Debates of March 24th, 2010

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the last time this bill was before us, the issue of an independent human rights assessment already had been dealt with at committee. In fact, the committee had reported back to the House that such an assessment should be done prior to proceeding with this bill. I understand that even Amnesty International had been reluctant to come forward to conduct such an independent assessment.

Does the member believe such an assessment would be valuable? Does he believe it would change the understanding of the House with regard to current human rights conditions in Colombia?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first question, I think an independent evaluation would give us a true picture of the human rights situation in Colombia. Even the Colombian government is not able to control everything that happens in the country. An independent study is absolutely necessary to help us make a much more reassuring assessment of the situation.

As for the second question, we would need to have the results of an independent study in order to know whether our opinion would change. Such a study might change our minds if it showed that things are getting better. I tend to think the opposite. We do not know, though, because no independent studies have been done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I quite liked the speech of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. Even though he has been the international trade critic for only a short time, he understands the situation in Colombia and the need to reject this agreement much better than people who have been sitting on the committee for years.

What was proposed today changes nothing. They think the Government of Colombia could write a report itself and that might improve the human rights situation. It is totally ridiculous. All the organizations in the country that are concerned about this bill will surely let our Liberal colleagues know. The Liberal members will respond by thinking that the facts have changed.

I want to ask my colleague from the Bloc Québécois a question. According to figures provided by the Colombian comptroller general, drug dealers and paramilitary forces own about half of the farmland in Colombia. In view of the fact that no independent studies have been done, does the hon. member think the agreement could worsen the human rights situation in Colombia?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree. As long as there is no independent study, I think it will be very difficult to understand precisely what is going on in Colombia. If I understood the hon. member correctly, paramilitaries control half the rural territories. If that is truly the case, it is terrible.

I find it completely unacceptable that some members of Parliament, being aware of this situation, would still accept the fact that the Canadian government is proposing a free trade agreement with a country that is unable to control the paramilitaries.

[Christian Ouellet, Bloc, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain for his clear understanding of the situation in Colombia.

I want to remind him that the two main goods imported from Colombia are grains and beef. It seems to me that we have plenty of both those products here in Canada.

What is this really about? I think we know. There are a lot of hypocrites around. There is a concentration of wealth in Colombia. I would like our colleague to elaborate on the subject of mines. Clearly, the purpose of this agreement is to allow Canadians to invest in mines.

I would like my colleague to say a bit more on that.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

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

That is exactly what I was saying earlier. Trade between Canada and Colombia is nothing compared to trade with all of Latin America.

We know very well that the fact that a free trade agreement is before this House at this time has nothing to do with increasing or facilitating trade between Canada and Colombia. It is a way to promote investments and to promote investors who will continue to make off with the natural resources of a country like Colombia. In fact, these people think that because we have the expertise here, we will continue to trade.

We know that the mining industry in Colombia just encourages more violence and causes more people to be displaced. These people, who are already very poor, lose their land and are exiled to the cities. Every day, about 50 people arrive in the capital with no means of survival. This bill will only encourage this.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement between Colombia and the United States has been before Congress now for a considerable amount of time. I know that the President mentioned it in his speech in January, the state of the union address.

A group of us were down in the United States on Congressional hearings on February 19 and the member for Kings—Hants was there. Although we were in different groups, we did meet with a number of senators and members of Congress. On at least two occasions Republicans told us that this deal had absolutely no chance of making it through Congress. If the member for Kings—Hants knows that, then why is he and his allies in the government so bent on forcing this agreement through, when the Americans, as I have said, have had it before Congress now for several years and they have no intention of doing anything about it this year.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling that this question is addressed more to the member for Kings—Hants. Earlier, he announced his intention to put an end to the debate by moving that the question be put. This is likely a new form of Liberal-Conservative coalition to speed up the adoption of a free trade agreement with Colombia, an agreement that goes against the values of a great many people.

As the NDP member who asked me a question earlier said, the Liberal members will surely be hearing from their constituents, who will be calling on them to reconsider. This is the complete opposite of their previous position. Before, they supported the people and said that an agreement would be harmful to them. They will have to answer for their decision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by identifying what this agreement and bill is not about. It is not about any real intentions of the government to push Canadian exports.

