Debates of May 1st, 2006

Respecting International Bridges and Tunnels Act

[An hon. member]

That is a very good point.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point. I am not sure whether it has to be in this legislation. It really is an issue of the fiscal responsibility of the government of the day.

There is no question that the most significant portion of our exports goes to the United States. I have forgotten the number. It is something like 75%. It relies heavily on the infrastructure of the tunnels and the bridges as well as the road system connecting the producers to the export points.

We all have a vested interest in it and therefore, as a general statement, I would say all stakeholders have a responsibility to make contributions that are commensurate with the benefits that they derive from that project going forward. I think it is something that should be argued strenuously especially when the alternative to having no federal funding is to have no infrastructure project. That is simply unacceptable.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to my colleague's speech. It was a typical Liberal speech. In the first part of his presentation he tried to take credit for the actual legislation which was formerly Bill C-44. It is actually significantly the same. There are only a couple of modifications that are different in this legislation.

What is critical though is that the government of the day has carved it out of another bill, Bill C-44. It had other components that made it going forward very complicated. Therefore, at least we can concentrate on this major infrastructure challenge that we have.

There are some negative aspects to the bill, but there are some positive things as well that are very important. However, by the end of the member's speech he was distancing himself from the bill, calling it utter nonsense, despite the fact his own member is going to be sitting on the industry committee that crafted the bill or at least a good part of it to begin with. He had convinced himself that it was actually bad, calling it Americanization and a whole series of things. It is just amazing that one can go within a 20 minute period of time and make a completely contradictory statement about a presentation.

I would like to move on though. The former Prime Minister said this to the Windsor Star in January 2004. He said that there was no doubt that the crossing here was the single most important crossing in Canada and it was the priority. We know we then got a list. Sadly enough, the Windsor-Detroit region corridor was probably one of the initial priorities that then got quintuplets, then dozens, then after that a population explosion of priorities and got put into a mix of things.

I have a question for the hon. member. Why did it take so long to get this actual legislation to this point in time? I have many concerns about the legislation and there are some issues that need to be dealt with. However, the fact is there are over 24 crossings that are bridges and tunnels between Canada and the United States. Two are privately held right now: one in Windsor West and one in Fort Frances. There are no regulations whatsoever protecting citizens and the commerce of this country. Why did it take so long?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the member did not listen to my speech. I said very clearly in my speech that it was effectively the same bill that was proposed by the last government within those two areas. The member could check the blues or tomorrow's Hansard. The two areas I noted were the St. Lawrence River crossing and the authority to improve all transactions affecting ownership control.

The problem that I have with the bill is with regard to the regulations. That was my speech. It was with regard to putting matters, which were late to the legislation, in the regulations under the auspices of the minister “may”. In fact, on safety and security issues, I am of the view, and perhaps the member does not agree, that if there were provisos of the bill such as penalties and safety and security plans that must be made and so on, those should be requirements in the legislation itself. The details of what matters should be dealt with in this plan, who should it be reviewed by, and all these other things. That is what regulations are for.

My concern was clearly with regard to essential legislative information being buried in the regulations and not available for the members of Parliament to consider before they vote at second reading which would then restrict our ability to make changes at a later date. That is the point.

We are at second reading which gives us the opportunity to make a recommendation to the transport committee. I support the bill, but I want the committee to look very carefully at the requirements of the regulations. I want the committee to ask the government and the department to state some of those requirements in the bill itself with a clause relating to regulations where the amplified detail would be present but the principles would still be in the legislation.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, was the hon. member for Mississauga South concerned about the same degree of Americanization when his Liberal government approved 11,000 takeovers of Canadian firms through the course of its 12 years in power?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member would like to name them, I will comment on them. His is a throwaway question, so in that case let me go on to the last two devils in the details.

Can we imagine giving a tax credit for transit users for transit passes? Ninety-five per cent of that money is going to existing transit users. They want to increase the ridership from 5% to 7%, which they cannot do because there is no capacity. There has to be an investment. What it is going to mean, mark my words, is that there is going to be an increase in the price of transit because of this tax credit and they are going to have to invest more and come to the federal government to invest more in transit.

This is not going to do anything. It will cost $2,000 a tonne to reduce greenhouse gases, 10 times more than the programs this government has scrapped.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start the discussion on Bill C-3 by coming back to the comments of the member for Mississauga South. He gave quite an impassioned comment and, for those of us who have actually been in the House over the last few years, a rather strange comment, in that he said he was concerned about the Americanization of Canada.

This is coming from a member who represents a party that, as I mentioned earlier, has accepted, without one single rejection, 11,000 takeovers of Canadian firms over the past 12 years. Eleven thousand firms were taken over and the Liberal government just gave them a green light, with the subsequent loss of jobs, loss of revenue and loss of profits that go elsewhere, outside of the country.

It was also strange to me when we talked about the softwood deal. Indeed, I will come back to this because this touches on the issue of international trade. The Liberal government was bringing forward an agreement on softwood lumber that was basically the same as what the Conservatives are trying to push this week. The difference is about 3¢ on the dollar, but in both cases, Liberal and Conservative, what we have is essentially allowing the Bush administration to profit, to keep the ill-gotten gains of trade crime.

