats to go across. They would ferry goods, mail and individuals. It was a dangerous crossing even at the best of times

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
during the winter months. I am sure in the fall gales it must have been pretty precarious as well.
There was talk of a fixed link to Prince Edward Island as early as the 1880s. There was considerable study and a lot of talk done on it. They knew, even over 100 years ago, that the economic well-being of the island would depend on its transportation links to the markets off-island. With the advent of modem hulled ice-breakers it became less of a problem to cross in the winter months and so the idea died for a long period of time.
In the 1960s the Government of Prince Edward Island recognized that if the island's economy was to develop in a planned fashion it had to have better transportation links to the mainland. About 1966 the Government of Prince Edward Island started to develop some approach roads and things like that. They were subsequently stopped after there was a comprehensive development agreement between the Government of Canada and the province of Prince Edward Island.
The idea of a fixed link has gained new currency for a variety of reasons. One reason is that with increasing trade and more people wanting to go to P.E.I. the ferry service has become an impediment to planned growth in Prince Edward Island.
The member for Skeena spoke before and carried on like a raging bull about this project. Somehow he knows better and more than everybody else about the project: those poor illiterates down in P.E.I. do not know what is good for them so the New Democratic Party is going to have to go down there and tell them.
The reason this type of proposal gained currency and had to be examined along with all options around the table was that people like my family and I who now live in Dartmouth would love to be able to go to P.E.I. more often. However, Mr. Speaker, if you have not done it, sometimes in the summertime with all of us off-Islanders trying to get on that beautiful island you can wait in line for hours and hours.
The member for Skeena was playing with words and statistics. He said the members from the Atlantic coast were trying to say the ferry service was unreliable while it has only been late four times in the last x number of crossings. We never said the ferry was late. We just said it was hellish hard to get on the ferry. I had to wait for
three ferries the last time I went down there. Yes, I would wait again because it is a beautiful island and the people are wonderful. It is a great place to go for a holiday to relax and enjoy the beauty of the island.
The people of Prince Edward Island had a plebiscite and 60 per cent of them said yes to a fixed link. My colleague from Hillsborough indicated in his speech- and I do not know if a poll was done-that closer to 70 per cent of all individuals on Prince Edward Island support a fixed link. That is a lot.
I am pretty offended at the approach the New Democratic Party has taken on this project, particularly the member for Skeena. He sounds more like the member for Jurassic Park. He is a dinosaur when it comes to economic development and the type of debate he has engaged in with the slurs he has thrown at members, particularly Atlantic Canadian members, about why we are going forward with this project. It may be his last speech. Perhaps he was prone to an excessive amount of hyperbole but the facts are the facts.
This is not a proposal where we have jumped all over ourselves blindly and said that we should run for it because it is going to give us some badly needed jobs in Atlantic Canada. We did not say that. I do not need somebody from his coast telling somebody from my coast anything about the environment. I do not need anybody from anywhere in Canada telling a member of Parliament, particularly from Prince Edward Island, about the importance of the fishery. I found his comments to be condescending and I found them to be a bit infuriating. Perhaps it was because it may be his last chance to speak in this place.
Let us put it on record. The member for Skeena clearly said that it should never go ahead because there are going to be many problems. There have been more then 90 studies done on the link. There have been 24 studies on the marine aspect of the fisheries impact. There have been 17 studies with regard to the ice problem that might be created. The NDP wants to dismiss every one of the studies that comes forward to debunk what the New Democratic Party says; somehow everybody in the world has been co-opted to get this link
June 15, 1993

to Prince Edward Island. I did not know the members from P.E.I. were that powerful but surely they are.
There have been nine socio-economic studies. There were four studies with regard to wind. We might want to have another study with regard to wind for the member for Skeena. There have been 10 terrestrial studies and 23 miscellaneous studies by no less than the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, the Atlantic Geoscience Centre, Coles Associates Ltd., Environment Canada, Geo Consulting Engineers and on and on.
The former premier of Prince Edward Island is no fool. He is no slouch. The former premier understood that his first and foremost responsibility was as a caretaker of the people's interest in Prince Edward Island when he served as its premier. He clearly set out what he called the 10 commandments, which were the 10 concerns he had even after the plebiscite and before he would go forward with the fixed link.
Premier McKenna of New Brunswick certainly has an interest. Northumberland Strait washes on his shores as well. All these studies have been done. The former premier of Prince Edward Island, the current premier of Prince Edward Island, the premier of New Brunswick, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the government opposite, everybody has agreed at this time they should proceed with the proposal for a fixed link or bridge from the mainland to Prince Edward Island.
The New Democratic Party keeps telling us that study is not good study. They just want to study it, study it and study it. They sound like the Friends of the Island. The Friends of the Island have come forward on many occasions. They have bellyached, griped and said that the project was going to destroy the fisheries. They said it was going to be an ecological disaster and that we needed studies.
The study was done and it showed they were wrong. They jump on to another one and say the ice is going to be the big problem. Ice studies have been done which indicate that it is not a problem. They jump on to another one and say they had better go to the Federal Court to stop the project. If they were opposing the project based on a solid environmental set of principles I would have more respect for them. I respect their right to disagree.
Government Orders
I will quote from a speech one of my colleagues gave. The Friends of the Island jumped over to the ice issue after finding out about the 10 conditions, the so-called 10 commandments put forward by the premier of P.E.I. before he would put his stamp of approval on the project. The ice report came in and indicated that ice was not a problem. Somebody asked about a panel of internationally acclaimed ice experts debunking the theory that ice was going to be a problem because of the bridge structures. That particular objection by the Friends of the Island was dropped and a new argument took its place.
The Friends of the Island were asked if they would cease to oppose it if a second plebiscite was held and the result supported the bridge. If the people of P.E.I. had to go through the unusual expense of another plebiscite on whether or not they wanted a fixed link and came out again saying that they wanted the fixed link and to get on with business, the spokesperson for Friends of the Island, Cathy Edwards, said they would never go away.
Perhaps the New Democratic Party is in the same boat. It does not want to hear the facts. It does not want to have any fundamental understanding of equalization in the country. Let us get down to the crux of the matter. The New Democratic Party has no federal members in Atlantic Canada and for good reason. The New Democratic Party by the type of activity it has undertaken in opposition to the bill has probably alienated more of its potential supporters than anything we on this side of the House could have done to facilitate that conclusion.
It dismisses the fact that transportation infrastructure is an absolute requirement. It is a prerequisite for economic development. Why should we in Atlantic Canada and in particular the people of Prince Edward Island be denied modem, efficient and environmentally safe transportation links to that island? Why should we? We have gone far too long without the things we need for economic development. We are tired of being on our knees kissing up to a federal government to get welfare payments. We want to become taxpayers, not tax takers. In order to do so projects like the fixed link must go forward. They must go forward after the proper studies have been done. With 90 studies done, what in the name of God do the New Democrats want?

Government Orders
I understand the NDP knows a bit about unemployment. The leader of the New Democratic Party in Prince Edward Island is now on the public payroll, I guess through the unemployment insurance system. He is unemployed. He draws pogey for a living. I would have thought maybe members opposite would have contacted him for one of those thousands of jobs that will be created. Maybe he could shovel some dirt or something and get off pogey. There will be a bit of economic development even for New Democrats on the island and maybe even their leader.
We have engaged in opposition to the bill. Some of the nonsense put forward by the New Democratic Party has to be debunked. In Atlantic Canada we need transportation infrastructure. In Atlantic Canada we have seen our rail lines abandoned. We have an application now to the Minister of Public Works concerning the rail line that goes through his important part of Nova Scotia down to Sydney. There is an application to sell that line to a private short line operator. We are worried about that. It is not because we do not think the short line operator might be able to operate it. We are worried about what will happen if the operator decides not to operate it.
Without modern, efficient, multi-modal transportation we have no economic development in Atlantic Canada. Without a highway system that is efficient and safe we have no economic development. Without an airport system that operates on the basis of equalization of opportunity instead of cost recovery we have no economic development in Atlantic Canada.
We all know that. The Minister of Public Works who is a former economic development minister would know more than most people in the House how important transportation links are to economic growth and development in our part of the country.
This is not a giveaway. The member for Skeena says it is a billion dollar boondoggle. Will he come down and tell that to the people of Prince Edward Island who are suffering from 17 per cent or 18 per cent unemployment, the people in northeastern Nova Scotia where it is 22 per cent or those in southern New Brunswick where it is probably in between those two percentages? Let him tell it to the truckers who have to sit for hours and hours to get a ferry to move their goods to the island. Let him tell it to tourist operators who say that if there were a better
way for people to get on the island they could employ five, six, seven or fifteen more people during the summer season.
All those things lead to economic development and wealth and make taxpayers from tax takers. The NDP would have us abandon that. It would have us drop it like a stone. I do not question for an instant that before any project like this one goes ahead there has to be a vigorous and thorough examination of its environmental impact, but that has been done. The NDP is used to being negative and against everything unless it is in its own backyard and in its own electoral interest. It cannot see this is not just another project. This is finally the fulfilment of the requirement and the deal that Prince Edward Island sought when it joined Confederation in 1873.
In 1873 P.E.I. said it would join. Canada gave it a guarantee of efficient transportation and communication links to the mainland. For over a century islanders have suffered from what I think is an inadequate link to the mainland. Some 70 per cent of people on Prince Edward Island who looked at this project said yes to a fixed link after all the environmental assessments were done and after the fishery was looked after. On all those things they have said yes. They said to proceed cautiously but to please proceed.
We are concerned about the fishery. Do not let the New Democratic Party say that the Liberals in Atlantic Canada are not concerned. We have forgotten more about fish than they will ever know in that comer of the House. We are damned concerned about the fishery. That is why the former premier of Prince Edward Island and the new premier of Prince Edward Island demanded those types of studies take place before even one centime of approval was given.
I would ask the New Democrats for once to look after the interests of Canadians and not the narrow, partisan interest of their own party. This is probably the last or the second to last bill that will go through this Parliament before an election is called. This is a bill that will give hope to the entrepreneurs in eastern Canada. This is a bill that will give hope to those who have lost hope because they do not have job creation opportunities. This is a bill that in the long term will allow places like Prince
June 15, 1993

Edward Island to have what everybody else has, and that is an efficient means of access to markets.
I would conclude by saying I commend members from Prince Edward Island and the minister opposite from Central Nova for their tenacity over the last number of years in moving this agenda item forward carefully, in ensuring all the studies that had to be done have been done and in ensuring all the people who had to be heard were heard. Most of all, in the dying days of this Parliament they ensured this much needed bill for Atlantic Canada was put through.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I noted the member indicated in his speech that he invited opposition and debate. Then he went into a 20-minute diatribe against those very things. It is sad that in the last few days of the House the Liberals feel so insecure on this project they cannot take the very valid criticisms put forward by the New Democratic Party.
I have a question for the member. The Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office put forward a recommendation not to proceed after the environmental assessment was done. It recommended not to proceed. The Department of Public Works rejected that recommendation. I would like his comments on that. I would also like his comments on the Federal Court's decision that this would be in contempt of the environmental assessment process.
These are valid concerns. It has nothing to do with electability. It is talking about an environmental assessment review, respect for that process and respect for the judicial process that has been assessed here. I ask him to tone down the rhetoric and get to the points we have been addressing in our comments before the House.
Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth) Mr. Speaker, it is a bit
much to have the member opposite talk about rhetoric after what we have had to listen to from her people on this bill. It is absolutely incredible.
She asked about the concerns of the court. I do not think that by the Parliament of Canada supporting the bill we are in contempt of anything other than the behaviour of the New Democratic Party in not participating in a positive way in its development. That is what I am in contempt of.
Government Orders
I will say that the concerns addressed by the Federal Court in its decision in my view have been adequately addressed both by the Department of Public Works and by the province of Prince Edward Island. We can have debate on this project until the cows come home whether or not the member who asked the question thinks it has been addressed.
I want to say something about the kind of comments that have been made. I do not say this with a great deal of hyperbole. I find the approach of the New Democratic Party on this issue to be condescending and insulting to the 70 per cent of people in Prince Edward Island who are in favour and the hundreds of individuals who have appeared at committees, participated in the studies that have been done, and have provided input over the years.
I find the attitude of the New Democratic Party highly insulting. It is basically saying that we, the poor bumpkins down east, just do not know what is good for us. What malarkey. What lies. If there is anybody who is going to be looking after the interests of Atlantic Canadians it is members of this place from Atlantic Canada.
I understand the New Democratic Party and the member opposite have a real interest in the environment, but they have a greater interest at this point in this Parliament in opposing anything that comes forward so they can get more free press. That is all they are interested in.
I am not interested in free press. I am interested in the bill proceeding at this point at the end of the session after a great deal of study through this place so that we in Atlantic Canada, particularly in Prince Edward Island and parts of northeastern Nova Scotia and southern New Brunswick, can finally be on an even playing-field, an even footing, with other regions of the country in terms of the ability to have modem transportation systems and connections between our producers and the Canadian and world marketplaces.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I have both a comment and a question. I compliment my colleague from Dartmouth for his impassioned plea to move ahead with Bill C-110 on the Northumberland Strait crossing. I would suppose most people in the House would wonder why I, an Ontario member, would want to bother speaking on the Northumberland Strait crossing.
When P.E.I. joined Confederation my forefathers had landed on P.E.I. in Charlottetown in 1789, long before Prince Edward Island was named Prince Edward Island. It was called the tie St-Jean. I have a long history in

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
P.E.I. and am well aware of the problems of growing up in that province. I grew up in a little country rural village called North Bedeque, P.E.I. In fact, the current premier of Prince Edward Island, Catherine Callbeck, and I grew up within four miles of each other. She grew up in Central Bedeque and I in North Bedeque.
I can remember the feeling of isolation on P.E.I. and those long winter months. I remember the great joy we felt when the first ice-breaker, the Abegweit, was built and ploughed through the ice floes of Northumberland Strait between Cape Tormentine and Borden, P.E.I.
I remember the importance of the railway on the island, and the railway is no longer there. I remember the importance of the rural postmen delivering the mail, and they have largely disappeared. It no longer has the same air links it had in previous years. There has been a tremendous transportation cutback on Prince Edward Island.
Prince Edward Island is the cradle of Confederation and its population is small. It will never be anything but small. With the link it will probably increase.
Something is being missed in the debate this morning, and this is leading up to my question. The studies have been done, as the hon. member for Dartmouth has stated, but if we stop to look at the transfer payments from the federal government to the province of Prince Edward Island we would see that out of every dollar it spends at least 65 cents is coming from the federal coffers.
If the bridge is put through there has to be a tremendous pay-back to the Islanders in terms of a booming economy. The economy will certainly pick up. I am wondering, and the member for Dartmouth might know, whether there have been any studies done to show what increased revenue would be realized for the economy of P.E.I. when the link is completed. We know this link is going to cost slightly under a billion dollars over many years. How much will P.E.I. revenue be increased? There should actually be a drop in the cost to the federal government because of the improved economy which will result in increased revenue. Have any studies been done in that regard?


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there has or has not been. However logic would tell me that when we take a subsidy which certainly will be in existence as long as the ferry service runs and give it to the developer of the fixed link over the period of 35 years then no more money, at least in subsidy, will have to be spent by the federal government than would have been required under the terms of Confederation.
One thing is very clear: Prince Edward Island has some natural advantages. Prince Edward Island produces some of the finest agricultural products, its potatoes, in the world. There is a problem with competitiveness in terms of getting that product to market because when a truck sits at a ferry dock for a number of hours there is a cost factor.
Conversely the other large industry in Prince Edward Island is tourism. In Japan, where I was just recently, everybody knows where Prince Edward Island is. They do not know where anything else is east of Niagara Falls but they do know where P.E.I. is. They know Anne of Green Gables.
In the long term this will lead to increased economic development opportunities which will lead to decreased transfer payments from the federal government. As I mentioned earlier it will allow more to become taxpayers instead of tax takers.
One thing I want to say and which I did not get to say is that I come from Cape Breton Island. Cape Breton Island has had a fixed link since about 1955 or 1953. Somebody will probably call me and say I missed it by a year or so. Cape Breton Island is a fiercely independent place, as are Islanders, and we have a culture and a heritage which we are proud of and which we export for the enjoyment of people all around Canada, perhaps around the world.
Some opponents of the fixed link say that P.E.I. will become less of an island, that it somehow will lose something culturally by the link. We were forcibly annexed to the province of Nova Scotia in 1844 and we were connected to the province of Nova Scotia in the mid-fifties. The spirit, culture and heritage of Cape Breton Island have never been stronger. I am sure that will be the case with Prince Edward Island as well.
June 15, 1993


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise once again to speak in support of the legislation which will allow the government to enter into an agreement to build a fixed link between Prince Edward Island and the rest of Canada.
As I said a few days ago the time for rhetoric is over. We have said it all and the studies have all been done. Some people think there have not been enough done. We have all heard the numbers. There are probably over a hundred of them. I believe, as do the people of my province, it is time to set this all aside and get on with the job.
I firmly believe that Canadians must always be prepared to move forward and be willing to face the necessary changes if we are going to secure our future. Hon. members will know that the poor economic performance evident across Canada at the present time has been a condition that we have known for many years in Atlantic Canada.
There was a time when Atlantic Canada was at the forefront of world trade and at the very centre of world transportation. Our sailing ships and the crews that manned them were among the greatest in the world. However their time passed. We were prosperous, innovative and at the forefront of the latest technology of the day. We must remember that the path to success in our region can only be reattained if we once again move to the forefront in transportation and technological development.
We are all nostalgic for the slower paced times of years gone by. Many of us continue to attempt to cling to the old ways and the old methods. However in terms of transportation there is no substitute for efficiency and speed. If we are to somehow return to our former prosperity we must have an efficient and reliable transportation system.
I believe that by passing this legislation we will be able to achieve that goal. We will be taking the first step on the road to the economic recovery of our province and our region.
There are tremendous implications to the project both in the short term and in the long term. In the short term thousands and thousands of construction jobs will be created along with the other economic spin-offs that will filter throughout the whole economy during the con-
Govemment Orders
struction period. There will be opportunities for training and for meaningful and rewarding employment.
When this project is completed it will be, to use a much overused word, world class. It will elicit interest and wonder from around the world. Being built in the particular region of the world that it is and under the conditions which exist, by the time it is completed it will be admired as the standard by which future projects of this nature will be judged.
The people who work on and assemble the bridge will be the ranking experts in their field. I am sure they will have many opportunities to use their expertise and their skills around the world. In the longer term, as I alluded to earlier, the feed link will remove a bottleneck of transportation to our province, which adds unnecessary expense to the cost of goods coming to P.E.I. and adds great cost to the products we ship to market.
We all realize that tolls will always be with us, but the time the tractor trailer is sitting idle on the wharf in Borden and Cape Tormentine waiting for the ferry will be eliminated. This will cut several hours in transportation time and allow our producers, especially those who are transporting perishable goods, to better schedule their transportation to the marketplace.
This will no doubt have a twofold effect. It will lower the cost of living in Prince Edward Island and will make our products more competitive in the marketplace.
Other factors I briefly mentioned earlier were the whole state of our economy and the feeling of despair which has come into being in much of Atlantic Canada, especially during the last number of years. Perhaps a project of this magnitude when completed will give our people not only an economic shot in the arm but also a shot of confidence which is needed much more. When we have completed this world class megaproject we will be able to face the world with confidence and say that we can create and build as well as anyone.
One of the examples, from a personal perspective, of the extra benefits which will flow from this project is in my own riding of Hillsborough. There will be the building of a bridge across the river in Charlottetown which will connect Charlottetown with the southeastern part of the province. It will go across to Southport,

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
Bunbury, Keppoch-Kinlock, and that immediate area across the river.
This second bridge has been needed for many years but has been beyond the financial capabilities of the province to build. The construction of the second bridge is part of the conditional agreement to build the link and can be done for about one-half of what it would normally cost because of the expertise and the facilities that will be available as a result of work on the fixed link.
The badly needed addition will be greatly appreciated by the people in my riding and also will be possible as Atlantic Canada and Prince Edward Island become the centre of bridge building technology. The second bridge I talk about is one in an area in which a lot of traffic comes through two or three times a day. It is the main route into the southeastern part of the province.
When special events have taken place in Charlottetown over the years getting traffic moving across this bridge has been people's biggest concern. Some repairs have been recently made to the approach roads and it has made it much easier. Now with the building of this second bridge it will certainly make the travel time much less and reduce the complications when the city of Charlottetown synchronizes its lighting system to make the traffic flow much more efficient.
We have talked about all the studies that were done and studies that needed to be done. I said before that if every project in the country was studied, talked about, looked at and had the public input this one has had over the last number of years, we would not have the many problems with projects in other parts of Canada which we hear about in this House every day. I sincerely believe this.
I have my own concerns about the environment and I have my own concerns about the ferry workers at Marine Atlantic.
These things were all taken into consideration. As I understand it, as far as the ferry workers are concerned negotiations are to take place with the union representing Marine Atlantic. An arrangement has to be reached within the period of time this construction is taking place.
I believe this will be done. I cannot understand why anyone would want to see this happen and not have these people looked after. It was certainly one of my main concerns because these are good and well paying jobs, as has been said here before. They are great employees. A lot of them are long-time employees. Young people growing up knew if they could get a job at the railway-it used to be part of CNR-they could spend the rest of their days there. This has to be done. I know the province is sincerely aware of it and is helping to ensure that arrangements are made with these people.
We talked about the environment. The fishery is probably the only fishery in Canada that is not in trouble in one way or another. No one from that part of the country or any other part of the country would want to go ahead with a project that was going to damage it. We have a great lobster and scallop fishery. All shellfish are taken out of that particular area. It is one of the great lobster fisheries in the province. No one would ever do anything to harm it.
The built-in protection is there. The fishermen and the people involved in the fishery are going to be part of a trust that administers this $10 million fund that has been set up. These things have been taken care of.
We have all had our concerns over the last number of years since this came on the scene and until the plebiscite was held. I remember concerns were voiced when I was going door to door in the last election campaign. We did not hear very many but there were some people who had concerns. There are people who are never going to change their minds about it for their own reasons, and that is fair.
I firmly believe we have to move ourselves down that road in the transportation area to have a more efficient mode to get our goods to market and bring products into Prince Edward Island. I believe this and I am firmly convinced.
Premier Callbeck has been around the country talking with companies in the hope that they are going to move their operations into Prince Edward Island. This link will help them make the decision whether or not to set up there. They have to have some assurance they can leave with their products 24 hours a day.
This is also needed at the present time to spur on the economy that has been in the doldrums for the last number of years. This will be a big project for Atlantic
June 15, 1993

Canada. It is a billion dollar project. It is going to create an awful lot of work for labourers and trades people.
We say it will change the way of life in Prince Edward Island. I assume our parents and grandparents in their own ways tried to make our province and our country a bit better for the generations that came behind them. I am convinced. I know there is the feeling now that it may take away our status as an island but I do not believe it. We will continue to be the independent people we have always been.
My colleague from Dartmouth spoke about connecting Cape Breton to mainland Nova Scotia by a causeway some years ago. It certainly has not changed the nature of the people in that province regarding whether or not they are Islanders. I do not have the fear some people seem to have that it is going to drastically change our way of life. If it changes our way of life I am convinced it is going to change it for the better.
My colleague from Nepean spoke about the small population. Yes, we have a small population. One of the efforts we have to put forward is to have more people maintain permanent residence on Prince Edward Island. We could easily maintain three times the population we have now. That is something this will also help to accomplish.
I know people from the other maritime provinces say they would like to go over to Prince Edward Island on the weekends in the summertime but they are apprehensive about driving to Pictou or Cape Tormentine because of the line-ups.
I think we have done what is necessary. Quite likely there is always more that can be done. However I am sure as this project goes forward the monitoring systems will be in place to make sure all the environmental issues and the fishery problems are met and will be monitored daily.
The economic impact this is going to have in Prince Edward Island as well as in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia is going to be phenomenal. It is going to be one of the major items to take place since Prince Edward Island came into Confederation.
We have talked about this project and studied it. We have had committee meetings and public meetings in
Government Orders
Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. If there is anything that has not been done I do not know what it is. There will be those who will argue that the court's demands have not been totally met, but according to the decisions we have seen and the information we have been given these demands have been met.
The next logical step is to pass this bill. Then Public Works Canada can get everything rolling and SCI can begin building its marshalling yard. This in itself is a $65 million project which is certainly going to spur things on for the short term.
We have come to the end of the day on this matter. Let us vote on it and move it further down the road.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Hillsborough for his very good speech and his excellent comments.
I would like to ask him, as a past minister of labour in the province of Prince Edward Island, about his views on the support in Prince Edward Island from the labour sector. Some comments have been made in the House that labour really does not support the project. As he has indicated, there are going to be some job losses in the ferry system.
My colleague and I have been quite active with various groups in Prince Edward Island over the past number of months and years. I would like the member to give us his comments on how labour views this project.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Egmont for his questions. Labour in Prince Edward Island is a divided house. There are those on the side of the Ferry Workers Union who are opposed to this going ahead, but not all of the Federation of Labour is divided in its support.
I believe, as I said a few moments ago, that no stone can be left unturned in the negotiations with these people to have a package, whether they will go to new jobs, are retrained for other jobs, are transferred or go to early retirement. That has to take place.
The other part of the trade union movement, the trades people, the crafts people, the Canadian Federation of Labour group, is fully in support of this project because it knows it is the key that will spur on the economy in Atlantic Canada. It will make a lot of work for its employees because it represents all the trades.