I just came back from Argentina. I was down there with FIPA. I asked the trade commissioners what the budget was for Canadian export supports for the market of Argentina. Argentina is a country of 40 million people. That is larger than Canada. The entire amount that the government is giving to export promotion supports, such as product promotion and service promotion, comes to a grand total of $400 a week. That is unbelievable. That is less than what an average corner store spends in my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster.

That is less than an east Montreal corner store spends.

But that is what the government is giving in export promotion support.

While we have trade commissioners having to pay for coffee of potential clients out of their own pockets, while we have $400 for the entire market of Argentina, our competitors like Australia, the United States, the European Union are spending hundreds of millions of dollars in export promotion support.

Therefore, the government is a government of trade dilettantes. It has absolutely no overall strategy to actually build export development. It does not invest in export development. To say that in some way this agreement is part of an overall strategy, when the government has failed so lamentably on the whole issue of export development, I think is to say the least disingenuous.

The other point that the Conservatives have been bringing up is why did the NDP not support the softwood sellout and why did the NDP not support the shipbuilding sellout? I would like to say to the members of the Conservative Party, it is because they negotiate bad agreements. It is as clear as that.

The softwood sellout, the shipbuilding sellout, and now this Colombian trade agreement either repudiates Canadian jobs or it repudiates Canadian values.

This is not about trade. It is about whether our foreign policy, our trade policy, should in some way be connected to fundamental Canadian values. The most fundamental Canadian value is human rights. That is something that Canadians share from coast to coast to coast.

The Conservatives have no interest in the human rights component. Liberals have abandoned any real attempt to build on human rights. If they were really concerned about human rights, they would have stuck with their support of the NDP motion to amend the trade committee report from two years ago that called for an independent and impartial human rights assessment. That was put forward by the committee.

Conservatives promptly backtracked, but Liberals under their former leader, to their credit, stuck to their guns and said that we should not move any further with negotiations with Colombia until we have an independent and impartial human rights assessment about what the potential impacts would be.

Just a few weeks after the report was issued, the government slapped the Liberals around and everyone else in the committee and said, “No. We're going to move forward with this agreement just the same”.

A year ago this week, the Conservatives brought this bad bill and this bad agreement forward to the House of Commons.

The NDP and the members of the Bloc Québécois are sticking to those fundamental Canadian values of human rights. We are not going to allow the Colombian government, given the egregious human rights violations that take place in Colombia, to get some kind of reward from the Canadian Parliament.

I certainly hope that Liberal members of Parliament, once they get a sense of the public reaction to this whitewashing, will share the view that they should go back to their original position under their former leader and stand up very clearly for human rights.

What is the human rights situation in Colombia? Over the last few years it has actually gotten worse, despite some of the comments we have heard from Conservatives and Liberals. Over the last three years the number of trade unionists killed in Colombia has tragically increased, not decreased. In fact, there was a 25% jump in 2008, maintained in 2009, and tragically we are seeing further murders this year.

Colombia is the most dangerous place to be a labour activist than anywhere else on earth. That is a reality.

Members of the Conservative Party and Liberal Party who want to push this bill forward have offered absolutely no proof that the bill and the treaty would actually improve human rights in Colombia. In fact, as I will get to later on, every single reputable human rights organization, every single independent union either in Colombia or Canada, has actually said the contrary. They have said that in a very real way, and a very dangerous way, the bill and the treaty with Colombia could worsen the human rights situation in Colombia.

There is the killing of trade unionists. What else? There are the hundreds and hundreds of the so-called false positives in Colombia over the last few years. Hundreds and hundreds of the so-called false positives is a banal term that masks a horrifying reality. These false positives are nothing less than cold-blooded murder of people in rural areas, aboriginal people and Afro-Colombians who were taken out and shot by the Colombian military.

