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

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank my constituents for showing their faith in re-electing me as their member of Parliament. Your riding is very close to mine. The good people of Stormont--Dundas--South Glengarry chose to re-elect me to be their Conservative member of Parliament, and I cannot say how proud I am.

As I was driving to the Hill this morning, I heard the results a poll, which involved about 4,000 people, to assess how well the government of the day and the Prime Minister were doing after 100 days in office. It gave me a great amount of pride when the results showed that 92% of the respondents felt the Prime Minister was doing an incredibly good job and only 8% felt he was not. To get re-elected and to form a government that gets those kinds of results after 100 days, I can only thank the constituents of Stormont--Dundas--South Glengarry. They made the right choice in choosing a Conservative government and, hopefully, we will earn their respect and their loyalty.

Addressing Bill C-3, I add my support to the international bridges and tunnels act. It is obvious to me that this bill will fill a void that currently exists with respect to how the federal government can exercise its jurisdiction over international crossings.

The Seaway International Bridge, which is in my riding, is the most easterly of the 14 international bridge and tunnel crossings between Ontario and the United States. The closest border crossing is the Ogdensburg-Prescott bridge, which is located 70 kilometres to the west.

Spanning the St. Lawrence River from Cornwall to the Mohawk territory of Akwesasne, and on to Roosevelt, New York, the Seaway International Bridge is a series of two high-level structures and a connecting roadway that opened to traffic in 1962. I am very proud to tell the House that as a young student, I worked on the construction of this bridge for summer employment and I did have a little part in the construction of that wonderful structure.

The bridge has served us very well for 44 years. We have crossed that bridge many times, with Canadians going to the United States and to Akwesasne, the Akwesasne natives coming to Canada or the United States and the Americans visiting Canada. It has allowed us to build relationships. That is what bridges do, do they not? They build relationships between two diverse countries and two diverse cultures.

I am particularly proud to give a personal example of one of those relationships. I have the honour of being the chair of the Cornwall Canada Day committee. On July 1, when we celebrate Canada's birthday, we have a huge fireworks display. We cooperate with the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne to have the fireworks displayed on Cornwall Island so all residents of Cornwall can see the them over the water.

That does two things. It allows the residents of Akwesasne to enjoy the fireworks along with our American neighbours as well as the Canadians. We are celebrating Canada's birthday, and three cultures are involved in the celebration. It gives me great pride to be part of that process. That is a result of the relationship we have been able to build because of the Seaway International Bridge.

Over 2.5 million vehicles cross the bridge each year. A lot of it is truck traffic, making it one of the most important trade links between Canada and the United States. The Seaway International Bridge carries 49% of the total traffic across the St. Lawrence River between Ontario and New York, but only 18% of the truck traffic. The other two St. Lawrence River crossings, the Thousand Islands Bridge carries 67% while the Ogdensburg-Prescott Bridge only carries 14% of the trucks crossing the river.

The international bridge is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited, a federal crown corporation, listed in schedule III, part I of the Financial Administration Act. As a crown corporation subsidiary, it reports directly to Parliament via the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited. On an annual basis, we receive a summary of its corporate plan and its annual report. We therefore have the ability to review these documents and ensure ourselves that the bridge is safe, secure and operated in a manner to ensure the efficient flow of traffic and of trade.

In addition, the Treasury Board receives and approves the corporation's business plan. It is in the context of these approval mechanisms that the federal government can draw on its legal authority regarding the Seaway International Bridge. The situation is the same with the Blue Water Bridge, which is also a crown corporation.

The rest of our international bridges and tunnels are owned and operated in a variety of other manners, provincially owned and operated, municipally owned and operated or privately owned and operated like the Ambassador Bridge and the Fort Frances-International Falls bridge. The same level of transparency is not available at these crossings.

Bill C-3 would provide the federal government with much of the information we already get from the Seaway and Blue Water Bridges and from the non-crown corporation international bridges and tunnels. Bill C-3 would ensure that not only would we be kept current with respect to the safety and security conditions of these facilities, but also we would have the ability to intervene should a bridge or tunnel not adhere to current standards.