June 15, 1993
There are also groups within the Federation of Labour that are in support of the project.
With all the things taken into consideration the labour movement will support this project because it is where the jobs are going to come from for the next number of years. As I understand it those in the Federation of Labour opposed to it are concerned it is going to take away these jobs from the marine Atlantic workers. That is a very legitimate fear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I guess the House is not ready for the question as yet.
It being one o'clock p.m. I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(2).


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, this is probably my last opportunity to address Parliament. I would like to express my gratitude for the great honour and blessing I have had to serve Canada and the constituency of Wetaskiwin. I wish to thank my wife Helen and my children, Teddi, Neil and Megan, who have supported my decision and have helped me throughout the past five years.
To all the constituents of Wetaskiwin, the Four Nations of Hobbema, who sent me here to represent them I can truly say that I did my best. I give thanks for the privilege of working with all members and staff of this Parliament. They are all winners. Whether it was here, in caucus or in committees I learned from all of them.
To Emily Lank, Doug McLeod, Michele Larose and all others who worked with me I give my sincere thanks. On behalf of all my people, I would like to thank the outgoing Prime Minister and all my Alberta and national caucus colleagues.
Last, I give my sincere congratulations to our new Prime Minister, Kim Campbell. May the great spirit bless and guide her.


GASOLINE REGULATIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, the Minister of the Environment must have been busy elsewhere when government regulations to ban leaded gasoline were reversed and leaded gasoline was allowed for racing cars in Canada.
The decision sets a dangerous precedent and is wrong. First of all, lead endangers human health. Second, the decision weakens the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Third, it deals a serious blow to the Canadian unleaded fuel industry, which creates environmentally friendly jobs in Canada.
This decision should be reversed because it is a step backwards. We urge the Minister of the Environment to reverse his decision and protect the health of Canadians.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I am greatly disturbed by a couple of things going on at CN right now. As an MP from Winnipeg I have raised the issue of job losses at CN many times in the past, particularly with respect to the erosion of Winnipeg as a regional centre for CN.
This erosion unfortunately continues. CN now seems to be shutting down its medical and first aid departments in Winnipeg, moving files to Edmonton and contracting out what remains to be done in Winnipeg in these departments.
Long-term dedicated employees are being forced to take so-called voluntary retirement and also being forced to signed waivers releasing CN from any further obligations of any kind arising out of their employment with CN.
This is unfair to Winnipeg and unfair to the employees involved. I call on the Minister of Transport to look into the matter and do something about it.


POVERTY
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, I have some questions for the opposition. Liberals want to institutionalize and fund food banks,
June 15, 1993

national school lunch programs and other demeaning ways of helping the poor.
Do they think welfare mothers will not feed their children when they have an adequate income? Do they think Canadian mothers want the government to take over their role in nurturing their children? Are our children not to have the special treats we make them and our care and attention in ensuring they have food they like and that will help them to grow healthy and feel loved?
Why do they want a poverty line that does not count income people receive or deduct income people do not have? Why do they want to mislead the Canadian public?
Why does the member for York West want the same numbers for Toronto as Winnipeg? Does he not know that it costs more to live in Toronto?
Do they think Canadian taxpayers have money to give away to people whether they need it or not? Why do they want to help the greedy and let poor children suffer?


JUSTICE
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Madam Speaker, it is an unfortunate reality that Canadians no longer feel safe. They feel threatened at school, on the street and even in their homes.
Since 1984 Canada has seen a 40 per cent increase in violent crime, multiple murders in Montreal, gangs waging war in Toronto and knives and guns in schools across the nation. These are all symptoms of a society in decline. Canadians want to halt that decline and they want it halted now.
The Liberal Party has proposed a bold and comprehensive package of proposals for combating Canada's growing crime problem. The Liberal plan includes, among other measures, developing the category of dangerous young offender for some repeat youth offenders, which would involve stiffer sentencing in adult courts; the transfer of certain sex offenders to secure mental facilities after they have served their sentences and measures to facilitate the removal of a man from the home in cases of violence against women and children.
For the millions of Canadians who fear for their safety the Liberal crime and justice proposal-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but the member's time has expired.


CREDIT CARDS
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Madam Speaker, this week the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs released its latest quarterly report about credit card charges. In this report consumers are warned about the cost involved in using credit cards in order to help them select and use credit cards wisely.
As the summer season approaches, consumers should also remember to take additional precautions when using their credit cards and always make sure they are kept in a safe place. A person's holidays may be ruined if his or her cards are stolen, and in the end, all consumers pay for these thefts.
I would therefore urge all Canadian consumers to get a copy of this publication at their nearest Consumer and Corporate Affairs office. Don't leave home without it.


SHELLFISH INDUSTRY
Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Madam Speaker, once again the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is threatening the closure of the fishing station in Ellerslie, P.E.I. and jeopardizing the well-being of the shellfish industry in the area.
Given the over-all state of the fishery in Atlantic Canada I find it incredible that DFO would now start to play games in a sector that is not only reasonably healthy but also has potential for considerable growth.
An aquaculture development program, which is a co-operative effort by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the RE.I. Department of Fisheries and the P.E.I. Shellfish Association, is making great progress.
The program's main objective is to increase shellfish production in the public fishery using enhancement techniques in areas of high potential for increased

natural production. It would be tragic if this program were to die because of the short-sightedness of DFO.
The costs of operating the station are low and the returns to the local economy are high. In addition to its contribution to the shellfishery the research station also provides jobs for over 50 people in an area that already has high unemployment.
It is inconceivable that DFO would abandon a program which is making such a significant contribution to an industry which we do have the capability to influence for the greater good.
I ask the minister to scrap-


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


GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister designate intends to convene an immediate meeting of provincial premiers aimed at achieving a common national economic strategy. This is absolutely essential.
In February 1992 the federal government cut personal income taxes in order to increase consumer spending, stimulate the economy and create jobs. Two months later the Ontario NDP government raised personal income taxes, thus nullifying the federal job creation initiative.
This year the Ontario NDP increased taxes yet again by a further $2 billion. Every $40,000 tax increase wipes out one job. The 1993 Ontario NDP tax increases will wipe out 50,000 jobs. With 10.7 per cent unemployment in Ontario this is absolutely insane. The Ontario NDP must get its act together and realize that Canada desperately needs a common national economic strategy.
Audrey, for Heaven's sake, please reason with the Ontario New Democrats.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, when Bill C-113 was being discussed I offered to table a leaked document which provided guidelines on the application of just cause arguments for quitting a job.
Today I have the official document that will guide the decisions made by agents who will ultimately unfairly reject thousands of UI claimants' attempts to receive benefits. Again, as then, there are buts attached to every just cause in this latest version of the "but book".
The document lists what it calls reasonable alternatives, which are really the government's escape clauses to get out of paying benefits. The minister of unemployment has created a situation in which injustice will occur on a daily basis in Employment and Immigration centres across the country. The minister must reverse this legislation.


GREAT LAKES
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Madam Speaker, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River need careful planning. As finite resources these waterways must readily serve the generations to come.
Regretfully, the recent recommendations of the International Joint Commission's levels reference study failed to meet that need. The six-year old study ought to have produced regulatory plans to address the concerns of riparians and allow them to stay on the shore. However, all of these plans were rejected by the study board.
A constituent of mine, Mr. Duncan McCracken, chairman of the Great Lakes Coalition, submitted a three lakes plan, which was also rejected.
Shoreline property owners were not happy with the terms of reference of the IJC study or its recommendations. This study has only managed to "teach riparians not to park their homes on the lakes".
The IJC should not accept this study and it should be sent back to the committee with a new chairperson. A workable regulatory plan is needed and required.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Beryl Gaffney: Madam Speaker, the United Nations and the European Community have denounced human rights violations by a repressive government in Sudan dominated by fundamentalists who
June 15, 1993

seek to impose Islamic law on the Christians living in the southern part of the country.
For nearly ten years Sudan has been tom by war between its largely Arab and Muslim north and its African and Christian south. In the past decade a million people have died in the south.
Canada's position on enhancing the relations with other countries of the world must be influenced by the values Canadians believe in. Freedom of expression, socio-economic participation and personal dignity are inherent human rights and all individuals who are free to exercise these rights have a moral obligation to support those who do not.
Human rights have no borders and any relations the Canadian government has with Sudan, and indeed all countries, must be considered in this context.


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, Air Canada, headed by Hollis Harris, has done everything in its power to destroy Canadian competition in the airline industry.
Air Canada has applied to the cabinet to overturn the ruling of the National Transportation Agency, claiming that cabinet should not allow American Airlines to purchase a share of Canadian Airlines while at the same time Air Canada has bailed out the bankrupt Continental Airlines in the United States. Hollis Harris then calls for re-regulation of the airline industry in Canada. Is he also advocating re-regulation in the United States? Hollis Harris and Air Canada want a monopoly on air service to Canadians. Air Canada does not want competition.
I urge all members of Parliament in this House and the cabinet to give a resounding no to Hollis Harris and Air Canada and tell him to get on with the business of running an airline, negotiate Canadian out of Gemini and allow competition to flourish in Canada as it does in his home country, the United States.


PUBLIC WORKS
George Albert Proud: Madam Speaker, I rise today in the midst of perhaps the most important debate involving the province of Prince Edward Island since we joined Canada in 1873. The construction of a
fixed link between P.E.I. and New Brunswick will bring extra benefits to many Islanders.
Included in this is the construction of a new Hillsborough River bridge in my riding. The bottleneck between Charlottetown on the one side of the river and the communities of Bunbury, Southport and Keppoch-Kin-lock on the other is aggravating and unsafe, to say the least.
A second bridge has been needed for years but the province has been unable to meet the financial requirements for its construction. However one of the conditions for the construction of a fixed link is that a new bridge spanning the Hillsborough River will be built at about one-half of what it would normally cost, a result of the expertise and facilities made available to the province as a result of the work on the link.
The addition of a new Hillsborough River bridge will be a great asset to my riding and will be appreciated by not only those in my riding but the thousands of people who use that bridge on a daily basis, be it going to work, shopping or visiting friends.
A new Hillsborough River bridge is just one of the ways Islanders will benefit from the construction of a fixed link and I urge members in this House to unanimously support this bill.


CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Madam Speaker, I would like to say a couple of words about an incredible experience that I had last weekend. As we all know, the Progressive Conservative Party held its leadership convention and I was honoured and privileged to be one of five candidates at that convention.
I would like to thank my party for affording me the opportunity of doing that. I would like to thank the Prime Minister and my caucus colleagues for their support and their encouragement. I would even like to thank some members of the opposition who I went to for advice and who also encouraged me in this task.
I would like to pay tribute to the other candidates and those supporters who worked tirelessly for them. I would like to congratulate the new Prime Minister designate and tell her that she has my complete support as this government heads toward its third consecutive majority this fall. I would like to finally say that true victory for me has come in the knowledge that when we stand up and

June 15, 1993
Oral Questions
say what Canadians want to hear that they will actually respond in the incredible fashion they have for me.
I would like to say that I have more faith now in this party and this country than at any point before.


EDUCATION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, why does the Secretary of State have a national advisory group on student financial assistance? It is a committee that has been completely ignored by her. Alarmed by new financial arrangements with the banks, by lack of information on new needs assessment rules, by new minimum course loads, by effects on part-time students and by implications to accessibility and affordability of government plans, the group took the unprecedented step of calling its own meeting only to be told that the department's plan still cannot be revealed.
A year ago the Council of Ministers of Education also criticized the government's inaction and lack of consultation. The advisory group has demanded a meeting with the Secretary of State to end the impasse for the benefit of students.
She should get off of her duff and be there. Not to do so would be inexcusable.


THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, the Conservatives put on a terrific show last Friday to commemorate their great successes, and managed to delude themselves and raise false hopes among the Canadian public. In 1984, the Conservatives had three main goals: national reconciliation, which failed twice- Meech and Charlottetown; decentralization of powers- in Charlottetown, it was proposed that all powers be given to Ottawa, with some delegation to the provinces: another failure; the national debt was $180 billion, and today it is $565 billion: failure number three. This proves the system is not working and should be changed as soon as possible.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
During her campaign for the leadership of the Conservative Party, the outgoing minister of defence and the Prime Minister elect said she would call an election sooner rather than later.
The outgoing Prime Minister said just three weeks ago that a Prime Minister that has not been elected is, and I quote, "unacceptable". In 1984 he also said that a government in its fifth year has no mandate.
Last weekend 3,000 Conservatives unanimously endorsed the economic direction of the Michael WUson-Brian Mulroney years.
My question for the Prime Minister is: When are they going to give 27 million Canadians a chance to have their say about this government's devastating economic policies?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that an election will occur at an appropriate time.
What I have noticed again across the way are some nervous Nellies and some cry-babies and so we have to watch that for a while.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, the only nervous Nellies are the people on the opposite side of the House who do not have the guts to call an election.

Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister said it was unacceptable for a minister who had not been elected to fail to seek and obtain the confidence of Canadians. We know that last weekend the machine selected their candidate. When will the government gave Canadians a chance to do likewise?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I did not call the Liberal members nervous Nellies. It was her own leader
June 15, 1993

who called the members of the Liberal Party nervous Nellies. He called a few of them cry-babies as well.
As the hon. member knows there is a constitutional requirement to hold an election and an election will be held in 1993.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, my question is once again for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Three weeks ago his colleague the outgoing Prime Minister said, that it was unacceptable that a Prime Minister that has not obtained the confidence of the people would move on issues like appointments.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he still shares the view expressed by his own colleague three weeks ago that a Prime Minister who has not received a mandate from the people does not have the moral right to govern.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, at least the last vote that was taken in this House clearly demonstrates that the Prime Minister and this government have the confidence of this Chamber and that is reflective of the confidence that is held and transferred to the people who represent Canadians from coast to coast.
Very clearly the Prime Minister and this government continue to have the confidence of the House. He and this government have a responsibility to discharge and the new leader elect will have a responsibility to discharge including that of calling an election. I hope the hon. member will be ready.


GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the Deputy Prime Minister will be running.
My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Canadians all know the Prime Minister's profound indignation to patronage as witnessed in 1984 when he qualified political appointments as "a fraud, a deceit and a sham".
Now that the Prime Minister is no longer the leader of his party and given that this successor has no mandate
Oral Questions
from the people, will the government commit itself today to placing a freeze on all Order in Council appointments until after the next election? If not, why not?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, on November 21, 1988 this party, this Prime Minister and this government were given a mandate for five years. We have gone through a leadership change and when that transition takes places and at an appropriate time an election will be called. I just hope hon. members opposite are ready.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, with respect the minister has failed to answer the question.

I would like to put the following question to the Deputy Prime Minister and give him another chance to answer the specific question. Since Christmas the Prime Minister has made more than 600 Order in Council appointments to various positions, including Rinaldo, the hairdresser; the hairdresser's wife; the children's nanny; the speech writer; the barman at the Ritz, and now, the party's fundraiser. Canadians have had enough. They want to know whether the Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to tell us today they will put a freeze on all Order in Council appointments, effective immediately, until the next election. If not, why not?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I think what Canadians have had enough of is the hon. member slandering Canadians. He seems to feel, as he keeps repeating, that a successful small businessman is an unfit director of the Federal Business Development Bank and a person with a masters in public administration from Harvard is unfit to serve on the Standards Council.
I wonder how he explains as he rationalizes and apologizes for the fact that on March 26, 1979, the day the writ was issued, the Trudeau government made 91 appointments and continued to make appointments all throughout the election period. The hon. member should consider that before he gets indignant.

June 15, 1993
Oral Questions RAIL TRANSPORTATION


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last Monday the National Transportation Agency began hearings in Sydney into the sale of the Truro to Sydney line. Last Friday CN and CP started the legal process to consolidate the operations in the Ottawa valley including the abandonment of one of the two main lines. Yesterday in Saint John the NTA began the process of hearing CP's application to get out of Atlantic Canada entirely.
All of these are going forward in the absence of a national transportation policy and at the veiy least in the absence of a national rail network having been decided upon. Is the Minister of Transport now prepared to have a moratorium on the National Transportation Agency so that no further main line applications will be heard until such time as a national rail network has been established?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, both railway companies have been experiencing many losses over the last few years. I think we should commend both railway companies for having addressed the system to rationalize their operations in order to make sure that there will be rail transportation over the years.
They are utilizing the disposition of the legislation and addressing themselves to the NTA to have the right to abandonment. The NTA is hearing presentations like the member has made. I think it is a very democratic process. At the end of the day it will make the decision. Even when it makes the decision it is not abandonment immediately. It has to be reviewed by the Department of Transport, so I think the process is following its due course.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, a supplementary. When Parliament passed the National Transportation Act in 1987 Parliament did not consider that the act it was passing was dealing with the question of main line abandonments. In fact the government concurred because since then the government has not used its power in section 159(3) of the act to
prescribe regulations describing how main line abandonments should occur.
I want to again ask the minister: In the absence of a clear government policy and the fact that the railways are in financial trouble, although at the same time the reality is that they are rolling up the tracks faster than they can repair them, will the minister issue a moratorium not forever, but just until such time as a national rail network has been established? He knows his own committee has been working on it for 18 months now. Will he put in place a moratorium and set a deadline to get it done?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that in addition to the Standing Committee on Transport that is examining this situation we have had a report from the review commission of the NTA. We also have a report from the Royal Commission on Passenger Transportation. The Department of Transport with the Transport Association of Canada has been examining this. At the same time the NTA is reviewing the applications from both railways.
At the end of the day these will all come to a conclusion and we will address the question at that time. At the present time there is no fire in the house.


Iain Francis Angus: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary is for the same minister. The minister knows full well that CN and CP are currently examining the future of the rail industry east of Winnipeg. It is entirely likely that this summer they will announce their intention to abandon one of the main lines connecting Winnipeg through Thunder Bay, through northwestern Ontario to eastern Canada.
We are not just talking about the railways' bottom line. We are talking about hundreds, if not thousands of communities. We are talking about tens of thousands of workers. In fact we are talking about whether regions of this country will be connected to the rest of Canada.
Will the minister finally show some leadership and instruct the NTA not to accept any further applications until this mess can be sorted out by the national government, not by the railways?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I repeat again that there are a number of courses that are being followed at the present time. The process is going through properly and at the end of the
June 15, 1993

day when we have all these reports we will be able to determine what is in the best interest of the transportation industry in Canada.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Yesterday, the UN Secretary-General tabled a report requesting more troops and equipment for Bosnia. The Minister of National Defence said two weeks ago that Canada did not have enough soldiers. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister said exactly the opposite. Now that the minister has had a chance to examine all the options, I would like to ask whether she is going to send more forces to Bosnia. Are we going to change the mandate of the troops that are over there? What concrete steps have been taken to properly equip our soldiers to guarantee their safety under this new UN mandate?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: First of all, Madam Speaker, there is no difference between what was said by the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister or myself. We are examining our military and financial resources so that we can make our contribution in Yugoslavia as we have done since the beginning of the war.
Yesterday, the Secretary-General's report was put before the Security Council. I have not yet seen the report, but I will examine it as soon as I get it. Meanwhile we have made a decision concerning the feasibility of sending more soldiers or other Canadian military forces. I talked to my international colleagues last week in Luxembourg and we are still looking at the possibilities.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, a supplementary. For months now we have heard from the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of States for External Affairs that Canada does not have enough resources to provide more contributions than the peacekeeping.
Oral Questions
This morning the minister of defence authorized the expenditure of $60 million for anti-tank missiles, even though the United Nations Secretary-General in his list of equipment that was put forward as requested for Bosnia does not include any of that kind of equipment.
When are we going to stop making these ad hoc decisions in defence policy? When will we have a clear cut rationale on how our scarce resources will be used? Why is there not a clear definition of how Canada will undertake a new peacemaking role to meet the crisis the United Nations faces today around the world?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, reading from a press release: "The Minister of National Defence today announced the awarding of a $5.4 million contract to the French firm Aerospatiale in respect to the anti-armour missile system".
This is dated July 6, 1992. It is hardly today. It is a year ago. It is in the defence policy and if the hon. member thinks about it a little bit, anti-armour weapons are precisely the kind of things peacekeepers need to protect themselves.


FISHERIES
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
When the minister of fisheries announced a compensation program for those affected by the northern cod moratorium, the government moved quickly to put assistance into the hands of those who needed it. Yet a similar assistance program for fishermen and for fish plant workers along the Gulf of St. Lawrence appears to be stillborn. In the seven weeks since the minister announced the gulf program, not a single fish plant or a single fisherperson on the great northern peninsula has been designated for assistance.
Given there is little or no cod in many communities, given that lobster landings are down by 50 per cent, given that there is no capelin and, therefore, no income for thousands of fishermen and plant workers, what is this minister going to do to kick start this gulf compensation program and get assistance into the hands of those who desperately need it?

June 15, 1993
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the program that was announced for Atlantic fisheries assistance is well under way.
To date there have been 458 applications received from fisherpersons. There have been 1,199 applications received from plant workers. There are 397 applications approved for plant workers, 161 approved for fishermen throughout the area and more coming in every day. I think 43 plants have been designated.
The nature of this program is such that it can only commence when some plant worker who cannot get a job this year is no longer receiving UI and cannot get their job back or a fisherman or fisherwoman discovers that there are no fish for them to catch. They should then put in an application and if they are qualified, they go on a job creation project. Job creation projects have started.
Contrary to a report from the questioner's colleague, the application forms have not had to be changed. The application forms have been improved. There has been no gap in the availability of them.