It is important to note that a number of human rights organizations have cited the fact that in the Colombian military, there are bonuses offered for the killings of so-called guerrillas, which encourages the murder of innocent peasants and rural residents. Those hundreds and hundreds of false positives are a blight on the Colombian government and a blight on the human rights reputation of Colombia. If we pass this bill, we are essentially saying that we do not have fundamental concerns about the killing of trade unionists or these false positives by the Colombian military.

As horrific as those cold-blooded murders are, as horrific as all of that is, perhaps the most egregious aspect to the human rights situation in Colombia is the ongoing forced and violent displacement of millions of Colombians. It is the second worst situation of its sort in the entire planet, only rivaled by Sudan. In other words, the millions of Colombians who have been forcibly displaced by paramilitary groups often connected with the government, or guerrilla groups that oppose the government, are leading to the development of shantytowns throughout Colombia, particularly in Bogota.

When I was down in Colombia with the trade committee that looked at that, we went to Soacha. We met and spoke to those residents. They expressed real concerns about what is happening in rural Colombia. That has resulted in a concentration of land in rural Colombia that has intensified and it is now estimated that over 60% of agricultural land is in the hands of 0.6% of the population.

That forced displacement has led to a small number of landowners, drug traffickers and paramilitary organizations that are connected to the government taking over this rural land. The comptroller general of Colombia noted in his speech just a few years ago that drug traffickers and paramilitaries now own almost half the agricultural land in Colombia.

That is the reality. When we talk about human rights abuses, the fundamental reality is that as parliamentarians, we are obliged to consider when we look at something like a privileged trading relationship with President Uribe's regime. When we talk about the killing of trade unionists, we talk about killings by the Colombian military, the so-called false positives which are cold-blooded murder, we talk about the forced displacement by paramilitary groups connected to the government of millions of Colombians. We are not talking about some kind of state where human rights are improving, but rather we are talking about a human rights catastrophe.

That is the situation before us now in Colombia. It is not something that can be fixed by the whitewashing of reports. It is not something that can be fixed by having the Colombian government report on itself.

What is worse is the timing around what the government is bringing forward right now. It is an electoral period in Colombia. The issue of these so-called free trade agreements, and the Colombian state and human rights and democratic development in Colombia are being discussed to a certain extent by some Colombians. As the International Pre-electoral Observation Mission released in its report just a few days ago, at this critical time, it talked about the factors that impede free and fair elections in areas of Colombia. We are going into an electoral process. That is why the Colombian government is pushing this agreement, so that we Canadian parliamentarians can get involved in some way in this electoral process.

Reputable observers are saying there are factors that impede free and fair elections. The factors that they mention include widespread fear among the Colombian population and the fact that public moneys are being transferred for illicit uses in the election. They talk about negative practices such as vote buying and selling, misuse of identity documents, illegal possession of identity documents including stolen documents, coercion and intimidation of voters, fraud committed by polling officers at the polling station, obstruction of electoral observers, and control over public transportation to prevent voters from moving freely.

This is the situation right now. Instead of taking a step back, which the government should have done, to send observers so that in some way we could put pressure on the Colombian government to actually produce the free and fair elections that are being denied, the Conservatives with their Liberal allies are moving forward to reward the regime for what are clearly not going to be free and fair elections at this time.

The Conservatives and Liberals are working together to deny Colombians their democratic choice that will take place in a few weeks. Reputable observers are saying that these are the problems. Instead of putting pressure on the government, Liberals and Conservatives are saying, “Well, that is okay. We will try to get this deal through for you. Maybe that will help you in the election”.

It is so highly irresponsible, so highly inappropriate. I think Canadians in general can understand very clearly what is going on.

When we talk about the Uribe regime, the regime that is in power now, and given the impediments to a free and fair election in Colombia, presumably the government would be re-elected, we are talking about concerns that have been raised consistently about the Uribe government.

BBC News broke the story last year about the fact that a drug lord in prison in the U.S. said that he and his illegal paramilitary army funded the 2002 election campaign of Colombian President Álvaro Uribe. This particular individual, Diego Murillo, also known as Don Berna, was the successor to drug lord Pablo Escobar. As we know from the history of President Uribe and the defence intelligence agency briefings back in the early 1990s, President Uribe was a close associate of Pablo Escobar. Don Berna is his successor and he says that he funded that campaign in 2002.

