Bill C-3 (Historical)

International Bridges and Tunnels Act

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

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.

International Bridges and Tunnels Act

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member recognizes that it took a member of the Conservative government to worry about the environment and ensure nothing would be done without an environmental assessment. This speaks volumes about this Conservative government and its interest in the environment.

I wonder if the member could answer a question about environmental legislation. In my speech I referred to environmental legislation that we already have that requires consultation in relation to what the member is asking for. Quite frankly, what he is asking for is beyond the scope of the bill.

The member mentioned that the municipalities know better the security threat that would involve their particular area. The head of CSIS commented that the only way to stop terrorism in Canada, which we have seen recently, was through the intelligence organizations of the federal government such as CSIS. These organizations have indicated that they need more money in order to be effective in this way.

Let us take a practical example. The minister finds out through CSIS that there is a threat to a bridge, to a tunnel or to some sort of international crossing. The member is suggesting that the minister would need to go on a consultation tour around that area and consult with probably five cities and five different councils which have different priorities, five to ten different school boards, at least one or two provinces and one or two states, and other levels of government that we have not even talked about here. We are talking about a terrorist threat to a bridge or a tunnel that could take up to one or two years of consultation. The member is suggesting that consultation should be required in cases involving the security and safety of Canadians crossing an international border.

I wonder how the member's constituents would feel about that many levels of bureaucracy and taking a year to solve a terrorist threat.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised and shocked by the parliamentary secretary's question because I accepted, in good faith, an amendment proposed by the government which would allow security provisions for the minister.

It is important to note that right now the government relies on the Windsor police force to show up at the Ambassador Bridge plaza as well as the tunnel plaza to do the work because there are no federal people to stop the security risks which are happening on a regular basis. The government also relies on municipal first responders to take care of any problems at the borders, such as a fire, a safety issue or other type of issue. No overall plan was proposed by the previous government and none has been proposed by the Conservative government. The government must rely on these people to protect the citizens there. My constituents trust the people in their communities who serve them on a regular basis and do so on good faith.

All we are asking for is some consultation. Fearmongering about this consultation is not proper. I am talking specifically about my area but security risks happen in other areas. There are only 24 regions to begin with and 22 of them already have various levels of government involved in their operations. The ones that do not have government involvement will require some consultation. It can happen properly and efficiently. It has been a problem in the past but we can solve it now with this bill. The people in my community do trust that their city councillors, their school board trustees and other responders will at least have a voice at the table.

The bill calls for the minister to use his best discretion in a national security crisis situation. We would never hold that up. We understand there could be times when that could happen and we support that part of the bill, which is why we accepted the friendly amendment that was put forward for the minister to have some discretion. What we are looking for is a planning process that starts with the regular flow of trade and services that are not under a national security threat.

Officials for the Ambassador Bridge hire a municipal police contingent to oversee some of its security. They are already part of that security.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the commitment my colleague has to this issue. For the number of years that I have known him he has been a tireless champion of the free movement of goods and services across international borders for trade purposes with special attention to national security issues. No one has been more outspoken on this issue. It is fitting then that when someone with his background and expertise blows the whistle on legislation that may be faulty or have shortcomings we should take note.

We as Parliament should be seized of this issue. I am satisfied, given the arguments that I have heard, that this amendment is justified and that the bill should be sent back to committee for the specific purposes of reconsidering at least clauses 7 and 24 which deal specifically with the duty to consult.

No one denies that Bill C-3 was necessary to complete the work that began as Bill C-44 in the previous Parliament to finally put some regulatory regime to the development of new or the expansion and rehabilitation of existing bridges and tunnels which cross international borders. We welcome this. It is overdue.

However, in our haste we should not ignore the basic principle of natural justice, which is the duty to consult. More learned people than I have pointed out that consultation has legal meaning. It means more than simply telling Canadians what we intend to do to them. It means inviting their views and accommodating some of those views when those views have merit.

We have all seen sham consultations where the touring task force blows into town, rents the local town hall and, with a very fancy power point presentation, announces what the government intends to do to people with their tax dollars. Objections are raised at all the microphones as to why this should be done differently and the bureaucrats pack up their books and their power point presentations and go off to the next town. At the end of the process we read in the newspapers that consultation took place in 33 Canadians communities and therefore they are ramming ahead with the legislation. That is not consultation.

