Debates of Feb. 15th, 1994

Prince Edward Island Fixed Link

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary's comments cause me to think of a couple of questions which would appropriately be answered by him. I will have more to say about this motion later when I am recognized on debate.

The parliamentary secretary indicated in his opening remarks that the amendment today is required on the word of the courts. I think the parliamentary secretary is aware that the Federal Court had a number of things to say in regard to this project. Madam Justice Reed did say, as quoted by the previous minister of public works, that the constitutional amendment is not necessarily required until the ferry service is replaced. Of course the ferry service has not yet been replaced, yet we are going ahead with this.

Also the Federal Court ruled that the minister of public works had failed to comply with the requirements of section 12 of the environmental assessment review process and ruled that no irrevocable decision should be taken until this is taken care of. Is it the government's opinion that the section 12 requirements of the environmental assessment process have been dealt with, or does the government now consider that this constitutional amendment may not be an irrevocable decision?

Finally, the department has given jobs and the economy primarily as its reasons for going ahead with the fixed link. However in my constituency in the interests of saving money the Department of Public Works is closing and perhaps bulldozing three buildings owned and occupied by the federal government. That is costing us jobs in the prairies and rural Canada.

I am wondering how the parliamentary secretary can justify closing buildings in my riding and costing jobs while at the same time putting money into the waters around Prince Edward Island to create jobs there.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's comment with regard to the Federal Court indicating that a change needed to be undertaken but when that change had to be undertaken is quite right. However, it needs to be done and clearly now it is out of the way or hopefully soon will be out of the way. It removes the last obstacle. I think we are nit-picking a little. I say this with kindness to my colleague. It was going to be done. It needed to be done. It has been done and this has been the appropriate path to follow.

With respect to irrevocable decisions, any decision undertaken by man or woman is not irrevocable. We are about to make a constitutional change. We are in the process of doing so. It is quite possible to do so and I consider this one appropriate. I consider it necessary and I argued that in my remarks.

With respect to the environmental questions I know of no project that has sustained as much scrutiny as this one. I indicated in my remarks that nothing is perfect. Certain things could have been overlooked. I admit that. I am not foolish to that point. However, there were over 90 studies and over 80 hearings. Even our colleagues from the Bloc are supporting it in spite of the fact that a number of individuals pointed out that Friends of the Island had some legitimate concerns. The government and the minister have been extremely responsible in this particular case. We cannot go on forever.

With respect to the hon. member's riding, I do not know if those particular buildings are being closed and jobs are being lost. However that saddens me whether it happens in Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Vancouver, or anywhere else in Canada.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues have addressed the legal and political implications of the matter before us. I want to step back a little further and consider the basic premise.

Do we really need a 13 kilometre bridge across Northumberland Strait? Why do we want to do this? Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Can a near bankrupt Canada afford it? These questions have been debated for 30 years, but in spite of the signing last October as can be seen in this House the debate is by no means over.

Let us start by disposing of the fiction that this will be a privately financed venture. This is a typical government project with the deal structured so that bond holders take no risk and the private operators will repay principal and interest out of the complete 100 per cent subsidy, $42 million a year indexed to inflation for 35 years. This is compared to the current subsidy. I must take issue with the gentleman who spoke a few moments ago when he said that the subsidy was $42 million. The current subsidy is $21.7 million. That is from the public accounts. Therefore, we are talking about a virtual doubling of the subsidy with the alternate program that is being proposed.

The interest on the $662 million initial bond issue is going to be about $700 million, all courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. The only difference between the deal closed on October 7 and a normal public works tender is that public money will be spent without public accountability.

This gets better. Of the equity 85 per cent is held by subsidiaries of foreign multinationals, Morrison Knutson of the United States and the French GTM International. I do not know what GTM stands for but I suspect it might mean get the money, because get the money they will.

While we are paying off the debt the operators will be able to do whatever they wish with the net revenue from the tolls and that includes shipping the revenue out of the country. I have nothing against foreign investment. In fact I welcome it. However, I strongly object to foreign profit taking without significant investment or risk.

Still it gets better. The consortium has to post a $200 million performance bond, but the premium is being capitalized into the project cost so that the taxpayer is going to pick up the tab as part of the subsidy payments.