Now there are elections in 2010 that are impeded; there are obstacles to free and fair elections. Very clear concerns are being raised about violence, about coercion, intimidation and fraud. Instead of the Conservative and Liberal members of Parliament standing up and saying that they are going to consider seriously this issue and that they are going to apply pressure, they are giving a free pass, a reward.

As was reported in the Washington Post, Colombians found out that the secret police, run by the government, had spied on supreme court judges, opposition politicians, activists and journalists. Suspicion swirled that the orders for the wiretapping as well as general surveillance had come from the presidential palace. Those revelations have come on top of an influence-peddling scandal involving the president's two sons, Tomás and Geronimo, and a widening probe of the links between Uribe's allies in congress and right-wing paramilitary death squads. Also, there have been journalists in Colombia who have expressed concern about President Uribe's links from the very beginning with the drug trade.

When Conservatives stand in this House and say that they are opposed to the drug trade, to cocaine use and at the same time push, at this sensitive time, a trade agreement that is a privileged trading relationship with the Uribe administration, it strikes the very heart of hypocrisy.

The Conservatives cannot stand in the House and stay that they are against the drug trade, that they are against the Colombian drug cartels when they are rewarding a regime that has very clear connections and consistently over time has had personal association with the paramilitary organizations that are part of the drug trade. Yet that is what the Conservatives are pushing today in this House. They are pushing this at a sensitive time of elections when they should be stepping back and implementing an independent and impartial human rights assessment. They are trying to push forward. It is highly inappropriate and a complete repudiation of the basic Canadian values that Canadians hold dear.

There is no doubt that if Canadians were polled on this issue, they would overwhelmingly reject this agreement because they would be concerned about human rights. As people in the province of British Columbia, the “show me” province would say, the government has to show me that it has done due diligence. It has to show me an independent and impartial human rights assessment.

The Conservatives have not done it because they know darn well that the human rights assessment would show what report after report has shown.

Whether it is MiningWatch Canada, Inter Pares, Amnesty International, Peace Brigades, they have indicated in reports that it is inappropriate to move forward with this agreement. Briefing notes by the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, the Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have said that it is inappropriate to move forward with this agreement.

Report after report after report, every single reputable report has said the same thing. Every single one of them has said that it is inappropriate to move forward with this agreement.

I will read from the executive summary of the last one I mentioned:

Trade can support development and the realization of human rights, if it brings benefits to vulnerable populations and allows states, who are willing, to promote developmental outcomes and protect the environment. But neither the political conditions in Colombia nor the terms of the Canada-Colombia FTA provide these reassurances. Indeed, while Canadians were promised that this agreement had been tailored to take account of human rights concerns, in fact the agreement turns out to be a standard “market-access” oriented trade deal, with ineffectual side agreements on labour and the environment. Colombian civil society and human rights organizations have been clear: they do not want this agreement.

Colombian civil society and human rights organizations have been clear: they do not want this agreement.

We could spend the next couple of weeks citing report after report after report, but what is very clear is that killer trade unionists pay a fine, that the reward for bad behaviour, that the complete refusal to have Canada in any way try to provide incentives for free and fair elections, all of these are repudiations of basic Canadian values.

In this corner of the House, NDP MPs stand for those Canadian values. We stand for those human rights. We stand for freedom of speech. We stand for labour rights. We believe that criminals should be prosecuted, not rewarded. That is why we will be voting no on Bill C-2.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have a 10-minute period of questions and comments when this debate resumes.

It being 5:38 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Quebec Bridge

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should purchase the Pont de Québec for one dollar and commit to quickly finishing the repair work so as to respect its importance as a historical monument and vital transportation link for the Quebec City region.

Madam Speaker, the Quebec Bridge is the longest cantilever bridge in the world. The Government of Canada built it between 1910 and 1917 to connect both banks of the St. Lawrence River. It is a main artery through the Quebec City region in terms of trade, tourism, history and heritage.

