International Bridges and Tunnels Act

An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act

This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.

Sponsor

Lawrence Cannon  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

This enactment establishes an approval mechanism for the construction, alteration and acquisition of international bridges and tunnels and provides for the regulation of their operation, maintenance and security.

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-3s:

C-3 (2025) An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)
C-3 (2021) Law An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Canada Labour Code
C-3 (2020) Law An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code
C-3 (2020) An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and the Canada Border Services Agency Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

Votes

June 20, 2006 Passed That Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act, as amended, be concurred in at report stage with a further amendment.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 10:50 a.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

My goodness, Mr. Speaker, on the first point, the answer is very simple. It is this bill which will give the government the tools to handle the Ambassador Bridge and other crossings.

Had the NDP not colluded with the Conservative Party to bring down the Liberal government when it did, the bill would have been legislation by now and we would have been able to act by now. Therefore, it is the NDP in colluding with the Conservatives that caused this delay.

In terms of negotiating by going on our knees to Washington, I think the hon. member has got the wrong party, the wrong Prime Minister. He may recall, for example, that when Jean Chrétien was prime minister, he said no to the war in Iraq. Was that on our knees? No. That was an independent principled statement by the Government of Canada going totally against the Bush administration. It is the present Conservative government which is on its knees caving in to the Bush administration demands. Therefore, we have no apologies whatsoever to make on that score.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois readily supports the principle of Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act, but we still have some reservations, which I will explain in the next few minutes.

I would first like to make the point, for the benefit of the Quebec audience, that there is only one international bridge in Quebec, the one in Sutton. It is on the Vallée-Missisquoi road and crosses the Missisquoi River in Sutton. An old, metal bridge, it is approximately 50 metres long and was built around 1929. It spans a beautiful gorge. It is used by many trucks and appears in need of repair. It is owned by both Vermont, primarily, and the municipality of Sutton. It is inspected by Quebec's Department of Transport and in conjunction with Vermont as well. The municipality is responsible for repair costs, under a Quebec infrastructure fund. Vermont pays approximately 70% of repair costs.

Now that I have clearly described our international bridge in Quebec, I will address the positive aspects of Bill C-3.

There has been a legal void in the area of international bridges and tunnels. Bill C-3 aims to improve the security of these structures. According to the Department of Transport, local stakeholders are in favour of the provisions of this bill.

Let us now move on to the negative aspects. In the international brides and tunnels legislative framework, a very broad policing power is being given to the government such as the power to investigate without a warrant and a very authoritarian power of seizure. The government has the power to legislate, but the financial responsibility rests on other shoulders. In time, this situation can lead to conflicts.

The current bill left out a number of important and highly useful measures that were in Bill C-44. I will come back to that.

For example, there was a requirement that airline advertising be more transparent. The airlines would have had to change their advertising methods. They would have been required to list the total price of the flight including related fees. This measure was much demanded by the consumer associations.

The provisions of Bill C-44 that are missing from Bill C-3 would have improved the conflict resolution process for sharing the rail lines between passenger transportation companies and freight companies. Bill C-44 included a section under which a railway company wishing to sell a railway line would first offer it to any interested urban transit authorities, giving municipal governments priority in order to avoid tearing up the tracks.

The new VIA Rail Canada Act, proposed by Bill C-44, would have given it greater decision-making power, in the hope of improving rail transportation, reducing environmental impact and achieving energy savings.

Section 32 of Bill C-44 would have provided the Canadian Transportation Agency with authority to address complaints relating to railway noise in order to require railway companies to take measures to prevent unreasonable noise, particularly around marshalling yards.

I will speak later about these measures which are not found in Bill C-3. First, I would like to give the background of this last bill, which was introduced at first reading on April 24, 2006. It seeks to bring forward part of former Bills C-44 and C-26.

There are 24 international vehicular bridges and tunnels connecting Canada and the United States: 14 in Ontario, nine in New Brunswick and only one in Quebec, as I mentioned earlier. In addition there are five railway bridges and tunnels in Ontario. Only five of these crossings are owned by the federal government. According to the Department of Transport, the events of 9/11 brought to light the importance of protecting these vital infrastructures.

Responsibility for international bridges and tunnels lies with the federal government, which has sole legislative jurisdiction in this matter . However, the federal government does not have the clearly defined legislative and regulatory authority to administer these crossings. According to the Department of Transport, there is currently no process to approve the construction of new bridges or tunnels or alterations to existing structures.

