Mr. McCreath:

Mr. Speaker, it is the first time that a question has actually been longer than the speech. The answer will have to be relatively short as well. I would say to the hon. member for Skeena that obviously he has never visited the maritimes in the winter-time if he thinks that the ferries run on schedule.

I want to commend the workers of CN Marine and the crews of those vessels who do an outstanding job. But the reality is that anybody who lives in the maritimes and travels back and forth from Prince Edward Island knows there are veiy severe problems from time to time in the winter. I hasten again to say this has nothing to do with the quality of the people working on the ferries. But there is an icing condition and it proves tremendously inconvenient from time to time to people travelling back and forth.

As my hon. friend indicates, the economic potential is tremendous for the entire region. If one thinks of fish plants on Prince Edward Island-granted we are having some difficulty at the moment getting the resource-and the agricultural industry in particular, the estimated annual savings in transportation costs to those industries is some $10 million. That is extraordinary. As the member said, frequently trucks as well as passenger vehicles find themselves waiting hours and hours, particularly in the summer-time, to get across on the ferries.

The inconvenience and the capital cost of the time lost while trucks and others are waiting to get across is great and there would be a very significant benefit there. In terms of the region as a whole, I think he may be in part alluding to tourism. Usually tourists that are visiting the maritime provinces do not only visit one place and leave. They come by car and do a loop. Perhaps they will go up the Cabot Trail, they will go over to P.E.I., to the Halifax-Dartmouth area and come down the South Shore. They will visit different areas.

Government Orders

The fact is that Prince Edward Island will be more accessible. Let us face it, Prince Edward Island is one of the greatest tourist attractions in Canada. The mere geography of the place is so beautiful that its impact is going to benefit our entire region creating-and this is the last point-the need for capital expenditures and infrastructure for transportation.

Earlier today we heard the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury talking about the state of the Trans-Canada Highway in New Brunswick. I am very proud that this government made an $800 million commitment to improve the highway system in Atlantic Canada. There is no question that there now seems to be no limit to the amount of money we can use for transportation infrastructure. It is a step in the right direction. This project is critically important to our region. I again urge all members to support the bill.

Mr. McCreath:

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

zeros out, which is my understanding of the financing of the project.

I would be prepared to say to my hon. friend that clearly this would seem to be a very good investment for the taxpayer as well as a significant capital investment for Atlantic Canadians.

Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International TVade):

Mr. Speaker, all members will be pleased to know I am of limited voice today. Therefore my speech will be of limited duration.

As a maritimer I want to make a few comments about this extremely important project. The project is important not only to the people of Prince Edward Island but to the people of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as well.

I wish to commend publicly the Minister of Public Works for bringing this project to fruition. I think it appropriate that it is a minister from the maritimes who has done this. This is a project that has been talked about for many years. It was first promised in the federal election of 1891 and has been promised by many political parties over the years. It is veiy much to the credit of the Minister of Public Works and this government that they have brought this project to fruition.

This bridge will last for a minimum of 100 years and probably more and will have a very profound impact on the economy of Atlantic Canada. Obviously it will be of great benefit to Prince Edward Island. Something like a 25 per cent increase in tourism is expected. This will benefit not only Prince Edward Island but also Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as well. Tourists visiting the region will want to visit all parts of the maritimes. I hope after their visit to P.E.I. they will all come down and see the beautiful beaches of the South Shore as well as our

historic towns like Lunenburg, Liverpool and Shelburne, not to mention the new Ross Agricultural Farm.

I could go on speaking about the beauties of the South Shore, something that is very easy to do, but I think perhaps it is more appropriate that I confine my remarks to the Northumberland Strait crossing.

Clearly there will be benefit to the agriculture and fishing industries. Producers will be able to time their transportation. Transportation costs will be significantly reduced, thereby benefiting all producers.

There has been some suggestion that people in Prince Edward Island are not totally behind this project, as my hon. friend from Dartmouth pointed out only minutes ago. Rarely has there been the extent of consultation as there has been on this, even to the point of having a provincial referendum. It is interesting to note that current opinion polls indicate that support for the project has increased by over 10 per cent from the results of the referendum. Clearly the economic, social and cultural benefits of this project are being widely recognized by people of the maritimes and particularly in Prince Edward Island.

The short-term benefits are obvious as well. About 70 per cent of the expenditure of some $850 million will be spent in Atlantic Canada. This is obviously of tremendous benefit to our region. Similarly it is expected that some 3,500 person-years of employment will result. Over the next few years we are going to need all of the employment opportunities we can get in Atlantic Canada. The benefits that will accrue, particularly for the people on either side of this strait, are obviously critical.

The members from Prince Edward Island in this place, although they do not always agree with the government,

I think support this endeavour and have worked hard to get it. However, nobody has worked harder, in addition to the Minister of Public Works, than my hon. colleague, the member for Cumberland-Colchester, who has been a strong advocate of this project since we arrived in 1988. The success of this project is much to his benefit as well.

Obviously there is some concern about the impact on the ferry workers of Marine Atlantic. One should take note of the fact that a suitable severance package will be negotiated and these people will have first opportunity at employment within the project.

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

Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade):

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly respond to my hon. colleague. He has put this motion forward in good faith and with the best of intentions with respect to the suggestion that Investment Canada should not proceed in areas that are going to impact negatively on provinces and so on.

I would like to say to him that the word consultation means different things to different people. Perhaps it is the use of the word consultation or the requirement with respect to consultation. What is involved here is that the purpose of the amendment, not my hon. friend's amendment but the amendment to the Investment Canada Act, is to give the minister the power to enter into agreements with entities in the private sector primarily designed to share the monetary cost of an investment promotion project. We are talking about agreements that generally speaking would involve less than $100,000 and would have minimal, if any, impact on provincial government policies or programs.

On the other hand if we legislate a requirement for consultation and there was some difference of opinion as to what consultation involved or what the implications of it were, the result could be quite a significant delay in implementing it. I would point out to my hon. friend it is routine practice on the part of Investment Canada to consult in any event with its provincial counterparts on promotional activities, particularly if there is some suggestion that it may impact directly on a province.

The concern my hon. friend brings forward is a very legitimate one. In fact it is already accommodated in the manner by which Investment Canada carries out its affairs. There is some concern relative to the impact of the precedent involved, in writing the concept of consultation as to what it may or may not mean. Therefore it is the view of the government that the amendment, while

June 7, 1993

Government Orders

perhaps meritorious in its intent, is in fact not necessary and therefore will not be supported by the government.

Mr. McCreath:

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions and I think you will find there is consent to proceed directly to third reading.