Christian Ouellet

[Community Action, September 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the previous government extended the supporting communities partnership initiative by one year. That extension will end on March 31, 2007. If something is not done right now, many services will be disrupted. Homelessness groups need recurrent funding to help people in crisis situations and to offer them lasting solutions.

Does the Prime Minister intend to continue funding for homelessness beyond March 31, 2007 and allocate envelopes—

[Canada Transportation Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member who did a good job describing what Bill C-44 was and what he sees now in Bill C-11. However, I have the feeling that I understood something that I hope I failed to understand. The hon. member said that the train subsidies were eliminated in Bill C-44 and that is continued.

I have the feeling that I must have misunderstood because trains are the future, the future of our country, and not the past. They are the method of transportation that will be the greenest and the most economical and that will support all our industries and jobs.

Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that the government should encourage a transportation system that will both protect the ozone layer from greenhouse gases and do miracles in regard to energy expenditures?

All countries now help their railways. The leader is the government of the United States, right next door to us. Although the United States favours private enterprise, it provides generous assistance to railway companies because otherwise they would not exist. I ask the hon. member, therefore, why he thinks the subsidies for railway companies should be eliminated when we provide lots of them for roads.

[Canada Elections Act, September 18th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we definitely cannot oppose virtue. It is very clear that holding elections on a set date, every four years, is an excellent and marvellous idea. We have been told about all the other countries with such a system. However, at present, is it realistic to think about having elections every four years when election results in Canada—and I might add throughout the world—are closer and closer and result more often than not in minority governments?

I would like to know if the honourable member who just spoke truly believes that, in a minority government situation, we could have elections every four years. How would he do that? If the government lasts three and a half years, two and a half years or one and a half years, would we go as long as four and a half years and change months? If elections are always held in October, then that means we will have elections in three and a half years or in four and a half years. I would like some clarification on this because I do not believe we will be able to have elections on set dates.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 18th, 2006]

Regarding the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative (SCPI) ending March 31, 2007: (a) will the program be renewed past that date and, if so, for how long; (b) or will it be made permanent; (c) will the amounts allocated be increased; (d) will the recommendations of the United Nations Committee on May 16, 2006, be taken into account; and (e) will a strategic plan on homelessness and housing be developed?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for allowing me to clarify.

In the introduction of the speech I made earlier, I mentioned that the Constitution of Canada clearly established under which jurisdiction border crossing works fell, works such as bridges, and their modern offshoots, tunnels. According to the Bloc, every jurisdiction is clear. Dealing with bridges is a federal jurisdiction.

In that sense, the bill is reintroducing what had been dropped. The Bloc is in favour of this bill. Nonetheless, it finds there should be no consultation with the municipalities since they fall strictly within provincial jurisdiction.

We believe the provincial government can propose a plan to the federal government, which will have the final say on that plan.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his pertinent comments.

We in Quebec believe ourselves capable of building and maintaining bridges. The federal government must have a say in accepting, rejecting or verifying what we are doing, but it must not dictate what Quebec should do. In my opinion, this bill was not created in order to allow Ottawa to tell us what to do, although it could be interpreted that way.

We prefer to regard it in light of a province's full capacity to build and maintain a bridge. We believe that the federal government's responsibility consists in accepting or rejecting a province's plans. We do not have to participate in a commission, where we will always be a minority, I might add. We believe that it would be much more practical to implement a plan. The province submits a plan to the government that is either accepted or rejected. If Ottawa does not accept it, the province submits another plan. But the details are not discussed in committee.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois recognizes the federal government’s constitutional jurisdiction over bridges and their modern extensions, such as tunnels. In our view, Bill C-3 fills a legal void in the area of international bridges and tunnels. We think that this bill has an important purpose because it aims to improve the security of these major structures. I should say first of all, though, that there are not a lot of them in Quebec. We will return to this.

In terms of regulating international bridges and tunnels, this legislation will provide what could be called watchdog powers that are a bit like police powers, and we are opposed to that. A government should not only be used, as the federal government proposes, to exercise a power of investigation without a warrant or a power of arbitrary seizure. It seems to us that more complete regulations might be less restrictive and would still make it possible to maintain control over our bridges without having to get involved in such difficult situations.

So the government gives itself very broad authority to legislate but leaves the financial responsibility to others. This could potentially lead to a conflict of interest.

There is only one international bridge in Quebec—that has been said and I mention it again—and that is the Glen Sutton bridge leading to East Richford. It belongs to Quebec and Vermont. It is a metal girder bridge built around 1929. That is not very old, therefore, but its design might be a bit old-fashioned. In view of how long some medieval bridges have lasted, though, it might still be good for quite some time. It crosses a small river, the Missisquoi, and is about 150 feet long. Trucks take it without any apparent problems. So it is in good condition. It could obviously benefit from some renovations. At the present time, though, the municipality of Sutton is responsible primarily for snow removal and sanding in the winter, while the Vermont authorities do the rest.

The bridge is inspected jointly by the owners, that is to say, Quebec and Vermont. When repairs are needed, it is apparently the municipality of Sutton that takes care of them. However, the advice comes from Quebec and we think that it is quite good. Vermont covers 70% and Quebec 30%. The Quebeckers in Sutton are not really very interested in Bill C-3 if it does not include any financial assistance. This is obviously not really the purpose of the bill because in Quebec we have only this little bridge.

In the case of this single bridge we have, it is certainly not necessary to simply be told what to do. That may be more important for Windsor than for us.

