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

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses the long-standing lack of legislative framework within which the federal government can exercise its authority over international bridges and tunnels.

I am very pleased to begin the debate today on Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act. This bill includes a number of measures that reinforce and acknowledge that our economic well-being increasingly depends on strategic gateways and trade corridors.

The capacity to create jobs and strengthen Canada's economy is directly linked to our ability to ensure the efficient flow of trade with our greatest trading partner, the United States, but today's bill also recognizes the importance of secure borders and that securing our borders begins with securing our border crossings.

There are currently 24 bridges and tunnels that carry vehicular traffic across the 6,400 kilometre border between Canada and the United States. There are also five rail bridges and tunnels linking our two countries. More than $1.9 billion worth of goods moves across the border each day. These crossings are a critical part of the infrastructure that facilitates trade between our two nations.

Well-operated border crossings mean more trade, a stronger economy and jobs for all Canadians. The federal government, therefore, has a critical role to play in ensuring that the way in which these bridges and tunnels are operated does not interfere in any way with the uninterrupted flow of goods and people across the border. Equally important is the federal government's responsibility to ensure that our national interests are protected, that our borders are secure and that people can use our bridges and tunnels in safety.

The federal government's jurisdiction over all international crossings is set out in section 92 of the Constitution Act of 1867. However, the federal government's ability to exercise this authority has never been set out in framework legislation.

With events such as September 11th, I think the hon. members would agree that Canada's international bridges and tunnels cannot be left to ad hoc decision-making processes. They must be carefully and strategically operated.

It is time for the Government of Canada to put in place a legislative framework so that it can carry out its jurisdictional responsibilities, efficiently, effectively and coherently.To that end, the bill we are debating today draws on the provisions related to international bridges and tunnels contained in the two previously introduced bills.

The international bridges and tunnels act would provide the Government of Canada with the legislative authority required to effectively oversee these bridges and tunnels and to protect the interests of Canadians. Today's bill also possesses two new provisions in response to critical issues that have recently emerged in relation to international bridges and tunnels.

I would like to begin by introducing some of the more significant provisions in the bill.

First of all, unlike the United States, Canada does not have a formal process to approve the construction of new international crossings. In the past, we have enacted specific legislation on a case by case basis. Fourteen of the 24 crossings were created by special acts of Parliament designed and adapted to fit the conditions specific to each case. Given that there are currently three proposals for new international crossings, at St. Stephen in New Brunswick and at Fort Erie and Windsor in Ontario, addressing this legislative gap is particularly critical at this time.

Today's bill will begin the process of ensuring that we have the necessary powers to grant approval to build these new crossings. It would also give the federal government the authority to impose whatever terms and conditions are needed to protect the public interest.

More specifically, the bill recommends that the governor in council be given the authority to approve the construction or alteration of international bridges and tunnels as well as the authority to establish conditions for their construction, operation and maintenance. By eliminating the need for individual independent acts of Parliament for each particular bridge, this new legislation would clarify and streamline the approval process.

The development of new crossings is a complex undertaking, requiring negotiations between provincial, state and federal governments on both sides of the border.

A more streamlined process within the Government of Canada—comparable to that which is already in place in the United States—would bring greater efficiency to the overall process.

One of the more significant challenges of the current ad hoc system is that there are widespread inconsistencies on key issues across the international bridge portfolio. The way in which the bridges and tunnels deal with functional safety, maintenance and security vary significantly between the different bridge and tunnel operators. Such widespread inconsistencies on critical issues directly affect the federal government's ability to act quickly, decisively and accurately on key public issues.

Therefore the second provision I would like to highlight in this new legislation would give the Governor in Council the authority to make regulations for all matters related to safety and security of international bridges and tunnels. The Governor in Council would also be able to make regulations respecting the operation of these crossings, such as the efficient and competitive flow of international traffic to ensure it is not jeopardized.

Ensuring that international traffic flows freely across the border not only affects the bottom line of businesses that depend on just-in-time delivery, it also reduces unnecessary carbon dioxide and other emissions that result from traffic congestion and delays at the border.

A clean environment is important to all Canadians. This is why, under the proposed legislative framework, the federal government will be able to ensure that environmental assessments with respect to international bridges and tunnels are conducted under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, when appropriate.

Environmental considerations must be fully integrated into all projects, so that future generations of Canadians enjoy clean air, water and land.

This is particularly important for projects that directly affect our waterways and influence the levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

Finally, I would like to highlight the two new provisions that did not appear in the previously introduced bills. The first new provision concerns crossings over the St. Lawrence River. In the current legislative structure, any new bridge over the St. Lawrence River requires a special act of Parliament.

By specifying that the proposed international bridges and tunnels act is applicable to international bridges and tunnels crossing the St. Lawrence River, any such bridges or tunnels will be subject to the government's approval process as outlined by the act. This provision would support the current initiative to construct a new low level bridge in Cornwall, Ontario by streamlining the approval process and removing the burden of the current requirement for a special act of Parliament.

The second new provision would give the federal government the authority to approve all transactions affecting the ownership or control and operation of international bridges and tunnels. Given the critical importance of these crossings, the federal government has a clear role to play in protecting national interests and public policy objectives when ownership or operation of these structures is transferred.

With the proposed sale of the bridge between Fort Frances, Ontario and International Falls, Minnesota, as well as the possible sale of the tunnel between Windsor and Detroit, it is critical that the federal government have the authority to intervene as needed to protect our national interests.

This bill is important because transportation is one of the core elements that contributes to Canada's economic success. I think the hon. members will agree that in an age when over 70% of our trade flows to the United States, Canada's international crossings are crucial to our economic well-being.

International bridges and tunnels represent critical gateways and key trade corridors through which our trade with the United States flows. As such, they are vital to Canada's success as a trading nation and will continue to be an important element of prosperity for future generations.

The introduction of this bill represents an important opportunity to finally put into place a clear and consistent framework for the exercise of federal government jurisdiction over international crossings. This bill will also help us fulfill our responsibility to protect the safety of Canadians and ensure our national security.

We must continue to be flexible and responsive in legislating our transportation system. Too much is at stake to stand still or rely on old ways of thinking.

I urge all members to support this bill, so that the Government of Canada can effectively protect our national and international interests, build upon the many successes of our transportation system and facilitate Canada's growth as a nation.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult for me to disagree with the bill because it is, so far as I can tell, the same as the Liberal bill that was before Parliament before the election. It sounds extraordinarily familiar.

Could the minister tell us whether there are any substantive differences between his bill and the one we presented previously?

I would also like to say that Canada-U.S. trade is the lifeblood of the country. Millions and millions of jobs are at stake and in terms of the efficient functioning of trade between the two countries, efficiency of transportation infrastructure is critical, which is what the bill is about, but how our goods are received at the border by the customs officials is equally important.

In light of the agreement on forestry and given that this Canada-U.S. trade is the lifeblood of our economy, is it not unfortunate that yesterday's agreement abandoned the principle of free trade, moving to managed trade, because once we get to 34% and above that, zap, it is no longer free trade? I think that is a huge abandonment of the principle. Is it not also unfortunate that the agreement effectively kills the dispute settlement mechanism under NAFTA which was negotiated with huge difficulty and is critical for our future trade relations? This sets a very dangerous precedent in that the traditional dispute settlement mechanism was abandoned in this case and what is to say it will not be abandoned for other industries.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are two new provisions in the legislation that has been tabled before the House. The first provision, of course, is the one dealing with crossing over the St. Lawrence River and the second one clearly deals with the federal government's authority to approve all transactions affecting the ownership or control and operation of international bridges.

In this context, I find it strange to hear my hon. colleague opposite refer to the agreement Canada reached yesterday with the United States. I was expecting him to rise and congratulate us on what we had accomplished on this issue. In 13 years, the previous government did nothing to deliver the goods on this issue.

The hon. member referred extensively to a government that used to talk about softwood lumber, trade and trade agreements. I clearly remember that the former head of the Liberal Party of Canada, Mr. Turner, vigorously opposed free trade during one election campaign. But Canadians supported the government of Mr. Mulroney and voted for greater prosperity.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we support Bill C-3. However, I have two questions for the minister.

First, since the 1990s, a number of responsibilities, particularly relating to infrastructure, have been handed over to the provinces, who proceeded to delegate them to municipalities. Responsibilities have trickled down, but money has not. I want to know who will finance these infrastructure projects.

Second, during the 1990s, when railway companies abandoned certain rail lines, the owners of those lines sold them to create greenways for cyclists and pedestrians.

The bill provides that offers to purchase will be accepted from urban transit authorities first and from municipalities last. Will selling these railways to companies other than those in the tourism and recreation sector help the environment and encourage the creation of greenways?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised two questions more or less related to this bill.

I would like to inform the member that I am quite aware of the responsibilities being thrust upon municipalities. As a city councillor for the lovely and extraordinary city of Gatineau, I was in a position to experience this first hand. Yesterday, Premier Charest's government responded to many of these issues by signing a new fiscal deal with municipalities.

Getting back to the bill, the member's second question is about bridge divestiture and management. At issue are international bridges linking Canada and the United States, our trading partner. The bill will have a positive impact in that regard.

For example, we know the environmental cost of pollution caused by slowing or stopping the flow of traffic between Canada and the United States. As I stated earlier, this bill will give us the tools to improve the flow of goods between our two countries.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transportation concerns environmental issues and the concerns many residents along the border have with the movement of hazardous goods through tunnels and bridges. As the rate of rail movement has increased in Canada we have seen incidences where these environmental concerns have turned into environmental problems.

Does the bill bring clarification to the direction that we will take with the development of new facilities and with the movement of hazardous goods within those facilities?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an extremely important question. I think the member is referring to circumstances where some bridges can be used for the purpose of allowing hazardous wastes to cross over to Canada or to the United States. In some circumstances the regulations that are in place are more or less respected. This legislation would enable us to put forward a comprehensive and coherent set of regulations that would basically cover the issues that the hon. member has raised.

In that regard, this legislation should, in my view, obtain a full and complete buy-in by everybody in this House.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Is the hon. parliamentary secretary rising on questions and comments? I am sorry, the hon. member for Palliser.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Minister of Transport. In the post-9/11 world, the security of these 24 bridges and tunnels and five rail tunnels, I am guessing, is a crucial part of what is driving the bill. Could the minister comment on that, and the importance of the security and the safety of these vital networks to this country?

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

Before the minister comments, I would remind hon. members that they must address the House in their own seats. This is why I was confused when the hon. member for Palliser stood up and I assumed he was a parliamentary secretary, but he was not in his own seat. Technically, he should not be allowed to address the House and I am trying to correct this problem. We are sitting as a House and not as a committee of the whole and I remind hon. members of that. The hon. Minister of Transport.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you are right.

In fact, the Speaker is always right.

As a matter of fact, yes, since 9/11 we have been extremely vigilant as a government. This is another step that we must take in securing our borders and ensuring that not only are they secure but, as I mentioned before, that there is a seamless flow between both our countries. We do understand that the context has changed.

As our political party has mentioned over the last campaign, we intend to not only stand up for Canada, but ensure also that our border crossings are safe. We are committed to doing that. In that regard, hopefully, this piece of legislation will get quick approval from all our colleagues.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the minister defended vigorously the negotiation of the free trade agreement by the Mulroney government and noted that at the time, the Liberals under John Turner were opposed. That is true but that is ancient history. The Liberal Party has been strongly in favour of NAFTA and free trade for over a decade.

It is the Conservative Party that ought to be embarrassed. It is the Conservative Party under Brian Mulroney that negotiated free trade. The agreement reached yesterday is in fact a betrayal of free trade. It is not free trade when we have a maximum quota of 34%. It is managed trade.

One of the key achievements of the Mulroney free trade agreement was the dispute settlement mechanism. The government has abandoned the dispute settlement mechanism creating an extraordinarily dangerous precedent for future sectors as we go forward.

I have not heard any reaction from Mr. Mulroney, but I would imagine he would be distressed that the critical principles of his negotiations, that is to say the free trade principle and the dispute settlement mechanism, both have been abandoned by the government in the accord which was reached yesterday.

It is not surprising that the Liberal Party supports this bill since, given its main points, it is essentially the Liberal bill.

Therefore, I am very pleased, and I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, that the Conservative government is indeed proceeding with this project which we initiated.

We do think, as the minister said, that it is extremely important to have a framework that oversees everything to do with bridges and tunnels, including their building, maintenance and security. As I said earlier, Canada-U.S. trade is the economic lifeblood of our country and to a lesser extent their country with millions and millions of jobs at stake. In order for that trade to be efficient and go barrier free, one of the essential ingredients is free trade, which was kind of abandoned yesterday, but another one is an efficient transportation infrastructure.

Two-way trade between Canada and the U.S. is more than $532 billion annually. Canada is the largest export market for 37 out of the 50 states.

Another statistic that I found very surprising is the fact that Canadian exports to Home Depot are greater than Canadian exports to France. It would be hard to overstate the importance of trade between Canada and the United States.

That is why it is extremely important that our transportation infrastructure be reliable and well maintained. The government must have the tools to ensure that the system is not only functioning on a day-to-day basis, but is able to respond effectively and efficiently to new initiatives that become required.

We need a framework in place so the building and maintenance of our bridges and tunnels is secure and regulated. We have 24 bridges and five international rail tunnels that link our two countries. Given the importance of all of this, it is perhaps surprising that even though the responsibility of the federal government in this area has been there since 1867, there has never before been any comprehensive clear-cut authority laid out that gives the government the authority to deal with requests about bridge and tunnel infrastructure whether for a new bridge or for a change in a bridge. Given that this is so fundamental to Canadian jobs and Canadian prosperity, it is high time that we have such a mechanism.

In the past any bridges or tunnels that were built were done through special acts of Parliament with the U.S. neighbours enacting similar ad hoc legislation. Therefore, this legislation provides an overall framework which will obviate the need for such ad hoc case-by-case agreements.

We urge the Minister of Transport in the interest of transparency to ensure that any reports from bridge and tunnel operators regarding maintenance and repair, and safety and security are tabled in Parliament for all to see.

The bill that was on the table before the election would have expedited the approval of new facilities and ensured the efficient and competitive flow of goods and people. We hope and believe that the government's plan will effectively do the same thing. The government will not have opposition from the official opposition on this bill. How can we oppose our own bill?

I would like to end with a few comments on the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund which is also, I believe, the responsibility of the minister. He has many responsibilities and we believe that this is absolutely crucial for the future of our cities and communities. The Liberal government put approximately $4 billion into the fund to support large scale infrastructure projects.

This fund has helped very much to improve the quality of life in many communities by partnering on major infrastructure projects. I will name a few: York Region Transit network improvements, Banff National Park Trans-Canada Highway improvements, New Brunswick Urban Bypass projects, and the Kicking Horse Canyon project.

In my region of York, Ontario, I sometimes say that traffic gridlock is second only to health care in the concerns of my constituents, The Liberal government put funding into Viva Transit, GO Transit. These are really essential to the livelihood and the quality of life of the residents of York region and my own constituents. Public transit is essential for the efficiency of the transport system and also for environmental reasons to which the government does not seem to attach great priority.

There is concern that the government has made no commitment to replenish this vital program. We are concerned that important projects that help vitalize our Canadian cities may go by the wayside, leaving communities underfunded and struggling to make their own way on inadequate budgets.

The health of our cities and communities is in jeopardy. This is a fundamental, core contribution of the previous government to essential infrastructure in all regions of the country. Naturally, we are very concerned about the future of this program. We urge the minister to apply all the influence he has to other members of the government to ensure that this program is continued and funded in a manner that is adequate to respond to the needs of Canadians across the country.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing to hear the member across the floor say he will support this legislation. He says he will support it because it was legislation presented by the Liberal government last time. That is true to a point, but it has been improved with a couple of key changes. I hope he will acknowledge that.

He went on to say that this Conservative government should be ashamed of the softwood lumber deal. Let us look at a bit of the history of the softwood lumber issue.

First, it is an issue that could not be settled in the original free trade agreement. It could not be settled by his government when it completed the NAFTA agreements. As a result, it has been a serious trade irritant for some time.

His government negotiated quotas. In this agreement, there are no quotas under current market conditions. It is a good deal, a deal that the Prime Minister pledged to achieve and did achieve.

Canada stuck to its position. Canada's key conditions were accepted. It is a long term agreement of seven years. The agreement gives Canadian producers stable, predictable access without quotas and without tariffs. That is very important. This agreement returns at least $4 billion U.S. to the Canadian industry.

The agreement recognizes provincial differences. We saw the Liberal Premier of Ontario vigorously support this agreement yesterday. That was very refreshing. He put aside partisan politics and supported the best deal that could be achieved.

Is it a perfect deal ? No. The Prime Minister said that. But this has been a longstanding trade irritant .

That leads to the second point. This agreement is important beyond the softwood issue itself. It demonstrates what can be achieved when we put aside harmful rhetoric, such as that presented by his government over many years, and replace it with hard work.

Because of the better working relationship that has developed between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, between Canada and the United States, when it comes to difficult issues like this, we can negotiate in a very tough fashion. We have at least a working relationship. His government could not reach an agreement because of the harmful rhetoric and the negative working relationship with the United States.

This is an important point that maybe has not been talked about enough. It is a new relationship. When it comes to tough issues, we can negotiate in a very tough and firm fashion, and achieve results, results that his government could not achieve.

Again, I appreciate that the member opposite did acknowledge that this legislation should be supported. It is an improved version of legislation that was presented by his government. I look forward to this passing in very short order.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were four little weasel words that came out just now, though not spoken very loudly, “under current market conditions”. Does anyone think that market conditions always stay the same? No. Markets go up and markets go down. To say that something is free under current market conditions is to say it is not free under different market conditions.

The member's point is incorrect when one looks beyond the current month or year because market conditions will change. When that market goes south, the U.S. interests will prevail. Why do we think the U.S. signed on? It was in large measure for that reason.

The other little problem was when he said $4 billion. I thought the amount was $5 billion. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, what happened to the missing $1 billion that is going to be in the hands of U.S. lumber producers? I seem to remember it was the election promise of the current Prime Minister to get back every penny of that $5 billion. Now it is $4 billion. Is the Prime Minister going to write a personal cheque for $1 billion? How is he going to make up the difference? This is another example of broken promises by the Prime Minister.

When the member says this is important beyond the softwood issue, I agree because that speaks to the point I made earlier. It is important beyond the softwood issue because it sets a dangerous precedent for other industries going forward. The precedent is that it is no longer free trade but managed trade.

The precedent is that we no longer rely on the dispute settlement mechanism under NAFTA but we rely on ad hoc case by case negotiations. This kills the dispute settlement mechanism negotiated with such difficulty by a past Conservative government, which must be somewhat disappointed to see that its central achievement has now been destroyed by the current Conservative government.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that for as long as I have been an MP the NDP members from Windsor had been appealing to the former Liberal government to do something about the Ambassador Bridge and the billions of dollars of lost trade and opportunity that stems from the inadequacy of that vital crossing. I was shocked to learn as an MP that the Ambassador Bridge is actually privately owned. Neither the provincial government nor the federal government owns the Ambassador Bridge. Some individual owns it.

The Liberal government had this problem. It was supposed to be seized of this problem for all those years and yet to this day, there is a backup of semi-trailers waiting to take our exports to the United States. Those semi-trailers sit there with their engines idling, poisoning the good citizens of Windsor West. The lost opportunity is staggering and it is on the member's former government for failing to do anything for 13 years with that border crossing.

The member spent a lot of time in his speech talking about the Canada infrastructure fund. The Liberal administration of the Canada infrastructure fund was like some shady ring toss on a carnival midway. That is how it was treated. It was a setup. It was politicized and used as an instrument for throwing partisan freebies and goodies around the country. I do not lament the end of the administration of that particular infrastructure program one bit.

I would ask my colleague to comment on the Ambassador Bridge issue, as well as his government's stance on solving the softwood lumber crisis. Its stance was on its knees. We have a saying in the labour movement that the great only appear great to us because we are on our knees. That was the Liberal approach. When the Liberals sent negotiators to Washington for all those years it was as sycophants or something. They did not deliver the bacon. It is hard to hear the member pontificate about the job the Liberals did on the softwood lumber file when nothing was delivered.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would appear that the time allotted me has expired.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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

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

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is particularly interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It should be the capital.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to express my congratulations to my colleague for his speech. I am interested in the issue surrounding the ability of the federal government to make decisions that can impact many of these communities. As a former mayor and someone who has been involved in municipal decision making throughout much of my career, I am always concerned when we see opportunities for people at the community level to lose some of the control they have over their lands and their way of life.

Within any aspect of this, and this may apply in Windsor as well as many other places in the country, we need to be always cognizant that municipal governments are close to the people. They understand what the people want. They understand the conditions of the communities and the surrounding areas. If we are going to put in legislation that takes those issues away, I want to know what my colleague thinks about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague speaks to an important aspect of this bill that needs to be considered in regard to there being some way to amend the bill to incorporate some of these community interests and the need for the community to be involved.

As our colleague from Windsor West has suggested, in Windsor we have a very challenging circumstance that the community has been intimately involved in but has not able to bring to any real resolution. The bridge in Windsor is owned by a private U.S. company, and the bridge and the surrounding areas are plagued by a traffic and congestion nightmare. Solutions range from streamlining the movement of traffic to achieve better access to the bridge, building and expanding a pre-clearance facility for the bridge to expedite the process, building more access routes outside local towns, or building new infrastructure.

Municipalities on the Canadian side of the bridge do not want their streets turned into parking lots for trucks, because they stand to lose on the environment, quality of life and tourism fronts. The Americans have been able to move faster on this because of fewer environmental and quality of life concerns.

We do not want that to happen on this side of the bridge. We want communities to be intimately involved in these decisions because this affects them directly. We need to make sure that this is included in this bill and in the thinking of the government as the bill comes forward. I am sure my colleague from Windsor West would agree with that.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also thank my colleague for his speech, which was very lively, as always. However, I wonder if he is concerned about another point. Last year, when we debated the Quarantine Act, we talked a lot about laws concerning domestic traffic and difficulties, the problems and risks of transmission of potentially endemic diseases.

Does my colleague think that, in the international bridges and tunnels act, we should also take into consideration the risks inherent to communicable diseases? As he was suggesting earlier, should we really have skilled personnel at these locations, that is, people who are very knowledgeable about such issues?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. That is one of our party's concerns. That is why we think this bill needs to go to committee. It is so that we can hear from people like the member herself, the member for Windsor West, the member for Burnaby--New Westminster, the member for Western Arctic and others around these very important questions. It is so we can reach out and actually have people come forward from the municipalities that surround these infrastructures and hear from them.