My colleague for Skeena—Bulkley Valley just said, “Just ask first nations about the federal government”. I am not critical so much of the current federal government because it has not been in government long enough, but the past record of federal governments in this country in their dealings with first nations have made an appalling travesty of any semblance of true consultation.

My colleague from Windsor West was talking about consultation. He rose today on an issue of principle. He is not arguing about the merits of the bill so much as with the shortcoming in the bill that he cannot live with. I cannot live with it either based on his recommendation.

If the bill is all about the free movement of goods and services, expanding, accommodating and facilitating trade, it should have no barriers in the way of consultation. I cannot imagine the government allowing such an important issue to be tripped up by the denial of such a basic and fundamental right; the right to consult, the duty to consult and the duty to accommodate in the context of what one has heard.

I do not accept the fearmongering that we heard from the parliamentary secretary, that the duty to consult is so onerous, as contemplated by my colleague's amendment, that it would grind the process to a halt even in the event of national security. He said that in the event of a terrorist threat if the minister were duty bound to consult everybody and their grandmother, the terrorists would be running roughshod over us. That is nonsense.

There are other security measures in Canada where the ministers have broad sweeping powers to take what actions are necessary in the interest of national security. That kind of fearmongering trivializes an important debate and it does not do any of us a service to deviate from the issues of the day with that kind of thing.

I thought that the duty to consult all levels of government or interested parties was the norm in any situation like that. I was surprised by the parliamentary secretary's vehement reaction to that idea. Let us look at the language being proposed here. It would be helpful if we all started from the same base level of information in the debate.

What is being proposed is that, “before recommending that a regulation be made...the minister shall consult with the other levels of government that have jurisdiction over any place where an international bridge or tunnel is situated...”. That is not too onerous. That is just common sense. It continues with, “...and with any person who, in the opinion of a minister, has a direct interest in the matter...”.

What if private property is involved? What if a school or a school board needs to be consulted? With the tools and the bureaucracies at the minister's disposal, surely this level of consultation would not grind things to a halt.

We are not talking about the chamber of commerce. The minister used the example that, for heaven's sake, we will have to consult with everybody and their grandmother and that levels of government could mean chambers of commerce. Chambers of commerce are not governments. They are organizations that are part of civil society. The way this is phrased, “...if, in the opinion of the minister, that individual has a direct interest in the matter...”, the minister may decide that he does not have to consult with the chamber of commerce.

Let us be realistic and honest in our debate. What we are talking about, I think, is a basic fundamental principle and the amendment, to which I am trying to limit my remarks, addresses a concern that I certainly share.

When I was the aboriginal affairs critic for the NDP, I remember when we went through a contentious piece of legislation that would have affected the lives of aboriginal people, first nations. At that time, during our research and demanding that true consultation take place, I looked at some of the Supreme Court rulings that made reference to consultation. That was where I learned that the duty to consult meant far more than just engaging in a dialogue. The duty to consult includes some reasonable accommodation. If the other party makes a valid point and there is no compelling reason to ignore that point, then we are duty bound to accommodate that point if we want to claim there was consultation.

Consultation is often one of the stepping stones to infringing on a person's rights. There are times when it is justified to infringe on a person's rights, whether they are human rights, property rights, et cetera, but the courts have held that in such a situation there are two things that must take place in order to justify infringement of a person's rights, and the first aspect of that is the duty to consult in a thorough and comprehensive manner.

I enjoyed listening to the speech from my colleague from Windsor West because he kept bringing us back to the key salient point of what we are debating on two levels. First, he reminded us that we had an obligation to be thorough, complete and to make good laws. Each day in the House of Commons we begin the day with a prayer that reminds members of Parliament how duty bound we are to take every step possible to make good laws.

In the profound and well-defined conscience of my colleague from Windsor West, we would not be making good laws if we passed into law Bill C-3 without clarification on this duty to consult, without the natural justice associated with the obligation of the minister to consult.

