Debates of Feb. 15th, 1994

Prince Edward Island Fixed Link

[David Dingwall, Liberal, Cape Breton—East Richmond, NS]

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.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the minister mentioned that he did not listen to all the earlier speeches. Perhaps this is the part he forgot.

I did mention that Madam Justice Reed's decision demands a constitutional change. I did not argue with that either. However, we are talking about process. Constitutional change affects all provinces and all Canadians when it is the foundational document that guides us. We cannot say it only affects Prince Edward Island. The federal government is obligated for $43 million and change a year or maybe more. It involves all Canadians.

It is why we have talked repeatedly of the need to approve constitutional change through a national binding referendum. I am not afraid of referendums. The government has talked several times about referendums and how it enjoyed the referendum process in P.E.I., how it was a positive process and how it involved people and how it has grown from 60 per cent support to 70 per cent support today. I applaud it and I applaud the people of Prince Edward Island.

I am saying not to be afraid of consulting the Canadian people on constitutional matters. When you ask for their opinion they will give it to you as they did in the Charlottetown accord. They will give it again. If it is properly presented with a bottom up consultative process they will approve the necessary changes. They would probably approve this one. It is the process and the process is wrong.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike most of the members opposite I have listened to today, both from the Bloc and from Reform, I would like to do something interesting and actually speak to the motion that is on the floor of this House.

[Joe McGuire, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

That is a good idea.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

I do not want to talk about the Senate. It might be a neat idea if we actually spoke to what the minister has put before the House, the actual motion that is up for debate and not hear threats from members of the Bloc about a referendum that is looming in their province and their opinion or use this, as has been done by several members of the Reform Party, to argue about the Senate and the need for constant, daily referendums.

We had a very decisive referendum on October 25, 1993. The Canadian people spoke very clearly about the vision they have for this country. They spoke so clearly that the government has had to occupy some seats on the other side of the House. Let us not be under any illusion about the authority of this government and of its ability to act.

I congratulate the minister for his cautious review of this project. It was very thorough as he explained the entire Northumberland Strait bridge. I applaud and congratulate him for the restraint he has shown in the face of comments from members opposite which have, quite frankly, been largely irrelevant and very much off the topic.

I stand in my place today as a member of Parliament from Ontario, from the riding of London-Middlesex, to speak in favour of the motion. It is disappointing for me to hear members opposite, particularly the member for Calgary West who spoke earlier today, expressing very parochial views of regional self-interest. This is not a time for the narrow, petty objections we have heard so much today. It is a time to build this nation, not to tear it down. This is not an issue of the west versus Prince Edward Island or Atlantic Canada. This is a major project of national significance. Certainly it is going to benefit the province of Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada. If it benefits that part of Canada then we all benefit and I am proud to support it.

As Liberals we are the only truly national party in the House at this time. Perhaps that is the reason there is a national perspective from this side and a very regional and limited perspective from the other side, be it from Bloc members or from Reform members.

We have heard this silly argument that if we are prepared to reopen the Constitution in this matter then indeed we have to be ready to reopen the Constitution on any matter. To advance that in this House as a serious argument is highly ridiculous. This is a technical amendment to the Constitution. It was ordered by a judge in order to make the project possible. It is a far different situation from reopening the entire constitutional nightmare this country went through over the past several years.

Frankly, my colleagues on the opposite side are making irrelevant comments or certainly are groping to hang their own particular hobby horse on this motion.

I would like to speak to the motion as it is before us. The government has used a very open and transparent process to build this bridge. There have been massive public consultations. It has been one of the most democratic processes on a major decision to be made that this country has undergone, yet we are still hearing objections.

There is a partnership in place with the private sector to build this particular project. The development company assumes the majority of the financial risks. The whole of the Canadian public will benefit from this particular project. The SCDI will own and operate the bridge for some 35 years. It speaks very much to the idea of partnership our government put forward in its red book which was so heartily endorsed by the Canadian people.

The process has been very open. The theme is a partnership with the private sector. Obviously there are myriad economic benefits to be achieved by this project.