Speaking of safety, the House may be interested to know that the environmental assessment for the replacement of the north channel span of the Seaway International Bridge is nearing completion. This bridge span was constructed in 1959 and connects Cornwall and Cornwall Island. The bridge was constructed as a high-level crossing over the north channel of the St. Lawrence River and the old Cornwall canal to accommodate a plan for an all Canadian seaway that unfortunately was never built. On May 5, 2000, the Government of Canada announced that there was no longer a requirement to maintain an option for an all Canadian seaway.

The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority spends considerable amounts annually on bridge maintenance, and costs will increase significantly over the coming years. Considerable sums will have to be invested to replace the bridge deck and to repaint the structure.

Preliminary studies have indicated that the costs of replacing the deck and painting the structure will be higher than the cost of building a new, lower bridge.

Following the May 5, 2000, announcement, the option of replacing the high bridge, which is quite costly, with a lower bridge at less cost is more viable.

Over the years this bridge has experienced extensive and advancing deterioration of the concrete bridge deck and widespread deterioration of the structural steel coating. The bridge deck curb-to-curb distance does not meet the current standards and the current bridge railings are not likely to meet current crash test requirements and are deficient in height. For these reasons, the Seaway International Bridge Corporation has decided to build a new low-level bridge and tear down the existing high-level one. The residents of Cornwall, Akwesasne and New York State are anxiously anticipating the structure of the new low-level bridge.

The federal environmental assessment for this initiative was undertaken in full cooperation with our neighbours of Mohawk Council of Akwesasne and a harmonized environmental assessment report was produced. Since members of the Akwesasne community are the major users of the crossing and the bridge touches down on Akwesasne, it was imperative to take their concerns into consideration. The new bridge will significantly reduce trip times between Cornwall and Akwesasne and offer new opportunities for vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian movements and will potentially result in increased business on both Cornwall Island and in the city of Cornwall. We are looking forward to that enhanced economic activity.

Negotiations have been ongoing between the corporation, Transport Canada and the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne to arrive at a consensus on the design, the work schedule, contracting arrangements and other details to ensure a smooth atmosphere during and after construction.

I have spoken about the Seaway International Bridge which is located in my riding, but I would like to add a few comments on the Ogdensburg-Prescott bridge and the Thousand Islands Bridge, both of which are located close by in the riding of Leeds—Grenville.

The Ogdensburg-Prescott bridge is the only international bridge between Canada and the United States that is completely owned and operated by a U.S. public benefit corporation. All seven members of the board of directors are appointed by the governor of New York State. Ownership of the bridge will revert to the Canadian federal government and the State of New York when the construction debt has been paid off. However, there is no deadline for this payoff and estimates have placed it far into the future.

I am told the bridge is well managed. However, without the powers that will be granted it with the passage of Bill C-3, the federal government has very little information on the operation of this bridge.

Public Works and Government Services Canada receives inspection reports on the safety and security of the bridge, but the federal government has very little authority over it.

The Thousand Islands Bridge, which is located in Leeds—Grenville, was opened in 1938 by former Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King and President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The bridge is operated under an agreement between the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority, a U.S. authority, and the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited, a federal crown corporation. This arrangement has proven to be an effective model of true partnership between Canada and the United States of America.

All three of the bridges across the St. Lawrence River are currently well managed and well operated. With the passage of Bill C-3, Parliament can rest assured that this situation will continue and that the Canadian people can feel completely safe and secure as they cross these structures, and that the goods and services that cross these bridges every day will continue uninterrupted.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

In my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, there are three international bridges in the region of Madawaska alone. They are located in Clair, Edmunston and Saint-Léonard.

My honourable colleague mentioned at the end of his speech that there will be uninterrupted access and that is important.

Can my honourable colleague tell us whether or not these bridges will in future receive funding for infrastructure improvements? Could he clarify the new American border crossing policy: will we need a passport to cross? Will that mean that there will no longer be the free flow that he mentioned?

Madawaska—Restigouche is an important riding with its three international bridges. There is a considerable amount of activity and trade between Canada and the United States.