He also reminded us of another worrisome trend. This is a theme, almost a motif that threaded its way throughout the entire Liberal regime of 13 years, that almost every piece of legislation that I have had to deal with since I have been a member of Parliament, most of them introduced by the Liberal government, expanded the discretionary powers of the minister and undermined the powers of Parliament to have the final say and, in this case, the powers of various levels of government.

My colleague from Windsor West has drawn our attention to this in the bill. Again, without this duty to consult being folded in and factored into the bill, the discretionary authority of the minister is enhanced once again, where ultimately it will be the minister who will decide what, when, where and how much to do with any new bridge or tunnel on an international crossing, and there are 24 such sites, or even the expansion, renovation or development of an existing crossing.

That should be worrisome. That is a trend that undermines the authority of Parliament. It gives too much power to the executive and not enough power where it should properly reside, which is with us the elected legislators and the legitimately elected representatives of other levels of government.

I am very surprised that the Bloc did not find fault with this. My colleagues from the Bloc Québécois are usually the first to remind us when a minister oversteps jurisdiction. I have heard a great deal of hue and cry from my colleagues from the Bloc when the federal government puts in place legislation that even hints at the fact it may be able to exercise control over another jurisdiction, in their case a provincial jurisdiction, without even the duty to consult. Surely that offends the sensibilities of my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois. It certainly offends mine.

There are bogus arguments abounding throughout this debate. I do not understand the resistance and reluctance on the part of opposition parties to insist that the bill be the best it can be. I found the official opposition members' arguments so vague and nebulous that they have almost no opinion. They do not have any opinion on Bill C-2, the most earth shattering and life changing piece of legislation in this Parliament surely. They have no opinion on that. They have no opinion on Bill C-3. They do not want to take part in pressing the Minister of the Environment to be a better minister of the environment. I do not know what they are doing to earn their keep lately, but they have an obligation to get involved in the debate as the official opposition. They seem to be willing to leave being the official opposition to the NDP. We do not mind assuming that role, but we would expect a little support from time to time on some of these pressing issues.

I will not dwell on that because I feel strongly about this issue. I have been invigorated and inspired by the speech given by my colleague from Windsor West and his dedication to the issue. He reminded us of the critical importance of international crossings. Until today I was not aware that there are 24 such crossing points.

The one we have heard most about is the Ambassador Bridge going from Windsor to Detroit. A lot of Canadians would probably be surprised to learn that the bridge is privately owned. Given that 40% of Canada's trade with the United States crosses at that very juncture, that the Province of Ontario would be the United States' fourth largest trading partner were it a nation, from a national security and public policy point of view or virtually any way we consider this, it is surprising that the bridge is a privately owned enterprise. We would think the jurisdiction and control and the expansion of it would be of such public importance that we would want it to be a public enterprise. It gets to be a matter of Canadian sovereignty, as my colleague pointed out.

We test the merits of an argument by challenging the argument. We can test the mettle of a piece of legislation by whether it can survive intelligent debate in the House of Commons. All I have heard so far is boosterism for a bill that has a serious, fundamental flaw and has had very little critical analysis. There has been lots of analysis of some of the merits of the bill, with which we do not disagree. There has been lots of analysis of the need for the bill, with which we do not disagree, but no one seems willing to get into an exchange with us, or with my colleague from Windsor West who moved the motions anyway, about the idea of consultation.

Where is the debate in this place? We would think there would be an appetite to have a real exchange on such a fundamental principle as the duty to consult. It is something upon which the Supreme Court has commented on many occasions. I feel duty bound to incorporate those principles into virtually all pieces of legislation that come through here.

There should be a screen through which all pieces of legislation should be viewed, to make sure they pass basic tests of ethics, of fairness, of accommodating basic principles that we as Canadians stipulate ourselves to. We want to be operating at the highest possible standards of ethical practices, of principles of fairness and equity with a duty to consult.

Let us think this through. Taxpayers' dollars can be used to change their atmosphere and environment without an opportunity to have meaningful input as to how that takes place. It is almost taxation without representation. Revolutions have been fought on basic issues like this. Canadians have a right to participate in the way that our tax dollars are being spent, up to and including a bridge being built in their backyard or expanding an existing bridge that is in their backyard.