In the past, the construction of a bridge or tunnel was authorized by a special act of Parliament and by the adoption of identical legislation in the United States. Again according to the department, consultation of key players was carried out and the provisions of Bill C-44 received considerable support. The majority of players were eager to participate in the regulatory process.

The provisions in this new bill are practically identical to those in Bill C-44. The enactment contains two new provisions: approval for all changes in ownership, operation and control, and clarification of the process for obtaining permits to build bridges over the St. Lawrence River.

Besides confirming the federal government’s jurisdiction with respect to international bridges and tunnels, the proposed legislation would enable the federal government to issue guidelines concerning approval for the construction or alteration of new and existing bridges or tunnels; specify conditions regarding bridge maintenance and operation; approve changes in ownership, control or operation of international bridges or tunnels; and finally, ensure that the crossings are safe and secure.

The expression “international bridge or tunnel” means “a bridge or tunnel, or any part of it, that connects any place in Canada to any place outside Canada, and includes the approaches and facilities related to the bridge or tunnel”. As hon. members know, international bridges or tunnels cannot be build without government approval. Such approval may be given to the site or plans of an international bridge over the St. Lawrence River.

Other provisions state that the government may make regulations respecting the maintenance, repair, operation, use, security and safety of international bridges and tunnels. The bill also provides that the Minister may make any appropriate directions, if he is of the opinion that there is an immediate threat to the security or safety of any international bridge or tunnel or to the safety of persons. Government approval would also be necessary to change the ownership, control or operation of international bridges or tunnels. Under this bill, it would also be possible to establish a crown corporation to administer a bridge or tunnel.

Unfortunately, very broad police powers are being granted to the government, such as the power to investigate without a warrant and a most authoritarian power of seizure. I am referring to clause 39.

A great deal of what Bill C-44 provided for is not covered by Bill C-3, particularly with respect to rail transportation. For instance, Bill C-44 proposed improvements to the shipper protection regime for rail service users and the elimination of the requirement for the Canada Transportation Agency to determine whether the commercial harm to the shipper would be substantial.

It would appear that the time allotted me has expired.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 10:55 a.m.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but as she knows, it is time for statements by members. After question period, she will have 12 minutes to finish her remarks.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that BillC-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act, be now read a second time and referred to a committee.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 12:15 p.m.

The Speaker Peter Milliken

When I interrupted the debate for oral question period, the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert had the floor. She had 12 minutes left to make her remarks. The member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert can now continue her speech.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will explain the situation for people who are listening to us. I will also remind them of the context in which I started my speech, which lasted for eight minutes.

The subject was Bill C-3, which deals with international bridges and tunnels. I started by saying that the Bloc Québécois was in favour of this bill, with some reservations.

There is only one international bridge in Quebec, the Sutton bridge, located in the Mississquoi valley, across the Mississquoi-Sutton river. It is an old metal bridge that was built around 1929. It is at least 50 metres long—which is quite long—and spans a gorge in a wonderful landscape. It is worth seeing. It is the property of Vermont and, to a lesser extent, the municipality of Sutton.

I noted the positive aspects of this bill. A legal vacuum existed, and the Bloc Québécois is happy that there is finally an act governing international bridges and tunnels. The purpose of the act is to improve the security and safety of these structures. Local stakeholders are generally in favour of the provisions of the act as presented. Still, the bill has some pieces missing, and when there are pieces missing from a bill about bridges, that is not a good thing. I talked about the pieces that were missing and the provisions that were excessive. For example, the Bloc is a bit concerned about the broad policing powers that the government has. The government also gives itself legislative powers, but someone else has to shoulder the financial responsibility. In the end, this situation can lead to conflict.

Bill C-3 came out of the former Bill C-44, which was withdrawn and simplified. However, we left several pieces of the former bill behind. A number of sections were very interesting, and several measures were needed. I mentioned more transparent advertising of airline ticket prices.

I will pick up where I left off. I was talking about railway transportation. Bill C-44 contained interesting measures that allowed for legislation on railway transportation. These measures are not included in Bill C-3, and the Bloc is sorry that they are gone. Bill C-44 proposed to improve the shipper's protection system for clients of railway services and repeal the requirement that the Canadian Transportation Agency determine whether the shipper would suffer substantial commercial harm before allowing the shipper recourse against a carrier.