Mr. Peterson:: Time.
Mr. Crosbie What is the hon. gentleman calling time for? Why do they ask these questions if they do not want to hear the answers?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Madam Speaker, the minister says the program is well under way, but not a single fish plant or a single fisherman on the great northern peninsula has been designated.
Members of the House should know that as of May 15 there has been absolutely no income by way of fishery, no income from UI, no income from welfare and no income from federal assistance available to any fish plant worker or fisherman on the great northern peninsula. The situation is becoming desperate for many families.
What will the minister do to kick start this program, to get people moving in the department of fisheries and the department of employment and to get assistance into the hands of those who are in desperate need of help right now.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, apparently the hon. gentleman is not listening.
On the great northern peninsula there are a number of people already found eligible to receive assistance under the northern cod program. They are receiving assistance.
A fisherman could not receive assistance until after May 15 because that is when the period for UI runs out. They can only be found eligible for assistance now if they cannot find any fish during this fishing season, at which time they will be found eligible for job projects.
The same is true of workers. We have 44 plants designated, a total of 3,840 workers eligible, including Eric King Fisheries Ltd., Compak Seafoods, Long Range Seafood, Burnt Islands, Rose Blanche and Isle aux Morts, all at the bottom part of the west coast of Newfoundland.
The great northern peninsula will be handled as the need arises. I can assure the hon. gentleman that as the need arises they will be served now that he has indicated his approval.


PUBLIC WORKS
Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. It is the issue of the Sault Ste. Marie canal and its lock. It was once an international navigational link but has not been operational for six years.
I appreciate the minister's involvement to this point in his ongoing discussions to rehabilitate the lock, including a visit to the site. But this Parliament's time is running out and the project remains in limbo.
Can the minister give any indication whether the project is any closer to completion?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. About six years ago Fenco Engineers Inc. indicated the serious nature of the repairs that were required to fix this historic part of Canada's infrastructure.
The member and I share a common interest in trying to do something to rehabilitate this historic canal. As he knows, public works is supportive and I am supportive but we require some assistance from other ministries. I
June 15, 1993

will give him my undertaking to continue to explore this. As he said, we do not have a lot of time left in this Parliament but perhaps we can accomplish something in the next little while. I will do my best.


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, it is a good answer.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Steve Butland: My supplemental is for the Minister of Public Works.
I have some indication from the office of the Minister of the Environment that he is in favour of the project. I have received a letter from the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) that he supports the project. The Ontario government has committed $5.9 million to a federal project. The city of Sault Ste. Marie will maintain the site after the repair of the lock.
Will the minister continue to work with the Minister of the Environment in order that a federal proposal for the repair of the lock can finally be brought forward before this government's mandate runs completely out?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I will give my colleague my undertaking that this multi-purpose, multi-faceted, multi-dimensional project will continue to the best of my ability, working with my colleagues. We will do the best we can.


PENSIONS
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and concerns the length of time it takes for appeals of disability pensions to be reviewed.
In the last two years that process has gone from a waiting period of about four months to somewhere close to one year. I think members on all sides of the House would agree with me that no one has shown more concern for disabled Canadians than our minister but this waiting period concerns all of us.
I was wondering if the process is being reviewed or something can be done to speed it up because these are
Oral Questions
the neediest of all Canadians. The anguish and frustration has to be dealt with.


Mr. Foster:: Maurice Chevalier.


An hon. member:: Sing the blues.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova):: Chantez.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure all hon. members, like myself, want to hear what the minister has to say. The hon. minister.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I know that my colleagues will be disappointed but I said my singing career was over immediately after Friday night. I will just answer one of the best questions that we have had in the House today about disability pension applications.
I share the frustration of my colleague because we have had an ever-increasing number of CPP disability applications. This year we are trying to train more people in a short time to deal with the problem.
I want to say to my colleague that the problem will be fixed and a long-term solution will be found within the review of the income security program in redesigned projects which will fundamentally change the way we do business with the Canada Pension Plan in the department.
If the member and those who refer matters to him want to express some patience, this will be fixed within the next year to the satisfaction of all Canadians.


SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of small business.
The government and banks have been in cahoots in a double-speak PR scheme. For small business, venture capital is next to impossible to come by and the Small Businesses Loans Act has little effect. The old way of doing banking is still the order of the day. Since 1989 loans to small business have decreased by 11 per cent and loans to big business have risen by 11 per cent.
When is the government going to forget the baloney and come up with the bucks?

Oral Questions


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend's question might have been appropriate 10 years ago, but if he had been with me last week when we went to see the bankers' association he would have been pleased with the increased performance under the SBLA program, a program in which we have limited the banks. They cannot take any more than a 25 per cent personal guarantee against an SBLA loan.
This has totally changed the climate. Small businesses now are applying for this in greater numbers and we expect two or three times more business under the new SBLA than under the old one.
The Minister of Finance in his last budget and also in the December statement brought forward all sorts of new possibilities for equity investment in small business, especially in allowing RRSPs to be used in new and creative ways for equity investment in small business. This government, both on the equity and debt side for small and medium enterprises, has been giving leadership across a whole range of areas and will continue with that in the next few months.


George Saunders Rideout: Madam Speaker, another load of baloney, but my question is for the same minister.
Small business owners are getting calls from their bankers telling them that their lines of credit have been cut in half. Women entrepreneurs looking to start businesses in the new knowledge based economy are being frozen out of loans. The government obviously does not understand the demands on small business.
When will the government stop winking and nodding at the banks and compel them to finance the backbone of this country: small business?


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to hear that the Liberal Party finally, on the second last day of the session, has discovered small business.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Marchi:: The next minister of big business.


Thomas Hockin: Almost every minister in this government is working on one program or another to help small business. We are very proud of what we have been able to accomplish.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Hockin: Does the hon. member want to listen to the answer?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Members are asking questions. I think courtesy should be given while the minister is answering. The hon. member from South West Nova may not get the answer she wants but an answer is given and should be listened to.


Thomas Hockin: Madam Speaker, I do not like to be provocative but you just heard Liberals being very childish. In fact they are childish in their whole approach to small business.
The only creative idea they have ever come up with is to criticize the banks. I criticize the banks on many accounts too, especially in their approach to small business. We have more to say than simply to criticize. We have taken positive action and the performance of the Small Businesses Loans Act is the best example of that.


PORT OF HALIFAX
Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
For five years the government through its fiscal and transportation policies has driven business away from the port of Halifax causing millions of dollars in traffic and hundreds of jobs to be lost.
Now that the new premier of Nova Scotia, John Savage, has made the competitiveness of the port of Halifax his top priority, will the Minister of Transport do the same and finally address the regressive taxation and transportation policies that have crippled Canada's east coast ports?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, I am happy that the new premier has decided to follow the example of the port of Halifax which has put a team together over the past few years which has
June 15, 1993

searched for new business. The future of the port of Halifax is in securing new business for it. All the infrastructure and proper sources are there for it to become successful.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Yesterday literally the first order of business of the new government and the new premier of Nova Scotia was for he and his senior cabinet to meet with backers of a private sector proposal which could see the port of Halifax develop as the North American entry point for European cargo.
They confirmed however that the major impediment to this project going ahead was the federal government's policies on rail, diesel taxation and depreciation. These are the same problems that have been raised over and over again with this minister in the House but with no response.
Will the minister now finally respond to this issue before this proposal and the hundreds or thousands of jobs that it may create are driven south of the border to the United States?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, before this hon. gentleman talks about taxation he should know that out of $417 million in taxes collected in this country from rails, $75 million is collected by the federal government, $203 million is collected by the different provinces and $139 million is collected by municipalities.
This is a joint effort and everybody should participate. We will be glad to do so too.


AGRICULTURE
Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
As far as I know until today the disastrous Order in Council removing barley marketing from the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board has not been proclaimed.
Since the Alberta election is today and since the vast majority of prairie farmers are still adamantly opposed to the destruction of the most effective grain marketing system in the world, I would like to ask the minister whether the politics of inclusion, which means listening
Oral Questions
to people, being advocated by his choice for Prime Minister means that he will now let this disastrous Order in Council eroding the power of the Canadian Wheat Board die the natural death it deserves?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I do not think what we are doing is eroding the power of the Canadian Wheat Board. All we are doing is giving producers an option to decide what they should do with their own products.
A lot of people were consulted in this process and the hon. member knows that. It has been a very open process going back almost a year and a half. The result was that a committee was struck which included people from all parts of the industry. The committee basically set its own terms of reference, hired its own consultants and came up with its report. Many groups on the prairies certainly support this.
Just to conclude, this is about giving producers a choice and letting the producers themselves decide in their own wisdom what the best way is to market the product they produce.


Raymond John Funk: Madam Speaker, it appears obvious that in spite of all the song and dance about change, about renewal and about inclusion that nothing has changed across the aisle. The corporate giants are still in charge of John Diefenbaker's party.
My supplementaiy question is for the same minister, this time in his role as the minister for co-ops. How can he reconcile his role as an advocate for co-operative principles with his recent decisions on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Crow benefit? He knows full well that these institutions are the pillars which four generations of prairie people have built up in order to maintain a degree of control over their livelihoods and their communities.
How can the minister be advocating policies which are undermining and destroying the very basic idea of organizing society co-operatively which he has sworn an oath to defend within this government?


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I should remind the hon. member very simply that the original co-operative on the prairies goes back to the Sintaluta trial in 1904. That established the Territorial Grain Growers' Association which is now the United Grain Growers. It operates in all four provinces, including the Peace River part of British Columbia. The United Grain Growers is very supportive of this decision.

Oral Questions
I should also remind him that many members of co-operatives of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba pools support this.
The hon. member stands up and mixes up some of these things. He knows absolutely nothing about which he is talking. This is a good decision. It is made in the interests of the producers themselves. It lets producers exercise some judgment. That will result in better income for individual producers.
That is what this is about. It gives producers a chance to earn more themselves instead of continually coming to the government for hand-outs. We are in favour of that. The NDP is in favour of making everybody wards of the state. That does not work.


GIANT YELLOWKNIFE MINES
Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
For more than a year now the city of Yellowknife has been wreaked by increasing tension, violence and utter frustration and the volatile strike at the Giant mine continues. Because the federal government has full jurisdiction over this situation the people of Yellowknife are forced to wait until the minister decides he is ready to work seriously on resolving this crisis.
What additional action is the minister planning to take to alleviate the residents' agony and to avoid another deadly incident in this strike?


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):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows the Minister of Labour is out of the House today on government business. He will be in a better position to answer the question on his return.
However, I wish to underline the fact that the Minister of Labour has been very much involved with this particular issue. It is a very difficult and complicated one. As far as I can recall he did everything that could be done at the time, bearing in mind the different legalities involved, et cetera.
I am sure the minister will respond personally to the hon. member when he returns.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Madam Speaker, this conflict has been simmering for over one year. The minister has not even been to the city of Yellowknife in that year. People are near the breaking point. Violence is on the rise. Nine lives have been lost and the mediation process has not been as successful as we would have liked to this point.
The minister promised to resolve the conflict six months ago but today, the city of Yellowknife has one strike still unresolved and it is facing another possible strike with the other mine.
Parliament recesses tomorrow. What is this minister going to do?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, as I just said the minister will certainly get back to my hon. colleague.
Mediation did not go as well as it was supposed to, I can share that with my hon. colleague. As a former Minister of Labour I did not like it when mediation did not go as well as it should have. Mediation involves parties. The parties have to be willing to mediate. I am sure the minister will give it his full attention on his return.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Joe Fontana (London East):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration will know of this case. I brought it to his attention about 10 days ago. It concerns a London woman who was denied unemployment insurance benefits because she served almost nine months on a jury.
Betty McIntosh sat for over nine months on a jury in a murder case. When the trial was over she went back to work for eight weeks and she was laid off. Her only reason for not being employed was that she was on jury duty, yet she has been denied full unemployment insurance benefits.

June 15, 1993

Will the minister stop penalizing a Canadian for fulfilling the civic responsibility of jury duty and extend this woman's UI qualifying period to what she is entitled to?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I hope the hon. member can explain to the person in question that the UI act does not provide for the extension of the unemployment insurance qualifying period when a claimant has been on jury duty.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Then fix it.


Bernard Valcourt: If the Grits are so good, why did they not introduce it when they made that provision in the act?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I was under the impression that the hon. member for London East wanted an answer. Maybe we could let the minister answer.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is the current act does not provide for such an extension. I have written to the hon. member explaining the provisions of the act. I have indicated to him that in a comprehensive reform of the Unemployment Insurance Act this is something that could be looked at.
I am sure hon. members would agree that as the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility, the provinces should see to it that citizens of this country who serve as jurors because it is their obligation and duty should be fully compensated by the provincial governments.


Joseph Frank (Joe) Fontana: Madam Speaker, that response is unacceptable and irresponsible.
The minister knows that the Unemployment Insurance Act now provides for an extension of the qualifying period for certain circumstances where people have been prevented from being employed. An example of one of those exemptions is convicted criminals. This exemption does not apply to Canadians who have put their lives on hold to sit on a jury but it does for convicted felons.
Will the minister do the right thing today and give Betty McIntosh her due justice and grant her the unemployment benefits?
Oral Questions


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, that is exactly why I have indicated if we are going to reform the Unemployment Insurance Act this is a provision we could look at.
Unfortunately I cannot break the law today in order to satisfy this case. The act is clear. With all the powers we have, we cannot unilaterally amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.


HIGHWAYS
Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The department recently released information that indicates our national highway system is in need of at least $14 billion worth of capital investment to bring it up to standard. The weakest link is in New Brunswick.
While I appreciate the $500 million commitment which has been made to highway construction for the next five years, that amount of money indicates we will be 25 years or all of our lifetimes before we ever really fix our national highway system.
In this process of collaborative planning and budgeting by finance and transportation ministers, has that been adopted as a priority agenda? Are we making any progress on a timetable that would bring our highway system into focus in 10 years rather than 25 years or longer?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows the Minister of Finance in his December economic statement decided to invest $500 million on highway infrastructure as a tempo-raiy measure.
The transport ministers of all the provinces and the federal government have been working together for five years now to try to arrive at a proper solution. The question is how to finance this new infrastructure without infringing on the budgets of each province and the federal government.
We tried it last December. We could not come to an agreement and we are going to have another try at the next meeting of transport ministers in the early fall.

June 15, 1993
Oral Questions


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Have any serious studies been made for a federal-provincial initiative that might examine highway construction as a major economic stimulater to put Canadians back to work?


Jean Corbeil: Madam Speaker, we are examining every manner in which this could be financed. However, the big item for the provinces and the federal government is how to spend additional money on this new infrastructure while at the same time not neglecting the existing highways.


THE DISABLED
Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister of external affairs.
Brad Magnus is a special person with Down's syndrome. He has overcome the conventional wisdom and experience that said he would be untrainable both socially and educationally. He graduated from high school in 1991 in the mainstream program and is currently studying dance in Victoria.
As the minister can see from the documents I sent to her, Brad has been invited to give the keynote performance at an international conference in Vienna this July. It is a great honour and a recognition of his extraordinary accomplishments.
Can the minister find any way to assist Brad and his family to make this trip a reality, to give support to this Canadian ambassador for the disabled?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the material that the hon. member sent me just today during Question Period and would agree with her from my veiy cursory look at it that this is a Canadian well worth honouring and assisting.
I do not know to what extent this falls within my department. I am certainly prepared to look and see if there is anything that we can do and, if we cannot, to see what else could be done to assist someone who is truly an exceptional Canadian. We will do everything we can.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Madam Speaker, earlier in Question Period today in a direct answer to the member from Winnipeg South Centre the House leader for the government implied that there was no arms deal between Canada and France signed in the last 48 hours. In fact, I have in my hand a copy of a report indicates that at the Paris air show, Aerospatiale SA said today that Canada has placed a major order for its ERYX shoulder launched anti-tank missile in the biggest weapons contract signed between France and Canada. The estimated cost of the contract is in the neighbourhood of $57 million.
I want to ask the House leader of the government why he kept that information from the House today and what he and the defence minister are trying to hide.


Harvie Andre: This particular project, the anti-tank weapon, was in fact started in 1987. Last summer there was the announcement of a contract to the French firm Aerospatiale to deal with the industrialization of it. It is in the defence policy of 1992. Short range anti-armour weapons and ammunition is part of the program. What I was suggesting was the hon. member's colleague stood up this afternoon in an attempt to embarrass the Minister of National Defence and suggest that something covert was done this morning, a surprise to the country. It is a surprise only to people who have not done their homework.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House in order to table the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General which is Bill C-128.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
June 15, 1993



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
18TH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Robert Nesbitt Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
Pursuant to the order of reference of June 3, 1993, your committee has considered Bill C-128, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff, child pornography and corrupting morals, and your committee has agreed to report it with amendments.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for the consent of the House to revert to the tabling of petitions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock have unanimous consent to table a petition?


An hon. member:: No.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKay that Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Hillsborough has seven minutes left in questions and Comments.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate there was a lot of comment about the level of consultation that had been undertaken with the people of Prince Edward Island prior to the Government of Prince Edward Island under the former premier, Mr. Ghiz, and the current premier, Ms. Callbeck, agreeing to proceed with this type of a proposal for a fixed link to Prince Edward Island.
Earlier in the House some members of the New Democratic Party seemed absolutely determined to leave
Government Orders
the erroneous impression on the public record that there was not a minimum or an unusual level of consultation with the people of Prince Edward Island before this project went ahead. I would like to ask my colleague the member for Hillsborough, who has been a supporter of the review process all through this piece, what exactly has been the level of public consultation that has taken place in Prince Edward Island? More specifically could he give us some idea as to what the results of the plebiscite that was undertaken in 1988 were and what public opinion polls show today as the level of support by the good people of Prince Edward Island for this proposal.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Dartmouth for raising some very pertinent questions relating to this topic.
The level of public consultation I suppose depends on who you are asking the question. If you are asking me the question I believe that there was adequate public participation in this process. I do not know where you would go from here. There were many meetings held in Prince Edward Island, but not only in Prince Edward Island. They were held in New Brunswick and in the Pictou area in Nova Scotia.
I suppose it can be argued that enough was not done and there was not enough input. I attended many of the meetings. They were all very well attended. The opponents and the proponents of this legislation on this project all had their day to speak their mind and as far as I can understand everyone was heard. I suppose we could go on for another six months or a year and hold more hearings. How much we would accomplish I do not know.
As I said this morning and the other day, if every project with any environmental consequences was studied in the manner in which this project one was studied and with the efforts put forward, I do not believe that there would be much of a problem with projects that we hear so much about in this House and across the country today. I believe that the people of Prince Edward Island have spoken. They did in 1988. It was fairly close, around 60:40 in favour of it. However there were polls taken here in February and March that indicated 65 per cent across the island were in favour.
I understand that more recent ones have been taken that show 70 per cent. It depends on what area of the island you are in. In the area where I live I am told that it is close to 80 per cent. More and more people are beginning to believe that this is going to go ahead, it has to go ahead and that we really need this project. We

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
need it right now to spark the economy and to get it going, but we need it in the long term to give us that stable, permanent access to the rest of Canada.
I believe that adequate study has been done, but I suppose you could argue that there is room for more. As was said here this morning, there has to be a time when you come to a decision and have made the decision that all the demands by the court be met, all the demands by the environmentalists and the fisheries people, the workers on the ferry who are going to change jobs or retire, whatever the case may be. All of these things have either been taken care of or are in the process of being taken care of. I believe that the time for the rhetoric is ended. Let us get on with the project.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, all members will be pleased to know I am of limited voice today. Therefore my speech will be of limited duration.
As a maritimer I want to make a few comments about this extremely important project. The project is important not only to the people of Prince Edward Island but to the people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as well.
I wish to commend publicly the Minister of Public Works for bringing this project to fruition. I think it appropriate that it is a minister from the maritimes who has done this. This is a project that has been talked about for many years. It was first promised in the federal election of 1891 and has been promised by many political parties over the years. It is veiy much to the credit of the Minister of Public Works and this government that they have brought this project to fruition.
This bridge will last for a minimum of 100 years and probably more and will have a very profound impact on the economy of Atlantic Canada. Obviously it will be of great benefit to Prince Edward Island. Something like a 25 per cent increase in tourism is expected. This will benefit not only Prince Edward Island but also Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as well. Tourists visiting the region will want to visit all parts of the maritimes. I hope after their visit to P.E.I. they will all come down and see the beautiful beaches of the South Shore as well as our
historic towns like Lunenburg, Liverpool and Shelburne, not to mention the new Ross Agricultural Farm.
I could go on speaking about the beauties of the South Shore, something that is very easy to do, but I think perhaps it is more appropriate that I confine my remarks to the Northumberland Strait crossing.
Clearly there will be benefit to the agriculture and fishing industries. Producers will be able to time their transportation. Transportation costs will be significantly reduced, thereby benefiting all producers.
There has been some suggestion that people in Prince Edward Island are not totally behind this project, as my hon. friend from Dartmouth pointed out only minutes ago. Rarely has there been the extent of consultation as there has been on this, even to the point of having a provincial referendum. It is interesting to note that current opinion polls indicate that support for the project has increased by over 10 per cent from the results of the referendum. Clearly the economic, social and cultural benefits of this project are being widely recognized by people of the maritimes and particularly in Prince Edward Island.
The short-term benefits are obvious as well. About 70 per cent of the expenditure of some $850 million will be spent in Atlantic Canada. This is obviously of tremendous benefit to our region. Similarly it is expected that some 3,500 person-years of employment will result. Over the next few years we are going to need all of the employment opportunities we can get in Atlantic Canada. The benefits that will accrue, particularly for the people on either side of this strait, are obviously critical.
The members from Prince Edward Island in this place, although they do not always agree with the government,
I think support this endeavour and have worked hard to get it. However, nobody has worked harder, in addition to the Minister of Public Works, than my hon. colleague, the member for Cumberland-Colchester, who has been a strong advocate of this project since we arrived in 1988. The success of this project is much to his benefit as well.
Obviously there is some concern about the impact on the ferry workers of Marine Atlantic. One should take note of the fact that a suitable severance package will be negotiated and these people will have first opportunity at employment within the project.

In concluding, I want to say this is very important legislation. I know that members of the New Democratic Party have some environmental concerns. These have been addressed. This project has been very thoroughly studied in all its environmental impacts. It will be a great thing for Atlantic Canada and I urge all members to support the bill.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is unusual that I have to put on my ear phone to hear the member for South Shore. Today he sounds a little better on the ear phone than what he normally does. Usually I do not have to put it on when he is yelling from across the aisle.
Today we do agree with him. I think today his tone is much better. He thinks he has had a successful weekend. I see that he is eyeing some of the chairs down in the front. God knows what for.


An hon. member:: The minister for the fixed link.


An hon. member:: A summer job.