Thus, I would like to ask my honourable colleague if he anticipates a significant investment. I would also like to know if the free flow which he spoke of excludes, on the part of our American friends, border restrictions and the requirement to carry a passport.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I am very proud to sit on this side of the House, with the government. I have a great deal of confidence in my colleagues. They will handle the situation pertaining to bridges and passports in such a way as to keep flow as we know it now.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my Liberal colleagues to take careful note of the question I am about to ask, which they know is a relevant one.

My question is for my honourable colleague, with whom I have been privileged to sit on several committees. It is about the former bill and some of its clauses, which do not appear in Bill C-3. I am referring to Bill C-44, which served as the inspiration for Bill C-3. Specifically, I would like to discuss what happens when a company abandons a rail line. The former bill provided that in such cases, the company must offer to sell the line to the urban transit authority first, while giving the municipality priority in such transactions.

In my riding, Repentigny, and in greater Montreal, the commuter train issue is very important. Our prefect, Chantal Deschamps, is doing exemplary work with Montreal and industry stakeholders to make the commuter train happen as soon as possible. The industry supports her.

I would like my colleague to tell me why this part of Bill C-44 was removed from the new Bill C-3. This is a very important issue for people in Repentigny and for residents of greater Montreal. I am certain that it is equally important in other parts of Canada where commuter train issues are coming to the fore.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

There are some departures from Bill C-44 for obvious reasons. There is a new government in town and we are going to do it right. The Conservatives have been in government for 100 days and it looks as if we are getting a grade above 90%, so I think we are doing quite well.

I have full confidence in my colleagues at the ministerial level. There is no question in my mind. I understand my colleague's concerns but I can say from the bottom of my heart that I believe the Conservative government will serve every Canadian. That is why certain appointments were made. It was to make sure that everyone in Canada was well represented right across this wonderful country of ours.

If my colleague has any concerns about service or anything that might happen in the future, he probably knows already that all he has to do is convey them to one of the ministers and his concerns will be addressed effectively. I suggest he make his concerns known to the minister while this bill is being studied and I am sure they will be incorporated if they make sense. The Conservative government is prepared to listen. We want to move the country forward like it should be moved. We do not want the country to stand still like it has been for the last 13 years.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the chief of police in the city of Toronto said that half the illegal guns in Toronto have been smuggled across the border from the United States and it is causing a serious problem in big urban centres. The lives of a lot of families have been wrecked because of illegal guns being smuggled across the border. The Toronto mayor and the police chief have talked about the need to control the border crossings to stem the flow of illegal guns.

Clauses 38, 39 and 40 of the bill talk about enforcement, searches, warrants, those kinds of details. How will this bill enable big urban centres by having fewer illegal guns coming across the border?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we sure do want to stop the crime that is going on in this country and we have the solution. The Conservative Government of Canada unquestionably has the solution.

The beginning of the solution is to take the billions and billions of dollars that have been wasted in that sinkhole of a gun registry and put it toward the very thing the member is suggesting. We want to stop the smuggling of guns. We want to stop the illegal guns. We do not want to stop the farmers who use guns as they do shovels and rakes.

If there is a legacy that will hurt this country forever, it will be that darn gun registry that the former government left us. After 13 years of waste and mismanagement it is a $2 billion sinkhole. Hopefully tomorrow in the budget we will be able to address that terrible mismanagement which went on in the last 13 years.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how the member relates bridges and tunnels to the gun registry, but he said that he has solutions.

I am from the Miramichi where we have the processing centre for the gun registry and the people are doing an excellent job with their work.

Perhaps he has solutions but when we brought in Bill C-68 in terms of the difficulties that we are having in this country with peace and with guns, it was a bill that was sponsored by a great number of Canadian organizations. I say to the hon. member that he should be very cautious in terms of his so-called solution. We are looking for peace and good government in the country. We are looking of course at our law enforcement people to have adequate inventory in terms of the risks they have.

I suggest that the member has to be very careful in his statements.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member will be both careful and short.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague opposite and I thank him for his advice. We can always learn from people with more experience.

I still feel very strongly about the money that has been wasted on the gun registry. I know the intent of the gun registry was honourable and it was for the right reasons, but quite frankly, $2 billion was spent on a gun registry that is totally ineffective.

Police officers in uniform walked up to me during the recent campaign and asked me what my position was on the gun registry. I quoted the Conservative policy that we want to eliminate the wasteful gun registry, and they said, “You just got my vote”.