One very interesting point is that Bill C-44 proposed to give the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to review noise complaints and require railway companies to take steps to minimize the harmful effects of noise resulting from the construction or operation of railways, while considering the railways' operational and service requirements and the interests of the communities concerned. This affects many ridings in Quebec, including Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher and Saint-Lambert, which neighbour on mine.

Bill C-44 also proposed to change the current provisions governing the process of abandonment of rail lines that are no longer necessary for the transportation of goods. Currently, the lines must first be offered for their continued operation. They can then be offered to the different governments. Bill C-44 would have allowed public transportation companies, which in some urban areas serve several municipalities, to benefit from such offers. Thus, they could have obtained corridors and used them for public transportation purposes. Also, the provisions extended to portions of the right of way, such as spurs and sidings, which, in some cases, can be used for public transportation.

Bill C-44 also proposed to improve the dispute settlement process with line owners by allowing operators of publicly funded passenger rail services to ask for arbitration by the Canadian Transportation Agency when commercial negotiations are not successful, in terms of operating conditions of railway lines under federal jurisdiction, including service fees and charges imposed by the host railway company. Bill C-44 was really comprehensive. It also proposed the conveyance of lines to municipal authorities.

That is particularly interesting.

The clause in question provided that a railway company wishing to sell a railway line could offer it to urban transit authorities concerned before offering it to municipalities, but after offering it to the federal and Quebec governments. This measure would have ensured the protection of the unique transportation network provided by urban railway corridors, by preventing them from becoming unusable for public transportation as the result of non-collaborative municipal policies.

The Bloc Québécois considers that railway transportation is an excellent alternative to road transportation. This is why its development must be fostered. It is in this frame of mind that we had asked for and obtained the introduction of Bill C-44.

Bill C-44 is not Bill C-3. It contained one other measure not found in C-3, regarding train noise. Railway noise, particularly near marshalling yards, is an irritant that affects several Quebec ridings. Clause 32 of Bill C-44 gave the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to examine noise complaints and to order the railway companies to undertake measures to prevent unreasonable noise. In its mediations, the Agency was to take into account the economic requirements of the railway companies. Up to 2000, the Agency deemed that it had broad powers, based on section 95, enabling it to force the company subject to a complaint to keep damage to a minimum. However, the Agency was exercising an authority that it did not have.

For this reason, even though some citizens rightly noted that clause 32 of Bill C-44 did not give the Agency as much power as it had in 2000, we must bear in mind that under the old Transportation Act there was no recourse. Furthermore, Bill C-44 did not amend section 95. Thus, the criterion of minimal damage in the operation of a railway was retained. This section gave the Canadian Transportation Agency the authority to arbitrate disputes and balance the need to permit railway companies to do business against the right of people living along rail lines to enjoy a peaceful environment. Thus, the Agency could have forced railway companies to adopt measures to minimize noise from their activities while taking into account the financial imperatives.

A criticism could have been raised about this provision, because it did not limit other nuisances such as fumes from oil and gas or vibrations. Nothing is perfect.

Bill C-44 contained other very interesting proposals. It bolstered consumer protection for air transportation. These measures are not found in Bill C-3.

Bill C-44 also included provisions on airline advertising. It provided for greater control over the sale of airline tickets, among other things by giving the agency jurisdiction over ticket sales advertising, which would respond to a great need. Taxes and hidden fees would have to be included in the advertised price, which is not always the case. Ads giving a one-way fare conditional on the purchase of a return flight could have been prohibited. Some contractual conditions would have had to be posted on the Internet.

Theses transparency measures would have benefited the consumers and the airlines, who would have benefited from a better framework and enjoyed healthier competition. Consumer groups had called for these measures.

Bill C-44 contained other interesting provisions on Via Rail Canada, which are not included in Bill C-3. It enacted legislation on Via Rail Canada that would have replaced the articles of incorporation of the crown corporation. When it was created in 1997, VIA Rail was incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act. It did not obtain its own act.

The purpose of Bill C-44 was to manage and ensure rail transportation service that was safe and efficient. This new framework gave Via Rail more flexibility to make its own business decisions. The rights and obligations of Via Rail were upheld in Bill C-44, but all that has disappeared with the Conservative government.