Two major tragedies occurred during construction of the bridge. Twice, in 1907 and in 1916, part of the structure collapsed, killing dozens of workers. With plenty of history behind it, the bridge was declared an international historic civil engineering monument in 1987.

The only one of its kind in the world, this imposing structure designed by architect Theodore Copper has attracted the admiration of many. The Quebec Bridge was also designated as a national historic site by the Canadian Heritage minister in 1996.

The Quebec Bridge was built primarily for economic purposes, and it was used exclusively for rail transport for 12 years. In 1923, it was decided that Quebec could build a roadway across it. An agreement between the governments of Canada and Quebec regarding usage of the route took effect in 1928 and will expire in 2012. More than 110,000 people use the Quebec Bridge every day. I am willing to bet that it will be 2012 before the present government does anything.

In 1993, the Government of Canada sold the Quebec Bridge to Canadian National for the token amount of $1, with bonus parcels of land valued at an estimated $104.2 million at the time of sale. Canadian National committed to funding a major bridge maintenance program and to installing and maintaining architectural lighting. But in 1995, the Government of Canada privatized Canadian National by issuing public shares.

In 1997, a $60 million deal was signed to complete the restoration of the bridge over a period of 10 years. The project promised a Quebec Bridge that would once again attract admiration worthy of the city's 400th anniversary celebrations in 2008. From a more practical perspective, the purpose of the agreement was also to ensure the long-term viability of the structure and the safety of those using it.

Now, 12 years later, only 40% of the work has been completed, and the project is at a standstill. Is the current Prime Minister just as incompetent as the one the Liberals had when they were in power? Back then, he accused the governing party of being so incompetent it could not even repaint a bridge.

It has become habit to say that nothing more can be done about the Quebec Bridge issue as long as it is still before the courts. Legal matters take a long time. We have to wait for the court to appoint stewards before lifting a finger. Is this another manifestation of the slowness of the federal government bureaucracy, which we suspect is intentional?

In the meantime, last January, the Delcan report, commissioned by the Department of Transport, revealed that the Quebec Bridge structure is in good to fair condition. The report also stated that there are areas of significant corrosion that are deteriorating. The restoration technique that was chosen to save money is already outdated, and it is not just that the work has not been completed, it is that the government is not living up to its responsibilities.

Again this week something new and unpleasant has hit the headlines. Tests done by Environment Canada, disclosed by the CBC, tell us that the land under the Quebec Bridge is showing disturbing levels of lead contamination. CN has apparently been aware of this for many years. Does the government intend to see what the situation is and take action immediately to ensure the safety of the people of Quebec City, in relation to this situation? If history is our guide, we may well doubt it. This is yet another reason to force the government to live up to its responsibilities in this matter.

As far as the protection of historical and cultural heritage is concerned, it is well known that this is the least of the government's concerns, but it is very much on the public’s mind.

And what about concern for the safety of those who use the bridge? Most of the people who take the Quebec Bridge live on the south shore of the region. Those people are represented by Conservatives. The token members of the federalist parties are contemplating voting against the interests of their own constituents. I wonder how they sleep at night.

So what is preventing the government from taking back possession of the bridge and dealing with this before it collapses for a third time?

In a letter I have here, CN says it is prepared to transfer the bridge. We have to stop hiding our heads in the sand and live up to our responsibilities. That is why this motion proposes that the government purchase the bridge and restore it to the condition expected of an historic monument that is also a vital transportation link supporting the economy of Quebec.

This has nothing to do with the case in the courts. We have to act now, quite apart from the legal proceedings. When they are over, either the bill will be sent to CN or we will have saved millions of dollars that are going up in smoke as the costs attributable to this government’s inertia rise.

The work on the Quebec Bridge has been dragging on for 12 years now, which is far too long. The public is waiting for the elected officials to assume their responsibilities and act now. We have a duty to take this matter in hand and resolve it once and for all.

I have an idea for this irresponsible government. In my motion, it says, “and commit to quickly finishing the repair work”. If the government thinks that the approximately 5,000 officials in the Department of Transport are incapable of dealing with the Quebec Bridge once it has been purchased, there is nothing to prevent the government from negotiating with the Government of Quebec so that it can take over the responsibility, assuming that it is given all the money needed to rehabilitate the bridge. In Quebec, we have enough self-respect to be consistent.

