House of Commons Hansard #12 of the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreement.

Topics

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I am inviting questions and comments. Does the hon. member for Beaches—East York wish to be recognized?

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Maria Minna Liberal Beaches—East York, ON

Mr. Speaker, usually a member is recognized when a member is standing and I think the Speaker, with all due respect, is interfering in what I was saying.

Nonetheless, to the hon. member across who said that we are not keeping up with the environment, Canada is an energy producing country. Thirty per cent of Canada's pollution is attributed directly to the oil sands and energy production. We sell clean energy to the Americans. This is why in fact they are able to make their claims.

Is the hon. member saying that one way of getting rid of it is to cut back on the production of energy in this country? That would be one quick way of doing it. Is that what the hon. member is suggesting, because what he said earlier was absolutely not true.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

Order. The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Speaker, I think what I was saying, and I will make it very clear, is that I think the Liberals had a terrible record on the environment. That is what it is. It is not anything more complicated than that.

All I said was that it was a bit much to be criticizing our neighbours for doing better than we are doing. I am not making this up: on greenhouse gas emissions, they did better. Everybody wants to do better on this, but to gratuitously start criticizing our neighbours is a bit much, that is all I was saying. If the member wants to talk about the environment, we have an outstanding environment minister and she has a tremendous knowledge in this particular area.

As for the member, there were members of her party who did not like free trade once upon a time, and look at them all today, they all like free trade. All I would say to the member is that I think she will like the Conservative government's record on the environment. If she has her doubts or worries today, we will overcome those doubts, just like the free trade. Good heavens above, the member's own party is now defending the GST. They do not want us to cut it.

Do we remember when the Liberals were going to abolish the GST? They were going around with little erasers. They were going to get rid of the GST. Now they are maybe the last group in Canada defending that tax. On the one hand, it is very impressive, but I think it is a little bit misguided. They should be open to change, I say. We are going to reduce that GST and I think it is a good thing. I think we should move forward on it.

Again, though, this bill is about international bridges, tunnels and the facilitation of trade between our two countries. Just as I agree with the federal accountability act, and just as I am so pleased at the agreement on softwood, I have to say that I am very pleased that this piece of legislation is before the House. I hope the hon. member will support it when it comes time to have this chamber approve it.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

We have two minutes left under questions and comments. I recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Macleod Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the hon. leader of the government for taking the opportunity to recognize the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown in finally getting a resolution to a long term challenge that has faced the country for years, and that is the softwood lumber challenge. It is interesting to hear how members opposite keep affording the House leader the opportunity to remind them how great a deal this is for all of Canada.

I also want to recognize the Minister of Transport for his leadership in bringing forth this piece of legislation. Although I do not have any international bridges in my riding, I wonder if the hon. leader of the government could explain this opportunity. He talked about four bridges in his riding. Could he give us some indication of the discussions he has had over all these years while waiting for the opportunity to actually move forward on this? Could the member please elaborate?

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

I will recognize the hon. leader of the government, but he cannot elaborate very much because he has barely 40 seconds.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say that perhaps I could also explain the English constitution at the same time and just put them together in 40 seconds.

We have two bridge authorities: the Niagara Falls Bridge authority and the Peace Bridge authority. The two of them operate along the Niagara River. Again, they have been very much a part of the lives of everyone in that area. Quite frankly, they have done a great job in providing a service, and not just to the people of our area. As I have always emphasized, they provide a service to Canada. This is one of the great gateways to the nation. It is a very important component. This is why I am sure they applaud legislation like Bill C-3.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Conservative

Helena Guergis ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my support for Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act, and applaud the government for moving ahead on this important piece of legislation.

All Canadians have a vested interest in the bill. Whether it be ensuring security at our borders, protecting trade and our economic interests or simply crossing the border for shopping or for a holiday, the bill will affect all Canadians.