I do take my colleague's advice, but quite frankly, I also take my constituents' advice.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the subject of Bill C-3. At first glance, this bill seems to stir up passions in this House. We are on our third bill and already we get the feeling that the pressure is starting to rise seriously.

This is also an opportunity for me to mention that today, May 1, is International Workers’ Day. I wish all workers a happy May Day.

This is also an opportunity to point out that this Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act, addresses a regulatory vacuum concerning the bridges and tunnels linking Canada to the U.S.

There are 24 international road bridges and tunnels. Of these 24 bridges, 14 are located in Ontario, nine are located in New Brunswick, and one is located in Quebec. I will come back to this one, since this bridge, the Glen Sutton bridge, is in poor condition. There are also five railway bridges and tunnels in Ontario, and only five of these bridges belong to the federal government. We must recall, on this May 1, that all these infrastructures were made possible thanks to the contributions of our workers. Unfortunately, many of them lost their lives on the job. Last week we had a day to remember all those who have been victims of work accidents. Once again, a happy May Day to everyone!

Back to Bill C-3. We know (several of my colleagues have already mentioned it) that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, in principle. As I indicated earlier, there was actually a regulatory vacuum concerning international bridges and tunnels. We also know that, since September 11, there has been concern about the security of these structures, which play a strategic role in trade between Canada, Quebec and the U.S. So we cannot be opposed to a bill that aims to improve the security of these infrastructures.

By the way, I wish to underscore something. As I mentioned, these infrastructures are obviously extremely important for trade and the circulation of people between Canada, Quebec and the United States. Eighty per cent of our exports go to the U.S., a good part of which, or perhaps even all, transit through these important structures.

According to the Department of Transport, local stakeholders are mainly in favour of the provisions of this bill. This remains to be verified, however, and I am counting a lot on the assistance of my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to confirm this opinion from the Department of Transport among those concerned. We have heard that the Government of Quebec has some misgivings. By the time this is discussed in committee, I am sure that my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel will have consulted local stakeholders, if he has not already done so, to make sure that the bill addresses most of their concerns.

Such are the essential points and the most positive points of Bill C-3. Some points, however, seem, questionable or outright negative.

The first thing is found in clause 39, for example. I seems to us that the federal government is being given virtual police powers in relation to regulating international bridges and tunnels: for example, the very authoritarian power to investigate without warrant and power of seizure. We will have to be shown what purpose these exceptional powers of investigation and powers of seizure serve.

I would note that the federal government gives itself powers to legislate, but the financial responsibility is placed on other shoulders. In the case of the Sutton bridge, for example, the municipality is responsible for a large portion of the maintenance of the bridge. It is always easy for the federal government to set the bar very high when it comes to some of the rules relating to the safety and security of these bridges and tunnels.

This is somewhat related to the commitment made by the Prime Minister. This power to legislate should therefore be better circumscribed, so that we can be sure that if the federal government makes decisions resulting in costs that go beyond day-to-day infrastructure maintenance operations, it will contribute to those costs.

This again reminds me of the Canada Health Act. For several years, the government patted itself on the back about the criteria set out in the Canada Health Act and threatened the provinces, which in its opinion were in violation of those five criteria—I believe that was it. However, in 1993-94, the federal government started making unilateral cuts to its transfers, which were significantly reduced. Everyone seems to agree on the fiscal imbalance. The idea is even catching on among the Liberals.

So on the one hand, we have some lovely requirements in the bill to enable the federal government to make this its trademark, to make it a component of its visibility strategy, and on the other hand we have the provinces, the municipalities or both, absorbing all of the costs of these lovely and very generous speeches. I am very concerned.

Obviously, you will tell me that at the end of their reign the federal Liberals reinvested in transfers to the provinces. I would note that Quebec is still missing $5.5 billion. Once again, I appeal to the Minister of Finance. I hope that he will begin to provide us with some solutions in his speech tomorrow. It is quite clear that this cannot be fixed in a single day or a single speech. As we know on this side, the problem is profound. However, we have to hope that tomorrow’s speech will contain some elements of a solution to the fiscal imbalance.

