David Dingwall

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for putting forward a motion which discusses some very substantive issues relating to social housing.

I do not wish to be too congratulatory to my colleague opposite, however the subject matter before us this afternoon can be debated in a very civilized way and perhaps suggestions from all quarters can be put on the record. We can then present them to the Minister of Finance, who as we all know, is in the process of preparing his budget.

Although I thank the hon. member for putting the subject matter before the House I cannot concur with the way in which the motion has been written and placed before the House.

I want to assure all hon. members that as the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing, I take my mandate very seriously, as does the government. We fully understand the challenges ahead and we are committed to carrying out the government's agenda in the area of housing.

Make no mistake about it, the government is committed to maintaining a strong role in social housing across the country. Our commitment reflects our desire to help the least advantaged in our society and we will continue to do just that.

In the speech from the throne the government clearly signalled its resolve to address the fiscal situation while at the same time acknowledging the continuing importance of social priorities. The government is respecting its promises within its current financial capabilities. I want to underline that because I have been asked questions numerous times on the floor of the House. I have gone out of my way to make it abundantly clear that the fiscal capacity of the Government of Canada is somewhat limited as the previous administration basically left the cupboard bare. The deficit of the Government of Canada is $12 billion over and above what we had anticipated and what we had been told during the election campaign. I am sure hon. members opposite have concluded that it does limit the fiscal capacity of the government to move in all the social areas in which we might wish to move.

Having said that to the substance of the motion before us, I cannot concur with the way in which it has been written, although I am happy about the subject being debated just days before the budget.

It should be clearly stated that the government is providing close to $2 billion for the direct financing of some 652,000 households across the country. That is a very substantial amount of money which is lent under the auspices of the direct lending program, administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

To suggest otherwise is being totally irresponsible in my view. I direct those comments not necessarily to members opposite but to those who are outside the Chamber and those who may come into the Chamber and speak to the issues, that the government is making an important contribution to social housing. The hon. member made reference to the fact that this administration is the same as the old administration. That is not true.

The throne speech which was tabled in the other House and which has been referred to by the Prime Minister and by myself on several occasions, talked about social housing. We have put down $100 million over a two-year period for the residential rehabilitation assistance program.

With a limited fiscal capacity, we are providing $100 million to individuals in order to improve the quality of the stock of homes. This is a significant contribution in terms of the health

and safety which will be across the country, not in one particular area but all Canadians in all provinces will have an opportunity to benefit.

We have embarked on a very ambitious program. I will get to it in a little more detail when I talk about the meeting I had with provincial ministers of housing. We intend to save through cost cutting measures over the next four years a total of $120 million. All will be directed for social housing. Those initiatives will be in concert with shared objectives and providing those who are in need with capacity to move on and to improve their quality of life. This is another significant aspect of the social housing budget.

It should be noted that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has forecast for 1994 a modest recovery in new housing starts, which is approximately 162,000. If I can use this term-hon. members opposite may find it rather amusing-it is a conservative figure of 162,000 units.

Other forecasting organizations, such as banks and trust companies, indicate that those figures are very low and housing starts in Canada will be much more significant than that. However being the modest type of government that we are, we intend to go with the low figure and that is the figure we are sharing with our colleagues across the way.

Social housing also has implications for other areas and other aspects of the housing industry. For instance in the city of Toronto the issue is contaminated lands. In my discussions with ministers of housing across the country we have put this issue on the table for action by ministers and deputy ministers. In fact we discussed this when federal, provincial and territorial leaders met in Toronto. We agreed that our deputy ministers would pursue this vigorously, that we would have several meetings and hopefully make decisions on those kinds of issues, which have an impact on what the private sector does vis-à-vis social housing as well as other types of housing.

It should be noted that the theme we use for this issue is one of common sense.

I want to underline that there are numerous individuals who think that one cannot build a home anywhere in the country in 1994 because of environmental concerns. There are others in this country who say to hell with environmental concerns, they will build the homes regardless.