Ronald MacDonald: He is looking for a summer job I am told. However, I would like to ask him a question in all seriousness.
The member does his very best to represent the region that we come from, Atlantic Canada, and I guess in fairness to do what he thinks is in the best interests of all Canadians. We have heard some very dangerous statements in the House during this debate about this project being a megaproject, with all of the negative connotations that that statement is supposed to bring with it by the New Democrats. We have heard them trivialize the amount of economic activity this project will bring. They say it is for a few millions of dollars to be invested in the area and a few hundred jobs.
I want to ask my colleague who lives just south of where I am from in Dartmouth, if he believes as I do that transportation infrastructure is the key to economic development in Atlantic Canada? Could he comment about what he believes this particular project will do for economic development not just on Prince Edward Island but also for northeastern Nova Scotia and the southeastern part of New Brunswick?
Government Orders
There was some talk earlier today from the member for Skeena saying that the ferries are always on time. I had indicated that the problem was not that of the ferries being on time. It was the length of time you had to wait to get on a ferry because there are so many people who want to see that beautiful island. Could he also comment about the secondary impact that this link may have on tourism on places like the south shore of Nova Scotia.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, it is the first time that a question has actually been longer than the speech. The answer will have to be relatively short as well. I would say to the hon. member for Skeena that obviously he has never visited the maritimes in the winter-time if he thinks that the ferries run on schedule.
I want to commend the workers of CN Marine and the crews of those vessels who do an outstanding job. But the reality is that anybody who lives in the maritimes and travels back and forth from Prince Edward Island knows there are veiy severe problems from time to time in the winter. I hasten again to say this has nothing to do with the quality of the people working on the ferries. But there is an icing condition and it proves tremendously inconvenient from time to time to people travelling back and forth.
As my hon. friend indicates, the economic potential is tremendous for the entire region. If one thinks of fish plants on Prince Edward Island-granted we are having some difficulty at the moment getting the resource-and the agricultural industry in particular, the estimated annual savings in transportation costs to those industries is some $10 million. That is extraordinary. As the member said, frequently trucks as well as passenger vehicles find themselves waiting hours and hours, particularly in the summer-time, to get across on the ferries.
The inconvenience and the capital cost of the time lost while trucks and others are waiting to get across is great and there would be a very significant benefit there. In terms of the region as a whole, I think he may be in part alluding to tourism. Usually tourists that are visiting the maritime provinces do not only visit one place and leave. They come by car and do a loop. Perhaps they will go up the Cabot Trail, they will go over to P.E.I., to the Halifax-Dartmouth area and come down the South Shore. They will visit different areas.

Government Orders
The fact is that Prince Edward Island will be more accessible. Let us face it, Prince Edward Island is one of the greatest tourist attractions in Canada. The mere geography of the place is so beautiful that its impact is going to benefit our entire region creating-and this is the last point-the need for capital expenditures and infrastructure for transportation.
Earlier today we heard the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury talking about the state of the Trans-Canada Highway in New Brunswick. I am very proud that this government made an $800 million commitment to improve the highway system in Atlantic Canada. There is no question that there now seems to be no limit to the amount of money we can use for transportation infrastructure. It is a step in the right direction. This project is critically important to our region. I again urge all members to support the bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and I thank you for recognizing me and the member for Dartmouth and the member for South Shore.
We are all members from Atlantic Canada. I would like to say to the member for South Shore that while I appreciate the softness of his voice, I would be interested in pressing him on the soundness of his intellect in terms of priorizing $1 billion in expenditure in Atlantic Canada. Is he telling this House that in effect, if he had $860 million, which is the cost of the bridge in one estimate of public works-but we all know that it is going to be $1 billion, $2 billion at the most-and that is not with overruns, that that is the way to spend money in Atlantic Canada?


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, if what we were talking about was $1 billion that could be taken out of the air, we might choose to spend it in different ways. In this case I would remind my hon. friend that the Government of Canada is already committing $42 million a year in perpetuity to subsidize the ferry service. Once this bridge is finished, there will be no further need for the subsidy. Not only will the subsidy be discontinued but in actual fact the Crown will acquire a very valuable asset. It is more in the context of an investment. The cost is predominately being borne by the private sector. The company involved will be responsible for raising the funds so that the cash requirement for the government
zeros out, which is my understanding of the financing of the project.
I would be prepared to say to my hon. friend that clearly this would seem to be a very good investment for the taxpayer as well as a significant capital investment for Atlantic Canadians.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate this afternoon, although I confess to having some trepidation in doing so, given that it is sometimes perceived that members from one coast should not comment on what is going on on another coast. I understand the kind of sensitivities when a member of Parliament from British Columbia comments on events occurring in Atlantic Canada.
I want to preface my remarks by saying I do not think it is just that I know better than those members from P.E.I. or New Brunswick. I just want to give my perspective. As a national policy-making body, that is our responsibility.
Having stated my respect for the sensitivities involved, because we in the New Democratic Party do not have members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island, I would ask that my Liberal colleagues also show that same respect because we have not been terribly well served by the Liberal Party in British Columbia. They have only one member from B.C. and he is very rarely in the House. I think that our frustrations are from both sides in this debate.
I also want to begin my statement by saying why I am interested in this bill. I am an islander. I was bom on Vancouver Island. I am fortunate enough to continue to live on Vancouver Island. That is the big island in my constituency. I am honoured to represent six smaller gulf islands. All of those islands are served by a ferry system which is paid for in total from provincial coffers. There are no subsidies at all. It is the provincial government's responsibility to pay for the ferry service.
My constituents, because of the downturn in the economy, have had that ferry service reduced over the last few years, particularly the inter-island service, from one gulf island to another. The majority of the traffic is from the mainland of British Columbia to Vancouver Island and that is very well served with hourly ferry services. There is also a high-speed ferry and a catamaran that serves the area very well. However, inter-gulf
June 15, 1993

island traffic has been cut down and that has changed the way of life on the gulf islands, some would say for the worse.
The other area that piques my interest in this is a constituency thing and also my respect for islands generally. Islands teach you, when you live on them, the finite nature of resources. If you live on an island you have to be aware that the water is finite, what you throw out must stay there. In a larger community, in a larger land mass, we can throw out our garbage and pretend it goes away. On an island we cannot do that, so I have a very strong affection for islands.
That leads me into my second area of interest. This bill focuses the attention of the House and the attention of all those watching the whole debate on the future. We have been fooling ourselves in this country and I think internationally that growth is the way, that growth means progress. The criterion for success in the future is going to be sustainability and this bill or this concept goes against that sustainability criterion.
Sustainability is a merging of environmental considerations with economic considerations. Some of the Liberal members talk about this not being a megaproject. I do not know. When it gets up into billions of dollars it certainly seems like a megaproject to me. That is a lot of money.
I think the people of Prince Edward Island have been given more than enough information to make decisions on this but it is not just the quantity of information, it is the kind of information that they have been given. There has been a confusion of estimates, analyses and assessments on this issue. That is what it should be called: a confusion of documents.
My colleague from Skeena likens it to a tidal wave of whitewash and I would agree with him on that because I think the whitewash hides what is really going on here. The people of Prince Edward Island have been promised economic renewal and lots of jobs but the bill does not say anything about that. It does not give any guarantees. There are many things that should be considered.
It is this government that has introduced environmental assessment review legislation. Those of us in the New Democratic Party did not support it. The Liberals did
Government Orders
support that legislation. That legislation has not been proclaimed yet so the environmental assessment was on the old guidelines. The guidelines were given and the panel looked at this after the plebiscite in 1987. The entrepreneurs and the Mulroney government were sufficiently serious about the proposals that it was sent to an environmental assessment panel.
The copious evidence that the panel deliberated over showed a number of things. It conceded that the fixed link might benefit trucking firms and the tourism industry and produce construction jobs throughout Atlantic Canada. I know that is what the members from Atlantic Canada are arguing for.
However this should be said clearly. The panel still concluded that the risk of harmful effects from the proposed bridge concept was unacceptable and it recommended that the project not proceed.
This is critical because I think the confusion of rhetoric surrounding this keeps obliterating the fact that an environmental panel recommended that the project not proceed. The Department of Public Works decided to proceed in violation of that recommendation.
The Friends of the Island, the group on Prince Edward Island that has an opposing view, took the government to court because of its promises to proceed. The Federal Court of Canada under, Madam Justice Barbara Reed, ruled on March 19, 1993 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 requirements of section 12 of the Environmental Assessment Review Process guidelines order".
Not only are those speaking in favour of this project going against the environmental guidelines recommendation but they are going against the Federal Court of Canada. It is not just the wacky New Democrats, as some would have people believe, but it is the Federal Court of Canada and the federal environmental review process that is opposed to this project.
People have credibility. How can we speak in this House about standing up for the laws that are passed here if the members in this House do not respect those laws and do not respect a federal court's judgment? I think this is quite a sad story in the dying days of this Parliament when we are being put in contempt of the

Government Orders
Federal Court and also of the environmental assessment review process.
It really does show why some of the rhetoric, particularly from the Liberals, is so vitriolic because they have been shown up. We have not seen their environment critics up speaking on this bill. No, no, they are hiding on this one because they want to be green environment critics. They want to be standing up for the environment.


An hon. member:: They did not vote for their own amendment.


Lynn Hunter: My colleague points out that they did not even vote for their own amendment.
I think this is a further demonstration of the Liberal's amazing facility for being on both sides of the fence on most issues. That may be good enough in the way of old politics but it is not good enough in today's world. People are watching. They understand that the environment critic and the members from Atlantic Canada speaking in favour of this are members of this same party and are in complicity with the government in pushing this bill through. This is in defiance of their own rhetoric on environmental assessment and in defiance of the court system in Canada.
There are a number of reasons why we have to be opposed to this. It defies logic. It gives money to big foreign corporations. It will probably put an estimated 600 ferry workers out of work.
I know there has been something said about the ferry service not being efficient and there are considerations of weather that would inhibit the ferry's ability to operate. Last year, which was not exactly a gentle winter in Atlantic Canada, there were 13,000 sailings of which only 5 were even delayed.
People should know that the ferry service is seven days a week. On five of those days there is a 24-hour service where they take dangerous goods and cargo in the small hours of the morning.
Ferry service is much more environmentally benign than a bridge or a fixed link. We know that weather considerations can close down highways and I am certain they can close down bridges when one considers the weather conditions that exist in the Northumberland Strait.
One can imagine a 120-kilometre per hour gale hitting a bridge that is 120 feet in the air. I would not want to be on that bridge. I would be sitting on terra firma until the storm passed. That is what happens when the ferries do not run: highways do not open under those conditions either.
The megaproject mentality has gripped and made captives of those in their favour. I understand the kinds of motivations for that coming from communities where there are a number of people who are unemployed. People are grasping at just about any ability to put people to work. I give the benefit of the doubt to the members of Parliament from Prince Edward Island. They really do probably believe that they are acting in the best interests of their constituents. I wish they would accord those of us in the New Democratic Party the same amount of respect when we disagree.
I think this really does come to the whole point as I indicated earlier that this is a debate on sustainability. If we do not get our heads around that concept I think we are all in big trouble. Not just in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia but in British Columbia as well. We have our own problems on that front.
We in this esteemed House have to be the ones who show the leadership and have the courage to be able to say: "Wait a minute, is this such a good idea? Is that $42 million going to be the kind of economic engine that we want for our communities. Is bigger better? Is this really progress?"
On my account I have said no. Let us just slow down a bit. I do not want those people in Prince Edward Island to be unemployed and in economic decline. This is because I am a Canadian. I want Canada to prosper and I want it to show leadership environmentally and economically. I think that we have to get the idea of sustainability in our own heads and policies. They cannot be mutually distinct. They have to be merged.
In conclusion I think there have been a lot of vitriolic words hurled in the last couple of days on this. It goes to the very fundamentals of the kinds of difficulties that we as politicians have to make because we are in an economy in transition. That is pretty scary because none

of us has all the answers although some of us think we do.
I ask that people put aside their partisan interests and think long term here. We have a responsibility to try to do the best on behalf of all Canadians. I ask them to just reconsider their support for this project and what is going to happen to the lobster and scallop fishermen or the environment itself. Who speaks for the creatures and the earth that is going to be scored by this project?


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, for a couple of west coasters I guess it is legitimate for us to enter into the debate on the fixed link to Prince Edward Island.
I have been listening to the debate for the last couple of days and in fact for the last few months. The criticism of the New Democratic Party has been pretty aggressive especially of late. It is not because of their contribution during the committee or during the debate. It is not that it is illegitimate to debate differences.
I think many people see the hypocrisy that is entailed in the debate. It was not during the legislative hearings. It was well-represented by the member from Sault Ste. Marie and the comments were very constructive. He worked with us and was helpful. Obviously he had criticisms and he occasionally had somebody else from within the party who came and also offered criticisms. However, those tended to be constructive and they tended to show the different sides. Not all the testimony received by the committee was positive.
There are many people on the island of Prince Edward Island. There are about 30 per cent who either have concerns or are opposed to the link. Obviously there are two sides to this issue and they were heard through the consultations that have taken place over the past many years. It is when the interpretations from one party are taken and they lose any relationship to the realities that were discussed during the hearings that it becomes somewhat farcical.
We are being accused of being scum bags, scoundrels and corrupt. I know that the hon. members working on this bill and the hon. members from other legislatures in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia who also have been working with us on this bill are not corrupt scum bags who are trying to hoodwink the people of Canada.
Government Orders
This is a very serious piece of legislation with the best interests of the Islanders at heart. It is something that we as British Columbians can share the enthusiasm for because continued perpetual subsidies to the Islanders and Prince Edward Island or to the maritimes is not what they want in Atlantic Canada. This is an opportunity to use free enterprise to come in and-


An hon. member:: Don't make a speech.


Dave Worthy: I have been told that I should not make a speech. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, actually I started to get carried away.
I do have a question and it deals with the sustainability theme that the member was bringing out in her speech. I just want to emphasize that the key concern of the environmental panel was the ice delay. Subsequent to that panel Environment Canada selected a team of ice experts, including Captain Eugene Barry from the Canadian Coast Guard Base of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; Dr. Kenneth Croasdale from Esso Resources Canada Ltd., Calgary; Dr. Robert Frederiking from the National Research Council of Canada; and Dr. Torkild Carstens from the Norwegian Hydrotechnical Laboratory in Norway. Not only did these ice experts review-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the hon. member should put the question.


Dave Worthy: They have produced their report. They have appeared in front of the legislative committee. I would ask the member to comment on or criticize the competence or the credibility of these members of the panel and their report.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not make any criticism of the individuals. Their abilities are undoubted.
However the member mentioned hypocrisy. I think it is hypocritical for a government to bring forth legislation on environmental assessment and then ignore it. I think it is hypocritical for a government to act in contempt of a Federal Court judgment.
We have a system of counter checks which both the government and the so-called Liberal opposition, although it seems to be a Liberal partnership with the government on this issue, seem to be ignoring. I am not saying that we know best. I know that there have been

Government Orders
lots of words put in different mouths in this debate. I am just asking the member to stand back and wait a minute.
The population of Prince Edward Island is slightly more than my riding. There are four members of Parliament for Prince Edward Island and one in my riding. That kind of disproportionate use of resources is something that if we are going to be fiscally responsible we have to know when we are talking about equitable uses of the tax base, and there are no federal subsidies for the ferries that operate in my riding-


Dave Worthy: We have a constitutional requirement.


Lynn Hunter: I understand we have a constitutional requirement for ferry service. We do not have a constitutional requirement to give money to the offshore companies that are going to be profiting from this. We have a duty to employ Canadians and use the tax system as a way of doing that.
I do not believe this project achieves that, and that is quite apart from the environmental concerns I talked about in my speech. When we are talking about hypocrisy I think the member should ask himself whether or not it is hypocritical to introduce environmental legislation and then not accept its recommendations.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commenting on the last reference by the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands.
I come from a constituency, Halifax West, that virtually has a greater population than Prince Edward Island. I do not resent the province of Prince Edward Island having four members in this House and I do not think any other member of this House would resent that or call attention to it. It is part of Confederation. It is part of the give and take. That is what was lacking in the member's presentation. There is give and take in Canada. There is give and take in Confederation.
For the member to suggest that those who do not oppose this bill are lacking in courage is not only insulting but a gross misunderstanding of the situation.
Of course there are problems with the fixed link. Of course there are environmental difficulties that have to be overcome. Of course there are questions about the
financial feasibility. All of those will be looked at and are governed by this legislation.
All this legislation does is give an opportunity to the people of Prince Edward Island and the maritime provinces to gain an economic advantage. It is not about depriving British Columbia or fracturing Confederation but about strengthening Confederation and the mari-times. One has to be from the maritimes to understand that.
Of course we take chances. We will always take chances. We cannot have all the resources of British Columbia transplanted to the maritimes. We have to make do with what we have. For the member to cast that as a lack of courage is insulting.
I want to say one thing because I took one thing from what she said. Among the concerns are the more than 600 employees who may eventually lose employment as a result of this project. Every one of us, and I know I speak for both the Liberal and Conservative members from the maritimes, are concerned with that. There is a solution to that. However that is not a reason to stop economic advantage for the maritimes. Those people can be assisted and hopefully find other employment. I know the government will look after those interests.
Do not let that be the member's excuse. Do not let the member's support of the labour unions be the excuse for voting against this bill.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I think this is just another further continuation of a distressing lack of respect for opposing views. In the dying days of this Parliament it is unworthy of the member to suggest that I was casting aspersions on those in Atlantic Canada.
I represent Canada as a member of Parliament, not just the people of Saanich-Gulf Islands. I think that my time on the Constitution committee shows that I understand Confederation and the give and take far better than he does.


Mr.   J.W. Bud Bird@Fredericton-York-Sunbury: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity in the closing hour of this debate on the Prince Edward Island fixed link to state my complete support for the concept of the crossing and for the need to pass this legislation and get on with this project as quickly as we can.
June 15, 1993

Government Orders
As others have said before me and we all know, in a plebiscite of the citizens of Prince Edward Island in 1988 more than 60 per cent of them voted in favour of this crossing. Since that time, as the crossing plans have developed and the process of selecting a contractor has taken its course, the project has become potentially the single most important economic undertaking in the maritime provinces. It has the highest level of backing from the broadest range of supporters.
The majority of the people agree with their federal and provincial governments. The federal and provincial governments support the project regardless of their political affiliation. Business organizations and most Atlantic Canadian unions are very vocal in their support of the project.
Earlier this afternoon I spoke in Question Period and asked the Minister of Transport if any serious and innovative studies had been undertaken with respect to highway construction as an economic stimulus. One of the values of this project, which I certainly hope will prove to be extremely valuable, will be our ability to assess whether the investment in this project, quite apart from its feasibility with respect to the replacement of ferry services, will demonstrate economic vitality and will initiate economic revitalization and resurgence of the type that so many people suggest should be the case.
I hope that the value of this project, quite apart from its other benefits, will be to provide us with a test case as to what extent capital investment of this nature will stimulate general economic recovery. We have been told that 40 per cent of our Trans-Canada Highway system, our national highway system, is substandard and that it will require $14 billion to bring it up to standard. That is based on a 1989 estimate and is much higher than that now. It is very tempting to wonder whether we should not be embarking on capital investment in this project and other infrastructure needs of Canada as an economic stimulus to speed the pace of the recovery which is moving ever so slowly these days.
The project has been addressed from all perspectives. I primarily want to speak to it in terms of its environmental impact and its fiscal impact. In March 1993 Madam Justice Reed of the Federal Court ruled that Public Works Canada should determine how the specific bridge design by Strait Crossing Inc. might affect the environment and to do so before any irrevocable decision to proceed had been made.
The government is not in agreement with Madam Reed's ruling and has filed its notice of appeal. It is the government's position that the environmental assessment process has been followed and that the generic approval should apply to the specific approval. Therefore an additional environment review seems to be an unnecessarily long delay. Why should a specific design which meets previously assessed and reviewed environmental performance undergo an assessment of its own?
We look at the threats of further court challenges as another attempt to tie up the project in the courts and hope that it will die a natural death.
We hope to avoid further delay and to proceed expeditiously with this very important project which is so greatly needed to boost the economy of our part of Canada. That is why I support the government's decision that in the interim, pending the court hearing of the appeal, Public Works Canada will abide by the rulings of Madam Justice Reed and give the project the best opportunity to proceed without losing the importance of this construction season.
Madam Justice Reed ordered that the Minister of Public Works make a determination of the environmental soundness of the specific SCI bridge design under section 12 of the guidelines order. In compliance with that order Strait Crossing Inc. has prepared a specific environmental evaluation of its proposal. The evaluation document has been made public and Public Works Canada has held hearings as the initiating department to conduct a public review of the information and to solicit public comments.
We look at the threat of further court challenges and can only wonder at how long people will fight to delay this project which is so strongly supported by so many people.
The province of Prince Edward Island has proceeded with plans to introduce a constitutional amendment initiative. This answers another significant question in the process.
The entire process has been conducted with great public consultation. The minister invited the public to submit their comments on his decision with respect to a public review panel. The main environmental impact of this project will be managed in a fair and equitable way. The fishermen, who may not have full access to their traditional fishing areas for certain periods of the bridge construction, will be compensated. A trust fund of $10 million has been established by the developer which will

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
be managed by a fisheries liaison committee headed by fishermen themselves.
Now that the Federal Court's decision has been followed by Public Works Canada I cannot imagine any project, even one of this significance, being put through any more scientific and public scrutiny. There have been 64 public meetings and more than 90 studies on all aspects of the project. I am satisfied that it has met the environmental test and is ready to proceed.
Since 1876 the federal government has fulfilled its constitutional obligation for communications between Prince Edward Island and the mainland by way of a ferry system. The first year-round ferry system was in fact started back in 1917. This federal responsibility has come with a price tag which throughout the years has varied with the evolution of services and the need for capital. Generally it is predicted to average something in the area of $40 million to $42 million annually in 1992 dollars.
As presented by Transport Canada to the legislative committee, $42 million is the sum of the direct operating subsidy to Marine Atlantic, the cost of the administrative overhead, the replacement of the vessels, the cost of refitting the old ferry boats, and the capital costs of the land-based facilities such as docks and transfer bridges.
This amount also takes into account ancillary expenditures such as the cost of highway improvements, the compensation to ferry workers and the administration and overhead costs incurred by Public Works Canada.
In other words this is what the taxpayer of Canada would have to come up with for the next 35 years without any relief in sight to fund this transportation link. During the House committee sessions even the NDP expert on economics admitted that this number was "fairly credible even if the ferries are going to have to be replaced".
Essentially the Northumberland Strait crossing project provides for a private consortium to finance, build and operate a bridge to replace the Borden-Tormentine ferry service. The government's obligation will be the payment of a 35-year annual subsidy to the private sector company. Bill C-110 deals precisely with the payment of that subsidy which is not to exceed $42 million per year in 1992 dollars. It should be noted that the subsidy will not be paid to the developer until a pre-agreed upon completion date comes into effect. If at that time the bridge is not completed the developer will have to pay for the ferry system.
Essentially what we propose is a transfer of public funds from a ferry system to the operation of a bridge without any overlap. Through this legislation future expenditures of the government associated with the constitutional obligations to Prince Edward Island will effectively be capped and fixed for the next 35 years.
Therefore it stands to reason that the financial approach to this project is both fair and realistic as it will entail minimum costs to the Canadian taxpayer.
I want to speak briefly about the economic impact of this crossing on the economy of the Atlantic provinces. One major requirement for the project is that the developer must first maximize the use of Atlantic Canada suppliers of goods and services. As a result 70 per cent of the $850 million required for this project will be spent in Atlantic Canada.
The crossing project will provide approximately 3,500 person years of employment and several hundred million dollars of industrial purchases within Atlantic Canada over the next five years. Indeed, this project will contribute greatly to the over-all government objective of reactivating the economy.
It is with that in mind plus the fact that this crossing is wanted by the citizens of Prince Edward Island and the citizens on the New Brunswick side as well that this project will assist the economy of Prince Edward Island in a variety of ways. This project has received environmental study and environmental approval of the widest possible nature. This project is a fiscal investment that will replace costs already being spent by the Government of Canada. It will entail no new money and in the end 35 years from now we will have an asset linking Prince Edward Island to the mainland of New Brunswick that will have been delivered virtually free from investments which we ordinarily would have had to make in any event.