The Canadian people voted for a government which recognized the need to create jobs in this country. That is what the message was in October 1993. This project will create a number of badly needed jobs. As was stated earlier by the minister there will be 3,500 jobs over three and a half years in the construction of the project. There will be another 2,000 spin-off jobs once the project is built with fully 96 per cent of these new jobs to be filled by Atlantic Canadians.

I could be parochial and strictly take care of the needs of southwestern Ontario or address them in my comments today. I do not think that is my role as a member of Parliament. We have heard too much of that petty approach to politics today in this House, not on this side I might add but from members opposite, unfortunately.

We have to look at this as an important project to a part of our country which badly needs an economic boost. I am going to support it and I am pleased to see it will do so much for employment.

The project will also show an increase in tourism of some 25 per cent. One can readily understand the spin-offs in jobs that will create in the service sector as Canadians find it easier to get to Prince Edward Island. I have had the opportunity to visit that beautiful island as I hope have many other members and I intend to go back. It will be a pleasure to cross on the bridge.

Concern has been expressed about the ferry workers and the loss of their jobs. This is a worry for all of us. I am pleased that the minister in tabling his statement has shown very clearly there will be fair treatment for the ferry workers. They will have the first choice for employment on the bridge project. There is a fair severance package to be put in place for the displaced workers. As we speak consultations are under way with the unions to make sure this takes place.

We have heard some concerns raised about the environment. One of the few relevant comments from the other side addressed the issue of the environment. However it totally ignored the fact that a comprehensive environmental review has taken place to make sure this project is environmentally sound. In fact a federal judge ruled that the government has taken great care in meeting the criteria of the federal environmental review.

Frankly, there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any serious environmental concern with this project. In fact the over 90 studies on the environmental aspect alone reached the opposite conclusion, that the project is environmentally sound and that it will have no significant impact on the environment.

Of course that would include fishermen in the area. It has been acknowledged that fishermen in the area may lose an opportunity during construction to fish certain waters. Obviously they will. In recognition of this a $10 million compensation fund is to be established by the developer to compensate these very fishermen.

Again the environmental review has clearly shown that the project is environmentally sound and there is to be compensation for the fishermen in the area whose livelihood will be affected.

We heard about the engineering and safety concerns of this project. The bridge has been designed to the highest standards. It has a life span of 100 years before needing a major retrofit. It has been independently assessed by engineers and found to be very sound.

As the member of Parliament for London-Middlesex, I want to take a national view on this. I invite members from all sides of the House, particularly those members opposite, to rise above petty politics. Find some vision and courage and endorse this project which is nationally important for this country. Let us move forward to the 21st century with the vision that this is our nation, all of it, from coast to coast to coast and that is the way we have to look after it. Let us not try to set up one region against another.

It would be nice to hear the members opposite speak to the motion with a little more national vision than what we have heard so far.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address some comments to my hon. colleague opposite-he often refers to us as being opposite-and two questions.

First of all, I found his preliminary remarks mean. He said: "I for one will say something interesting". It is too bad for the minister who, I feel, said interesting things, too bad for the Leader of the Official Opposition and too bad for the other speakers. It was indeed interesting. Congratulations.

I would also like to express disagreement with what he said about the relevancy of our remarks, and I would like to remind him of the Constitution Act, 1791, which established the foundation for the system of parliamentary representation. The people who elected Reform Party members, or you or us in the Bloc Quebecois, know very well that the relevancy of the remarks we have to make in this House depends only on our opinion. On that point also I disagree with my hon. colleague.

I would like to put a question to him. One of his colleagues spoke of a plebiscite in the case of Prince Edward Island, whereas the minister spoke of a referendum. With regard to the referendum, this is the term you used, and we used the term you brought into the debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. I call the hon. member for Terrebonne to order. I would simply remind all members that they should refrain from directly addressing other

members of the House and that they should put their questions and comments through the Chair.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

My first question to the hon. member is this: Is it a plebiscite or a referendum that was held in Prince Edward Island?

Is the hon. member's disappointment that great because we support this proposal? Would he like it better if we opposed it? He talks about petty politics and so on, and he seems deeply disappointed. I get the impression he feels that way because we support this proposal. I am right?

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer the member's questions.