There are two competing views of a problem. I suggest, and ministers of the crown both federally and provincially have said, that we must have some semblance of common sense to the approach that the housing industry must take in the weeks, months and years ahead. That is an important aspect to which we must give due consideration.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation is embarking upon a comprehensive-I want to underline the words-examination of the rental market research. My colleague who spoke earlier in the House with regard to the motion made reference to the province of Quebec and it having more units for the purpose of rental housing. That is very true.

However, there are other areas in the country whether in Calgary, Edmonton, British Columbia, parts of Atlantic Canada, where the rental component is an essential element. We hope that in the next couple of months to put together the terms of reference for a comprehensive review of rental markets.

I would be interested in hearing the views of hon. members on that subject as I will be hearing the views of the private sector and other stakeholders across the country.

Encouraging innovation is another aspect of our policy as it relates to housing. It relates directly to social housing in terms of the things we might be able to do. I make reference to the good work that my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, has been able to do. I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, have followed that quite closely over the years.

I refer of course to R-2000 which in my view has provided an upgrading of the quality of housing in the country which many private stakeholders as well as non-profit stakeholders have taken advantage of over the years. Therefore, encouraging innovation will be another aspect of our housing policies as we approach this fiscal year, 1994-95.

I want to talk for a few minutes if I may in the time that I have remaining, which I believe is about 15 or 20 minutes-

[Canada Post, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all let me thank the hon. member for his excellent and, I might add, unexpected question.

I wish to inform him and all other hon. members that the company supplying Canada Post with the quality material went bankrupt and as a result Canada Post had to go offshore.

The hon. member should be apprised that 57 per cent of Canada Post's printing requirements are done by Canadian suppliers. I can assure the hon. member we are continuing to work with Canada Post as well as Industry Canada to ensure that the remaining 43 per cent which comes from offshore will come from Canadian suppliers in the not too distant future.

[Official Residences, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister I would like to take the hon. member's comments as representations and report back to the House at a later stage.

[Social And Co-Operative Housing, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the only assurance I can give the hon. member is one of honesty.

The honest assessment of the housing situation is such that we will have to work within the fiscal means of the Government of Canada, just like in the province of Quebec, just like in the province of Ontario, and just like in the province of British Columbia. All governments are wrestling with the issues of social housing.

We are working co-operatively in the federation to try to find additional moneys in co-operation with the Minister of Finance in order to address some of those serious issues which not only affect residents in the province of Quebec, but right across this country.

[Social And Co-Operative Housing, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the question is appropriate because the subject matter will be dealt with later in the day as an opposition motion.

I wish to inform the hon. member that all my colleagues on this side of the House have immense interest in the subject matter of social housing. We have been working diligently with the Minister of Finance, as we have been working with other levels of governments, both provincial and municipal, to determine new ways of finding additional moneys in order to address the serious problem of social housing.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a selective memory. He should realize and understand that to suggest this is cherry picking with regard to constitutional reform is utterly wrong.

The Government of Canada, the Government of Prince Edward Island as well as the Government of New Brunswick signed a tripartite agreement. In order to consummate the agreement they duly signed after appropriate consultations with their constituents. After a referendum in the province of Prince Edward Island, the Federal Court of Canada stated it was necessary for that document to have full legal effect not only for the short term but for the long term to change constitutionally the terms of reference affecting the province of Prince Edward Island and the Government of Canada.

It is quite one thing to stand in one's place and accuse the government of the day of cherry picking on constitutional reform when it is the exact opposite. The court is saying clearly and unequivocally, if you wish to give long-term legal effect to a binding agreement duly entered into in good faith by three separate parties, you should and must make a change in terms of the constitutional reference. That is the rationale.

I am surprised that the hon. member, who is quite adept on his feet, would not be cognizant of that important fact. That is why today in this legislature, as some time ago in the legislature of P.E.I., this constitutional amendment had to be put forward in order to give legal and binding effect to an agreement duly entered into by three different provinces and the Government of Canada.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I was making my point through you to the hon. member, it does not give him the right to abuse flagrantly and selectively some of the discussions which took place in this Chamber not more than a year ago. He suggested in his remarks that somehow this evil thing that we put before Parliament today was concocted, if you will, in the back rooms. It has been around for five full years.

