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.

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):

Madam Speaker, let me tell the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that we in the maritimes regard the Montreal Canadiens as a national institution and not just the sole claim of the city of Montreal.

Madam Speaker, you may remember all the soul searching that took place in the House of Commons about the merits of the UI changes. The NDP was really upset about terminating UI benefits to voluntary quitters, by most standards a common sense measure.

Now we know why. It seems the NDP has a cost-saving scheme in place courtesy of the UI program. The party pays the unelected leader for enough months to qualify and then the leader quits and receives UI benefits.

The NDP leader in Prince Edward Island thinks he can quit his post and receive UI, thus saving the party $4,000. However the money comes from the pockets of hardworking Canadians. The NDP says: "So what? We pay our premiums". This is a fine example for other Canadians.

Hopefully common sense will prevail with the NDP, otherwise our UI deficit will soar to new heights.

Mr. Crosby:

Delivered not served.

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):

Madam Speaker, is medicare in serious trouble in Canada? If it is then

sacrificing physicians, especially young doctors, will not solve the problems.

Ontario's NDP government proposes to reduce payments to entry physicians to a level that will drive them out of the province and very probably out of the country. Even worse, there could be a chain reaction affecting other provinces.

An enormous public investment is made in every medical school graduate. The national benefit is a medical profession that is second to none in the world and the heart of Canadian medicare. If we allow government policy to undermine entry physicians, we will lose a whole generation of the best and brightest among young Canadians, a group that includes the future Bantings, Bests and Penfields.

I urge the minister of health to intervene, not just to aid young physicians but to preserve a Canadian medical service that has taken more than a century to establish and develop.

Mr. Crosby:

The member in making his address talked about the lack of seriousness on the part of the New Democratic Party. What could be more self-evident. What he did not explain was why, given that lack of seriousness, he would ever support such a motion. The bill before the House, Bill C-115 which is now in committee, deals with the implementation of the North American free trade agreement. The pith and substance and all the elements are contained in the agreement. The bill simply implements the agreement in its details. If you reject the North American free trade agreement, as the New Democratic Party apparently does, what is the point of debating the legislation implementing it? I

May 5, 1993

Supply

do not know why the Liberal Party would support the NDP in that endeavour.

Now let me deal with the perceptions. John Kenneth Galbraith, a well-known Canadian who is renowned in the United States and Canada and around the world, said: "Canadians are concerned that free trade will impair their sovereignty and bring Canada even more dangerously under U.S. influence. This is nonsense. The U.S. influence is there, no one can doubt it, but it is a fact of geography not of trade".

I know the hon. member for Etobicoke North participated in the free trade agreement debate in 1988. I would like to know whether he was a party and privy to the allegations that the free trade agreement then, in terms of its perception would destroy sovereignty, attack Canadian sovereignty, would undermine social programs, would undermine medicare, would ruin old age assistance. Is he still pursuing those perceptions with respect to the North American free trade agreement? Now after five years have passed that medicare is in place, old age assistance, social programs are in place, does he still persist in viewing the North American free trade agreement as anything but a recitation of the rules under which all three nations will trade in the future? Does he want to continue with the perceptions purveyed by the New Democratic Party that this somehow undermines our social programs, undermines our sovereignty and thus gain support publicly on the basis of that public fraud?