Mr. Chair, please forgive me. My voice is hoarse, but you'll still be able to hear me. I may sound like a crooner, but I'm not.
This issue does not affect only one committee, or only Montreal, or only the province of Quebec; it affects the whole country.
I will support this motion, but I want to clarify a few things. I support this motion, but I will also put forward my own motion, as we need to know what is going on.
We don't want a new bridge just for the sake of having a new bridge. We know what the potential economic impacts are. We know that there could be serious consequences and that, the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be. In addition, all the reports we have looked at indicate that the project would have an impact not only in terms of social matters but also in terms of safety.
I am glad this meeting is public because it's important that we send a message today that the matter is not political. It is a matter of safety, an economic and social consideration. Goods valued at over $20 billion are transported across that bridge every year. All of eastern Canada is affected. We must use the current infrastructure study to determine how related the infrastructure, the economy and sustainable development are. We must make decisions now.
The minister will probably say this is something we should deal with in five years, not right now and that, meanwhile, every effort is being made. When we discuss my motion, we will realize that there are already problems with this bridge and that, since it is located in a seismically sensitive area, the worst could happen.
That information does not come from politicians. We are talking about reports produced by engineers and experts. This is not about frightening people. These are professionals who used specific words to describe a specific situation.
I hope that the Conservative majority sitting on this committee will not dismiss the two motions out of hand. This is not just a political issue; it's something that concerns the future of our country.
Mr. Chair, we accepted the report a little earlier. When we conduct the infrastructure study, we will realize that this issue affects the very foundation of our economy. There are times when we must not only ask what the situation is, but also realize what an important role we as parliamentarians play in finding constructive solutions. One such solution is to look into what's happening with the Champlain Bridge.
Eventually, we could also talk about other bridges because the Champlain Bridge is not alone. We will also want to discuss the second Windsor bridge. There are other realities to consider. Are the bridges in good shape? For important economic and social reasons, we will also have to look at new infrastructure construction in the rest of the country. However, before we start building elsewhere, we should perhaps look at this situation and do the right thing.
Later on, I will talk about my motion, since there are important and complementary considerations to point out. The Liberal Party of Canada and I have publicly stated that a new bridge is a necessity. That much is clear, but the problem is that we started talking about this in 2006. A 10-year process was being discussed, which would bring us to 2016. Yet, here we are, in 2011, and nothing has been done so far. Crisis management is not enough. It's not enough to say that 28 alterations have been made since 1962 and that we have done everything that needed to be done, that we looked at the reports and that, if something should come up, the Federal Bridge Corporation Limited would handle it.
It's important that the minister come see us. His role is to represent the department and Canadians. He must come not only to reassure the public, but also to show transparency in this case. That is what my motion is about.
Adopting this motion is crucially important. We don't have to do so right away, but the government must make its intentions clear. There is more and more talk about an economic crisis and a debt crisis. The terminology is important, and it is being said that everyone must do their part and that cuts will be made. I hope that safety will not be the big loser in all that. We don't want a decision where only the $2-billion minimum is allocated to fix the bridge, under the pretext that we can't afford more for economic reasons. Unfortunately, all Canadians and Quebeckers would lose out.
I hope that we will be productive and do useful work, and support this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.