Both the Liberals and the Conservatives agree with this stand. Certainly for the hon. member for Mississauga South to step forward and say he is concerned about the Americanization of this country when the Liberal government showed that, if anything, the Liberals wanted to accelerate that Americanization, it is quite strange indeed. I did not want to leave those comments without a response.

I will come back to the issue of Bill C-3, which is to a large extent taken out of Bill C-44, brought forward at the transport committee in the 38th Parliament. Although there have been calls for years to have a legislative framework around our international bridges and tunnels, under the Liberal government there was not the movement that we needed to see, so largely we welcome what we are seeing in Bill C-3.

But I should give credit where credit is due. Essentially, and I think overwhelmingly, this bill coming forward is due to the work of the member for Windsor West, who has been tireless in pushing the cause of having a federal legislative framework around international bridges and tunnels. The member for Windsor West and his colleague from Windsor--Tecumseh have been pushing forward this issue in Parliament since they were both elected a few years ago.

I think it is nice to see that their efforts have borne fruit, that their work has led to the reintroduction of this bill. It is certainly our commitment that we will be working very hard to ensure that we get this type of legislative framework around international bridges and tunnels. I should also mention the work of the member for Sault Ste. Marie, who is also impacted directly. He has been a strong defender of making sure that access passes through international bridges and tunnels, and he has been a good advocate as well. However, all of us in this House, from all four corners of the House, should thank the member for Windsor West for his tireless advocacy on behalf of the Windsor area.

What does this bill contain? The bill essentially takes components from Bill C-44 and allows, in a sense, a legislative framework to be established around international bridges and tunnels. It may be surprising to most of the people who are listening in tonight to this debate to know that there is no legislative framework existing now. Indeed, many of the international bridges and tunnels that we have across this country are privately owned and there is no legislative framework for the federal government to play its role in ensuring that bridges and tunnels are safe and secure, that they are properly maintained and that we can make the kinds of investments we need to in order to ensure that jobs are created and maintained in Canada.

I should also add that when we refer to bridges, we are talking about 24 bridges across the country. Nine are located in New Brunswick, essentially in Acadia. That area has the most international bridges in the country. Of course, there is also one in Quebec, in the Glen Sutton area.

It is a very beautiful part of Quebec. There are also seven bridges connecting Ontario and New York State. We are talking about the whole of the St. Lawrence. This sector is also very important to the Canadian economy. Four other bridges link Ontario to Michigan, including the Ambassador Bridge. I will come back to this, but let me say that this bridge is extremely important to the city of Windsor, which is represented by the members for Windsor West and Windsor—Tecumseh. In addition, there are three bridges in northwestern Ontario, connecting the province to Minnesota. The best known of these is in Fort Francis.

There are also five rail bridges: two between Ontario and New York, two between Ontario and Michigan and one in the northwest, again in Fort Francis, between Ontario and Minnesota.

Of course, we are talking about all the bridges and tunnels that have an enormous impact on the economies of the provinces, particularly Ontario, but also Quebec and New Brunswick. This is an extremely important facet of Canada's economy.

Speaking more specifically about some of the elements, when we talk about truck trade between Canada and the United States, the total value in 2004 was $346 billion. Trade by rail was valued at $98 billion. Essentially trucks and railways carry 80% of the total value of Canada's trade with the United States in the year 2004.

The Windsor-Detroit tunnel connects the U.S. interstate system with Ontario's Highway 401. It is one of the fastest and busiest links between Canada and the United States. Approximately 27,000 to 29,000 vehicles use the tunnel on a daily basis, amounting to nine million vehicles per year, 95% of that traffic being cars and 5% being trucks.

As I mentioned earlier, the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor and the Blue Water Bridge in Point Edward rank as the top two commercial crossings on the Canada-U.S. border. More than 4.7 million commercial trucks and 19.4 million passengers use these annually. With that important volume, one can understand why the member for Windsor West has been such a tireless advocate on behalf of his constituents as well as the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

Also, the Thousand Islands crossing on an average day in 2003 served 1,600 commercial vehicles, carrying about $27.5 million worth of goods, and served 3,500 passenger vehicles. That would be carrying nearly 8,000 people between the United States and Canada at that border crossing.

The three Niagara Falls international bridge crossings support an estimated $26 billion in trade per year, and reportedly more than 500,000 U.S. and Canadian jobs depend on that export traffic travelling across the Niagara Falls bridge connectors.

Finally, in 1996 almost $1.7 billion American dollars in Canadian exports were shipped through the Sault Ste. Marie crossing, which is the largest international trade crossing in northwestern Ontario, to the United States, over one-third of which was transported by rail. In 2001, 2.5 million vehicles, including nearly 2.4 million passenger vehicles, crossed that bridge.

Therefore, we are talking about crossings that have a fundamental importance for the economy in Ontario. That is why it is extremely important that the efforts of the member for Windsor West and the member for Windsor—Tecumseh have arrived at the point now where we as a Parliament can now consider this important legislation.

We are largely in favour of the principle of the legislation. We feel it is long overdue. In fact, it is not an exaggeration to say that NDP members have been pushing to make this legislation a reality.

There is one area where we are concerned. When we look through Bill C-3, as other members have mentioned, we see an excessive level of centralization of power of governor in council. In other words, the government is taking over the essential ability to promote regulation when it comes to Bill C-3. That is a problem.