June 15, 1993

I believe that in these very difficult days of a slowly recovering economy from a very serious recession that the immediacy of this project and its application over the next five years will have untold benefits to the revitalization of the economy of Atlantic Canada and by implication to Canada itself.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, this is the third or fourth time I have had an opportunity to speak to this bill. I do not want to upset my friends from the maritimes, in particular P.E.I.
I agree with my friend from Saanich

Gulf Islands that indeed the debate did get quite vitriolic. Generally, very reasonable people have said what I think are some very unreasonable things. After my original speech and some of the amendments, I am not very amused with comments concerning rhetoric coming from the NDP. The citizens of P.E.I. and the rest of Atlantic Canada are not very happy with the criticism that has been levelled. In no way did we want to criticize the people of Atlantic Canada or Prince Edward Island. We still maintain that 30 per cent of the people in P.E.I. are likely opposed to this link.
If we were in the shoes of the members from P.E.I., we would be saying the same thing. This is job creation at its greatest. It would be a real test. I was thinking of an appropriate analogy. If somebody said that they were going to build a skydome as they have in Toronto in Sault Ste. Marie, would you support it? If somebody is going to build it for you I would probably be jumping up and down and saying, absolutely. Whether or not it is best to spend private developers' money and taxpayers' money is another thing. The hon. member for Halifax sort of intimated where there is unemployment, we should build bridges.
People talk about the municipal infrastructure program. We are talking about sewers that are collapsing across this country and built bridges that are collapsing. We are dumping raw sewage into the waterways of the country. To equate this to the national infrastucture program I do not think is really acceptable.
They are continually saying: "You people do not have a member elected in Atlantic Canada, in P.E.I. nor do you ever hope to have one". Well, we hope to have one. To say that we do not have a right to comment or to question the project is inappropriate.
Government Orders
You do not have to be a native to appreciate native issues. You do not have to be a Jewish person to understand anti-Semitism. You do not have to be black to understand discrimination. To understand and appreciate some of the pitfalls of a fixed link, I humbly suggest you do not have to live in Atlantic Canada. I want to put that in perspective. I appreciate that perhaps this is not terribly substantial but I want to say that we put forward amendments that we thought were substantial and some that I thought were quite reasonable and might be acceptable to the government side. They were not.
This legislation that has been brought forward, as my friend for Annapolis Valley-Hants suggested to me when I was looking for the rights words, is nothing more than to enable the private developer to bring forth the deal with all of its details. It is nothing more than an enabling piece of legislation. It is wide open. It is very open-ended. To submit some of those concerns before the Canadian people is not wrong. This is a megaproject.
I have not yet decided if I am against megaprojects or not. To deny the fact that it is not a megaproject is ill-founded.
I want to talk for a minute about bridges, the length of bridges and the hazards. I am told that this is a nine-mile long bridge. I live fairly close to a bridge. We have an international bridge from Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. It is a very short span. Fifty miles away is the Mackinaw Bridge, one of the world's finest bridges. It is five miles long. There is no guarantee that you can cross that bridge in bad weather. The wind can be so severe that they close the bridge. To say you can get back and forth every time is not the truth. This proposed link is longer and I suspect the ice flow is much greater.
To proffer some of these concerns is surely not inappropriate. I would ask that members at least give us that.
If the people of P.E.I. were given funds for community or job development, I wonder if this would be their first choice, their second choice or their tenth choice. I am not convinced about that.
I always go back to the very beginnings of this. Who brought it forward? It was a developer who said: "How about if we build a bridge for you? What would you think of that?" I know there is a whole chronology and history of events. I do not know it all that well but I do know there was an expression of interest, not by the people but

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
by the developer. It is not the appropriate title but it is sort of a turnkey approach. "We will build you this thing and in 35 years we will turn it over to you".


An hon. member:: Have you visited P.E.I.?


Steve Butland: No, I have not visited P.E.I. but I promise you folks I will get there. I will still catch the ferry. I have some affinity to ferries because as a youngster-this is an anecdote-before the bridge was built in Sault Ste. Marie there were ferries back and forth. I earned my keep as a summer student on those ferries. Maybe that is why I have a personal affection for the ferry route rather than the bridge route. I promise the members I will go to P.E.I. If the ferries are still operating-I understand they will have to-I will take the ferry.
I have not read but I have been inspired perhaps to get Anne of Green Gables and Anne of Avonlea and read some of the text. People have accused us of going back to the future. The NDP is always back to the future. A lot of Canadians are looking back to the future and saying what a wonderful time it was. What are they going to say 50 years from now? Maybe we want to go back to the future in 1994 when we had car ferries and Anne of Green Gables as we knew her. I am going to end with a 30 second comment.
I quote Lucy Maud Montgomery who made this comment in 1911:
When I am asked if Anne herself is a real person I always answer no with an odd reluctance and an uncomfortable feeling of not telling the truth for she is and always has been from the moment I first thought of her so real to me that I feel I am doing violence to something when I deny her an existence anywhere save in dreamland.
That is from the author of Anne of Green Gables. It is a bit of nostalgia but I wonder if 50 years from now we will regret the decision that obviously is coming forward from the government side and the opposition side.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I too am glad to speak at third reading stage in the closing few minutes of this debate. I speak with mixed thought as I have spoken before.
I commend and compliment the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie who spoke before me. While we do not
share the same party label this is beyond party labels as far as I am concerned.
I speak as you well know, Mr. Speaker, as an Atlantic Canadian. I am certainly very sensitive and respect the views of all members who have spoken, especially those from Atlantic Canada, and have declared right from the start without all the figures, reports, assessments and environmental problems, the fishery beds or the ferry workers. I come clean with a philosophical bias against any type of link between the mainland and the island. I feel very fundamentally that this is going to change the sociological character of the island. Lucy Montgomery who wrote Anne of Green Gables and other nostalgic novella will really be able to say from her resting place that Anne of Green Gables is going to become The Ghost of Cavendish Beach if a fixed link joins the mainland with the island.
I am from Nova Scotia. I have been on the island. I respect my colleagues from the island. Obviously if I was a member from the island with a built-in work project that supposedly was to be done entirely by private enterprise I would be only too happy for the potential jobs.
I have been here a few years and I look at the chunnel from England to Europe which was supposed to be all private enterprise, and the taxpayer is very involved. I am prepared to put my seat on the line to any member in this House and I wish they would too that the Canadian taxpayer is going to be involved in the fixed link in one form or the other after this bill is passed.
The figures themselves defy logic. The original estimate many years ago was $860 million and it will end up being a $1 billion bridge anyway.
The mother of one member of this House was in this House when a lot of energy and $14.9 million was expended on the foundations for the causeway in the 1960s which was finally abandoned in 1969. We can still see the rock work, the foundation and the track for the causeway that was going to cross the strait. That was interesting at the time as it came just before an election. It was sort of election fodder. I am afraid with all the respect and sincerity of all colleagues who have spoken,
June 15, 1993

that the timing of an election and the bill on the fixed link coming so close together is another interesting coincidence.
I am an Atlantic Canadian as are the members from York-Sunbury, Egmont, Hillsborough and others who have spoken. I would love to believe the statements of the Minister of Public Works as he introduced the third reading debate on the bill this afternoon. If I believed him I would not be speaking now.
I have had the experience of that 1960 construction and/or many of the conflicting reports. Frankly as far as I am concerned the fact of subsidies is a sham. Members have said we are going to take the subsidy money and put it in the bridge. There is nothing in this bill that says that subsidies will not continue to be paid to ferries. In the riding of the Minister of Public Works the government is going to commission a brand new feriy for some $48 million from Pictou Industries in Pictou County to ply the strait.
We are not going to have a bill on a fixed link, and that ferry will be built to last as long as the life of the so-called fixed link. We are not going to have a brand new ferry coming down the old draw way on a commission exercise in three or four months and put it in mothballs because we have a fixed link. There is too much hocus-pocus in this bill.
Although the public should mind, I do not mind the opposition speakers-and I discount the members from P.E.I., I can understand their point of view-and the government members all getting into bed together. This time thank God the members of the NDP are not in bed with them too as they were on the Constitution.
I was one of the lonely voices on the Charlottetown accord, speaking of the island. There were a few of us who took objection to it in this House and voted against it, yet all the parties for their reasons were for it. The people spoke on October 26 on the Charlottetown accord. I will not go back to the real history on Meech Lake. There was one Liberal who eventually became president of the Liberal Party, the member from Mount Royal, Donald Johnston on the Liberal side and I on the opposition side who had the temerity to speak out on Meech Lake. My point is not to relive the Constitution. This Parliament has no credibility on the Constitution in
Government Orders
view of what has happened and frankly it does not have any credibility on a project like this so late in the day.
How can we go out to the Canadian people and say there is fiscal restraint and we have to cut back here and there, and my goodness gracious there is a Santa Claus somewhere who is going to build the fixed link that has been talked about before Confederation?
I come from Atlantic Canada. Why do we not build the Chignecto canal? We have talked about it and from a Moncton point of view we could build it. Why not build the old dam from the Fundy tides? There are many beautiful projects out there.
In conclusion, the fact is we really destroy our credibility when out of the blue we seem to have some benefactor and a new program that is supposedly not going to cost the taxpayers any money. While every member has had things chopped from stem to stem we pretend we are going to fool the Canadian people and build a fixed link to P.E.I. that does not cost the taxpayers a penny.
Mr. Speaker, just by saying that proposition proves the point. You know it, I know it and the Canadian people know it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Moncton I have a point of order from the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Charles A. Langlois: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you will find unanimous consent for the following two motions:
That Private Members' Business hour today be cancelled and the
item dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence and that the
House continue to sit for the consideration of government orders.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles A. Langlois: I also move:

Government Orders
That, with regard to Bill C-128, an act to amend the Criminal Code
and the Customs Tariff (child pornography and corrupting morals)
and notwithstanding any Standing Order; immediately following the
disposal of Bill C-110,
1.	Bill C-128 shall be deemed to have been concurred in at the report stage and ordered for consideration at the third reading stage immediately;
2.	The House shall not adjourn this day until the third reading stage of the said bill has been disposed of.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have the honour
to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill: Bill S-20, an act to change the name of the Canadian Medical Association, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 135(2), the bill is deemed to have been read the first time and ordered for second reading at the next sitting of the House.


NORTHUMBERLAND STRAIT CROSSING ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKay that Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait Crossing, be read the third time and passed.
George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I have waited all day for this. It is a pleasure to be part of the concluding speakers on this debate. We have heard a lot of discussion, a lot of very interesting comments and a lot of theories about things. Maybe in the moments I have available to me we can deal with some of the facts.
There is a constitutional requirement to connect Prince Edward Island to the rest of Canada. It is only the methodology that is at issue. What we are talking about is whether we want to maintain the ferry service or build the bridge.
What everybody forgets in that whole process is that if we say we are going to keep the ferry service going then
we are going to continue to pay a subsidy for that ferry service of $42 million a year in today's dollars and we are going to spend $500 million or more on new ferries over the next 35 years. So we are talking equivalent dollars with respect to the subsidy every year and the capital costs range anywhere from $800 million to $850 million for the bridge, or $500 million to $600 million for the ferries. We are talking about comparable expenses.
We are not talking about comparable convenience for the people who want to get to the island to see Anne of Green Gables; visit all the tourist attractions that exist on the Island or leave for very short periods of time before returning to the island. They will not have to face the inconvenience of staying in line for three or four hours waiting for the ferry to take them across. They will be able to go across on the bridge and do what they wish to do on the Island.
I have read some of the books talking about island history. I have read all the rest of the plays and Anne of Green Gables but they never mention the ferry. They talk about the island, what is there and what is being offered. That is not going to be altered by the bridge. It is a bridge to the island. It is fulfilling the constitutional linkage which all have agreed to. It is just trying to take the transportation network up to modem standards.
I have listened to some of the talk indicating we have not fulfilled the environmental concerns. We have heard about the judgment that says everything is wrong. It goes on and on and on. But again let us look at the facts. The court said there had to be a generic environmental study. While it may have solved all the problems it was necessary to take the specific bridge, have it analysed to a degree and get public input. That process was done. The list of public hearings over the last number of days and weeks extends to a great length. The hearings were done.
The judge said the government had to take a look at the different constitutional requirements as well as sections 12 and 13 of the legislation which deal with the environment. Section 12 requires that every initiating department shall screen or access each proposal for which it has the decision-making authority to determine if the potentially adverse environmental effects that may be caused by the proposal are insignificant or mitigable, and that has been done.
June 15, 1993

The minister, under the legislation which the NDP says prohibits this project, specifically provides a methodology to have the project approved and that was done. The approval has been given. Environmentally the government has met the test.
I can remember the debate we had when it was going to committee. We wanted to satisfy ourselves about three things: (1) Environmentally does it stand the test? (2) Will the fishermen be looked after during the construction? (3) Will the workers who worked for Marine Atlantic be looked after? (4) From my vantage point, I want a commitment that the government would ensure that Marine Atlantic headquarters would stay in Moncton. All four concerns have been met.
There are conditions in the agreement to preserve Marine Atlantic in Moncton. The environmental assessment on the generic bridge has been done. Section 12 assessments have been done. The public hearings have been done. There is a pot of money to look after the fishermen while the construction is ongoing. There is a pot of money to look after the workers who are displaced by this project. Everything has been done. But any time we want to pursue a project that will have some benefit to Atlantic Canada, somebody from the west coast or somewhere else says we should not go ahead with it.


Ronald MacDonald: They are usually New Democrats.


George Saunders Rideout: The member for Dartmouth reminds me they are usually New Democrats. Exactly.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Hibernia.


George Saunders Rideout: Hibernia is another example. When they hear about these projects that are going to be beneficial to Atlantic Canada they say if Prince Edward Island gets a bridge they want one in their riding too. They should get their constitutional facts correct.
We want to see a project that is going to benefit Prince Edward Island, establish a modem transportation link with Prince Edward Island and benefit the Islanders as well as other Atlantic Canadians who will be working on this particular project. The benefits will flow to the island. I think it is about time we did a project in Atlantic Canada rather than have all the negative talk all the
Government Orders
time. I say this in all candour. I am not trying to throw any large stones at my friends in the NDP because some of them have been very reasonable on this project, but some have not. I think they do a disservice to the environmental movement because they should not use the environment to block every project. There are projects that can be done and environmentally sound projects can be done.
Very simply put, all that we are looking at here is a bridge. We have been building bridges for thousands of years. There is nothing unique about this particular project. We have had scientists tell us about the ice in the straits. We have had environmentalists tell us about all of the impacts that are going to take place. From an environmental standard, the bridge is probably the safest method of construction.
I should confess that when I first looked at this project I thought the tunnel would be the thing to do. I thought environmentally that would be the best way to proceed. There were two opposing reasons. One was that environmentally it was not the best way to proceed, contrary to popular opinion. The other was that the cost would escalate to almost twice the amount because a tunnel requires that everything be done doubly.
The simple fact of the matter is that we have to get over this idea of a megaproject. Granted it is a megaproject in dollars, but it is nothing unique. It is a bridge. We build them all the time. The people in Hull would like to have a couple more so they could get over to Ottawa more quickly every morning rather than being tied up in traffic. We have to get over the ideas that it is something unique or a megaproject.
All we are doing is equating the cost of a ferry service to the cost of a bridge and doing something that is going to benefit people. Let us get on with it. Atlantic Canadians have been hearing this story for a long time. It is time to get to work rather than to talk.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, on February 8 of this year-I remember it was February 8 because it was my wife's birthday and I forgot all about it-I led off the second reading debate for my party on Bill C-110. This bill will enable the government to sign a contract

Government Orders
with a private company to build a fixed link to Prince Edward Island.
Today, June 15, I will be the concluding speaker on third reading for the same bill. I am very happy with the way the whole debate has turned out. For a while I did not think this bill would ever come into the House of Commons. We had second reading on February 8 and today, in the last days of this Parliament, this bill is back in the House of Commons for its final reading.
I would like to compliment the people in my party from Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, I should say from all the Atlantic provinces and from Ontario, both francophone and anglophone, who represent various ridings across this great country of ours.
Those members took a lot of time not only to come to the House and speak on behalf of this project between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, but also to do a lot of research. It was evident from the content that their speeches were not taken lightly. They did much research and worked hard to put together their remarks to represent their constituents' feelings toward this particular project between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I thank them all for that.
I would also like to compliment the member for Sault Ste. Marie who has led the debate for the New Democratic Party. His remarks have been exemplary not only here in the House but also in committee. He has been fair. He is doing what he is charged to do as an opposition member.
His party obviously took the position that this bill was not a good bill. However, that does not detract from his ability and his right to stand up in this House and criticize this particular bill or to try to improve it in committee and at third reading. That is what his party has attempted to do. I know some members of his party went a little overboard in their remarks and there was reaction to that which happens quite often in this House. This is not a gentle debating society most days.
The hon. member has said that he has never been to Prince Edward Island. I would like to invite him down to P.E.I. to show him our beautiful province.
He also represents a riding with a fixed link between the two Sault Ste. Maries. He said that when he was a young man he used to ride the ferries back and forth. Maybe that is why he feels so strongly about Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick losing their ferry system.
I would like to ask a question. Where are the ferries today? Why are they not there? The answer is obvious. It was an inadequate transportation system between his part of Ontario and the United States for the free movement of goods and services and people across the border. That is why the ferries are not there. It no longer made any sense to keep them running.
That is the same position we are in today. It no longer makes economic sense. As England has found out, today it no longer makes any sense to be apart from the rest of the world or even the rest of the country. We have links and bridges between Canada and the United States yet some people think it is wrong that we should have a link between the provinces in our own country.
I would ask the member to think about that and to come down before too long and pay us a visit. We will have some good lobsters. We might go for a ferry ride and jig some cod, if there is any left down there.
I also commend the Minister of Public Works who has done a lot of work on this particular project. Over the years he has been a good representative for the mari-times. Prince Edward Islanders relied on him quite a bit because we do not have a member on the government side, especially during the time of the closure of CFB. Over the years we relied on the hon. member for Central Nova to go to bat for us. He has been good for Prince Edward Island. He has been good for his own province and good for the maritimes.
A week ago last Monday he had to visit Prince Edward Island to unjam or break a deadlock between some of our civil servants and bureaucrats who basically were asking the province to pay a very high price in order for the government to continue with this link.
It was a visit from the minister, taking his prerogative as an elected member, as a cabinet minister and as a decision maker in this country. It shows that politicians and ministers can still make decisions. He visited our province and within a short number of hours we had the
June 15, 1993

agreement between Canada and P.E.I. about the constitutional amendment which the province of Prince Edward Island will be passing today.
I assure all members that the constitutional amendment will be passed because we have 31 Liberal members in that legislature. Even the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of this bridge, so I do not think that the judge who may be ruling today need worry that the constitutional amendment is not going to pass.
Let us go back to why members on this side and members of the government are supporting this bridge. We live in a democracy and the people have spoken not once but three times on this particular project. First there was a referendum. Many members mentioned today how the referendum was won on the yes side and how support for the link was increasing in P.E.I. if we go by the polls which effectively are snapshots.
Also, we had a provincial election in 1989, after the referendum was taken. The government, the party that was supporting the fixed link in Prince Edward Island, was returned with 30 seats out of 32. There was another election this year. The provincial party that was supporting the fixed link and supporting this particular project was returned with a majority of 31 to 1.
If we are listening to the people at all, in neither of these elections was this a particularly big issue. If it was a big issue or concern we would have heard about it during the campaigns and there would have been a major fight against it. That did not materialize at all.
It is my view and I think the view of the majority of the members in this House that the people of Prince Edward Island have overwhelmingly supported this particular initiative on three occasions. What we are doing today really follows the dictates of the majority of the people of Prince Edward Island.
I would like to compliment the member for Cariboo- Chilcotin who was the government leader at the committee stage of this bill. He made sure all parties co-operated as far as witnesses were concerned at committee stage.
Government Orders
Whether they were for or against the link, anyone who wanted to come to the committee was allowed to. Whether they were the Friends of the Island or the Island for a Better Tomorrow, whether it was the fishermen's association, the fishermen's union in New Brunswick, the ferry workers' union, whether they were representatives of business or labour in P.E.I., all were welcome. Even people who were looking for a free ferry service were allowed to come in, say their piece and submit their position to questions. Some of them did not. Some of them used up all their time with presentations but that was their choice. They were allowed to come in and all parties were heard in the Parliament of Canada at committee stage.
I would like to compliment the hon. member for his open-mindedness and his co-operation in that particular part of this legislation.
I do not think there is anything new to say about this bill. We have gone through all the necessary debate on this. After the vote today it will go to the Senate. I encourage the senators to expedite this legislation so work can begin this summer. This is not a guarantee the project is going to go. It is just another step, but a most important one. We still have a way to go after today before the contract is signed and the project begins.
I make the prediction that what will be happening in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick is not just a fulfilment of a constitutional commitment made 120 years ago, but this project will become a wonder of the modern world. People will come from all over the world to view this particular project. As the member for Labrador says, the concept will be used many times in the future on major projects. The financing part of it is a unique contribution to a project which will be built in a unique way.


Steve Butland: Mr. Speaker, just when you think everything has been said I thought of one more thing. However, the member for Egmont will still get the last word which is only appropriate.
I have a very brief comment. I think it was John Donne who said that no man is an island. I have to make that politically correct and say that no person is an island. However, it has just dawned on me: When is no island an island? When a bridge is built, it is no longer an island.

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
The member equated the international bridge between Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan to this particular link. He knows that is totally erroneous. My neighbouring colleague from Algoma asked how the member for Sault Ste. Marie could be against this link when he wants a little link in his own constituency rebuilt. It is a lock. It is a $12 million to $13 million project. He asked how it was possible to vote against this link and at the same time look for funds from the government to repair that lock. Both analogies are absolutely erroneous and I know the member will agree with me when he stands.
Various polls have been taken. We probably have to accept the fact that the plebiscite or whatever it was called several years ago was 65-35. I understand that another poll has been taken and it is still predominantly in favour. I wonder whether the members from P.E.I. have asked the young people because they have most at stake in this.
I just came across a letter written by liana Kunclius, president of Students for Environmental Action in Bluefield High School. She is talking about the analysis being rushed. "We feel that for Public Works Canada to continue this megaproject without the suggested and crucial environmental studies is irresponsible". This comes from a young person and I am just wondering in all sincerity, what is the feeling of the young people of P.E.I. about this project?


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody has asked the young people directly how they feel about the project but many of the parents of these young people have certainly been asked.
I have a letter addressed to many people on Parliament Hill from the P.E.I. Council of Labour. I would think they are the parents of many of the young people of P.E.I. There are 2,000 letters in my office which I am going to give to the minister. They are business people and supporters but who are also parents of the children of P.E.I.
I would like to quote from a letter: "The Prince Edward Island Council of the Canadian Federation of Labour was the first provincial organization to officially endorse this project through convention resolution back in 1986". That was two years before anything concrete
happened. "Since that time we have reconfirmed our position at each subsequent convention. Today we are closer to the reality of this project proceeding than ever before. However there are still a few hurdles". That was in reference to the court case.
Major labour organizations, the major business community in Prince Edward Island and ordinary citizens have flooded us with letters for the past month and a half, ever since the court case came down. They urge not just opposition members but government members to hold firm, to continue to work closely to address the concerns of Madam Justice Reed. That has been done. Yet no matter what happens, we address all the legalities of it and the environmental concerns and what does the NDP come up with? Have we asked the kids in P.E.I. how they feel.
The time has come to stop asking who is for or against it and to proceed with the building of this project.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Moncton- Christine Lamont and David Spencer; the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands-The Environment; the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-National Defence; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Immigration; the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River-Indian Affairs.