The member is right when she says there is the potential for all kinds of environmental impacts. We need to know that, we need to understand that, and we need to have that out front and dealt with before we go ahead and build these things. As well, the federal government needs to be responsible in terms of money to actually deal with it.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I took some interest in my colleague's points around who builds this infrastructure and who owns this infrastructure. Recently we have had many years in which we have seen the so-called P3 arrangement not work for the best interests of Canadians, particularly in infrastructure, particularly when we are building infrastructure that is for the public yet there are certain people who are making profits on it, notwithstanding the fact that we know it is private companies that actually do the building.

What I am talking about is seeing a private consortium that takes over the infrastructure and then turns around and asks the citizens of this country to pay yet again. I certainly would not like to see that happen. I wonder if the member would comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point. It is the kind of point and question we need raised at committee when the bill is considered so that we can deal with those issues.

Certainly the question of ownership, as I said in my speech, is central. I know that the government wants to have some say and control in that. We believe it should go further and that these pieces of infrastructure should in fact be owned by the federal government so that we can control things like the price of crossing.

For example, the bridge in Fort Francis is being sold off. The existing owner already has driven the cost of crossing that bridge to a point where it becomes a competitive disadvantage to northwestern Ontario. We hope the federal government will consider buying not only that bridge but also the bridge in Windsor. We also hope that if the government is going to build a new one that it not go to some private consortium to build it, that the government itself build it so that we really and truly have control over this.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-3, which is legislation for which I and my colleagues from British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, the province of Quebec and New Brunswick have been asking.

I commend the minister for being very open and incredibly up to speed. He is very seized with the priority of our international crossings and specifically with the corridor in Windsor-Detroit. After having many meetings with him and his staff, I commend him for making a very serious statement.

This is the second piece of legislation, following our important federal accountability act. In the previous Liberal government, there was an incomplete version of the bill. It was the Liberals' 43rd piece of legislation and it never made it through.

Clearly it is a priority for the Conservative government. We are making a clear statement that international trade, the environment and our communities are Conservative priorities. The fact that we continue to speak on the issue of the international bridges and tunnels act clearly demonstrates the scope of the legislative vacuum that was left by the previous Liberal government, which this Conservative bill proposes to fill.

Back home and just outside of my riding in the city of Windsor, we have the busiest international border crossing in the world. At peak times, we have $1 million per minute of two-way trade that traverses through that corridor. We have anywhere from 7,000 to, on peak days, 10,000 trucks per day that cross through the corridor.

We also have very aging infrastructure there. We have a rail tunnel that was built in 1909. We have a vehicle tunnel that was built in the late twenties. The Ambassador Bridge, which is the busiest crossing, was built as well in the late 1920s. The most recent piece of infrastructure we have is more than three-quarters of a century old.

Clearly there is a need to add additional capacity to that corridor. We need infrastructure renewal as our economy and trade continues to grow.

The federal government is one of four partners in a binational process in the Windsor-Detroit corridor that is working toward this goal. We need Bill C-3, however, to allow the federal government to have the proper oversight for a new crossing in the corridor as well for the existing assets. Getting the infrastructure and having the right powers behind it is very important.

The city of Windsor has 9.3% unemployment. That is one of the highest of the cities in Canada right now. Investment has been leaving the Essex-Windsor region. A number of companies have closed their doors over the last few years, mostly in the automobile sector and the parts related sectors.

Other investment is clearly not coming to the region. Industries have decided that the border is a problem right now and there is no predictability, as the industry talks about, of crossing at that corridor on time for just-in-time industries. They are choosing not to locate their factories there and bringing new jobs to the region. They are choosing other locations. They are locating in Michigan, for example, Ohio, or even into the southern United States. They are just not coming to our communities.

I know from my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Essex, were it not for some federal government intervention, his riding would have lost the Navistar plant as well. It would have gone to points south.

Economically speaking, the border is an ever present reality to the communities. It is also very important for the number of people who are employed in these industries, for the quality of life for their families and for our ability to support key social programs like health care and education, which are vital for the quality of life. If those jobs go, the tax dollars go with them, and the charitable dollars. Our region is one of the most giving in the entire nation. That is because we have high paying manufacturing jobs to support it.

In the last three years the United Way, just as an example, has continued to decline, year over year, in the amount of charitable giving. The jobs that are leaving our communities are having a very real impact on community projects through the lack of charitable giving. Bill C-3 would go a long way in giving the federal government the necessary powers to continue to move forward on new capacity at the Windsor corridor.

In a broader sense our 24 international bridges and tunnels that handle vehicle traffic have been governed for a long time by an assortment of inconsistent mechanisms, a patchwork of different people having different control over the crossings. This has resulted in the authorization of everything from the incorporation of a company to construct an international crossing to the creation of a binational authority to manage and operate the crossing.

Section 92 of the Constitution Act establishes that international crossings are within the federal jurisdiction, but the government has really been unable to exercise its authority adequately and across all those crossings because of the absence of a legislative framework that gives the ability for general application relevant to all crossings.

Historically we have had the enactment of several individual special acts of Parliament, some of which predate Confederation, where the preferred method of previous federal governments was to authorize the construction and meet the specific reality of international crossings by these individual acts of Parliament.

Any time a new crossing was built, it required a new act of Parliament. If another one was to be built, there had to be another separate act of Parliament. As a result, more than 53 special acts of Parliament spanning, pardon the pun, 140 years of our nation's history were created independently to deal with the specific reality of each of Canada's 24 international bridges and tunnels that carried vehicle traffic.

What occurred on 9/11 was a very important turning point with respect to our international crossings. I can speak with some first-hand knowledge of it from living in the Windsor-Essex region. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there were 12 kilometre backups of trucks on Huron Church Road to the end of the 401. That was not just in one lane. That was in two lanes of traffic and sometimes three. Seeing this type of lineup, trucks would go down neighbourhood residential streets, where trucks are not allowed, trying to find shortcuts to the bridge, hoping to get on a little quicker. There was this massive gridlock, endangering the safety of residents of the communities on either side of Huron Church Road.

Vehicles sitting and idling caused pollution. Resources of the municipalities of Windsor and LaSalle were stretched, as one example, due to the payment of overtime to police officers who sat at individual intersections to ensure that trucks were not blocking them. I remember trying to cross Huron Church Road with that kind of truck traffic. After the light turned green one would have to wait an awful long time to make sure a truck was not going to try to go through. In that situation a tie goes to the truck and that is not a good scenario.

The events on 9/11 also brought us the reality on the U.S. side, one that we cannot necessarily change because it is a U.S. mentality, of security trumping trade. It is very important. It really affects how we do business across our international crossings. The security provisions in Bill C-3 would allow the government to obtain detailed information on security issues from all bridge authorities. Currently that is not happening.

More specifically, if we take the example of the Ambassador Bridge, which is a private entity, it reportedly contracts out safety for the bridge asset to a private company. That is what has been reported, although the public does not have the scrutiny of that for sure. In a heightened climate where Canada might be on Osama bin Laden's terrorist list, it becomes a very valuable asset worth protecting. Bill C-3 would ensure that this and other vital assets would be prepared for the post 9/11 realities.

However, in a post 9/11 era, in the climate of heightened security, it must co-exist with a heightened interest in expanding our trade corridors. The federal oversight of international borders must protect the national interest by ensuring environmentally sound, economically efficient, secure and safe international crossings. Bill C-3 promises to address many of these problems and others filling the legislative gap, providing the federal government with several mechanisms that would provide authorization for the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, repair, transfer, safety and security of international crossings.

A key mechanism of the bill on which I want to focus a bit more is a provision that would authorize the governor in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, to issue letters patent of incorporation for the establishment of a corporation to construct and operate an international crossing. This provision would effectively allow the governor in council to issue such letters patent to create any company to build or operate an international bridge or tunnel. The corporation would be authorized to carry out its activities both inside and outside of Canada where so permitted.

The comprehensive information found in the letters patent, such as the composition of the board of directors, their obligations and conduct, the ownership of the corporation and its management, the financial reporting requirements and borrowing authority and any other provision which is deemed appropriate, would establish the limitations of the corporation and would promote the accountability of these corporations in a manner similar to corporations subject to the Canada Business Corporations Act. In addition, so as to effectively issue letters patent of incorporation, the governor in council would also be authorized to amend, revoke and make regulations pertaining to letters patent.

It is worth mentioning that the letters patent provision would be an enabling provision and would not be mandatory. As such, any new crown corporation or corporation otherwise established could still build or operate an international crossing. In fact, it may be the case that the specific realities of the new international crossing or its body corporate, would require special considerations.

For example, purely private corporations would likely require incorporation pursuant to the Canada Business Corporations Act while purely public corporations could be made crown corporations. It may even by the case that incorporation pursuant to specific U.S. federal or state legislation could be required, such as our Niagara region bridges.

What is clear is the provision would provide the federal government with the flexibility to incorporate any company to build or construct an international crossing without necessarily resorting to the Canada Business Corporations Act, U.S. legislation or a special act of Parliament.

Furthermore, in order to promote growth in the Canadian economy while simultaneously protecting national interests, the legislative framework for international crossings should be sufficiently flexible so as to meet new and emerging issues. Alternate means of organizing and governing the corporations that construct and operate our international bridges and tunnels should be sufficiently flexible to adapt to private and public interests. The letters patent provision would provide the government with sufficient flexibility to create a company, subject to governmental safeguards, without being subject to the rules that govern crown corporations.

Therefore, the bill would allow for the consideration of alternate methods of organization such as public-private partnerships, binational authorities and corporations that are neither public nor public in nature where government oversight would be warranted and vital to the efficient construction and operation of the international crossing.

I know my colleagues in the New Democratic Party have raised some issue over control and ownership. Bill C-3 would extend sufficient control for the federal government, the first time it is going to do so. I know we have the binational process in the Windsor corridor, for example, where the federal and Ontario government, the municipalities, citizens, residents and citizen groups are all participating in moving forward on questions of governance for this specific crossing in that process. This has been a very good and productive, publicly involved process to determine issues of governance on the new crossing.

Bill C-3 and the letters patent provision would attempt to minimize ineffective use of legislative power that for years was exercised to create separate, independent, and inconsistent pieces of legislation on a case by case basis. This bill would fill that legislative gap by offering legislation of general application that would apply broadly to all international crossings.

I am asking all members of the House to seriously consider and support this bill, and the important role that it would have in providing Canadians with the tools to effectively manage and govern their international crossings, while protecting Canada's national interests.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Essex on his re-election. Over the last parliamentary session I got to know him very well. I would like to commend him on all the work that he did with me with regard to the Conservative auto caucus.

Oshawa and Essex have a lot in common. One of the things we have in common is the crossing at the Windsor-Detroit border. Everywhere we went, as part of the auto caucus, we heard how important it was for the government to move forward and address these important issues.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce says that over $2.5 billion is lost every year because we do not have this extra crossing. After 13 years of neglect by the Liberal government and not moving forward on this important issue, I want to ask the member, what effect will it have on the workers and families in his community, now that we have a government that is willing to take this important bill forward to the Canadian public?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have worked very closely with my hon. colleague in the last Parliament as part of the Conservative auto caucus, moving forward of course in terms of getting the government auto caucus up and going, and getting on top of all the important issues.

I come from the auto industry. I spent six and a half years on the line at DaimlerChrysler's Pillette Road truck assembly plant before it was closed and the Windsor assembly plant, helping build the Grand Caravan, the Town and Country minivans, and the Pacifica's that move our families along here in Canada, in North America and around the world.

A key item in talking with not only the CEOs and the major executives of these corporations but talking with the Canadian Auto Workers union and right down to the rank and file, predictability at the crossing, particularly in Windsor, is vital to keeping the auto industry moving.

This is vital to keeping our economies going, not only in Ontario but in Canada. It is critical that we secure additional capacity. That is why there is a binational process that is in place there. They are very close to locating the specific crossing, and the access routes and plazas are all being determined with public, municipal government and provincial input.

As an individual member, I am participating through the binational process and lending my own personal opinions and moving the opinions of the people of Essex forward through that process. We are close. However, the one key ingredient that is missing to ensure that we are ready for when that crossing is ready to go is legislation such as Bill C-3. This is a critical gap that was left out by the previous government. The Liberals got around to it far too late to do anything meaningful about it.

I am pleased that the present transport minister is making Bill C-3 a serious priority for the Conservative government. It is our second piece of legislation after the federal accountability act. This clearly demonstrates that the government is seized with the priority of that crossing in the Windsor-Essex region. We will keep moving that forward, so that we have jobs and a good quality of life in our communities, not only in Windsor--Essex but across Ontario and Canada.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has worked in the auto industry and understands it very well.

I am interested in a couple of issues with respect to the direction the government is taking. When a government invests in infrastructure, it is investing in the future. It is investing in transportation. Right now, 40% of Canada's exports are moved by rail which is by far the preferred environmental transportation link. With improved scheduling, rail can compete well with trucks on the highway.

Does my colleague think there is a philosophy at work here about the way we should go with our transportation? CN Rail is now established right across North America with excellent connections. We are building rail as an energy efficient and useful form of freighting that should be expanded.

Does my colleague think there are opportunities in the Windsor region to look at improving the rail system versus improving the road system, if there is a long term philosophy of greening this country?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been having ongoing discussions with the transport minister with respect to the renewal of rail infrastructure in our corridor. We have some of the worst rail lines, particularly the stretch from Windsor to Chatham. As I mentioned earlier, the rail tunnel that was built in 1909 has been somewhat renovated but does not handle double stack and the modern inner-model type transports down there. I am going to continue to have this discussion with the minister toward some solutions.

As I recall, this bill specifically is about the powers necessary to have oversight over international crossings. We are moving forward on the binational process to choose a crossing for the most pressing need which is to keep trucks moving and not idling on our city streets and not causing safety problems.

We have an immediate need that we are addressing here. I am convinced that this legislation is a key piece of that. It would give us the type of oversight and control that we need as the process moves forward.

I am also convinced that when the time comes, the federal government, in cooperation with the provinces and municipalities, is going to come through with the necessary long range funding to ensure that infrastructure goes forward in this corridor. I am very confident of that. I am pleased to be working with this minister on these projects.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's position on a specific issue.

What does the member think about the fact that Bill C-3 has removed the measures relating to the powers of the Canadian Transportation Agency to receive complaints concerning noise resulting from railway activities? The clause in question, which was part of Bill C-44, has been removed in Bill C-3.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very important issue to the member.

With respect to Bill C-3 and its differences with the previous incomplete Bill C-44 put forward by the Liberal government in the last Parliament, we have made two very substantial improvements. We have included some provisions with respect to the St. Lawrence Seaway and crossings there and the ability to have oversight over transactions with respect to new assets.

This is clearly something that the Liberals forgot, but it was important for us to put in this bill, particularly when we look at the asset in Fort Frances and its pending sale to a private interest. It is important that the government have the necessary oversight over such types of transactions. In my corridor, a private bridge operator is threatening the binational process for moving forward. This private interest is moving very quickly to twin the span there which really threatens to undermine a process that we are a partner in.

It is important that we get this bill through in a very timely fashion without holding up too many add-ons because the clock is ticking with respect to this private interest moving forward. It is a project that, in my humble opinion, is not in the national interest, certainly not in the community interest.

It is important that all members in the House support this legislation and get it through quickly, so that we can avert this type of situation or at least have some oversight over what is happening. This is a necessary piece of legislation. I am pleased that we have beefed up what the Liberals failed to do with their legislation.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and address the House on Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act. I am pleased that this is the first piece of legislation introduced into this Parliament after Bill C-2, the federal accountability act.

I congratulate my colleague, the Minister of Transport, for taking this initiative so quickly into the life of the 39th Parliament. Some of the issues in this bill were addressed in the 38th Parliament, but, I make the point again, by introducing them in the dying days of that Parliament, they had no chance of being enacted. So, I am pleased at his initiative and I thank him, as well, for giving me the honour of seconding the introduction of the bill.

I know how hard the member for Essex worked on this issue and I am pleased to be joined by my colleague from the Niagara Peninsula, the member for Niagara West—Glanbrook. He and I, in the 38th Parliament, had many discussions on all aspects of border issues and the international bridges, and the importance that they represent, not only to our area but to the country.

When we look at the perspective of our vital trade relationship with the United States and the communities and families dependent upon stable trade, Bill C-3 is an important part of our future and infrastructure renewal process.

In my remarks, I will discuss the role of Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act, in the future construction of international bridges and tunnels, and the impacts that these fixed links have on our prosperity and economic security.

Finally, I want to address the importance of this bill in my area of Niagara Falls, which is home to four international bridges. Anybody who has grown up in the Niagara Peninsula, as my colleague from Niagara West—Glanbrook and myself have, can attest to their importance and are very familiar with those four international crossings.

I dare say, and I may be corrected but I do not think so, we have more international crossings in the Niagara Peninsula than any other area of the country. I do not know of anybody else who has more than four international bridges.

We have the Lewiston-Queenston bridge. I am just old enough to remember when that came into service, in the fall of 1960. I remember us talking in school how pleased we were and how pleased our area was to have the new crossing between the village of Queenston and Lewiston, New York.

For many years, we have been serviced by the Whirlpool Bridge in Niagara. It is now a NEXUS bridge. One has to have a NEXUS pass, which is part of the security operations between our two countries and is a process that expedites traffic for frequent crossers between the two countries.

In Fort Erie, we have the Peace Bridge. I do not know if there are too many Canadians who would not know about the Peace Bridge and its importance to international trade.

Finally, in Niagara Falls, Ontario, we have the Rainbow Bridge. The Rainbow Bridge has been in operation for a little over 65 years. This is where many of the tourists who visit from the United States cross over into Niagara. This is one of the major gateways to Canada. The Rainbow Bridge was a replacement for the old Honeymoon City Bridge in the mid-1930s.

In the winter of 1936 there was a huge ice jam on the lower Niagara River. I must explain to people that there actually is very little ice in the Niagara Peninsula and my colleague will attest to that fact. It is sometimes known as the banana belt of Canada and we wear that label very proudly. It is a little more mild than most places in Canada. In that particular year, the lower Niagara River was jammed with ice that came from other parts of the province, from up north.

In that particular year, the lower Niagara River was jammed with ice that had come from other parts of the province up north. It worked its way down and lodged in the lower Niagara River just below the American Falls and the Canadian Horseshoe Falls. Over the course of several weeks, the buildup of ice eventually knocked out the underpinnings of the Honeymoon Bridge. After the collapse of that bridge, there was a scramble to replace the structure because of its vital importance.

Interestingly enough, while one might think it was the federal government that stepped in to replace that structure, that was actually not the case. Members of the House and certainly Canadians know the difficult times the 1930s posed. Money was in very short supply. One of the options that did not come to fruition was a federal government span.

Provincial resources and initiatives at the provincial level replaced the old Honeymoon Bridge with what came to be known as the Rainbow Bridge, the one that people know today. That bridge was marked by a ceremony in 1939, during the first visit of a reigning monarch to Canada. King George VI and Queen Elizabeth visited the Niagara area. Queen Elizabeth, known to most of us as the Queen Mother, inaugurated the Queen Elizabeth Way in the summer of 1939. As well it marked the beginning of the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls.

That has been a very important part of the history of our area. Indeed when I returned to the House of Commons in 2004 after an absence of a number of years, in one of my first addresses to Parliament I talked about border issues, about the bridges in our area. One member said to me that it was nice to hear me talk about those bridges and of course it is important to me because I come from Niagara Falls and I have all these international spans. I replied that the international spans are important to the Niagara Falls riding and the Niagara Peninsula, but they are important to all of Canada. That is why we all have to be very concerned about what happens at Canada's international borders. It is not just a Niagara issue. It is not just an Ontario issue. It is a Canadian issue.

I am very pleased about anything that clarifies the governance and the regulation issues. Canada's border is a subject in which I am very interested. Again, I appreciate that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, introduced this bill in the House of Commons right after the federal accountability act.

The Canada-U.S. trade relationship is the largest bilateral exchange in the world and supports millions of jobs in each country. Since the implementation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement in 1989, two-way traffic has tripled. Under NAFTA, trade has grown steadily each year with over $1.8 billion worth of goods and services crossing the border every single day. NAFTA trade with the United States is responsible for more than half of our gross domestic product.

I am proud to have been part of the government which fought hard to negotiate and ratify the free trade agreement. Its legacy is one of economic prosperity and vibrant job creation.

I have to note in passing that what we heard today was déjà vu. All the people who were not able to figure out how important free trade would be to Canada cannot figure out how important the deal is on softwood lumber. It was the same thing. Some members of the opposition told me they did not like the agreement. I told them that our Prime Minister has pulled together a consensus of most of the industry. He has gathered the support of Atlantic Canada, the three largest provinces in Canada, all under Liberal governments, and two countries. That is not an agreement; that is a miracle.

I know how significant and important the implementation of free trade was back in 1989. There were naysayers but they all came on board eventually. I do not have to tell hon. members that in 13 years of Liberal administration the Liberals did not want to touch one bit of that. They may not have made a decision on anything else but they certainly did not want to make any decisions to change that. It will stand the test of time.

Getting back to the importance of Bill C-3, it is absolutely essential that we have clarity at our borders. On average, over 45,000 trucks cross the border every day and those 45,000 trucks are crossing in approximately eight to ten traffic. Add to the mix hundreds of thousands of cars and there always is that potential for bottlenecks. There is a potential for slowdowns at the border. This is something we must always be aware of.

I am very pleased that Bill C-3 will clarify the rules and clearly establish the federal government's role. The proposed bill would prohibit the construction or alteration of an international bridge or tunnel without the approval of the governor in council.

As set out in the bill, approval would be sought by making an application to the Minister of Transport in accordance with the guidelines governing the approval process established by the minister. If these guidelines are followed and the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the minister during the process are met, then the minister will recommend to the governor in council to approve the construction. That is a good idea and it is the way it should be done.

Currently there exists no formal process for approving the construction of new international bridges and tunnels. There are a number of permits and approvals that must be obtained. This is the way it has been in the past for everything under Fisheries and Oceans Canada, even as part of Transport Canada under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but each of these permits is for a particular purpose. There is no legislation that deals specifically with the subject of Bill C-3, international bridge crossings and tunnels.

For example, in the case of approvals that must be sought under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the goal is to protect navigable waters and ensure that navigation is not disrupted. That is all well and good and these are all important, but the time has come to pass legislation of this particular type.

