Gordon Earle

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-27, an act to amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act.

This bill amends Canadian legislation to enable Canada to ratify the United Nations fisheries agreement on the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. The United Nations agreement relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks was adopted by consensus on August 5, 1995 by a UN conference in New York City.

Straddling fish stocks do exactly that. They straddle or migrate across the outer limit of national fisheries waters of a coastal state and the adjacent high seas. Examples are flounder and turbot. Highly migratory fish stocks, such as tuna and swordfish, migrate through the high seas and in some cases through the exclusive economic zone of coastal states. Both categories of fish stocks have been subject to unregulated overfishing on the high seas. The problem exists in several parts of the world, including the Grand Banks of Newfoundland outside Canada's 200 mile zone.

Overfishing by foreign vessels outside and inside the 200 miles has been a factor in declines in northwest Atlantic straddling groundfish stocks of cod, flounder and turbot. These declines have devastated many Canadian coastal communities economically, leaving thousands of fish harvesters and fish plant workers unemployed.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which came into force in November 1994 clearly allows coastal states, that is, states which border on oceans, exclusive rights to control fisheries within 200 nautical miles or 370.4 kilometres of their shores. What is not clear are the legal rights and obligations of states regarding highly migratory fish stocks and straddling fish stocks on the high seas. The UN agreement helps to fill this gap in the law of the sea convention.

The bill we are discussing, Bill C-27, contains provisions for enforcement against unauthorized fishing in Canadian fisheries waters.

The UN agreement regarding straddling and highly migratory fish stocks will come into effect following 30 ratifications or accessions. Fifty-nine states thus far have signed the agreement and 15, including the United States, Russia and Norway, have ratified so far. Canada will be in a position to ratify this agreement after this legislation is passed. Therefore, it is very important that we pass this legislation.

It is hoped that a new legal system for high seas fisheries will provide for effective control and enforcement to protect straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks from the overfishing which is taking place on the high seas.

Proper conservation and management of these stocks could make a significant contribution to ensuring the sustainability of this important food source for our future generations. I think the key that is very important here is the question of sustainability.

The east coast report which was recently tabled by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has a quotation on its cover “Then God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea”. The key word is dominion, not destruction.

Today what has really happened with our fisheries is that rather than man exercising dominion and wise ruling over this resource, there has been a gradual mismanagement and destruction of it. We only have to look at the fact that cod has now been placed on the endangered list.

We can also look at the lobster fishery. Unfortunately today if we go to the east shore in my province of Nova Scotia we can see one fishing village fighting with another fishing village over lobsters. There are not enough lobsters in one area to satisfy the fishers and the license requirement there. Yet there seems to be an overabundance in another area. We have this inequality.

As we know, when resources become tight, when there seems to be an unfair distribution, then conflict often develops. Unfortunately we have community being pitted against community because of the mismanagement of the fisheries to the point where there are insufficient resources to satisfy the requirements of the villages. This is a very sad state.

On top of that, when we have a program such as the Atlantic groundfish strategy coming to an end, and we do not see any real program or alternatives being presented by the government to face up to this crisis which is developing in our communities, again it becomes very sad. We know there are people in these communities who rely on that program to carry them through to the point where they can earn and look after their families. Without something to replace it in a meaningful way, or without some very positive efforts being made to deal with the issue, we are going to see a lot of frustration as we are already seeing in the communities affected as this program comes to an end.

What this is saying to all of us is that we have to move away from that bottom line which government far too often looks at. That is the economic situation. Far too often governments focus only on the dollar as opposed to what the dollar is intended to do, which is to serve and help people. Far too often people do not look beyond the dollar. They want to balance the budget. They want to define programs in terms of an economic value, forgetting about the social hardships being caused and what has to be done to alleviate them.

We see this with the current proposals with respect to the hepatitis C victims where government can narrowly define the number of people it feels should be helped based on a dollar line rather than on compassion, fairness and what is right. The argument is that if we compensate everybody we are not going to have enough money to go around. We know that is not true. When government wants to it can find the money to do other things. It can find money to assist large businesses. On provincial levels quite often corporations are forgiven loans and outstanding money. Yet there are programs that are needed to help people. These are not receiving the attention or the dollars required. This excuse of not having the money is simply that, an excuse.