The ongoing problem with the Quebec Bridge fuels public cynicism toward politics. It is proof of the flagrant lack of leadership in this country and it makes people think that politics is useless. People have lost faith in the role of politicians, who generally just bob and weave. Politicians today are free to tell lies in order to restrict the freedom of citizens. Since the word lie is banned as unparliamentary, everything happens as if there were no false pretences at all, when actually government is shot full of them.

One needs only to have witnessed the desperate obstinacy with which the Prime Minister of Canada denied there was an economic crisis. One needs only to see the distress of our military personnel and their loved ones, while the armed forces insist that all is well. One needs only to see the unfeeling reports promising that the public water supply is safe, while people in the community are dying. One needs only to see the extent to which older people are kept in ignorance of their right to programs to assist them. One needs only to see the backward steps in equality between men and women. One needs only to see how working people are left to lose their jobs and struggling industries are denied assistance, while there is no change to the draconian rules governing employment insurance. One needs only to see how announcements of projects like the Super PEPS are repeated over and over to mask the shameful administrative malingering that drives costs into the stratosphere. One needs only to see the government’s game of hide and seek when it comes to the Quebec Bridge.

This matter is urgent. The government must stop hiding behind procedure. Nobody is fooled by that anyway.

Resuming my speech, I would like to draw the attention of the House to words that we are very likely to hear in the next few minutes. I am sure that my colleagues in the Conservative Party will try once again to hide behind legal procedures in order to avoid assuming their responsibilities. I am eager to hear what the other parties have to say. The debate has resumed after the House was prorogued.

I am understandably very anxious to see whether this pause that the Conservatives forced upon us has enabled them to engage in some introspection and thought about what the citizens of the ridings of Lévis—Bellechasse and Chaudière—Appalaches, as well as my own riding and the population of the entire region of Quebec want, so that the Quebec Bridge problem can finally be solved.

I am nearly certain—although we would be agreeably surprised if it were not the case—that my colleagues in the Conservative Party will object to this proposal, although it is the only viable way in the short run to resolve the problem with the Quebec Bridge.

I am looking forward to hearing all the reasons that the hon. members from the south shore of the Quebec City region will devise to explain to their constituents why they are again turning their backs on the Quebec Bridge, the people of Quebec and the Quebec City region. Anything goes.

The Conservative Party and the other parties have the floor now, and I am very much looking forward to what they have to say.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the speech by the member for Louis-Hébert, who gave a fine demonstration of the kind of verbiage to which the House has become accustomed over the past 20 years from the Bloc, that is, verbiage rooted in improvisation and inaction.

I should point out from the outset that I intend to vigorously oppose this motion because the people of Quebec City, Lévis, Bellechasse, Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, basically everyone in Quebec, deserve better than verbiage. They deserve action, and action is what I am interested in.

The Quebec City area is getting major investments from the federal government. I think of the National Optics Institute, which is located in his riding, and the congress centre in Lévis. I think also of the expansion of the Rouge et Or's football stadium, as well as structuring, strategic investments for the Quebec City area.

Like all Bloc members, the member for Louis-Hébert does not want to see Quebec City take its place as Quebec's national capital and does not want to see Quebec play a leadership role within the Canadian federation.

I would like him to tell me how he can once again sit on his hands in this House when action is required. He does not act, but he makes speeches that put us to sleep.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I always have and always will refuse to be a token Quebecker as he is every time he stands in the House to vote against Quebec's interests. This is unacceptable.

In my speech I predicted that the Conservative Party would skirt the issue. He listed a series of achievements that, for the most part, have already happened. This is the fourth or fifth time they have been announced.

We are talking about the Quebec Bridge. Once again, we see that the Conservative Party is not listening to the Quebec population. It is not listening to Quebeckers.

I will never be a token Quebecker like this member.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, specifically dealing with the resolution, I do not see any reason why members in the House would not support the resolution and vote for it.