We have noticed over the years that it has been, quite frankly, a patchwork of different arrangements, private, municipal, provincial or federal. As I indicated earlier in talking about the history of the Niagara area, these were sometimes brought about because of necessity. We are not attempting in any way to alter that state of ownership, but the federal government has to lead. This is why I appreciate the leadership of my colleague.

I think this will be welcomed by our American colleagues. Of course, as are many of the things we do, this is a partnership with our major trading partner, but I am quite sure the Americans will welcome this. I know the people of the Niagara Peninsula will welcome it. Again I thank my colleague for bringing this so quickly to the attention of the House.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply to my colleague. He says that the softwood lumber agreement is a miracle. Personally, I would say that the Prime Minister was more a magician than a miracle worker. After all, he was the only one who made a billion dollars disappear, so the agreement was not a miracle, it was magic.

Coming back to the bill, I would like to ask the hon. member the same question my colleague asked. Clause 14 states that the government may make regulations about the maintenance—I repeat, the maintenance—and repair of bridges. It can also make regulations about the operation, use and security and safety of international bridges and tunnels.

My question is clear. Repairs to these bridges are paid for by the municipality that makes the repairs. The cost therefore comes out of Quebec infrastructure funds. In the case of the Sutton bridge, Vermont pays 70% of the cost of repairs or maintenance. How will the government be able to order repairs to a bridge in Quebec, such as the Sutton bridge, when we know that the Americans are going to pay 70% of the bill?

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member touched on a couple of items. He talked about the Prime Minister's role in the softwood lumber deal. Of course that is an international matter. It is not contained in the international bridges and tunnels act, but certainly the international bridges and tunnels act helps facilitate the regime that accommodates international trade. The hon. member would have to agree that we have seen outstanding leadership by the present Prime Minister on this issue. I think all members of the House have to give him credit for the leadership that he has established in this area. I do not see how we could do otherwise.

The hon. member knows and members of his party know how many times we raised this matter. We were in opposition too and raised this matter with the former Liberal government asking it to please deal with this problem and to get on this file. We heard empty rhetoric. We saw members of the former government going out of their way to exacerbate relations with the United States. I do not know what could be more incredible.

At one point they were criticizing the Americans for doing better than us on greenhouse gas emissions. That is one I could never figure out, criticizing them because they are doing better than we are. I am not making this up, to use a term that was used in the election; that actually happened.

[An hon. member]

Thirty per cent of our economy is natural resources. That is why we are producing it up here.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we now have a Prime Minister who, having been in office a little less than three months, has solved this problem. He has shown the kind of leadership that Canadians want and deserve in this country.

Mr. Speaker, are my 10 minutes up?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

No, your 10 minutes are not up, but It appears that the hon. member for Beaches—East York would like to ask a question. If the member will be patient, the government House leader will finish and then she can ask her question.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of repairs to international bridges, the local bridge authorities themselves have their own arrangements. I am not familiar with the crossing in the hon. member's riding, but I can tell him that for the international crossings that I talked about in the Niagara area, the local bridge authority is responsible. It raises the money and makes sure those bridges are kept in good repair. I do not want the suggestion to be made or there to be any misunderstanding that I am asking the Minister of Transport to send money to do the repairing and painting that takes place on those bridges, because that work is done through the tolls that are collected. That will continue. The hon. member can be assured of that.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I am inviting questions and comments. Does the hon. member for Beaches—East York wish to be recognized?

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, usually a member is recognized when a member is standing and I think the Speaker, with all due respect, is interfering in what I was saying.

Nonetheless, to the hon. member across who said that we are not keeping up with the environment, Canada is an energy producing country. Thirty per cent of Canada's pollution is attributed directly to the oil sands and energy production. We sell clean energy to the Americans. This is why in fact they are able to make their claims.

Is the hon. member saying that one way of getting rid of it is to cut back on the production of energy in this country? That would be one quick way of doing it. Is that what the hon. member is suggesting, because what he said earlier was absolutely not true.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order. The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think what I was saying, and I will make it very clear, is that I think the Liberals had a terrible record on the environment. That is what it is. It is not anything more complicated than that.

All I said was that it was a bit much to be criticizing our neighbours for doing better than we are doing. I am not making this up: on greenhouse gas emissions, they did better. Everybody wants to do better on this, but to gratuitously start criticizing our neighbours is a bit much, that is all I was saying. If the member wants to talk about the environment, we have an outstanding environment minister and she has a tremendous knowledge in this particular area.

As for the member, there were members of her party who did not like free trade once upon a time, and look at them all today, they all like free trade. All I would say to the member is that I think she will like the Conservative government's record on the environment. If she has her doubts or worries today, we will overcome those doubts, just like the free trade. Good heavens above, the member's own party is now defending the GST. They do not want us to cut it.

Do we remember when the Liberals were going to abolish the GST? They were going around with little erasers. They were going to get rid of the GST. Now they are maybe the last group in Canada defending that tax. On the one hand, it is very impressive, but I think it is a little bit misguided. They should be open to change, I say. We are going to reduce that GST and I think it is a good thing. I think we should move forward on it.

Again, though, this bill is about international bridges, tunnels and the facilitation of trade between our two countries. Just as I agree with the federal accountability act, and just as I am so pleased at the agreement on softwood, I have to say that I am very pleased that this piece of legislation is before the House. I hope the hon. member will support it when it comes time to have this chamber approve it.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

We have two minutes left under questions and comments. I recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the hon. leader of the government for taking the opportunity to recognize the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown in finally getting a resolution to a long term challenge that has faced the country for years, and that is the softwood lumber challenge. It is interesting to hear how members opposite keep affording the House leader the opportunity to remind them how great a deal this is for all of Canada.

I also want to recognize the Minister of Transport for his leadership in bringing forth this piece of legislation. Although I do not have any international bridges in my riding, I wonder if the hon. leader of the government could explain this opportunity. He talked about four bridges in his riding. Could he give us some indication of the discussions he has had over all these years while waiting for the opportunity to actually move forward on this? Could the member please elaborate?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

I will recognize the hon. leader of the government, but he cannot elaborate very much because he has barely 40 seconds.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was just going to say that perhaps I could also explain the English constitution at the same time and just put them together in 40 seconds.

We have two bridge authorities: the Niagara Falls Bridge authority and the Peace Bridge authority. The two of them operate along the Niagara River. Again, they have been very much a part of the lives of everyone in that area. Quite frankly, they have done a great job in providing a service, and not just to the people of our area. As I have always emphasized, they provide a service to Canada. This is one of the great gateways to the nation. It is a very important component. This is why I am sure they applaud legislation like Bill C-3.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my support for Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act, and applaud the government for moving ahead on this important piece of legislation.

All Canadians have a vested interest in the bill. Whether it be ensuring security at our borders, protecting trade and our economic interests or simply crossing the border for shopping or for a holiday, the bill will affect all Canadians.

The new provisions in the act will give the federal government the ability to intervene as needed. We know the federal government has a role to play in ensuring that the ownership of these structures does not interfere in any way with national interests or public policy objectives.

From coast to coast, Canadians stand to gain a lot from enhancing the flow of goods across the border. While the riding of Simcoe—Grey, my riding, is not immediately on the border, we are only a few hours away and our economic prosperity depends heavily on the Windsor corridor.

Many members may remember the provisions in Bill C-3 when they were part of former Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, which died on the Order Paper on November 28, 2005, the day the Liberal government fell.

Like many other issues, the Liberals say that they would have had that bill passed and this bill passed if it had not been for the Conservatives bringing them down. Of course, we have to stop and ask the Liberals why they waited. They had 13 years and over a decade of that was majority rule, so I do not really understand what they were waiting for. They had all kinds of time to pass this legislation and many others legislation and they simply did not.

The people of Simcoe—Grey, like many other Canadians, rejected the Liberals last January. They voted for change and in my riding they voted for it overwhelmingly.

I am happy to see that my colleague, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, has chosen to make this bill one of his department's legislative priorities.

The provisions dealing with international bridges and tunnels were somewhat neglected in debate the last time the bill was before the House. I will take this opportunity to discuss a few of the issues that these provisions will address.

We are fortunate to have in Canada a national transportation system that links every corner of this country because the vast system opens our doors to the rest of the world and to the commercial markets beyond our borders. We are a trading nation in an age of globalization.

We rely on the safe and efficient movement of people and goods in order to maintain our prosperity and quality of life. No one knows this better than the citizens of my riding of Simcoe—Grey.

I am sure that all members will agree that our international bridges and tunnels are an integral part of our nation's transportation system and provide a necessary link to our country's trade with the U.S.

I do not think we can emphasize enough how these crossings are important to international trade. For instance, I have Honda in my riding of Simcoe—Grey. It is a commonly known fact that 85% of the cars manufactured in Canada are exported to the United States.

Some of my potato farmers are shipping their potatoes to New York and Pennsylvania. We also have Alcoa Wheel Products in Simcoe—Grey, a large producer of rims in Collingwood and it is shipping daily to the big three in Michigan.

Simply put, the U.S. is our largest trading partner and the people of Simcoe—Grey depend heavily on this trading relationship.

I believe something like three-quarters of Canadians live within a two to three hour drive of the border, so not surprisingly, 85% of Canada's total exports to the world go to the United States and 59% of our imports come from the United States.

In terms of value, more than $531 billion was traded between Canada and the U.S. in 2003. In terms of jobs, 200 million jobs in both countries exist because of the trade between our two countries.

In 2003 over 834,000 Canadians were employed in the transportation industry. Of the $531 billion traded in 2003, 63% was transported over the Canada-U.S. border by truck, an estimated 13 million trucks. That is about 36,000 trucks crossing the Canada-U.S. border every day, or an average of one truck every 2.5 seconds.

If truth be told, almost 75% of this truck traffic was concentrated at six border crossings: four bridges in Ontario, including Windsor, one land crossing in Quebec, and one land crossing in British Columbia.

In fact, our exports, particularly in the automotive industry, are an important and essential step in the manufacturing of U.S. products. While many companies in the automotive manufacturing and parts sectors are diversifying with new plants around the world, there is one advantage that Canada will always have and the people of Simcoe--Grey understand this well. Geography will always be our ally and allow us to meet the just in time delivery demands that the automotive industry is increasingly moving toward. The industry relies on our products being delivered on time and not being unduly held up at our borders.

The highly concentrated nature of freight movement in Canada is largely responsible for specific local bottlenecks or choke points. Anyone who passes through the Windsor corridor will tell us that. With the high volume of trade and tourism with the U.S., our bridges and tunnels often become choke points.

Any regular bottleneck has the ability to put pressure on the entire transportation system. Bottlenecks that originate at freight transfer points and at the border can affect overall freight movements within trade corridors. As I mentioned before, the manufacturers in Simcoe--Grey using the Windsor corridor know this all too well.

Considering the staggering statistics and the importance of these crossings to our international trade and tourism, it is surprising that there has never been any one piece of legislation that deals with international bridges and tunnels. The new provisions of this bill would enhance the oversight of the federal government. They would ensure that international crossings are being managed and operated in a manner that prioritizes the public interest for safety, security, and efficient cross-border movement.

The bill would confirm that international bridges and tunnels are the responsibility of the federal government. It would give the government the authority to govern and regulate in all aspects of international bridges and tunnels, such as their construction, maintenance and operation. There are today several projects to construct new bridges that are either under way or being contemplated and there are renovations planned for others. These would be subject to the new bill.

The bill would also provide a means for the government to ensure the safety and security of these crossings. By putting systems in place and imposing standards, the bill would make these crossings less vulnerable to terrorist threats and help keep our borders more secure, while at the same time promoting the efficient flow of goods and people at these crossings--all priorities of this government.

I am pleased to lend my support to this bill, which has been a long time in coming. The people of Simcoe--Grey, like most Canadians, demanded change. I am proud to be a part of a government that is taking action. Canada desperately needs this infrastructure. The new Conservative government will continue to do what is best for Canada.

[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.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I would like to ask him a question regarding a particular provision in the bill regarding crossing the St. Lawrence River. The provision is no doubt included because of the existence of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

In view of the joint jurisdiction over environment, among other things, did my colleague cooperate and negotiate with the Government of Quebec before including this provision in the bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, because of the unique nature of all bridges and international crossings there needs to be input by all parties. As the member is aware, there is an international crossing in Quebec that is important and vital to Quebeckers.

I assure the member that the government will be collaborating with not only all members of this House but with all stakeholders, private, state, federal and, most important, provincial. This is an area that is vitally important to provincial economies and the people who use those crossings.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my own personal view is that critical pieces of infrastructure, such as the Ambassador Bridge, should not be privately owned. I think this is far too critical to be in private hands, to be bought, sold and traded away to who knows whom down the road.

I know the political philosophy of the Conservative Party is to privatize everything. It wants to get government out of everything and sell it to the private sector. If the government can make a buck on it that is what is holy.

Does the parliamentary secretary agree that things, such as the Ambassador Bridge, should not be privately owned? Is there anything in the bill to give some comfort to Canadians that we will retain public control and ownership over those key infrastructure pieces such as the Ambassador Bridge?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an amusing question. I did not know that was what the Conservative Party stood for. I am happy the member suggested that but it is simply not the case. The Conservative Party's number one priority is safety.

I am happy the member supports Bill C-3 because it would establish one set of rules and one priority, which is safety. It would also ensure, under clause 6 of the bill, that:

No person shall construct or alter an international bridge or tunnel without the approval of the Governor in Council.

We want to establish one set of rules that will ensure the safety of Canadians no matter who owns the bridge, whether it be federal, provincial or private. Our number one priority is to ensure the rules are in place so Canadians are safeguarded.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly support Bill C-3 going to committee. However I find it quite amusing when the government takes credit for bringing this legislation forward. If the oppositions parties had not called the election that bill would have been in the House. Governance as it relates to our border operations has been of concern for many members on this side.

We have a classic example in Windsor-Detroit where we have some private sector interests that are basically setting the standards and buying up all the real estate that will be a part of any transaction of any new crossing. The previous government had started to get on to this and had drafted the legislation, and I hope the government deals with this.

I am not a big fan of nationalizing these sorts of operations but there are some people who would, and perhaps some our colleagues down at the other end and on their side.

I think we need to have a state of governance that provides the national security and the national interest of the Canadian people in this massive corridor that takes care of so much trade and the passage of people across our borders. We need to be in charge here, not these private sector interests because this represents a key national corridor for the trade of goods and the mobility of people.

The member also alluded to the concept of perimeter. Is this a new change? Is this a change in the philosophy of the government? Does the government still subscribe to the notion that we need to harmonize all our national security policies with the United States and Mexico?

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

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the member was in government for a period of time and had the opportunity for some 13 years to make changes, 5 years under what I would consider to be a critical mandate, and did nothing. It is absolutely uncalled for to now criticize us for making the safety of Canadians a priority, especially given that Canadians had a choice. They had a choice some months ago and they chose change. They did not like the job the member and his government were doing before. Instead of a party that did nothing or a party that could not do anything, they wanted a party that would make positive changes for Canadians, which is this Conservative government. We will be making positive changes for people and we will actually get some work done.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing forward this Liberal bill and it seems that all members in the House support this Liberal bill.

I guess the bill is not that much of a priority because he refused the request for unanimous consent to get on with the bill. However, does the member have any problems with the bill as the Liberals wrote it and with the debate in the last Parliament?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous day because I have been amused three times already. This is not a Liberal bill. I think Bill C-44 was a Liberal bill and it was about four times thicker and did not accomplish anything. It was, quite frankly, not agreed to by all parties.

The difference is that we are putting forward a bill that all parties will agree to. We as a government will listen to members of all parties and ask for their input. We do not just shove things through. The difference between this government and the previous government which Canadians had for 13 years is that we will listen to people and we will get things done.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise to speak to Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act. Since it incorporates part of Bill C-44, which the Bloc Québécois supported, we must support this bill, but with certain reservations, as I will explain later.

This is the first time the Government of Canada has put legislation in place to allow it to exercise its authority over international bridges and tunnels. The new government tells us it wants to ensure that the security, safety and efficient movement of people and goods are in accordance with national interests.

The events of September 2001, it must be noted, made clear the importance of protecting these vital infrastructures. The proposed amendments would give the Government of Canada new and broader legislative powers to oversee approvals of international bridges and tunnels. These amendments would give the government power to approve, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, the construction or alteration of international bridges and tunnels and to formulate regulations governing the management, maintenance, security, safety and operation of these structures.

The bill would also authorize the federal government to approve the sale or transfer of ownership of international bridges and tunnels. Note as well that it would strengthen federal government oversight of all new and existing international bridges and tunnels in order to better protect the public interest and ensure the flexible flow of international trade. There are currently 24 international vehicular bridges and tunnels and five international railway tunnels linking Canada and the United States. These bridges and tunnels carry the vast majority of international trade between Canada and the United States and play a vital role in Canada’s transportation system.

The provisions of this new bill are almost identical to those of the defunct Bill C-44, which was tabled by the former government and died on the order paper when the election was called. That bill,the Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, to enact the VIA Rail Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, was tabled in the House of Commons on March 24, 2005 by the former Minister of Transport. Bill C-44 was itself similar in many respects to the previous Bill C-26, which bore the same title and was tabled in the House of Commons on February 23, 2003. Those two bills each died on the order paper upon the prorogation of Parliament. As you can see, the Parliament of Canada needs a lot of time to get its bills passed.

What affects us in Quebec most closely in this bill is a provision concerning the international bridges and tunnels that cross the St. Lawrence River. This provision corrects a legislative anomaly in the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which requires that a permit be issued for all work that has repercussions on navigable waters but which does not authorize the issuing of permits with regard to the St. Lawrence River. That anomaly had become evident during review of the proposed highway 30 bridges crossing the St. Lawrence Seaway. Those bridges have yet to be built, as you know, and these projects have been making very slow progress for many years.

In his speech last Friday, the minister said that any new crossing over the St. Lawrence would be subject to federal approval. I would like to know to what extent that sort of approach has the approval of the Quebec government, as it is likely to infringe upon its fields of jurisdiction.

Although the bill fills a legal void in the area of international bridges and tunnels, is designed to improve the safety of the infrastructures in that area, and has the consent of local stakeholders, we still have certain reservations. In the context of the regulation of international bridges and tunnels, the bill gives us the impression that the government is being conferred some very extensive, quasi-police powers, for example, a power to investigate without a warrant and a very authoritarian power of seizure.

The government has the power to legislate, but the financial responsibility rests on other shoulders. The Bloc Québécois believes this situation can lead to conflicts. What disappoints us the most is that a number of important measures that were in Bill C-44 were dropped from the current bill. It is important to point that out because we were told that this bill included the measures already outlined in Bill C-44, but only a small number of them are left.

Some parts of Bill C-44 were very important for the Bloc Québécois and for now they are being dropped. I am talking about the requirement that airline advertising be more transparent. The former bill would have required airlines to change their advertising methods. They would have been required to list the total price of the flight including related fees. This measure was much demanded by the consumer associations.

The bill would have improved the conflict resolution process for sharing the rail lines between passenger transportation companies and freight companies.

Bill C-44 included a section under which a railway company wishing to sell a rail line would first offer it to any interested urban transit authorities before offering it to municipal governments. A number of residents in my riding and in other regions of Quebec are concerned about this issue. Bill C-44 promoted setting up commuter trains across the country.

Our constituents are increasingly aware of the importance of developing public transit as a solution to traffic congestion problems and greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill also included a provision on Via Rail. It gave Via Rail more power to make its own decisions with a view to improving the rail service. Rail transit is a good alternative to road transportation, which currently is about the only option.

Clause 32 of Bill C-44 gave the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to investigate complaints concerning noise caused by trains. It required railways to implement certain measures to prevent unnecessary noise, particularly at rail yards. The noise issue is causing a lot of controversy in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.

According to the British North America Act of 1867, the responsibility for international bridges and tunnels falls exclusively within federal jurisdiction. But in most cases, the Canadian portion of these structures is owned by the provinces. We must ensure that the regulatory and financial application of this act is negotiated and occurs in collaboration with the provinces.

In his speech last Friday, the minister stated that the federal government will be able to ensure that environmental assessments of international bridges and tunnels are conducted in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, when appropriate.

What did the minister mean by adding the word “appropriate”? I believe the minister was implying that jurisdiction over the environment is shared between federal and provincial governments, and that he does not necessarily have the final say in the matter.

I again ask the minister if he held negotiations with the Government of Quebec concerning sharing jurisdictions. Given its declaration of good will toward Quebec, it would be desirable for the new government to demonstrate its good intentions with respect to Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will support the second reading of the bill, despite the fact that it only partially resolves the many transportation problems that still exist in Quebec and Canada.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in this Parliament to deliver a speech. I made a statement previously, but since my time was limited then, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your very important role in the 39th Parliament.

I also take this opportunity to thank the constituents of Sarnia—Lambton who made it possible for me to be a member of this august body. Their support and faith in me is gratifying and extremely humbling. I will certainly do my utmost to represent all constituents in my riding.

I give a special thanks to my family, who has always supported me 100%: my husband, Bill, our son, my mom and my sisters and brothers. None of us get here on our own, and I am pleased to be able to acknowledge all those who helped and supported in so many ways.

I am pleased today to add my full support to the international bridges and tunnels act, not only because I feel it will be an important piece of legislation, but because one of Canada's most important international crossings, the Blue Water Bridge, is located in my riding. For those who have not had the opportunity to visit the village of Point Edward, which is surrounded on three sides by the city of Sarnia, Ontario, and on the fourth side by the St. Clair River, let me say a bit about the Blue Water Bridge.

The crossing is a major traffic and economic link between Ontario and Michigan, and serves as a critical component in our trade corridor linking Canada, the United States and Mexico. The bridges connect Highway 402 in Ontario to Interstates 94 and 69 in Michigan, which provides southerly access to Detroit, Indianapolis, St. Louis and the entire gulf coast, extending down through Florida to New Orleans and Mexico.

To better handle the volume of traffic, the Blue Water Bridge was twinned in 1997 with the addition of a second span. We now have the distinction of having the only twin international bridge crossing in Canada. My riding is also home to an international rail tunnel and an international ferry crossing.

The Blue Water Bridge currently ranks as the fourth busiest Canada-U.S. border crossing. In 2005, 5.5 million vehicles crossed the Blue Water Bridge. It is the second busiest crossing for the number of commercial vehicle crossings. Approximately 5,000 commercial vehicles cross the bridge daily. On busy days, this count exceeds 7,500 trucks. In 2005, 3.7 million commercial vehicles crossed the bridge, carrying Canadian exports south and bringing foreign products to Canadians. The bridge handles 12% of Canada's total trade with the United States and is the fastest growing truck crossing on the Canada-U.S. border. It is interesting to note that the Blue Water Bridge is the busiest live animal port of entry on the Canadian border. This critical piece of our transportation infrastructure is essential to maintaining our current economic stature.