We have seen in other areas of international trade serious concerns with the direction of that young government. Admittedly we are perhaps talking about a government that is still trying to find its feet, but the recent softwood sellout does not allow us to increase our confidence level in the kinds of decisions that the government would make on trade issues. As I very clearly laid out, this is a matter of fundamental importance for international trade.

We have been saying that we need this legislative framework, but the member for Windsor West particularly has been saying that we need the local input to ensure, when decisions are made on safety, security, maintenance and ownership, that those decisions are made both in the local and national interests. The member for Windsor West has been a tireless advocate to ensure that the people of Windsor are involved in decisions that have a profound impact in that area.

I come from British Columbia. We are profoundly affected by softwood lumber. Yet we have seen the most catastrophic sellout of British Columbia interests on softwood lumber imaginable. It is absolutely mind-boggling that we would see the government, after hundreds of millions of dollars paid by British Columbia communities to ensure that Canada would maintain its rights under NAFTA, with a stroke of the pen give away those rights of the dispute settlement mechanism we won last August, which allowed for binding closure. The government is saying that it does not matter if Canada wins, that it will give it all away. It gave away over a billion dollars of proceeds of trade product illegally collected in softwood tariffs.

It is astounding that on an issue that impacts communities in British Columbia to such a great extent, the government would wave the white flag and surrender our rights under NAFTA, surrender over a billion dollars. In other words, it has provided the ammunition to the American industry to attack even more strongly the B.C. industry. It astounds me beyond belief that this could happen.

Our concern is if we are giving this much power into the hands of the government over international bridges and tunnels, which have as much of an economic impact, it will make the same foolish disregarded decision and sell out our interests. That is the problem.

On international trade, we have seen that the government does not understand the implications of the decisions it makes.

When it comes to international bridges and tunnels, we have shown that it has a profound impact on trade. It is of immense concern to us now that we are centralizing that control within the government. This is not how the NDP has been promoting this issue. We have been saying that local areas, Windsor, Sault Ste. Marie and other areas, need to have substantial input into those governmental decisions.

When it comes to softwood lumber, British Columbians have had no input into a softwood lumber sellout that gives away $600 million in hard-earned money paid by B.C. softwood communities to Washington in illegal tariffs, the proceeds of trade crime that the Bush administration can keep and use against the B.C. softwood industry. Even the B.C. premier, who obviously too hastily said he thought the deal might be okay, now that he has seen portions of it, though none of us have seen the complete deal, is having second thoughts. That is why he wrote to the Prime Minister and said that it was not the deal he signed off on, that there were new clauses that allowed American control of our forestry practices.

If the chaos of this bad deal on softwood is any indication, with no B.C. input for softwood communities, which are hard-pressed and which have fought to have Canada's rights maintained under NAFTA, this may be a very poor precedence that we will see for Bill C-3. That is our concern.

Though we agree with the principle of the deal and though we agree that after many years of work by NDP MPs, such as the member of Parliament for Windsor West we are finally getting to the point where we have that federal oversight, we do not see anywhere in the legislation the opportunity for the kind of local input, which is important.

I cannot stress this enough. If we go back to the softwood lumber deal, forestry companies were saying that this was a bad deal. However, the Conservative government said that it was a take or leave it situation, that it would cut them adrift, that it would not provide loan guarantees or litigation support, that it would not provide them with anything. The companies have to take the deal as it is. Because the government has to rehabilitate the trade minister, the member for Vancouver Kingsway, it will sign anything no matter how outrageous, no matter how bad a giveaway, no matter the precedent it sets, not only for softwood lumber but for any other industrial sector.

Next week, next month, next year the Bush administration can target other industrial sectors and we no longer have a dispute settlement mechanism. We no longer have a binding process that allows us to see trade justice. We now have a state of permanent trade crime that has been created because the government did not understand what it was signing. It is a nightmare

Coming back to Bill C-3, the one component that we do not like and that we will endeavour to change and improve in committee is the government's ability to make these changes and perhaps do further sellouts without having the substantive local input from regions like Windsor and Sault Ste. Marie. It is fundamentally important to ensure that our trade works on an even playing field and in the interests of those areas. I believe that is the fundamental issue.

Because of the work of the NDP MPs, the NDP believes we are finally seeing legislation, which should have been passed before, that provides the legislative framework for international bridges and tunnels. However, we are concerned about centralizing the power with a government that has shown, so far at least, that it does not know how to handle it.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on Bill C-3 on international bridges and tunnels.

However, I would nonetheless like to call him to order. In his speech, my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster erred on another subject, that being the settlement of the softwood lumber dispute. As you know, this is an issue which has received the support of the Government of British Columbia—where my colleague is from—and of the Government of Quebec—where I am from—as well as the support of the sawmills of Chaudière-Appalaches. For them, this settlement resolves a problem which was latent for many years and which had been left by the Liberal government.

Now we can make plans for the future, because we know we will be able to work. People in the industry will be able to invest, to recover and invest the money that had been held back. They will have a framework for operations and will be able to export their wood. I wanted to correct the facts with my colleague.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, which did not relate to Bill C-3 but to the softwood lumber industry. It will be my pleasure to respond to this question.