When it comes to the TAGS program we have to look realistically at our priorities. Are we concerned really about helping people who are in need, exercising some compassion, some fairness or are we solely concerned with keeping those books balanced? Even then it is questionable what balancing the books really means.

It is important that we look at that. As I read in the quote when God said let us make man in our image, certainly the image of God was not an economic image where the bottom line would be dollars and cents. The image of God is an image of people sharing and having respect for one another, helping each other when they are in need. We need to move away from that bottom line of the dollar being the sole determinant of whether we are going to move ahead to help people. We need to move toward fairness and compassion.

Earlier today I attended a committee meeting. We were looking at the question of economic development in aboriginal communities. We were speaking specifically about the northern communities in this great country. It saddens me every time we look at Canada's great north where there are very valuable mineral resources and lots of riches. Quite often non-aboriginal people have come in and have utilized those resources. They have not enabled the aboriginal people who are living on that land, who have prior claim to that land, to benefit in any substantial or sustainable way from those resources. When mining operations are developed sometimes the argument is we give jobs to the aboriginal people and they can work on these mines but we do not see any real sharing of the royalties and the riches that come from the lands which were inhabited by these people.

Again, it comes down to the bottom line. As governments and as private companies and corporations are we solely interested in our own gain financially to the point that we forget about sharing with other people and we forget about loving one another, respecting one another and making sure that the resources are for the good of all as opposed to only a few?

These are some of the issues that we have to look at when we are dealing seriously with the many problems facing our country.

With this bill when we think about the fishing industry, when we think about the resource there and how we are going to deal with it for the future for our children and our children's children, I think we have to look at the priority that we are going to put forth as we tackle this issue.

Is the bottom line going to be the dollar for us or is it going to be sharing equitably in the resources that the creator has given to us to manage and have dominion over? It is high time governments stop treating people simply as statistics, stop defining how we are going to handle the problem in terms of x number of people fitting within x category or within a certain time frame, and remember that the person who got sick before 1986 is just as important as the person who got sick after 1986. There is no distinction in terms of the suffering these people will feel.

Governments have to realize they cannot make those kinds of arbitrary distinctions and live in good conscience with those decisions.

I know many times when I have to make a tough decision and people ask me how I am going to wrestle with that, I say that what is going to really count for me is at the end of the day if I put my head down and go to sleep feeling that I have done what is right, I have done what my heart has dictated as opposed to what my pocket book may dictate, then I can rest with an easy conscience. We have to exercise that kind of feeling, that kind of attitude when we are dealing with these issues.

It saddens me sometimes when I come to this House and I sit in this very important Chamber as we are doing the nation's business to see the manner in which question period conducts itself. I have said it before and I will say it again. I feel it is wrong when we are dealing with serious issues which affect the lives of people that we are screaming back and forth at one another. We are not listening to each other. We are not hearing what people are saying. We are not showing proper respect. That goes to the core of this entire issue of how governments respond to people.

We have to listen. We have to hear what people are saying. We have to understand each other. This cannot be done if we are trying to have one-upmanship, one on the other, trying to outsmart the other person with some wise remark which has no real meaning or relevance for the people who are suffering and the people who are looking to us to address their problems.

I say to the members of the House, if we want to be serious about the issues which confront our nation, national unity, the issues dealing with aboriginal peoples, the TAGS program and the fishers who are suffering as a result of the end of that program, all these things, we must truly deal with these issues from the heart and not from the pocketbook, not from the budget book.

I am sure if we do that we will certainly find answers and move things forward in a real way which is going to be effective, meaningful and help the citizens of this country.

I think this legislation will give us some control over our shores and over the fishing industry and will hopefully will bring some order to the way in which the fishery conducts itself so that the end result of helping people in our communities will be accomplished.