We have heard that special acts of Parliament created most of our international bridges and tunnels quite some time ago. This is the situation with the Blue Water Bridge. An act to incorporate the St. Clair Transit Company was passed by Parliament on June 11, 1928, and authorized the construction, operation and maintenance of an international bridge. There were subsequent acts and amendments related to the bridge passed in 1930, 1934, 1940, 1964, 1970, 1972, 1979, 1981, 1988 and 2001.

It would seem to me that this practice of continually debating and passing special acts of Parliament is an ineffectual way for the federal government to exercise its jurisdiction over international bridges and tunnels. I therefore support the approach taken by Bill C-3 of having governor in council consider and approve aspects related to these crossings, rather than take valuable House time for the same purpose.

I gave the House some statistics relating to commercial crossings at the Blue Water Bridge. This international crossing is also very important for the tourism industry. In 2005 there were 1.8 million passenger vehicles that crossed the Blue Water Bridge. Obviously this link is vitally important to this sector of our economy as well.

The international bridges and tunnels bill contains provisions to ensure that these facilities are safe and secure. The Blue Water Bridge Authority takes safety and security very seriously. Following the tragic events of September 11, 2001 the authority was very proactive and on its own undertook a security threat assessment. It was one of the first international bridges to implement increased security measures. It has also been very cooperative in sharing its lessons learned with its sister members of the Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association. There is no doubt in my mind that the Blue Water Bridge continues to be actively concerned with safety and security measures and will continue to be vigilant in carrying out its responsibilities.

Many security improvements have been implemented over the past three years. One of the objectives is to further develop and maintain policies and procedures for emergency response, threat assessment and disaster recovery. Three security assessments have been completed and all high priority recommendations have been implemented. The bridge is also a member of the Chemical Valley Emergency Coordinating Organization.

I am concerned, however, that not all international bridges and crossings might be taking security as seriously as does the Blue Water Bridge Authority. It is for this reason that I support the provisions in Bill C-3 that would permit the federal government to pass regulations concerning safety and security measures. What good would it do Canada if not every bridge or tunnel took security as seriously as the Blue Water Bridge? A terrorist would simply target the weakest facility. That is why we need to establish a minimum level of security that every bridge would need to respect. A bridge or tunnel could exceed this standard, but at least there would be a minimum standard which all bridges would be required to attain.

The Blue Water Bridge has been able to strike a healthy balance between traffic efficiency and security. Security and medical alerts, customs contract negotiations and a general lack of capacity on the American plaza during peak traffic demand has at times created traffic congestion in Canada. With the introduction of NEXUS and the FAST program, some of this volume pressure has been relieved. The bridge authority has taken a lead role in coordinating a focus group including the Ontario Provincial Police, the Sarnia Police Service, the Ontario Trucking Association and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation to implement short and long term solutions to traffic matters. The authority's master plan will reduce the potential for congestion and accidents in the long term while short term solutions such as reducing speed limits, better signage and increased police presence have had positive results.

In December 2004 the U.S. and Canadian governments consulted border operators on how to improve transit times for cars and trucks by 25% by the end of 2005. This challenge was directed at easing border congestion. The Blue Water Bridge quickly completed and implemented a traffic management system which achieved the 25% improvement for traffic coming into Canada.

Considering the importance of international bridges and tunnels to Canadian trade and tourism, it is remarkable that no law has ever been adopted that uniformly applies to all international bridges and tunnels and sets out the manner in which the federal government can exercise its jurisdiction with respect to these structures. Bill C-3 would rectify this vacuum in federal legislation.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the member on a very good speech. She raised some very good points. Her party also showed good judgment in bringing forward the Liberal bill in exactly the same way as we presented it.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Bill C-3 is an excellent bill. It will improve things greatly at all international border crossings. Although there are a lot of similarities to Bill C-44, there are a couple of differences in our bill. Certainly crossings over the St. Lawrence River and the sale and transfer affecting international bridges and tunnels are two of them. We look forward to support from across the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my friend in relation to her attendance and interest in this bill, and obviously the significant work that she wants to put into this area. I am wondering if she would comment briefly on what she felt were the most important areas to concentrate our efforts on in order to facilitate border crossings and to get goods transported back and forth between the United States and Canada. What does she think is the most important issue to deal with right now in relation to this?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the security at our border crossings is one of the very first things we need to deal with. The standardization of security at all international crossings is of utmost importance. If we do not have a standard across the country, then as far as our trade partners go, there will be a great deal of ambiguity and a great deal of concern as to which border crossing they will be dealing with. The standardization of security is one of the first things we need to deal with.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a provision of the preceding bill gave the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to investigate complaints about noise and require the railways to take measures to reduce the harmful effects of noise as much as possible, during both the construction and operation of rail lines. Of course, this must take into account the operational needs of railway services and the interests of the communities in question.

I would like to know the hon. member's opinion on the provisions concerning noise.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had spoken mainly on bridge crossings. Bill C-3 certainly does cover all international crossings whether they be bridges or tunnels. The issue the member has brought forth will be discussed when the bill is before the committee. We look forward to hearing the comments from all the parties and the different areas as consultation continues.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not discuss one particular aspect of the question. We know that rail transport is much more environmentally friendly than any other form of transportation that exists in Canada, and particularly in Quebec.

The previous bill was much more explicit in that sense. Specifically, it gave VIA Rail greater power to improve rail transport.

I would like the hon. member to explain how she believes this new bill is better than the previous bill. We, in fact, prefer the previous bill.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-3 addresses all aspects of the international crossings, whether they be tunnels or bridges. That is an issue we will be discussing further as I have said. There will be further discussion on the different aspects of rail travel. Rail travel is an extremely important part of moving goods in this country. Certainly coming from a riding that has an international tunnel crossing, I fully realize the value of moving goods by train. As a government we look forward to further discussion on this issue at committee.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say about controlling pollution from railway transportation, particularly noise pollution. Bill C-3 makes brief mention of this, but it was covered in Bill C-44, specifically in connection with marshalling yards.

Another element that was missing from Bill C-44 and is also missing from Bill C-3 concerns the inconvenience caused by train vibration and movement at the entrance to cities when trains stop and block vehicle entry or access routes for a long time. Every city is limited to two such rail entry points.

You will tell me that there are regulations for this, but there are regulations for noise as well.

I would therefore like to know why a distinction is being made regarding inconvenience caused by vibration and entries when noise is covered.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this issue.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, as I have said before, Bill C-3 deals with all aspects of the international crossings. We will also be dealing with rail traffic and rail crossings and the tunnels. I look forward to further discussions as this bill goes through committee.

I live in a small rural municipality where, on average, there is one train every 20 minutes. I know what the sound of trains is like. I know what the pollution from trains is like. I know what the vibration from trains is like. I, too, look forward to further discussions.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today to Bill C-3, a significant bill relating to bridges and tunnels that connect our country with the United States. Bill C-3 is actually a part of a former bill, Bill C-44, which was a package of three other elements that have been left behind at the moment to deal with this significant and important issue. I give the government credit for doing so. It is important that we recognize that this bill has a high priority.

I would like to note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, who is also affected by this issue. Windsor West, Windsor—Tecumseh and Essex County have significant border infrastructure issues that have affected not only our community but the county and even the country.

In fact, 40% of the trade with the United States happens along two kilometres of the Detroit River on a daily basis. There are four border crossings in the Windsor West corridor that are involved in the transport of goods, services and people on a regular basis. They have significant impacts not only on the health and vibrancy of the constituents in my riding but also on this country's ability to trade with the United States.

I am pleased that there are many elements in this bill coming forward. It will be important to add some accountability at the border that is not there at this point in time. In fact, there are 24 international bridges and tunnels that connect the United States and Canada. There is really just organized chaos in terms of the way they are actually run and administered right now. A few have some very good best practices. I would point to Niagara Falls and the Fort Erie-Buffalo region that have border commissions and actually have oversight, operation and public ownership, which is critical to the oversight and governance.

Members of the public who are watching this debate today and others across Canada may not realize how at risk we are in terms of the corridor in my riding and the influence of 40% plus of trade that is done on a daily basis. In the Windsor-Detroit corridor there are currently four different border crossings and there is no oversight whatsoever. There is a complete void in the aspects of safety, security, best practices, and has actually put the community at risk.

Currently, a fifth border crossing is under examination. The first of the four others is an international tunnel owned by the city of Detroit and the city of Windsor. The city of Detroit has decided on a long term lease on its side of the tunnel. The city of Windsor actually owns and operates the tunnel after it was in the private sector for so many years. It was rundown and the municipality had to fight to get it back.

Since that time, we have kept fares low, put investment back into public infrastructure and increased the safety aspect of it which we did not have previous knowledge of because it was once again private infrastructure. Without Bill C-3, there are very little safety regulations, inspections, and empowerment from the federal government to look after those jurisdictional items that are so important to infrastructure.

The Ambassador Bridge is the second crossing. In terms of transport trucks and cars, this is the busiest bridge in North America and processes the most trucks in the world on a regular basis. Almost 40,000 vehicles traverse the corridor. The vast majority, I think 34%, use the Ambassador Bridge.

In that capacity, a private American citizen actually owns the Ambassador Bridge. The most important infrastructure, which is 75 years plus, is owned by a private American, and has the highest fares in the region by far and the least amount of accountability because there are no laws of governance. Lastly, I would argue, it has caused considerable grief in the community because of a lack of planning and oversight, not only in terms of the operation of the site itself but also the previous government not increasing trade corridor expansion.

The third is a rail tunnel operated by CP Rail. This is a significantly old infrastructure. I believe it is close to 100 years old. It has two rail tubes. There is a proposal for regeneration, which is beneficial for the rail aspect, but at the same time there is a private proponent that is looking to expand border capacity called the DRTP, which is the city is universally opposed to.

The fourth and last is a ferry operator that transports hazardous waste materials. I am going to use that as an example of the lack of oversight we have in terms of the border and more importantly some of the things that have been happening that this legislation is going to address.

One of them is in regard to a newspaper article. I have asked for an investigation from the government. I have yet to receive a response from the minister's office. The office called back asking for a second copy of the letter I sent but it has not actually dealt with it yet. It is a very serious issue. It is about chemicals and hazardous materials that are crossing the Ambassador Bridge and that is not supposed to be happening.

The Ambassador Bridge goes across the Detroit River which is connected to the Great Lakes ecosystem. From the legislation on the United States side, which is different from the Canadian side, certain chemical materials are not supposed to be traversing over the Ambassador Bridge. They are supposed to go to a ferry operator operated by Gregg Ward, which is down river by about two kilometres. His company has received grants and awards from the Homeland Security Department because of the types of operations it has on site to ensure the goods and materials cross safely.

There has been a public spat between the Ambassador Bridge and some of its operators. The headline of a Windsor Star article reads: “Bridge OKs risky cargo: Letter of permission given to chemical company”. The article then states:

The Ambassador Bridge is telling its toll collectors to wave through trucks carrying hazardous cargo in violation of a U.S. ban, according to a document obtained by The Star.

It goes on to say:

Bridge spokesman Skip McMahon claimed last week he was unaware of any such shipments.

But a representative of another firm, Harold Marcus Ltd., a Bothwell-based transportation company, said it uses the crossing almost daily to import alum.

The representative said the company did so with the bridge's blessing and said other companies are also granted permission to haul hazardous cargo across the bridge. The Windsor West MP is calling on the federal Public Safety Minister to investigate the reports.

We are yet to hear about that. That is on a daily basis. We know that there is no accountability on this aspect of the file and we have to sit and wait.

This has significant implications because if there were a spill or accident, there would be very little that could be done. That is why we agree that Bill C-3 must have some regulations and oversight to ensure that federal officials can examine and do best practices. Not only could an accident just happen but we do not have the capacity to respond to it. We know our fire department has very limited operations in terms of going onto the Ambassador Bridge and the hazardous material would then go into the Detroit River and contaminate it.

It is also not reducing some of the chemical exposures that we have through our corridor. This is why Bill C-3 is very important. It is one of the elements that we believe should go forward.

I would also like to note some of the failings in Bill C-3. We are concerned right now that the ministerial powers on connecting infrastructure seem to be very dominant in the bill. That is one of the things that we would like to examine, ways that we can actually have some type of involvement from a municipal aspect, so the infrastructure relationship in the corridor can be softened.

I know that in my municipality of Windsor West there may be an imposed solution in terms of connecting the Ambassador Bridge to the 401 because ironically it was a provincial Conservative government and a Liberal federal government that ended construction of the 401 in a farmer's field because they were fighting. It is about eight miles short of the Ambassador Bridge crossing, so we actually have the 401 in the busiest part of this corridor stop in a farmer's field and then it connects to a city linking road because those two governments could not get along. As a result of that we still have backups. There are a number of different problems related to schools, churches, businesses and institutions that have built up along there. They will need compensation if there is going to be any type of shift in the type of landscape.

In summary, we support the bill as an important step forward. There are many aspects that I would like to get into but I cannot. I wanted to highlight the need of this to the general public of Canada. There is such a significant degree of infrastructure problems in Windsor West. There are risks associated as well with having a private infrastructure connecting Canada and the United States as a business conduit as opposed to what it should be, and that is a social, economic conduit between our two countries.

Instead of raking in profits between these two transportation link elements, we should have a high degree of accountability, security and scrutiny with the lowest cost possible for the free flow of goods, services and people. That can only be done with public infrastructure oversight. The government is tabling a piece of legislation that will have some benefits. We are cautious on a few elements and we are looking forward to working on those in committee.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to transportation beyond our borders, one element of Bill C-44 has disappeared. I am referring to advertising of airline ticket prices. We felt that this was a perfect opportunity for greater transparency in ticket sales. In other words, the agency should have the authority to regulate advertising so that hidden charges, especially taxes, are included in the ticket price. Various consumer associations called for this.

There was also the issue of sales of one-way airline tickets that were conditional on the purchase of a return ticket. The former bill required that contract terms and conditions be posted on the Internet. This measure also helped the airlines because they could know exactly what to expect.

Consumer associations called for these measures. I would like to know what the hon. member thinks about this.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been working on a number of different consumer bills. We should actually have the appropriate pricing available for consumers on a regular basis.

As we are speaking to this piece of legislation, one of the interesting things that has been happening in my corridor has been the marketing of a border crossing. The government has still failed to do this. It is following in the same footsteps as the previous administration, saying that it will have the next border crossing publicly owned and operated.

We have had chaos in our area where the DRTP, a rail tunnel consortium of Borealis and OMERS, has been pushing its agenda on people and we have been fighting that. Regarding Ambassador Bridge, the private American infrastructure has been calling for twinning against the wishes of the city of Windsor.

An incredible amount of advertising goes on. It is interesting because the Ambassador Bridge receives $13 million a year for customs officials who operate on site. They just have to take in the tolls. Toll takers are part of the expense operation. It is very limited in terms of expenses.

It is a shame because we have had billboards that say, “Stop the misery” as it relates to border infrastructure clogging our area. We have had full page ads and TV commercials. Private proponents pushed this solution on the community as opposed to finding the right solution, funding it publicly, administering it publicly, and ensuring it is there in perpetuity for the future.

That would be a great economic investment strategy for those who are looking to invest in Ontario because they would know the government is serious about lowering costs, and having greater scrutiny and security as opposed to allowing these two private firms threatening the Ontario economy with the confusion, legal wrangling, and the threats that they continually pose to our community.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member complimented the government on bringing forward, again, the Liberal bill with the same points.

However, I want to talk to the hon. member about the United States initiative related to passports, which will affect both our border crossings. I appreciate that it will be worked on by the government and that the border caucus will meet with the ambassador and the chair of the Senate committee responsible for that bill. I thank everyone who made that happen.

I was in Washington last Thursday meeting with a couple of representatives, congressmen and senators, about that bill because it affects my riding. I have three crossings with the United States. It will definitely hurt trade and tourism in my riding, as well as hunters and fishermen et cetera who cross the border constantly.

I would like to ask the member, what effect will that have on his riding?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it will have a major impact, not only to my constituency but there will be billions of dollars lost across the country. That is why the New Democratic Party is calling for a national tourism strategy.

First, we have to continue to fight the implementation of this policy. There are actually progressive persons in the United States doing so in Congress and the Senate. Second, we must have a national tourism strategy to lower the cost of passports, increase the use of them, and get people on the U.S. side to do the same. Those are things we should be doing now. We should also be promoting awareness. There should be an implementation schedule and a demand that the Homeland Security Department peruses the study on how to offset the effects. These are the things we should be demanding. The government is sleepwalking into this, just like the previous administration.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to give a speech since the 39th Parliament started, although I have been up on my feet on a few other occasions. I want to acknowledge and thank the constituents of Windsor--Tecumseh for their support. It is extremely humbling. I pledge to them, as I have each time, to do my very best to represent them here in Ottawa.

The bill is one that is way overdue. It is interesting to hear the Liberal side taking credit for this, but the reality is that we did not get the bill from them. We did not get the provisions of the bill that have been badly needed in my community, in the city of Windsor and the county of Essex, for a very long period of time. This became extremely accentuated after 9/11. When 9/11 occurred, we sat for the first 24 to 36 hours with literally kilometres of delays at our borders. Part of this was that we did not have a legislative infrastructure. The federal government could have moved much more effectively had it had that legislative infrastructure to control the problems that we were confronted with on that occasion.

That has now been repeated over the last four to four and a half years, repeatedly, and it is a problem that our city and our province of Ontario are suffering from, but so is the federal government in terms of tax revenue, efficient administration of our border crossings and our relationship at the international level with the United States.

The provisions in the bill are fairly general. It will be attempting to provide a legislative framework and then follow that with what I hope and expect, for my riding and my constituents, will be a very detailed regulatory body of rules that will in effect allow for an efficient, proper administration at our border crossings.

We in our city and county have the distinction of having more trade and more passengers, both vehicular and rail, than any other place in the country. We are the key crossing, as the House heard earlier from the member for Windsor West. Almost 40% of all the trade between Canada and the United States occurs in one of those four crossings in the Windsor area, through rail, ferry, the tunnel for passenger cars and some trucks, and the bridge.

As most members of the House know, at least the members who were here in the last Parliament, we have been struggling for a good number of years to reach a final consensus on a new crossing, on where it should be located, how it will be funded and how it will be owned and managed. This bill would have helped significantly had it been law, with the regulations along with it, to expedite that process.

It is actually interesting to watch on the U.S. side how on several occasions their authorities, both at the state level and the federal level, were able to intervene and speed up the process. We did not have the ability to do that. At the federal level well over 10 years ago, if not closer to 20, the U.S. changed its legislative framework to make it possible to effectively and efficiently deal with border crossing issues. This legislation would accomplish that assuming the regulatory framework is put in place.

It will deal, as the encompassing legislation allows for, with the regulation with regard to the management and operation of crossings and the roads and streets running up to those crossings, which is a fairly important feature in the bill because it is not a provision within our existing law at all. What is also very important is that it will, for the first time, significantly control the ownership and change in ownership of border crossings.

We have a major problem in our area in that the Ambassador Bridge, which is by far the single busiest crossing in this country, is owned by an American business person who runs it obviously in his interest and not in the interest of the communities on either side of the border. That is a major problem. The ownership issue is going to be very crucial as we reach the final decisions on how this new crossing is owned and managed.

I have had a fair amount of involvement on the whole issue of public security, which is one of my critic responsibilities for my party, and I just want to point out a number of incidents we have had happen that, again, a proper regulatory function would assist us with.

We have a major air quality problem, particularly at the Ambassador Bridge but also at the tunnel, because of the number of vehicles that are crossing in a confined space, oftentimes with significant delays. We know that the health of the people who work at those structures is being imperilled, as is the health of the people who live in the immediate areas.

There is a major problem at our border crossings with illegal trafficking in weapons, drugs and humans. I know, from having had extensive discussions with police forces on both sides of the border, that we need to significantly augment our coordination and cooperation. They attempt to do it and I want to give them credit for that, but an overall streamlined framework on the Canadian side would significantly improve our ability to deal with those problems.

Quite frankly, we have problems with protocols. We have had two really quite significant incidents of police forces on the U.S. side crossing over without permission. On one occasion it was a chase through the tunnel that occurred in the downtown core of both Detroit and Windsor. They were coming across with guns in hand and apprehending alleged drug dealers on the Canadian side. It was done in the presence of a large number of regular passengers moving through that tunnel, and staff were present with no protection. This is a clear breach of the protocol. We think we have now cleared up the problem, but we cannot help but think that if we had had the proper regulatory framework it would not have happened in the first place.

There was another incident with a police officer who realized at the last minute that he was carrying his gun. He attempted to take it out as he was coming across the bridge and, I suppose, hide it somewhere in the vehicle, and he shot himself in the foot. That occurred as he was in the line approaching customs. His gun very easily could have discharged and injured other people. Again, the ability to regulate and to some degree publicize in the United States the need for them to keep their guns on that side of the border could be, I believe, much more efficiently handled with the type of regulatory framework that I envision coming out of this legislation.

The House has already heard of the problem that we are having with hazardous materials. We know, and I say this with some degree of confidence, that hazardous materials are being taken across the bridge. That is illegal. Hazardous materials are supposed to cross on the barge ferry. It is not happening and we do not have the ability to enforce this. Again, it is because of the lack of coordination and the streamlining that is required, which should come out of this legislation.

All of this is a major concern for us in the Windsor-Essex County area.

The NDP is in support of this legislation. We do have some concerns, some of which will be fine-tuning of the legislation. The one major concern we do have is the ministerial discretion that is encompassed in part of the legislation. I can advise the government that our members at committee will be pressing hard to tighten up how that discretion can be exercised, so that the concerns of the local community will continue to be protected. We are hearing quite clearly from the local community members that it is a concern on their part.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his speech. I would like to know what he thinks of the fact that the government will establish guidelines on approving the construction of new bridges and tunnels and the alteration of existing ones.

Does he think that these guidelines should be established in cooperation with the provinces, taking into account, among other things, the particularities of the provinces and the landscape and especially the environmental impact.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleague for her question.

The basic answer is yes. We would be very supportive of having significant input both from the provinces and from the territories, which at some point will become an issue, but also from the municipal level of government. In our community, quite frankly, the input from the City of Windsor and the County of Essex levels of government would be at least as significant as it would be from the Province of Ontario, because of the impact that the border crossings have on our city and county and also because of the level of knowledge and expertise that resides in that level of government.

