Debates of Nov. 19th, 1996

Judges Act

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker]

The vote will be deferred until tomorrow at the end of Government Orders.

The House resumed from November 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-62, an act respecting fisheries, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fisheries Act

[The Speaker]

It is my information that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has 17 minutes remaining.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I barely got started on my speech on the fisheries act about two or three weeks ago so I would like to resume. For those watching, if they wish to look back in Hansard , they will get the first part where I was dealing basically with the aboriginal fishery and what Bill C-62 is all about.

This bill is about power: power for the minister and power for the bureaucracy. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans already has all the power and strength it needs to manage the fishery. The difficulty is that my colleague from Delta challenged the minister's authority and right to an aboriginal commercial fishery, not an aboriginal food fishery. Nobody disputes that. It is the right of aboriginals to fish commercially with other fishers not being allowed to fish that is being challenged. There is no equality in the fishery. That is what this bill is about.

Talk about overkill, the bill will extinguish the public right to fish. I have fished in the Alberni Canal for the past 15 years. That has been my right as a Canadian and this bill will overturn that. The only way that I or anyone in this House can go fishing will be with a decree or some kind of ministerial authority and that is absolutely wrong.

In a nutshell that is what is wrong with DFO. It manages from the top down. I have worked in the industry with the people at the bottom and they are a hard working and dedicated bunch. But it is the top end. As the member for Skeena has often said, why is it that DFO, a couple of blocks from the House of Parliament, has to have an office with 1,000 people? It is a two-hour plane ride to the nearest fish. The problem with DFO is that it is a top down bureaucracy.

This bill would give the minister complete discretion to manage the fishery through ministerial decrees and that is absolutely wrong. As well, within the bill there is absolutely no detail as to how this will be carried out. How are we as members in this House supposed to look at the bill and deal with the bill when there are absolutely no details on how it is going to be enforced? It will all be done through regulations at a later stage.

The Fraser River fishery has almost been eliminated. There has been practically no non-native commercial fishery on the Fraser River and that is this government's action. What happened to the equality of all fishers?

In British Columbia native fishers form 40 per cent of the fishery. They are already well represented in the fishery yet this bill will give them exclusive rights. This is not a slam against native fishers. What this country is about is equality of all Canadians. All Canadians regardless of their origin should have the right to that fishery and the minister wants to overturn that.

This is not just hearsay, it has been shown in the courts and it is law. Only commercial fishers have the right to sell fish. This has been shown in the Van der Peet, the NTC Smokehouse Limited and Gladstone supreme court decisions. The court ruled that aboriginals have no right to an exclusive commercial fishery yet this bill will overturn that. Bill C-62 is the minister's attempt to work his way around the law to give exclusive rights to specific groups which is absolutely wrong.

I do not believe the minister understands the bill, but do his bureaucrats? Absolutely. They are right on. This bill is coming from the bureaucrats, not from the minister. This is a classic example of a minister being run by his own bureaucrats.

This minister has shown his incompetence on the west coast through the lighthouse issue, the coast guard issue and now on the fisheries issue. He does not understand and does not care to look into what is going on on the B.C. coast. He is bungling once again by fundamentally taking away our public right to fish.

Let me quote the Liberal red book: "Conservation and rebuilding of fish stocks will be the top priority of Liberal fisheries policy, a policy that will also encompass broader ecological and environmental decisions. A Liberal government will implement effective conservation measures immediately, because if remaining stocks are not conserved now, there will be no fisheries industry left on which to build sustainable development".

One of the very first actions of this new minister was to close down a substantial number of hatcheries on the west coast. Clearly that is not conservation. The government continues to ignore the fact that the fishing industry is in serious danger from declining stocks. There are problems with the Americans mainly in Alaska. We need strict enforcement of the conservation measures.

The Liberal red book states: "A Liberal government will deal with foreign fishing outside the 200-mile limit and scrutinize foreign quotas within the 200-mile limit". This has not happened under this minister.

The west coast fishery is being ignored by this government. British Columbia has 12.9 per cent of the population. We have over 3.8 million people. We are a cash cow to the government and we are tired of being ignored by the government.

Earlier I mentioned issues that the minister has ignored, for example, lighthouses. The former minister and the present minister have taken the people out of the lighthouses. The cost is very small, about $3.5 million.