It is with great pride that I say that we support this bill and I would certainly be pleased to answer any questions.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, again I rise with pride to speak on this motion. It is a very important motion. The whole question of the gap between the rich and the poor which we see increasing daily is very important.

I would like to comment on the remark made by the member which I agree with. Governments have to get their priorities straight if we are going to deal with this issue. Lots of times we see priorities being made and moneys being directed in the wrong direction.

I was also concerned about remarks made by the hon. member for Abitibi with respect to women being paid to stay at home. Unless I was misreading it, I got the impression that he felt it was exclusively women who would be working at home. I hasten to point out that today many men head single parent families. In two parent families many men choose to stay home to look after their children and to attend to the concerns of the home.

It is important that we speak about families and that we be careful that we do not discriminate against women with respect to roles and responsibilities in the family.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have the opportunity to speak today on this very important motion. We need to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor.

When I think about reducing the gap between the rich and the poor, the remark made by the hon. member is very true. The governments are not very serious about this.

For example, all we have to do is look at my province of Nova Scotia. We see governments by way of loan forgiveness giving $47 million to large corporations like Michelin. On the other hand I am personally dealing with a complaint from an aboriginal family living in a home that is worth less than $20,000 who are in danger of being evicted by CMHC on mortgage foreclosure. It demonstrates very clearly the difference and gap between the rich and the poor and where we as a government put our priorities.

I really do not have a question but more of a commentary. I want to commend my hon. colleague for bringing forth this motion. It is a very important motion, one which deserves worthy treatment by all members.

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the day before international human rights day I challenged the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the Liberal government's silencing of a First Nations chief and the attempts to silence Canadians concerned about human rights abuses.

Chief Gail Sparrow of the Musqueam First Nation was to give a speech to address APEC representatives on November 25. The government then told Chief Sparrow her speech was to be shortened by one minute. The government then cancelled Chief Sparrow's presentation altogether. Why? Because Chief Sparrow had the gall to give casual mention to human rights in her speech. Her first draft to the representatives included the phrase “I encourage you to ensure there is respect for the dignity of all people”.

The Prime Minister's office chose to silence this First Nations leader in order to ensure that APEC leaders like General Suharto of Indonesia would not be reminded of their systemic human rights abuses. Shame.

Or was this a slap in the face for the Musqueam people for daring to suggest to the Department of National Defence that the government should not pave over part of Deadman's Island to build a helicopter pad for APEC visitors without first properly investigating what impact this might have on Musqueam grave sites and heritage?

Regardless, the government did everything to silence the Musqueam people and others who dared to raise human rights issues while at the same time bending over backward for the political comfort of those like Suharto who are responsible for the death, torture and abuse of citizens of their own countries.

The government had the opportunity to refuse to invite Mr. Suharto to Canada by using section 19 of Canadian immigration law to have Suharto declared a war criminal and unfit for entry into Canada. When I questioned the minister of immigration about Suharto being allowed to enter Canada, she indicated that he had not been convicted of any crime. When I asked her who would convict him, she had no answer.

Far from keeping known human rights abusers like Suharto out the government instead chose to deploy many large canisters of tear gas indiscriminately over peaceful protesters. Even worse, Canadian officials met with Suharto in Indonesia to assure him his security provisions would be met.

Signs posted by UBC student Craig Jones calling for free speech, democracy and human rights were torn down by RCMP officials, even though the signs were outside the so-called security zone. Why did the government go so far out of its way to silence Canadians concerned about human rights and those who were raising these concerns by peaceful and democratic means?

Why did the government not use its power to prevent a known human rights abuser like Suharto from entering Canada? Why did the government go out of its way to assuage General Suharto's concerns about security while in Canada?

As things now stand, history will remember Suharto as a bloody, ruthless and evil man. I am ashamed that the Liberal government went out of its way to assuage and to welcome this man, even to the point of silencing Canadians like Chief Sparrow and Craig Jones.

