Madam Speaker, I want to make sure that my colleague's understanding of this constitutional change is the same or different from mine.
Prince Edward Island 130 years ago decided that it could and would become part of Canada with a certain condition, that ferry service would be provided forever and a day.
Over the years, a number of options have been examined such as a fixed link. There is now a project under way. It was a judgment of a federal court that unless there were a constitutional change indicating simply that ferry service could be changed by fixed link-that is all it does-the government could be in a position in which it would have to build a bridge and continue the ferry service.
The subsidies, as I have defined them for the ferry service, are going to be used to pay for the bridge. After that, there will not be any more contribution by Canada.
Is my hon. colleague saying that the elected representatives of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Canada should not be determining that it is okay for a fixed link bridge to be replacing ferry service? That is the way I understand this change.
He understands it differently. Could he tell me how his interpretation is different from mine? I have read this several times and that is all I am getting from it.