First of all, if I might correct his comment, what I said was that as the minister did, I intended to speak to the motion and that I would find that to be an interesting process. I thought this House was all about the process of actually rising in our places and speaking to what was on the floor, without getting into some diatribe about some future referendum in Quebec which has very little, if anything, to do with what we are supposed to be speaking to here today. My earlier comments were that I would try to speak to the motion.

As to the member's questions, I agree with him. I have heard the term plebiscite used in reference to the vote in Prince Edward Island and I have heard the term referendum. I am sure he knows some people believe that to be an argument of semantics, that the terms are interchangeable. There are others who would say no, there is a very real difference between a plebiscite and a referendum.

My colleagues and friends from Prince Edward Island most often referred to the vote that was taken as a plebiscite. It was 60 to 40 in favour of this project in 1988. Frankly I think it is a political science or semantics argument.

As to my disappointment that the member asked me about, no, I was very pleased to hear the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition rise in his place today saying he would support the project. However, I heard Bloc members lecturing the minister about anticipated objections from the Bloc. I was in the House and heard the minister's statement. Not once did he make reference to members of any particular political party and what their views might be. He simply invited support from all members of the House and he hoped that he would not hear particular objections raised.

We are a little tired on this side of these gratuitous lectures and irrelevant comments and that is the source of my disappointment. However, I am very pleased the Bloc has seen fit to support the motion. It would just be nice if those members would speak to it.

[Raymond Lavigne, Liberal, Verdun—Saint-Paul, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the extremely positive aspects of the bridge over the Northumberland Strait is that it is one of the first and most important capital projects on which the federal government and the private sector will co-operate closely.

Ten years ago, examples of this kind of co-operation in public works were extremely rare.

For the public and in practice, the distinction between public sector and private sector projects was very clear. One presumed that public works like roads, sewers, energy production were carried out by governments and financed with tax revenues. This perception has changed entirely over the last few years.

In all the industrialized world and at all levels of government, we see private companies and consortiums take on infrastructure work that was previously the preserve of the public sector.

Conditions can change, but the basic principle is that the private sector makes the necessary financing arrangements and assumes most of the risks in exchange for the right to acquire or rent the facility and charge user fees.

It is quite clear that Canadians are also changing their opinion on how we can modernize our infrastructure. According to a recent study by the Canadian Construction Association, for example, close to 58 per cent of Canadians agree that we should ask users of freeways to pay for the construction of a network which is financed by the private sector, instead of imposing a tax on gas or special levies.

One of the main reasons for this changing attitude is the alarming debt burden all levels of government are faced with as well as the disgust more and more Canadians feel towards their government, which keeps increasing taxes to finance costly megaprojects. Yet we must renovate our infrastructure, especially in the transportation, communication and energy areas, if we want to remain competitive on the world market.

That is why the principle behind letting the private sector finance and build much needed public facilities is becoming more and more interesting.

Although Canadians generally support this principle, they do have some legitimate concerns about joint participation of the public and private sectors in infrastructure projects. The public wants to be sure it will not be asked to bail out ill-conceived and underfinanced projects. It wants to be sure that private contractors will meet environmental standards. It wants to make sure that the cost will not become prohibitive, once these facilities are put in the hands of the private sector. It wants to make sure that the decisions concerning co-operative projects are made

openly, in the best interests of the public and not only of the government's friends.

Given these facts, the Northumberland Straight bridge project is of particular interest at this time. During the development of this project, public concerns were carefully considered. Thego-ahead was given only after a very open and public review. The deal was signed only after financial soundness was ascertained.

Virtually all the risks associated with the construction and operation of the facility will be borne by the promoter. The fare structure and the appropriate fees will be carefully regulated through federal legislation. Our government is firmly committed to supporting the renewal of this country's infrastructure both in terms of job creation and in terms of enhancing our long term efficiency and competitiveness.

The President of the Treasury Board, who is at the helm of our infrastructure program, publicly invited the private sector to take an active part in this initiative. With this new approach, I think that we have every reason to regard the fixed link project as an excellent model of joint venture implementation and public interest protection. This project has undergone an extremely stringent and comprehensive environmental assessment.

Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to add a few words to what the minister said about how great the project is with regard to the environment. Much has been written on this issue. For the best part of the five years it took to develop the project, environmental considerations have been the primary concern of both the government and the promoter. Of course, this project has been subjected to the most thorough environmental assessment ever conducted on a project of this magnitude. In fact, 90 analyses were carried out, as the minister pointed out this morning, of the impact the bridge will have on the environment. Ten thousand people from both sides of the strait were consulted, and the discussions were very open and honest. The people have had many opportunities to speak on the requirements of the project during the 90 or so public hearings that were held.

The project meets all the technical and environmental requirements.

Let me remind you, if I may, of the result of the last court challenge: the Federal Court concluded that the government's environmental assessment process had been much more thorough than required.

I think that this project will be well received by the people for whom it is so very important that we pay close attention not only to the technical quality of construction but also to the protection of the environment.

That is also why I am sure that this project will set new standards in terms of public consultation and care for the environment.

I am especially pleased to notice that even if construction has already started, this crucial question will continue to be a central concern for the promoter as well as for the federal and provincial regulatory agencies.

The contractor will have to follow a very strict environmental management and protection plan. The project will be continually monitored to ensure that it remains environment friendly.

I fully support this project not only because it is a good thing, but also because it generates substantial economic activity as well as much needed jobs and, more important, it is environment friendly.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons is being called on today to approve or reject a government motion to amend the Constitution of Canada under section 43.

This section enables the House of Commons and a particular province to amend the Constitution on various points which, in my opinion, are very diversified and wide-ranging. It would have been interesting if the Canadian government and the provinces had found enabling procedures for Quebec when it wanted to endorse the 1982 Constitution Act through the Meech Lake Accord, in order to become an equal partner.

During this speech, if I may, I would like to go back to the Constitution, because that is what we are dealing with here, despite the fact that the Prime Minister does not want to talk about it any more. I would now like to raise some issues relating to Bill C-110, that passed third reading in September 1993.

Some Islanders have been worried about the fixed or mobile link with Canada's mainland for many years, ever since Prince Edward Island joined Confederation. Others prefer to keep the island as it is and to lead quiet lives in the country of their ancestors.

Our fellow citizens in Prince Edward Island wanted a link with the mainland so badly that they decided a few years ago to settle this issue in a plebiscite. This plebiscite, held in January 1988, showed that a majority favoured the establishment of a fixed link between the Island and the mainland.

No one in the government or the Official Opposition is against the will of the population. But let us not forget that this will is as valid for the people of Prince Edward Island as it is for those living on Vancouver Island, the Magdalen Islands and even Newfoundland, if bridge technology allowed it.

Unfortunately, there are prerequisites to the implementation and development of megaprojects. Allow me to point out five prerequisites I regard as essential. First, the projects must be carried out legally; second, we must have the necessary financial resources; third, the environment must be protected; fourth, this megaproject must benefit the population and help to create jobs; finally, we must ensure that all Canadian citizens can be treated the same way.

I would like to see if the conditions I just listed are met by this project.

As far as legality is concerned, as I was saying at the beginning of my speech, part of the population, in a plebiscite, authorized the Prince Edward Island provincial government to go ahead with the project. But the other side, brought together in the Friends of the Island Coalition, strongly objected to this project for different reasons. First, the dangers for the lobster and scallop fishery, migratory birds, the environment and the Islanders' tranquillity.

We must not dismiss this group which opposes this project. It applied to the Federal Court, which issued an order requiring the Minister of Public Works to conduct an environmental assessment pursuant to section 12 of the Order in Council in relation to the developer's detailed construction plan, before making any final decisions which may have irreversible environmental consequences.

On April 22, 1993, the specific environmental assessment prepared by Jacques Whitford Environment Consultants for Strait Crossing Inc., at Ottawa's request, was presented.

Although this study shows that this project is not harmful to the environment, as we agree, the Friends of the Island do not accept the decision and have appealed. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, which apparently means that the project is now legal, but we must raise questions about its morality. The opponents will watch everything the developers do as they carry out the project.

Now let us talk about the financial resources. A few weeks ago, Canada's national debt passed the $500 billion mark, not counting provincial and municipal debt. I will be very brief in my financial evaluation. The federal government now pays Marine Atlantic around $21 million a year for the cost of the ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The ferry service is adequate and fits in with the local environment very well.