They say that automated lighthouses will cover the fishers and aircraft but they do not. People are needed to tell them about the fog. A person needs to tell them about the size of the waves. During the last storm in British Columbia a significant number of the automated lighthouses went down. They did not report the weather at a time when the aircraft and the fishers needed that information.

The B.C. coast is one of the most dangerous coasts in the world because of the topography, the weather and the all-round climate. It is not a nice place for flying in the fall or winter, nor for taking fishing vessels through the inlets and coves. We need those lighthouses; we need those people. Yet the government has decided to trim them out at a paltry savings of $3.5 million. But the largesse is fine when the government gives Bombardier $87 million as a gift because it happens to be in Montreal. What happened to east and west? This is what happens to the west coast time and time again.

The same issue arises with the coast guard. The coast guard and the fisheries were amalgamated. A number of bases have been shut down. Search and rescue on the west coast is extremely important. Timing is important. Yet the safety of people on the west coast does not seem to have any effect or impact on the government.

I could go on at length on what the government has not done for the west coast.

This bill is significant to all Canadians. The public right to fish is a right which we have had in common law since Confederation, yet the minister and the government want to extinguish it. They want to

put the right to fish under ministerial decree. That is absolutely wrong. It is a signal of where the government is going.

In conclusion, Bill C-62 only deals with the government's official problems. It does nothing else. It does not deal with the issues. There is no reason to support it. Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:

"Bill C-62, an act respecting fisheries, be not now read a second time, but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans".

[The Speaker]

The amendment is in order. The debate will now be on the amendment.

Before I give the floor to the hon. member for Labrador on debate, I will go to questions and comments.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech given by my Reform colleague. You will allow me to make a comment instead of asking a question. My colleague may have lost his momentum since he started his speech before the parliamentary break and finished it just now.

I would like to remind the members and the ministers present, and all those who are listening, about the irritants that Bloc Quebecois members mentioned during their speeches-and we will have the opportunity to repeat them-so that we can relate these irritants to the amendment proposed by the Reform Party and really understand what is happening here this afternoon.

The main point which annoyed the Bloc in this bill was clause 17, the provision on management agreements. My honourable colleague also mentioned these agreements. Thanks to his discretionary power, the minister can decide who will be party to an agreement. He can chose whoever he wants.

What I understood from my colleague's speech is that he criticizes the repeal of a privilege that until now all Canadians could enjoy, provided they lived close enough to a lake or river, of course, that is the privilege to fish.

I think the issue of fisheries management agreements is worth a closer look. I also think that, before we proceed any further, the minister should go back to his drawing board. I must also remind the House, as I think my colleague did, that we are dealing with the bill of the century, which proposes the merging of four existing acts, some of which are as old as the Canadian Constitution itself. It is very important that we do a good job because it could be another 100 years before this legislation is reviewed.

The other point I would like to stress concerns the delegation of powers to the provinces. There are clauses in this bill that allow or indicate delegations of powers, specially with regard to fishing licences and the environment.

I am not sure that both sides of the House agree on the extent of the powers being delegated. With regard to the intent of the bill, when the Minister, in Part I, deals with the delegation of powers relating to fishing licences, I think this is both inadequate and contradictory.

Clause 9, I think, provides that a provincial Minister of Fisheries may, by delegation, issue licences. But clause 17 provides that the Minister has the discretionary power to decide who will receive the various licenses. I think this is contradictory.

I say it is inadequate because provinces, including British Columbia and Quebec, are asking for more powers. When we talk about delegating powers with regard to fisheries, we do not mean only the authority to issue licences. For the sake of consistency, fisheries management must include control over fishery officers and the allocation of resources among communities, which is very important.

This fall, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been taken to task. The department lost a court case on its handling of the delegation of powers and the establishment of fisheries boards. Part III of the bill provides for the establishment of quasi-judicial tribunals to deal with issues and administrative sanctions relating to fishing licences.

Once again, allowing the Minister to use his discretionary power to appoint fisheries judges for a period of three years is no way to improve the situation. I do not see any difference with current procedures, under which sanctions are imposed by Fisheries and Oceans regional directors.