The member mentioned that 120,000 people used the bridge every day. We know it is a storied bridge with a storied history that began in 1907. In fact, its collapse killed about 80 people a number of years ago.

The fact is this bridge was transferred by the Liberals to CNR a number of years ago and then it was privatized. A private company now owns it. The member mentioned that the bridge included a bunch of land worth millions of dollars.

The issue is this. Are we in a position to unravel the Liberal mess and get this bridge back without compensating CN for the millions of dollars of land it received with the bridge? Then when we take responsibility for the bridge, we have to pay to fix it, while CN gets the benefit of the land.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

As I said, the case is currently before the court. There have been two agreements between Canadian National and the government. The court must analyze the complex judicial process. This is why the Bloc Québécois decided to act and propose a motion that would force the government to shoulder its responsibility while taking nothing away from the court proceedings.

In 10 or 15 years, when the court has ruled on the responsibilities of both Canadian National and the government, the government can simply send the bill to Canadian National if the court decides it is responsible. And if that is not the case, we will have saved millions of dollars in cost increases related to inflation and the Quebec Bridge's deterioration. This debate has been ongoing for more than 12 years.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Motion No. 423, presented by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, regarding the acquisition of the Quebec Bridge from Canadian National Railway.

I just want to say that this is not a game. This is a very serious issue to the people of Quebec and all Canadians in relation to this particular bridge. Therefore, I resent the fact that the Bloc member would actually refer to this as a game.

As the House knows, Motion No. 423 was last debated on December 1, 2009, and it reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should purchase the Pont de Québec for one dollar and commit to quickly finishing the repair work so as to respect its importance as a historical monument and vital transportation link for the Quebec City region.

CN is the owner of the Quebec Bridge and is certainly responsible for its operation, maintenance and safety. The Government of Canada recognizes the very importance of maintaining the Quebec Bridge in good condition, like all bridges and all the infrastructure in this country, the great investments we have made represent that. We are taking steps to find a solution that will lead to restoration work on the bridge being completed and completed as soon as possible.

We recognize that the Quebec Bridge is an important historical structure as well and a vital transportation link, as mentioned by the member of the NDP. Built in the early part of the last century, it is the longest standing cantilever bridge in the world and it stands as a testament to the expertise and the dedication of the many Quebeckers and Canadians who helped construct it.

I can tell this House that after hearing from the Conservative member from Quebec City and the member from the Bloc, that the Bloc will never be able to deliver results to any Quebeckers. It is the Conservative MPs who deliver real results, as we have seen from the good work of the member for Lévis—Bellechasse. We have seen that time and time again. I have had an opportunity to visit his riding and I have seen the Lévis Convention Centre and other things that he has brought to the riding. He does excellent work in representing his constituents.

In 1987, the Canadian and American Society of Civil Engineers actually declared the Quebec Bridge an historic monument, and this is the testament of the bridge as well. In 1996, the bridge was declared a national historic site of Canada.

The Quebec Bridge continues to provide an important rail and roadway link between both shores of the St. Lawrence, connecting communities, businesses and families in the area on a daily basis. The bridge is nearly 1,000 metres long and consists of a three-lane roadway and a single rail line. Thousands of vehicles do pass over it every day and, indeed, CN and VIA trains use the rail line on a daily basis. The Quebec Bridge is an important historic symbol and transportation link that continues to play a key role in the economic and social viability of the region and, indeed, of all Canada.

Before discussing various efforts on behalf of the government on what we have done in the short period of time that we have been involved in this file, I would reiterate that CN is the owner of this bridge. CN is responsible for its operation, maintenance and safety. CN has confirmed to the government that the bridge is in good condition and, based on recent inspections, that there are no immediate concerns with the condition of the bridge, the safety of the bridge or the people using it.

Fully completed in 1918, the Quebec Bridge quickly formed part of the Canadian government railways. In the early 1920s, the Government of Canada conferred the operation and management of all Canadian government railway lands, including the Quebec Bridge, to CN, a newly formed crown corporation at that time. The CN management operation is no stranger to this particular asset. Essentially, CN has been operating and managing the Quebec Bridge for more than 80 years.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Government of Canada began divesting itself of transportation assets and removing itself from the direct involvement of delivering transportation services because, in part, people locally do a better job than the provinces and certainly the cities of managing those assets.

