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

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Gordon Kirkby Liberal Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK

That is correct.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he would make it clear that the wording does not change the effect of the legislation. In other words, by adding the words "under the act" to replace by means of a ticket, are the same ends being accomplished?

That is my understanding but I want to confirm with the parliamentary secretary that this does not change the substance of the legislation.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Gordon Kirkby Liberal Prince Albert—Churchill River, SK

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that this amendment does not in any way change what is being proposed in the bill. It is merely a technical amendment to ensure that the English and French texts are equivalent.

(Amendment agreed to.)

(Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.)

(Clauses 8, 9 and 10 inclusive agreed to.)

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Chairman, there are no additional amendments. I wonder if the Chair would consider asking if all the remaining clauses carry, up to clause 44, so that we could do them all at once.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

The Chairman

Are all the clauses that have been listed agreed to?

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Clauses 11 to 44 inclusive agreed to.)

(Title agreed to.)

(Bill reported.)

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Etobicoke Centre Ontario

Liberal

Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Allan Rock Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Liberal

Andy Mitchell Liberal Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to take the opportunity to mention to the House that the original Contraventions Act, which was passed in 1992 and amended today, began a long process that dates back to 1982. I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Stan Darling, who initiated the legislation.

I want to let my colleagues know how important this piece of legislation is to my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. We have

long suffered a safety issue on our waterways and have needed better enforcement procedures. This bill will give us that opportunity. It works well through provincial regulatory authorities to make that happen.

Negotiations are taking place right now between Ontario and the federal government and within a very short period of time enforcement officers will have the means to enforce safety regulations.

I would like to thank my colleagues from the Bloc and from the Reform Party for agreeing to this process today. It has allowed this bill to be passed quickly so that enforcement can be on our waterways this summer.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I too will be brief. I would like to take this opportunity, particularly when the Minister of Justice is with us, to say that when his department brings forward good laws we can move co-operatively to have the legislation pass quickly through the House. It is in stark contrast to legislation such as Bill C-68, which was a bad law and which the minister had considerable difficulty getting through the House.

The bill is basically cosmetic, but it does provide minor improvements to existing legislation. The bill permits changes to prosecution by provincial attorneys general or their agents. This is an improvement and it will likely reduce the cost of enforcement. That is one reason why we can support it. Therefore, we would like to see this bill passed and go to the Senate to become the law of the land.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent to move immediately to private members' hour until shortly before 11 a.m. and to resume private members' hour immediately afterward to complete that item on today's Order Paper.

Contraventions ActGovernment Orders

10:25 a.m.

Bloc

René Laurin Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, because we always come in prepared, we agree to move to that stage, especially since our speaker is in the House and has excellent points to share with you.

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

10:25 a.m.

Bloc

Philippe Paré Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in conjunction with the Canadian National (CN), carry out repairs to the Pont de Québec.

Mr. Speaker, as the mover of the motion, I welcome this opportunity to speak to this motion, but before getting to the heart of the matter, I would like to remind the hon. members of an incident that happened at the Standing Committee on Transport last June, during the clause by clause consideration of Bill C-89, the CN privatization bill.

One day in June, the Coalition pour la sauvegarde du Pont de Québec appeared before the committee to support an amendment put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, which was designed to exclude the Quebec bridge from the operation of the privatization bill.

The coalition was represented by Mr. Jobin, the coalition's leader, and Mr. Beaulieu, an engineer and Laval University professor who has been taking an active interest for nearly 10 years now in the important matter of the repairs to be made to the Quebec bridge.

They made their case, then the government members spoke, and the attitude they displayed was an absolute disgrace. They started by saying: "Look, one bridge cannot be excluded from the privatization process; there are 6,000 bridges in the Canadian railway system", which was like saying that the Quebec bridge had no more value than any of the 6,000 small bridges crossing over gullies, brooks and small rivers. This is the first indication of the government's absolute ignorance.

The second one is the fact that several government members who sit on the Standing committee on transport and who only understand English, and this is certainly their prerogative, did not even bother to use their earphones to listen to the comments made by the two individuals who were representing the coalition. Worse still, some committee members would get up, leave and then come back, so that the meeting took place in a circus-like atmosphere and these two people had the impression of being treated the way they might have been in a school yard.

Let us now go back to the motion itself. Why are we submitting motion M-202? We do so out of despair, because the Quebec City bridge is in such a deplorable and preoccupying condition.

Let us not forget that when the Quebec bridge was built to span the St. Lawrence River-until the day it collapses-it was the easternmost bridge, all the others being located in Montreal. At the

time, trains could not cross the St. Lawrence when travelling from the maritime provinces to Montreal.