An hon. member:: A short question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments have terminated. There was only five minutes remaining. It is the clock I have in front of me that counts.
It being 4.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to an order made Monday, June 14, 1993 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 third reading stage of the bill now before the House.
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 15, 1993


Some hon. members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those who 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.
And the bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There is a problem with one of the green buses. A couple of doors are jammed or something and a few members are not able to come in. We will wait two minutes.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. It has come to our attention that one of the prominent members of this House will not be with us tomorrow by virtue of activities in his home province. This member has served here with great distinction for some 25 years and I speak of the hon. Speaker himself.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You don't want the Speaker to have tears in his eyes.


Harvie Andre: I want to say congratulations, Mr. Speaker, for everybody here, since you preceded most of us anyway, as one of the illustrious members of the class of June 25, 1968. I think there are six of you still in the House. You have successfully run in seven federal elections, served with distinction and diligence on behalf of your constituents, on behalf of this House, on behalf of the government, as a minister in the Clark government. On behalf of your friends and colleagues, all of us here in the House and the many millions of Canadians who know you and love you, all the best to wherever former linemen go.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to join with the House leader in paying tribute to you on your 25th anniversary of serving in the House of Commons.
You were among some 96 members who were elected in 1968, of which there are only six left. I believe at the
Government Orders
end of this Parliament there will only be two. We want to congratulate you on your 25 years in the House of Commons. As the House leader said, you are a former Edmonton Eskimo and when you became the deputy opposition whip in 1972 to 1976 you led some mighty challenges and attacks on the government front benches benches during that time.
I recall as well that you led some great sing-songs at Speaker Jerome's summer home in the Gatineau on a few occasions.
You served as the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism in the Clark government in 1979 and in 1984 you were chosen Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House. You have been able to bring all your skills of diplomacy to bear on this place.
I want to congratulate you. You are a really great family man. You have five children and three grandchildren. One was bom I believe March 30.1 recall we were paying tribute to you at that time or to your new grandchild. I had the honour of mentioning Kathleen's name in the House. It is probably the first time that a child has been born and introduced to the House of Commons the following day. That is something that I remember about your family.
I want to say that in your biography, it mentions that you are a great singer. Those of us who have had occasions to be with you on more festive occasions know that is true.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Brydon Foster: You might even put the Minister of National Health and Welfare to shame if you were to do your rendition of Hello Dolly right now. One of your other favourite songs is Sunny Side of the Street.
That is one of the great tributes that can be paid to you, Mr. Speaker. Whenever you enter a room to join in, you bring joy, happiness and exuberance to the occasion. That is what will be remembered most.
We are glad that you have been here for 25 years. You have brought joy, exuberance and good feelings to this place and specially in your position as Speaker. We wish you well. We wish Betty well and we wish your entire family well.

June 15, 1993
Government Orders


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, my leader, my wife and myself I wish to echo the remarks made by my two colleagues about you.
There was only one time in all the years I have known you or known of you that I was very mad at you and that was when you helped to beat the Saskatchewan Rough Riders.


An hon. member:: Shame.


An hon. member:: Shame on you, Steve.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have never forgiven you for that.
Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I have always noticed about you, and so have all of us, is that you never try to pretend to be more than what you are. You are always Steve to all of us. For countless thousands in this country and specially in Edmonton, Alberta generally you are always one of us and one of them. It speaks well of you.
I want to say to you as a fellow survivor of the class of '68, as are our colleagues from Yorkton-Melville and Algoma, that there are only six of us left out of 96. It tells you something about the survival rate around here.
You and I realized a long time ago that as soon as you win two elections, you are an expert. If you win three or four you are lucky. If you win seven elections, as we have, then it is because the people decided that was the best way to keep us out of town and off welfare.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I look forward to seeing you, Sir, on future occasions, goodness knows when and where.


An hon. member:: In the welfare line.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I suppose we could all line up together.
It has been a pleasure to be your friend and your colleague. We have had many happy times together. That is one thing about this place, certainly with most of us if not all of us. You exemplified that. Whatever we did or said, we never did or said it personally and we never took it personally. That has been a primary class act by our Parliaments and we learned it from the British and others. But you have carried that out all the time. I have never known you to personally object to someone.
You were an asset to us and to this place. We wish you and your family well in the future. Connie sends her best regards to you. I will see you again and we can do some more reminiscing. Good luck, Steve. We will miss you.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I know you want to get to the vote so we will get to it shortly, but I wish first to thank my colleagues from the class of 78-


Some hon. members:: 


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Sorry, '68. That is how touching it is. -the hon. member for Regina- Lumsden, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, the hon. member for Algoma, Charlie from Davenport and my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister from Vegre-ville. It has been a wonderful 25 years because we have had such great members as we have here today.
I say, with all my heart, that you have just been wonderful from 1984 to-what is it 1993?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: From 1984 to 1993 I have enjoyed the chair duty. You have been very kind to me. You have really not misbehaved. You have done everything I have said to do and that is how we got along.
Thank you again ever so much.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave of the House to move the following motion to receive a late petition for a private bill for which I think there is unanimous consent. It reads:
That notwithstanding Standing Orders 131(5), 132 and 140 the petition for a private bill from the Canadian Medical Association presented earlier this day be deemed to have been filed within the required time limit and received by this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order and the usual practices of the House, Bill S-20, an act to change the name of the Canadian Medical Association, be now called for second reading and that the House proceed to dispose of the said bill at all stages.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
* *
*

Bruce Halliday: that Bill S-20, an act to change the name of the Canadian Medical Association, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, be referred to Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and by unanimous consent considered in committee, concurred in, read the third time and passed.
++NAYS
* *
*
Angus
Blaikie
Fulton
Grey (Beaver River)
Hunter
McCurdy
Nowlan
Plamondon
Stupich -17
Members
Benjamin
Butland
Flmk
Heap
Leblanc (Longueuil) McLaughlin Nystrom Samson

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-128, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Ihriff (child pornography and corrupting morals), as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
Barbara Jean McDougall: that the bill be concurred in.

June 15, 1993
Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Barbara Jean McDougall: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to begin the debate at third reading on Bill C-128 in support of the action that is being taken to amend the Criminal Code with respect to child pornography.
I should also add I had a private member's bill that would have been debated at this time. Because the subject matter of my private member's bill was also pornography we decided to merge the two and go on with Bill C-128 since one-third of the topic of my private member's bill on pornography deals with the question of child pornography and that is being served in this Bill C-128.1 am going to address some of the aspects of what my bill would have done and also the bill that is before us, Bill C-128.
In the case of my bill I was pleased that it was designated a votable bill. It met the criteria and would have proceeded had the parliamentary calendar had enough time for a second hour of debate following today and finally to a vote. If it was successful it would have proceeded to committee and so on. Unfortunately the parliamentary calendar is coming to a close now and that will not take place. I am going to simply address what was in my bill and also this bill.
I am glad that one aspect of my objective in bringing forward my private member's bill dealing with pornography is being addressed in Bill C-128. I brought forward my bill last December and I had two objectives.
My first objective was to see if I could get the government to agree to act on the issue of pornography and simply take over the subject matter of my bill as its own, acknowledge where it came from and proceed on that basis.
The second objective, failing the first, would be that if the government did not want to proceed with my bill that it would at least introduce a bill of its own on the subject of pornography. That has partly been answered through Bill C-128.
I want to also acknowledge that many caucus members supported my bill. My bill was seconded by 14 caucus
members as recorded in Hansard. I would like to acknowledge that the member for Niagara Falls was always a strong supporter of action that this government had to take with respect to the question of pornography. He and I were first elected in 1984. When we received the Fraser report in 1985, we were two members among many who urged the minister at that time to act on the question of pornography. It resulted in two bills which I will mention in a moment. Finally it is coming to fruition in this Bill C-128. The member for Niagara Falls as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice shepherded that bill through committee to this stage and hopefully adoption by the House later today.
I would also like to recognize the work of the member for Mississauga West who is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs who worked hard at ensuring that this bill and the subject matter of this bill dealing with child pornography would successfully come through to this stage today at third reading.
I would also like to say that the family caucus of the Conservative Party strongly urged the Minister of Justice to take over my bill and to come forward with a bill dealing with pornography. At least one measure of that is being acted on today. I have received hundreds of letters and phone calls and I continue to receive them in support of the bill I brought forward dealing with the subject of pornography. I lobbied the minister to take over my bill and fortunately at least one part is now being acted on.
The minister's bill with regard to the topic of child pornography is essentially the same as mine. With the amendments that were added at committee stage to the minister's bill, it really is identical to the bill I introduced on the subject matter of child pornography. I am really pleased that we have made tremendous progress and that today we are going to pass that before this House adjourns and we move toward the election which we expect in the fall.
My bill had three parts. The first part was to introduce legislation to criminalize the use of children in the production of pornography. That is what Bill C-128 addresses. In the second part of my bill, for the first time because child pornography is not in the Criminal Code now, we are doing something that is breaking ground in that area. My bill, again for the first time, would
June 15, 1993

introduce tough new measures to protect women, to criminalize violence in pornography against women.
Some people have suggested to me that the action we are taking in Bill C-128 with regard to children in pornography attacks the vilest and cruelest form of pornography as it victimizes children. There is a large measure of truth to that and I support that.
However I think we would all find that the action against women in pornography or the victimization of women and the way in which they are treated as things and objects and not as human beings is also repugnant and repulsive. It also leads to the same tragic results sometimes that child pornography does. That is the victimization and the brutal murdering of women which is what happens to children which Bill C-128 addresses. I find both repulsive.
That is why in my bill I had as one part the addition to the Criminal Code of actions against child pornography and as a second part actions against violence against women in pornography and in the sexual context. I think both actions deserve a very strong criminal sanction against them because both are equally repugnant to all in society who want our Criminal Code to reflect our values as it should.
I also had in my bill as a third item, and again for the first time, the introduction into the Criminal Code of a precise definition of pornography. That would have assisted the police, the courts and all Canadians to identify and control what common sense tells us is pornography.
That would have meant that rather than relying on the present term "obscene" in the Criminal Code which lacks any clear definition and also rather than relying on the phrase "undue exploitation of sex" we would have a clear guideline in the Criminal Code as to what was meant by pornography.
My bill also added any matter visual or otherwise that incites, promotes, encourages or advocates the use of children. That means that anyone who is or appears to be under 18, whether in a real or simulated situation in a sexual context or portrays any violence against a child or a male or a female or portrays any degrading sexual acts as defined in my bill against a child or a male or a female person would then be liable to criminal sanctions as
Government Orders
outlined in the bill. I am glad the latter part with respect to children has been added as an amendment to the government bill and is a part of the report we have received here today at third reading.
Let me just mention a little history here with regard to government actions on the questions of pornography. Parliament in the early 1980s established two special committees. One committee was chaired by Dr. Robin Badgley and it made recommendations dealing with the problems of child sexual abuse and published its report in August 1984.
A second committee, also formed in the early 1980s, was chaired by Paul Fraser. It investigated pornography and child prostitution. That report was made public in April 1985. Therefore as the new government that had been elected in the fall of 1984 took office these two reports came very early in its mandate and the government then studied the results of these two reports.
Briefs were submitted to these committees clearly demonstrating that most Canadians wanted government control of violent pornography to protect both children and women. In response, the Fraser committee made 58 recommendations dealing with pornography, 9 of them concerning child pornography. The committee also recommended a complete revision and rewriting of the obscenity laws in the Criminal Code.
We have to remember that the word "pornography" does not appear in any current law in our Criminal Code today dealing with offensive materials and performances.
Many people attending the Fraser committee hearings argued that the current terminology of "obscene" should be replaced with a clear definition because of its lack of precision. The government responded and took account of the multiplicity of views expressed in those two reports and in the consultative process which it developed around the subject matter of pornography. The government then acted promptly and introduced Bill C-114, which unfortunately died on the Order Paper in 1986. Subsequently it introduced Bill C-54, which also died on the Order Paper in 1987.
The protection of vulnerable groups from harm, such as women and children, is an important consideration in determining the appropriate level of any intervention of the Criminal Code. Strong measures are needed to ensure that those people who may be harmed by the

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
effects of pornography are protected by provisions in the Criminal Code.
In the first two bills that I mentioned and also in the bill that I brought forward, I sought legal advice to make sure that the bill I presented for private members' debate, and which part of it has now been taken over, would strike an appropriate balance between the necessity to protect people from harm and also the right to freedom of expression which is guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The bill I presented and also this bill, Bill C-128, recognizes the need for educational, scientific and medical defences with limitations to ensure the protection of freedom of expression. We have done that to that degree, and we have tried to meet the legitimate objective of protecting children and women from violence in pornography, and in Bill C-128 protect children from violence and abuse in pornography and the need for freedom of expression.
Justice Sopinka in the Butler decision of 1992 was very helpful in his decision explaining how we would deal with the question of pornography in the absence of anything further from the House to clarify what the Criminal Code said on pornography. He explained what would constitute either an obscene matter which the Criminal Code speaks to or the undue exploitation of sex and what would be meant by that.
He did it in three categories and I quote: "The first would be the portrayal of sex coupled with violence which will almost always constitute the undue exploitation of sex". Then Justice Sopinka went on to say: "Explicit sex which is degrading or dehumanizing may be undue if the risk of harm is substantial". That would be the second test. Then Justice Sopinka spoke of the third test and said: "Finally, explicit sex that is not violent and neither degrading nor dehumanizing is generally tolerated in our society and will not qualify as undue exploitation of sex unless it employs children in its production".
He was saying to us that if it involves children then it is always obscene and always an undue exploitation of sex. That is what Bill C-128 recognizes. That is why I am pleased we are finally taking action at least on that aspect of the question of pornography.
There are some who propagate the myth that pornography is a harmless adult pleasure. I want to say a few
things about that. I found a quote in The Washington Post. Admittedly it is an American quote but I thought it was a very good one. The writer was Nicholas Von Hoffman, a columnist with The Washington Post. He said the following: "Why is it liberals believe role models in third grade readers are of decisive influence on behaviour when it concerns racism or male chauvinist piggery, yet laugh at the assertion that pornography may also teach rape? Every text book in every public school system in the nation has been overhauled in the last 20 years"-and that is also true in Canada-"because it was thought that the blond, blue-eyed suburban children once depicted therein taught little people a socially dangerous ethno-centrism".
He continues: "If textbooks, those vapid and insipid instruments of such slight influence can have such a sweeping effect, what are we to surmise about the effects on the impressionably young of an X or R-rated movie in wide screen technicolour with Dolby sound and every device of cinematic realism?"
Common sense tells us that if textbooks that used to have stories about John and Mary, who were the blond, blue-eyed people who used to be in the text when some of us went to school, which dates us somewhat, now have to be rewritten to include people of various ethnic groups and different names, if that is so vital, then surely all these movies, videos, magazines and everything that are available to our children today do equal if not more harm to people. Common sense would tell us that. Those who want to say that pornography is a harmless pleasure simply do not make sense.
I talked to Mr. Bob Matthews of Project P, which stands for pornography, from the Ontario Provincial Police. He heads that group. He was very supportive of my bill and he pled with me to make sure that this government at least acts on child pornography, if nothing else. He also liked my bill but he said to at least make sure of that. Fortunately today we are coming to the stage of passing that.
There are statistics from Canadian and American studies. A study was done zby Dr. W. L. Marshall of Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. He studied the inmates of the Kingston penitentiary and discovered that more than one-third of the 89 child molesters and rapists
June 15, 1993

who are in the Kingston penitentiary had committed the offence after being exposed to pornography.
In the evidence he presented to the family caucus of the Conservative Party he said that of 51 child molesters, 34 consumed pornography on an ongoing basis before they committed their crimes. He also said that of 51 child molesters, 19 used pornography as a stimulus and a catalyst to acting out their crimes. The evidence is there and it is very clear.
Another telling piece of evidence is an interview with a convicted child and woman molester. He had murdered 18 children and 10 women, all in a sexual context. His name was Ted Bundy. He was executed for those crimes in the state of Florida. There was an interview between him and Dr. James Dobson.
Dr. Dobson was a member of the attorney general's commission on pornography in 1985 during the Reagan administration in the United States. That commission was unanimous on the direct relationship between pornography and violence toward women and children.
In Ted Bundy's interview with Dr. Dobson he discussed his background. Ted Bundy told Dr. Dobson that he grew up, and he used these words, in a wonderful home with dedicated and loving parents, five brothers and sisters. He attended church every Sunday. He then said that as a 12-year old or 13-year old he had his first exposure to pornography. The pornography he looked at was in what I would characterize as adult magazines. These were soft core pornography magazines that his grandfather had hidden in the greenhouse in the backyard. Ted Bundy found these and they were his first exposure to pornography.
As a result of going through these magazines over and over, he then wanted magazines with violence in a sexual context in them. He then sought out more and more magazines depicting sexual violence. Then he would fantasize about what he had seen in the visual form and what he was reading.
He then said that at age 18:
It moulded and shaped my behaviour-fantasized and crystallized my thoughts-all fueled by pornography-for two years I read more and more and ever increasingly violent pornography-it became an addiction -then the barriers that I knew were wrong, (that I had
Government Orders
learned as a child) couldn't be controlled any more-I began to act
out my fantasies.
He then killed 18 children and 10 women.
He then admitted:
Pornography was central to the action of my murders.
He also said that pornography can reach out and snatch any child out of any home in America or North America today. He explained:
Without a doubt every murderer that I talked with in Florida
State Prison -
-and there were 81 serial murderers in that prison when he was there-
-was consumed by pornography.
Those are some of the facts that we know and that we study. It is not a harmless adult pleasure. It is one that affects people and unfortunately it leads some to act out the very things they see and read.
In the Florida State Prison 36 of the serial murderers listed hard core violent pornography as the most prominent reason for committing the murder they committed. They said the door that opened all of them to hard core violent pornography was soft or softer pornography.
I am delighted that today we are at least moving on one-third of what my bill was trying to do, which is to act on child pornography. I wish we were also acting on violent pornography against women because I find it equally repugnant and just as vile and degrading as actions against children. I wish we were doing that too.
I also wish we were providing a clear definition in our Criminal Code of what is dehumanizing and degrading pornography, which my bill sought to do. That is going to have to wait for another Parliament. I hope the good people of Kitchener will re-elect me. If they do then I will commit myself to adding those two additional parts later. At least we are acting on the first one today.
In conclusion let me simply say the following. In one of the studies about pornography and its influence that I looked at I found a remarkable statement by several who have studied this in the United States and Canada. They were all in agreement.

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
They documented four steps in what happens to people who are consumed by pornography. The first step is that it is addictive to its habitual user. The user wants more and more. The second step is one of escalation in consumption and the need for more explicit and more brutal levels of stimulation. That in turn leads to a third step, which is a desensitization process that effectively makes commonplace what was once shocking, repulsive and abhorrent. Unfortunately sometimes that progression leads to the fourth step which is the acting out of the pornographic depictions, often with violent and brutal results that lead to the death of children and women.
Let me conclude by simply saying that it is time that all members of this House and all Canadians commit themselves to attack the personal and social evils of pornography. As a personal evil pornography corrupts the morals and destroys healthy attitudes toward life for the user. As a social evil it brings immense harm, even death, to innocent women and children and their families.
Bill C-128 at least starts the first step in that process. As I said before, if re-elected I will commit myself to working toward adding the other two. I commend Bill C-128 to the House for speedy passage today so that we can at least take that first important step.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on what the hon. member for Kitchener said. I want to congratulate him on bringing forward his private members' bill on pornography. There are a lot of thoughtful provisions in it. I want to thank him for his kindness in blending together his thoughts with respect to his own private members' bill and for speaking so forcefully and so well on behalf of Bill C-128 at third reading. I listened very closely to what he said.
I think all members of the House are in support of Bill C-128. It would not be an understatement to say that this is an extremely important bill. I think if there is one thing I would modify in what the hon. member for Kitchener has said it is that the child pornography is not more serious than pornography involving adults of any gender. When we are talking about children we are talking about the most vulnerable people in our society.
We are also talking about members of our society who are helpless, members of our society who have had inflicted upon them the horrors of child pornography. They never really forget the experience and have to live with this degrading and horrible experience for the rest of their lives. In many cases they have their lives twisted and deformed mentally as a result of their experiences so that they are never able to fulfil their potential and lead the full lives that we would want them to have. As well, in many cases those who were sexually abused become abusers when they are adults.
Just to deal for a minute with the whole question of pornography as the hon. member for Kitchener has done, I do not think this House or anybody in this country truly realizes how the malignancy of pornography has spread through our social fibre.
In the early 1970s pornography was a $5 million industry in North America. Today it is a $10 billion industry. Of the 10 most profitable magazines on the market six are what we would call men's entertainment magazines. Playboy and Penthouse outsell Time and Maclean's in this country. Thirty per cent of all news-stand sales now consist of pornographic magazines.
We cannot have that much pornography in this country without having child abuse. The fact that is often overlooked by those who fear that government is going too far in censoring certain materials is that this material has a profound effect on the lives and futures of children in our country. Each depiction of a child in a sexual act or an unnatural position of nudity means that child was abused to facilitate the photograph or the video in question. The very fact that has happened is evidence of child abuse.
Child pornography is one of the most dangerous of all types of pornography for two reasons. First, paedophiles often use it as a tool to seduce other children and lower their inhibitions. They say to these children that all kids do this. That is okay so they should not be afraid because it is perfectly natural.
If a paedophile is operating in a certain neighbourhood there may be pressure on a child when he or she recognizes one of his or her peers in a picture. These are children. We are not talking about the mature minds of adults, and in many cases we wonder how mature the minds of adults are. The fact of the matter is that children are vulnerable. They are in a maturing state and we cannot expect them to understand that when they see these photographs that all children are not doing this. If
June 15, 1993

these children do not have guidance from other sources, adults on whom they can depend and rely to speak to about this, they are going to be influenced by paedophiles who pursue this action.
The second reason that it is so deadly serious to our society is the child is damaged for life in the production of a pornographic video or a photo. It is a permanent record of a child involved in either sexual poses or sexual acts. The child has the scars for life. Even when they are adults they know these images may be used to seduce other children. The fact that they have been molested and used in this way is something they will never be able to get out of their minds.
This bill bans the possession of child pornography and that is very important. Presently it is not illegal to possess this material. It is only illegal to sell or distribute it. It means that someone who produces child pornography for his own use escapes criminal liability, and I am glad to see that this is going to change.
The importation of child pornography will also be prohibited by this bill. This means the police can track the delivery of child pornography and arrest and charge the recipient. This is important because a search warrant can be issued and police may find the recipient in possession of additional pornographic material. It may also lead to information on the identity of other paedophiles as very often these people trade material and information.
The present situation under the Customs Tariff Act is that if pornography is imported, then that material is destroyed. The person who imported it is not charged. It is just destroyed and that is the end of the matter.
Now a paedophile who is attempting to build up a collection of pornographic material will simply make other attempts to obtain the material they are seeking. What are the chances of coming across this material again? It is very unlikely. There are just over 300 and some cases a year where the customs officers find pornographic material in the mail. They cannot open every envelope. It is found through spot searches. If the
Government Orders
person orders more, the likelihood is that the material is going to get to the person who orders it.
We do not know what other situations exist at the point where this material is to be sent. By following it through to the recipient, we can find out a good deal and in some cases actually find children who are being molested and used for child pornographic purposes.
Perhaps we will even find, as I have said, the name and address of the person or company that is actually sending this material. It could be the beginning of an investigation into possession of other child pornography that may have been kept at the residence or may even be a secret location.
It is very important we realize that what we are doing here is not just saying we want to do something about child pornography. As a Parliament we have to be in a position to pass a bill that is effective. We cannot just continually talk about it.
In 1984 the Badgley commission stated that we had to do something about child pornography, that we had to make possession of child pornography against the law. In 1985, a year later, the Fraser Institute stated the same thing: we had to do something about child pornography and we had to make sure that possession of child pornography was against the law.
Rix Rogers, a well-known authority on the abuse of children and a special consultant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in 1990 came out with his report that said the same thing.
We have been talking about this for 10 years. How many children have been abused, have had their futures twisted and their lives practically ruined by the experiences that have resulted from child pornography? We can only imagine how many there have been.
If we want to get rid of child pornography, if we want to do something about sexual abuse of children, we have to do something about the children being abused now. As I have said, children who are abused more likely than not become abusers themselves. It is a never-ending cycle that we have to stop. The only way to stop it is with action through the law; to state what it is we want to do,