The other problem there is with some provinces is that they do not have the infrastructure in place to help us and to allow the federal government to discuss and sign agreements with them. They are not prepared at this point. The provinces of Quebec and Ontario can do so, as can certain other provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member for Windsor--Tecumseh as well as the member for Windsor West that as a government we are listening. I think they know me and they know that the members of this side of the House are very interested in listening to all the stakeholders.

Indeed, they will also take note of the fact that the government House leader has four international bridges in his riding and speaks about the GDP and the safety and security of bridges. As well, they will note that our member for Essex talks about aging infrastructure and the additional capacity that is necessary.

The member for Windsor West compared us to the previous Liberal government. I am curious about his expectations. In 80 days we have solved the softwood lumber issue and brought in an act that is going to clean up government. I am wondering if the member believes there are other priorities that we could also accomplish. We did not have 13 years like the previous government did; we had 80 days to accomplish the great things that have already been done through this Prime Minister. He talked about some of the number one issues that he sees. As far as the minister's discretion is concerned, I wonder if he would go into more detail on how he would see that taking place in the future and how he would see some tightening up.

Finally, I would like to say for both members that I would be more than happy to listen to any input they have on this particular bill or any other bill within my portfolio. I would be happy to recommend that to the minister as well, especially if they are getting that from the people they represent, which is the most important thing we can do in this House.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the overture to continue the dialogue. I do have to say to him that we are concerned that the issue around ministerial discretion has not been more clearly addressed. The previous Liberal government had it in very similar terminology; it may have been exactly the same terminology. The member for Windsor West communicated our concerns quite strongly. I know that the mayor of the city of Windsor has communicated his concerns to the government. I am a bit disturbed that we have not seen any alteration.

What we are really looking for is that there be a confirmation, a very clear guideline, about how that discretion would be exercised if there is to be any deviation from the regulations, and we would want to see clear regulations as to the process by which the minister would be exercising his or her discretion. From the legislation we have now and, quite frankly, what we had from the prior government and from the department, there has been a lack of any type of positive response to those kinds of concerns. I would ask them to do this. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that there has been enough time and the government could be looking at this.

[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.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act. Also, I wish to congratulate my colleague for a very good presentation. It showed me how conversant he is with this issue. His fellow citizens are undoubtedly proud to see that he is very up on all this.

With this new Conservative government, there was to be another way of governing. With this bill we see that they want to impose requirements on those managing the structures without contributing financially. They continue to maintain this philosophy of the federal government, which divested itself of the ports, regional airports and bridges, without ever investing the money required. And it is transferring these responsibilities to the cities, as we see from the case of the Sutton bridge. The Quebec government is responsible for its inspection and security.

This bill imposes standards. Standards will be imposed on those who manage and inspect these structures, but there will be no financial contribution.

Once again, we have this federal government culture of entitlement and no money forthcoming. I would like to know what the member has to say about this.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is very pertinent. Although the tone of the Conservative government seems more conciliatory than that of the previous government, things are no different. Standards are being dictated in other jurisdictions—especially provincial, but also municipal in the case of Bill C-3—without the requisite funds being made available.

That is why, as I indicated in my speech, fiscal imbalance cannot be addressed by means of transfers alone. Tax point transfers to the provinces are needed in order to enable them to assume these responsibilities, without the fear that one day the federal government will unilaterally cut transfers.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to speak in the 39th Parliament, I want to thank all of my constituents who have sent me here for five terms.

I also want to reiterate the fact that the best part of this job is probably back in the riding when we get to meet all of the volunteers and get back with family and so on. Mr. Speaker, you I am sure well know what I am talking about.

This past weekend was a good example of what it is like. I got off the plane on Friday and helped a group raise over $96,000 for Kids for Cancer. That evening I attended a Striving for Excellence banquet at which 178 public school system kids received awards for excellence. We heard a speech from a 13 year old girl who has been blind for the last nine years. She told us how she strives for excellence and hopes to get to the Paralympics in horse riding and in a number of other sports. It makes one feel pretty good coming back here knowing what the great volunteers in the area are doing.

On Saturday night I attended a homebuilders banquet. I would like on the record the fact that my constituency is booming. A fly-by-night operator came into our town and built 11 homes that had faulty foundations and no kitchen doors. All of the builders in our community banded together and announced at the banquet that they would be repairing the homes of those 11 people who were unfortunate enough to have been taken for a ride by a bad contractor.

That is my constituency and those are the kinds of volunteers we have. I thank my family and my constituents for sending me here.

I come from central Alberta and we are a long way from any international bridge or tunnel. I could suggest the number of bridges and tunnels, which might help us out, but I do not think we could quite get to the U.S. border. It is important that we talk about how vital bridges and tunnels and the flow of traffic from north to south really is. We have to remember that 80% of our jobs and well over $1.5 billion cross the border and whatever we can do to make that border safe and secure and function better is important to all of us. My riding has seven world scale petrochemical plants and a great deal of their material goes across the border. Many of the jobs and much of the activity that is going on is because of the effective way we handle this.

I also want to bring to the House's attention the fact that when we talk to truckers and various other groups that have come to Ottawa they tell us that one of the most serious issues is infrastructure, how it is deteriorating and how its management is sometimes in question. We have heard about this in some of the other speeches today. I remember one trucker saying that they were driving over bridges that have the year 1938 or 1955 stamped on the concrete. Little has been done since then to make sure that vital means of transportation is upgraded.

We have a lot to do. For 13 years we have heard a lot of talk but seen little action. Two bills have come before this bill but none got through and none of them actually cleared up the problem. We now have a bill that I believe will do that. Our plan is to institute this, get it done and get on with the job. We do not need to have 100 priorities. We have these priorities and let us get them through.

It is my pleasure to talk about Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act. As many of my colleagues have mentioned in the past, many of these bridges and tunnels came into existence with the creation of special acts of Parliament. These acts served to create the company that would ultimately own the bridge or tunnel and be responsible for its construction, set out the company's share capital and other corporate information, and would establish the company's various powers, including borrowing powers and the right to charge tolls.

More important, these special acts set terms and conditions for the construction of the bridge or tunnel, such as the location, the approval of plans and specifications, the time period within which the bridge or tunnel was to be constructed, and finally, how the company could deal with the bridge or tunnel once it was constructed. Federal government approval was therefore given via these special acts.

Government approval for construction of new international bridges or tunnels is therefore not a new concept. The approval process proposed by the new bill will, however, relieve the need to enact a special act of Parliament each time a new bridge or tunnel is constructed.

I have not been here for as many years as you have, Mr. Speaker, but obviously if we had to bring about a special act every time we wanted to do something you know how that could get bogged down. We know how the lobbyists work in this place and just how difficult it is to get any action sometimes. This act would end that problem.

Keeping in mind that these are international bridges and tunnels and that our jurisdiction over these bridges and tunnels ends at the Canadian border, it is interesting to note how our American counterparts deal with the approval of the construction of new international bridges or tunnels on their territory. Since 1968, persons in the United States wishing to build a new international bridge that connects with Canada must first seek permission from the president. This permission is given in the form of a presidential permit, which must be applied for to the Department of State.

In this application, applicants must provide the following information, among other matters: information regarding the proposed bridge, including location, design, proposed construction methods, the safety standards to be applied, copies of the engineering drawings, and the construction schedule; details of any similar facilities in the surrounding area; and traffic information, including projections of international traffic volume and the effect the proposed bridge would have on the traffic volumes of other nearby bridges.

During the election campaign, I was in the riding of Essex working with our member there. I went into Windsor as well. I know that the hon. members from Windsor have been talking about this in committees and in this House for a very long time. They have talked about the great difficulties. There are four bridges there, four crossings, a railway tunnel, and obviously the talk has been going on as long as I have been here, and maybe a lot longer, about the difficulties in that Windsor-Detroit corridor, about how things get slowed down and how ineffective it is. We have all seen television pictures of the long traffic jams. It is to be hoped, and obviously as this goes to committee I am sure it would be made clear, that this kind of problem will be dealt with, that we will get on with it instead of talking about how we are going to solve that problem.

How the project is going to be financed also is very important, including what the toll structure will be. Those are the kinds of things that the public has the right to have discussed and openly talked about.

Also, there is how the proposed construction would impact the environment, including copies of environmental assessments or reports. Members know of my interest in environment. I think it is very easy to make this process go a lot faster. The cooperation among municipalities, provinces and the federal government, where one study in fact accomplishes all of the environmental impact studies, just goes so far.

In my over 30 years of being involved in environmental areas, so often I have seen the turf wars among the three levels of government certainly take a project to the point where, if it is not scuttled, it becomes uneconomic, and the players leave and go on to somewhere else. That should not be the way it is. There is one environment. It does not matter what levels of government are involved; they should cooperatively do the environmental assessment and in fact get on with the project. This should not be used as a delaying tactic. They should be using what is best for the environment and for the people of that area.

In the United States, details of other permits and approvals must be obtained from other U.S. agencies. Again, I would add that sometimes, with their turf wars, those agencies can in fact slow things down a lot too. We really have to start working as a House to get more cooperation in this kind of thing. Hopefully this bill will accomplish that.

The applicant in the U.S. also of course has to work closely with the Canadian government and vice versa. I think it is very important that the relationship between the U.S. and Canada, which is now finally moving forward, will make those negotiations much easier and will allow us to get on with the building of these bridges and tunnels. In fact, I think that cooperative approach I mentioned between provinces and municipalities can be extended to our U.S. counterparts. In the process, the state department, after all its consultation and, certainly from our perspective, our consultation, then moves on to get consultants and look at the best routes and locations. All of that, of course, should be in the public domain.

As mentioned, the new bill would allow the government to establish similar Canadian guidelines so that information is provided when the government is seeking approval for the construction of a new international bridge or tunnel. There is no need to keep reinventing the wheel, as we so often do. Obviously a lot can be learned from other projects and proposals in moving this whole thing forward.

Having said all of this, I note that our guidelines will specifically take into account what is in the best interest of Canadians when it comes to international bridges and tunnels. The approval process, including the information that the applicant will have to provide, will be tailored to respond to Canada's national objectives and this government's priorities to secure our border while at the same time encouraging international trade through the efficient flow of goods and traffic via these borders.

I fully support the bill. I think it clarifies a lot. I look forward to it going on to committee and to speeding up the process of the three bridges that are being proposed now, one in St. Stephen, New Brunswick, one in Fort Erie, Ontario, and one in Windsor, Ontario, as mentioned earlier. I think it will be good to have the oversight of the federal government and to get on with the project, in cooperation with the others.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, while my riding does not in any way touch upon an international bridge, it is said that the people of Albert county are so fiercely independent they are a separate country and the new bridge that spans the mighty Petitcodiac probably took so long because of the international aspect.

My friend brought up an aspect of infrastructure. In municipal infrastructure, provincial and federal programming has been working terribly well in our province and in our region. There are programs like CSIF, on strategic infrastructure, and MRIF, for municipal rural infrastructure programs, which we fell might be under attack in the coming days as an effort by the government to redo or redress what it perceives to be the fiscal imbalance.

I fear, and I ask the hon. member for his comment, that money will be taken out of infrastructure programs that might otherwise help to update bridges and roads in our communities. I fear that the money will be taken out of those programs, with those programs collapsing like the bridges the member referred to from 1918 and 1938, and will be put into provinces for other purposes that are laudable but are not infrastructure purposes.

Does the hon. member feel that these infrastructure programs are very important to municipalities and communities around our country that face deplorable states of aging infrastructure?

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we have been here for 13 and a half years and we have heard about a lot of projects. We have heard a lot about lobbyists and a lot about infrastructure. As we travel the country we see a lot of that infrastructure and I think there is a major concern. Probably the reason I got into this and that I am still here is that concern. In fact, we have not done anything for 13 years. We have talked a lot and there have been hundreds of bills, but we really have not done anything.

We have talked about our Trans-Canada highway, about it being improved and about how it is not up to standard compared to south of the border or other parts of the world. We have talked and talked about it and we have not done anything. It is like the environment. We have 140 programs. Let us say most of those have $100 million, but $60 million is spent on establishing the program in Ottawa, so we have the bureaucracy established here and then we just do not have enough money to actually carry out very much.

With the streamlining that will go on and the priorities we have in dealing with cities and infrastructure, I am very confident that the government will not in fact rob those projects, and that through cooperation, municipalities and provinces will actually accomplish much more, certainly, than has been done in the last number of years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to speak about the importance of international bridges for regions like mine, but we should look at this issue from the standpoint of the environmental impact as well. My hon. colleague’s party does not necessarily like to talk about the environment. That party, it seems to me, prefers to put all environmental issues aside.

There is an incinerator very close to the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. Does my hon. colleague think that it is good and appropriate to take contaminants or any toxic materials from our American neighbours to burn and process them here in Canada? Is that a priority for them? Is the environment more important? We need to work very hard on this problem.

In conclusion, I was at a Ducks Unlimited event last weekend. In studying the situation, it becomes clear that we need to work very hard in order to stabilize the environment in our regions and our wetlands. My hon. colleague will have a chance to tell us whether it really is a good thing to bring these materials to Canada.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is as if I had given the hon. member the question to ask me. I gave my first speech on garbage in 1972. It is a 48 page document that I would be glad to provide for the member. I have been working on not allowing landfills to be built anywhere in this country.

I have visited garbage facilities around the world. I spent some of the summer last year in Denmark looking at facilities there. I plan to go to Barcelona this summer to look at its newest plant, which gasifies garbage. There is no stack. It is an internal process at 8,000° Celsius. It turns everything into basic carbon molecules and recomposes it into safe by-products of electricity, heat and a glass-like material. That is the future.

Toronto is hauling 416 truckloads of garbage a day to Michigan. This is a huge problem that should not be going on. The fact that we are bringing contaminated waste from the U.S. into Canada in exchange should not be going on, not unless we build the technology, the gasification plant. I would be glad to give the hon. member however many hundreds of pages he wants of information on that subject.

My colleagues are probably sick and tired of hearing me talk about the environment and about gasification, but members can get the picture. Environment will be an important part of our portfolio. We know that it is not one of the first five, but I ask members to just wait for the fall and they will see.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it makes me smile to see my Conservative colleague blaming the Liberals and the Liberals blaming the Conservatives. Since the beginning of Confederation, Liberal governments and Conservative governments have succeeded one another and have all abandoned their responsibilities. That is why, in 2006, a bill must be introduced to say that international bridges and tunnels are a federal jurisdiction. Why? Because in the past they decided to abandon our responsibilities. These responsibilities were transferred to the provinces and municipalities. Now, since September 11, 2001, they realize that there are security problems. They want to be able to assert themselves and get involved.

Does my colleague not find it a bit strange, and even embarrassing, that there is no dedicated funding in this bill? If they want to improve security and tell the provinces and municipalities that have been managing these bridges and these facilities for generations that they want to take over safety and security, why did they not establish a fund dedicated to these facilities in the bill, so that municipalities or provinces do not have to pay for improving safety and security at these facilities?

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the point the member has missed is the fact that we need to cooperate. When we have that many bridges and tunnels, they are not all being equally managed as well as they might be.

The one the member is speaking of might be managed perfectly, but there is no guarantee for Canadians that this is happening with all 24 of them. Therefore, the bill would allow the federal government to work with the provinces, the municipalities and the U.S. to ensure that they are managed properly and to a safety and security standard, which is the best thing for all Canadians, not just for one municipality or one area.

Therefore, this is not a big stick. This is a willingness to cooperate and ensure that there are equal standards for everyone.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Red Deer is uniquely qualified to talk about gas.

Returning to my riding, it became poignantly clear that Canadians were hearing much of the disparaging and demeaning attacks on the previous government. Canadians know of the tremendous record of achievement in the G-7 and all of the other things, but I am going to use my time to talk about the actual act before us.

By way of background, my riding is composed of 27 communities, 16 municipalities and 11 first nations. It is a seven and a half hour drive covering two time zones. In the issue at hand, we are talking about a bridge between International Falls, Minnesota and Fort Frances, Ontario. We want to make this act work, not only for Fort Frances, from which this bridge connects to an area larger than many countries in the world in addition to the other two border crossings at Pigeon River and Rainy River. If we use this time wisely, I believe we can come up with some legislation that is effective and productive for all those concerned.

Right now many of us are deeply concerned about the passport issue and security itself and how it relates to these border crossings and tunnels. For my area in particular, commercial traffic and the vitality of the forest industry are of prime concern.

As we know, the tourist trade in Canada has been diminishing. We have to do everything possible to make it easier for tourists to be attracted to Ontario in particular, Canada in general and northwestern Ontario specifically, which depends very highly on the Midwest of the United States.

The concerns of the communities in the Rainy River district are very much justified as to who controls and owns this bridge. Recently private holdings have put this bridge up for proposal and offered it for sale, after many decades of being in private hands. This bill gives one of the first opportunities to investigate public ownership in this case specifically. We have the support of the municipalities on both sides of the border and the councils of which have passed resolutions encouraging the governments of Minnesota, Ontario, Canada and the United States to adopt some form of public ownership. This is the first opportunity, and the bill is timely in allowing us to come forward with this.

When we think about what we can do on a national basis, this is a step by step process in which we can reclaim jurisdictional, operational and physical control of these facilities. Many may ask why the government would want to incur another expense or more ownership and maintenance issues, but this should be viewed as an opportunity. I will get into that in a few moments.

MPs and interest groups representing the council and business interests of Fort Frances have attempted to have meetings with the minister. As of yet, they have not taken place. I hope that a plea in the House for some personal attention to this matter will fall upon the right ears.

The bill should accommodate such situations about which we have talked. Funding for borders in terms of purchasing and restoring Canadian control would be a wise move. Tomorrow's budget should accommodate this and any future opportunities. I believe this is a chance for us to regain some of the composure in our national security issues.

Having done a considerable amount of research of the bridge crossings of Canada, it is interesting to see the many variations of theme, how many different combinations of ownership exist from public, private, provincial, independent or national. When we look at one bridge in isolation, it will take some meshing over a long period of time. I am well aware of that and I trust that the public service is also aware of it. When we ask for one-time funding or to make a special case, I understand the difficulty of this because of the precedents that it will set.

However, we should all take some consolation in knowing that this is a way to make things better. A national strategy or a national policy on access to our best neighbours, trading partners and friends should clear up uncertainty and turn it into an opportunity. As a case in point, the tolls at Fort Frances are among the highest in the country. Although there are packet rates for people who work or have frequent business across both sides of the border, it still can be viewed as a deterrent. Any chance to lower those would be an encouragement of trade and tourism. Those are the types of issues we would look at if the government would take this step.

As I alluded to earlier, Northwestern Ontario is extremely concerned about the rollover on the passport issue. Unanimously, people are very upset about the acquiescence to President Bush on this. Many individuals and organizations such as the Northwestern Ontario Tourist Association, led by Jerry Fisher, the Northwestern Ontario Association of Chambers of Commerce and the Northwestern Ontario Municipal Association were making significant progress in gaining allies in the United States, particularly American legislators who also understood the detrimental impact of destroying two-way traffic.

The town of Fort Francis came up with a great idea to have a conference of border communities. Leadership from coast to coast could get together and impress upon their respective governments the need to deal with this issue. The potential for extra parliamentary support could have turned this issue around. Rolling over to President Bush was a much too rapid and vapid turnaround.

The concerns of infrastructure in general and the draining off of infrastructure support through other funding has also been discussed in this debate. I hope that will not be the case, and I wanted to go on record on that. I believe this would be something the bill could accommodate, separate from existing community infrastructure and planned border infrastructure funding. We want to ensure that the funding is focused, not defused, and that it gets the attention it deserves. The community movement in the Rainy River district has said that it has witnessed this over years. It sees this as an opportunity in terms of economic development.

I believe the bill can accommodate such proposals, which I believe the minister will soon acknowledge. I am not saying he has not yet, but these are probably on his desk and he is looking at them. I would think we should view these as opportunities, as chances for regions of the country to benefit. This area extends from the Manitoba border to Lake Superior. We are talking about the entire northern section of Minnesota. Not many people can say their riding covers one whole state. I am pleased to say I do.

When we look at these access points, in particular the opportunity for the town of Fort Frances and the entire region, which goes up to James Bay and Hudson's Bay, we can look at something that will do a tremendous amount of good. I am asking the government to consider this in the bill and I will be making presentations to committee as it comes forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member obviously understands a great deal about municipal infrastructure. Through the years various roads and highways have been downloaded to municipalities. As a result, there is a lot of disrepair. I understand that perhaps there will be some infrastructure funding in the upcoming budget. There needs to be at least $1.1 billion for the strategic infrastructure plan and the rural infrastructure plan in order for municipalities to catch up and deal with their roads and highways. There also needs to be a gas tax of 5¢ so there could be funding for roads, tunnels, bridges or highways.

The member also talked about cooperation with municipalities that are connected with these highways and bridges. Without significant funding for operations, it is going to be very difficult.

Clause 23 of the bill allows for the private operation of tunnels and bridges. How do we deal with national security issues if there are private operators involved? How do we stem the illegal smuggling of guns into big urban centres, or human trafficking, or illegal migrants falling prey to unscrupulous consultants? How do we deal with that when the tunnel or bridge at the border is privately operated or maybe even built by a private operator?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the pleasure of working with the member for Trinity--Spadina on these issues over many years. I believe she has asked me a nine part question. I will endeavour to do my best to provide an answer in the time allotted to me.

The province of Ontario suffered greatly through the Conservative era and it has only been in the past few years that the new provincial government is trying to undo that. As well, the federal commitment to infrastructure for communities was the first attempt by any national government to take a very active and pecuniary support role in addressing municipal revenue shortcomings in a direct way.

In the past year, I believe for the first time in history, the province of Ontario actually came to an agreement with the federal government on a national highway program. That was also very significant because the previous government would not do that.

With that in mind, we know that organizations such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario are very concerned about the ending of these infrastructure funds. In my presentation today, I tried very clearly to show that infrastructure funding must continue to communities in general, but that any supportive funding for border security, accessibility, tunnels, bridges, and all these kinds of things must be an independent and freshly directed source of funding so that it does not dilute the other funding that is available to communities.

When we talk about this commitment, currently the municipal leaders all across the country are in great fear of tomorrow's budget. They do not want to start all over again in trying to convince a national government of the need to support municipal or community infrastructure. The member's question was very well put in that way and I know she understands the issue very well. Throughout my riding and throughout many people's ridings, indeed throughout all parties, people are quite concerned about tomorrow's budget, that it may undo many years of good work by intelligent municipal leadership across the country.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my Liberal colleague. Has he reached the same conclusion I have, which is that today, the federal government is obliged to table a bill to clarify that international bridges and tunnels fall under federal jurisdiction? Why is it doing this now? It is because these structures are managed either by the provinces, municipalities or private companies. In Ontario, many of these structures are managed by the province.