If this proposed bridge was between two heavily populated areas or if it was on a major transportation corridor it would be easier to justify. To spend $25,000 per family to make road access marginally more convenient to an enclave of 130,000 people makes no sense at all.

Larger, faster ferries perhaps with better ice capabilities than those now in use could be had for a fraction of the cost. First class ferry service would not be a discriminatory burden on the people of Prince Edward Island.

There are unanswered questions regarding the technical superiority of a high, wind-swept bridge compared to a stable, well designed ferry. The consensus, even among proponents of the bridge, is that any storm severe enough to stop ferry service will also stop traffic from using the bridge. What is worse, even if the winds are not quite strong enough to stop traffic, vehicles will be forced to proceed at a crawl and empty trailers will not be permitted to cross.

If one is coming up from Boston for a load of potatoes and there is no backup ferry, one had better be prepared to park his or her semi until it gets a mite less breezy.

As an engineer I am well aware that almost anything is technically possible if there is a will to do it and if there is no limit to available resources. One takes an idea and just adds money. However, the fact that something can be done does not necessarily mean that it should be done.

Some people may invoke the memory of John Maynard Keynes to justify this massive public expense as a pump-priming exercise to stimulate the economy. Lord Keynes never envisioned a situation in which nearly one-third of a government's revenue is being eaten up to pay interest on its existing debt. If we had faithfully followed his prescription and built up surpluses or at least paid down our debt during the good times I could perhaps agree that more government spending might be of some economic benefit.

Unfortunately during the 1970s and the early 1980s the Government of Canada and most governments in the world piled up debts in good times, not for any lasting benefit but to finance current expenditures. Like spendthrift families, they borrowed money first to pay for the groceries and then to buy champagne and whisky. They stood poor old Keynes on his head and they put us into a financial box where we have no freedom to move about.

Even if one accepts the premise that jobs can be created at the expense of the greater economy, and I certainly do not, but let me play devil's advocate, if spending borrowed money is an effective economic stimulus, surely the same amount of money could be spent on something which would provide greater long-term benefits to more people. Even the people of Prince Edward Island are not united on this question. More than 40 per cent of them clearly indicated they do not want this gift. This is unprecedented. Ordinarily local people in any community will fight tooth and nail for a government project because they have this perception it is free.

Finally, this bridge deal was consummated in the dying days of the Tory government, as was the Pearson airport deal. It has the potential to be another Mirabel or another Olympic dome. Let us slow down and take a cold, hard look at what we are doing.

The last P.E.I. bridge project was further advanced than this one is now when it was axed by the government in 1969. Of course there will be economic penalties to pay to the operator and to the bondholders if we stop, but surely we can still get out of this with our hide intact before the project acquires irresistible momentum.

The one small lever that we have at our disposal in this House is to withhold approval of the proposed constitutional amendment. Let us leave the Constitution alone. Let us provide first class ferry service in perpetuity as promised and forget about completing another monument to Brian Mulroney.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has spoken about cost reductions and whether such a project is one that should be built for practical reasons, but in particular the cost of such a project and who would be paying for it. I wonder whether the hon. member feels the same way about any federal project that may be built in his constituency. It is proposed that a healing lodge be built in his constituency when there are not many aboriginal people living there nor is there proper access to his constituency. Does he feel that perhaps that project should be put on hold and studied again and maybe should not be built as well?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I concur most wholeheartedly with the hon. member.

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

Madam Speaker, very quickly I want to know, and I take it I probably do now, that the hon. member's party does not support this project. The Bloc does, but his party does not. I am always interested in

trying to see the differences, apart from the language differences. This is what I understand.

My colleague is playing devilish little tricks with the subsidy of $21.7 million. He knows full well the figures I used were with respect to capital and other costs. As an engineer he knows that. Let us not play silly little games.

I would like to know what is his definition of an enclave. My definition of an enclave is somewhat pejorative. I am sure he did not mean that P.E.I. is some sort of foreign territory surrounded by others.

There is a contradiction here. One of his colleagues said: "Let's have a referendum. We'll do whatever the referendum results are" and the member says: "Hey, let's not do it". Who is speaking for the Reform Party? Is there any consistency?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member raised the question of the referendum.

First, it was not a referendum, it was a plebiscite. Second, the terms of the plebiscite were very clear in that they stated: "Would you approve of this project if it is going to be more economically feasible than improved ferry service and if there is no danger to the environment?" Since neither of those qualifications has been met, I would suggest that if we want to have a referendum we should have a real one, make it binding, have it now and see how far we get.