I cannot understand why the hon. member would try to give that impression to his constituents. Perhaps we might wish to have a recall of the hon. member's ability to remember all of the facts and all of the things that have gone on in this House.

The question I have for the hon. member is the following. Does the hon. member not think it appropriate that the people of Prince Edward Island, who over 130 years ago decided that they would become a part of Confederation, have now determined through the most democratic way, namely a referendum, that they wish to amend those terms of reference which they consummated over 130 years ago? Is the hon. member saying to Canada's smallest province, to that group of individuals, that they no longer have that right as other Canadians in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and across this country have that right?

Is the hon. member suggesting in a code that because one comes from a small province, because one comes from a small population base, one does not enjoy the rights that other provinces have? Is that not what the hon. member is suggesting?

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, just a comment then a brief question to my hon. colleague opposite.

I did not hear the full extent of his remarks but I did pay particular attention to some of his wording. If I quote him incorrectly I hope that he will do the honourable thing and advise the House that I have done so.

The hon. member made reference to this creeping into the House of Commons and somehow the guillotine will come down fairly soon on a decision which is of gargantuan importance to Canada, to the world and to other planets if you will. I am paraphrasing of course, but I understand the hon. member is new to the House. However new to the House does not give you the right to flagrantly abuse-

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am also prepared if members deem it appropriate to bring in the six feet of studies which have been done. If members wish me to do that they might want to indicate it to me with a note and I would be prepared to do that so everyone will understand that there are no secrets, no backroom deals that have been consummated with regard to this project.

I want to say that the project was subjected to the most open and fully transparent public consultation process which involved over 80 public meetings attended by over 10,000 individuals. This is quite remarkable in itself. I believe this project sets the standard of environmental review and will become a model of environmental management for undertakings of similar size and similar scope.

There is no doubt and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that there are Canadians out there who under no circumstances whatsoever would agree to having a fixed link, whether because of the environment, personal bias, personal views, finances or otherwise. However, the vast majority of the people of Prince Edward Island who voted in a democratic referendum passed in their legislature voted in favour of the fixed link. We as a national Parliament must recognize that fact, as I am sure hon. members opposite will want to recognize in their interventions that will fall in line shortly.

In late August the Federal Court of Canada in response to a challenge ruled that the Department of Public Works and Government Services had gone well beyond what would normally have been expected in meeting the federal environmental review guideline order. I will quote from Justice Cullen's ruling when he said:

The criteria accepted and followed by Public Works Canada when making its self-assessment was more than adequate for the purposes and complied with the (environmental) guideline order.

However, I assure the House this does not mean the end of our environmental concerns. My department, as well as other responsible federal and provincial agencies, will continue to monitor environmental impacts during the construction period and beyond to ensure compliance with the agreement and to take action if it should be deemed necessary.

The fixed link is a very exciting initiative, a very bold initiative. It is an undertaking of historic proportions. It is yet another challenging opportunity to open up the country, to unite the country and to build it.

Yes, the 13-kilometre bridge, the longest ever over waters which freeze, is ambitious but so were the St. Lawrence seaway, the Trans-Canada highway and the great Canadian railroad. The

hallmark of all these endeavours was the determination to bring Canadians one step closer together.

This undertaking demonstrates that Canada has the ability to develop an imaginative approach to government industry co-operation in carrying out a major public initiative: partnership at its best.

I should like to think that the Prince Edward Island bridge project, in addition to its other merits, could serve as a global model for future joint projects of this type. Closer public and private sector collaboration is a major contemporary avenue through which we can stimulate investment and create badly needed jobs.

During the election campaign we heard from every political leader talking about a partnership between industry and government. There is no other better example than the fixed link between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick which demonstrates that point more accurately.

The Northumberland bridge is a very sound and a very important project. The present premier of Prince Edward Island, the Hon. Catherine Callbeck, said:

A tremendous economic boost-that will provide a stable, economic climate for business to survive in this province.

Jim Larkin of the Prince Edward Island Tourism Association remarked that it is "probably the key to the future of this province". The premier of New Brunswick, the Hon. Frank McKenna, said:

I am absolutely confident that history will favourably judge the fixed crossing to Prince Edward Island-it's time to seize the moment and opt for progress in Atlantic Canada.