The new provisions in the act will give the federal government the ability to intervene as needed. We know the federal government has a role to play in ensuring that the ownership of these structures does not interfere in any way with national interests or public policy objectives.

From coast to coast, Canadians stand to gain a lot from enhancing the flow of goods across the border. While the riding of Simcoe—Grey, my riding, is not immediately on the border, we are only a few hours away and our economic prosperity depends heavily on the Windsor corridor.

Many members may remember the provisions in Bill C-3 when they were part of former Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, which died on the Order Paper on November 28, 2005, the day the Liberal government fell.

Like many other issues, the Liberals say that they would have had that bill passed and this bill passed if it had not been for the Conservatives bringing them down. Of course, we have to stop and ask the Liberals why they waited. They had 13 years and over a decade of that was majority rule, so I do not really understand what they were waiting for. They had all kinds of time to pass this legislation and many others legislation and they simply did not.

The people of Simcoe—Grey, like many other Canadians, rejected the Liberals last January. They voted for change and in my riding they voted for it overwhelmingly.

I am happy to see that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, has chosen to make this bill one of his department's legislative priorities.

The provisions dealing with international bridges and tunnels were somewhat neglected in debate the last time the bill was before the House. I will take this opportunity to discuss a few of the issues that these provisions will address.

We are fortunate to have in Canada a national transportation system that links every corner of this country because the vast system opens our doors to the rest of the world and to the commercial markets beyond our borders. We are a trading nation in an age of globalization.

We rely on the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in order to maintain our prosperity and quality of life. No one knows this better than the citizens of my riding of Simcoe—Grey.

I am sure that all members will agree that our international bridges and tunnels are an integral part of our nation's transportation system and provide a necessary link to our country's trade with the U.S.

I do not think we can emphasize enough how these crossings are important to international trade. For instance, I have Honda in my riding of Simcoe—Grey. It is a commonly known fact that 85% of the cars manufactured in Canada are exported to the United States.

Some of my potato farmers are shipping their potatoes to New York and Pennsylvania. We also have Alcoa Wheel Products in Simcoe—Grey, a large producer of rims in Collingwood and it is shipping daily to the big three in Michigan.

Simply put, the U.S. is our largest trading partner and the people of Simcoe—Grey depend heavily on this trading relationship.

I believe something like three-quarters of Canadians live within a two to three hour drive of the border, so not surprisingly, 85% of Canada's total exports to the world go to the United States and 59% of our imports come from the United States.

In terms of value, more than $531 billion was traded between Canada and the U.S. in 2003. In terms of jobs, 200 million jobs in both countries exist because of the trade between our two countries.

In 2003 over 834,000 Canadians were employed in the transportation industry. Of the $531 billion traded in 2003, 63% was transported over the Canada-U.S. border by truck, an estimated 13 million trucks. That is about 36,000 trucks crossing the Canada-U.S. border every day, or an average of one truck every 2.5 seconds.

If truth be told, almost 75% of this truck traffic was concentrated at six border crossings: four bridges in Ontario, including Windsor, one land crossing in Quebec, and one land crossing in British Columbia.

In fact, our exports, particularly in the automotive industry, are an important and essential step in the manufacturing of U.S. products. While many companies in the automotive manufacturing and parts sectors are diversifying with new plants around the world, there is one advantage that Canada will always have and the people of Simcoe--Grey understand this well. Geography will always be our ally and allow us to meet the just in time delivery demands that the automotive industry is increasingly moving toward. The industry relies on our products being delivered on time and not being unduly held up at our borders.

The highly concentrated nature of freight movement in Canada is largely responsible for specific local bottlenecks or choke points. Anyone who passes through the Windsor corridor will tell us that. With the high volume of trade and tourism with the U.S., our bridges and tunnels often become choke points.

Any regular bottleneck has the ability to put pressure on the entire transportation system. Bottlenecks that originate at freight transfer points and at the border can affect overall freight movements within trade corridors. As I mentioned before, the manufacturers in Simcoe--Grey using the Windsor corridor know this all too well.