As far as referring to Prince Edward Island as an enclave, the hon. member says that is pejorative. He may think so. He obviously reads a different dictionary than I do.

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

It is a standard one, English.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

It is surrounded by water. Water is a rather effective barrier to most means of transport. I refer to it as an enclave in those terms.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that maybe it is time to move to a first class ferry service. I do not know if he is familiar with Prince Edward Island and the amount of physical goods and products we move off the island. Our experience with the ferry service in recent years has been fairly poor.

In fact, talking about economic efficiency, I spoke with some truckers today. The wait at the ferry for truckers is anywhere from three to five hours. As many as 50 to 80 trucks at a time are sometimes waiting in line for the car ferries. One can only handle 13 and the other at maximum can handle 45. The hon. member has to understand that that is just not good enough. We believe a link will change that.

When we look at the truckers, the fuel they are burning, the hours, taking a day longer to get to market in terms of scheduling and so on, it is a disaster for them and for the agricultural industry as well.

What does the hon. member mean by first class ferry service? I hope this is not an example.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, the time has expired for questions or comments.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak on this constitutional amendment regarding the Prince Edward Island fixed link.

I would like to stress those words; we are talking about a constitutional amendment. We seem to be slipping by that little bit of information very quickly in some of the speeches we have heard today.

I would like to begin by quoting from Hansard of May 19, 1992 when the House was embroiled in the debate on constitutional concerns. ``We believe that the referendum should be a permanent part of the process for revising the Canadian Constitution; nor can it be restricted to one or just a few provinces. The referendum ought to be national so that all Canadians in all regions of this country have the opportunity to speak on the same issue.'' These are very democratic words and I concur with them. They are from the current minister of public works.

I have no problem with the construction of a fixed link. The merits and drawbacks of this bridge have been widely discussed and debated in Prince Edward Island, across the nation and in the House of Commons. The economic benefits and the costs have all been given consideration. The environmental considerations have all been weighed. Most important, the people of Prince Edward Island gave their assent in a plebiscite held in 1988.

The problem is that we are talking about a constitutional amendment, something that affects each and every person in this country.

I would like to paint a picture. Members in this room should think of a triangle. A triangle stands on a broad base and rises to a point. This is the way I believe and my party believes we should approach these matters, with broad consultation and moving toward a point where we can get a consensus. With this motion the government is turning the triangle so it is inverted and there is no broad base of representation from the people of Canada. This is something that the Reform Party of Canada believes in very strongly, as do many millions of Canadians.

We are all aware that Madam Justice Reed decided the Canadian Constitution has to be amended in order for the fixed link to proceed. However, the reasoning behind the motion in front of us is flawed for two reasons: First, the motion is too specific. It makes specific reference to a fixed link, entrenching it in the Constitution. Second, the motion should entrench the intent of the original terms of union, that is to ensure reliable and regular travel between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, without entrenching the link specifically in the Constitu-

tion. My colleague, the member for Fraser Valley East, dealt with this issue at great length.

I find it inconsistent that this government proposes to open the Constitution and make changes only when it suits its purposes.

I would like to read another quote. On February 3 in the House the Prime Minister of Canada stated that: "No one in Canada wants to discuss the Constitution". Here we are today discussing the Constitution.

We all saw the rejection of the Charlottetown accord and what the Canadian people thought of it. This is just another case of the government's agenda versus that of the Canadian people. The government has chosen to selectively change the Constitution. Canadians do not accept this method.

I would submit that any changes to the Constitution should involve all Canadians and should be approved in a referendum. The Constitution should be concerned with the broad definition of matters rather than ways and means of accomplishing the intent, such as a fixed link.

The Constitution should deal with Canada's commitment to maintain communications and transportation with Prince Edward Island no matter what the method chosen to accomplish this.

We are running into the danger of making constitutional commitments for Canada that may not be in the best interest for all of the country. Technology may change. Currently in this day and age we must realize the rate at which things change. We are going to have to commit to this fixed link throughout time if it is entrenched in the Constitution.

These are things that we have no control of and that may change. I can give members the example of the Florida sunshine skyway and the Chesapeake Bay bridge. They have been known to close for months at a time. Are the proper plans in place for this fixed link?

