House of Commons Hansard #24 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was million.

Topics

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, the second petition requests the government reduce spending and that there be no increases in taxes whatsoever. The petitioners also request a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending. That petition has about 300 signatures.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, the third petition asks Parliament to strengthen the Young Offenders Act. It contains 571 names.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition asks for protection of unborn human beings and is signed by 215 petitioners.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, the fifth and last petition is against euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide. It bears 88 names.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Margaret Bridgman Reform Surrey North, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present from residents in my riding and surrounding area. The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and strongly consider reallocating some of the current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling national highways.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Saskatoon—Dundurn Saskatchewan

Liberal

Morris Bodnar LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

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.

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

12:25 p.m.

An hon. member

Over which way?

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

12:25 p.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

Not over the edge of the bridge, but over the bridge proper and enjoy it.

I encourage CN to continue with its maintenance plans and I encourage the province of Quebec to do what it takes to make sure the maintenance is done properly and that safety is maintained. Other options should be explored, perhaps a small toll or fee which would help the bridge pay its own way. The federal government has no obligation in this area. It cannot afford to cough up millions of dollars whenever there is a cry for more money. The feds are going to have to stay out of it. CN and the province of Quebec are going to have to solve the problem.

I promised a barn burner speech. I am now on my fourth try and I think I will rest while the resting is good and leave it to hon. members on the government side to wrap things up.

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

Robert Bertrand Liberal Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I would like to comment on the motion by the member for Louis-Hébert dealing with the federal government's responsibility for repairs to the Quebec bridge.

As my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, already knows, the Quebec bridge is an issue which has been much discussed in recent years. In fact, the bridge was recently declared a historic site by the former Minister of Canadian Heritage. As the longest cantilever railway bridge in the world, it is a remarkable tribute to the perseverance and triumph of engineers and bridge builders.

In 1987, the Quebec bridge was classified as a historic monument by both the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering. Like any other complex 80-year old structure, this bridge must be examined and repaired regularly. I can assure all the members of this House that the Quebec bridge is very safe.

It can safely withstand existing traffic and the expected increase in suburban traffic for many years to come. This was confirmed by CN, following a comprehensive study on the condition of the bridge conducted by Modjeski & Masters, a firm of engineering consultants.

This firm was one of the major consultants involved in the actual building of the Quebec bridge. According to the comprehensive inspection it carried out, the bridge is in a remarkably good condition, considering its age and the operating environment of its structure.

The member recommends that the federal government, in conjunction with Canadian National, participate in repairing the Quebec bridge. I want to remind the member that the bridge is no longer the property of the federal government.

An agreement signed in July 1993 by the Canadian government and CN provided for the transfer to CN of the Quebec Bridge and the Canadian government railway lands. Pursuant to this agreement, CN undertook to invest in a maintenance program to restore the structure in a way that ensures its long term viability.

I am glad to announce to the House that, in accordance with its commitment to ensure the long term viability of the bridge and honour the agreement signed in July 1993, CN intends to launch next summer a major maintenance program.

CN expects to invest in the bridge $1.5 to $2 million a year for the next 15 years. Such a significant investment proves that CN is committed to maintaining this important infrastructure. This is a huge commitment on the part of a railway for a bridge that is used mainly for suburban road traffic. Surely the hon. member knows that, although the bridge was originally constructed to meet the needs of rail transport, a Canada-Quebec agreement signed in 1928 allowed the province to build and maintain a road span on this bridge.

An agreement signed in 1949 allowed for the widening of this span for $25,000 a year. This agreement is still in force and will expire only in 2012. Needless to say this payment negotiated almost 50 years ago is far from covering structural costs resulting from daily road traffic.

Motor vehicles represent close to 75 per cent of present traffic on the bridge. Although I should point out again that the bridge is safe, a certain amount of deterioration has occurred from the use of products to remove snow and ice on the road portion of the bridge's superstructure.

In addition to the sums CN is prepared to invest in order to ensure the long term viability of the bridge, the railway company is totally willing to contribute to a more complete restoration program, if the Quebec Department of Transport agrees to review the terms and conditions of the 1949 agreement and if it agrees to assume half of the costs of an important maintenance program. I have also learned that CN is willing to meet with the representatives of Quebec's Department of Transport to discuss cost sharing.

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert should admit that the previous government disposed of the railway lands belonging to the Canadian government on the express condition that the CN take total responsibility for the Quebec Bridge. The federal government made its contribution at that time.

Since deficit reduction is our priority, the participation of the government in a maintenance program that is clearly the CN's responsibility would be an inappropriate use of public funds.

As the hon. member for Louis-Hébert knows, the Quebec Bridge is primarily used by south shore commuters who cross over every day on their way to work on the north shore. In fact, less than 10 trains use the bridge daily while 25,000 cars cross it regularly. All things considered, the Quebec Bridge has become a road bridge used mainly by commuters. The deterioration of the bridge is certainly attributable in large part to that car traffic.

The government recognizes the unique character of the Quebec Bridge and its historical significance for the world. Its unique splendour must be preserved for future generations and it will be. I am convinced that the CN will fulfil its obligations according to the agreement concluded with the Government of Canada in 1993.