Even if transfers to Quebec were restored to their level before the Liberals’ unilateral cuts, to 1993-94 levels, there would still be $5.5 billion missing, as I said. Thus it would not completely solve the problem of the fiscal imbalance. According to the Conference Board, $3.9 billion would still be needed in order to truly restore the balance between the revenue available to Quebec and the revenue it needs to meet its responsibilities.

You will therefore understand that seeing provisions of this nature in a bill relating to bridges and tunnels is a matter of great concern to us.

The member for Repentigny pointed out quite rightly that some items from Bill C-44 are missing from Bill C-3, for example, more transparent advertising of the sale of airline tickets. We know very well in this House what a difference there is between the advertised price of plane tickets and what they actually cost in the end. A number of somewhat random items are added with the result that the price is always substantially higher or even doubled. So it is a question of transparency. All the consumers’ associations have been asking for this for a long time. What explanation can there be that these provisions, which seemed very good to us, have simply been changed, forgotten, or deleted in Bill C-3?

As I just mentioned, I think that in the work done in committee, my colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel will have an opportunity to reintroduce these points.

Another point in Bill C-44 seemed very good to us. That is the mechanism for resolving disputes over the sharing of rail lines between passenger carriers and freight carriers. As my colleagues and I have mentioned, railway transportation looks very attractive insofar as the objectives of the Kyoto protocol are concerned. It is an environmentally friendly method of transportation. However, the rails need to be available to carry passengers.

I am not an expert. Still, until shown proof to the contrary, I have the impression that priority is always given to freight trains and this hardly encourages people to take the train when travelling among major centres in Quebec and Canada. My colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel can probably give me an answer after I have spoken. In view of all this, such arbitration will be very important over the next few years.

The member for Repentigny picked up on a certain aspect of the issue. I am returning to it as well because we are both from the Lanaudière region. If a train goes through Repentigny and Mascouche, the chances are very good that it will go to Joliette eventually. I will support him therefore, as well as Ms. Deschamps and all the people who are trying to get this commuter train.

In addition, when a railway company decides not to use certain lines any more, we must ensure that they are not automatically torn up. Rail lines that have been abandoned and torn up in the past could have helped meet our current need for commuter trains.

Bill C-44 provided that the local administrations would be offered an opportunity to buy the rail lines before they were torn up. We should draw an important lesson from the lack of foresight shown in regard to our entire road infrastructure. For a long time people said that there was no future in rail and we should rely on roads and trucks. Now the Americans have rediscovered rail, and in a few years, Canadians will rediscover it as well. We have already started to understand the importance of rail for transportation around big cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Quebec.

However, there has been an enormous lack of foresight, of clear-sightedness. So we must avoid committing the mistakes of the past over again. Bill C-44 contained a provision in this regard. It also provided for a new VIA Rail Act which would have given that corporation more autonomy in making its own decisions on improving rail transportation. As I was saying, this is one of the solutions that would allow us to meet our Kyoto protocol targets.

I want to mention one final negative element. Clause 32 of Bill C-44 granted the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to examine complaints of unreasonable noise caused by trains, so as to oblige railway companies to find the best possible solutions to this pollution. This is not greenhouse gas emissions, but it is extremely annoying pollution all the same.

I myself have been in contact with VIA Rail regarding a poorly set railway track. Unfortunately, the track was located a few feet from a seniors’ residence. Seniors sleep light. So we filed a complaint. Fortunately, a VIA Rail official, Mr. Daniel Lacoste, was extremely attentive, and I would like to thank him for that. He is a resident of Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes, in the lovely riding of Joliette. Things were resolved because all of us acted with good will.

Unfortunately that is not always the case. Sometimes the problem does not originate only in the marshalling yards. I am very familiar with the problem at the Outremont yard. As I was saying, tracks are sometimes poorly set, and that causes noise. It is a problem which can easily be corrected with proper welding.

That is the review I wished to offer of Bill C-3. It is a first step toward filling a legal void, something which can only be our common desire. All the same, it is not enough. Clearly there are corrections to it that we will have to make.