If we are going to have to change the Constitution, it must be for a good and sufficient reason. We have all heard the emotions of the minister of public works. I would respond that Canadians must feel that they are a part of this constitutional amendment.

In closing, I would like to say that this motion is not just a simple motion to build a bridge. This is a motion to change the fundamental document of how our country operates, the Constitution.

This is a bridge over the troubled waters of true Canadian democracy.

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

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.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Madam Speaker, in response to the question, it is my interpretation that the intent 130 years ago was to provide communication and transportation.

I feel that this motion should not be directly related to a fixed link because of what I have said in my address to this House. Technology may change. It is wrong to assume that there would be no cost to all Canadian taxpayers down the road.

We are entrenching this in the Constitution. That means that we must ensure over a long period of time into the future that this will be maintained.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties and I think you might find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:

That not later than 15 minutes before the ordinary time of adjournment on Thursday, February 17, 1994, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings before the House and shall put, forthwith and successively, without any further debate or amendment, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion of the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs for the appointment of a Special Joint Committee, (Government business, No. 8), and if any division be demanded such recorded division shall be deferred until Tuesday, February 22 at 3 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Do we have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this particular issue again. While the issue itself is a very tight one in the sense of dealing with constitutional change, it is interesting to listen to some of the arguments about what a major issue of constitutional change this is.

It is simply substituting one method of linking Prince Edward Island to Canada with another. While the wording that was initially done was probably too restrictive we now have an opportunity to correct that situation and yet we hear arguments that this is a major constitutional change which is going to shake the fabric of the nation. I must look at that with some chagrin and state that this is not a fundamental constitutional argument.

This is simply whether we are going to change the method of linking part of Canada's inhabitants with the rest of Canada's inhabitants. The term fixed link in my view is probably a bit of a misnomer as well. It conjures up causeways and tunnels and linkages. This is a bridge, mind you a big bridge, but just a bridge and it is going to join Prince Edward Island with the rest of Canada.

We have used ferry service before and now we are going to use a bridge. I do not know why we are all uptight about the method of linking Canadians with Canadians.

If we are going to argue some of the issues we have to be fair. I heard one of the members opposite talk about how the subsidy which is going to support the fixed link is going to be double the cost of the present subsidy.

What you have to factor into those numbers is a capital allocation that must go in with those numbers and therefore when we actually compare subsidies of the fixed link and the ferry service they are equal

We also have to face the reality that if we do not have the bridge we are going to need new ferries and there is a very large expenditure of moneys necessary to bring those ferries up to acceptable service over the next 35 years.

We are not comparing doing nothing with doing this particular bridge project.

I think we also have to look at the situation and its impact on Atlantic Canada. The short term impact is great economic activity, spending large sums of money. We are going to see 70 per cent of the procurement come from Atlantic Canada which is going to be beneficial to the people who right now have one of the largest levels of unemployment in the country.

We are going to see 2,675 construction related jobs created in Atlantic Canada and that is going to be beneficial. Upwards of 90 per cent of all labour will come from people who live or will live in Atlantic Canada.

This is not just a five-year project and then it disappears. There are tremendous spin-off benefits which are going to assist in the tourism industry. Projections indicate that upwards of a 25 per cent increase will be achieved in the tourism industry.

We will also see tremendous savings and I am sure that the Reform Party would like to support savings. We have heard members of the government side talk about the delays, transportation costs. Any industry that is tied in to transportation as part of the cost of doing business is going to be happy with this project. I believe the estimate is something like $10 million annually that will be saved by people who are tied in to the transportation side of this problem.

In addition, this project is going to create some very high tech jobs. We build one of these projects and we actually have a spin-off of high tech jobs both in the engineering side of things and in the labouring side where people learn how to work on a construction facility such as this one.

In that sense, we are going to have a double benefit, the short term benefit of the actual construction and the long term benefit in tourism. There will be savings in the area of transportation and also the development of new technology and an educated work force that will be able to export that knowledge and ability around the world.

I say to those doomsayers who say that it is not time to go ahead and that we should rethink our position on this project, we have been rethinking this thing for upwards of 35 to 40 years. It is time for some action. This is a project that Atlantic Canada made. It is going to benefit Atlantic Canada. I see the members opposite shaking their heads. They are more concerned with their region rather than helping Atlantic Canada to pull itself up by its own boot straps.