It is one of those basic things that I would demand as a citizen, the right to full participation. Any government that did not want to listen to my views is not worthy of being my government. That is the way I would view it and I would certainly deal with that at the ballot box the next time around.

Bill C-3 is a component of Bill C-44 which, if we remember from the 38th Parliament, was an omnibus bill that died on the order paper. It was an ambitious omnibus bill that was set out to modernize the entire Canada transportation system really, with a Railway Safety Act and a new Via Rail Canada Act. What we are seeing with Bill C-3 is a hiving off of a section of a complex bill that died because of a lack of support from the rail line companies. It got complex.

The Conservatives opposed Bill C-44. All of these elements of Bill C-3 and others would be in effect today were it not for the Conservatives blocking the previous omnibus bill because they felt that Via Rail should be privatized and not accommodated with its own act. They opposed some of the changes in regard to monopolies and the selling off of rail lines and railcars, et cetera.

When we got Bill C-3 back, it was the most necessary, the most time sensitive component of a much larger and, I would argue, an equally necessary review of the entire Canada transportation strategy. That strategy, we should point out, is incomplete if we do not recognize the east-west dynamic as well as the north-south. I live in Winnipeg where the Red River corridor is a north-south corridor for trade, for the movement of goods and services that we value very much, but we should not value it at the expense of the necessary trade and transportation links, both east and west.

A country that is as geographically challenged as Canada must be seized of the issue of transportation. We would not have opened up the west without that commitment and without enabling the prairie farmers to move their grain with some accommodation by the federal government.

When we heard the member for Windsor West argue passionately for the details of how this affects his riding, I hope Canadians understood the motivation of my colleague. Some of the things he was explaining about the Ambassador Bridge cry out for involvement of other levels of government, of the level of government closest to the people affected.

We do not want to impose change from Ottawa. It fuels resentment of Ottawa when change comes from above without the participation of that local level of government. No one knows the facts on the ground better than the good people who are elected to represent people at the municipal and provincial levels in that area.

There are such complicating circumstances associated with the Ambassador Bridge, with 10,000 trucks per day lined up, idling, belching pollutants all over the school grounds, et cetera. How can we say that we would not consult with the local school board, or bypass that level of government, when some of the very air quality problems that are created by the inadequate Ambassador Bridge affect school children? How can we be so callous as to ignore those legitimately elected representatives?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's wide ranging remarks on consultation. I would like to ask a couple of pointed questions.

He and his colleague are asserting in the motion that there needs to be a reference back to the standing committee to reconsider clauses 7 and 24. First of all, could the member tell the House what is the state of consultation requirements today with respect to anything that the bill addresses? If he does not actually know what the state of consultation is today, how can he assert that it is deficient?

The second question I put to the member concerns his definition of consultation, which is an interesting one. I have not seen it ever reflected in a judicial opinion. I have not seen it in conducting consultation in over 40 national consultation processes in the last decade before I entered elected office.

The member talks about consultation and almost implies that consultation means a seat at the table, and not only a seat at the table but the party being compelled to attend, or that there has to be a manifestation of the views of that party that is going to be consulted in the outcome.

Consultation has always meant consulting. It does not mean necessarily that the parties being consulted are going to get their way. It does not mean that they are going to have to see their views ultimately reflected in the outcome. From whence does he derive his definition of consultation?

He has asserted here twice now that the previous government undermined the powers of Parliament. He has asserted that we expanded the discretionary powers for ministers over 13 years. Asserting something does not make it so. Where is the evidence for either of those claims?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the member for Ottawa South was listening to my remarks and I appreciate that.

I should begin by saying that no one is calling for the right to veto. We are calling for the duty of consultation. There is a separation.

I think he will find a good definition of consultation in Supreme Court rulings in Delgamuukw, Sparrow, and a number of other aboriginal issues, and I think Haida had the consummate definition of consultation as being accepted, as growing and evolving. Through jurisprudence we are finding a greater need to give better definition to the term “consultation”. In successive Supreme Court rulings is how these things evolve and mature and so does our understanding of the term “consultation” mature. I doubt that our definition of consultation will ever grow to the point where there will be a right to veto included in the duty of consultation.

I hope that helps to clarify the matter for my colleague.

