Ms. 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-

Don't make a speech.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Ms. 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-

Mr. Worthy:

We have a constitutional requirement.

Ms. 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.

Ms. 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. 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.

Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):

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".

Have you visited P.E.I.?

Mr. 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.

Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):

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.

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to the Minister of National Defence):

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?