Several years ago, the federal government announced that it was considering building a fixed link under one main condition: that the costs not exceed the price of the ferry service for the same period. Yet, the federal government is about to give to the private sector an annual subsidy of $42 million, in 1992 dollars, for the construction and management of the bridge, over a period of 35 years. This represents close to $1.47 billion, in constant dollars, for the whole duration of the contract. From that angle, no one can claim that the fixed link project is self-financing. Can Canada afford to spend $21 million a year, this on top of what it is already paying for the ferry service?

We are not opposed to the principle that Prince Edward Island is entitled to a ferry service subsidized by all Canadian taxpayers. In fact, this commitment greatly facilitated things when PEI joined Confederation; it was an historic constitutional compromise.

We do not oppose the fact that the federal government continues to fully respect this constitutional right, although I must point out that this same government was not as generous in the past when dealing with Quebec's historic constitutional rights. Remember what Mr. Trudeau did in 1982. It is because of episodes like this one that Quebec is irreversibly headed for sovereignty.

Moving on to environmental concerns, in spite of all the studies conducted and the approval obtained from both the trial and appellate divisions of the Federal Court, there is no question that during construction and most likely afterward, the lobster and scallop fisheries will be disrupted because of the underwater movements resulting from the construction of a fixed link. The proof is that plans have been made to set aside $10 million every year to compensate the 240 fishermen affected by the construction of the bridge. We are only talking here about the construction phase. What will happen to the fishery once the fixed link is in operation? Will the government have to continue paying the $10 million in compensation? Are the fishermen supposed to rely on unemployment insurance to get by? Will they be joining the growing ranks of unemployed fishermen throughout the Maritimes and Quebec?

I would now like to examine the issue of job creation and the benefits to be derived from this megaproject by the residents of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. During the construction phase, more than $1 billion will be invested and normally, this should result in the creation of temporary jobs and bring about some semblance of prosperity.

Initially, the project backer will have to bring in workers from across North America. This is the case with of all megaprojects. Since this is a pan-Canadian venture, we are counting on Quebec construction workers to figure prominently in bridge construction activities. Quebec workers-and there are many of them in my riding of Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans-are known for their skills and willingness to work on megaprojects. Need we remind people that Quebecers worked on some of the largest hydroelectric projects in North America, if not the entire world. I am confident that initially, the unemployment rates in both provinces affected will decline substantially. However, the question we need to ask is this: Does the Government of Canada

and do the residents of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick want temporary jobs?

The municipal infrastructure program provides for the creation of temporary jobs across Canada, including the two provinces just mentioned, the aim being to get the economy going again. However, we cannot continue to let people dream, and then leave them to fend for themselves when the temporary jobs end. Creating temporary jobs causes no great harm, but eliminating permanent jobs is downright criminal.

Currently Marine Atlantic employs 420 persons on a permanent basis. These jobs have been around since 1917. Upon completion of the bridge over the Northumberland Strait, there will be a net loss of 360 permanent jobs. The company will need only 60 people to operate the bridge. Of course this does not include all the jobs lost in the shipyards in the Maritimes and Quebec, including MIL Davie in Lauzon, which builds and repairs the ferries that connect Prince Edward Island with the continent. What are we going to do with these 360 people? Negotiate allowances? Invest in skills upgrading and relocation allowances, if necessary? That is a problem we will have to consider when we vote on this motion.

I mentioned the loss of 360 jobs, but I did not mention the potential loss to the communities in Borden and Cape Tormentine which will see a significant drop in economic activity. A special development fund of up to $20 million will be created to help them. However, $20 million can provide relief only for a limited period of time. Then what will happen to these people? And this amount adds to government spending.

A final criterion: fair treatment of all Canadians. As I see it, we have a mandate to be fair to the people we represent. Although the construction of this fixed link is financed partly by the private sector, the Government of Canada is committed to paying an annual contribution of $41.9 million in 1992 dollars, indexed for a period of 35 years, which, as I mentioned before, works out to a total of $1.47 billion.

This subsidy enabled Strait Crossing Finance Inc. to obtain financing through a private bond issue worth $660 million. The bonds have a triple-A rating, the best guarantee that can be given to the banks. Furthermore, the government agrees not to retain from the subsidy money owing from debtor companies in the case of tax default, for instance, so that potential investors enjoy the same guarantees they would have in the case of government bonds.