Clearly the vast majority of the people of Prince Edward Island sees this bridge as an important initiative which will give the people of the province renewed opportunity to participate in the country's economy, renewed opportunity to enhance their own lives and the lives of their families. The bridge is creating a renewed sense of optimism for Prince Edward Island and for the Atlantic region. A strong Atlantic economy is a vital part of a strong Canadian economy.

Atlantic Canadians know within their hearts and minds that the bridge is only one part of the solution, but as Sir Winston Churchill once said: "The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time".

In conclusion I urge members of Parliament from all political parties and those who are independents to support the amendment before us today. I urge members of the House to create the opportunity for Canada's smallest province, Prince Edward Island, and the rest of Atlantic Canada to become economically stronger. I urge members of the House to give a new generation of Canadians who happen to reside in Prince Edward Island an opportunity to become full partners in the Canadian economy and an opportunity for a better future.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

moved:

WHEREAS section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies;

NOW THEREFORE the House of Commons resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by His Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.

1. The Schedule to the Prince Edward Island Terms of Union is amended by adding thereto, after the portion that reads

"And such other charges as may be incident to, and connected with, the services which by the "British North America Act, 1867" appertain to the General Government, and as are or may be allowed to the other Provinces;"

the following:

"That a fixed crossing joining the Island to the mainland may be substituted for the steam service referred to in this Schedule;

That, for greater certainty, nothing in this Schedule prevents the imposition of tolls for the use of such a fixed crossing between the Island and the mainland, or the private operation of such a crossing."

Citation

1. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, 1993 (Prince Edward Island).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that you have read a fair portion of the amendment which we intend to discuss today. The amendment is very specific with regard to the terms of reference between Canada and Prince Edward Island.

I apprise the new Speaker, who has just taken his place in the chair, that this is a very specific amendment. Therefore I would hope that comments all hon. members make have some relevance to the subject matter which we are dealing with and not the broad general topic of constitutional reform.

One hundred and thirty years ago the Fathers of Confederation gathered in Prince Edward Island and created the concept of Canada. Thanks to their genius Canada has flourished throughout the 20th century. Today Prince Edward Island seeks a small but significant amendment to its terms of union with Canada. This improvement will create the opportunity for our smallest province to take its rightful place in the 21st century.

On behalf of the Government of Canada I am honoured to place before the House of Commons a formal resolution to amend the terms of union between the Government of Canada and Prince Edward Island which I am certain all members of this House will want to support in the deliberations to follow.

The amendment, albeit short and straightforward, is important for Prince Edward Island, important for the entire Atlantic region and important for Canada.

The proposed amendment provides the necessary constitutional framework for the replacement of the ferry service between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick by a bridge across the Northumberland Strait. More significantly, the amendment provides a bridge for the future.

The fixed crossing will allow Prince Edward Island to become a full partner in Canada's economy. The fixed crossing will spur Atlantic Canada's economy in the short term and create real hope for viable long term economic growth.

Construction of the 13 kilometre concrete bridge means new skills, new technology, new jobs, new enthusiasm and new prospects for the future.

The amendment before Parliament today will allow a project to proceed which is fiscally sound and financially responsible, a project which represents thoughtful public transportation policy, a project which sets new standards for environmental review, assessment and management.

The federal government is bound by the 1873 terms of union with Prince Edward Island to provide continuous communications between the island and the mainland.

Since Confederation this obligation has been fulfilled by a ferry service. The province of Prince Edward Island now wishes to strengthen, modernize and improve dramatically the means by which the island is linked continuously with mainland Canada.

For that reason the federal government and the Government of Prince Edward Island signed an agreement committing the two governments to make the necessary constitutional change to permit the ferry service to be replaced by a bridge.

The amendment before us today is the last in a series of legislative steps required to enable Prince Edward Island to make that move forward. In the spring of 1993 Parliament debated and then passed Bill C-110, an act respecting the Northumberland Strait crossing.

I would be remiss in my opening remarks if I did not pay tribute to those members of my own caucus who participated in that debate and on previous occasion whereby the House deemed it appropriate to pass Bill C-110.