First of all, the Premier of British Columbia has said that this was not the agreement he had approved and it was not what he wanted. This agreement is worse than what he accepted. So the Premier of British Columbia—who may not have read what he signed, or did not understand what he signed—now has second thoughts about the deal. Now the deal is coming apart. Furthermore, as my colleague very well knows, Carl Grenier, a Quebecker and executive vice-president of the Free Trade Lumber Council, has said that, with one stroke of the pen, three years of effort and three years of victories in the NAFTA case have just been erased. It is obvious that this auctioning off of our Canadian rights is generating a good deal of negative comment.

Now the question is rather how the Conservative members can vote in favour of such a measure. It places not only the Quebec industry, but also the industries of British Columbia, Ontario and the entire country in a bad position, and it particularly affects the communities concerned by this bad deal, which should never even have been considered.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will return to Bill C-3. My colleague earlier expressed his concerns about communities not being consulted. I would simply read for him clause 13, even though I know he has read it:

The Minister may order the owner or operator of an international bridge or tunnel to take any action that the Minister considers appropriate to ensure that it is kept in good condition.

In addition, the government is giving itself the right to apply sanctions. The owners are provinces, cities and, in some locations, private companies, but for the most part they are levels of government. This is what the government is proposing today—I repeat—without including any provision for the creation of a dedicated fund, by which the federal government would guarantee its financial involvement. It waves a stick. If there are problems, it will use it.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether he thinks it reasonable, once again, for the federal government to rap the knuckles of the communities, provinces, cities and private firms with its big stick.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It concerns, specifically clause 13 of the bill, which provides that “The Minister may order the owner...to take any action that the Minister considers appropriate to ensure that it is kept in good condition”.

My colleague from Windsor West has illustrated this fact very eloquently. When the Windsor-Detroit tunnel changed from private to public ownership, it was in very poor shape. It was noted at the time that the private administrator had not done the maintenance necessary to ensure safe transportation between Windsor and Detroit. The tunnel is now owned by a public firm, which ensures it is maintained.

We consider it very important these bridges and tunnels be maintained. They play a vital role in the economy not only of the cities I have mentioned, such as Windsor and Sault Ste. Marie, but of the country as a whole, especially Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-3, an act respecting international bridges, today. This bill is part of our government's comprehensive plan to provide a clear transportation policy for the whole country in a sustainable development context.

Today, it has become clear that the whole House supports this very concise bill. We can therefore proceed quickly.

I would like to tell my colleagues a little more about this bill and the context within which it was drafted.

As you have already heard several times today, Canada and the United States are linked by 24 road bridges and tunnels, as well as five rail tunnels. Most of the trade goods exchanged between our two countries travel across these bridges and through these tunnels, as well as via the rail and marine transportation networks. They play an essential role in our transportation system.

This is the first time the Government of Canada has established a legislative framework—not a funding framework, but a legislative one—to fill a gap. This is why the House supports the bill.

Furthermore, the bill fits into the government's plan for border security, infrastructure improvements and, as a result, job creation through international trade.

The proposed bill would serve to confirm the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction with respect to international bridges and tunnels; require governmental approval for the construction or alteration of new and existing bridges and tunnels; require governmental approval for all changes in ownership, operation and control of those facilities; and authorize the government to make regulations regarding bridge maintenance and repair, safety and security, and operation and use.

Because people move across those bridges, we are entitled to expect that the government will ensure that those structures are well maintained and safe.

I support the bill presented by my hon. colleague, the member for Pontiac and Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. It is a reflection of our government’s desire to restore the backbone of our country, transport—highway transport, rail transport, air transport and marine transport—to its proper place.

As members of Parliament, we are elected to legislate. I am sure that with the consent of my colleagues in the House, we will be able to move this bill forward.

Under the previous government, there had been hard times in recent years in terms of the development of transport in Canada. We witnessed the closing of a number of marine facilities in municipalities along the St. Lawrence River. We also witnessed the abandonment of marine transport, one of the four pillars of the transportation system. I know something about this, because I live in Lévis, where the largest Canadian shipyard is located, with nearly 180 years of history. Today, the workers in that shipyard are fighting hard to keep this jewel in the crown of our industry going strong.

For the manufacturing companies of Bellechasse and Chaudière-Appalaches, which are Quebec's “tigers”, as for others in other regions of Quebec, transportation costs are all-important if they are to preserve their competitive edge, whether in the agri-food sector, the plastics industry or the furniture industry. In Sainte-Claire, we have the largest manufacturer of intercity buses in North America. Links with the American economy are crucial, as we know.

Given the soaring price of gasoline and the climate change that is upsetting our ecosystems, we have to develop a bold and innovative transport policy. That is what our government intends to do, and marine transport—and the bill we are considering today—is one element of that policy.

Today, we use various modes of transportation when we travel. At one time, the waterways were the only routes that existed. They contributed to the building of our country. Canada would not be what it is today if this transport network had not existed. What economic development would there have been in the St. Lawrence Valley and the Great Lakes region without the St. Lawrence Seaway? How many tons of essential materials, goods and supplies have been transported on the St. Lawrence? These waterways have helped to build Canada and they will continue to do that. This is an important mode of transport and it is part of a strategy of sustainable development.

There are several advantages to doing a better job of using our navigable waterways. We reduce the congestion on our roads and at our border crossings—on the roads and bridges that we are talking about today—and in our airports. We improve the efficiency of our supply systems. We facilitate trade and effectively reduce air pollution, including greenhouse gases.