Consequently, the Quebec bridge was a very important addition to the economic development of the Quebec region. This is still true today. I will not discuss the historical aspects or the actual construction of the bridge. The hon. member for Lévis will deal with these issues later on, and he will also talk about the bridge's heritage value.

Today's motion is important because it reminds the Canadian government and the CN that they have a duty to maintain this monument, because it is indeed a monument, which is also an essential component for the economic development of the Quebec region.

To give you an idea of the state the Quebec bridge is now in, I have decided to read you a few paragraphs from an article by Louis-Guy Lemieux that appeared in Le Soleil on September 10, 1995. It is entitled: "Bridge of Shame".

The article reads as follows: "It is possible for a person to lift off shovel-sized chunks of rusted iron with their bare hands. Motorists are treated to pieces falling on their hoods and windshields. Pleasure boats do not like to pass under the bridge-for fear of falling debris, of course. It is going to crumble into the river one day, and sooner than you think. You do not need to be an expert to see that the Quebec bridge is on its last legs. It is in such a decrepit state that traffic should not be allowed on it".

The article continues: "After the alarm sounded by the coalition to save the bridge, and the on the whole comforting conclusions of the study by CN's experts, I went to see it up close, this marvellous old bridge I remember from my youth. I did not recognize it. The old bridge, this heap of rusted iron, abandoned to the elements, cannot be the longest cantilever bridge in the world, the triumph of civil engineering, the eighth wonder of the world. These were the glowing terms used in all the newspapers at its inauguration on September 20, 1917. Today we would have to call it the first cantilever bridge no longer fit for use, an embarrassment to local civil engineering, a perfect example of the inertia of government".

The question we must ask ourselves is the following: Who owns the bridge? There is no doubt that from the moment construction began in 1907, until 1993, there was no possible doubt, it was the Canadian government, represented by Transport Canada, which owned the bridge, although it must be understood that responsibility for its maintenance was given to Canadian National several decades ago.

Since 1993, however, the bridge has belonged to CN. It must be kept in mind that this was exclusively a train bridge between 1917 and 1928, however. Its sole use was for the railway. From 1929 on, the Government of Quebec obtained the right to have automobiles use it, back in the days, some forty years ago, when vehicular traffic was light.

This makes no difference in terms of who owns the bridge. Even if the Government of Quebec has used the Quebec bridge, is still using it, and the use is increasing, this does not in any way cast doubt on the ownership, since the Quebec department of transport has been doing this on a leasing arrangement.

Since 1949, the Government of Quebec has been engaged in an agreement renewable more or less every 20 years. I doubt that the Quebec government forced the federal government to sign it at gun point. The federal government has, therefore, signed this succession of agreements willingly, and in full knowledge of the situation.

The current agreement will terminate in 2012. If the arrangement no longer suited the Canadian government when the last renewal came up, during the 1980s, it had only to terminate the leasing agreement with the Government of Quebec. It did not. Instead, it extended the agreement to the year 2012, at a rate I would agree is somewhat low, $25,000 a year. I do not think this rate was imposed by Quebec. It is my understanding that the Canadian government was in agreement on it.

Earlier, I waxed somewhat poetic in describing the location and the appearance of the Quebec bridge, because Mr. Lemieux is a poet as well as a journalist.

Now I shall offer a description, not by a journalist, but by an American company. It appears that no Canadian company was capable of offering an expert opinion on the true condition of the bridge. This is particularly surprising when one of the designers, Dominion Bridge, has a business office in Quebec, if not its head offices. But no.

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

It bought out MIL Davie.

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Philippe Paré Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC

As my colleague from Lévis has reminded me, they have just acquired MIL Davie. So it was an American firm, Modjesky and Masters, that the Canadian government asked in 1994 to thoroughly assess the state of the bridge at a cost of $1 million. The money might better have been put toward maintaining the bridge, but that is what they did with it.

The results of the study are fairly alarming. The bridge has reached a point where it is rusting at a much faster rate than it ever did in past decades. Repair and maintenance work are needed to extend the useful life of the bridge well into the 21st century. The bridge, therefore, is in real danger.

A little further along they go on to say that, while the structure shows no signs of falling apart, if it is to remain intact and irreversible damage avoided, work must be done within the next five years.

This is not the dream or the vision of a group of Quebec bridge lovers, who are defending the bridge. No, the bridge is really in dire straits.

The price tag is a big one, we have to agree. The company expects that full repairs, including architectural lighting will cost $63 million.