Once again, I would like hon. members to remember when they vote on this motion, that we were sent here by our constituents to ensure all citizens are treated fairly. If other provinces have a similar request, are we in a position to give them the same treatment? We do not have to amend the Constitution to have an ultra high speed train in the Quebec-Windsor corridor. One could say the same about giving the Magdalen Islands a new ferry from MIL Davie Shipyards in Lévis. When these items are tabled in the House, we should be as open-minded as we are today about the bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, and our decisions should always be based on the five principles I just described.

I want to say that this House should always be very circumspect when deciding how taxpayers' money will be spent. I am convinced that partisan considerations are inappropriate when discussing projects that will be part of our legacy to future generations.

As the Official Leader of the Opposition said this morning, the House of Commons should take into account the democratic choices made by people in a plebiscite or a referendum.

In concluding, I would like to say the Bloc Quebecois is always glad to talk about the Constitution.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my colleague for his speech. I have three questions to ask.

If I understood correctly, my colleague was saying that it was a bad deal. Taking the $40 million or so which the ferries now cost and using that amount to build a bridge over a 35-year period and then not having any subsidy to pay afterward was a bad deal. That is what I understood. Let him correct me if I misunderstood; that is why I am asking the question.

He also talked about "temporary jobs". Of course, when you build a bridge, work begins and then it is over. The jobs will not continue once the project is complete. But is it not true that there is still a possibility, a great possibility, I would add, of creating jobs in tourism, increasing trade and so on? Did my colleague forget to mention these jobs that no doubt will be created or does he believe that no other jobs will be created because of this new bridge?

Finally, I find it interesting that my colleague, who in a way attacked the project, also said, "Let us be open-minded, because when other projects come up, like one for the Magdalen Islands or others that might benefit Quebec, we should be generous". Listen, I want to be generous with you, but I would like you to be generous in this case too.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the member for St. Boniface that I noted the three points. In the first one, he says that apparently I find it is a bad deal. I do not know if you were here at the beginning of my speech.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

I was here and I listened.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

You were? Great.

I said that I stand with my party; we are for the project, but I simply said that when it comes to megaprojects, we must be cautious and take some principles or prerequisites into account. I referred to the questioning and the whole process that had been followed before. I mentioned the environmental concerns of Friends of the Earth and others.

In conclusion, I am not against the project; I do not say that it is a bad deal. All I am saying is that we must be cautious about investing 1.47 billion in 1992 dollars in a difficult period like this. It is simply a message of caution that I was getting across. I am not against the project and neither is my party nor was my leader this morning.

About the temporary jobs, it is the same reasoning as for the present infrastructure program. Once the street is paved or the sidewalk is built, there is nothing more to do. The street will not be repaved for years.

What I said is that once the bridge is built, only 60 permanent jobs will be created to operate the bridge and the jobs of the 360 ferry workers will be lost. You mention tourism development on Prince Edward Island and I agree with you that it-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would just like to remind the hon. member and all our colleagues in the House to avoid addressing one another directly and to go through the Chair, please.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was in full oratorical flight, since I am a passionate man, but you are right to call me to order.

Yes, we agree that tourism will develop on Prince Edward Island as a result. The question is, given that it is an island, is the tourism structure limited by geography? I agree with the hon. member that there will be development, no argument on that point, but I was talking about the temporary jobs building the bridge.

As for open-mindedness, I am sure that my colleague understood what I meant. When the time comes to discuss in this House or in committee the need for a high speed train between Quebec City and Windsor and to give the MIL Davie shipyard the contract to the Magdalen Island ferry, which will maintain 10,000 direct and indirect jobs in the Quebec City region-we are talking about maintaining jobs. It is important to create jobs, but it is also important to maintain them. The Official Opposition has shown that it is not narrow minded. It has shown openness and I am sure that hon. members opposite will show the same openness when the time comes to discuss the two issues that I mentioned, the high speed train and the ferry.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Just a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. I think that you can count on the Liberal Party to be very open minded. Open mindedness has always characterized our party and I believe it will still be the case in the future.

If I am not mistaken, my colleague said he was in favour of the project, and so is his party, but he also pointed out that Friends of the Island had some concerns about possible environmental impacts.

