Mr. Nowlan:

With Anne of Green Gables.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

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.

Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):

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.

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):

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.

Mr. 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-

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):

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.

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

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-

So they can live at home with their families.