Considering the staggering statistics and the importance of these crossings to our international trade and tourism, it is surprising that there has never been any one piece of legislation that deals with international bridges and tunnels. The new provisions of this bill would enhance the oversight of the federal government. They would ensure that international crossings are being managed and operated in a manner that prioritizes the public interest for safety, security, and efficient cross-border movement.

The bill would confirm that international bridges and tunnels are the responsibility of the federal government. It would give the government the authority to govern and regulate in all aspects of international bridges and tunnels, such as their construction, maintenance and operation. There are today several projects to construct new bridges that are either under way or being contemplated and there are renovations planned for others. These would be subject to the new bill.

The bill would also provide a means for the government to ensure the safety and security of these crossings. By putting systems in place and imposing standards, the bill would make these crossings less vulnerable to terrorist threats and help keep our borders more secure, while at the same time promoting the efficient flow of goods and people at these crossings--all priorities of this government.

I am pleased to lend my support to this bill, which has been a long time in coming. The people of Simcoe--Grey, like most Canadians, demanded change. I am proud to be a part of a government that is taking action. Canada desperately needs this infrastructure. The new Conservative government will continue to do what is best for Canada.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON

Mr. Speaker, the town of Leamington is within my riding of Chatham-Kent--Essex. As members know, Leamington is the largest producer of greenhouse products in North America, as a matter of fact. My constituents have repeatedly shown concern about the movement of goods to over two hundred million customers that lie south of the border.

With the tabling of this bill and from what we have heard today, can I go back and tell my constituents that we as a government are moving in the right direction, that we can ensure that these goods produced in Leamington will continue to flow and that trade will continue as well?

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

2:05 p.m.

Conservative

Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the hon. member know that I had an opportunity to visit Leamington some time ago, long before I became a member of Parliament, and I had a tour of some of the greenhouses there. I was working with the provincial government for many years. At that time, there was a problem with respect to insurance for some of the greenhouses. I was happy to participate and play a key role in ensuring that they did in fact have the insurance they needed to continue to operate their businesses. Leamington is a beautiful place and I look forward to being there again.

The hon. member asked about the border being improved so that his producers could have continued access to the United States. I would say the answer to that question is yes. This is an excellent first step in ensuring that we have improved border crossings so we can improve our trade with the United States and ensure that our trade is not delayed in any way. I would suggest to the hon. member that the answer would be yes.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions and comments on a number of issues relating to trade between Canada and the United States.

My first question relates to the passport issue in the United States that will have a significant negative impact upon visits to Canada. In my province of British Columbia we are already seeing the effects of that. In the last two to three months we have seen a progressive decline in visits by Americans to Canada. The drop has been quite precipitous and unprecedented over the last few years.

What is the member's government going to do to work with the U.S. Congress in addressing this issue which, if not dealt with very quickly, will have a profound negative impact on tourism within Canada by Americans? It will also cause a significant downturn in a number of cities that rely on tourism. What the member may want to consider, at the very least, is that the U.S. plan be deferred for one to two years while Americans have an opportunity to grasp the knowledge that they need a passport to enter Canada and, second, that they have the time to pursue this.

The second issue concerns Canadian passports in Canada. I know this proposal has been put forth but I would ask that the government fast track it. Canadian passports are valid for five years and the sensible solution would be to extend the validity of passports to 10 years. If passports were extended to 10 years it would decrease administrative costs in terms of passport applications, would save the taxpayers money and would actually facilitate the movement of people back and forth because they would not have to keep renewing their passport on an ongoing basis.

My last point deals with Vancouver and the Lions Gate Bridge which needs significant infrastructure moneys. It is a major artery for Vancouver and for people moving in a north-south direction. Does the member's government have any plans to work with British Columbia and put money into infrastructure programs, such as the Lions Gate Bridge, and the Bear Mountain overpass and the MacKenzie Avenue overpass in Victoria?