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
to make a commitment that in this country we are not going to tolerate child pornography.
We in the Liberal Party are very supportive of this legislation. I want to thank my colleague from Scarborough for his help. He will be the next speaker for our party. He made a tremendous contribution, as members of this House know.
We felt that this bill should have come long before now. It was too long in coming. But it is here now and we want to make sure it is successful. We want to make sure it passes. It has moved quickly, but because it has moved quickly does not mean that it has been frivolously dealt with. It has been considered veiy seriously. We have had witnesses, we have listened and we have taken into consideration the concerns that people might bring forward and have brought forward.
We have also said that we are not in any sense interfering with freedom of speech. Certainly not. We do not feel this bill in any way interferes with freedom of speech. However we have to take a stand. We have to say something. We have to make a commitment and we have to do something that is going to be effective.
In a recent government poll it was determined that 94 per cent of Canadians wanted to do something to prohibit child pornography. This is not saying that child pornography is being produced everywhere in Canada. It is not being produced in Canada very much at all, but it is being imported and it is being imported very easily.
While we have had the reports, we have not had the action. I want to mention also a very significant case, which is the Butler case that was started through the Court Challenges Program. In this case the court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the obscenity provisions of the Criminal Code. Although the prohibition against pornography contravened the freedom of expression guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it could be justified under section 1 of the charter as a reasonable limit prescribed by law. This is very important because we had then our highest court in the land coming down on the side of our obscenity provisions. That was the first very important pronouncement by this case.
Mr. Justice Sopinka, writing on behalf of the court, said that while a direct link between obscenity and harm to society may be difficult if not impossible to establish,
there was nevertheless sufficient evidence that depictions of degrading and dehumanizing sex do harm society and in particular adversely affect attitudes toward women. That was the second very important pronouncement because we finally had a case in this country that linked the dehumanizing and degrading treatment of women to obscenity and ultimately pornography. There is a second very important link.
Under the court's analysis they depicted sex with violence or degrading or dehumanizing sex as something that will almost always constitute an undue exploitation of sex contrary to the obscenity provisions of the code. This is the relationship between the actions of dehumanizing and degrading sex with obscenity and the contravention of the code. Explicit sex that is neither violent or dehumanizing will be tolerated the court said although two of the judges felt that not only the content but also the representation of the depiction would be objectionable.
However I want to underline that this is really relevant. In this context Mr. Justice Sopinka said: "Finally, explicit sex that is not violent and neither degrading nor dehumanizing is generally tolerated in our society and will not qualify as an undue exploitation of sex unless it employs children in its production".
In this act we talk about explicit sexual activity in relation to child pornography and the dehumanizing or degrading treatment of children and the words "explicit sex". There is this context. We have the invitation from the Supreme Court of Canada to do something about child pornography.
I do not want to go on too long because there are a lot of members of this House who wish to speak on this. I want to say that there has been great co-operation among all parties and I want to thank the government for this. This bill was introduced late and I had a very grave concern that we would not be reaching this point. We are just getting it in under the wire.
Our party has said from the very beginning that we did not want the House adjourned until this bill is passed. Now it seems that this may be the last piece of legislation that is passed by this Parliament. This is very important for the people of Canada. It is very important for our police forces who work diligently on this question. It is very important for the child interest groups in this country who are working day after day and are dealing with the broken psyches of children who have had to
June 15, 1993

endure this kind of treatment largely because the laws were not sufficient in our country.
I would like to close by saying that this bill is good and it must be passed by this House. I and members of my party support it completely.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add on behalf of my New Democratic colleagues our support for the passage of this bill. It looks to me as if we will be able to pass it in all its stages today. There has been a previous and prior agreement to do so.
I would just like to make a few brief remarks by way of commenting on the origin of this legislation and some of the issues that I think attend it.
First I would like to pay tribute to the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing. It seems that in every caucus there has been someone working on an individual basis on this particular issue. My colleague in the Liberal Party and my colleague in the Conservative Party have cited the people in their particular caucuses who have given a lot of attention to this effort.
Certainly the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing through the introduction of his private member's bill, Bill C-396, was also one who contributed very much to the political momentum that I think brought the House to the point where I think it is today, on the verge of passing this legislation dealing with the issue of child pornography.
I might say that in spite of the satisfaction that we take in the fact that this legislation is now to be passed and something is now to be done about child pornography, we would be remiss if we did not remark on the fact that we are in the closing days of a Parliament and in the ninth year of the political reign of the Conservative Party opposite.
Maybe sometime for the record-I say this in all honesty-we can have an explanation of why it has taken so long. Some of the members opposite made a political career out of campaigning against pornography when they were in opposition. Now nine years later and in the
Government Orders
dying days of their government and perhaps their political reign per se we get this bill.
It is really a shame that we have had to deal with it as quickly as we have had to. It is the kind of thing that probably did deserve more attention but we were left in the position of saying better late than never and better this bill than some imaginary bill that might come out of a longer process. We have accepted the reality that has been set before us and we are glad to be able to work in co-operation with others to bring forward a bill that deals with child pornography.
I do think that at some point the country is owed an explanation as to why it took so horribly long for this to happen. I know some of the reasons. I know that at one point there was a bill which tried to deal with pornography in general and child pornography all wrapped up in one and that became too difficult an issue for the government and for that matter for a lot of other people.
Instead of separating them as it was requested to do at the time it decided, if my memory serves me correctly, to scrap the whole project. It took this long again to come around to dealing with child pornography only, which is exactly what it was requested to do on a previous occasion when it could not find a way to deal with the whole issue.
I think the member who spoke on behalf of the government made a point that is well taken. There is an inconsistency when it comes to certain issues but I would submit that the inconsistency lies on both sides of the House or on both sides of the political spectrum.
Sometimes people who are conservatives are loath to see the importance of role models in literature, education and for that matter religious symbolism while they very clearly see the common sense notion that pornography affects people's views and what they see and experience affects their judgment about the world.
The member made the point that liberals often are very concerned about role models in textbooks but are prepared to argue-some of them and not all of them- that pornography does not do anybody any damage. There is an intellectual inconsistency here but I will just say in fairness that I think one will find it on both sides of the political spectrum.

Government Orders
There was a time not so long ago when I was seeking the nomination in 1977-78 that to be against pornography was seen to be an almost exclusively conservative pursuit. I think people came to see, particularly as those in the women's movement began to see that pornography was an issue for them, that there came to be a broader coalition of people who were concerned about pornography and particularly its effect on women and of course on children as this legislation seeks to deal with.
However we still have another stage to go as far as I am concerned and I hope I will have the time to get to that. I just wanted to say that I am glad to see that that coalition developed. I think we see it here today in the variety of people who are speaking to this particular bill and in the variety of parties that are all speaking in support of this particular bill.
Obviously child pornography is something that has to be dealt with. I cannot think of anything more despicable really than the exploitation of children for violent or sexual purposes both in the sense of the children who are used to create these photos and so on and in the sense of the children who may subsequently be victimized in a truly physical sense by people who are moved to do that by consuming that particular child pornography. The member who spoke before me spoke very well about all the connections that have been established through research and experience into that particular phenomenon.
I am not worried, but maybe somebody is, about curtailing free speech. I do not think that freedom of expression is an absolute and I never have. There is the old thing that we discuss in first year philosophy which is whether people have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theatre. They do not have the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theatre because their freedom to speak whatever they want is limited by a sense of responsibility for the well-being of others. In that case it is in the theatre.
The freedom of expression of child pomographers, if there is such a thing, is limited and is now to be limited by law and limited severely I hope by the responsibility that we all have to the well-being of children, both those who are directly or indirectly exploited by pornography, and the well-being of society in general.
The notwithstanding clause and the preamble of the charter of rights both indicate that the rights which are enshrined in the charter are not absolute. I think that if anybody wants to make an absolute defence of freedom of speech in this case as a way of criticizing this bill or other bills that might try to deal with pornography are barking up the wrong tree.
I want to go back to what I said earlier and I am sorry the member who spoke for the government is not here. I think we have another dimension to go. First of all we have not dealt with adult pornography and that is a remaining task.
However, let us say that we were able to come to an appropriate distinction between pornography and erotica. This is what held up a previous package because people could not come to that kind of distinction. We still will not have dealt with the all-pervasive soft pornography as it were that is blasted into our TV and family rooms day after day, hour after hour, around the clock and is now to come to us through the death star which is the satellite that will bombard us with literally hundreds of channels.
It is very difficult these days for parents to protect their children if there is a TV in the house and a channel changer. It is difficult to regulate what they are being exposed to unless a parent is there all the time.
I am not only talking about programming, I am also talking about advertising in particular. What is offensive about pornography in the abstract or conceptual sense is its dehumanization of the human body and human relationships, particularly as they pertain to women. Women are made into sexual objects, objects of violence or whatever the case may be.
I think our children pick up the message about women as sexual objects very soon without ever having to see any so-called pornography. They just have to watch advertisement after advertisement where women and sex are used in subliminal and explicit ways to sell everything from toothpaste to mouthwash to cars and jeans. Situation comedies and other programs are full of sexual innuendo and double entendre. There is variety of other ways in which young people are exposed to a far too heavy diet of having to think about sex and themselves in
June 15, 1993

a way that ought not to be forced on them at such an early age.
Perhaps this reveals a small c conservative in this socialist but I think this is a growing concern. I would like my friends over there who are great defenders of the market, deregulation and letting the world be run by consumer, corporate and market interests to explain to me how in the final analysis we will deal with this kind of pornography. The advertisers and corporate image makers are given a free hand now. They will be given an even freer hand through the proliferation of telecommunications technology and the elevation of the market ethic to a mega ethic through the free trade agreement and things like that. They elevate the marketplace concep-tively to a place where it has never been before in Canadian society because we have always held the market ethic in tension with other ethics and with other ways of seeing the world.
There is a contradiction between small 1 liberals who worry about role models in text books and yet defend pornography. I do not think it is a contradiction I have because I do not think I am a small liberal. I am not sure who the member was quoting when he was reading from The Washington Post. It sounded like Robert Hughes who wrote the book, Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America which incidentally is a great tirade against political correctness, if you are interested, on both the left and the right.
This is the deeper contradiction in the political mindset of my friends on the small c conservative side. How are they going to deal with the effect of the marketplace and the implicit use of sex and sexual images to sell products? We in our society hold up those who are able to sell things as the people we most admire. The people who are able to sell millions of things well rise to the top in our society. So often this is done through the exploitation of the very thing we want to contain in another form when we find it and that is pornography.
When we find it in the form of promotion of a product, we say: "Well, isn't that clever. They developed that ad and got a bigger market share. They did so well. The
Government Orders
price of their shares went up or the value of their dividends went up or whatever the case may be".
I leave that comment with you. We are anxious to see the bill passed and we hope it will have the effect so many members here genuinely hope for and that is to see child pornography drastically reduced if not eliminated in Canada.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I remember nine years ago this month I was running for election for the first time and speaking to a meeting of Conservatives in the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, which is part of my riding. I told them one of the things I hoped to see and be a part of in my term of office in Ottawa was new and tougher laws in the area of pornography, if I was fortunate enough to be elected. I am delighted today that after nine years, the Canadian House of Commons is set to pass new, tough laws in the area of child pornography.
I am tempted not to rise to the bait of some of the partisan comments from my friend in the New Democratic Party. He asked a legitimate question I suppose when he said: "Why did it take nine years to get a bill through the House of Commons?" I can say to him that it certainly was not because of lack of trying on the part of the member for Kitchener, my political party or me.
In 1985 we made our first attempt to introduce legislation. It was comprehensive legislation dealing with all aspects of pornography. I liked the bill and was enthusiastic about it. I was delighted when we tabled it in the House of Commons.
It was tabled in an honest response to reports that had been mentioned in this House and to individuals and groups that petitioned us to bring in a pornography bill. That bill was roundly criticized by many individuals and groups. Some very prominent Canadians did everything possible with reference to that first pornography bill. It was one of the first pieces of legislation in the justice area in which I was involved. I somewhat naively thought that maybe we did not get it quite right. Perhaps if we listened to the criticism of the first pornography bill, we would get it right. We would change it and tighten up the definitions.

Government Orders
I remembered looking at it and listening to all the criticism that part of the definition was open-ended. I thought it would be better in law to close the definition and make what we were talking about clearer.
I say I was somewhat naive because the next Minister of Justice, the present Governor General of Canada, introduced a second pornography bill and I was somewhat surprised that the same cast who criticized the first pornography bill lined up against the second bill. At this time I was under much fewer illusions about this whole subject and how difficult it was. I decided to see if there was anything I could do as a member of the standing committee of justice to try to meet the library boards, respond to the criticism and write letters to the editor to defend the second attempt by this government. I can say that there was quite a bit of criticism. As the member from the Liberal Party who spoke first on this pointed out, this is a billion dollar business. There are people who are prepared to spend millions of dollars to make sure that there is no new pornography bill in Canada.
I remember shortly after being elected a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada striking down the importation of pornography sections in the Customs Act. I will tell you what fascinated me about that. Who would go to all the trouble and expense to go to the Supreme Court of Canada to challenge a law that was blocking hard core pornography getting into this country? Of course it is the people who benefit and make huge profits from pornography. They are the ones who are prepared to challenge through every court in this land to try and strike down any attempt by parliamentarians.
There is a very well organized and financed lobby in this country that will challenge any definition of pornography. On one count they have us because it is veiy difficult. Very often you will hear people say: "I am against pornography but you did not get the right definition". As a member of the standing committee of justice and the last four years as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, I have often said: "if you agree we have a problem tell us what you think the definition should be." Of course you do not really get it then. In fact I remember one witness said to me: "No, no, my job is to see what you have come up with and then I will let
you know whether that meets our standards and our tests".
The second pornography bill did not make it. I realize that the individuals and some of the groups who legitimately wanted something done in the area of pornography were very quiet, a little too quiet for my tastes. When this bill came about and people came to my office to suggest this, I indicated to them that I believed we could and should attempt a third bill in the area of pornography. I asked them not to demand perfection because none of us are capable of perfection particularly when it comes to something as difficult as this. I asked them to have a look at what we do and perhaps on this one give us the benefit of the doubt. I am of the opinion that if we cannot get a bill in the area of child pornography I am not sure we can get any bill in this particular area.
I appreciate those individuals who did speak up on this occasion. I appreciate those who have some understanding of the parliamentary process who when they came before the committee or wrote to us said: "Of course we want more". There is no advocacy group that is ever going to look at any piece of legislation and indicate that it is perfect. Nobody is going to say that because they are in the business of saying that it is well done but that we should do more. I appreciate the fact that they came out and said that this may not be perfect but for Heaven's sake pass it in the dying days of the 34th Parliament. As it has been pointed out, for the first time the possession of child pornography is a crime in this country, as it should be.
I would like to thank the Minister of Justice for being bold to take this step. He is the third activist Minister of Justice in this Parliament, one of whom will be sworn in another week as Prime Minister of Canada. It has been my honour to serve under all three of them as their parliamentary secretary. I appreciate the fact they have brought forward so many pieces of legislation and that this Minister of Justice tabled this child pornography bill because it is a good bill. I appreciate as well the work of the officials of the Department of Justice. The more justice legislation that I have been involved with, the more I have grown to appreciate the work that they do in drafting this legislation and helping to get this legislation before Parliament. I also thank the members of the committee.
June 15, 1993

I am not telling any secrets that anybody else in this Parliament does not already know. If this bill was filibustered it could not get through this Parliament and would die on the Order Paper.
I say to the member from the NDP that if he wants to know why sometimes these bills do not get through we are all part of a process that can delay it. That is why I think it is a very healthy experience and a very productive part of the process in which we are involved here and that committees, particularly committees in the justice area, have worked so well.
For my part, as an assistant to the Minister of Justice I have never tried to have a closed mind when it comes to the whole question of amendments. I am pleased with this bill. Last week we had the stalking bill and other pieces of legislation. It is my firm belief that if there are good ideas that come from members on all sides of the House, they should be looked at very carefully and if they can be implemented and do improve the legislation we should do it.
I pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Red Deer. If participating in legislative committees in the area of justice could get you a law degree he would have had his law degree by now. He has been very helpful. I extend that comment to the other members of this legislative committee in particular whose comments are now part of this bill.
We made a couple of very important changes today. One of them is in response to comments made by members of the opposition, comments made by members of the government and comments made by some of the witnesses.
In particular I commend the work of Citizens Against Child Exploitation. Their executive director, Monica Rainey I think made a very good point to the committee. She said that in the definition of child pornography as it existed in this bill what would be caught is pornography that showed children under the age of 18 engaged in explicit sexual activity. She and others pointed out there are a lot of things that you could involve children in that does not express sexual activity but is disgusting, reprehensible and exploitive nonetheless.
She and others pointed out, for instance, that pictures of children with no clothes on in a sexual context should
Government Orders
be caught in the legislation. An amendment was made just this afternoon to include that as part of the definition.
One of the very important amendments made today was also in the section on the definition of child pornography. Caught under the new amendment that was made today is any written material or visual representation that advocates or counsels sexual activity with a person under the age of 18.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what we get with this one. There is material being imported into this country from the United States. It was distributed to members of the committee. I had a look at it. This material advocates sexual activity with children under the age of 18. It promotes it. That is its reason for being. It promotes that sort of thing.
I found it disgusting. I did not even know something like this existed quite frankly. I did not know there were publications dedicated to this kind of thing but in fact it does exist. I have to ask myself, does the Canadian public accept this? I do not think they do. I still believe there are standards of decency that the Criminal Code should protect and this is a perfect example of that.
Last week we passed the stalking law which made it possible for the courts to put a lifetime prohibition against sexual molesters from hanging around parks, swimming pools and other areas where children frequent. I said that the month of June is a bad month for child molesters in this country and I say it again.
One of the things that interested me when I saw the publication that was distributed to this committee is it pays attention to what is happening here. It is very up on what is happening in Parliament. I see the hon. member across. His picture is in one of those as one of the bad guys, if you can imagine, for this organization which is promoting sexual activity between men and children. I hope we are all bad guys in the opinion of that particular publication. I am very proud to add my name to the list of bad guys who are opposing organizations like that. I say to that organization: "This is one bad day for you because we put that in the legislation and it is directed specifically at publications like yours so that it is in the Criminal Code and the people who enforce the laws of this country can take action. We are zeroing in on publications like yours".

Government Orders
It has taken nine years to have a pornography bill put before this Elouse. It looks like it is going to pass and I am delighted that it is going to pass. If this is the last bill of the 34th Parliament then this Chamber has brought honour on itself again as it has over these last 126 years. I think there are millions of Canadians who, if they know or find out about the contents of the bill, will say that this Parliament has done well to pass this so we can protect our children from the kind of exploitation by individuals who make money and take pleasure from hurting the children of this countiy.
I commend all hon. members for expediting this bill and bringing us to the threshold where this will very soon become the law of Canada.


Lynn Hunter: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice in support of this bill.
As a mother and as a woman I know the need for this type of legislation. I share the previous speaker's repugnance at those who profit from this dissemination of child pornography. I think it is aimed at our most vulnerable. It does not just hurt children physically, it hurts them in their minds.
One of the joys of childhood is having the innocence of being a non-sexual person for a while or just being able to be free in their persona. They are not little boys or little girls, they are children and they have that innocence all around them.
Pornography is really an extension of an examination of power relationships because this is what is attractive to those who consume this material. It is their feeling of power. It was the women's movement that focused our attention on that aspect of it. The women's movement should be given some credit for the success that we are having in passing this legislation.
My question flows out of the comments by my colleague from Winnipeg that child pornography is really an extension of the soft pom which is pervasive in our society. I have often wondered, watching television, what some person who would be dropped in on our society would think of our society in watching television and the images it conveys. One thinks of what a powerful device television and visual images are, the soft pornography that is there and the marketplace. We think of the money that is behind pushing children and women as
sexual beings primarily to the exclusion of any other aspect of their worth.
I would like to ask the hon. member what his views are as to the marketplace and its role in the dissemination of soft pornography because what we are examining today is an extension of that.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises a very good point. It is one that I touched on concerning all the money that is involved with this. That is why there is such a substantive lobby against this. Any time we try to do something in this area very prominent Canadians, in one case one of the most prominent authors in Canada, can always be counted upon to criticize the attempts we might make in this area. It is a growing problem.
I believe that the people, as members of society, are not living up to their responsibilities to make sure that the entertainment that is available and that is widely shown to children is okay. All of us who have children have seen movies that come on television. I cringe at the amount of violence.
I say to my children, when they say they want to see such and such a movie, that it looks kind of violent. Then I find out that every kid in the class has been to see this movie. My mother-in-law told me about taking one of my children to see Batman. She could not believe how violent it was. She just assumed it would not be because the television program of the same name was children's fare.
It is a rude awakening for a lot of parents who may not be as careful as we might be or perhaps should be with regard to what is happening. It is out there and people are making money on this. They promote it with kids. The marketing that goes with these movies is designed to capture kids and get them to make their parents or older brother and sister take them.
That is why I worry about a subject like child pornography. I think it is actually becoming more difficult to get something like this before Parliament. It is almost as if we are fighting against a tide of commercialism and materialism that is hitting us. For my money it is becoming more difficult and that is why I am very moved by the fact that we have been able to get this bill because this will pay dividends in future years when it may become more difficult. I hope that is not the case.
June 15, 1993

I hope that in the next Parliament we can look at the suggestion of the member for Kitchener and address some of the other areas of pornography. However if the trend continues, and it is getting tougher and tougher, Canadians will say they are glad that this is on the books, that we went as far as we did in 1993 because that law is very useful in trying to stem the tide and hold at bay those individuals who would exploit our children and abuse them.