Obviously, it is our view that, if any bridges crossing the seaway were to be constructed, the plans and the entire project should be prepared by Quebec and would require nothing more than federal approval. We consider that to be proper.

That is how we see this bill. It would satisfy certain needs that we wanted met when the bill was being drafted. As the parliamentary secretary repeated earlier, we wanted to enhance the security around these bridges, as the terrorist incidents of 2001 have placed certain of these structures in some danger. I see no way in which the bill, in its present form, is going to be able to protect the bridge between Sutton and East Richford.

The exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government includes responsibility for harmonizing international bridges and tunnels, but not necessarily for protecting bridges. It is not necessarily because of the terrorist incidents that this legislation is being developed. It is intended far more to harmonize bridges, particularly the 19 bridges in Ontario.

At present, however, they do not have clearly defined legislative and regulatory authority to administer these crossings. That can be done only with funding. If there are no funds, the problems cannot be resolved.

According to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, there is no process at the moment for approving the construction of new bridges or tunnels or modifying existing ones. In the past, construction of a bridge was always effected through legislation. If a complete plan is presented for a new bridge, we in Quebec would like a response: yes or no. We do not want municipal consultation or consultation with masses of people.

Quebec is capable of managing bridge construction on its own. What we want the federal government to say is yes or no: this bridge is safe or it is not.

This is not at all the case for Glen Sutton and East Richford, where there is a little 150-foot bridge.

The fact remains that it is Quebec that looks after its bridges and will look after other international bridges in the future. The Vermont bridge is maintained in the proportion of 30% by Quebec and 70% by Vermont.

The bill contains novel provisions, one of which is approval of transactions affecting ownership. We have some questions about why land transactions will be at issue even before the project is completed.

We also have changes of operator or control. That can cover a lot of ground. When we start controlling who operates a bridge, all sorts of abuses may follow.

In addition to confirming the role of the federal government in relation to international bridges and tunnels, what we have is the federal government issuing guidelines regarding approval of the construction of a bridge or tunnel or the alteration of existing structures, imposing conditions relating to the maintenance and operation of bridges, approving transactions that change the ownership, operator or control of a bridge, and guaranteeing the security and safety of renovations, and that all adds up to still more centralization in Ottawa.

This brings us to the fact that, according to clause 6, “No person shall construct or alter an international bridge or tunnel without the approval of the Governor in Council”, and that, under subclause 4(4), “approval may”—or may not—“be given ... to the site or plans of an international bridge over the St. Lawrence River”, and that, according to clause 14, the government may make regulations respecting the maintenance and repair, operation and use, and safety and security of international bridges and tunnels.

As well, the government will be given very broad police powers, for example to investigate or simply to seize.

Fortunately, there are positive sides to this bill, because we do not find some parts of it very attractive. We will be voting for this bill because it contains some very valuable clauses, which I will describe.

Clause 17 provides that, “If the Minister is of the opinion that there is an immediate threat to the security or safety of any international bridge or tunnel, the Minister may make directions—”. We are entirely in favour of this clause, which is an excellent one.

The approval of the government is needed for the transfer of the ownership, control or operation of an international bridge or tunnel, under clause 23. We consider this clause to be excellent as well.

A Crown corporation may be established to administer an international bridge or tunnel, under clause 29. In our view, this is another extremely worthwhile clause.

To summarize, we support this bill, because it gives us an opportunity to submit complete projects to the federal government. We are much less impressed by the fact that someone is always going to be checking that our bridges are safe. We are capable of doing that ourselves. We are not at all open to the idea of holding consultations with municipalities; that may work just fine in Windsor, but it does not work in Glen Sutton.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise the issue of jurisdiction again, an issue that was much talked about this morning.

In Quebec, municipalities are considered to be creatures of the provincial government. As such, municipalities do not have direct relations with the federal government. In fact, we hope there will be as little of that as possible. The last government began creating relations with municipalities by giving funding to them directly. The Bloc has always believed that the money should go to Quebec, so that it can distribute it to its subordinate bodies, the municipalities. Federal-municipal consultations are not something that we are interested in seeing.

Accordingly, I would like to ask the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan whether he thinks that the approach taken between the federal government and Quebec might be different, in terms of consultations.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities means by an old bridge. He mentioned this at the beginning of his speech.

The Bloc Québécois believes that this is an important bill. It is odd to think that a bridge is old when it was built 75 or 100 years ago. Major structures such as bridges and tunnels—but bridges, especially—last for centuries, because they can be repaired more or less eternally. Thus, I would first like to know what he means by an old bridge and what he intends to do with older bridges.

Furthermore, does this bill provide for the investment of funds? Is there political will to help people or will the responsibility be passed on to the provinces and municipalities?

Lastly, can he explain why he thinks the Quebec bridge has been painted and is working properly? This is what he said yesterday.

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2006]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue if he does not feel it is time to stop playing politics at the expense of aboriginals and first nations peoples. Does he not feel it is time to rise above all this?

Certainly, the day that we achieve a dialogue with first nations peoples, when we can listen to them and grant them the right to full self-government, the right to fully manage their own affairs, only then will first nations peoples truly form a nation within Canada. Aboriginals, within first nations, will be able to assume their full stature. At present, we are not giving them the opportunity to live their lives as a people and as a nation.

I would therefore like the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue to indicate whether he sees the Kelowna accord as an end in and of itself or as a stepping stone to something else, and why do we continue to play politics at the expense of first nations peoples?