This is the funny part. The federal government says it is washing its hands of it. A real Pontius Pilate. It is washing its hands of it, because it handed the bridge over to Canadian National in 1993.

However, the government fails to recognize that, over the previous 10 or 15 years, maintenance of the bridge was seriously neglected. It is, therefore, not true that CN alone is responsible for getting the work done.

The state of the bridge reflects the negligence of Transport Canada over the past 15 years. Who then should pay the $63 million? The answer is very clear: Canadian National and the Government of Canada.

The Government of Canada claims that Quebec has significant responsibility.

I mentioned earlier that Quebec only leases the bridge. In spite of the fact that it is only the leaseholder, the Government of Quebec has shown incomparable magnanimity in offering to tear up the $25,000 per year lease agreement if the CN and the Canadian government promptly commit to initiating the work called for in the agreement entered into by Transport Canada and CN in 1993. The Government of Quebec is prepared to tear up the $25,000 per year lease and to pay $1.5 million per year instead.

This is 1996, and the lease agreement expires in 2012, which means that there are 16 years left in the term of the agreement. If the federal government and CN had the wits to realize what the Quebec government is offering, they would jump at the offer. While under no obligation to do so, the Government of Quebec is offering to change the terms of the agreement, putting $24 million on the table, and all the Canadian government has to do is to say: "Yes, we readily agree; this is a deal for $31.5 million", especially since the repairs, which will take between seven and ten years to complete, will create 400 to 500 summer-long jobs for many years to come. It is estimated that this would generate approximately $10 million in taxes for the federal government.

So, adding the $24 million the Government of Quebec is putting on the table and the $10 million the federal government will collect in taxes, we get a total of $34 million. But when a $31.5 million contribution is requested, the federal government does not want to have anything to do with it and says: "No. The government has handed over responsibility to CN". It certainly did.

Either the Canadian government pays the $31.5 million that makes up its share or the CN will be forced to operate under the agreement signed in 1993, a perfectly clear agreement, which states at section 1 that Canada will hand over to CN all Canadian government railway land, with a few exceptions. They gave CN a present. Section 2 states that the commissioner shall transfer to CN all national and transcontinental railway land. Another present.

In today's Le Soleil , the former mayor of Quebec City and illustrious chief of staff to the PM is quoted as saying that the land given to CN was worth $35 million. CN was to use the proceeds from the sale of this land to initiate the work, but failed to do so.

Article 4 is very interesting. It reads as follows: "Canada shall transfer the Quebec bridge to CN-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, the company was asked to try to reach a new agreement with the Quebec government, and that was done.

Article 12 of the famous agreement signed by the former Quebec transport minister, Mr. Gobeil, and CN's president, Mr. Tellier, provides that the agreement can only be amended through an instrument signed by the parties to it. The agreement does not appear to have been amended. Article 13 says that the agreement is subject to the law of Canada, is interpreted pursuant to that law, and is binding on the parties, their successors and their assigns.

In other words, CN's privatization does not change a thing. CN must do the work and the Canadian government must pay its share, since it has a direct responsibility after 15 years of neglect. I will stop here. Someday, we will have to expose the petty role played by the Prime Minister's chief of staff.

In a memo released today, he says that the federal government no longer has any obligation regarding the restoration of the Quebec bridge, and that it is now CN's responsibility. It may be so, but then the federal government should tell CN to do its homework.

One thing is certain though: the taxes Quebecers everywhere have paid since the bridge was built should have gone to its maintenance, but nothing was done. Let those who had a duty to maintain the bridge do it now.

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

Jim Jordan Liberal Leeds—Grenville, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate on the motion presented by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert who would like to see the federal

government in conjunction with CN carry out repairs on the Quebec bridge.

I reiterate the Quebec bridge is a safe structure. The bridge is inspected regularly by CN to ensure it is reliable and will remain a safe structure. An in depth inspection on critical aspects of the bridge is undertaken on an annual basis and every five years a detailed inspection takes place on the railway section of the bridge.

As the hon. member may be aware, the Quebec bridge has been the subject of a great deal of attention particularly by la Coalition pour la sauvegarde et la mise en valeur du pont de Québec.

Originally built for $25 million, the first train crossed the bridge in 1917. In 1923 the Government of Canada entrusted the bridge to CN. In 1949 the federal government removed one rail line from the bridge and moved the second rail line and widened the highway section. The bridge has two sections, a railway line and a section for vehicle traffic. A long term lease was concluded with the province of Quebec at that time for a $25,000 annual rate. As my hon. friend has acknowledged, that lease expires in 2012.

