Debates of April 28th, 2006

International Bridges and Tunnels Act

[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, Conservative, 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.