As far as the worrisome trend I find with expanding the discretionary powers of the minister at the expense of Parliament, expanding the arbitrary powers of the executive at the expense of the elected body, I do not think anyone can deny this is a worrisome trend that has been identified by academics for the last 20 years, but most profoundly in the last 10.

I put the challenge back to my colleague. Show me a piece of legislation that did not have some clause at least in its original draft that did not expand the power, the authority of the minister at the expense of the legislative arena. That was the pattern. Often we interrupted that. Often we were able to nip that in the bud, but previous Liberal governments came back and tried again and again with virtually every piece of legislation that I have been associated with in my nine years in the House of Commons.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colIeague's comments on the amendment and the bill are very important. I think the whole issue of consultation merits some digging in of heels. It is a serious deficiency in the legislation. We have a piece of consultation, but we have not walked the full distance on this issue.

I think my colleague is right to talk about the sham consultation. It is something we have seen in the past when there was not a serious intent to consult with people directly affected. It seems ironic to hear this talk from a government that talks about grassroots democracy so much. It talks about wanting to hear from Canadians about the issues of the day, about wanting the input of Canadians on the issues of the day, yet when it comes to actually setting up the mechanisms to do that in important areas such as international bridges, it is unwilling to entertain the actual amendments that would do this important work.

In my own constituency, although we do not have an international bridge, we are faced with a highway construction project, the gateway project to improve trade with the Far East, the Pacific Rim. We have heard about the supposed need to expand a major bridge across the Fraser River and the major Highway 1 that goes through my constituency.

We have seen a consultation process that people in my constituency have a terrible problem with. We have attended open houses that display the intent of the project. There are great, shiny, glorious posters and fancy pamphlets, but the actual meaningful consultation was almost non-existent. We have seen group consultations with special invited guests. How do we get on the list? Nobody seems to know.

There are serious deficiencies with that kind of consultation, so this issue is very important to people in Burnaby—Douglas even though Bill C-3 does not necessarily affect us directly. I would ask my colleague from Winnipeg if he could expand on that, especially when he says that often the excuse is made that consultation is just too onerous a process, that it will put off important decisions, and that it puts off important decisions around our trading arrangements. Why is it that trade always seems to trump the needs of our neighbourhoods and our citizens and ultimately sometimes even human rights in this country and around the world?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague does point out a worrisome trend, which is that even grassroots parties, or parties that seem to feature themselves as grassroots parties to get elected, often seem willing to trample on that very concept of consulting with the grassroots at their first opportunity once they assume power.

It is only months into a new government and we are having this argument about whether the government should or should not consult with lesser governments before it imposes some kind of massive development in their backyards. I think that consultation would be in keeping with exactly the principles that the government espoused and under which it was elected.

I think it is one thing that we share, in fact, with the roots of that party. The NDP has always prided itself on being a grassroots organization too. I would like to believe that when we form the first NDP federal government we will be more true to our commitments to consult with the grassroots and to maintain that link with the grassroots. There is something about power.

This may be my last opportunity to speak in the House of Commons in this session of this Parliament and, in these final moments, I would acknowledge how civil this debate is today. Of all the people that I have heard on this issue, the former leader of the NDP, Ed Broadbent, at the end of the last Parliament, implored parliamentarians to try to elevate the standard of civil debate in the House of Commons. I think it is starting to take. I believe that we can win our arguments based on merit, not on who can shout the loudest. Most of us here today agree, I believe, that sometimes we are embarrassed with the antics.

Whether this argument comes down in our favour or not, I have had the opportunity to express my views without being heckled or ridiculed or catcalled. It is a refreshing change. I find it is so much comfortable. If a member's idea cannot survive free and open debate, then perhaps the idea did not have that much merit, but we should not try to win it on the basis of shouting down the other person. I think there is a lesson in that for all of us.

I want to close by saying that the amendment put forward by my colleague for Windsor West was put forward in the spirit of trying to make this the best bill it could possibly be. There is no mischief. There is no political motivation. I hope it is received in that same vein.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House today to add a few comments on this important debate about an issue that has been championed so energetically, so well and so intelligently by the member for Windsor West. I know of the passion he has for this, his understanding of the issue and the commitment he has made, and I am impressed.