Congestion is very expensive, amounting to about $3 billion a year in lost time and wasted fuel that goes into the atmosphere, in addition to the negative effect on our productivity. We know that trade will only increase in the future and the congestion on our roads will grow worse as the number of cars and trucks increases.

International trade is expected to reach 2 billion tonnes a year over the next 20 years, or twice as much as current levels.

To avoid overloading our infrastructure, we are going to have to innovate and find different methods of transporting goods. This will affect not only the environment but also our health and the expenses that governments incur to build and maintain the necessary infrastructure. We should therefore examine all the available options that could make our transportation systems as efficient, effective and sustainable as possible.

So it is logical to send more of our goods by ship. This reduces congestion while actively helping to fight climate change, in addition to being very beneficial economically. All that shippers want is for their goods to reach market in a cost-effective way.

We are not inventing anything here. In Europe, 63% of the total volume of goods is carried by short-distance ships. This amounts to a total of 1.6 billion tonnes. European countries promote marine transportation as a complement to road, air and rail. They have studied this option and decided in favour of it. If it works elsewhere, it could work here. The job has already begun.

In 2003, Canada, the United States and Mexico signed a memorandum of cooperation to share information on waterways. On April 19, at a conference in Vancouver, our minister took part in signing the protocol for promoting the use of our waterways, thus reducing pressure on our bridges and tunnels. That is why we must conduct research on shipping and collect more data in order to apply it effectively.

In Quebec, in Rimouski, UQAR is setting up a research chair on shipping, which will be a major advance for research in this field in Quebec. It will help support this industry on specific scientific and technological research. It will also open the door to discoveries that will further our knowledge of the shipping sector and help us develop it to its full potential.

We need to have efficient means of transportation to improve our competitiveness—especially with a strong dollar—and to help us stay on course with our ambitions for our shipping companies and the St. Lawrence River.

We need an integrated approach to transportation to enhance our economic productivity. Our Prime Minister recently met with the President of the United States and the President of Mexico in Cancun. The three leaders reaffirmed their commitment to enhancing security, prosperity and the quality of life for North Americans. It is in this context that this current initiative is being taken.

Bill C-3 on international bridges will allow us to legislate on this matter and provide leadership. As we have seen, this House will probably be called to support other bills for improving our transportation policies in a context of sustainable development. Shipping is part of that.

Located at the confluence of the river, near the large seaway, the major transportation routes and rail lines, the riding I have the privilege of representing could seize this opportunity to improve its productivity and contribute to the prosperity of the country.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention one thing to my colleague. At the start of his speech, he stated that he had the consent of the House. I would like my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse to understand that he will have the consent of the House when we vote on the bill. First, the bill must be referred to a committee that will make amendments. I would like my colleague to understand that the Conservative Party does not have a majority on the committee. Thus, the bill will be amended and we hope that the other opposition parties will agree. We will see how the Conservative Party votes after we have amended the bill.

Naturally, this leads me to ask the following question. Does he not find it strange that today we have a bill which, early on, in clause 5, states that “International bridges and tunnels are declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada”, in other words, under federal jurisdiction? This is already spelled out in the Constitution.

Why are we bringing this up today? I would like to suggest a small exercise to my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse. It is because the federal government has divested itself of its responsibilities over the years. It gave us a nice statement about marine transportation but the federal government has divested itself of its responsibilities. It is no longer responsible for ports—except for some designated ports— having turned them over to local authorities. In addition, the federal government divested itself of regional airports, wharfs and bridges, handing them over to independent managers.

As a result of 9/11, the federal government wishes to reappropriate these installations for security reasons. Could my colleague tell us today that the government would support an amendment to the bill that would force it to allocate funds specifically for international bridges and tunnels if more restrictive security measures were applied and that these measures would be paid for by the federal government?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for updating me on parliamentary procedure. I was simply illustrating the nature of the comments I heard today from the four parties.

I am confident that the bill presented will receive parliamentary approval after work is completed on the amendments.

That said, my hon. colleague's question concerns the issue of regulations. I would say to him, as I indicated in my speech, that it is true that there has been a federal disengagement, particularly with respect to responsibilities for port facilities in small municipalities in Quebec. The Liberal Party was responsible for this and, unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois could not do anything about it.

I would point out to him that this bill aims to legislate in the area of international bridges. This bill does not target the funding of infrastructures. The distinction must be made.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since he is giving me the opportunity, I would add that the federal government had the Conservative Party's support when it offloaded its responsibilities concerning ports and airports.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.

Canadian infrastructure faces many needs. I know this is true in the municipalities within my colleague's riding. This is certainly true in the municipalities of Bellechasse, Etchemins and Lévis. This is a collective challenge we must overcome together.

As for the famous fiscal imbalance, it involves more than just the provincial and federal governments. It also affects municipalities and ordinary citizens.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that, as transport critic for the Bloc Québécois, I talk about Bill C-3,.

In theory, everyone may be in favour of the federal government accepting its true responsibilities as regards international bridges and tunnels. In any case, they fall within its jurisdiction. We have to grasp how the situation is, though.

The federal government downloaded its responsibilities in the past and transferred them to the provinces, the municipalities in some cases and to private companies in others. Of 24 bridges, only five are within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The others were entrusted to other administrations.

This is what the Bloc Québécois is wondering about. The federal government, for the sake of national security, is now deciding to interfere directly in the administration of equipment managed by other levels of government.