The government will likely respond with generalities about protecting heads of state, about how Chief Sparrow could have met one on one with APEC leaders, about investigations into RCMP activities. Not good enough. The responsibility lies with the Prime Minister's office and with this government. The issue of silencing a First Nations chief is not an issue for the public complaints commission but for the Prime Minister's office.

I ask, is the government's first priority in respecting the rights of our own citizens or is it in paving the way for known international human rights abusers to be comfortable in Canada? Is the government's priority in silencing Canadians like Chief Sparrow and Craig Jones in order to offer a platform for known human rights abusers like General Suharto?

[Nunavut Act, April 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and honoured to have the opportunity to speak to this historic piece of legislation, an act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867.

I noticed earlier the hon. Leader of the Opposition in his remarks commented that the NDP had a certain position with respect to Senate reform and that we should take note, particularly members from the Atlantic area, of his words of wisdom. The NDP has clearly stated its position with respect to the Senate. It is unequivocal. It is on record.

I was quite disappointed to hear the hon. Leader of the Opposition, as was mentioned by my colleague from the Bloc, spend two hours commenting on Senate reform when this very important piece of legislation is before the House.

There is quite a bit of excitement surrounding the legislation. This is a very exciting time particularly for the people of Nunavut, for the Inuit.

A few weeks back I had the honour, along with some of my other colleagues, of attending a celebration of the coming into being of Nunavut. It was quite evident when we saw the rich cultural heritage that was being displayed and we sampled the cultural foods and so forth that there was a lot of excitement and a lot of hope surrounding the legislation. That is where we should be putting our focus today in terms of the hopes and aspirations of the people in the north with respect to the legislation rather than using it as a platform for a particular political agenda around Senate reform.

The legislation would pave the way for Nunavut's first general election. Timely passage of the bill would allow for a territorial election to actually precede the formal creation of Nunavut.

I am aware that the provisions contained in Bill C-39 are the result of long negotiations and discussions between the federal government, the Government of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.

The creation of Nunavut and the unfolding of aboriginal self-government through public government in this new territory will be watched closely throughout the world. I must confess that I am not as fluent in Inuktitut as the previous speaker. From Qurluqtuuq or Copper Mine to Qikiqtarjuaq the early years of the territory of Nunavut will be monitored by many throughout the globe.

Before we send the bill to committee I want to congratulate all Inuit who have worked on and participated in this effort over the last 22 years and before.

Central to the success thus far in the historic effort that is the creation of Nunavut has been the careful negotiations between Inuit negotiators and those aboriginal groups on the borders of the land that is to become Nunavut. The success in the negotiations with first nations people living in northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Denesuline, is a credit to all involved. Although the 60th parallel exists in our textbooks and laws it is irrelevant to the Dene who inhabit this region. The 60th parallel is also irrelevant to the caribou, fish and other wildlife that share the region.

The painstaking work of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, which is formerly the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut, is a testament to the bright possibilities that mark the birth of this new territory.

In less than one year Canada's third territory will come into being thanks to passage of the Nunavut Act on June 10, 1993. On behalf of the leader of my party and my caucus colleagues I wish to indicate support of the bill at this stage as our party supported the Nunavut Act in 1993.

The amendments in the bill would allow for an election prior to the April 1, 1999 coming into being of Nunavut. With passage of the bill an elected assembly from the moment it comes into existence will govern Nunavut. It is very important that the assembly be in place at the time Nunavut is officially created.

The other amendments in the bill are the result of prolonged negotiations and would help to ensure the transition to Nunavut is a smooth one. The proposed interim commissioner would have responsibility for working on the division of assets and liabilities between the governments of Nunavut and of the Northwest Territories. The commissioner would also work to clarify how Northwest Territories laws would apply in Nunavut. Clearly these issues must be closely explored in committee.

The bill would also clarify liability for leases relating to staff housing and office facilities. The legislation also reassigns one of the two Northwest Territories seats to Nunavut and creates a seat in the Senate.

Support for the bill will be an important part of the effort to move ahead aboriginal self-government in this region. This will allow for province-type powers essential to the development of the social, cultural, economic and political well-being of Inuit.