The first question that people watching this might be asking is this one: what is the big deal?

Why is it that we are driving this piece of work here this morning? This is a rather important bill before the House that is going to change the way we manage and govern some very important pieces of infrastructure involving our connectedness with our neighbours to the south. Why are we focused on this little piece at the end of the day, which in some people's minds may not make such a big difference? I have to say that in fact it does make a big difference and it really is important.

As we look at the way our economy is evolving today and the need for us to be connected in some very real and meaningful ways to the world, to the global economy, and most particularly to our neighbours to the south, we begin to understand how important the minutia, the details, are when we discuss and are involved in making plans about and determining the nature of our connectedness with the United States of America. Our bridges and tunnels are ways of getting back and forth across the border. They are really very important and are actually the key to any economic success we will have going forward.

This is actually a chance for us. I thank the government for bringing this bill forward. This needed to be done. We needed to look at the way we manage our bridges and tunnels. Until now, it has been complicated and a bit of a patchwork. Some tunnels and bridges are owned by the private sector. Some have commissions that are locally based. Some are governed by the federal government. There is no real consistency and no real thought-out pattern involved in the way the bridges and tunnels have been managed.

They are too important for us not to be doing this. The bridges and tunnels are too important for us not to be asking the important questions that the member for Windsor West has been asking in committee and in the House since this bill was tabled a few months ago. He and his cohort, his partner from Windsor, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, have been unrelenting in their pursuit of this piece of important interaction for the federal government as it decides what these bridges and tunnels will look like, whether they will expand or not, whether they will be repaired or not, and how it will deal with and respond to some of the very real issues that come up time and time again in communities where bridges, tunnels and ferries exist.

These issues do come up. The level of traffic back and forth between Canada and the United States over the last 20 or so years has risen exponentially. It has caused some of the problems that we are experiencing today, which is actually why we in the House are debating this bill. We in the New Democratic Party caucus are insisting that when decisions are made going forward, flowing out of this bill concerning these important pieces of infrastructure, municipal and local governments be consulted, because everything that happens in relation to bridges has a serious impact on the communities.

To give an example of how important the issue of the border crossings is, in the last Parliament and again in this one, an all party caucus of Parliament was formed. Members of every party and every caucus in this place gather on a regular basis to talk about the issues, to consult with each other, to hear from each other, and to be helpful to each other in how we give advice not only to our government but to the American government on how we manage, take care of and run our bridges and tunnels, the means of getting back and forth between the two countries. We bring in guest speakers. In the last Parliament, we had Ambassador Cellucci come and talk to us about the issue of security at the bridges and the tunnels.

Security is a very important issue. Again, this is why it is important that the federal government take on this responsibility. It is also, I think, why it is very important that the government consult with the local communities. Where issues of security are concerned, there has to be cooperation among the federal, provincial and local authorities if we are going to be effective in dealing with challenges that might present themselves at those institutions.

It is actually rather telling that a large number of members of Parliament gathered here over a year ago to meet, to talk with and to hear from Ambassador Cellucci in terms of some of his perceptions and understandings, and to share with him what ours were and get a good dialogue going. Significant numbers of members of Parliament now have actually travelled to Washington to be in consultation with some of the officials in the United States, and again, to talk about the border, how we manage this border that is common both to us, and how we put in place facilities and structures that will be most convenient for everybody concerned.

Again, we have to start, I believe, and this is what the member for Windsor West is saying every time he gets up on his feet in this place to talk to us, challenge us, inform and enlighten us and educate us about this issue. He is saying that we cannot do this effectively, that we cannot hope to be successful in the initiatives we take on, the investments we make and the developments we work with, if we are not talking directly with local government, if we do not have some method or way of getting input and consulting with local government.

As the member said so eloquently this morning in his comments, it is at the local level that we know best. We are closest to the action at the local level. Local politicians live, eat and breathe these issues on a daily basis. They watch the trucks go over. They watch the long lineups. They see the impact it has on local neighbourhoods as those trucks go through and as they stop to get serviced or whatever. The local level needs to be consulted.

