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

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

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

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

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

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

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

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those are issues I am aware of in the north.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has been a great opportunity to speak here today.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

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

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

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

The House resumed from April 28 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 second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

When the matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Western Arctic had the floor and there remained seven minutes in the time allotted for his remarks. Accordingly, the hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today, on May Day, to have the opportunity to speak in this House on a day that is so significant to working people around the world. I certainly want to make that point.

With regard to Bill C-3, I really do not have too much to carry on with. I would like to re-emphasize the point I was making on Friday in regard to rail transport and the need to ensure that the investments we are making in infrastructure are the correct ones for the future. When this government proposes to legislate and control the development and repair of infrastructure and the direction we take with international trade across our borders, and when we look at the qualities for the future that rail transport offers to freight in terms of the environment, security, the movement of goods across the border, and the ability to provide a clean, effective system that is less intrusive on the communities it will travel through, I think we need to look very closely at rail transport and its future in this country.

When we come to making decisions about upgrading or installing new bridges, which would be designed for improving truck transport and vehicle transport across the border, I would put my order in for the provision of greater opportunities for rail transport in this country. That is the one issue I wanted to highlight here today. I have no further comments. I now will leave this for questions.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Are there questions and comments in this question period of 10 minutes? There being no members standing, I recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, resuming debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I pleased to stand today in support of Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act. This is a very important bill. I think the very fact that it has not been brought into effect until this time, especially after 9/11, speaks volumes to the negligence of the previous government.

It fills a long-standing gap in our legislation and finally gives Canadians the ability to protect critical infrastructure, to protect our international bridges and our tunnels. What could be more important than protecting our citizens, the safety of our citizens, the safety of Canadians, the safety of our economy through trade, to protect our friends and relatives traveling to work, live and play every day?

This bill will create Canadian jobs. It will grow Canada's economy and strengthen our international relationships, especially and of course those with the United States. Most important, as I said, this bill will safeguard Canadians and Canadian interests.

Canada's border with the United States is some 6,400 kilometres of land and water. It is the longest undefended and unguarded border in the world. Unfortunately, this border is only as secure as its most unsafe and weakest part. There are 24 vehicle bridges and tunnels, 5 railroad bridges and tunnels and also 130 border crossings. All of these are very difficult to protect.

Over $1.9 billion worth of goods is transported across the border each and every day. This means that 11 million trucks cross the border every year. That means 30,000 trucks a day or one truck every three seconds. In fact, since I stood up, over 100 trucks and $5 million in products have crossed the border. It is incredible.

In fact, the four busiest international bridges alone handle over 50% of this volume. This represents 33% of all of Canada's trade with the United States. These are very important crossings, and we need to protect them not only for the safety of citizens but for our trade. Let us face it, before September 11, 2001, we took these bridges and tunnels for granted. They are both publicly and privately owned, and no one really expected security on this border to be such a critical issue, especially in catching people, and also critical to our economy. Now we understand how critical these bridges and tunnels are to our economy. We need to protect those assets. We need to keep traffic flowing, as it is so vital to our economy.

As government and as members of Parliament, we have an obligation to ensure that our citizens and those assets are protected. This legislation will indeed protect them. It will go toward ensuring that we have an interrupted flow of goods and people across the border. It will ensure that the manner in which these bridges and tunnels are managed and maintained keeps security and safety as job number one for the government. Finally, as I have said, it will protect our national interests on an ongoing basis.

After 9/11 we recognized the need to conduct threat and risk assessments and to improve the overall security of our perimeter all over the country. After 9/11, Transport Canada launched a process in cooperation with the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association. Their study proved that we need to conduct security reviews and threat and risk assessments for all of our international crossings. The results and recommendations of this study include everything from specific engineering analysis to general operational security analysis.

One of the reasons this legislation is so important is that currently each bridge is owned, operated and managed differently. Some are privately owned. Some are federally controlled. Indeed, some are controlled by provinces and states jointly or by each independently. All of these parties currently have different regulations, rules and standards and, quite frankly, different expectations of what they want out of the bridge or international tunnel. This legislation will create one standard for all bridge and tunnel crossings, a standard that is in the best interests of Canadians and guarantees the safety of Canadians on an ongoing basis.

Job number one for the government is to keep Canadians safe. Canada does and always has had constitutional authority over international bridges and tunnels, surprising as it may be. We may ask why this particular legislation has taken so long to come in, especially after 9/11. It is shocking that nothing has been done but under the vision of the Prime Minister and the Conservative government, this is one of the first pieces of legislation that we have put forward because of its importance to Canadians. What could be more important to Canada than our safety and our economy?

The legislation would work toward the security, the safety and the economy of all of our border crossings. Even U.S. agencies have identified these crossings as potential targets for terrorists. They have even identified them as choke points. They have said that the terrorists' objectives could decimate these crossings and our economy and our safety.

The bill would give the governor in council the authority to make regulations for the safety and the security of international bridges and tunnels. For example, this may include setting the minimum security standards for bridge and tunnel operators. It may include provisions to prepare and submit regular threat assessments and vulnerability assessments for particular bridges or for all of them. It may include the development and implementation of an emergency response. We do not even have an emergency response system set up to know what we will do in cases of dire emergencies in this country for international crossings.

The very lack of this legislation currently being alive in this country was a glaring and obvious gap. I cannot believe that for five years, since 9/11, the previous Liberal government could not find the initiative and motive to protect Canadians and to push this legislation through. It is a priority and we will work toward getting this through with the other parties. The safety and security of Canadians is a real priority. We know the Prime Minister and the government will work with the United States and Mexico to set up systems to protect our critical transportation infrastructure, which is so important for us as a trading nation.

The government will be working on a transportation security action plan. The government will get expert analyses from governments, industry and international partners on how to keep Canadians safe. As I said, that is the government's number one priority and we will work toward that.

The bill is a first step only. It would give the federal government the ability to keep our international bridges and tunnels secure. We believe that nothing could be more important than this bill and we are asking for all party support on getting the bill passed as quickly as possible. I fully support the bill and I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House today to join me in keeping Canadians safe and secure.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary and I have a little difficulty with his description of governments, namely the previous government. This has been a long work in process in terms of the difficulties with the tunnel and bridge legislation.

If the parliamentary secretary would ask for the unanimous consent of the House we could simply pass the bill at second reading and send it to committee. If the parliamentary secretary would do that I am sure we on this side of the House would concur to send the bill to committee immediately and pass it into law as soon as possible.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate at this time to answer the first comment made by my colleague across the floor which is that this was an initiative by the previous government. Initiatives are fine but the reality is that it had five years to implement the bill but nothing was done. The safety and security of Canadians is our number one priority but it was not the previous government's priority.

My understanding is that this proposal was actually put forward in two bills that the previous government could not pass and did not put it as a priority to pass. We, under the direction of the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party, have made it very much an initiative to get it done and that is what we will do.

We want to ensure we pass it at every stage and that we hear from parties on all sides of the House. We want to work cooperatively with the other parties and we want to hear from all parties. We will send it to committee to ensure this important legislation receives input from, not just our own party but all parts of Canada and all members of Parliament so that we get a good legislation and Canadians are protected.