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, on the member's first question concerning passports, in my riding of Simcoe—Grey I have processed over 12,000 passports through my constituency office in anticipation that perhaps this could happen one day.

When we were in opposition I recall that it was the former Liberal government that did not even prepare a response for the American government into what the Canadian government's thoughts were on the move that it was making to require passports. In fact, we called for an emergency debate on it. Am I wrong on this? I remember that we called for an emergency debate in the House of Commons at the last minute because the former Liberal government did absolutely nothing to advise or work with the Americans to see what could be done about this.

The hon. member used the word “quickly” in his question but I have a hard time taking the word “quickly” seriously considering the fact that the Liberals did absolutely nothing on the issue.

In this day and age, with terrorism and such, we do have a new reality at our borders. We do need to work with the United States to ensure that our borders are safe and that Canadians and Americans are safe. I know the hon. minister responsible for the file is working very diligently on this and if he has something to report to the House at some point I am sure he will do so. In the meantime, I will continue to work with my constituents to process their passports as fast as I can so that my constituents will not be waiting in case this does proceed. However it is the new reality for us.

The member also talked a little bit about Bill C-3 and international bridges, which is what we are discussing today. At the present time there are 24 existing international bridges, all with various forms of ownership and governance structures. The degree of oversight exercised by the federal government varies on all of these 24 international bridges. For example, the federal government is not able to obtain any detailed information on even security issues from all of the bridge authorities.

At the present time we do not have the legislative authority to effectively govern these structures. The proposed regulatory framework will enable the government to provide a consistent approach to ensure that the structures are safe and secure, and that they are being managed and maintained for the long term benefit of all Canadians.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member was here earlier listening to my speech and was obviously paying attention to what I was suggesting.

Is the government interested in ownership of these facilities and is it willing to come forward with the significant investments that will be required quickly if we are going to make these facilities both safe and secure?

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

Conservative

Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, I spoke about the 24 existing international bridges and the fact that we have different forms of ownership and government structures and that the degree of oversight exercised by the federal government varies. This bill is an attempt to ensure that we do have some kind of a certain structure in addressing all of the international bridges. I am sure that from this bill other policy discussions will follow and we will have further discussions later down the road.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

2:10 p.m.

NDP

Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand and speak to the House on Bill C-3. It is an honour to be able to provide information to the House about issues as vast as the ones on the legislative agenda of this Parliament.

I want to start off by saying that I think my colleague from the Conservative Party was rather truthful when he said that the Prime Minister had provided leadership on the softwood lumber issue. However, the question is: What kind of leadership did he provide?

We have a free trade agreement and various portions of that agreement have dispute mechanisms for a number of different items. However, with regard to the softwood lumber deal, I think it is the first time we have capitulated to an environmental beef by the Government of the United States by telling the Americans that they can set standards for us in Canada. As an environmentalist, that is an interesting turn of events and that is interesting leadership that has been provided by the Prime Minister in his very short time in his position.

When we think of the environment let us take the hog farms of North America. Hog farms pollute the rivers to an incredible degree. They use a provision many times and call themselves farms. They get the same rights as farmers in the United States to put their silage into the environment. That silage from 100,000 hogs is equivalent to the manure from a city of a million people and they are sticking it in rivers and such in the United States. Does that mean that Canada can now put punitive tariffs on bacon from the United States? Does that mean that we have better environmental standards so we are going to go over there and deal with them in that fashion? I would say that would be the kind of leadership that I would be looking for from the Prime Minister.

Leadership is what one makes of it. The leadership that has been provided by the Prime Minister on this issue is a sellout. It is a sellout to many people in this country. It is a sellout to industries that have set up and are running in a certain fashion and trying to remain competitive with their U.S. counterparts. They have been encouraged to follow a certain direction by our governments and now we have cut the rug out from underneath them.