Nunavut comprises, as we have heard, 1.9 million square kilometres, roughly one-fifth of the entire Canadian land mass. It is almost the size of Greenland. This clearly represents a tremendous opportunity for Inuit to manage wildlife and resources in a formal fashion in government, having managed them for so many thousands of years before Canada came into being. This will seek to formalize inherent Inuit rights to fish, wildlife and land that have been their rights since time immemorial.

With a population of roughly 24,600, Inuit comprise over four out of every five people in the territory to be. The representatives elected to bring this new territory into being would be accountable to a largely aboriginal electorate. The land claims agreement already passed recognizes Inuit title to 350,000 square kilometres of land and includes provisions for joint management and resource revenue sharing.

It is difficult for many southern Canadians to understand the social and economic nature of the region to become Nunavut. With a litre of milk costing roughly $7 and a loaf of bread $3 and with about 20 kilometres of paved road in almost 2 million square kilometres of land, the challenges and the opportunities facing the voters of Nunavut and their families are unique and most certainly require their own territorial government.

Nunavut means “our land”. The bill would facilitate giving meaning in history to that title. This new territory will be able to work in concert with native development corporations such as Nusai and Qikiqtaaluk Corporation representing concerns such as shrimp fishing, trucking and the hotel industry.

The Nunavut government will be elected by all voting residents of Nunavut, Inuit and non-Inuit. The government elected will be responsible to all citizens of the territory. Increasingly, beginning after the first election and the formal birth of the territory in April of next year, the government of Nunavut will assume responsibilities currently exercised by the Government of the Northwest Territories with the transfer of programs such as culture, public housing and health care to be completed by the year 2009.

While the federal government's co-operation with the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Government of the Northwest Territories is to be commended, it also serves to further underscore the dismal failure of the government in so many areas concerning self-government for aboriginal peoples.

The Liberal government should take the efforts and relative success in the developing creation of Nunavut and learn from it in its relations with aboriginal peoples throughout the land. The government should be taking the lead instead of waiting for costly and confrontational court actions to determine the history of our relations with aboriginal peoples.

Delgamuukw is an excellent case in point. It is astonishing that on the one hand the government can proceed with positive steps in the creation of the territory of Nunavut but stumble and fall so terribly in its abject failure to respond coherently to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

As I mentioned earlier in these comments, the government did manage to engage in successful negotiations with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the body that now affords representation and a negotiating structure for the Inuit of Nunavut. Why then has the government failed to carry this model forward and negotiate self-government?

The supreme court in the recent Delgammuukw decision encouraged the government not to continue to rely on the courts but to negotiate in the spirit of self-government recognized in the Constitution Act.

One of the issues that will need continued work in the future, which is not covered by the bill, is the area of the court system. There are no commitments in the legislation to move to develop community courts and to recognize the role of aboriginal justice. This glaring omission merits serious attention in the months to come. Although the bill would establish the supreme court of Nunavut and the court of appeal of Nunavut, it is silent on the issue of aboriginal justice and this silence condemns the Inuit to the existing judicial arrangements.

Furthermore, the issue of the status of Nunavut in the Canadian charter remains unsettled. Although the legislation would permit the new interim commissioner to enter into full employment contracts with future government of Nunavut employees and go beyond simple recruitment, much concentration is required on the whole issue of staff development and training. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples stated:

An important goal is to ensure that the majority population of Inuit can staff their own governing institutions. The importance of training to self-determination cannot be overestimated.

Systems must be developed to ensure Inuit are trained and educated in such a way to ensure their full ongoing participation in all aspects of policy making, management and operation of the administrative, cultural, economic and other institutions developed. Given that many of the new jobs to be created will require some form of post-secondary education, according to the commission it is alarming that the government has not addressed the fact that less than one per cent of this population has a university degree.

The challenge at hand for all is to ensure that education is available particularly in areas of accounting, financial management, organizational development, planning and business development. Public education materials and programs must be developed in co-operation with the aboriginal population to ensure all understand and develop the dramatic changes in texture and responsibility of government in the land that will become the territory of Nunavut.