I say to the hon. members, get on board, support this project and make Atlantic Canada one of the stronger participants in this Confederation. Do not try to keep us down on the farm or locked up on the island. This is a minor constitutional change. It needs your support not your negative talk.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's statement.

Being from British Columbia, I was just wondering if the hon. member could explain to the people of British Columbia, with Vancouver Island and all of the economic activity, population and traffic which has to travel back and forth between Vancouver Island and the mainland, how B.C. is able to sustain its economic activity and provide a good enough service with ferries.

I have no problem with the bridge if it is the most economic way to go about it, but I am not convinced that is the case.

I would like the member to explain to the people of British Columbia how Vancouver Island can be serviced more than adequately with good ferry service but we need this fixed link for Prince Edward Island.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite has raised one of the unique things about Canada and that is that we can have differences. Obviously the folks on Vancouver Island like having the ferry service. Obviously the people of Prince Edward Island would rather have a bridge.

I would say to the member that if at some point the people on Vancouver Island decide that they want to have a bridge they should approach their provincial government for one.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the way the debate is developing, especially when you consider that, during the election and 1992 referendum campaigns, the Reform Party was a staunch advocate of a Senate based on equality, political equality, which means equal representation for all provinces, including, we were told, Prince Edward Island.

However, there is also such a thing as economic equality. The hon. member for St. Boniface made a brilliant presentation on the economic aspects, and arguments were made by government members as well as by some of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois. I really wonder what is going on? In the country that Canada still is, why should some regions be treated differently on the basis of their population. It seems to me that some would want to penalize Prince Edward Island on the ground that its population of 120,000 or 130,000 does not justify building a link which has been the subject of so many studies, environmental assessments, reviews and even court decisions. Yet, if there is a decision which was based on an extensive review of the situation in Atlantic Canada, it is probably this one. As far as I am concerned, whether or not we like the idea of a bridge, a tunnel or some other fixed crossing between Prince Edward Island and the continent is irrelevant.

The residents of Prince Edward Island have made a decision which we must respect. Consequently I ask the hon. member: Why does he not want to respect the decision made by those who live on P.E.I.?

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Moncton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the comments of the member opposite. The debate has taken a strange turn. Hopefully as it continues some of my colleagues opposite will see the wisdom of the bridge, get on line and support the project. I gather that one of the benefits of being a Reformer is they can have free votes. Hopefully we will see a few of them come across and support us on this very worthwhile project.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kamloops-Small Business; the hon. member for Wetaskiwin-House of Commons; the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway-Cruise Missile Testing; the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve-Electronic Highway; the hon. member for Yukon-Health Care.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of this constitutional amendment which allows the federal government to live up to the terms of the constitutional agreement with Prince Edward Island with a mode of transportation infrastructure that is geared to the year 2000 and beyond.

I want to make it clear at the beginning that the legislative assembly in Prince Edward Island unanimously adopted the necessary constitutional amendment in June of last year with the full understanding the Parliament of Canada would proceed with an amendment as soon as possible. Parliament is living up to its commitment and I am pleased by the amount of support from both sides of the House.

Part of the reason for the support is that a lot of Canadians off-island want to link up with us rather than the other way around. I encourage all members of Parliament to come to Prince Edward Island before and after the fixed link is in place, spend a few of their hard earned dollars, have some of the best potatoes grown in Canada; see some of scenery and have some of our lobster. I am getting a little off track blowing up the merits of our wonderful isle. We certainly want it to remain that.

This new bridge enters my riding at the community of Borden. I am well aware of the controversy past and present that surrounds the project. The impact of the construction and the completion of the fixed link will be felt first by the people in my riding and most directly by the people in the community of Borden.

The issue of the fixed link connecting P.E.I. has been under consideration at one time or another since 1885 when the possibility of a tunnel connecting the island was first considered. I do not mind admitting up front that first I favoured a tunnel and I had to be convinced to favour a bridge. I will say that the evidence and public opinion now in Prince Edward Island is very strongly supportive of the bridge.