Earlier, I quoted to the New Democratic member a text which I will take the liberty of reading to the House. Under “Maintenance and Repair” in the bill, clause 13 reads: “The Minister may order the owner or operator of an international bridge or tunnel to take any action that the Minister considers appropriate to ensure that it is kept in good condition.” Thus, for national security, the federal government can decide to impose standards or force an administration to redo maintenance of its infrastructures. That is hard to accept, when we know that the act does not contain any measures creating funds dedicated to the repair of these infrastructures while ensuring federal participation.

Earlier, when I put some questions to my colleagues from several parties, I mentioned the Quebec City Bridge. It is not an international bridge or tunnel. It is, however, an example of a very important infrastructure in Quebec City, which is currently in the news headlines. Actually the 400th anniversary of Quebec City is coming up. This steel bridge is completely rusty, and they want to repaint it. That is the objective.

Canadian National has to maintain the railway system—let us never forget that this railway system is within federal jurisdiction—in accordance with the agreement concluded. This company, though, has always repeated to all levels of government that it does not have the means to maintain this superstructure. In the past, an agreement was signed between the Province of Quebec, the federal government and the said company. As in many projects, however, the costs were exceeded and the objectives could not be met. Money is lacking to renovate the Quebec City Bridge in time for the 400th anniversary. In fact, it should be renovated so as to avoid all sorts of catastrophes that might arise.

The money is lacking and everyone is passing the buck. It is not anyone’s fault, especially not the federal government’s. The Conservative members went for a walk, the federal government, through the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, said that the bridge was not its responsibility. In fact, in this case, maintenance of the bridge is the company’s responsibility. It is Canadian National that is responsible for the maintenance of railways and structures. This bridge is therefore its responsibility. But we know in advance that the private company is not able to do the maintenance.

We have the same problem with international bridges and tunnels. Some are managed by the private sector. Earlier, a colleague mentioned the Windsor-Detroit tunnel, which had to become public property. A public authority had to take over responsibility for managing the tunnel when it turned out the private company that was managing it was unable to maintain it. This example speaks volumes, but other bridges and tunnels are facing the same problem. The bill does not solve the problem.

In the bill before the House today, the federal government is not saying that it will pay. It is only saying that it will oversee bridge inspections and order the owners or operators to take any action to ensure that they are kept in good condition. If any work is to be done, the government will force the owner to do it. However, if the owner has no money to do the work, as was the case with Canadian National and the Quebec City bridge, what will the government do? This bill does not say.

The bill does not provide for a fund for the 24 existing bridges and tunnels or any new international bridges. We should at least allocate sufficient funds to renovate these 24 or 25 infrastructures. That way, we could fix the problem right away by using the fund to pay for the repairs.

Since the beginning of this debate, our Conservative colleagues have said that we should discuss funding mechanisms. Some say that if we increase prices at some locations, it would end up costing so much it would weaken the economy. If that happens, people will not use the bridges or the tunnels.

There is no trade because it costs too much to cross the bridge or travel the tunnel. Clearly, this means that the government does not want to pay. A Conservative colleague even said earlier that the government would force owners to pay by refusing to pay.

In short, no one is willing to pay. Money is the crux of every political issue. Once again we see that the federal government divested itself of all responsibility in the past because it did not want to pay.

Of course, the communities or provinces involved told the federal government to transfer responsibility to them and that they would look after the structures if the federal government was unable and unwilling to. Today, these huge and often old structures are expensive to maintain, and money is running out.

You will see that the Bloc Québécois will defend the public interest. In Quebec, we have one bridge, the Sutton bridge, which the city manages. Imagine, the City of Sutton manages the bridge. Of course, administration has been delegated. I am told that the bridge is very well managed and that everything works quite well. But judging by the community's reaction, Sutton was in favour of the bill because it assumed that money would likely be invested. The community thought that money would be forthcoming if it had to do major work, because the federal government recognized that this came under federal jurisdiction.

This bill does not hold any surprises for the residents of Sutton, but it does not answer their questions either. In any case, there was no money when these bridges came under federal jurisdiction, and this bill does not provide for any money.

The Bloc Québécois will therefore try to put that point across to all its colleagues, to the Liberal Party and, of course, the Conservative Party, which introduced the bill. In fact, I have to hand it to the Conservatives. This entire part of the bill is identical to Bill C-44, which the Liberals prepared.

Today, the residents of Sutton cannot count on any help from the Liberals or the Conservatives, nor can any other communities that find these infrastructures too costly. It was already decided that we might talk about money at a later time, but that we would not resolve this issue today. The Bloc Québécois and the communities in question who face this situation would not mind if the federal government were to declare its authority and impose standards--as long as the government pays for it. It is as simple as that.

I myself feel that more and more of these infrastructures should be transferred in order to find the funds needed for major projects and to avoid situations such as the one in Windsor, where the services of a private company were used but a public agency had to be created to pay the bill.

Again, I cite the Quebec City Bridge as an example. The hon. member for Québec is defending this file in the House. Quebec City wants to spruce itself up for its 400th anniversary, which is only normal. The oldest city in Canada will soon celebrate its 400th anniversary. We are very happy to have it. However, we cannot get the bridge painted because no one wants to foot the bill.