As a result, the government is forced to make this declaration today because, since 1967, the federal government, whether Liberal or Conservative, has systematically abdicated its responsibility for international bridges and tunnels, just as it did for airports and ports. These governments wanted to divest themselves of facilities that, since September 11, 2001, should be under intense scrutiny. They no longer know what to do. Today, they have to declare that these structures fall under federal jurisdiction, but the bill contains no provision for dedicated funds. However, it mentions, among other things, that the government will oversee monitoring and maintenance of the structures. The government will oversee inspections, but there will be no money to help the provinces or the municipalities or to replace the private companies that can manage such structures.

Does my colleague agree that a section is missing from this bill, specifically the one on the funding that may be required to maintain international bridges and tunnels?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

Order. We have reached the time of day for Statements by Members, but there are 3 minutes and 22 seconds remaining for questions and comments when we return to Bill C-3.

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 second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Thunder Bay--Rainy River has three and a half minutes left for questions and comments.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question posed by the hon. member from Quebec, the $600 million border infrastructure fund, which is already in the bank, should go a long way toward helping communities, such as the ones we are talking about, with regard to their infrastructure.

He also asked about jurisdictions. Ontario has the International Bridge and Terminal Company and Baudette and Rainy River Municipal Bridge Company. St. Mary’s River Bridge Company owns the bridge at Sault Ste. Marie. The Blue Water Bridge Authority owns the bridge in Sarnia. The City of Windsor has the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel. The bridge between Buffalo and Fort Erie is owned by the Buffalo and Erie Public Bridge Authority. Three bridges are owned by the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission. We have the Federal Bridge Corporation and the Thousand Islands Bridge Authority. There are several more.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in presenting the bill the minister outlined the importance of safety and security issues and highlighted the reasons why in a post-9/11 world it is very important that these considerations be taken into account.

I note in clause 16 of the bill that it states:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting the security and safety....

It seems to be contradictory that the minister would say that the issues related to safety and security are extremely important and yet the bill itself only provides that the minister may, at his discretion, recommend regulations on these matters to governor in council.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on the importance of not just including legislation in regulations, but if it is so important to have safety and security provisos related to this legislation, that maybe they should be right in the bill themselves.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the questioner because it does make sense that we have those protections right in the bill. I must confess that my interest in this particular bill was to use that section in the hope that there would be some latitude for the town of Fort Frances that would actually allow the federal government to assist it. I can only agree to the nth agree with the hon. member's question.

Without elaborating on this part of the bill, it is so general that it may cause problems later on. In my case I am hoping that it will actually open the door so that the town of Fort Frances will get some assistance from the federal government and that we would find a way of financially going to the table to honour the request from northwestern Ontario for assistance.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act.

The bill was first tabled on April 24 and it would establish an approval mechanism for the construction, alteration and acquisition of international bridges and tunnels and would provide for the regulation of their operation, maintenance and security. I want to commend the minister for the speed in which he introduced the bill following the federal accountability act.

Previously, these important clauses were part of a more general omnibus bill, referring back to the 38th Parliament, where they were part of an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act. In that form, both Bill C-26 and Bill C-44 died on the Order Paper when the election writ was dropped, which concluded the 38th Parliament. These bills that the previous government had brought forward had the disadvantage of being complicated omnibus bills. They covered a whole range of issues.

I would say that the bill before us today, Bill C-3, is a concise bill. It has some 60 clauses and addresses the issue rather concisely. These 60 clauses address issues such as the construction and alteration of international bridges, maintenance and repair, security and safety, change of ownership, operator control, incorporation by letters patent and shares of a corporation. It is a housekeeping bill but it puts in order a very important aspect concerning transportation across borders, our economy and our trade with our largest neighbour.

Therefore I applaud the minister for bringing this important bill forward. It is clearly a priority for the minister and our government and I am pleased to be able to speak today in support of the bill.

The member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River, who spoke earlier, raised concerns about tolls on international bridges as being disincentives for visitors, transportation and commerce, and that is a concern, but I suggest to him that our infrastructure needs have to be supported somehow. The residents of Vancouver Island where I live have a huge disincentive for all commerce and visitors visiting Vancouver Island. We do not have a bridge. We have ferries that cost the average family per crossing about $50 per trip each time they come and go from the island. A transport truck coming on the island has a disincentive we might say of $150 to come to the island and we know that drives the cost of our fuel and our food supplies up on Vancouver Island.

We understand that tariffs are a problem and are certainly a problem across the country but somehow we need to come up with the funds to support infrastructure. It is a problem that many communities have to deal with.

Nothing man builds lasts forever. I suppose this is particularly true of bridges and tunnels. Our harsh climate, the pounding of trucks and cars have an exacting toll on our transportation infrastructure. The condition of Canada's aging infrastructure has increasingly become a major issue for governments and for the motoring public.

A 2006 study conducted by Statistics Canada points out that although the condition and calculated age of roads and highways has improved, bridge infrastructure has been falling behind. This study indicated that in 2003 Canadian bridges had reached only 49% of their useful life with a calculated average age of 22.6 years over a service life of 46 years. Federal bridges, which accounted for about 3% of the total stock, had an average age of 26.4 years compared with 24.6 for provincial bridges and 19 years for municipal bridges.

As a result of a previous government's priorities between new construction and maintaining existing facilities, between 1992 and 1997 I note that the federal government spent 77% of its bridge funds on new construction and only 23% on renovations.

I just want to remind members that in 2005 the United States remained by far Canada's most important trading partner and represented more than 70% of all of our international trade in value. The majority of this trade is carried by truck and a high percentage of these trucks cross international bridges.

If we look at the age of some of these bridges, it is apparent that many of these structures have been in existence a very long time. The four busiest international border crossing points for trucks include the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and Detroit; the Blue Water Bridge between Point Edward/Sarnia and Port Huron, Michigan; the Peace Bridge between Fort Erie and Buffalo; and the Queenston-Lewiston Bridge also in Ontario.

The Ambassador Bridge, which carries over 25% of our trade to the United States, was constructed in 1929. The Blue Water Bridge, which carries about 13.4% of our trade, was built in 1938, and the second span in 1997. The Peace Bridge in Fort Erie was built in 1927. The Queenston-Lewiston Bridge was built in 1962.

Other key border structures include the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, which was constructed in 1930; the International Bridge in Sault Ste. Marie, which was built in 1962; the bridge between Edmundston, New Brunswick and Madawaska, Maine, which was built in 1921; and the Clair, New Brunswick to Fort Kent, Maine bridge, which was built in 1930.

We appreciate that there has been ongoing maintenance and repair to these bridges during their existence. However, as bridge infrastructure ages, the bridges will require more and more attention. Since they fall within federal jurisdiction, the federal government must ensure that they are safe for the motoring public. Bill C-3 addresses this concern.

Clause 14 of the bill provides that the governor in council may, on the recommendation of the minister, make regulations respecting the maintenance and repair of international bridges and tunnels. This clause requires the owner or operator to provide reports to the minister on the condition of the bridge or the tunnel. It specifies what information is to be included in the reports and makes provision for the inspection of the facility by the minister or a person so designated.

With a few exceptions, these bridges are owned and operated by others than the federal government. Provincial or municipal governments own many of these bridges and tunnels, while binational authorities and private industry own a few.

Since it is in everyone's interest to ensure these bridges are well maintained and safe, the federal government is acting to ensure that infrastructure is maintained to a minimum common standard. It is not the intention of the federal government to pay for the inspections, nor for any necessary improvements. Safety will remain the responsibility of the individual owner and operator.

The intention is also not to impose unreasonable standards on the various owners and operators. Although the details would be developed during the regulatory process, the intention would be to rely upon existing provincial inspection standards. Since the bridges were built originally to provincial standards, it would only be logical that their inspections be to the same standards. This would ensure consistency within the provincial transportation network.

I realize that a logical first question might be, if we are inspecting the Canadian half of the bridge, who is inspecting the other half? I am sure everyone fully recognizes that federal jurisdiction only extends halfway across an international bridge, and the Americans are owners and operators of the U.S. half. We can therefore only regulate our own half of the bridge and trust that the American owners and operators do the same on their half of the bridge. In most cases, American and Canadian owners and operators cooperate very closely not only in the construction, but in the operation and the maintenance of these bridges.

In the case of bridges between New Brunswick and Maine, the provincial and state governments take turns being responsible for the construction of new bridges. The Bridge and Tunnel Operators Association has expressed the view that it would probably use the most stringent standard where the U.S. code and the Canadian code differed.

Since 9/11 things have changed. We also must change. Safety has become a concern for Canadians. It certainly has become a concern for Americans. We just had discussions here a short time ago as the Prime Minister announced the Air-India inquiry, certainly the worst terrorist incident in Canadian history.

We must ensure that we upgrade our laws so that we can provide for the safety and consistency of transportation across our border, to make sure that our commerce with our largest trading partner is secure, not impeded, and that we minimize the risk of any kind of incident that would disrupt that trade and the flow of people and commerce across our borders. It is a sad reality, but it is something we do need to address.

I fully support the passage of Bill C-3, the international bridges and tunnels act. I am confident that the safety clauses contained in the bill will ensure that these critical pieces of our national infrastructure remain safe for future generations.

I hope that all members of the House will support the bill. It is a housekeeping bill, in essence. It puts in order the necessary structures so that bridge construction in the future can be undertaken, bridge maintenance can take place, and cooperation with our neighbour in terms of maintaining an unimpeded traffic flow across the border continues.

I understand there are a number of proposals for new bridges. There are some 24 existing crossings which have a wide range of arrangements for their management. At least three new proposals are currently before the government. It is time that we put in order the necessary legislation that will allow these projects to proceed in an orderly fashion and in a manner that protects the security of our transportation, our cross-border traffic for visitors, commerce and trucks.

I hope that all members will support the bill and see that it goes through the House, moves on to committee where it can be discussed more thoroughly and be enacted as quickly as possible. In this new 39th Parliament it can become an early act to ensure that we put in place the necessary protection for part of our economy.

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

Respecting International Bridges and Tunnels Act

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming questions and comments. The hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my Conservative colleague discuss the bill concerning international bridges and tunnels. This is a perfect example of how Canadian federalism works. In this bill, the government has decided to declare that bridges fall under federal jurisdiction, as they have always done. They want to clarify it because bridges have always been administered by provinces, municipalities or the private sector.

As my colleague is well aware, no funds are provided for in this bill. All the federal government is doing is asserting its jurisdiction, but it will not pay for maintenance. It will conduct inspections, but it will not pay to fix bridges.

There are many examples of this. I just noticed my colleague for Lévis—Bellechasse back there nod in agreement. The Quebec City bridge, which is owned by CN, is one such example. It is completely rusted. It needs to be fixed, but the federal government, the province and Canadian National have all drained their budgets. In the end, the work will not be done.

This is what is being proposed today. This bill provides no money to repair bridges or to upgrade them if security standards are tightened. No budget is included—we will discuss it later. Nevertheless, the federal government states that this falls within its jurisdiction. It will inspect bridges and tell the provinces and municipalities what to do, but it will not pay.

Is this what the member is proposing?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill puts in place the necessary regulations so that security and consistency can be addressed in the future.

When we are talking about investments in infrastructure like this, there will always be discussion with the provinces, the municipalities or with the appropriate authorities. With the alignment of bridges, which affects traffic in the municipality and in the province, all of those things will require close cooperation between federal, provincial and municipal authorities where that is appropriate.

Certainly, when it comes to funding, whether it is for repair or infrastructure investments, those are ongoing discussions that will take place on an individual basis. They are not addressed in the bill, but they have been discussed individually when these projects have come up in the past. I am sure that will be the pattern in the future.

I look forward to moving ahead to see these projects advance in our country.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not share the member's assessment of the bill. I really do not think it is a housekeeping bill. I think it is a bill that does not exist in the first place and we cannot keep house on something that is not there.

Notwithstanding, in clause 16 under the main heading “Security and Safety”, it says, “The governor in council may, on the recommendation of the minister, make regulations respecting the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels, including regulations”, and paragraph 16(c) says “requiring any person or class of persons to provide to the minister any information related to the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels”.

We have to think about that for a little while. The minister may make regulations and it has to do with requiring people to divulge information, not people involved in the project, but every person in Canada apparently. I wonder if the member has any knowledge whatsoever about this regulation. If these safety and security issues are so important, why is it that they are being buried in the regulations? Why are these requirements not laid out in the bill as we would make these requirements of Canadians subject to the detail as laid out in regulations?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a seasoned member of the House. We have enjoyed discussing a whole range of issues in which we share a common interest. We know how regulation works in this place.

When we are referring here to requiring any person or class of persons to provide the minister information related to security and safety, it is clearly implied that we are going to be directing that request to people who would be custodians of that information or would be in charge of the bridge or in some way would be expected to have some competence in providing information.

I think that the language, of necessity, does not spell out exactly who those individuals might be because there are some 24 such structures that exist today. There is a wide range of responsibilities. The first structures we mention I think go back to the 1930s so we are talking over 60 or 70 years. The range of arrangements has changed and evolved considerably over these years and therefore the governance structure would be a little bit different in each instance. That is probably why the language is a little more vague than my hon. colleague would prefer.

However, it is the nature of the beast that we are trying to address. I am sure it will be discussed at committee and any concerns can be straightened out at that time.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member please provide his views in terms of hazardous waste materials that are actually crossing over our international crossings, bridges and tunnels?

Currently, there are very few regulations and actually there is zero inspection going on with regard to some of the crossings. One in particular in Windsor, Ontario where I have my constituency is the Ambassador Bridge where they have been in public dispute with some of their operators about hazardous materials that are crossing but are not supposed to be crossing at that location. They are supposed to go to Sarnia or to a hazmat ferry.

Would the member agree that there needs to be greater prudence? Perhaps there should be an investigation team or a resource so that we can actually maintain public safety for individuals in the community and also make sure that hazardous waste materials are not going onto the infrastructure. Hazardous materials could be used for terrorism or there could be an accident that would cause a failing of the infrastructure.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has raised a very important issue. Transportation of hazardous materials is a big concern certainly within the country. Cross-border transportation is something that should require some very close scrutiny.

On this side of the House, we are very concerned with the lack of attention to border security in a whole range of matters. It does need to be addressed. I am sure that these concerns will be very welcome at committee. They need to be looked at. I am sure we need to tighten up the way we manage hazardous materials within the country and certainly at our border crossings. The member has raised a very valid concern. I am sure committee members, as this bill goes forward, will be anxious to look into this matter and make sure that we take the appropriate precautions.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-3, which is an important bill. In fact, it was a bill that was first brought forward by the previous government, primarily because every time a bridge or a tunnel was to be built, specific legislation was required to cover that particular project. As one can imagine, there are differences in the requirements of each and every international bridge or tunnel.

The short title of this act is the “International Bridges and Tunnels Act”. Its enactment will establish an approval mechanism for the construction, alteration and acquisition of international bridges and tunnels and it will provide for regulation of their operation, maintenance and security. This is by no means a housekeeping bill. It is a very important bill. It touches a lot of things. The previous speaker referred to it as a housekeeping bill.

As I looked through last Friday's debate, I saw some of the questions. It struck me that there were some very important issues that had to be addressed.

Just by way of background, there are currently 24 bridges and tunnels that carry vehicular traffic across the 6,400 kilometre border between Canada and the United States. There are also five rail bridges. More than $1.9 billion worth of goods moves across the border each day, so we can certainly understand the importance of this. We know there has been for many years discussion about the need to alleviate the congestion at border crossings, particularly in places such as Windsor, Sarnia, Fort Erie, et cetera.

The federal government has jurisdiction over all international crossings, but it is clear that bilateral negotiations have to take place at the federal level as well as provincial and state levels where either responsibilities or authorities exist. This is kind of a comprehensive approach to this. We have the authority with regard to the Government of Canada, under section 92 of the Constitution Act, but the federal government's ability to exercise this authority has never been set out in a legislative framework, and that is the purpose of the bill.

Everyone knows that since September 11, the issue of safety and security has been extremely important to everyone around the world. With regard to Canada's bridges and tunnels, we cannot leave this issue to less formal procedures than would be prescribed in a piece of legislation. That is why it is important that we have legislation in which we have a foundation that will allow us to strategically address the concerns related to either the repair, the maintenance, the change of ownership, or the construction or replacement of new bridges or tunnels.

The bill begins a process that provides us with the ability to deal with the necessary crossings. However, the minister, when he tabled the bill in the House and spoke at second reading, stated:

The development of new crossings is a complex undertaking, requiring negotiations between provincial, state and federal governments on both sides of the border.

Although the bill itself is written in a unilateral form, it has very little detail with regard to the understandings or obligations. One of the areas I thought was important, and a previous speaker spoke about it, was the environmental impacts. I thought immediately about my days on the environment committee where we had regular visits from representatives of the IJC, the International Joint Commission, which is a group of people who are responsible for all of the waterways that we have shared jurisdiction between the United States and Canada. It deals with things like ships coming in and dumping their ballasts. We have alien invasive species and all these other problems. However, there are other things such as watersheds and the impact of important or major construction, as we talk about in the bill.

Under the bill, the legislation would give the governor in council, or cabinet, the authority to make regulations for all matters related to safety and security. It would also be able to make regulations respecting the operation of these crossings, such as ensuring the efficient and competitive flow of international traffic is not jeopardized. These are important aspects of it, but as I indicated, the environment is also very important to Canadians. That is why the proposed legislation and framework has to address some of the environmental aspects.

I cannot find much that I would disagree with in the bill. It is an important bill to have. Although there are a couple of new provisions, one dealing with crossings related to the St. Lawrence and also matters related to change of ownership or control, the only other area where I had some concerns about were the regulations. It is the issue of legislation being buried in the regulations, which I have talked about in this place a number of times.

The previous speaker will be very familiar with the reproductive technology bill, in which I think there were some 24 clauses of the bill that had the phrases “subject to” or “as per the regulations”. The problem with that is parliamentarians are asked to debate, from a knowledgeable point of view, a bill on a very important subject without knowing what the regulations are. Buried in those regulations could be some of the most essential details that could change one's total outlook on the efficacy of the bill.

This idea of making laws through the executive branch, going around Parliament, is something with which we have to deal. It is a wrong premise, and parliamentarians have a responsibility to be accountable. We talked for a whole week about accountability. How can I, as a member of Parliament, be accountable to my constituents, to Parliament and to Canadians as a whole, if I cannot even see legislation with the full impact? How can I vote at second reading and give approval in principle to the main provisions of the bill, if I have no idea what will in the regulations?

We have to be vigilant about what is buried in the regulations. It comes down to that little line, which I have heard so often, the devil is in the details.

Talking about the devil in the details, members will know that there was debate here about the softwood deal. There was a legitimate concern that the little detail of under-prevailing market conditions could mean a big difference. We do not know. I have not seen that deal yet, and I would like to see it. However, I can say that a 30% maximum quota is not free trade; it is managed trade.

I can also say that $4 billion is not $5 billion. All I know is if we are not getting back the duties, if we are not getting back that additional $1 billion, I know where it is going. It is going to the U.S. producers who are going to use it to either continue to fight these battles or take the resources. The devil is in the details.

Let us have a look at another example of the devil in the details. We talked today in question period about a little detail: tax credits for corporations to create 125,000 day care spaces. That is wonderful except the federal government has no jurisdiction for child care. It has no standards or standard-setting process. How can say that if we give them some money, they are going to do this? We have no responsibility or authority to specify the conditions for that child care. Remember the OECD said that what we had in Canada, other than Quebec, was basically glorified babysitting. Are we giving some money to set up more glorified babysitting? How is this helping children? There is the detail.

Let us look at reducing the GST and paying for it by reducing or rolling back an income tax cut. The income tax cut that Canadians received in the last Parliament saved the average Canadian family about $400. Canadians would have to spend $40,000 on taxable goods and services to receive the same amount.

We know the providers of goods and services are not going to pass that all on to the consumers. They are only going to increase their prices and say that this is the way it works.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that we have quite a bit of latitude in our discussions, but we are talking about bridges and tunnels.

The member has been through the softwood lumber issue, and he made some statements that would be appropriate to correct. He is now into child care and GST. Is he planning to bring his speech back on track to the bridges and tunnels bill that is before us and--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I thank the member for Nanaimo—Alberni for his point of order. I am sure the member for Mississauga South will want to address the main tenets of the bill in the rest of his speech.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the main point in the bill is that the devil is in the detail and these were examples. The members obviously have some examples and if they wanted more they could look at the tax credits or transit passes of Kyoto.

However, let us move on to the regulations. Clause 16 states:

The governor in council may,--

It says “may”:

--on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels, including--

It then goes on for three paragraphs.

As I discussed with the members earlier, the regulations can be extremely important and vital to the operations of a piece of legislation. I understand that projects for bridges or tunnels, whether to build a new one, repair one or change its ownership will have some fundamental differences. Look at the Minister of Transport's speech. It was all about the vital nature of safety and security issues that we needed to take care of very specifically.

In particular, clause 16 on safety and security says that it may issue regulations requiring persons, who own or operate bridges or tunnels, to develop and implement security plans and establish security management systems. What does it mean by it “may” develop a security and safety plan? What does it mean “may”? Why is that not in the legislation subject to the regulations where the detail would be? That is what it is supposed to be. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Safety and security plans must be tabled with every project and the details of what has to be included must be put in regulations which can be amended from time to time by order in council. I do not want a bill that says we may do this and, for our friends, maybe we will not. This is a recipe for abuse and lack of accountability. Can we not put this in the legislation? There is another requirement which states:

--must be included in the security plans and requiring persons who own or operate international bridges or tunnels to make the additions, changes or deletions to their security plans that the Minister considers appropriate--

This seems to be a general catch-all, but it was the last one that got me. Subclause 16(c) under “Regulations” states:

--requiring any person or class of persons to provide to the Minister any information related to the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels.

Think about it. This is a regulation that the minister “may” come forward with, requiring any person or class of persons to provide the minister any information related to the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels.

I must say that the first things I thought of were constitutional rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the rule of law. What is this? This is utter nonsense. What kind of catch-all is this? Does anybody in the House really understand what it is? What does it say? Can anybody stand in this place and give me an example? If no one can, then why is it that we are being asked to debate this at second reading and vote to give approval in principle which, once we do that, based on ignorance, we will not be able to reverse?