I will now get back to the position of this bill. One of the things the bill talks about is a streamlined approval process for bridges, tunnels and those sorts of things that cross the border. As I said earlier, I am concerned about what local people have to deal with when a federal government has the responsibility and the authority to put new transportation systems, new linkages, in through their particular part of the country. A streamlined approval process suggests to me, coming from a region of the country, the Northwest Territories, where the federal government does most of the approval processes for all development, that somebody will be ignored and somebody's concerns will be relegated to the dustbin and we will not have a proper process.

When the federal government initiates projects, when it owns projects and when it has a streamlined approval process, we have to be very careful with what goes on. We have to be careful for the people who live in the regions where the federal government will be working. When we put all those powers, authorities, interests and ownership in the hands of the federal government and then it says it will streamline the process of approval, we know the people in the communities will suffer. It is extremely important that we give people in communities the opportunity to be consulted clearly and effectively, with proper resources, where they can make the case for the issues they think are important, when something like a new highway or bridge cuts across their lands, or when there is a change in direction of transportation requirement, or when new roads, or bridges or tunnels are built in a community where there had been none before.

Those are issues I am aware of in the north.

We are facing the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I addressed this earlier today. We have a minister who has said to us that the government is in favour of it. However, the minister is responsible for the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, one of the very acts that decides the details, the direction and the ultimate approval for the pipeline. We are in an environmental assessment process right now. A panel is sitting, supposedly making judgments for all of us, and the minister has already decided the government supports that project. Where does that leave us?

That is an active example of how important it is when the federal government has control over projects, that we have not streamlined approval projects, but a meaningful and consultative process that can drive correct solutions, that can leave people on the ground comfortable with what has happened to them.

We need to promote rail transportation for the future of our country. It is an excellent way of transportation. We need to improve rail corridors. We need to put money into the things that will allow the rail system to move more effectively, that will attract back not only freight but passenger traffic, which will make a system that works for Canadians. Prices of energy keeps up and congestion is a matter of fact for many of the people who live in the areas along the Canada-U.S. border.

We have policy challenges with the border such as the western hemisphere travel initiative which will require all Canadian and American travellers to have passports to travel to and from the United States. Once again, we see leadership of our Prime Minister on this matter. That leadership is taking us in a certain direction and that direction can be difficult for all Canadians as well as Americans.

Canadians standing up to ensure reasonable access at our borders will help Americans as well. This is something we should not give up. We have a vested interest with the great country to the south to maintain a civil approach at the borders and to maintain the opportunities for Canadians and Americans to share a common border and use it effectively in their daily lives.

This is something we share and we need to make the point to the United States that we can work with them on this and make it happen. However, let us not accept a knee-jerk reaction to terrorist incidents to upset the direction that these countries have worked on for so long.

I travel to other places in the world such as Europe where people can leave their passports in their pockets because they do not need them. They can walk across borders and that is okay. People understand how to live together and we need to do that between our two great countries. That is the way we have to go. The authoritarian regime in the United States right now will pass. We will have an opportunity to deal with people who are more logical and reasonable. Let us encourage our leadership to recognize and respect that.

I know I am running out of time on this opportunity to speak to the bill, but I am sure other points will be raised by other people.

The New Democratic Party supports this effort. We would like to see more from the old Bill C-44 brought forward. If that is something the Minister of Transport is planning to do in the future, I think he will see a lot of support in this party to see more effort on this front. At the same time amendments are required for this bill. We look forward to it going to committee.

As always, everyone can be sure that New Democrats are here to make this Parliament and legislation work. We can work together. We can make better legislation for Canadians. We can sometimes throw out rhetoric, but it does not mean we cannot be critical. We can have criticism without being rhetorical. I would like to see us all work toward that because this is a Parliament of ideas and direction for the whole country.

It has been a great opportunity to speak here today.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

2:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau

The hon. member enjoyed this opportunity and he might like to know that he has seven minutes remaining at the next sitting of the House.

It being 2:30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)