Those appointed will be in the minister's pay. Their mandate will last only three years. I think Quebecers and Canadians alike deserve a justice system that is much bigger, tighter, and above all more professional and politically neutral.

I will conclude with a question to my colleague. I will try to make it short. My colleague moved that the bill be not read a second time but sent back to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I would like him to examine the matter more carefully, because I understand there is still a lot of work to be done, and I will let him conclude this debate. Later this afternoon, I will get another chance to comment on this issue.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Comox—Alberni, BC]

The member is absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. That is the reason for my motion, to take it back to the committee

so the committee can examine it. This has been charged through far too quickly. The public right to fish, as the member says, is a 100 year old law. This is absolutely right.

It is this type of statement that puts people on the west coast in the frame of mind of saying: "Why does B.C. not take over the fishery? Obviously Ottawa does not care about it". It is this type of legislation that is fueling that sentiment. The member is correct. We want to take it back to the fisheries and oceans committee and deal with a number of these major concerns, call witnesses and deal with it in detail.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the two minutes remaining. I appreciate that the Liberal member for Labrador is impatient to make his speech on this subject but I would also like to have other Liberal members take part in the debate. I would like them to take the floor this afternoon and tell us why we should rush through an act which is supposed to be the act of the century, while Reform members are saying we should go back to the drawing board.

I believe that Reform members are right and I think it is up to the Liberals to convince us this afternoon.

[Lawrence O'Brien, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the honour to speak in the House of Commons. It is my first time speaking during a debate. While it is a bill about fisheries, I will speak to some degree to the fishery but as this will also be my maiden speech, I will be injecting some other discussions and comments.

I am pleased to support Bill C-62, the new fisheries act, which is long overdue. It is the first major rewrite of this act since 1868. Bill C-62 will make it possible for governments to work together with stakeholders to build the fishery of the future. If we have the will, together we can create an industry that is self-reliant and economically viable, an industry that will provide good incomes for both the large and small fishing enterprises.

Canada's fishery resource is the mainstay of hundreds of coastal communities. I have 24 communities in my riding spread along the coast of Labrador from L'Anse-au-Clair in the south to Nain in the north. That is a coastline of 600 miles or so. We all know how stock declines have devastated many of these communities economically. We are working to rebuild those stocks. We must also ensure that the stocks on both coasts do not suffer a similar fate.

It is my privilege and honour to talk about the relevant issues that tie in with the fishery and other developments in Labrador.

First, I would like to tell the House that I am the first elected native born Labrador person in the House of Commons. I was born in a small community on the coast of Labrador in a place called L'Anse-au-Loup. Its population is about 600. I grew up there and then I went to Memorial University in St. John's. I went back to Labrador and taught school. Fifteen years ago I moved into Goose Bay and launched a municipal political career. Thanks to the support from the good people of Labrador I want to do my very best to represent their needs here in the House of Commons.

Labrador is a big land. It consists of 300,000 square kilometres. It has 1,000 miles of coastline. There are 24 communities along the coast of Labrador. There are four communities in central Labrador, the Goose Bay area, Sheshatshit, North West River and Mud Lake. It has the mighty Churchill Falls, which have been so hotly debated. Western Labrador is the mining capital of iron ore in Canada, located in Labrador City and Wabush.

I am indeed very proud to represent these 33,000 or 34,000 souls, representing a voting population of about 18,000.

Labrador is very distinct. It has very diverse and distinct cultures. There is the Innu population of Sheshatshit and Davis Inlet. My colleague who is in the House was in Davis Inlet with me last week, as well as the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. We signed an agreement to provide a better future for the people of Davis Inlet.

In addition to the Innu culture is the Inuit culture. The Labrador Inuit Association is their parent body. They are doing very well in moving along on land claims. Also the Metis people live on the south coast and in central Labrador.

We have the settlers who moved in from Europe and other places. In Goose Bay we have ancestors from Germany, Britain and Holland, as well as many other cultures. It is a very diverse land, a very big land and a great challenge for its member of Parliament to represent. I feel very honoured and very comfortable. Indeed, I feel poised to continue to serve the needs of the people.

I also want to thank my colleagues in the House. The Prime Minister made a personal visit to Labrador last summer. The Minister of Transport came with me and spent eight days performing official duties in Labrador. I want to thank my other colleagues who have travelled with me through Labrador and who continue to travel with me.