In closing, the Bloc Québécois has a great number of very serious reservations about this bill on international bridges and tunnels.

As we know, there is only one international bridge in Quebec, in Sutton, as I mentioned earlier. We have some reservations about Bill C-3, which I have just talked about, especially since it was based on Bill C-44, but is a lot less complete. It was totally simplified.

Nonetheless, as I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-3 in the hopes of seeing the clauses from Bill C-44 reappear in another form as soon as possible.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to comment on Bill C-3, an act respecting international bridges and tunnels.

The term “international” makes me think of the softwood lumber agreement signed yesterday. The Prime Minister and members of the government are all puffed up over this agreement, but they should think the matter over a bit more.

A NAFTA tribunal already handed down a decision in our favour. The tariffs imposed by the Americans were excessive, not to mention illegal. How can a government accountable to Canadian and Quebec industries negotiate an agreement when a tribunal has already ruled in our favour? I do not understand. I have a problem with that.

The Conservatives think that losing a billion dollars is a good deal. They should have negotiated knowing that the industry is in a slump and has lost a lot of money. They should have reached an agreement that really benefits the industry, which deserves our support and encouragement in this dispute. We cannot just throw in the towel, sign an agreement with the Americans and present it to the industry, saying that we know its back is to the wall and it has no money because it has already shelled out $5 billion to try to foil the U.S. government's plan to destroy the Canadian softwood lumber industry. I have a problem with that.

Why did the government not support the industry, by recalling that the court had ruled in our favour? Why did it not support it financially so that it could continue to fight? We will not let another government do this to us. We are right and we must support that ruling that was in our favour.

Unfortunately, this is not what the government is doing. It is negotiating a $4 billion agreement, which makes us lose $1 billion. It then says that this is not bad, because everyone, particularly the provinces, is happy that we have reached this agreement with the American government. I do not think that everyone is happy. Businesses had to accept it because they did not have any money left.

Last year, the Conservatives were bragging, saying that this money should have been given to businesses in the softwood lumber sector in order to support them financially. What are they doing now that they are in office? They solve the problem right away and reach a $4 billion agreement, that is $1 billion less than expected. And they are happy with this. However, I believe that the industry is not so happy.

For months, the Conservatives urged the Liberal government to support the softwood lumber industry. Once they get in office, they do nothing of the kind and have reached an agreement that is unacceptable to the industry. I have a hard time understanding how they could stand up and brag that they have settled the softwood lumber dispute, something the previous government was never able to do. I am sorry, but I do not agree.

Let us go back to our bridges. I find equally ridiculous that the government would propose bills that do not mean anything. They do not even know what they are writing. We see a good example in clauses 14, 15 and 16: “The Governor in Council may...make regulations respecting the maintenance and repair...the operation and use...[and ] the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels—”

My colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert was just extolling the bridge in Sutton. I would like to underscore that the municipality is responsible for repairs, through the Quebec Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund, while Vermont assumes approximately 70% of the cost, depending on resources. How can the Canadian government make maintenance decisions when the American government is paying 70% of the costs? Really now. The federal government has nothing to do with it. Quebec pays 30% and the Americans pay the other 70%. And yet the federal government wants to decide when repairs should be made? I think it will find itself alone on that bridge.

One clause states that the government will order the maintenance and that the Americans will pay for the maintenance. Can my colleague explain this contradiction?

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to respond to the comments of my colleague from Shefford and to answer his question.

It is true that there is apparent inconsistency. I mentioned it in my speech.

The Minister of Transport is here and is listening carefully. During question period, he said that he met with the Quebec Minister of Transport this morning. I take this opportunity to tell him that there should be a train overpass on the Seigneurial road in the city of Saint-Bruno. That overpass would improve the traffic situation for people from the riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert and the surrounding cities.

I am happy to see the minister listening. I hope that he will eventually talk to the Quebec Minister of Transport, if he has not already done so, about this serious problem in the area of Saint-Bruno and Saint-Hubert.

As I told my colleague from Shefford, Bill C-3 is unsatisfactory. Bill C-44 was better. Nonetheless, the Bloc will vote in favour of the bill.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a problem understanding. Why has Bill C-3 been introduced since it is less than Bill C-44 could let us hope for? That bill seemed satisfactory enough.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot answer that pertinent question because I am not privy to the Conservative government's decision-making process.

