Mr. Speaker, this is my fourth attempt at this speech. I started before question period, I started after question period, I started before petitions, I have started after petitions and now I am going to deliver this speech.
I am a little concerned as I did promise the Speaker just before question period to deliver a barn burner. I am grateful to see there are enough empty seats in the House that if members from the government side flood across the floor after my speech, there will be room to accommodate them over here.
The motion we speak to today is about the Quebec bridge. It is a famous landmark and is sometimes called the eighth wonder of the world because of its engineering expertise in its day. I understand it is still a marvel.
I have to admit up front that I have never seen this bridge. From what I have heard about it today and read in the press releases sent out the heritage minister and by others, it is a beautiful bridge. I hope one day to travel on it and to see it for myself. I will plan that in my future travels and I look forward to it.
The bridge is 80 years old. It started out as a railway bridge. It graduated into a multi-purpose bridge and now is used more for car traffic than it is for rail traffic.
The problem is that the bridge is not being maintained properly by CN which is now the legal owner of the bridge. The Quebec government pays only $25,000 a year for the use of the bridge for car traffic and it probably costs $4 million or $5 million a year to maintain the bridge and bring it back up to standard.
The gist of the argument being studied is the shortfall in the maintenance of this bridge. Who should pay for bridge maintenance on this project?
Since the 1980s CN has been putting only about $600,000 a year into the bridge. That is not enough. It is gradually deteriorating and engineers tell us that it will deteriorate until it becomes unsafe, some time in the next century. Maintenance has to be improved. To repair it now will cost about $45 million. If repairs are not ongoing one day it will be unsafe and will eventually have to be demolished. Obviously a landmark like this should not be demolished. It should be part of our heritage and preserved so people like myself, who have yet to see it, can have a look and appreciate what our forefathers and mothers have created for us.
In 1993 the federal government sold the bridge to CN for one dollar with the proviso that CN maintain the bridge.
The principle being discussed is: Who should look after the bridge? The motion says it should be the federal government. I would argue that there are principles at stake in this debate and I would like to elaborate on them at this time.
I would argue the principles are ownership and user pay. The users of the bridge, CN Rail and the people of Quebec and the maritimes, should pay to maintain it. However, they are reluctant to shoulder their responsibilities in this regard. They want to escape the increased costs which are incurring. They want to return the responsibility to the federal government which has already sold it to CN for one dollar.
Why should the federal government maintain it if it does not own it? I would like to note the wording of the sale agreement. It states:
Canada shall transfer the Quebec Bridge to CN as part of the first land block transfer of CGR lands. CN shall undertake to fund a major maintenance program on the Bridge, including the installation and maintenance of architectural lighting, which shall restore this structure to a condition which shall ensure its long-term viability and ensure it is maintained in this state. Without limiting CN's obligations described above, CN will attempt to reach an agreement with the Province of Quebec to co-fund such a maintenance program.
It is CN's responsibility. It is obligated to work out a co-funding agreement with the province of Quebec.
Clearly CN is not meeting its obligations under the agreement. We understand its reluctance when there are others who use the bridge. As a matter of fact, car traffic amounts to three-quarters of the traffic on the bridge.
CN is reluctant to shoulder all the cost and I can understand why. However, there are several options which flow from this and I would like to mention a few of them.
First, the Department of Transport, which has jurisdiction over the safety of the bridge, could continue to inspect it, table reports and finally, when it becomes unsafe, throw its hands up in the air and close the bridge. Obviously that option should not be pursued.
Second, CN has indicated that it could use other routes for its railway traffic and is prepared to do so. It has indicated that it has been using the bridge primarily for political reasons. It looks good. It is historic. However, CN could work its way around the situation. It does not need the bridge for rail traffic.
If CN can no longer afford to maintain the bridge and if it no longer needs to use it, maybe it should sell it to the province of Quebec for its use. This would force a resolution to the problem, although I am not sure it is the best one.
Third, CN and the province of Quebec could look at alternate means of funding to maintain the bridge. They could look at a toll. There are 25,000 cars a day. There are 10 trains a day. Some fees could be applied for people who want to use the bridge to shorten their trips. A toll such as the one we pay on the Coquihalla highway in B.C. could help to raise money for maintenance purposes.
I would argue that the federal government coming up with more money is not an option. The federal government purposely sold the bridge to CN. CN has an obligation to look after it. It should work out a co-funding agreement with the province of Quebec.
It is fair to note that CN has offered to pay half of the cost of the repair. It is willing to ante up $27 million. It is willing to do its share. However, CN expects some level of government to pick up the other half of the tab. I would submit it would be a bad precedent to set if the federal government agreed that it had millions of dollars available for the repair. I would argue it has no legal or ethical obligation to do that. I agree with the previous government speaker and I may even agree with future speakers.
We should think about the precedent it would set. I can think of several bridges in my riding which could use some federal money. I think of the bridge over the Chilliwack River which is an old Bailey bridge built by the armed forces about 50 years ago. It now handles hundreds of thousands of cars a day and is one of the busiest bridges off the Trans-Canada Highway. People going to Cultus Lake have to use the bridge. It is continually jammed to capacity. It is a dangerous, narrow bridge built by the federal government.
If the government can put money into the bridge in Quebec, maybe it would not mind putting in a four lane bridge in Chilliwack but I do not think it will happen. The government has to be consistent. Unless it is willing to be consistent it will find itself on the tab for hundreds of bridges around the country and it will be unable to fulfil the needs many people have.
As I mentioned, I appreciate the historic significance of the bridge. It has tweaked my interest again to actually go and see the bridge someday soon, hopefully when the snow quits blowing. I hope to make a trip over the bridge.