The natural resources committee went to Labrador last week to hear 12 presentations. I met with that committee again today and they were very struck and incensed by some of the comments they heard from the richest of people, in terms of economies in the west to some degree, and from the poorest of people. The extremities of life are found along 20 kilometres of the Labrador coastline. They include sectors related to the mining industry and so on.

I would encourage my colleagues to visit Labrador with me and to share the cultures and the great surroundings. It is a rural frontier riding. It is basically unknown in this House to a large number of people. I am up to the occasion. I welcome all my colleagues, as I have welcomed them in the past.

It is important to the people of Labrador to have members of Parliament visit. It is important to this House to share the great knowledge and wealth of understanding which Labrador has. I am going to carry forward the issues of the people of Labrador. I am one spoke in a wheel of 295, so I need support. I will go forward and generate that support in the way I have just outlined.

Many of my colleagues, if not all of them, who have travelled to Labrador in the past, have shown interest in coming back in one capacity or another, with family, friends, to do some fishing, to tour around, to look at the historic sites or whatever the case might be. That speaks well of Labrador. We have a lot to offer and I think the rest of Canada must know that. I plan to make sure they know it. Mr. Speaker, you have heard me and will continue to hear me in caucus, in this House and around Parliament Hill supporting and taking pride in my riding.

In promoting Labrador I want to mention that I speak often about the trans-Labrador highway. I spoke today on the trans-Labrador highway. I will be speaking again in the late show, in the four minutes allotted, one of these evenings. I speak often in the Atlantic caucus and the national Liberal caucus on it. I try to promote it wherever I can and I will continue to promote it. It is a must that the road become a reality in Labrador: a trans-Labrador highway through Quebec, through Baie Comeau into Fermont, Labrador City, Wabush, Churchill Falls, Goose Bay, down to the coast of Labrador and on into Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. That circular route is a must.

It is my task to make sure that my colleagues understand that issue and at some point in the near future it becomes a fast track reality. It is a must. It is my number one priority. I will not settle, slow down or take a back seat to anything but promoting that highway and making it a reality.

I mentioned the fishery in my initial remarks. I want to mention it again. As I stated, I am a member of the fisheries committee. I am honoured to say that I come from a very strong fishery riding. Off the coast of Labrador there are 17 shrimp licences which are shared among the Atlantic provinces. The people of Labrador get three and a half of those licences. We like sharing with people. We like sharing with our colleagues. These licences are worth $180 million annually to the economy.

In addition to that, we have thousands of tonnes of turbot, scallops, crab and God knows how many seals. There are millions of seals. One of these days we are going to come to our senses and realize what they are doing to the ecosystem of the North Atlantic and deal with that in the true context.

The point I am making is that the resources are there. I am proud to say that the minister of fisheries, his colleagues and his staff are working with me to put together a plan whereby the people on the coast of Labrador can further benefit from the fishery, so we can keep our plants open and the workers can go on to have sustainable incomes.

Our people do not want to be on employment insurance or anything like that. They want sustainable incomes and a sustainable economy. We have the resources. It is a matter of how they are managed. Management, development and working in conjunction with the minister of fisheries and the government, I know that Labrador will have a much more successful future than it is currently encountering.

In the fishery we also have the Atlantic salmon issue which is an ongoing debate and one which the conservationists say we have to close down and so on. It is an ongoing debate. I am very pleased that the hon. minister of fisheries has seen fit, based on discussions with me and the people in my riding, to put together a task force to look at the implications of the salmon fishery. Hopefully we can rationalize this issue and come to some common understanding for the betterment of all concerned.

I want to mention the Department of National Defence as well. Goose Bay is the low level flying capital of Canada. The German air force, the Dutch air force, the Royal air force from Britain and of course the Canadian air force fly out of Goose Bay doing advance low level flights.

The allied countries of Europe are contributing in excess of $100 million a year to our economy. It is basically the mainstay of the economy of Goose Bay and the surrounding area. We want to make sure that we keep that economy and we forge ahead and develop that industry whereby it will be on the positive side for Canada, Labrador and for the people of Happy Valley, Goose Bay. With the onslaught of Voisey's Bay in my riding, Goose Bay will benefit as well as Labrador City, Wabush and other coastal communities.