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to take part this evening in the debate on Bill C-128.1 say that because in all likelihood this will be the last speech that I will deliver in the 34th Parliament.
It is historic for me personally. I gave my maiden speech on the free trade agreement, which was the first piece of legislation brought forward in the 34th Parliament. Now I am giving my closing speech on the last bill before the end of the 34th Parliament in all likelihood.
I have listened very carefully to the hon. members who have spoken before me and I propose to take a different tack and a different angle on this legislation in the time that I have. The theme for my remarks this evening can best be summed up by the adage: Where there is a will there is a way. I would like to explain what I mean by that.
As the Official Opposition critic for the Solicitor General I am privileged to sit as a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.
In the time that I have sat on that committee I have found it to be an excellent committee which attempts at all times to be as non-partisan as is possible in a partisan institution. It has of its own initiative delved into topics which it believed to be in the best interests of society. In my view one of the features of Bill C-128 has its genesis in the review that the justice committee undertook with respect to crime prevention.
The committee decided that it would see if it could find out what the root causes of crime were and make certain recommendations with a view to preventing that crime in the long term.
One of the things that we decided to do was travel across the country to hear different witnesses in different locations. One thing that was consistent throughout
Government Orders
all of the evidence, no matter where we went from coast to coast, was in the area of sexual abuse, particularly childhood sexual abuse, which was that the abused become the abusers. That is so important to recognize because, as we have heard in other studies, approximately 30 per cent of those who abuse young children are themselves young. They are young offenders. This is a shocking statistic and it demonstrates to me that the abused become the abusers.
At the time the justice committee proposed to go to Vancouver to hear evidence I was contacted by Detective Noreen Wolff of the Vancouver police department. She made me aware of an organization about which I had never heard before, and I heard the hon. parliamentary secretary say the same thing. This organization is the North American Man-Boy Love Association, NAMBLA for short. She sent me a copy of one of its publications.
Canadians could be forgiven for not knowing what NAMBLA is and what it stands for. I was shocked. What is NAMBLA and what are its aims? The following are direct quotes taken from the editorial page of the NAMBLA bulletin. In my view it is critically important that we read them into the record to understand what the bill and the amendments which were worked out in committee do, and why.
It says: "We work to organize support for boys and men who have or desire consensual sexual and emotional relationships and to educate society on their positive nature. We speak out against the oppression endured by men and boys who love one another and support the right of all people to consensual intergenerational relationships".
It continues: "NAMBLA condemns sexual abuse and all forms of coercion, but we insist there is a distinction between coercive and consensual sex. Laws that focus only on the age of the participants fail to capture that distinction for they ignore the quality of the relationship. Differences in age do not preclude mutual loving interaction between persons any more than differences in race or class".
What is the bottom line for NAMBLA? It advocates no age restriction whatsoever. Sex between a man and a tot, a young child, an infant, would be legal according to this insidious group. That is the reason it publishes its bulletin. In that bulletin it explains to people who prey on young children how to avoid prosecution, how to counsel the children that they prey on to avoid being detected, how to destroy material evidence, how to lie to

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
investigators and how to take the family of the victim into their confidence.
This is the kind of material that the NAMBLA bulletin puts out. We heard this from Detective Wolff. We heard about other horrendous cases of child abuse from Monica Rainey from Citizens Against Child Exploitation.
When we produced our unanimous report, the 12th report of the justice committee called Crime Prevention in Canada, there was specific mention of this topic. Detective Wolff was quoted as saying that we need to have laws to make it an offence to possess child pornography and NAMBLA-type material.
We saw the need to do something. What did the committee recommend? We recommended that the committee address the issue of child pornography and child sexual exploitation in the context of its review of the child sexual abuse provisions of the Criminal Code scheduled to begin in April of this year.
Lo and behold we in the committee did begin a review of Bill C-15, as it was then known, one of the bills passed in the previous Parliament. We again heard evidence from various sources relating to sexual exploitation against children. We knew by this time that the government was bringing forward Bill C-128.
We recommended as follows in June 1993: "This committee endorses the intent of Bill C-128 but urges that amendments be seriously considered at committee stage to make it an offence to possess material of any kind which depicts in any manner or advocates in any format the sexual exploitation of children". I have no hesitation in saying that I was instrumental in having that provision included in this particular report.
The flaw that I saw in Bill C-128, as it was originally proposed by the government on May 13, was that it did not include written material. I thought that was a very serious flaw. That is not to say that the bill was otherwise perfect because as human beings nothing we do is perfect and we have to understand that. However in my view there was a major flaw.
Why would someone be upset about NAMBLA? I hope everybody would be upset about NAMBLA and its
aims. Even though I do not take any personal umbrage at this in issue 14(4), which is the most recent issue, my picture is shown. I am portrayed as a cad and an awful person for wanting to protect children from consensual loving relationships with men. I am proud to take that position. I do not believe that a young child has the capacity to consent to a sexual relationship with an older man.
That is not the only kind of written material we are talking about. One of the witnesses that came before us was Detective Sergeant Bob Matthews, and we have talked about him. He is from Project P. He also asked that written material be included. He said: "I am therefore recommending that the bill be amended to make it an offence to advocate adults having sex with children. This material in the form of the written word must be considered an offence to possess. Any publication that advocates adults having sex with children should be banned from this country". I say amen to that, and we discussed it.
He went further and he gave us another example. I do not for a moment intend to be graphic about this. During the course of the committee hearings, while seeing the evidence that was put forward by the witnesses, images were embedded in my memory which I wish were not there. To me they are like a brand stamped on a cow, something one can never get rid of or clear one's mind of. They were graphic images of visual representations of child pornography. This piece of work, and I use that word loosely, was taken off a computer bulletin board, accessible to anybody who could access a computer. It is written and there are no pictures. I will only read the front piece: "Warning. The story that follows is part 1 of an ongoing fantasy about the sex life of a very young, preteen girl, her friends and her mother. If you are in any way offended by this type of fantasy, please read no further and delete this file immediately. On the other hand if you enjoy reading stories about little girls having sex, then read on and enjoy".
What is in here is disgusting in the extreme, despicable in the extreme and is written in such a way as to glorify a little girl having sex with adults from infancy. That is something we can do without in this country.
June 15, 1993

I want to pay tribute to the government and the committee for listening carefully to the evidence and coming up with amendments today that dealt with these issues. I do say in passing it is unfortunate that the bill was only introduced on May 13 but it is not true to say we hurriedly went through it.
I have given the background of the two other committee reports. We have considered this issue very, very carefully for six months. We heard witnesses, professors and all kinds of interest groups and I personally asked them questions. None of them that I can remember did not include NAMBLA and its aims in their own definitions of child pornography, so these amendments came through.
I know the people of Canada are behind this bill. I want to read just one letter of many that I have received from constituents of mine. It is addressed to me and states: "I understand that the legislation, Bill C-128, to crack down on child pornography is before the House. This Bill C-128 will make it illegal to produce, sell, distribute or possess child pornography in films, videos and computer-generated images. It must be passed and should include in the definition, printed material as well as pictures".
I want to tell Mr. and Mrs. Leslie that indeed the amendment we passed today does include written material. I am very proud to have been a part of ensuring that is the case.
It also includes something else that Detective Matthews requested. It includes importation as part of the offence. We are talking about importing pictures and descriptions of gross acts of abuse against children. Who wants to import that kind of material? Who wants to read about Vicky's lessons in life? Who wants to read NAMBLA? Paedophiles. There is nobody else who wants to read this material, who wants to look at these disgusting pictures, these visual encapsulations for all time of sexual abuse of children.
If I have to choose between paedophiles and children there is no choice, ever. Our justice critic, my colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys said children are the most defenceless in our society and so they are. Who speaks for the children of Canada? We do in this bill.
Where there is a will there is a way, as I said at the beginning. Notwithstanding that this bill was introduced
Government Orders
rather late and notwithstanding that there was real trepidation it might not pass, all members in this House saw the value of this bill. All members of this House worked hard to achieve a consensus so this bill could go through and our children can be protected.
That is why I am so very proud that I am associated with this bill and what it does to protect our children and why I am honoured that I am giving this, my last speech of the 34th Parliament, on this very important subject.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that I am following the member for Scarborough West and the critic for the solicitor general. In his first term as a member of Parliament he has made a very significant contribution to better the standards of living and life in Canada. This member and all members who have spoken on this bill have made Canada the number one country as declared by the United Nations last year. Unfortunately we dropped to second place in
1993.
I have been exposed to child pornography and sexual abuse of children because of my 28 years of work with the Toronto Board of Education and many of those years in special education. As a consultant in special education I had teachers working in what they then called juvenile court. Today it is called the detention home.
It was always sad and heartbreaking to see young adults anywhere from 14 to 18 being locked up behind bars. While they were waiting appearance before the judge our Toronto Board of Education teachers had to do an educational assessment, psychologists did a psychological assessment and so on.
Once we got into the history of these young adults most of them had been subjected to some sort of abuse when they were young children or even infants. There were stories such as a mother bringing in men not to offer her body for sex but to offer the body of the little girl for sex with various men. This woman at 18 ended up in court year after year.
Young boys were caught for breaking and entering, assault or not listening to the teacher or their parents. They would run away and be picked up. Again we could trace their history to being beaten, harassed or sexually abused as children.

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
I am very pleased to add my support to this Bill C-128. I am a little perturbed that it took the government nine years to bring this bill to its final stage tonight or tomorrow when it gets its final blessing. I congratulate the hon. member for Kitchener for fighting so hard for his private member's bill. He wants to get re-elected and we need members like this, but I hope his party does not get re-elected because we cannot move important bills like this so slowly.
No one has mentioned where some of these children come from who are photographed in various sexual positions with adults. The hon. member for Scarborough West and I co-moderated a conference in the greater Toronto area on crime prevention and community safety and we had the police from all levels of government. One of the police officers brought journals of child pornography. It was sickening.
I learned after that conference that some of these children are sold by parents in developing countries because of the poverty there. The only way these parents could survive was to sell some of their children for child pornography. This message I will never forget.
I think we should keep it in mind as a country blessed with all the riches and resources we have in Canada that the first area of our budget we usually cut is official development or overseas development. The message I get is that charity begins at home.
Why are we sending millions to this country? Why are we sending millions here? The next time we are asked that question let us think of what that poverty does to the defenceless children in those countries. Some of them are coming to our country in the form of pictures and in the form of child pornography.
We have a duty not only to Canadian children but we have a responsibility as world citizens to children around the world. Every country spoke very wisely at the children's conference at the United Nations a few years ago. Then after the conference every one forgets the recommendations we have made.
I appeal to members of Parliament not only in this House but to those in parliaments and governments around the world regardless of what system they are using to govern their country to remember the children. They must not be sexually abused. They must be properly
fed and clothed. They must not end up in the magazines of child pornography.
Everything else I wanted to say has been said but I wanted to put that on the record. Another point I want to put on the record concerns the kindergarten and grade one children who I see going to our schools who are being harassed at the comers and on the streets by street gangs. A group of young adults would get together and harass the young children going to and from school. That is not a good way to raise our children.
The other thing I feel sorry for with these five and six-year olds is the kind of drug trafficking and prostitution that they have to look at in broad daylight again on the way to school, on their way home for lunch and after school.
This is what I and the politicians in Parkdale-High Park are trying to wipe out. It is not only the politicians but we have excellent community involvement. We have excellent police support now. As the whole community gets involved we will hopefully clean up our communities so that at least the four and five-year olds who are going to kindergarten will not be exposed to the kinds of sexual acts that they see at that young age. What impression does that leave on these young minds?
I am pleased that this is the final bill. I am pleased that after the next election hopefully governments will change because we are finally seeing that we have to raise the standards in this country. We have to raise the standard of living and that includes health, education, safety in the homes, safety in the communities, safety in the public institutions and safety on our streets.
I will close there but again I congratulate all three parties and especially the members who were so active in committee and who were so active in the debate in the House.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I too wanted to just rise in my place and speak for a few short minutes on this particular bill and its fundamental effects that we are hoping it will have.
I do not think any of us in the House would argue that child pornography is right up there on the scale of one of those very heinous crimes that has been perpetrated on society from time to time. Even with all of the witnesses, some of whom questioned whether the legislation is proper and whether we are going in the right direction with respect to the legislation, it was unanimous that the
June 15, 1993

crime that we are trying to prevent is one worth trying to prevent.
It is only a question of methodology that we have to deal with. All of us on the committee felt that Bill C-128 was a valiant attempt. I know that the opposition has been saying over the last number of days and weeks that there has been lots of justice legislation coming before the House. We have been forced to deal with that legislation rather rapidly and this bill is no exception. It was introduced quickly. In fact we finished with the witnesses this morning in committee and then did clause by clause and used the rules to the best advantage in order to be here this evening and to have third reading.
An effort was made to get something on the books before Parliament is finished that will deal with child pornography. Whether we have achieved what we want with this legislation is the $64 question. I think we have made a valiant attempt.
In some respects I would have preferred to have more time to hear more witnesses because it was interesting even today listening to those people who are involved in the artistic community and in film, radio and television telling us about their concerns with respect to this bill. In that sense it would have been nice if we had had that input and time to really go over the exact words. However we find ourselves here in the opposition having to deal with an agenda which is to move this legislation quickly and our choice was between no legislation or this legislation with amendments.
We have taken the choice of this legislation with amendments. I think the amendments will go a long way toward helping improve this law. One of the key ones which was put forward by the opposition originally was in the area of the written word and that goes beyond what was first contemplated in clause 2 of the bill which is really amending clause 163.1 dealing with the definition and what constitutes child pornography.
We have added the written word as well. I think we were all shocked when we saw some of the things that were sent on their computers from one place to the other. The language and the explicit details which were contained within those computer messages shocked us to
Government Orders
the extent that we felt the written word as well should be included.
My concern is that by including the written word we may find ourselves vulnerable to a charter challenge. However I guess in these circumstances one says: "Do we not do something for fear of a charter challenge or do we do something and then see what takes place afterward?"
In the area of child pornography I think we opt for the second alternative and do what we think is right. If it does not pass the test then we will try to correct it later on.
The other benefit in this legislation is the fact that possession, not just the importation, distribution and selling which is bad enough as it is, is also a crime. It is a crime because it is utilized by paedophiles and by others in order to entice children into child pornography and also into other areas of sexual abuse as I consider it. For that reason possession as an offence allows our police forces to step in and eradicate that.
I have one concern in what we have done today. I will say it succinctly and then finish. We have established under the Criminal Code a large body of law which deals with pornography and obscenity and all of those cases. This culminates in the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in Butler. I am worried that what we are doing with this particular bill is setting that all aside and forcing the courts to now develop some new tests and some new frameworks which deal specifically with child pornography.
One of the recommendations which we received from the Canadian Film and Television Production Association was a recommendation that perhaps we should try to tie child pornography into existing legislation so that the body of law that has been built up over the years would be there and support child pornography. We would then not run the risk of facing a charter challenge and in fact losing the legislation that deals with child pornography.
I found their comments quite persuasive. I wish we had had the time to do that properly because there are some risks in what we are doing.

June 15, 1993
Government Orders
However, again we are faced with that same old decision of no law or this law. We are dealing with the heinous crime of child pornography. It is bad for those who view it but doubly worse for those children who are forced to participate in the actual production of child pornography. When I was faced with those decisions, I fell on the side of this legislation or no legislation.
I wish we could have done a better job but this is better than nothing.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough -Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to make a few remarks on this important bill which prohibits child pornography.
A number of members worked closely on the justice committee to ensure that a bill was passed before this Parliament dissolved. Although that may be imminent, we were all of the view that this was an extremely important matter. It was a matter that had been left too long for too many years with too much dithering. We would be collectively less than responsible if we failed to take advantage of the timeframe and the apparent political willingness of all parties to enact a bill which would address this very significant and growing concern in Canadian society.
The adaptation of the minister and his staff in working with the justice committee enabled the committee members to produce a bill that we felt was effective for the purpose intended. This is only the second time the bill has been before the House.
The bill in some respects limits a freedom some people in Canadian society would claim. Although not all people claim the right to use and abuse our children sexually, some do and it apparently is a growing market. In that context, we felt that we had an act and that we had a better bill.
It is important to provide some perspective, some background and some context from my point of view as an MP, as to why the bill is the way it is and why we feel compelled to pass it at this time.
The first of three things I have to say about the bill is that it was criticized at committee by very responsible, credible and leading spokespersons for the film industry, the television industry and the writers' organizations. These are all legitimate and most important segments of our Canadian cultural community. They have suggested
that the bill goes too far in some respects. It is too much and not finely crafted enough to address their needs in their fields.
They felt that Parliament's prohibiting depictions of explicit sexual activity involving children would impair their ability to pursue work in their fields. It would have a chilling effect on their work in television, in the film industry, in the field of creative writing and other areas. The bill says that you may not depict in a film, in a video or in pictures explicit sexual activity involving a child. The bill defines a child as someone under the age of 18.
The bill also prohibits the use of the written word to depict explicit sexual activity. The bill also prohibits the advocacy of sexual activity between adults and children. That goes quite far. The last portion I have just described was an amendment made at committee because there was real concern about that area.
In fact some people in Canadian society over the last few months basically dared Parliament. Their little group, relying on their interpretation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, dared Parliament and the Canadian people to try and infringe upon their right to advocate the sexual abuse of children, the sexual plundering of our youth. We were up to the challenge.
We were not fighting the people in the arts and culture community or the film or television industries. We responded to protect our youth. This is a technical issue and it is our view that when this bill mentions written matter, it is not just about something that can be read on a piece of paper. My colleagues have described some of the ugly sexual treatment of children that exists today in our society. It does not involve just that print on a piece of paper.
When we use the term in Parliament, and I am saying this for the record, we are talking about printed matter and written matter that is contained on a computer chip, in a computer memory, on a computer screen or on a television monitor. We are not just talking about written and printed matter on a piece of paper. We are talking about something that is written in a literate manner which portrays and depicts explicit sexual activity. I say that for the record, in case there is any doubt at any time as to what the intentions of Parliament were when it enacted this legislation.
June 15, 1993

The second element I wanted to address was the definition of a child. I simply wanted to put on record that from my point of view there was a question as to whether the children we wanted to protect would be those under the age of 18 or whether it would be a younger age, maybe younger than 17, 16 or 15. I do not know. The committee and members by consensus have chosen the age put forward by the government. They have selected it as anyone under the age of 18. I accept that as a necessary consensus to allow the bill to go forward.
The third item is the alleged chill effect the bill may have in the cultural and creative communities that produce films, books, art and movies.
There is a burden here on our police, our prosecutors and other public officials to ensure that when the Criminal Code is applied-and particularly this provision that we hope to enact now-that they are acting responsibly and take full account of the defences that are expressed in the bill.
Defences are set out very clearly in the bill which allow a person a defence in cases of medical, educational or scientific purpose in terms of works of art that have artistic merit. As someone has pointed out, surely today in museums of art in this country and around the world there are depictions of human beings under the age of 18 who may be shown in some form of activity that may fall within the explicit sexual activity definition of this bill.
I plead with reasonable-minded public officials in Canada to make sure that when they follow the provisions of this section of the act, they take into account all of those provisions.
I put to those people who complained there would be a chilling effect on television, in the film industry and in the writing industry that our goal is to protect our children and not to create a chilling effect on their creative talents. They have all the world at their disposal to write and create and portray. I say to them, leave the sexual activity out so that our children are not exposed to it, because it is not a part of our society's program. We do not want it and we do not give them licence to portray it in their creative work.
Last, I want to acknowledge the work of several members on the justice committee, not specifically but
Adjournment Debate
generally, who have worked in this area and have been very helpful in developing the bill. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice has also been constructive, as have the staff of the committee, in developing amendments to a bill that suits the needs, we believe, of all members of the House.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

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

Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, this is probably the last late show we will have in this session of the 34th Parliament. Probably it will be the last late show ever in this 34th Parliament.
I want to run through quickly the follow-up on a question which concerns the chronology of events in Somalia in the middle of March, which pertains to the question. The chronology of events essentially were these.
On March 16 a Somalian prisoner was found beaten unconscious in his cell and he later died in custody. On March 17 the Minister of National Defence was briefed by senior military personnel on the situation. The next day, March 18, the defence department posted a news release on this beating death 260 kilometres away from the incident in Mogadishu. The release said the man had been detained and had died in custody. No further details were offered. No Canadian journalist reported seeing the release and it was not passed to Ottawa for distribution. On March 18, the same day, a master corporal was arrested and placed under close custody in

June 15, 1993
Adjournment Debate
relation to this incident and three others were arrested on March 29 and 30, somewhat later.
The next chain in this event was on March 21 when two Canadian military investigators were sent to Somalia to investigate this death. On April 1 a reporter from a Pembroke newspaper reported the incident. The Minister of National Defence had not said anything up to that point in time. It is interesting that on March 19 reporters were not referred to the news release and indeed when questions were asked about the beating of this man by apparent military personnel there were no answers forthcoming.
The next event is that I questioned the government House leader in the absence of the minister on April 2. After the Easter break on April 19 I again questioned the Minister of National Defence and asked subsequent questions. On April 26 I asked another question on the same incident which essentially was: "Why did the Minister of National Defence not tell Parliament, the House of Commons and Canadians about this event?"
On April 28 the Chief of the Defence Staff in an interview stated that the Minister of National Defence knew that criminal intent might have been linked to the death as early as March 18. That is not surprising because on March 18 the incident had occurred. The man had been beaten to death. One soldier had been put in close custody related to the death. Surely there must have been some indication that there was something untoward. Indeed three others were arrested later in March, so the evidence was there. The minister was briefed.
I do not know what the minister was briefed on, but surely the minister must have been briefed on the detail of what happened. If nothing happened then, why on March 21 were special investigators sent over? I find it very disturbing and upsetting that in my question that I am following up here tonight of April 26, the minister in response to my question as to why she did not inform the House and why did she mislead and give inaccurate information, responded: "With respect to the event", to which I am referring here this evening, "to which the hon. member refers, I was briefed the next day that a death had taken place. It was not until March 31 that it was communicated to me that the death had been characterized-"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order please, time has expired.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is pleased to ask a question on the last late show, I am pleased to answer in the last late show on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, soon to be Prime Minister of this country.
The hon. member has raised these questions here on numerous occasions and I will attempt to clarify for him the chronology.
First, the comments concerning the events that took place should be put in the context that Canada has received congratulatory messages from everywhere on the role our military-


Fred J. Mifflin: That is not the issue.


Rob Nicholson: I think that should be put as part of the record.


Fred J. Mifflin: That's fine, that's fine.


Rob Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I hope that is added to the time because if I am being interrupted I want to be able to complete the answer if the member wants to know the chronology.
Some people have suggested that the minister and the Public Service neglected to publicly address the question. However in reality they have taken interest on many occasions in the course of action over the last couple of months.
Every incident that took place in Somalia was an object for investigation and in every case the Armed Forces advised the press. The details were made public and explained in a statement made by the minister in this House on April 26, 1993.
The member with all his military experience should realize that it is not the department's practice to report all incidents to Parliament. In this regard the incident that occurred on March 16 when a Somali citizen died while being detained by the Canadians. The minister stated in this Chamber that she was informed of this death on March 17.
On March 21 a team of investigators from the military police went to Somalia in order to investigate the facts concerning the death of the Somali citizen. Following this preliminary investigation on March 31 the minister was informed that a crime may have been committed. Charges were brought forward and the investigation of course continues.
As the minister stated she must take into account her double responsibility. One is to ensure the management
June 15, 1993

and direction of the Armed Forces and to assume the quasi-judicial functions within the military justice system. She had to counterbalance the necessity of informing the population and Parliament and the necessity of not bringing prejudice to the military justice. Conscious of her responsibility she requested advice on how best to treat her different roles and requested that the chief staff officer step up the commission of inquiry.
In closing I would like to remind the member, the House and all Canadians that the Armed Forces do an
Adjournment Debate
excellent job on behalf of this country and a job of which all Canadians can be proud.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 16, 1993