In 1993 as a result of an agreement between Canada and CN on Canadian government railway lands CN became the sole owner of the bridge. The bridge is recognized as a masterpiece in bridge engineering. It spans a total of 3,239 feet. It has a clear centre span of 1,800 feet.

In 1987 the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering jointly designated the bridge a historic monument. It is a very historic structure. In addition, the bridge was recently declared a national historic site by the former minister of Canadian heritage. Steps have been taken to have UNESCO designate the Quebec bridge an international historic monument.

I have digressed from the hon. member's motion to emphasize this bridge is a world landmark. CN has long recognized this fact and has been spending more than $700,000 per year on the bridge's maintenance. Following the transfer of ownership to CN the company engaged the consulting firm Modjeski & Masters to perform a detailed investigation to determine the state of the bridge, its condition, and the work that would be required for its long term maintenance.

I reiterate the inspection of the bridge revealed that its overall condition is remarkably good given its age and the operating environment of the structure. It is fully capable of handling projected traffic for years to come.

Nevertheless, as with any structure which is nearly 80 years old with a very complex design, a major maintenance program must from time to time be undertaken in order to ensure the structure's long term use.

I understand the bridge is now at this stage. To achieve this goal, CN plans a major maintenance program to begin this summer. CN expects to invest between $1.5 million and $2 million per year on the bridge over the next 15 years, in other words $22 million to $30 million. That planned expenditure is there.

An expenditure of this magnitude confirms CN's commitment to maintain this important structure. The hon. member is recommending that the federal government, in conjunction with CN, participate in the repairs to the Quebec bridge.

I advise the hon. member that as of 1993 the federal government is no longer a player, no longer the owner of the bridge and is under no obligation to share in the maintenance.

In 1993 Canada and CN entered into an agreement stating in part that the Quebec bridge and Canadian government railways lands were to be conveyed to CN.

By this arrangement, CN agreed to fund a major maintenance program on the bridge ensuring its long term viability and maintaining it in the current state.

The 1993 Canada-CN agreement also transferred to CN the lease between Canada and Quebec. Initially entered into in 1928, which my hon. friend alluded to, the agreement allowed the province to construct and maintain a roadway on the bridge for $25,000 a year, a lease arrangement.

With the last option exercised in 1991, the current lease agreement will expire in 2012. This annual payment, negotiated decades ago, no longer comes even close to contributing to CN sufficient funds to reverse the deterioration that has been caused by roadway de-icing and other things used in maintaining a road.

Roads come under provincial jurisdiction. The predominant users of the structure, motor vehicles, represent approximately 75 per cent of the bridge's volume now. It has become more of a roadway than a railway.

I have already stated CN's commitment to the bridge. It also is prepared to participate in a more complete restoration program if the Quebec department of transport agrees to review the terms of the 1949 lease agreement with the view to financing half the cost of a major maintenance program. I have been advised that CN is ready to discuss with the province of Quebec and its transport reps a cost sharing initiative.

The hon. member responsible for bringing forth this motion may wish to discuss cost sharing with his provincial colleagues or examine other cost sharing alternatives such as contributions from neighbouring Quebec City municipalities. This could lead to an accelerated maintenance program.

The Quebec bridge serves commuters who cross the bridge daily to get to their places of work. Currently the bridge supports one railway track and three vehicle roadways. There are approximately 10 trains a day utilizing the bridge, whereas there are upwards of 25,000 cars regularly crossing the bridge on a daily basis.

The Quebec bridge has, for all intents and purposes, become a highway bridge for commuters from the north and south shores. The former government made the transfer of Canadian government railway lands contingent on CN's assuming full responsibility for the Quebec bridge. The federal government's contribution was made at that time. This responsibility is now clearly CN's.

The government recognizes the uniqueness of the Quebec bridge and that it was and still is one of the engineering marvels of the world. I am very confident that CN will fulfil its obligations agreed to in the 1993 Canadian government-CN agreement at which time the responsibility for the federal government's maintenance of the bridge ceased.

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

10:55 a.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Fraser Valley East, you have the floor on debate. It is my intention to interrupt in you a few minutes and so perhaps you would like to begin your statement after question period.

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

10:55 a.m.

Reform

Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a dynamic speech and so I think it best I keep it all together for after question period.

Quebec BridgePrivate Members' Business

10:55 a.m.

The Speaker

I would not want to miss it. I agree with you. It being almost eleven o'clock, we will proceed to Statements by Members and we will have a little room to manoeuvre on it today.