How can it oversimplify things enough to come up with a Speech from the Throne including only five priorities? How can it avoid other considerations and other sensitive issues beside its five priorities?

Bill C-44 dealt with several sensitive issues. The Conservatives could have continued to serve many different groups. I think in particular of air transport users. We know that plane tickets are advertised in newspapers, but the ads are always wrong. We end up trying to compare things that cannot be compared at all, because prices are not given and because there are several conditions to satisfy. They will sell us a one-way ticket if we buy a return ticket, even though we only need a one-way ticket. Buying a plane ticket is very complicated. Consumers would be well served if they could get all the measures included in Bill C-44, and sooner rather than later .

City-dwellers are victims of the excessive noise coming from railroad yards. Measures should be taken to reduce that noise. I did not feel that the Conservative government was sensitive to that problem. People are affected by many other things that do not count for the Conservative Party. It is sad, of course. In spite of that, we are ready to give the government another chance. We ask it to produce a new bill as quickly as possible.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 12:35 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have this opportunity to stand in the House today to speak to this important piece of public business, Bill C-3, because it affects bridges and tunnels that connect us with our neighbour to the south, the United States of America.

It is an important bill and one that we need to get behind and support but it is not perfect. It needs amendments. It needs to be put through the process of this place. At committee we need to hear from some folks. At the end of the day we in this caucus are hoping that the government will be open to some suggestions because many of us have done some long and hard work on this.

The member from Windsor West, in particular, who was not able to be here, has been very passionate and knowledgeable on this and has worked very hard in his community of Windsor to try to not only resolve the bottleneck on the bridge but also its inadequacy because it affects his whole community and the economy of the area surrounding Windsor, not to mention of the economy of the province.

I have some issues myself that flow out of my own community. We have a bridge that needs upgrading, maintenance and more authority to ensure we have the security that is required. I want to talk about that as well in speaking to the bill.

As this is my first opportunity in this Parliament to speak and to participate in the way being here allows us, I want to say how pleased I am to be back and to have been re-elected in my own community of Sault Ste. Marie and the district surrounding it: the wonderful communities on St. Joseph Island, Hilton Beach , Richards Landing , Bruce Mines, Desbarats, Echo Bay, Hayden, Searchmont, Goulais, Montreal River and Batchawana Bay. I represent all those wonderfully exciting, vital and viable places situated on the shores of Lake Huron and Lake Superior and I hope to represent them well here in the House. I appreciate their support for a second time to the House of Commons. It was an honour and a privilege to have served the community of Sault Ste. Marie for 13 years provincially. I enjoyed that.

I look forward to working with the government of the day and the opposition parties in getting some things done for my community, for the people of Sault Ste. Marie and for all of northern Ontario. We have some issues there. Our economy has been challenged for a while. We need the partnership of the senior level of government if we are going to turn around some of the longstanding industrial sectors that at the moment are struggling to get breath, so they can take advantage of what we know are the opportunities and challenges out there.

We know that in northern Ontario the very first thing we need to do, if we are going to protect our economy, is to stand up for what we have. We have always been a resource based industry in northern Ontario and always will be. However I will be speaking with some of the companies in the forestry sector when I go home this weekend to hear their response to the deal that was cut by the government with the United States of America on softwood lumber to see whether it will be helpful to them.

They have heard promises over the last couple of years by the senior level of government and have heard talk about substantial money but nothing has actually happened. We have communities, like Dubreuilville and Smooth Rock Falls, that are hanging on by their fingernails. Workers who have lost their jobs do not know what tomorrow will bring. They do not know whether they will have to leave town to find work to support their families. They will be looking very closely at this agreement to see if there is anything concrete in there.

My leader has suggested, with the first look at this and after listening to the Prime Minister last night, that there really was not anything concrete that we could grab on to. However we are hoping that there is, that there is something for those communities and those workers that will carry them over until this industry turns itself around and we can again see forestry as the exciting opportunity it is to provide employment, economic opportunity, to attract investment and to actually work with everyone to ensure it is sustainable over the long haul.

Forestry is only one sector. We have a number of resource based sectors in northern Ontario that we need to protect. We talked about that in the election. The people in my riding decided that the things I was saying on those issues were important enough for me to be sent back here to continue that challenge.