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Lévis, I am one of those who cross the Quebec bridge regularly to come to the federal Parliament.

One of the bridge's piles is in the riding of Lévis, the other in Louis-Hébert. This explains why my colleague and I sponsored this motion together. He was lucky in the draw today, and I fully support his motion.

I have already detected a positive impact of discussing the Quebec bridge for one hour. I have noticed, for example, that a Reform Party member showed a certain interest in the subject, also a certain ignorance. This has allowed us to make certain clarifications, and to more fully inform all the members of the House.

I have also noticed that the members across the floor have been forced to ask about the respective positions of the Department of Transport and the Department of Canadian Heritage since, two days before being relieved from his duties, the former Minister of Canadian Heritage had recognized the Quebec bridge as a national historic site-national, in the Canadian sense, of course.

Let me review the historic significance of this structure. This bridge has been the subject of a long debate that dates back to the very beginning of the Canadian Confederation. I remind the House that, at the time of Confederation, the railway issue was important. All regions had to be linked. At that time, trains ran along the south shore. They did not serve Quebec City which was a capital. No service was provided to those who wanted to cross over from Quebec City to get to the Maritimes.

This issue was discussed at length, and one could say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who declared it an important issue, was it main champion. Since history was to be made, he wanted this bridge to be a symbol. He had said-I do not have the exact quote-that it was the symbol of federalism in Quebec.

The coalition wrote this week to all the members opposite, in fact to all members of the House of Commons. They sent them an envelope with a little piece of the bridge enclosed, to show that any member concerned about Canadian heritage has reason to be worried. This symbol of federalism is now becoming a symbol of collapse, of disintegration. This is a signal, a warning sign.

It is very important; it is history. If Sir Wilfrid Laurier was here, I am sure he would agree with me. He would say that it is critical to save this historic structure.

Unfortunately, Canadians do not judge it at its true value. The member for Louis-Hébert told us earlier that the members of the transport committee did not show any interest, when they met the coalition's members. One member, whose name I will not reveal, said that, all told, CN owned some 6,000 bridges across Canada. He compared this bridge to any structure that crosses a stream or small river.

We are talking here about the St. Lawrence River, and the longest railway bridge in the world. It is also the first cantilever bridge in the world. Later on, there was one built in Scotland, which is also recognized as part of the world heritage.

The member for Pontiac reminded us earlier that the American Society of Civil Engineers had recognized the bridge as a masterpiece of engineering. As for folk culture, everyone remembers that the bridge of Quebec was considered to be the eighth wonder of the world. But absolutely no one is filled with wonder by it anymore; on the contrary, many are afraid of it.

I invite the people opposite, all those who still have some interest in the Canadian national heritage that is symbolised by the Quebec bridge to respond as soon as possible to the letter of the Quebec bridge coalition's president by saying: I am convinced that the necessary efforts should be made and I support the federal government in doing so.

But since my time is almost up, I would like to remind the House of some numbers. First, I listened to the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle when he said 25,000 vehicles a day are now using the bridge, that is, more automobiles than trains. That is true. And that because of it, the owner, the CN, should make the leaseholder pay more.

I would inform the hon. member who announced his government's position, which is that CN will spend the necessary amounts, that the Quebec government agrees, and in writing. Not just orally but in writing. It told the president of the coalition they were ready to spend $1.5 million a year over 16 years to review the contract, provided, of course, that the owner first undertakes to do the work. A tenant does not pay the rent on a new apartment in advance before the work is done.

Then, the government replies, like Pontius Pilate: "Oh, but you know, it is not really our responsibility. CN is now a private company". I remember, I was one of those who took part in the debate at the time. We wanted the new Canadian corporation, CN, which has since become a private company, to exclude the Quebec Bridge, as it did the CN Tower in Toronto. This, however, was not done. The government did not exclude the Quebec Bridge. Although it recognized, six months later, that it was of national patrimonial interest, it left the matter in the hands of CN.

They are now content to say that CN will do its part, that it is a private company, that, in 1993, an agreement was reached to transfer the bridge to CN, but the members did not read everything. It may take me a while to find the article, but there was a land transfer worth $35 million, provided CN did the work.

Well, the work would cost around $63 million. I was listening to the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle earlier. In the end, only $22.5 million to $24 million would be spent, although the work would cost $63 million. The announcement is made, and the people listening think: "My God, the federal government is saying it will be done, that CN will do it", even though this amount represents only half the cost, even less. Of the $63 million needed, $40 million is still missing. Where will it come from?

Again, the Quebec government is prepared to contribute $1.5 million per year for 16 years, for a total of $24 million.

The federal government recognizes the heritage value of the bridge, but there is still $14 million missing. The federal must do one of two things: either provide the $14 million missing, or force CN to do what was provided in the agreement. After all, a contract means something.

Article 4 reads as follows: "Canada shall transfer the Quebec bridge to CN as part of the first land block transfer of CGR lands". This is what is worth $35 million. "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", etc. That was done.

So, we ask that articles 4 and 13 be applied, because even if CN is privatized, it cannot elude its obligations. Let the federal government force CN to pay the missing $14 million.

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

12:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The period for Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

The House stands adjourned until Monday, April 15 at 11 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 12.44 p.m.)