Does my colleague think that these concerns are so serious-of course we will be careful but just the same-as to warrant stopping the project? Has enough been done so far, with 90 analyses and the 80-odd meetings? Is there enough evidence to allow us to proceed with the project with some assurance that it will go well, that it is not too risky?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, the project must not be stopped, it must go forward. I think that our stand is clear on that. On the other hand, if the project has no impact on local lobster and scallop fishermen, why did the government feel the need to compensate them? This would mean that compensation is paid for nothing.

I am not saying that the concerns of the group were futile, just this: even if its action was dismissed by the courts, the group will have to keep a watchful eye on things to make sure that the project will be as environment friendly in reality as studies claimed it will be. That is the point I was making about the environment.

[The Speaker]

Order. It being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by members.

Teaching Excellence In Science, Technology And Mathematics

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the recipients of the Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence in Science, Technology and Mathematics were honoured. The 17 recipients, coming from all parts of Canada, are all exceptional teachers. They have formulated and put into practice innovative teaching methods.

In my riding, Mr. Richard Hopkins, a teacher at Napanee District Secondary School, is cited for creating an applied science and technology program which responds to local community needs. The students gain invaluable practical experience. There can be no greater testimony to Mr. Hopkins' ability than the fact that it was his students who nominated him for the award.

I note that the award winners are presently in Ottawa. I ask the House to join me today in congratulating all 17 worthy recipients of this national award.

Quebec Sovereignty

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's Montreal Gazette , one could read ``Anglo-Catholics demoralized by Bloc victory''. On behalf of my party, the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to reassure my fellow anglo-Quebecers. We have been elected by the people of Quebec to promote and prepare the sovereignty of Quebec. Perhaps now is the right time for the English speaking of Quebec to join us, to get more involved in the preparation of Quebec's future.

Let us look forward together. Doing this would make the process of change easier for us and the rest of Canada, hopefully side by side in harmony as partners in a new deal.

Recall Legislation

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, many people in the riding of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville have expressed the desire to initiate recall proceedings to replace their elected member of Parliament.

The majority of people in my riding of Fraser Valley West want recall legislation to ensure that I and those who follow in my footsteps are held accountable.

My colleague from Beaver River, Alberta, has twice submitted a recall bill because neither the Liberal nor the Conservative governments want to be held accountable to those who elect them.

It is time that the 295 people in this House acknowledge the wishes of the vast numbers we represent and provide them with the rights they deserve and the accountability we require.

Let us all together acknowledge the need to represent Canadians to the best of our ability and the right of Canadians to recall us if we do not. Let us all commit to recall.

Teaching Excellence In Science, Technology And Mathematics

[Paddy Torsney, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, two exemplary teachers from the Halton Board of Education were honoured with the Prime Minister's Award for Teaching Excellence in Science, Technology and Mathematics.

I extend my congratulations to Mr. Robert Loree and Mr. Keith Clark.

The qualification for winning this award is that a teacher must have shown a major impact on student performance and interest in science, technology and mathematics. Mr. Loree developed the Science Can! Foundation. Over 10,000 students in three provinces have participated in this highly successful organization. Mr. Keith Clark led teachers in developing the grade nine destreamed science curriculum.

Encouraging the interest and participation of students in the fields of mathematics, science and technology is critical to ensuring that Canada will be able to continue to compete in the 21st century.

I am certain that the hon. member for Oakville-Milton, the hon. member for Halton-Peel and the rest of the Government of Canada members join me in congratulating Robert Loree and Keith Clark and the rest of the recipients of this terrific award.

Academy Awards

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that last week the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced the nominations for this year's Academy Awards ceremony to be held in Los Angeles on March 21.

Once again the excellence of Canadian film making was recognized with the nomination of two highly regarded projects. The first, "The Mighty River", directed by Frédéric Back and produced by Hubert Tison at the Société Radio-Canada, was nominated as Best Animated Short Film.

The second, "The Broadcast Tapes of Doctor Peter", produced by David Papernay and Arthur Ginsberg at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Vancouver, was nominated as Best Feature-Length Documentary Film.

I would like to congratulate our nominees and recognize the quality and dedication of our public broadcasters. They deserve our continued support.