I would like to return to the questions concerning the most important clauses of this bill. Clause 2 defines the terms of the bill. This is its definition of an international bridge or tunnel: “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 I was saying earlier, most of these infrastructures are not the property of the federal government. So far as I know, even though the bridges and tunnels lie within exclusive federal jurisdiction, relatively few of them are owned by the federal government. As I said when I began, I have counted five of these. So it will be extremely important to clarify the powers of the federal government in this regard.

Clause 6 states that “no person shall construct or alter an international bridge or tunnel” without the government’s approval. That is self-evident.

But, as I said, who will pay when the federal government has requirements that go beyond the proposals made by those responsible for maintaining these structures?

According to clause 4(4), “approval may be given...to the site or plans of an international bridge over the St. Lawrence River”. We have a great deal of concern about this. We do not know whether there are any projects in the works. In my opinion, this will have to be much clearer. There is certainly a need for such a structure, but it is still surprising to see a clause reserved for something that is to come, a project that, to my knowledge, does not even exist yet.

According to clauses 14, 15 and 16, the government may make regulations respecting the maintenance and repair, operation and use, and security and safety of international bridges and tunnels. This takes us back to the comment I made about clause 6. It is all well and good to talk in broad terms and have high standards, but who is going to pay for these infrastructures? Perhaps the Minister of Finance will announce a new infrastructure program in his budget tomorrow, with a specific component on international bridges and tunnels. In any event, I am convinced that that would reassure a lot of people.

According to clause 17, “the Minister” of Transport “may make directions” if “the Minister is of the opinion that there is an immediate threat to the security or safety of any international bridge or tunnel”. Logically, everyone should agree with this, but once again, who will pay the costs associated with these directions made by the federal government?

According to clause 23, “the approval of the Governor in Council” is required for any change of ownership, operator or control of an international bridge or tunnel. This goes without saying, although it reminds me of a debate we had about satellites that take pictures. In the case of the Telesat remote sensing satellite, if I recall correctly, the Bloc Québécois had a great deal of difficulty understanding how the Canadian Space Agency could give up ownership when the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec had paid for all the research. It likely would have been simpler to keep ownership of the satellite.

In the Telesat bill, whose number I have forgotten, there was no provision for a company that might become a foreign company. So, when the Canadian Space Agency transferred or gave the satellite to this company, for a few months, the company in question belonged to some Americans. It would have been pretty extraordinary if a technology developed with income tax and taxes paid by all Canadians and Quebeckers had been given to a foreign company. We were assured that all sorts of provisions of the act prevented that. Nevertheless I prefer an explicit mention, as in Bill C-3, because of significant strategic elements pertaining to both security and international trade.

According to clause 29, it is possible to create a crown corporation to administer a bridge or a tunnel. This is credible, to my mind. If we have a new structure on the St. Lawrence River, it seems to me that this should be public property. So clause 29 provides for this possibility.

I said earlier that clause 39, whereby the government is given very extensive police powers, such as searches without a warrant and a very authoritarian power of seizure. It seems to us that there are some things to be corrected in this area.

I wanted to end quite simply by pointing out the state of the Glen Sutton bridge, the only one in Quebec linking Quebec, which is still politically part of Canada, to the U.S. It is a metal bridge built about 1929. It will probably go from being a strategic axis of communication to being a museum artifact, where finally people will go to see it. It is relatively long, covering 50 metres. It spans a gorge. It is a magnificent sight. It is also used by trucks. According to our information, it is in a fairly pitiful state. I mentioned, though, that ownership of the bridge is shared between the state of Vermont and the municipality of Sutton. If there are, in connection with Bill C-3, instructions from the federal government with a view to improving safety and security, who will actually pay?

Will the municipality of Sutton be asked to pay these costs? It seems to me that this would be irresponsible. I hope that, when Bill C-3 goes to committee, an infrastructure fund will be created that is dedicated specifically to international bridges and tunnels.

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

Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that as a government we are listening. In fact, some of his comments were questions brought about by the member for Shefford and the member for Laval on the Sutton bridge, the ownership of the bridge and the environmental impact.

I want to assure the member as well that I am, by way of information, pursuing those particular questions and will have answers for those members in due course.

I also want to assure the member, in relation to clause 39 of the bill, that it is somewhat intrusive. I would appreciate a comment from the member as to what could be more important than intruding on the values of Canadians by keeping them safe and secure, which of course the bill specifically deals with.