I just have to look at my own community of Sault Ste. Marie, where we have a very important bridge that connects Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario with Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. It has become, in many ways, a central piece in the further economic development of not only our city but our whole region. What happens to that bridge is critical. The expansion of that bridge, hopefully, the development of the infrastructure at both ends of the bridge where we deal with people coming and going, and the mall that needs to be put up so we can increase commerce with that piece of infrastructure, this is all critical. It is a really important part of the economic development planned strategy that we have going forward in Sault Ste. Marie.

We have begun to think about, work on and make significant investments as a local community in the possibility of a multi-modal transportation hub in Sault Ste. Marie. If members look at Sault Ste. Marie on the map they will see that it is dead centre in the middle of Canada. Not only that, if we expand the map further, it is dead centre in the middle of North America.

[An hon. member]

Come on.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Yes, it is. The member for Winnipeg Centre probably thinks Winnipeg is, but I would argue with him that in fact if he looks at the map more carefully and takes the bigger view that is there, he will see that Sault Ste. Marie actually is at the centre of North America. It is a very important hub and we are trying to take advantage of that.

In the context of today's discussion on this government bill to have the federal government manage those pieces of infrastructure, it is absolutely essential that it be in conversation on a regular basis with the local authorities. It must be in regular conversation with those people who on a daily basis are putting together plans, developing thoughts and ideas, working with other levels of government such as the provincial government and other municipalities in order to take full advantage of the strategic location in Sault Ste. Marie.

We are at the hub of the Great Lakes. Sault Ste. Marie connects Lake Superior with Lake Huron with Lake Michigan, three of the biggest Great Lakes. The bridge is the one piece of infrastructure that links them in a meaningful way and allows traffic to go back and forth between our two countries and those three Great Lakes.

The federal government is mistaken if it thinks for a second that it can unilaterally in all of its splendour and position of authority make decisions about that bridge without consulting the people of Sault Ste. Marie. The people of Sault Ste. Marie see themselves as an important part of this country and they send their member of Parliament here to speak on their behalf. If the government thinks it can go ahead and make decisions about that piece of infrastructure without consulting those folks, it is wrong.

I am hoping that with this debate today, with the back and forth and the very respectful nature of that discussion, the government might come to its senses. There is time. We still have a significant bit of time this afternoon before we get to question period. I am hoping the government will sit down with the member for Windsor West, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and others from every party in the House who are involved in this really important discussion. I am hoping for a satisfactory agreement that we who speak on behalf of the people we represent at the local level will be engaged in a meaningful way in any decisions that are made.

When I was the member for Sault Ste. Marie in the provincial parliament I had the privilege to take part in organizing a trade delegation from our area to Ireland and Finland. We were selling the opportunity to come to Sault Ste. Marie, make investments, set up shop, bring what they do or the product they produce to our part of North America and from there to transport it easily across the border into the midwest United States of America where there is a market of millions and millions of people.

In discussions with those people they asked how they would get their goods or services from Sault Ste. Marie into that very lucrative and exciting market. I would mention almost immediately the bridge, knowing in the back of mind that the bridge needs work, particularly if we are going to take advantage of the potential that is there. If we are going to become a multimodal hub to attract investment from Europe into Canada, into our region of northern Ontario so that from there people can sell into the midwest United States, we need to focus, invest and work very hard to develop the potential for traffic to move more quickly across that bridge than it is moving now. The bridge needs to be expanded. It needs more resources in order to build up the facilities. It needs more personnel.

The government needs to be in consultation with the city of Sault Ste. Marie and its economic development arm and to be willing to partner. There is nothing we do in any community in Canada where economic development is concerned where partnership is not required. The community invests the money it gets from its own citizens. With that it tries to lever money from the provincial government. Then it goes to the federal government and says there is money in the pot from the municipal sector, from the provincial sector and the private sector has an interest because the private sector sees it as possibly enhancing its opportunities.

Communities ask the federal government for some investment and in turn the federal government rightly asks what the project is. The project my community is focused on is that transportation hub and how we get our products into the market south of the border. My community is focused on the bridge.

I have written letters to the Minister of Transport both in the last Parliament and during this Parliament to share some of the wonderful opportunities that exist in Sault Ste. Marie. I have told the minister of some of the challenges we are facing if we want to make this happen. I have suggested that the government needs to be generous. It needs to be willing to come to the table and be a partner. It needs to see the potential.

