Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois recognizes the federal government’s constitutional jurisdiction over bridges and their modern extensions, such as tunnels. In our view, Bill C-3 fills a legal void in the area of international bridges and tunnels. We think that this bill has an important purpose because it aims to improve the security of these major structures. I should say first of all, though, that there are not a lot of them in Quebec. We will return to this.
In terms of regulating international bridges and tunnels, this legislation will provide what could be called watchdog powers that are a bit like police powers, and we are opposed to that. A government should not only be used, as the federal government proposes, to exercise a power of investigation without a warrant or a power of arbitrary seizure. It seems to us that more complete regulations might be less restrictive and would still make it possible to maintain control over our bridges without having to get involved in such difficult situations.
So the government gives itself very broad authority to legislate but leaves the financial responsibility to others. This could potentially lead to a conflict of interest.
There is only one international bridge in Quebec—that has been said and I mention it again—and that is the Glen Sutton bridge leading to East Richford. It belongs to Quebec and Vermont. It is a metal girder bridge built around 1929. That is not very old, therefore, but its design might be a bit old-fashioned. In view of how long some medieval bridges have lasted, though, it might still be good for quite some time. It crosses a small river, the Missisquoi, and is about 150 feet long. Trucks take it without any apparent problems. So it is in good condition. It could obviously benefit from some renovations. At the present time, though, the municipality of Sutton is responsible primarily for snow removal and sanding in the winter, while the Vermont authorities do the rest.
The bridge is inspected jointly by the owners, that is to say, Quebec and Vermont. When repairs are needed, it is apparently the municipality of Sutton that takes care of them. However, the advice comes from Quebec and we think that it is quite good. Vermont covers 70% and Quebec 30%. The Quebeckers in Sutton are not really very interested in Bill C-3 if it does not include any financial assistance. This is obviously not really the purpose of the bill because in Quebec we have only this little bridge.
In the case of this single bridge we have, it is certainly not necessary to simply be told what to do. That may be more important for Windsor than for us.
Obviously, it is our view that, if any bridges crossing the seaway were to be constructed, the plans and the entire project should be prepared by Quebec and would require nothing more than federal approval. We consider that to be proper.
That is how we see this bill. It would satisfy certain needs that we wanted met when the bill was being drafted. As the parliamentary secretary repeated earlier, we wanted to enhance the security around these bridges, as the terrorist incidents of 2001 have placed certain of these structures in some danger. I see no way in which the bill, in its present form, is going to be able to protect the bridge between Sutton and East Richford.
The exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government includes responsibility for harmonizing international bridges and tunnels, but not necessarily for protecting bridges. It is not necessarily because of the terrorist incidents that this legislation is being developed. It is intended far more to harmonize bridges, particularly the 19 bridges in Ontario.
At present, however, they do not have clearly defined legislative and regulatory authority to administer these crossings. That can be done only with funding. If there are no funds, the problems cannot be resolved.
According to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, there is no process at the moment for approving the construction of new bridges or tunnels or modifying existing ones. In the past, construction of a bridge was always effected through legislation. If a complete plan is presented for a new bridge, we in Quebec would like a response: yes or no. We do not want municipal consultation or consultation with masses of people.
Quebec is capable of managing bridge construction on its own. What we want the federal government to say is yes or no: this bridge is safe or it is not.
This is not at all the case for Glen Sutton and East Richford, where there is a little 150-foot bridge.
The fact remains that it is Quebec that looks after its bridges and will look after other international bridges in the future. The Vermont bridge is maintained in the proportion of 30% by Quebec and 70% by Vermont.
The bill contains novel provisions, one of which is approval of transactions affecting ownership. We have some questions about why land transactions will be at issue even before the project is completed.
We also have changes of operator or control. That can cover a lot of ground. When we start controlling who operates a bridge, all sorts of abuses may follow.
In addition to confirming the role of the federal government in relation to international bridges and tunnels, what we have is the federal government issuing guidelines regarding approval of the construction of a bridge or tunnel or the alteration of existing structures, imposing conditions relating to the maintenance and operation of bridges, approving transactions that change the ownership, operator or control of a bridge, and guaranteeing the security and safety of renovations, and that all adds up to still more centralization in Ottawa.
This brings us to the fact that, according to clause 6, “No person shall construct or alter an international bridge or tunnel without the approval of the Governor in Council”, and that, under subclause 4(4), “approval may”—or may not—“be given ... to the site or plans of an international bridge over the St. Lawrence River”, and that, according to clause 14, the government may make regulations respecting the maintenance and repair, operation and use, and safety and security of international bridges and tunnels.
As well, the government will be given very broad police powers, for example to investigate or simply to seize.
Fortunately, there are positive sides to this bill, because we do not find some parts of it very attractive. We will be voting for this bill because it contains some very valuable clauses, which I will describe.
Clause 17 provides that, “If the Minister is of the opinion that there is an immediate threat to the security or safety of any international bridge or tunnel, the Minister may make directions—”. We are entirely in favour of this clause, which is an excellent one.
The approval of the government is needed for the transfer of the ownership, control or operation of an international bridge or tunnel, under clause 23. We consider this clause to be excellent as well.
A Crown corporation may be established to administer an international bridge or tunnel, under clause 29. In our view, this is another extremely worthwhile clause.
To summarize, we support this bill, because it gives us an opportunity to submit complete projects to the federal government. We are much less impressed by the fact that someone is always going to be checking that our bridges are safe. We are capable of doing that ourselves. We are not at all open to the idea of holding consultations with municipalities; that may work just fine in Windsor, but it does not work in Glen Sutton.