We have a very good future. It is a matter of how it is managed, how it is looked at by leaders, organizers and planners, how it works with government perspectives relative to provincial, municipal and federal governments and the economic giants of the world like Inco.

My colleague from Nickel Belt and I are planning a business partnership exchange. We hope to exchange business views that

have taken years to accomplish in Sudbury with our friends, my supporters, voters in the good riding of Labrador. I think it will benefit Sudbury, Nickel Belt, Labrador and all of us generally. That is why this country is so grand, so great and why we can do things to help each other.

On a further point with regard to the smelter at Voisey's Bay, the people of Labrador are currently experiencing a number of unanswered questions vis-à-vis smelters, mines, mills et cetera. As the days move along I think in the next few weeks some answers will become evident. I hope and pray that the corporate giants such as Inco and Voisey's Bay Nickel will be making decisions bearing in mind the importance of the question of adjacency and how it applies to the social and economic fabric of the people I represent in my riding.

At the end of the day we will come out of this happy, partners, and maybe we can all do better in sharing our great resources.

I am particularly concerned with the people who are on welfare, untrained or who need literacy training. I am interested in looking at the youth. I see the pages in this House and they are looking forward to university and a new career. The people in my riding are no different. We need something to come back to. Too many people are leaving Labrador because there are no jobs. It is a shame we do not have jobs when we have so many great resources, so many great developments, and we wonder why we cannot continue. I know the people will be trained. I know Voisey's Bay Nickel, the good institutions of Labrador, the province and Canada generally will provide for the youth. They will be back and they will be happy and we will sustain a great Labrador into the future.

I want to mention a few other points. The environment is extremely important. We need sustainable development and it has to be environmentally friendly because we have a very pristine environment in Labrador. Without a good environment no one gains.

I want to reiterate my support for the land claims process that is currently under way by the Labrador Inuit Association and the impending claim for the Labrador Metis Association.

I would be remiss if I did not mention Churchill Falls as it relates to the ongoing discussions nationally. I support the discussions currently under way by the premiers as they relate to contracts. We have to honour the legal jargon relating to the signing of deals and so on. I do feel that we need to benefit from Churchill Falls, the upper Churchill. I think we can also develop the lower Churchill and other hydro generation in Labrador; 5,000 megawatts have been developed and I think there are another 4,000 or 5,000 available. I am sure that in due course we will proceed along these lines.

The Labrador west situation, IOC, Wabush mines, Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway are great boosts to the economy. As I said, it is the iron ore capital of Canada.

When there are situations where 65 per cent of the railway is in Labrador and 100 per cent of the ore coming out of Labrador and of the 140 jobs only 10 are people from Labrador, I have reason to be concerned.

These are the kinds of inequities that I have to address and work with the corporate giants of the iron ore companies, Inco and all the others in the world, to make sure there is some balance in their thinking, some balance in their training, some balance in the planning and in their priorities so that the people of Labrador and the people of the rest of Canada will all benefit without too much frustration.

In retrospect, the mood in Labrador is to forge ahead in terms of socioeconomic, culture, training, education of our youth and various other things. Certainly infrastructure is a priority. I would be remiss if I did not mention that while health care is a provincial matter, we are in critical need of a major health facility in Labrador. It was nice to hear the vice-president of public affairs for Inco mention the need for a health care facility for Goose Bay. In all probability Goose Bay will be a staging point for the mine and mill in Voisey's Bay. I found that very encouraging. We will get on with the issues and forge ahead with the province and the federal government to make sure we get our fair share.

We in Labrador are not looking for anything more than is reasonable. Labrador has been a great contributor to the Canadian economy and will continue to be a great contributor to the Canadian economy. With the support of my colleagues from both sides of the House we can work this through the various departments and cabinet. We can come to some rational decisions affecting Labrador to the benefit of Canadians.

I have a couple of concluding comments. I would be remiss if I did not mention that I heard the Prime Minister announce that there will be parks in northern Canada, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We have a great potential for parks, to which my colleague for London-Middlesex can attest. One is the Torngat Mountains north of Nain and the other is in the Mealy Mountains just south of Goose Bay.