I cannot get over it: it’s crazy. The city wants to beautify itself, huge amounts are being invested for the community, but we cannot manage to reach an agreement because the bridge belongs to Canadian National, it is under federal authority, and the Quebec government does not have the money.

That is how the Canadian federation works. We have a fine structure, and on the 400th anniversary of Quebec City, you will be able to go and see the rusted Quebec City bridge. It will become a historic monument, because that is what is going to happen.

That is how the world will be invited to visit Quebec City. We cannot manage to agree, we cannot repaint the bridge because the agreement between the federal government, the provincial government and the private company has expired. There is no money and we fell short. We did part of it, but we are unable to finish the job.

We hope that the 24 international bridges and tunnels will not meet the same fate. The citizens of Quebec and Canada will be able to rely on the members of the Bloc Québécois to defend their interests. There can be no question of the rest of Canada going through what we are now experiencing in Quebec City, which wants to make itself attractive for its 400th anniversary.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my colleague said about the infrastructure deficit. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents thousands of municipalities across Canada and Quebec, has very clearly said that the infrastructure deficit is in the billions of dollars.

Municipalities cannot maintain their bridges, highways and roads. They cannot maintain their water structures so cities and towns can have clean water. They have difficulty dealing with their infrastructure. The decades of downloading have been hurting municipalities. Even painting a bridge has become a problem.

However I need some clarification on some of the other problems. I recently read that the toll collectors at the Ambassador Bridge were told to wave through trucks carrying risky cargo. According to a document obtained by a local paper, this is in violation of a U.S. ban. This is a real problem.

Does the member believe that the operation of these bridges should be maintained by the government, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, or should the bridges be privatized and given to private operators?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for her question. I am pleased to respond to the first part of her question.

As a former president of the Quebec union of municipalities, I can say that it is true that the cities of Quebec are running a $15 billion deficit just to restore existing infrastructures. Development does not even come into it. These are the needs of the cities of Quebec, not including cities in the rest of Canada. My colleague is entirely correct. Is private enterprise the solution? The example of the Windsor tunnel, which was given earlier, shows that private enterprise is there to make money. In the long term, that is not what we want. These infrastructures have to be preserved by the provincial or municipal public administrations, provided that the federal government, which regards them as coming under federal jurisdiction, decides to pay. They lie within its jurisdiction.

I see no problem with deciding to have them administered by a city or a province, if that is easier. However, if they are under federal jurisdiction, let there be an immediate announcement in this bill that a dedicated fund will be created. That will assist the administrators or governments, which will be able to manage these infrastructures under federal jurisdiction without putting other programs into debt.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleague for further information about the amount of responsibility that the federal government should assume when it transfers the management of certain infrastructure. Unfortunately, there is an enormous mess in the fisheries in regard to the Fisheries and Oceans facilities for small craft harbours. My colleague came to the Gaspésie and Îles-de-la-Madeleine region just recently to look into the railway infrastructure issues. This shows that when someone is responsible for a particular file or sector, there has to be money, too, or else we end up with a bill like the one that the Liberals introduced last year on heritage lighthouses. It was all very good in principle, but when it came time to put the principles into action and get concrete results, it turned out that there was many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. The handover of harbours and wharfs is a very good example. The communities were not opposed. Everybody was thinking about it. The Province of Quebec even made a proposal to take over some of the harbours. The problem was that there was no more money in the federal program. There was not enough money to transfer it. It is all very well just to decide on a policy. But if someone does not want to be in charge of a facility any more, the money has to be made available so that when the facility is transferred, it is at least in good condition. The problem with the federal government is that when something does not suit it any longer, it transfers it to a lower order of government— the provinces or municipalities—but forgets to provide the money. The federal government wants to save the money and invest it in an array of jurisdictions that are not its own. That is the cruel reality that we face.

I thank my colleague, who is doing an excellent job in the riding of Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put a few comments on the record. I have listened to a lot of the debate and although there have been varying aspects of the debate we are starting to get into the discussion of what we are actually trying to do.

I want to put on the record that I support the bill. The international bridges and tunnels act has been long overdue and is necessary. Having listened to the debate, I know that most of the focus so far has been on the 24 international bridges and tunnels that carry vehicle traffic. I certainly recognize their importance for all the reasons that have been presented today but I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the international rail bridges and tunnels. Although they are fewer in number, they are an important part of our national transportation system, particularly with respect to the movement of freight. Bill C-3 applies equally to those international bridges and tunnels.

Railways have been described as the backbone of Canada's transportation system and we all know that rail is certainly one of the oldest modes of transport. Some railway companies date back to before Confederation. I have almost finished reading “The Last Spike”, which tells the history of the railway that was built into western Canada. To read about the trials and tribulations that people went through to construct that national tie has enlightened me a lot in some of the difficulties that they went through but also the objective and goal that they were trying to obtain.

It is interesting that this past February the Canadian Pacific Railway celebrated its 125th birthday. An even older birthday was celebrated this year, the 170th birthday of the Champlain and Saint Lawrence Railroad, Canada's first railway. It was established in 1836 and ran from La Prairie to Saint Jean in Quebec. The rail lines have been an important part of the Canadian economy but also our Canadian heritage.

The importance of rail to the movement of goods and people today cannot be underestimated. There are a few things that I did not know. In 2003, 59 million passengers travelled by train using the country's commuter and tourist excursion lines and cross country service provided by VIA Rail. That is a huge number of people and is something that we should always be cognizant of when we talk about safety in infrastructure that transports that number of people.