That brings me to the bill in front of us today, Bill C-3. How we get our goods to market is an important question for northern Ontario and the resource sector economy that serves Canada so well. Of course, bridges and tunnels are the lifelines that stand between us and the U.S. market which is so important. If we do not manage those pieces of infrastructure well, we will end up with the problems that we are experiencing today in spades. We will have bottlenecks, slowdowns and security and safety issues that we will not know how to deal with.

I speak on behalf of my colleague from Windsor West and my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby who cannot be here today to lead off on this important bill when I say that we think this is a move in the right direction and something that needs to be done quickly so we can deal with some of the challenges that we have been facing for a number of years where these important pieces of infrastructure are concerned.

We are saying, though, that the bill is not perfect. I am pleased that the Minister of Transport is here today to hear us say this because we are speaking to him directly when we put out the challenge that the bill needs to go to committee. The committee needs to hear from our members, as well as other members around the House, and it needs to hear from those who are directly affected by what will happen when the bill becomes law. We are hoping he will be open to amendments. If there are changes that we think would be helpful, we hope he will listen and work with us to ensure they are included so those areas of concern can be addressed.

One of the concerns in the Windsor area and in Fort Frances in northwestern Ontario is the question of actual ownership of the bridges. I know the government is concerned about that and wants to have some control over the ownership as to who at the end of the day will own these important facilities. I think it is a critical question.

As a matter of fact, we would encourage the government to look at public ownership, that it should be the government itself. Because of the safety and security issues that have arisen since 9/11 and some of the initiatives coming from south of the border, the United States government, the western hemisphere initiative, et cetera, we need to have more control over these bridges and tunnels, and not only that, but with control we also need to take responsibility for ensuring they are safe and secure.

We are talking big money. We are talking about a significant investment to build new bridges. Windsor has the expectation that it will happen. A lot of work has been done over the last few years to make that happen. However the ownership and control question that is being addressed somewhat in the bill still presents as a very difficult proposition in that area, just as it is a difficulty in Fort Frances.

The bridge at Fort Frances, just as the bridge in Sault Ste. Marie, is an important connector to markets. Some very large and heavy products are transported from steel mills and lumber mills across the area into markets in the United States of America. We want to ensure those bridges are managed properly and that the cost of transporting products across those bridges continues to be affordable. We believe the only way to guarantee that is for government to actually own those facilities, to be willing to put in place the moneys necessary to ensure they are both safe and secure and that maintenance is done on a regular basis.

The bridge in my riding is run now by an authority. At one time there was a combination of funding from the Michigan department of transportation and the Ontario government. Now a local authority runs that bridge and it is forever trying to figure out how to get the money it needs to just maintain the bridge and ensure it continues to be safe and secure. That does not even include the personnel required at either end of the bridge to ensure the flow of traffic continues at a pace that is convenient and helpful to those going back and forth and wanting to access both countries.

The question of ownership of these bridges is central to the bill and we need to discuss that further. We are hoping the government will be open to some suggestions that we might make around the government itself stepping up to the plate and taking hold of that.

Secondary to that but equally as important is the issue of financing them. Who will put the money up to build new bridges? When we look at the level of traffic and the impact of the backup of that traffic into communities such as Windsor, there obviously is a need for new bridges. The member for Windsor West has spoken both eloquently and intelligently to that fact in this House and he would want me to say that the government needs to be forthcoming. We heard announcements over and over again from the previous government about infrastructure funds and border crossing funds but seemingly hard to get a handle on so that those communities could actually get those funds and make the repairs or the investments that are necessary.

Hopefully, something will be in the budget on May 2 that speaks to the very real requirement of a significant investment in these pieces of infrastructure because they are so critical to our trade, not to mention our security and safety.

Where Windsor has the need for a new crossing, whether it is a bridge or a tunnel is up to it, hopefully, with the leadership and direction in this bill from the federal government, that will happen and it will happen in a way that will consider the impact on the people who live in the areas adjoining the roadways that will have to be built and developed, not to mention the environmental impact of traffic if there are backups, as there are now, and the spewing of exhaust that goes into the community and affects people and the quality of air.