It is my hope that some day soon by working with my colleagues collectively we will be able to make an announcement that Labrador has its first national park. It is very important to Canadians and to the culture of Labrador, the pristine areas, to develop at least one national park as soon as possible. Tying in with that would be other national historic sites like the site of Hebron, Hopedale, down the coast in Battle Harbour and Red Bay. We have

some fabulous areas which I want to make sure are brought into their proper perspective.

In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today. I feel very comfortable working in the House and with all colleagues from all parties.

I take support wherever it comes from but I take advice as well.

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

What about the Gaspé coast?

[Lawrence O'Brien, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Yes, we are good to the Gaspé coast. There is no question about that. It has a good turbot quota and so on. I do look forward to the member's support.

However, the important point is that we collectively bring ourselves together and understand each other. I am new to this game but I am learning. Yes, I do take advice from 20 year veterans and 25 year veterans and so on. By doing that, I am making some progress. I am looking forward to continuing.

With the kind of support I have received to this date and the support coming from Labrador and from around the House, I think it is going to be very interesting. I believe Labrador will benefit from my stay here in Ottawa.

[The Speaker]

My colleague, you join the ranks of close to 4,000 of us in this House of Commons. Your maiden speech is a rite of passage. Usually when we have maiden speeches we get a free ride. No one heckles you and surely the Speaker does not intervene in any way. I know that in the years to come all of the very small things that will have to be improved on in whichever way you choose to deliver your speeches will be improved on.

However, for today I bid you welcome into the fraternity and sorority of parliamentarians. You are one of close to 4,000 now and you are welcome here.

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the parties have been unable to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) at third reading of Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.

Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a crown minister will move, at the next sitting of the House, that a specific number of days or hours be allotted to the further consideration of this stage of the bill and to the required decisions for its disposal at this stage.

[Some hon. members]

Shame.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-62, an act respecting fisheries, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Fisheries Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Labrador may have to take questions or comments. I think it is normally understood that we do not ask questions or make comments after a member's maiden speech. However, it is my duty to ask members if they want to interfere with his maiden speech in that way.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I also want to welcome the hon. member for Labrador, who has been here for some time already, and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. I wish him a long political career, since he said that he would never throw in the towel as long as he is in this House. As he may be here for a very long time, I urge him to grin and bear it and to keep putting pressure on the government. Again, we will see if the riding gets more when they are in power. The issue raised by the hon. member is also of concern to my constituents.

First of all, I want to tell the hon. member for Labrador that I am the member for Charlevoix and that I live in Baie-Comeau. Baie-Comeau is the gateway to the north through highway 389, which goes up to Manic 5. Under the last Conservative government, work was done on a link between Manic 5 and Fermont, which covers much of the access to the north.

The problem in Labrador is one of road infrastructure. The hon. member for Labrador can be assured of my cooperation and that of the hon. member for Manicouagan in ensuring the development of the whole North Shore region by developing the resources of Labrador.

As we know, Labrador has fish, wood, iron and nickel. It also has the big hydro-electric power station at Churchill Falls. We know that Labrador has problems exporting and processing nickel.

I want to assure the hon. member for Labrador of our full co-operation and wish him a long, effective career, because if he can get a highway for Labrador, it will also benefit Charlevoix, especially the area around Baie-Comeau.

[Lawrence O'Brien, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer if I may.

I thank my hon. colleague. It speaks well, which is the point I was making. We all need each other. The economy of Quebec benefits. The people of Quebec benefit with this trans-Labrador highway. Call it northern gulf route, call it what you want.

I look forward to working with all members who have a stake in this. I thank the member very much. Perhaps at a future date we can have a discussion on this. We can put our cards all in the right line so we can get on and make this a reality.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. member on his maiden speech which was very informative and very enjoyable I am sure for all the people across Canada.

I was particularly pleased to hear about the various initiatives that involve his riding, for example, the highway he spoke about. We also have a need for a primary highway. In our case it is up the Mackenzie valley. We are working on that as well.

He spoke about Voisey's Bay. We just announced the first diamond mine in North America. I am sure a similar process will ensue in his riding. There is so much commonality between our regions although we are in two different parts of the country, thousands and thousands of miles apart.

He also mentioned youth which is my responsibility. What could the government do better for young people in Labrador?