In terms of moving goods, over 270 million tonnes of freight is shipped annually using the Canadian railways. It is still the cheapest method of shipping containers and bulk commodities over long distances. Many would argue that we have moved away reluctantly from the use of the railways, which used to be the lifeline of many of our communities, particularly in rural and western Canada, to a highway system. As the member so rightly commented, it has created a huge expense and burden on governments. How do we afford to move from one to the other and pay for both? Are there better ways to utilize the dollars we have?

There are two main national carriers, as we all know, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific Railways. The CN Railway's network extends from Halifax to Vancouver and Prince Rupert, through the United States to New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. CPR's network runs from Montreal to Vancouver and to Chicago and New York. These important links to the United States are assured by the ownership of and affiliations with several U.S. railways.

CNR and CPR account for about 90% of the industry's activity in revenues. It highlights how much volume there is and how important these two lines are to us. The other 10% is made up by several provincial carriers and short line railways that complete the network. Manitoba is very proud to have one of those short line networks that is establishing the rail lines that are currently being taken out of service by the majors. I am very proud to say that one of them is in my community of Brandon—Souris. I know it is doing an excellent job of providing the service.

A significant portion of CN and CPRs' business is trans-border traffic and traffic within the United States. This, along with increased trade with Asia, has led to a healthy bottom line. Both CN and CPR are able to compete with the U.S. railways and offer some of the lowest rail freight rates in the world.

The contribution of rail and rail bridges and tunnels to Canada's national transportation system by ensuring the movement of many millions of people and millions of tonnes of freight per year means that international rail bridges and tunnels are deserving of the same protection and the same federal government oversight as the international bridges and tunnels that carry vehicle traffic. We need to acknowledge and confirm that these are important aspects of this bill. We must include them and encompass what they are doing for Canadians and for the rest of North America when we are talking about this particular issue.

Over the past four decades the trend has been toward deregulating the rail industry. We know that this industry is still regulated, particularly in terms of rail safety, and that is one of the emphasis the bill tries to address.

Any regulation made under Bill C-3 in the area of bridge or tunnel safety and security would only complement those that already exist. What we are trying to do is to take what we currently have and move it into the modern era, take it to today's position where we understand the concerns and the issues that people bring forward. The bill moves directly to address this.

Just as in the case of international bridges and tunnels that carry vehicles, there currently exists no formal process for approving the construction of new international rail bridges or tunnels. Bill C-3 addresses this and would fill this gap. The construction of new international rail bridges and tunnels would also have to be approved by the government.

The fact that the bill includes international rail bridges and tunnels just goes to show how valuable they are to the Canadian transportation system. They clearly fall within the scope of this bill, the intent of which is to ensure the efficient movement of goods and people over these critical structures, and the safety of the same. Just like the international vehicle bridges and tunnels, they are important to international trade and tourism and they are a source of jobs for Canadians in the transportation industry.

I will be supporting the bill. I congratulate the government for moving ahead with this legislation in a timely fashion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I gave a speech earlier in the House on the bill and raised some concerns about the regulations in clauses 16, 39, and 43. Maybe the member could help out here.

Clause 16 reads:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, make regulations respecting the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels, including regulations...

(c) requiring any person or class of persons to provide to the Minister any information related to the security and safety of international bridges and tunnels.

I am a little concerned with the word “may” because it seems to indicate that it will not necessarily happen. In regard to clause 16(c), I have some concerns from the standpoint of a charter issue as well as basic rights and the rule of law.

I wonder if the member has any information whatsoever with regard to the regulation requiring persons or any class of persons to divulge information. I have no idea what the purpose is. If we cannot determine that, I wonder if maybe we should support having a clarification put into the legislation so people will understand what they are voting for.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the member's comments. I listened to him earlier when he talked about the word “may”. I may be mistaken, but I think that if the hon. member were to look back at most legislation, he would see that the word “may” is used when empowering a minister. I think the intent is that it gives the minister some discretion.

The member obviously has some issues and concerns. I know that he has raised them throughout this debate and in his comments. I think that is why we go to committee: to discuss these things. That is why we have committees. We have committees to follow this up because there are things that may or may not have been overlooked. We have the ability to move it on to committee, to move it into the structure where we will challenge some things and hopefully come to an agreement.

Nobody I have heard speak or to whom I have spoken is saying that it is a bad bill. I think what they are saying is that if there are some concerns and issues, we will have an opportunity to discuss them. I think that is what good government does.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member for Brandon--Souris address his position on Bill C-3, I could not help but wonder if in fact the Conservatives are going through some sort of transformation or metamorphosis around the whole issue of regulation, especially when it comes to our transportation sector.

I think I heard the member for Brandon--Souris suggest that deregulation, when it came to the railways, was a bad thing, and that now we are looking at more of a regulated environment. If I did not hear that, I am hoping that he is at least thinking along those lines, because Bill C-3 does at least attempt to ensure that we look at improving the transportation of goods and services across the border in a way that is in the best interests of the nation and is regulated.

Does the member at least appreciate that part of the bill when he says he is supporting it? Is he in fact prepared to go a step further and ensure that the implementation of this bill does not lead us down the path of using P3s, public-private partnerships, as a mechanism?