I also want assure the member that we are very aware of some of the other issues he brought forward, in particular, advertising for plane tickets, the dispute mechanism and some of the issues that were more contentious.

We brought this bill to the forefront because our number one priority as a government is to ensure the safety and security of Canadians. We will ensure we have consistent objectives and, in this case, we will implement the rules necessary to keep Canadians safe and secure. What does the member feel would be the best avenue to pursue this? If the member can think of some other ways for us to proceed on this, he can approach me outside the House and bring those issues to me. I would be more than happy to look at them and give him responses on each and every issue.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary said, the Bloc thinks that section 39 is very police-oriented, very repressive. He said that nothing was more important than safety. I can agree with him, but for a long time the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government—both the previous government and the present government—to properly balance safety or security and the rights of individuals and corporations. Here, we are talking about the power to search without a warrant. Obviously, there should at least have to be some legal or judicial authorization to conduct a search.

As in the case of the debates regarding Bills C-35 and C-36 in the two preceding Parliaments, the question is one of finding a balance between safety or security and individual rights, including the rights of businesses. My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel will have some suggestions to make in committee. I am not an expert, and if I was getting too far ahead of myself, it was relatively unintentional. I will therefore yield to the work that the committee will do, and in particular the work of my colleague in the Bloc Québécois.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my constituents for re-electing me for a third time and for being very fair during the election in acknowledging the work that was done. I appreciate all the support my constituents give me when I return to the riding and while I am here in Parliament.

As the member said in the opening of his speech, as today is May Day or workers' day, on behalf of my party I commend all workers. I also commend the people who celebrated on Friday, April 28 in Whitehorse. It was a great commemoration of those workers who were injured or died on the job.

The member mentioned a couple of times what he hoped would be in the budget tomorrow. In that the throne speech had almost nothing in it, is the member looking for things in the budget that are important to the Bloc that were not in the throne speech, such as items related to drug abuse, education, homelessness, getting low income people back to work, the social economy, social housing, programs for women, any social programs and the environment? Does the member hope we will see these items in the budget speech tomorrow since they were not mentioned in the throne speech?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would echo what my colleague said about May Day. I am pleased to know that this international day was celebrated in Whitehorse. Last Saturday, in Montreal, there was a demonstration in which over 50,000 people took part to call for improvements in labour laws, working conditions and health and safety issues. I am pleased that this has been echoed today in this House.

The member referred both to the Speech from the Throne and to tomorrow’s budget. I think he was quite right. Concerning the fiscal imbalance, we are expecting—as I said in my speech—to see a major step forward in increasing transfers from the federal government to the provinces, in particular in relation to post-secondary education. Tomorrow, we expect a response from the government, because our universities and colleges are underfunded, and this creates problems. In terms of productivity, the most important factor is going to be human capital, and thus training and education. We keep repeating it, but we have to invest the necessary money in order to ensure not only that there are adequate educational institutions, but also that the labour force is well educated, both now and for the future.

As for social housing and affordable housing, the Bloc agrees entirely with the member. The previous government had begun to slowly reinvest in social housing and affordable housing. Although we found the amount of funding inadequate, at least some investment was being made.

In that respect, one can only hope that the Conservative government will continue on the same path, by increasing investments, which are extremely effective socially and which create a dynamic economy. This involves more than just the construction industry. At present, there are social housing projects in small municipalities, which are facing two types of exodus: young people moving to larger centres in search of employment, and seniors leaving rural areas to be where services are provided. In my riding, for example, many people are leaving the municipalities surrounding Joliette to move to Joliette or Repentigny, where there are more services. This is both a social and economic phenomenon, and a matter of land use.

As for employment insurance, which the member did not mention, the Bloc hopes that the budget will include major announcements concerning improved access to employment insurance. As we know, only four in ten people who pay premiums are eligible for benefits. This is totally unfair. Employment insurance has become the federal government's cash cow. The bulk of the surplus comes from EI fund surpluses. This misappropriation of funds must be stopped, as well as the abuse of the principle behind employment insurance, which is to guarantee the economic security of workers who are temporarily unemployed.