I want to congratulate all members, some who are present, some who are opposite, who participated in that debate. I wish to thank them sincerely.

In June 1993 the Prince Edward Island legislature passed a resolution authorizing this amendment. In October an agreement was signed by the federal government and Strait Crossing Development Inc. to begin construction of a bridge linking Prince Edward Island to mainland Canada.

The agreement is an innovative, prudent and intelligent approach to the building of public infrastructure. The agreement breaks new ground in government-private sector partnerships. Investment of taxpayers' dollars is limited but also protected.

The people of Canada will not be responsible for footing the bill for delays or cost overruns relating to this initiative. The total contribution of the Government of Canada will consist of 35 subsidy payments to the private sector development. The payments will be made annually at a cost of $42 million indexed to inflation.

This formula effectively caps the cost and limits to 35 years the financial responsibilities of the Government of Canada to meet its constitutional obligation to the people of Prince Edward Island.

By contrast, pursuing the option of the ferry service indefinitely would subject the taxpayer to undue and unexpected cost without any reprieve in sight. As was made crystal clear by the Prime Minister both in our election red book and in the recent speech from the throne, the government's number one priority is job creation. The fixed link and this particular initiative will do that. It will create jobs.

Under the terms of the agreement, 96 per cent of bridge construction jobs will be filled by Atlantic Canadians. In total over 3,500 jobs will be created in the three and a half year construction period. Further, at least 2,000 indirect jobs will be created as a result of spin-offs. That addresses clearly and unequivocally the government's intent with regard to its priority of job creation.

The contracts also specify that 70 per cent of the total procurement requirements will be provided by Atlantic Canadians. Given the size and complexity of the undertaking, extensive spin-offs will offer Atlantic Canadians the chance to develop new construction, management and environmental protection skills.

What is most encouraging is that the economic benefits will continue to flow long into the future. The tourism industry estimates that once the bridge is in operation, the number of people visiting P.E.I. will increase approximately 25 per cent. It will open up new opportunities for even more employment in the vitally important hospitality industry of that province and other provinces as well.

The Prince Edward Island trucking industry will benefit to the tune of some $10 million each year in time savings alone. Mr. Speaker, you are very wise and very learned. I have no doubt you are probably a very well travelled individual. If you have taken or perhaps would like to take a trip in the immediate future to Prince Edward Island, you would quickly understand why the trucking association is so much in favour of this initiative. It will decrease the time you will be parked at the ferry side waiting for the boat to transport you to the other side. Not only is it time saving but it is also an economic saving which will

enhance opportunities and provide many spin-offs for that sector of our economy.

The bridge will provide much greater certainty and reliability of delivery for P.E.I.'s farmers and fishermen. There will be new possibilities of growth for the province's processing and manufacturing industries.

P.E.I.'s businesses will be able to improve their bottom lines. An improved competitive position for the island's economy means an improved future for the young people of the island. I am certain all members of the House regardless of political ideology will want to support that enthusiastically.

Not surprisingly, over the years since the idea of a fixed link was first advanced, support has grown to the point where today over 70 per cent of islanders are in favour of the bridge. I do not mean the people from Cape Breton Island, I mean the people from Prince Edward Island. I wish to make that very clear.

The bridge is an exciting project for Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada. I know that some people still have concerns. I want to do my best to address some of the concerns this morning and perhaps respond to questions that hon. members might have.

I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the commitments enshrined in a tripartite agreement made with the provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Government of Canada.

The ferry workers who will lose their jobs in June 1997 as a result of the ferry closures will be treated fairly. They will have first choice of employment on bridge operation and maintenance. A fair severance package will be negotiated on top of the provisions of the workers' current contract. We will work closely with ferry employees to find retraining opportunities for jobs in many sectors of the local economy which will benefit from the presence of the new bridge.

Fishermen affected by the construction activities in specific areas of the Northumberland Strait will be compensated for lost opportunity. As part of this particular deal the developer has set aside a $10 million trust fund to be administered according to a plan developed mostly by fishermen themselves.