This is nonsense. This is making law by regulations. I hope members get interested in this because there is more. Let us look at paragraph 39(5)(b) where there are more regulations. It states:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting--

(b) the return of the evidence to the person from whom it was seized or to any other person entitled to its possession.

This is pursuant to paragraph 39(1)(c), which I guess we have to read in order to understand what that means.

Clause 43 is another one. It states:

The Minister may, by regulation,

I will move down to paragraph (b):

prescribe the maximum amount payable for each violation,--

If a law prescribes violations and penalties, then I hate to tell the House that there will be penalties and they will be prescribed in the regulations. It may be better to be put in the legislation that there will be penalties and the penalties are as laid out in the regulations.

This idea of the government saying it “may” do this really bothers me. We are going to see this often. We as parliamentarians must be more vigilant. If we are expected to vote on legislation and want to be accountable in this place, then we must know what is being asked of us. It is not here.

Usually a department would provide briefing notes with an explanation on each clause. Members get those notes the first time a bill goes to committee and after all the witnesses. Members do not even have that information when they are talking to witnesses. I hope potential witnesses will look at this bill and say we are missing something, or we are on a track that basically says Parliament is going to give us approval in principle and then we are going to slap on what we really want to do in the regulations because it says we can do it. That is law made by the executive. It is law made by regulation and it is wrong.

This bill is a perfect example of this. It is a straightforward bill on a very important matter. It provides a legislative foundation and framework by which we can deal with issues to do with the international bridges and tunnels. It has some environmental implications et cetera.

What is the legislative framework in the United States? The United States have had it for a number of years. We are now bringing ours into line. I wonder what the United States has to say about this. I wonder whether or not we have patterned this on the American framework. It is clear to me that everything that is happening around here seems to be looked at through the lens of the American people. This is what I call the sniff test and the sniff test is telling me that we are very slowly embarking on the Americanization of Canada.

It seems to me that everything we do is based on what the United States does. It seems to me that we have taken on the attitude that if the United States does something then maybe we should do it too. The attitude seems to be that if the United States wants to steal our billion dollars on softwood lumber, then let it steal it. If it wants to have a maximum quote and have managed trade instead of free trade, that is okay. It seems to me that is the way we are doing business. We have to have big Bush and little Bush. What the heck.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

I am sorry, but I am really concerned about the quality of the legislative material.

This legislation is at second reading. I hope that members who are going to be on the transport committee and will be looking at this bill will take an opportunity to look at what is being asked in terms of the detail in the regulations. I hope the committee will seek the approval of the minister of the department to have these important considerations incorporated directly into the legislation.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question for my Liberal colleague will be simple. He said in his speech that the devil is in the details. I will call to his attention a small detail that is not in the bill and that is the federal funding to help maintain the bridges in question.

It is not just Bill C-3. When his Liberal government was in power, there was nothing in Bill C-44, the basis for Bill C-3, on funding for the 24 international bridges and tunnels.

They could have taken the opportunity to establish funding and tell those managing them, namely the provinces and municipalities, that the money was available. As I was saying earlier, this federation has a funny way of doing things. It says in this bill that the international bridges and tunnels are a federal jurisdiction, but it does not invest any money in them. It is the provinces and municipalities that are currently paying. That is the reality.

I gave the example of the Quebec City Bridge because it is an obvious one. It is not an international bridge, but a bridge for which there is an agreement, for which the federal government pays its share. The province should have to pay its share just like a private company. We are just a few years shy of Quebec City's 400th anniversary and we would like to have a bridge that is not all rusty. Our hands are tied because everyone is saying there is no budget available for this.

Why was there no money allocated for these 24 international bridges and tunnels? Why, at the time, did the Liberals not allocate any money either?

That is my question for my colleague.

[An hon. member]

That is a very good point.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point. I am not sure whether it has to be in this legislation. It really is an issue of the fiscal responsibility of the government of the day.

There is no question that the most significant portion of our exports goes to the United States. I have forgotten the number. It is something like 75%. It relies heavily on the infrastructure of the tunnels and the bridges as well as the road system connecting the producers to the export points.

We all have a vested interest in it and therefore, as a general statement, I would say all stakeholders have a responsibility to make contributions that are commensurate with the benefits that they derive from that project going forward. I think it is something that should be argued strenuously especially when the alternative to having no federal funding is to have no infrastructure project. That is simply unacceptable.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to my colleague's speech. It was a typical Liberal speech. In the first part of his presentation he tried to take credit for the actual legislation which was formerly Bill C-44. It is actually significantly the same. There are only a couple of modifications that are different in this legislation.

What is critical though is that the government of the day has carved it out of another bill, Bill C-44. It had other components that made it going forward very complicated. Therefore, at least we can concentrate on this major infrastructure challenge that we have.

There are some negative aspects to the bill, but there are some positive things as well that are very important. However, by the end of the member's speech he was distancing himself from the bill, calling it utter nonsense, despite the fact his own member is going to be sitting on the industry committee that crafted the bill or at least a good part of it to begin with. He had convinced himself that it was actually bad, calling it Americanization and a whole series of things. It is just amazing that one can go within a 20 minute period of time and make a completely contradictory statement about a presentation.

I would like to move on though. The former Prime Minister said this to the Windsor Star in January 2004. He said that there was no doubt that the crossing here was the single most important crossing in Canada and it was the priority. We know we then got a list. Sadly enough, the Windsor-Detroit region corridor was probably one of the initial priorities that then got quintuplets, then dozens, then after that a population explosion of priorities and got put into a mix of things.

I have a question for the hon. member. Why did it take so long to get this actual legislation to this point in time? I have many concerns about the legislation and there are some issues that need to be dealt with. However, the fact is there are over 24 crossings that are bridges and tunnels between Canada and the United States. Two are privately held right now: one in Windsor West and one in Fort Frances. There are no regulations whatsoever protecting citizens and the commerce of this country. Why did it take so long?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the member did not listen to my speech. I said very clearly in my speech that it was effectively the same bill that was proposed by the last government within those two areas. The member could check the blues or tomorrow's Hansard. The two areas I noted were the St. Lawrence River crossing and the authority to improve all transactions affecting ownership control.

The problem that I have with the bill is with regard to the regulations. That was my speech. It was with regard to putting matters, which were late to the legislation, in the regulations under the auspices of the minister “may”. In fact, on safety and security issues, I am of the view, and perhaps the member does not agree, that if there were provisos of the bill such as penalties and safety and security plans that must be made and so on, those should be requirements in the legislation itself. The details of what matters should be dealt with in this plan, who should it be reviewed by, and all these other things. That is what regulations are for.

My concern was clearly with regard to essential legislative information being buried in the regulations and not available for the members of Parliament to consider before they vote at second reading which would then restrict our ability to make changes at a later date. That is the point.

We are at second reading which gives us the opportunity to make a recommendation to the transport committee. I support the bill, but I want the committee to look very carefully at the requirements of the regulations. I want the committee to ask the government and the department to state some of those requirements in the bill itself with a clause relating to regulations where the amplified detail would be present but the principles would still be in the legislation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, was the hon. member for Mississauga South concerned about the same degree of Americanization when his Liberal government approved 11,000 takeovers of Canadian firms through the course of its 12 years in power?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member would like to name them, I will comment on them. His is a throwaway question, so in that case let me go on to the last two devils in the details.

Can we imagine giving a tax credit for transit users for transit passes? Ninety-five per cent of that money is going to existing transit users. They want to increase the ridership from 5% to 7%, which they cannot do because there is no capacity. There has to be an investment. What it is going to mean, mark my words, is that there is going to be an increase in the price of transit because of this tax credit and they are going to have to invest more and come to the federal government to invest more in transit.

This is not going to do anything. It will cost $2,000 a tonne to reduce greenhouse gases, 10 times more than the programs this government has scrapped.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start the discussion on Bill C-3 by coming back to the comments of the member for Mississauga South. He gave quite an impassioned comment and, for those of us who have actually been in the House over the last few years, a rather strange comment, in that he said he was concerned about the Americanization of Canada.

This is coming from a member who represents a party that, as I mentioned earlier, has accepted, without one single rejection, 11,000 takeovers of Canadian firms over the past 12 years. Eleven thousand firms were taken over and the Liberal government just gave them a green light, with the subsequent loss of jobs, loss of revenue and loss of profits that go elsewhere, outside of the country.

It was also strange to me when we talked about the softwood deal. Indeed, I will come back to this because this touches on the issue of international trade. The Liberal government was bringing forward an agreement on softwood lumber that was basically the same as what the Conservatives are trying to push this week. The difference is about 3¢ on the dollar, but in both cases, Liberal and Conservative, what we have is essentially allowing the Bush administration to profit, to keep the ill-gotten gains of trade crime.

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives agree with this stand. Certainly for the hon. member for Mississauga South to step forward and say he is concerned about the Americanization of this country when the Liberal government showed that, if anything, the Liberals wanted to accelerate that Americanization, it is quite strange indeed. I did not want to leave those comments without a response.

I will come back to the issue of Bill C-3, which is to a large extent taken out of Bill C-44, brought forward at the transport committee in the 38th Parliament. Although there have been calls for years to have a legislative framework around our international bridges and tunnels, under the Liberal government there was not the movement that we needed to see, so largely we welcome what we are seeing in Bill C-3.

But I should give credit where credit is due. Essentially, and I think overwhelmingly, this bill coming forward is due to the work of the member for Windsor West, who has been tireless in pushing the cause of having a federal legislative framework around international bridges and tunnels. The member for Windsor West and his colleague from Windsor--Tecumseh have been pushing forward this issue in Parliament since they were both elected a few years ago.

I think it is nice to see that their efforts have borne fruit, that their work has led to the reintroduction of this bill. It is certainly our commitment that we will be working very hard to ensure that we get this type of legislative framework around international bridges and tunnels. I should also mention the work of the member for Sault Ste. Marie, who is also impacted directly. He has been a strong defender of making sure that access passes through international bridges and tunnels, and he has been a good advocate as well. However, all of us in this House, from all four corners of the House, should thank the member for Windsor West for his tireless advocacy on behalf of the Windsor area.

What does this bill contain? The bill essentially takes components from Bill C-44 and allows, in a sense, a legislative framework to be established around international bridges and tunnels. It may be surprising to most of the people who are listening in tonight to this debate to know that there is no legislative framework existing now. Indeed, many of the international bridges and tunnels that we have across this country are privately owned and there is no legislative framework for the federal government to play its role in ensuring that bridges and tunnels are safe and secure, that they are properly maintained and that we can make the kinds of investments we need to in order to ensure that jobs are created and maintained in Canada.

I should also add that when we refer to bridges, we are talking about 24 bridges across the country. Nine are located in New Brunswick, essentially in Acadia. That area has the most international bridges in the country. Of course, there is also one in Quebec, in the Glen Sutton area.

It is a very beautiful part of Quebec. There are also seven bridges connecting Ontario and New York State. We are talking about the whole of the St. Lawrence. This sector is also very important to the Canadian economy. Four other bridges link Ontario to Michigan, including the Ambassador Bridge. I will come back to this, but let me say that this bridge is extremely important to the city of Windsor, which is represented by the members for Windsor West and Windsor—Tecumseh. In addition, there are three bridges in northwestern Ontario, connecting the province to Minnesota. The best known of these is in Fort Francis.

There are also five rail bridges: two between Ontario and New York, two between Ontario and Michigan and one in the northwest, again in Fort Francis, between Ontario and Minnesota.

Of course, we are talking about all the bridges and tunnels that have an enormous impact on the economies of the provinces, particularly Ontario, but also Quebec and New Brunswick. This is an extremely important facet of Canada's economy.

Speaking more specifically about some of the elements, when we talk about truck trade between Canada and the United States, the total value in 2004 was $346 billion. Trade by rail was valued at $98 billion. Essentially trucks and railways carry 80% of the total value of Canada's trade with the United States in the year 2004.

The Windsor-Detroit tunnel connects the U.S. interstate system with Ontario's Highway 401. It is one of the fastest and busiest links between Canada and the United States. Approximately 27,000 to 29,000 vehicles use the tunnel on a daily basis, amounting to nine million vehicles per year, 95% of that traffic being cars and 5% being trucks.

As I mentioned earlier, the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and the Blue Water Bridge in Point Edward rank as the top two commercial crossings on the Canada-U.S. border. More than 4.7 million commercial trucks and 19.4 million passengers use these annually. With that important volume, one can understand why the member for Windsor West has been such a tireless advocate on behalf of his constituents as well as the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

Also, the Thousand Islands crossing on an average day in 2003 served 1,600 commercial vehicles, carrying about $27.5 million worth of goods, and served 3,500 passenger vehicles. That would be carrying nearly 8,000 people between the United States and Canada at that border crossing.

The three Niagara Falls international bridge crossings support an estimated $26 billion in trade per year, and reportedly more than 500,000 U.S. and Canadian jobs depend on that export traffic travelling across the Niagara Falls bridge connectors.

Finally, in 1996 almost $1.7 billion American dollars in Canadian exports were shipped through the Sault Ste. Marie crossing, which is the largest international trade crossing in northwestern Ontario, to the United States, over one-third of which was transported by rail. In 2001, 2.5 million vehicles, including nearly 2.4 million passenger vehicles, crossed that bridge.

Therefore, we are talking about crossings that have a fundamental importance for the economy in Ontario. That is why it is extremely important that the efforts of the member for Windsor West and the member for Windsor—Tecumseh have arrived at the point now where we as a Parliament can now consider this important legislation.

We are largely in favour of the principle of the legislation. We feel it is long overdue. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that NDP members have been pushing to make this legislation a reality.

There is one area where we are concerned. When we look through Bill C-3, as other members have mentioned, we see an excessive level of centralization of power of governor in council. In other words, the government is taking over the essential ability to promote regulation when it comes to Bill C-3. That is a problem.

We have seen in other areas of international trade serious concerns with the direction of that young government. Admittedly we are perhaps talking about a government that is still trying to find its feet, but the recent softwood sellout does not allow us to increase our confidence level in the kinds of decisions that the government would make on trade issues. As I very clearly laid out, this is a matter of fundamental importance for international trade.

We have been saying that we need this legislative framework, but the member for Windsor West particularly has been saying that we need the local input to ensure, when decisions are made on safety, security, maintenance and ownership, that those decisions are made both in the local and national interests. The member for Windsor West has been a tireless advocate to ensure that the people of Windsor are involved in decisions that have a profound impact in that area.

I come from British Columbia. We are profoundly affected by softwood lumber. Yet we have seen the most catastrophic sellout of British Columbia interests on softwood lumber imaginable. It is absolutely mind-boggling that we would see the government, after hundreds of millions of dollars paid by British Columbia communities to ensure that Canada would maintain its rights under NAFTA, with a stroke of the pen give away those rights of the dispute settlement mechanism we won last August, which allowed for binding closure. The government is saying that it does not matter if Canada wins, that it will give it all away. It gave away over a billion dollars of proceeds of trade product illegally collected in softwood tariffs.

It is astounding that on an issue that impacts communities in British Columbia to such a great extent, the government would wave the white flag and surrender our rights under NAFTA, surrender over a billion dollars. In other words, it has provided the ammunition to the American industry to attack even more strongly the B.C. industry. It astounds me beyond belief that this could happen.

Our concern is if we are giving this much power into the hands of the government over international bridges and tunnels, which have as much of an economic impact, it will make the same foolish disregarded decision and sell out our interests. That is the problem.

On international trade, we have seen that the government does not understand the implications of the decisions it makes.

When it comes to international bridges and tunnels, we have shown that it has a profound impact on trade. It is of immense concern to us now that we are centralizing that control within the government. This is not how the NDP has been promoting this issue. We have been saying that local areas, Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie and other areas, need to have substantial input into those governmental decisions.

When it comes to softwood lumber, British Columbians have had no input into a softwood lumber sellout that gives away $600 million in hard-earned money paid by B.C. softwood communities to Washington in illegal tariffs, the proceeds of trade crime that the Bush administration can keep and use against the B.C. softwood industry. Even the B.C. premier, who obviously too hastily said he thought the deal might be okay, now that he has seen portions of it, though none of us have seen the complete deal, is having second thoughts. That is why he wrote to the Prime Minister and said that it was not the deal he signed off on, that there were new clauses that allowed American control of our forestry practices.

If the chaos of this bad deal on softwood is any indication, with no B.C. input for softwood communities, which are hard-pressed and which have fought to have Canada's rights maintained under NAFTA, this may be a very poor precedence that we will see for Bill C-3. That is our concern.

Though we agree with the principle of the deal and though we agree that after many years of work by NDP MPs, such as the member of Parliament for Windsor West we are finally getting to the point where we have that federal oversight, we do not see anywhere in the legislation the opportunity for the kind of local input, which is important.

I cannot stress this enough. If we go back to the softwood lumber deal, forestry companies were saying that this was a bad deal. However, the Conservative government said that it was a take or leave it situation, that it would cut them adrift, that it would not provide loan guarantees or litigation support, that it would not provide them with anything. The companies have to take the deal as it is. Because the government has to rehabilitate the trade minister, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, it will sign anything no matter how outrageous, no matter how bad a giveaway, no matter the precedent it sets, not only for softwood lumber but for any other industrial sector.

Next week, next month, next year the Bush administration can target other industrial sectors and we no longer have a dispute settlement mechanism. We no longer have a binding process that allows us to see trade justice. We now have a state of permanent trade crime that has been created because the government did not understand what it was signing. It is a nightmare

Coming back to Bill C-3, the one component that we do not like and that we will endeavour to change and improve in committee is the government's ability to make these changes and perhaps do further sellouts without having the substantive local input from regions like Windsor and Sault Ste. Marie. It is fundamentally important to ensure that our trade works on an even playing field and in the interests of those areas. I believe that is the fundamental issue.

Because of the work of the NDP MPs, the NDP believes we are finally seeing legislation, which should have been passed before, that provides the legislative framework for international bridges and tunnels. However, we are concerned about centralizing the power with a government that has shown, so far at least, that it does not know how to handle it.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on Bill C-3 on international bridges and tunnels.

However, I would nonetheless like to call him to order. In his speech, my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster erred on another subject, that being the settlement of the softwood lumber dispute. As you know, this is an issue which has received the support of the Government of British Columbia—where my colleague is from—and of the Government of Quebec—where I am from—as well as the support of the sawmills of Chaudière-Appalaches. For them, this settlement resolves a problem which was latent for many years and which had been left by the Liberal government.

Now we can make plans for the future, because we know we will be able to work. People in the industry will be able to invest, to recover and invest the money that had been held back. They will have a framework for operations and will be able to export their wood. I wanted to correct the facts with my colleague.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, which did not relate to Bill C-3 but to the softwood lumber industry. It will be my pleasure to respond to this question.

First of all, the Premier of British Columbia has said that this was not the agreement he had approved and it was not what he wanted. This agreement is worse than what he accepted. So the Premier of British Columbia—who may not have read what he signed, or did not understand what he signed—now has second thoughts about the deal. Now the deal is coming apart. Furthermore, as my colleague very well knows, Carl Grenier, a Quebecker and executive vice-president of the Free Trade Lumber Council, has said that, with one stroke of the pen, three years of effort and three years of victories in the NAFTA case have just been erased. It is obvious that this auctioning off of our Canadian rights is generating a good deal of negative comment.

Now the question is rather how the Conservative members can vote in favour of such a measure. It places not only the Quebec industry, but also the industries of British Columbia, Ontario and the entire country in a bad position, and it particularly affects the communities concerned by this bad deal, which should never even have been considered.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will return to Bill C-3. My colleague earlier expressed his concerns about communities not being consulted. I would simply read for him clause 13, even though I know he has read it:

The Minister may order the owner or operator of an international bridge or tunnel to take any action that the Minister considers appropriate to ensure that it is kept in good condition.

In addition, the government is giving itself the right to apply sanctions. The owners are provinces, cities and, in some locations, private companies, but for the most part they are levels of government. This is what the government is proposing today—I repeat—without including any provision for the creation of a dedicated fund, by which the federal government would guarantee its financial involvement. It waves a stick. If there are problems, it will use it.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether he thinks it reasonable, once again, for the federal government to rap the knuckles of the communities, provinces, cities and private firms with its big stick.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It concerns, specifically clause 13 of the bill, which provides that “The Minister may order the owner...to take any action that the Minister considers appropriate to ensure that it is kept in good condition”.

My colleague from Windsor West has illustrated this fact very eloquently. When the Windsor-Detroit tunnel changed from private to public ownership, it was in very poor shape. It was noted at the time that the private administrator had not done the maintenance necessary to ensure safe transportation between Windsor and Detroit. The tunnel is now owned by a public firm, which ensures it is maintained.

We consider it very important these bridges and tunnels be maintained. They play a vital role in the economy not only of the cities I have mentioned, such as Windsor and Sault Ste. Marie, but of the country as a whole, especially Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-3, an act respecting international bridges, today. This bill is part of our government's comprehensive plan to provide a clear transportation policy for the whole country in a sustainable development context.

Today, it has become clear that the whole House supports this very concise bill. We can therefore proceed quickly.

I would like to tell my colleagues a little more about this bill and the context within which it was drafted.

As you have already heard several times today, Canada and the United States are linked by 24 road bridges and tunnels, as well as five rail tunnels. Most of the trade goods exchanged between our two countries travel across these bridges and through these tunnels, as well as via the rail and marine transportation networks. They play an essential role in our transportation system.

This is the first time the Government of Canada has established a legislative framework—not a funding framework, but a legislative one—to fill a gap. This is why the House supports the bill.

Furthermore, the bill fits into the government's plan for border security, infrastructure improvements and, as a result, job creation through international trade.

The proposed bill would serve to confirm the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction with respect to international bridges and tunnels; require governmental approval for the construction or alteration of new and existing bridges and tunnels; require governmental approval for all changes in ownership, operation and control of those facilities; and authorize the government to make regulations regarding bridge maintenance and repair, safety and security, and operation and use.

Because people move across those bridges, we are entitled to expect that the government will ensure that those structures are well maintained and safe.

I support the bill presented by my hon. colleague, the member for Pontiac and Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. It is a reflection of our government’s desire to restore the backbone of our country, transport—highway transport, rail transport, air transport and marine transport—to its proper place.

As members of Parliament, we are elected to legislate. I am sure that with the consent of my colleagues in the House, we will be able to move this bill forward.

Under the previous government, there had been hard times in recent years in terms of the development of transport in Canada. We witnessed the closing of a number of marine facilities in municipalities along the St. Lawrence River. We also witnessed the abandonment of marine transport, one of the four pillars of the transportation system. I know something about this, because I live in Lévis, where the largest Canadian shipyard is located, with nearly 180 years of history. Today, the workers in that shipyard are fighting hard to keep this jewel in the crown of our industry going strong.