While the minority population of Nunavut currently pervades the territorial administration, the challenge in part will be to see how the majority culture of Nunavut can be “knit together with the culture of the minority population”, as the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples suggested.

Once again I commend the Inuit involved in all aspects of the negotiations which led to the bill and to the development of Nunavut as a whole. As I said at the outset, there is a lot of excitement surrounding the legislation. Even as I am speaking now I understand there is a web page on the Internet sponsored by a school in Nunavut. They are having a second by second countdown to the day that Nunavut will come into existence. It is not a day by day countdown but a second by second countdown. That shows how much excitement there is surrounding the whole concept.

This accommodation extends not only to the chief negotiators but to all those involved at every level, particularly families who so often had to endure long absences during the varied steps of the process.

Canadians owe a debt of gratitude to the Denesuline and to the Government of the Northwest Territories for the endless negotiation over the years to arrive at this point. The efforts of the minister and her staff in this instance, not to mention the many people in the federal government who have all brought goodwill and hard work to bear on the development of Nunavut, deserve to be commended.

I look forward to a very careful examination of the bill in detail over the days and weeks to come.

[Judges Act, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that he believes all members in this House are in favour of justice. I would concur that all members indeed should be in favour of justice. It is for this very reason that I have difficulty supporting Bill C-37. There is a very serious injustice being discussed here.

We are discussing a bill which would in effect give to judges raises of approximately 8.4%. With no disrespect to any judges or any group of people which the government might consider giving a raise to, I find it difficult to consider giving a raise to people when the government has failed and continues to fail to settle the pay equity concerns of over 200,000 current and former employees of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

There are numerous people to whom the government owes money, yet the government fails to come to grips with this. It is the result of a law that was introduced by the same Liberals 20 years ago. We have a complaint that has been outstanding for about 14 years and today we are debating a bill that would give others a raise.

People in my constituency question me daily regarding what we are doing about their pay equity. They want to know when the government will pay them what they are due. And then I am expected to support the government giving an increase to another group when it fails to look after people to whom money is already owed. I see that as a very serious injustice, one which I think should be addressed. Until that kind of justice prevails, it will be very hard to support a bill which gives a raise to any group of people.

[Aboriginal Languages Day, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today the Commissioner of Official Languages released his annual report on Canada's two official languages. However Canada has many languages, all of which are equally important to the rich fabric of Canadian society.

Today being Aboriginal Languages Day draws our attention in particular to the 53 aboriginal languages which exist in the country, many of which are on the brink of extinction due to the unfortunate historical maltreatment of aboriginal peoples and their cultures.

However I am pleased to note that aboriginal peoples have taken and continue to take measures to revive, preserve and promote their languages.

Chapel Island Portlotek First Nation in Nova Scotia declared Mi'kmaq to be the official language of its community. Eskasoni First Nation in Nova Scotia, in partnership with government, established a centre of excellence for Mi'kmaq language curriculum development to support language programs in both public and band schools.

These measures serve to ensure that the rich heritage of aboriginal languages enhances not only the lives of aboriginals but also the lives of all Canadians.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Dene community has outlined a plan for essential response and necessary redress. This is a constructive response to the radioactive contamination of the human and biophysical environment as a result of uranium mining activities by the federal crown.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the Dene of Deline on Great Bear Lake in the Northwest Territories that his ministers will respect the community's request?

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise at the request of the Dene community of Deline, Northwest Territories.

The community calls on the ministers for health, Indian affairs and natural resources to meet with them to discuss the radiation deaths of their men and women and to address the loss to their families, culture and community.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister to give assurance to the Dene that the ministers will meet with the community and this grave injustice will be dealt with honourably.

[National Defence, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

The alternative service delivery process of the Department of National Defence has wreaked havoc on the community of Goose Bay, Labrador. Will the minister place a moratorium on any further ASD activity until there has been an audit by the auditor general and a thorough assessment by the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs of the social and economic impact on the communities where ASD has already taken place?