I also want to reaffirm the commitment to provide financial assistance through another agency which I happen to be responsible for, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, for sound business initiatives in order to help the communities of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in the coming months and years. We will take the appropriate measures to help the affected individuals and communities because it is the fair and just thing to do. I cannot stress too strongly that the overall effect of the bridge will be many immediate and long-term benefits. The bridge will contribute to an increasingly dynamic economy for those of us who reside in Atlantic Canada. In fact, the project constitutes a good deal, not only for the people of Prince Edward Island, not only for the people of Atlantic Canada but, I dare to suggest in the House of Commons, for the people of Canada.

In drawing up this agreement the public servants of my department have done a commendable job of ensuring that the taxpayers are protected from any unexpected, unnecessary or unwarranted costs. All of the risks have been assumed by the developer, including financing, design, construction, maintenance and operation.

I know some people, perhaps in this House, have expressed concerns that the ultimate owners of two of the development partners are not Canadian. But I am satisfied that this is essentially a Canadian undertaking whose benefits will largely accrue to the people of this country. It is true that Northern Construction Company and the GTMI company are Canadian subsidiaries of foreign firms, but both subsidiaries have been operating actively in Canada for in excess of 30 years.

I wonder if those critics-and I do not suggest for a moment that they are here on the floor of the House of Commons-wherever they may be, would seriously suggest stopping as it would be rather ridiculous if we were to say to GM, Ford and Chrysler: "Because you operate a subsidiary in Canada, in Ontario, you should not be allowed to operate because your parent company is a foreign one". That would be intellectually dishonest. We are in a globally competitive world. I know members opposite would want to agree with my conclusion that this is important for Atlantic Canadians and important for Canada as a whole.

Furthermore, this particular developer should be complimented for assembling world class technical expertise. The truth is that the proponent of the fixed link, Strait Crossing Development, is a 100 per cent Canadian owned company which happens to be headquartered in Calgary, Alberta. Who will benefit most from the project? The answer clearly is the citizens of Canada.

The developer was required to have all the project costs in trust at the time of closing, plus a 10 per cent contingency until substantial completion of the bridge has taken place. The developer has posted a $200 million performance bond as well as a $35 million compliance bond and a $20 million labour and material bond. All these are supported by guarantees with the parent companies. The deal was struck in such a way that the parent companies are providing the necessary financial backing to the developer.

I want to emphasize that the developer and not the Canadian taxpayers will be fully liable for cost overruns. If the project is not completed by May 31, 1997, the developer must pay the cost of operating the ferry service until the bridge is ready. Once the bridge is in operation the developer must operate and maintain it to the satisfaction of the federal government before having access to the revenues from the tolls.

The cost for crossing the bridge will be comparable to that of the current ferry service. Over the next 35 years these tolls will not be increased in any year by more than three-quarters of the annual rate of inflation. Through these and other provisions the government has made every effort to ensure that taxpayers are properly protected before, during and after construction.

Similarly, I want to make an honest effort to answer all fair minded questions and reservations raised by Canadians about the fixed link. In that spirit I would like to comment on the question of the possible environmental effects of this project.

This issue has been raised throughout the past five years, 60 months. I know it has concerned a number of members of the House. I do not intend to detail all the environmental studies and expert reviews that were undertaken except to say that there were in excess of 100 studies, most of them very comprehensive.

I was going to seek the indulgence of the House and bring before it the six feet of studies that have been undertaken with regard to this project but I thought it would be rather cumbersome to do so. It would be rather costly for the Government of Canada, particularly the House of Commons, to have reprinted in Hansard each and every word of all of those studies.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, from your study of the transcripts of this debate at another time, I placed before the House a number of studies. I refer to them not in totality but in summary fashion, bringing to the attention of the House just how important those studies were in answering a number of environmental concerns.

Today I am tabling with the permission of the House a list of all of the studies which have been done, both in French and English. If members wish to refer to them I am certain my department can make these studies readily available so they can examine them, study them at night, take them home on the weekend and review them, maybe get an independent study by their particular political party or their particular group. Then we could hear back from them in the months and years ahead on whether the studies, which number in total 100, were appropriate.

I wish to have the consent of the House to table these two documents if members wish to refer to them at a later time.