In my own community we are hoping to become a hub of some significance. We already are an important hub but we want to become more important and more significant in the offering of how we get goods to market from our country into the United States and back and forth. We have developed a multi-modal plan in Sault Ste. Marie where we have in our back yard access to rail, road, water and air. All of the modes of transportation come to Sault Ste. Marie. We are strategically located at the centre of the Great Lakes. In fact, when we look at the map we see that we are strategically located in the centre of Canada and in the centre of North America. So we could become--

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 12:45 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

It should be the capital.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 12:45 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

We should be the capital, exactly. Why did somebody not think of that before, right after Winnipeg.

We believe we are a very important strategic location for the transport of goods, people and services back and forth between our two countries. The potential there is relatively untapped. The community itself is spending a significant amount of money. We want to thank the federal and provincial governments for their involvement in developing the roadways that are necessary but more work needs to be done. We need to make more investments into our rail infrastructure so we can have more rail traffic coming through Sault Ste. Marie and across the border. A deep sea harbour would be nice and some more competition in the air service that we get in and out of Sault Ste. Marie.

If that were all put in place we think Sault Ste. Marie would have tremendous potential to become a very important transportation hub. Central and key to that is the development of our bridge. We need more money to make the bridge capable of handling more traffic. If we become the multi-modal centre we think we have the potential to become, that bridge will have to move more traffic back and forth. It will have to be expanded. Something has to be done on the bridge to deal with that. However, as has happened in Windsor, we do not want to attract all this traffic only to find that now we have a backup as there is in Windsor creating all the problems that exist there.

We want to ensure that we are proactive, that we are looking ahead, that we are thinking ahead and that we will be ready when this new multi-modal project becomes a reality in our community. When people drive across the border, whichever way they are going, we want to ensure they are able to do so in a safe and quick fashion so they will want to come back again.

We would need significant help from the federal government in terms of investment in that infrastructure. Our bridge plaza needs to be expanded so that more services can be offered there. We need more personnel working at the border. We need border guards and people checking identification, and we need more facilities so that people have more readily available access.

I am here today on behalf of my caucus to say that we think this is a good bill that deserves support, at least at this reading. It should go to committee where hopefully the government will be willing to listen to our members, particularly the members for Windsor West and Burnaby--New Westminster with respect to some amendments that could be made to make this bill stronger and more useful in terms of how we manage the crossings between ourselves and the United States, and how we in fact do protect the security and the safety of those facilities and make them more accessible to our industries in particular, but also to the people who cross back and forth.

We have industries that are directly dependent on access to those bridges. Whether it is tourism, our resource based sectors or other industries, we need those tunnels and bridges to be available and well maintained. We need those bridges to be safe and secure and to be owned in fact, if that is going to happen, by the federal government, so that it will have the control it says it wants, to protect our interests and to make sure we are responding to some of the realities of today where security is concerned.

We are looking forward to working with the government on this bill at committee. We hope it will seriously consider and take heed of amendments we will bring forward. If we see those amendments included in the bill when it comes back to the House, the government can be assured of our support.

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 12:55 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my namesake from Sault Ste. Marie one pointed question. He is well aware that Manitoba benefited greatly from a former infrastructure program. In fact, the Red River floodway, which is the massive Duff's ditch, as we call it, was the largest single engineering job since the Panama Canal. That ditch is now being dug deeper in a tripartite cooperative measure using money from the former infrastructure program.

Are some of the infrastructure initiatives in his area geared toward a tripartite approach? In other words, does provincial money need to be matched federally before it can roll? Does he see the need for a new infrastructure tripartite program from the Conservative government to make up for the dismantling, or now the loss, of the one we were enjoying under the Liberal government?

International Bridges and Tunnels ActGovernment Orders

April 28th, 2006 / 12:55 p.m.

NDP

Tony Martin NDP Sault Ste. Marie, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member is indeed right. He speaks to the nub of one of the points that I was trying to make in my speech. It is one thing to pass an act that gives the government control, responsibility and more power where important infrastructure is concerned, but it is another thing to be willing to come forward with the money that is needed to actually make that happen.

In this instance, the member is right. If the federal government does not feel that it has within its bank account the money that it needs to invest in some of this important infrastructure, then yes, partnerships need to be developed, and communities and provincial governments need to be involved because they have a responsibility too.

The government has a responsibility for this and it has to take responsibility for some important pieces of infrastructure that need to be maintained and kept safe and secure. Bridges and tunnels are part of that package that the government needs to take seriously and be willing to invest in.