In the context of this bill and the request that is being made by the member for Windsor West, there needs to be consultation. We want the federal government to be involved directly and intimately in running, managing and taking care of the bridge that connects Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario with Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.

We have a role to play. We have things to say. We have thoughts and ideas that are important and valuable. If the government works with us and the partners we have already brought to the table, we could make investments that would produce positive and exciting results. The government needs to contribute in a more generous way to the further economic development of our area.

A cookie cutter approach does not work. It does not work for any level of government to take something off the shelf and apply it to another circumstance. It does not always fit. Trying to fit a square peg into a round hole does not work. We have to be thoughtful, intelligent and understanding of the contributions people bring to the table and in this instance, the contribution that people from local jurisdictions brought to the table.

This debate is important and valuable. I asked what was the big deal; after a fairly lengthy committee process and time in the House, I wondered why the member for Windsor West was insisting that the amendment be made. I have said over the last 20 minutes that the amendment is needed because we have to understand the valuable contributions people at the local level make to further develop these pieces of infrastructure. This is not only about traffic or security measures. It is about the future of our communities. It is about the future of our regions. It is about the future of our country.

In the last hours before we break for the summer and we go back to work in our communities with our constituents, I would ask that the government in its wisdom see a way to adopt the amendment put forward by the member for Windsor West. In the spirit of good relations in the House this morning, I ask that the government sit down with him and find a way to honour the deep commitment and passion and sense of importance that he brings to this discussion and move this amendment forward so we can pass this bill today.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, unlike my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie, I cannot claim that my riding of Victoria is the centre of North America, as the city sits right on the Pacific Ocean. However, I do appreciate the wisdom of the amendment to require that the federal government consult with local government. As Victoria is a port of entry for many ships, I have seen the increased requirements for security and the costs that those involve.

I am wondering if my colleague would explain to us how he sees the consultation will improve the situation that municipalities, local governments and cities are facing with respect to some of these issues.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a central consideration to this amendment.

In my community's instance, there is an authority that oversees our bridge. Some very active and effective organizations in the community are looking at the further development of our city and its economic future. If there were in place a regular opportunity to sit down and talk with the federal government, we could bring lots of things to the table that would lend to further developments and improvements for the bridge in our city.

If we are going to become a multimodal hub, if we are going to realize some of the potential given our geographic location at the centre of North America, then we need to be in consultation with the level of government that manages and controls the central piece of infrastructure, the bridge. We need to be talking to that level of government about the kinds of investments that need to be made not only in the bridge but in all of the infrastructure that leads up to and away from the bridge.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know how crucial this issue is to the member's community of Sault Ste. Marie.

I wonder if my colleague might comment on the fact that the bill right now includes consultation for operation of international bridges and tunnels, but it does not include consultation for the sale or resale, the construction or alterations to those important pieces of infrastructure. Those can have an important effect on the communities where these bridges and tunnels are located. They can have a really crucial effect on the development of those communities, on the livelihoods of the people who live there, on the quality of life for people who live near these important structures.

I wonder if he could comment on why he would think there would be any opposition to ensuring that consultation was in place when sale or resale, construction or alteration was involved with our international bridges and tunnels.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, particularly given that we have a mish-mash of ownership across the country right now and control of bridges of tunnels.

Bridges can be sold and bought in a way that does not take into account the impact that it will have on the local community and the local area, so those kinds of considerations are certainly crucial.

I am lucky in my own community. We have an authority. We have a publicly owned and managed facility. That authority does excellent work in maintaining and managing the bridge, but it needs the help of the federal government. It needs to be in consultation on a regular basis with the federal government in partnership with the community to see what else needs to be done and to talk about the future of the bridge.

We hope we will see that for all of our bridges as we go forward because they are such important pieces of infrastructure. Considering some of the issues and concerns we have today around terrorism, we hope that more and more of those bridges will be bought up, owned and controlled by the federal government.

We will have a vehicle out of the bill that is being passed here today to actually have the federal government, which then owns those facilities, to be in consultation regularly with the local community as we consider how we move forward, make further investments, and develop those important pieces of infrastructure.