For the manufacturing companies of Bellechasse and Chaudière-Appalaches, which are Quebec's “tigers”, as for others in other regions of Quebec, transportation costs are all-important if they are to preserve their competitive edge, whether in the agri-food sector, the plastics industry or the furniture industry. In Sainte-Claire, we have the largest manufacturer of intercity buses in North America. Links with the American economy are crucial, as we know.

Given the soaring price of gasoline and the climate change that is upsetting our ecosystems, we have to develop a bold and innovative transport policy. That is what our government intends to do, and marine transport—and the bill we are considering today—is one element of that policy.

Today, we use various modes of transportation when we travel. At one time, the waterways were the only routes that existed. They contributed to the building of our country. Canada would not be what it is today if this transport network had not existed. What economic development would there have been in the St. Lawrence Valley and the Great Lakes region without the St. Lawrence Seaway? How many tons of essential materials, goods and supplies have been transported on the St. Lawrence? These waterways have helped to build Canada and they will continue to do that. This is an important mode of transport and it is part of a strategy of sustainable development.

There are several advantages to doing a better job of using our navigable waterways. We reduce the congestion on our roads and at our border crossings—on the roads and bridges that we are talking about today—and in our airports. We improve the efficiency of our supply systems. We facilitate trade and effectively reduce air pollution, including greenhouse gases.

Congestion is very expensive, amounting to about $3 billion a year in lost time and wasted fuel that goes into the atmosphere, in addition to the negative effect on our productivity. We know that trade will only increase in the future and the congestion on our roads will grow worse as the number of cars and trucks increases.

International trade is expected to reach 2 billion tonnes a year over the next 20 years, or twice as much as current levels.

To avoid overloading our infrastructure, we are going to have to innovate and find different methods of transporting goods. This will affect not only the environment but also our health and the expenses that governments incur to build and maintain the necessary infrastructure. We should therefore examine all the available options that could make our transportation systems as efficient, effective and sustainable as possible.

So it is logical to send more of our goods by ship. This reduces congestion while actively helping to fight climate change, in addition to being very beneficial economically. All that shippers want is for their goods to reach market in a cost-effective way.

We are not inventing anything here. In Europe, 63% of the total volume of goods is carried by short-distance ships. This amounts to a total of 1.6 billion tonnes. European countries promote marine transportation as a complement to road, air and rail. They have studied this option and decided in favour of it. If it works elsewhere, it could work here. The job has already begun.

In 2003, Canada, the United States and Mexico signed a memorandum of cooperation to share information on waterways. On April 19, at a conference in Vancouver, our minister took part in signing the protocol for promoting the use of our waterways, thus reducing pressure on our bridges and tunnels. That is why we must conduct research on shipping and collect more data in order to apply it effectively.

In Quebec, in Rimouski, UQAR is setting up a research chair on shipping, which will be a major advance for research in this field in Quebec. It will help support this industry on specific scientific and technological research. It will also open the door to discoveries that will further our knowledge of the shipping sector and help us develop it to its full potential.

We need to have efficient means of transportation to improve our competitiveness—especially with a strong dollar—and to help us stay on course with our ambitions for our shipping companies and the St. Lawrence River.

We need an integrated approach to transportation to enhance our economic productivity. Our Prime Minister recently met with the President of the United States and the President of Mexico in Cancun. The three leaders reaffirmed their commitment to enhancing security, prosperity and the quality of life for North Americans. It is in this context that this current initiative is being taken.

Bill C-3 on international bridges will allow us to legislate on this matter and provide leadership. As we have seen, this House will probably be called to support other bills for improving our transportation policies in a context of sustainable development. Shipping is part of that.

Located at the confluence of the river, near the large seaway, the major transportation routes and rail lines, the riding I have the privilege of representing could seize this opportunity to improve its productivity and contribute to the prosperity of the country.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention one thing to my colleague. At the start of his speech, he stated that he had the consent of the House. I would like my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse to understand that he will have the consent of the House when we vote on the bill. First, the bill must be referred to a committee that will make amendments. I would like my colleague to understand that the Conservative Party does not have a majority on the committee. Thus, the bill will be amended and we hope that the other opposition parties will agree. We will see how the Conservative Party votes after we have amended the bill.

Naturally, this leads me to ask the following question. Does he not find it strange that today we have a bill which, early on, in clause 5, states that “International bridges and tunnels are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada”, in other words, under federal jurisdiction? This is already spelled out in the Constitution.

Why are we bringing this up today? I would like to suggest a small exercise to my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse. It is because the federal government has divested itself of its responsibilities over the years. It gave us a nice statement about marine transportation but the federal government has divested itself of its responsibilities. It is no longer responsible for ports—except for some designated ports— having turned them over to local authorities. In addition, the federal government divested itself of regional airports, wharfs and bridges, handing them over to independent managers.

As a result of 9/11, the federal government wishes to reappropriate these installations for security reasons. Could my colleague tell us today that the government would support an amendment to the bill that would force it to allocate funds specifically for international bridges and tunnels if more restrictive security measures were applied and that these measures would be paid for by the federal government?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for updating me on parliamentary procedure. I was simply illustrating the nature of the comments I heard today from the four parties.

I am confident that the bill presented will receive parliamentary approval after work is completed on the amendments.

That said, my hon. colleague's question concerns the issue of regulations. I would say to him, as I indicated in my speech, that it is true that there has been a federal disengagement, particularly with respect to responsibilities for port facilities in small municipalities in Quebec. The Liberal Party was responsible for this and, unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois could not do anything about it.

I would point out to him that this bill aims to legislate in the area of international bridges. This bill does not target the funding of infrastructures. The distinction must be made.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since he is giving me the opportunity, I would add that the federal government had the Conservative Party's support when it offloaded its responsibilities concerning ports and airports.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

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

Canadian infrastructure faces many needs. I know this is true in the municipalities within my colleague's riding. This is certainly true in the municipalities of Bellechasse, Etchemins and Lévis. This is a collective challenge we must overcome together.

As for the famous fiscal imbalance, it involves more than just the provincial and federal governments. It also affects municipalities and ordinary citizens.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that, as transport critic for the Bloc Québécois, I talk about Bill C-3,.

In theory, everyone may be in favour of the federal government accepting its true responsibilities as regards international bridges and tunnels. In any case, they fall within its jurisdiction. We have to grasp how the situation is, though.

The federal government downloaded its responsibilities in the past and transferred them to the provinces, the municipalities in some cases and to private companies in others. Of 24 bridges, only five are within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The others were entrusted to other administrations.

This is what the Bloc Québécois is wondering about. The federal government, for the sake of national security, is now deciding to interfere directly in the administration of equipment managed by other levels of government.

Earlier, I quoted to the New Democratic member a text which I will take the liberty of reading to the House. Under “Maintenance and Repair” in the bill, clause 13 reads: “The Minister may order the owner or operator of an international bridge or tunnel to take any action that the Minister considers appropriate to ensure that it is kept in good condition.” Thus, for national security, the federal government can decide to impose standards or force an administration to redo maintenance of its infrastructures. That is hard to accept, when we know that the act does not contain any measures creating funds dedicated to the repair of these infrastructures while ensuring federal participation.

Earlier, when I put some questions to my colleagues from several parties, I mentioned the Quebec City Bridge. It is not an international bridge or tunnel. It is, however, an example of a very important infrastructure in Quebec City, which is currently in the news headlines. Actually the 400th anniversary of Quebec City is coming up. This steel bridge is completely rusty, and they want to repaint it. That is the objective.

Canadian National has to maintain the railway system—let us never forget that this railway system is within federal jurisdiction—in accordance with the agreement concluded. This company, though, has always repeated to all levels of government that it does not have the means to maintain this superstructure. In the past, an agreement was signed between the Province of Quebec, the federal government and the said company. As in many projects, however, the costs were exceeded and the objectives could not be met. Money is lacking to renovate the Quebec City Bridge in time for the 400th anniversary. In fact, it should be renovated so as to avoid all sorts of catastrophes that might arise.

The money is lacking and everyone is passing the buck. It is not anyone’s fault, especially not the federal government’s. The Conservative members went for a walk, the federal government, through the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, said that the bridge was not its responsibility. In fact, in this case, maintenance of the bridge is the company’s responsibility. It is Canadian National that is responsible for the maintenance of railways and structures. This bridge is therefore its responsibility. But we know in advance that the private company is not able to do the maintenance.

We have the same problem with international bridges and tunnels. Some are managed by the private sector. Earlier, a colleague mentioned the Windsor-Detroit tunnel, which had to become public property. A public authority had to take over responsibility for managing the tunnel when it turned out the private company that was managing it was unable to maintain it. This example speaks volumes, but other bridges and tunnels are facing the same problem. The bill does not solve the problem.

In the bill before the House today, the federal government is not saying that it will pay. It is only saying that it will oversee bridge inspections and order the owners or operators to take any action to ensure that they are kept in good condition. If any work is to be done, the government will force the owner to do it. However, if the owner has no money to do the work, as was the case with Canadian National and the Quebec City bridge, what will the government do? This bill does not say.

The bill does not provide for a fund for the 24 existing bridges and tunnels or any new international bridges. We should at least allocate sufficient funds to renovate these 24 or 25 infrastructures. That way, we could fix the problem right away by using the fund to pay for the repairs.

Since the beginning of this debate, our Conservative colleagues have said that we should discuss funding mechanisms. Some say that if we increase prices at some locations, it would end up costing so much it would weaken the economy. If that happens, people will not use the bridges or the tunnels.

There is no trade because it costs too much to cross the bridge or travel the tunnel. Clearly, this means that the government does not want to pay. A Conservative colleague even said earlier that the government would force owners to pay by refusing to pay.

In short, no one is willing to pay. Money is the crux of every political issue. Once again we see that the federal government divested itself of all responsibility in the past because it did not want to pay.

Of course, the communities or provinces involved told the federal government to transfer responsibility to them and that they would look after the structures if the federal government was unable and unwilling to. Today, these huge and often old structures are expensive to maintain, and money is running out.

You will see that the Bloc Québécois will defend the public interest. In Quebec, we have one bridge, the Sutton bridge, which the city manages. Imagine, the City of Sutton manages the bridge. Of course, administration has been delegated. I am told that the bridge is very well managed and that everything works quite well. But judging by the community's reaction, Sutton was in favour of the bill because it assumed that money would likely be invested. The community thought that money would be forthcoming if it had to do major work, because the federal government recognized that this came under federal jurisdiction.

This bill does not hold any surprises for the residents of Sutton, but it does not answer their questions either. In any case, there was no money when these bridges came under federal jurisdiction, and this bill does not provide for any money.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore try to put that point across to all its colleagues, to the Liberal Party and, of course, the Conservative Party, which introduced the bill. In fact, I have to hand it to the Conservatives. This entire part of the bill is identical to Bill C-44, which the Liberals prepared.

Today, the residents of Sutton cannot count on any help from the Liberals or the Conservatives, nor can any other communities that find these infrastructures too costly. It was already decided that we might talk about money at a later time, but that we would not resolve this issue today. The Bloc Québécois and the communities in question who face this situation would not mind if the federal government were to declare its authority and impose standards--as long as the government pays for it. It is as simple as that.

I myself feel that more and more of these infrastructures should be transferred in order to find the funds needed for major projects and to avoid situations such as the one in Windsor, where the services of a private company were used but a public agency had to be created to pay the bill.

Again, I cite the Quebec City Bridge as an example. The hon. member for Québec is defending this file in the House. Quebec City wants to spruce itself up for its 400th anniversary, which is only normal. The oldest city in Canada will soon celebrate its 400th anniversary. We are very happy to have it. However, we cannot get the bridge painted because no one wants to foot the bill.

I cannot get over it: it’s crazy. The city wants to beautify itself, huge amounts are being invested for the community, but we cannot manage to reach an agreement because the bridge belongs to Canadian National, it is under federal authority, and the Quebec government does not have the money.

That is how the Canadian federation works. We have a fine structure, and on the 400th anniversary of Quebec City, you will be able to go and see the rusted Quebec City bridge. It will become a historic monument, because that is what is going to happen.

That is how the world will be invited to visit Quebec City. We cannot manage to agree, we cannot repaint the bridge because the agreement between the federal government, the provincial government and the private company has expired. There is no money and we fell short. We did part of it, but we are unable to finish the job.

We hope that the 24 international bridges and tunnels will not meet the same fate. The citizens of Quebec and Canada will be able to rely on the members of the Bloc Québécois to defend their interests. There can be no question of the rest of Canada going through what we are now experiencing in Quebec City, which wants to make itself attractive for its 400th anniversary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my colleague said about the infrastructure deficit. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents thousands of municipalities across Canada and Quebec, has very clearly said that the infrastructure deficit is in the billions of dollars.

Municipalities cannot maintain their bridges, highways and roads. They cannot maintain their water structures so cities and towns can have clean water. They have difficulty dealing with their infrastructure. The decades of downloading have been hurting municipalities. Even painting a bridge has become a problem.

However I need some clarification on some of the other problems. I recently read that the toll collectors at the Ambassador Bridge were told to wave through trucks carrying risky cargo. According to a document obtained by a local paper, this is in violation of a U.S. ban. This is a real problem.

Does the member believe that the operation of these bridges should be maintained by the government, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, or should the bridges be privatized and given to private operators?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for her question. I am pleased to respond to the first part of her question.

As a former president of the Quebec union of municipalities, I can say that it is true that the cities of Quebec are running a $15 billion deficit just to restore existing infrastructures. Development does not even come into it. These are the needs of the cities of Quebec, not including cities in the rest of Canada. My colleague is entirely correct. Is private enterprise the solution? The example of the Windsor tunnel, which was given earlier, shows that private enterprise is there to make money. In the long term, that is not what we want. These infrastructures have to be preserved by the provincial or municipal public administrations, provided that the federal government, which regards them as coming under federal jurisdiction, decides to pay. They lie within its jurisdiction.

I see no problem with deciding to have them administered by a city or a province, if that is easier. However, if they are under federal jurisdiction, let there be an immediate announcement in this bill that a dedicated fund will be created. That will assist the administrators or governments, which will be able to manage these infrastructures under federal jurisdiction without putting other programs into debt.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleague for further information about the amount of responsibility that the federal government should assume when it transfers the management of certain infrastructure. Unfortunately, there is an enormous mess in the fisheries in regard to the Fisheries and Oceans facilities for small craft harbours. My colleague came to the Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region just recently to look into the railway infrastructure issues. This shows that when someone is responsible for a particular file or sector, there has to be money, too, or else we end up with a bill like the one that the Liberals introduced last year on heritage lighthouses. It was all very good in principle, but when it came time to put the principles into action and get concrete results, it turned out that there was many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The handover of harbours and wharfs is a very good example. The communities were not opposed. Everybody was thinking about it. The Province of Quebec even made a proposal to take over some of the harbours. The problem was that there was no more money in the federal program. There was not enough money to transfer it. It is all very well just to decide on a policy. But if someone does not want to be in charge of a facility any more, the money has to be made available so that when the facility is transferred, it is at least in good condition. The problem with the federal government is that when something does not suit it any longer, it transfers it to a lower order of government— the provinces or municipalities—but forgets to provide the money. The federal government wants to save the money and invest it in an array of jurisdictions that are not its own. That is the cruel reality that we face.

I thank my colleague, who is doing an excellent job in the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put a few comments on the record. I have listened to a lot of the debate and although there have been varying aspects of the debate we are starting to get into the discussion of what we are actually trying to do.

I want to put on the record that I support the bill. The international bridges and tunnels act has been long overdue and is necessary. Having listened to the debate, I know that most of the focus so far has been on the 24 international bridges and tunnels that carry vehicle traffic. I certainly recognize their importance for all the reasons that have been presented today but I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the international rail bridges and tunnels. Although they are fewer in number, they are an important part of our national transportation system, particularly with respect to the movement of freight. Bill C-3 applies equally to those international bridges and tunnels.

Railways have been described as the backbone of Canada's transportation system and we all know that rail is certainly one of the oldest modes of transport. Some railway companies date back to before Confederation. I have almost finished reading “The Last Spike”, which tells the history of the railway that was built into western Canada. To read about the trials and tribulations that people went through to construct that national tie has enlightened me a lot in some of the difficulties that they went through but also the objective and goal that they were trying to obtain.

It is interesting that this past February the Canadian Pacific Railway celebrated its 125th birthday. An even older birthday was celebrated this year, the 170th birthday of the Champlain and Saint Lawrence Railroad, Canada's first railway. It was established in 1836 and ran from La Prairie to Saint Jean in Quebec. The rail lines have been an important part of the Canadian economy but also our Canadian heritage.

The importance of rail to the movement of goods and people today cannot be underestimated. There are a few things that I did not know. In 2003, 59 million passengers travelled by train using the country's commuter and tourist excursion lines and cross country service provided by VIA Rail. That is a huge number of people and is something that we should always be cognizant of when we talk about safety in infrastructure that transports that number of people.

In terms of moving goods, over 270 million tonnes of freight is shipped annually using the Canadian railways. It is still the cheapest method of shipping containers and bulk commodities over long distances. Many would argue that we have moved away reluctantly from the use of the railways, which used to be the lifeline of many of our communities, particularly in rural and western Canada, to a highway system. As the member so rightly commented, it has created a huge expense and burden on governments. How do we afford to move from one to the other and pay for both? Are there better ways to utilize the dollars we have?

There are two main national carriers, as we all know, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways. The CN Railway's network extends from Halifax to Vancouver and Prince Rupert, through the United States to New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. CPR's network runs from Montreal to Vancouver and to Chicago and New York. These important links to the United States are assured by the ownership of and affiliations with several U.S. railways.

CNR and CPR account for about 90% of the industry's activity in revenues. It highlights how much volume there is and how important these two lines are to us. The other 10% is made up by several provincial carriers and short line railways that complete the network. Manitoba is very proud to have one of those short line networks that is establishing the rail lines that are currently being taken out of service by the majors. I am very proud to say that one of them is in my community of Brandon—Souris. I know it is doing an excellent job of providing the service.

A significant portion of CN and CPRs' business is trans-border traffic and traffic within the United States. This, along with increased trade with Asia, has led to a healthy bottom line. Both CN and CPR are able to compete with the U.S. railways and offer some of the lowest rail freight rates in the world.

The contribution of rail and rail bridges and tunnels to Canada's national transportation system by ensuring the movement of many millions of people and millions of tonnes of freight per year means that international rail bridges and tunnels are deserving of the same protection and the same federal government oversight as the international bridges and tunnels that carry vehicle traffic. We need to acknowledge and confirm that these are important aspects of this bill. We must include them and encompass what they are doing for Canadians and for the rest of North America when we are talking about this particular issue.

Over the past four decades the trend has been toward deregulating the rail industry. We know that this industry is still regulated, particularly in terms of rail safety, and that is one of the emphasis the bill tries to address.

Any regulation made under Bill C-3 in the area of bridge or tunnel safety and security would only complement those that already exist. What we are trying to do is to take what we currently have and move it into the modern era, take it to today's position where we understand the concerns and the issues that people bring forward. The bill moves directly to address this.

Just as in the case of international bridges and tunnels that carry vehicles, there currently exists no formal process for approving the construction of new international rail bridges or tunnels. Bill C-3 addresses this and would fill this gap. The construction of new international rail bridges and tunnels would also have to be approved by the government.

The fact that the bill includes international rail bridges and tunnels just goes to show how valuable they are to the Canadian transportation system. They clearly fall within the scope of this bill, the intent of which is to ensure the efficient movement of goods and people over these critical structures, and the safety of the same. Just like the international vehicle bridges and tunnels, they are important to international trade and tourism and they are a source of jobs for Canadians in the transportation industry.

I will be supporting the bill. I congratulate the government for moving ahead with this legislation in a timely fashion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I gave a speech earlier in the House on the bill and raised some concerns about the regulations in clauses 16, 39, and 43. Maybe the member could help out here.

Clause 16 reads:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels, including regulations...

(c) requiring any person or class of persons to provide to the Minister any information related to the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels.

I am a little concerned with the word “may” because it seems to indicate that it will not necessarily happen. In regard to clause 16(c), I have some concerns from the standpoint of a charter issue as well as basic rights and the rule of law.

I wonder if the member has any information whatsoever with regard to the regulation requiring persons or any class of persons to divulge information. I have no idea what the purpose is. If we cannot determine that, I wonder if maybe we should support having a clarification put into the legislation so people will understand what they are voting for.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the member's comments. I listened to him earlier when he talked about the word “may”. I may be mistaken, but I think that if the hon. member were to look back at most legislation, he would see that the word “may” is used when empowering a minister. I think the intent is that it gives the minister some discretion.

The member obviously has some issues and concerns. I know that he has raised them throughout this debate and in his comments. I think that is why we go to committee: to discuss these things. That is why we have committees. We have committees to follow this up because there are things that may or may not have been overlooked. We have the ability to move it on to committee, to move it into the structure where we will challenge some things and hopefully come to an agreement.

Nobody I have heard speak or to whom I have spoken is saying that it is a bad bill. I think what they are saying is that if there are some concerns and issues, we will have an opportunity to discuss them. I think that is what good government does.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member for Brandon--Souris address his position on Bill C-3, I could not help but wonder if in fact the Conservatives are going through some sort of transformation or metamorphosis around the whole issue of regulation, especially when it comes to our transportation sector.

I think I heard the member for Brandon--Souris suggest that deregulation, when it came to the railways, was a bad thing, and that now we are looking at more of a regulated environment. If I did not hear that, I am hoping that he is at least thinking along those lines, because Bill C-3 does at least attempt to ensure that we look at improving the transportation of goods and services across the border in a way that is in the best interests of the nation and is regulated.

Does the member at least appreciate that part of the bill when he says he is supporting it? Is he in fact prepared to go a step further and ensure that the implementation of this bill does not lead us down the path of using P3s, public-private partnerships, as a mechanism?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps for clarification for the member, in my comments I did state that over the past four decades there has been a trend toward deregulating the rail industry, but the industry is still regulated, particularly when it comes to terms of rail safety. That is the direction we are talking about. The purpose of the act would serve to confirm the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction. I think it clearly states that. It talks about government approval for the construction. It talks about government approval for all changes in ownership and it authorizes the government to make regulations regarding maintenance and repair, with safety and security being a vital part of that entire plan.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The time for questions and comments has ended. Resuming debate.

There is no further debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bill Blaikie]

The motion is carried on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)