I have had a considerable amount of indirect involvement with the Borden-Cape Tormentine ferry crossing. My father worked for CN Rail, later Marine Atlantic, as a deck hand and eventually a quartermaster for 32 years on that crossing. From age 12, as many youth did, we would drive back and forth on the car ferries. I have had first hand experience of the delays, of being stuck in the ice for as long as 18 hours. As a result of that experience I recognize the uniqueness of that particular area. Nowhere else in the world will one find the combination of wind, tides and ice there is where this bridge is going to be built.

It is for those reasons that I had to be convinced and looked so seriously at this project with a very critical eye. I have looked at the studies concerning the environment, the ice conditions, the fisheries, the socioeconomic impact and so on. This morning the minister outlined the number and breadth of the studies. I can tell the House of the very extensive public consultations on Prince Edward Island of those studies and of the bridge.

During the election campaign I found a sense of optimism as a result of the project, due to the fact that there would be an expected increase in economic activity during construction and improved transportation infrastructure following construction. There were concerns, and I do not think we can sweep those under the rug, from the ferry workers, from the fishermen and from the people of Borden. We cannot brush them off. They are very real concerns in the minds of those people and must be addressed. As a result of the studies, government has moved to address them in a number of areas. I want to put on the record the way they will be addressed.

As a result of the environmental review the government determined that the construction and the presence of the bridge will result in no significant impact on the environment and the fishery. In order to overcome the difficulty the developer has been required to set aside $10 million as a compensation fund. This fund will be administered according to the terms and process currently being developed by a fisheries liaison committee composed of a majority of fishermen.

Quite a number of Marine Atlantic ferry workers will lose their jobs. That is reality. The government has made the commitment that these employees will be treated fairly and equitably. They will have first right of refusal for the bridge operation and maintenance jobs. A fair severance package will be negotiated between the workers union and Marine Atlantic. The government will provide opportunities for retraining, and relocation assistance will be made available if necessary. A joint consultative committee has been set up to co-ordinate the activities dealing with the ferry workers.

As well, we have to address the concerns of the community of Borden. That is happening on an ongoing basis. One of the last studies done looked at the specifics of the project relating to SCI's bridge proposal and it passed the test. Justice Cullen of the Federal Court stated the following in his ruling with respect to the efforts of Friends of the Island to prevent the project from proceeding with respect to scientific studies and I think it is important to put that statement on the record: "The scientific evidence relied on by Public Works Canada declared all environmental impacts or potential environmental impacts were insignificant.

The respondent SCI and Public Works accepted those findings, were correct in doing so and thus the decision of Public Works was correct in law and certainly not made in a vacuum".

Other members have spoken of the economic impact and spin-off so I will not repeat those facts and figures. However in the long term after 1997 completion there should be economic benefits, savings to transportation costs in the trucking industry and more reliable product delivery for our agriculture, fisheries and manufacturing products. After all transportation is necessary in the delivery of goods to market. We have four years to go. I mentioned in a question to a speaker earlier this afternoon there are major concerns at the moment and major delays in getting our products to the marketplace.

The government has committed itself to ensuring that the risks to the environment and the fishery are minimized. It has committed itself to ensuring that any of Marine Atlantic's work force displaced by the completion of the bridge will be assisted through retraining, relocation assistance and early retirement programs.

I want to touch on one final point. It is the growing sense among some islanders that the link, combined with the possible loss of air traffic control service on the island, could lead progressively toward a diminishing sense of full provincial status. We may need at some point a full review of the transportation infrastucture throughout the Atlantic region, one that will allow all the stakeholders to participate in developing a system that will benefit the region going into the next century.

In conclusion, this project is an investment in our future. This amendment is part of the process to allow that to happen.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised because I know the hon. member is quite an ardent economic nationalist. I now find him vigorously defending a project that is going to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into the pockets of two giant multinational corporations. I find this a little inconsistent.

Earlier the subject of ice delays came up. I will agree with the hon. member that one will get ice delays for ferries, even the

best of them, that one would not get with a bridge. On the other hand, one will not get the sort of wind delays, winter or summer, with ferries that one will get with this bridge.

The only bridge I am personally familiar with which is in any way comparable is the one across the Straits of Mackinaw. It is often closed because it is impassable in bad weather conditions. By going a couple of hundred miles out of their way drivers can get around but it is pretty hard to get around Northumberland Strait. Again I am trying to look at this from a practical, realistic point of view. I would like the hon. member's comment on that.