Accordingly, in 1993, Transport Canada entered into an agreement with the Canadian National Railway to transfer title to the railway company of all Canadian government railway lands across Canada for $1. It was a great deal. One of the assets transferred to CN under this agreement was the Quebec Bridge. In exchange for this, CN agreed to undertake a major restoration of the Quebec Bridge itself and, to ensure its long-term viability, the government then completed the transfer of the bridge to CN finally in 1995 at the time of CN's privatization.

To be clear, CN became the full owner of the Quebec Bridge in 1995, some 15 years ago. At that time, it assumed responsibility for the bridge's restoration, operation, maintenance and safety, and was fully aware that it was taking on that responsibility. As mentioned, CN received generous compensation in 1993, in the form of land transfers to assume all of these responsibilities.

Even though CN owns the Quebec Bridge and it is their responsibility, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of maintaining the structure in good condition and is making significant efforts to see this objective is achieved.

In 1997, to help CN meet its obligations, the government signed a tripartite agreement with CN and the Quebec government to fund a 10 year, $60 million restoration program for the Quebec Bridge. This has been ongoing for some period of time. The amount of funding was based on CN's estimates of the cost of the restoration work. The total commitments over 10 years were as follows: The Government of Canada, $6 million; the Government of Quebec, $18 million; and Canadian National Railway, $36 million, toward the restoration of this project.

CN had entire control of the project. It had full control over the entire work program for the bridge. The $60 million budget was depleted at the end of 2005 without the project being completed. Approximately 60% of the bridge surface has still not yet been painted. In addition, work on some elements of the structure has not been completed.

In the Government of Canada's opinion, the relevant agreements envision the completion of the painting and infrastructure work for this project. To maintain the Quebec Bridge in good condition and protect the interests of the taxpayers and people of Quebec, the Government of Canada believes that CN should complete the restoration work on the bridge.

CN owns the bridge and was compensated for taking responsibility for the bridge and restoring it. CN committed to completely restoring the bridge and ensuring its long-term viability at that time, some 15 years ago.

The Government of Canada has made several other attempts to work with CN to find a solution that would lead to the restoration work on the bridge being completed. However, quite frankly, those efforts have not been successful.

As a last resort, this government initiated court proceedings in February 2007 to compel Canadian National to fulfill its obligation to completely restore the bridge. These court proceedings, as mentioned, are still ongoing. The Government of Canada hopes that these proceedings against CN will lead to a satisfactory conclusion, with the railway company completing the restoration work on the bridge and ensuring its long-term viability.

The Canadian and Quebec taxpayers deserve this. They deserve no less than to have their tax dollars protected. Canadian National received generous compensation to take responsibility for the bridge and the taxpayers contributed funding, even then, toward the bridge's restoration program.

To conclude, the Government of Canada acknowledges that the Quebec Bridge is an important historical symbol as well as an essential transportation link. It recognizes the importance of keeping the Quebec Bridge in good working order. As mentioned, Canadian National has confirmed that the bridge is in good condition and, based on recent inspections, there are no immediate concerns about its condition.

The government is well aware of the situation with the Quebec Bridge. In fact, the member from Lévis took me on a tour of the bridge some four or five years ago when he was first elected. I had a firsthand chance to look at this in my role as parliamentary secretary. I know firsthand that he has brought it to the minister's attention on numerous occasions, so we are working on it.

Before I close, I should also note that the Bloc Québécois has changed opinions on how to resolve the Quebec Bridge issue no less than three times in recent years. That is the Bloc's record. It flip-flops from issue to issue. I wonder what new idea will be proposed in 2010 after it becomes tired of this one.

Fortunately, our government is taking a reasonable and serious approach to address the Quebec Bridge issue, one that aims to protect taxpayers, taxpayers' dollars, and their interests, and to find a solution that will lead to the bridge being completely restored to the satisfaction of the people of Quebec.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise here today to speak to a motion that is of personal interest to me. I am of course referring to the motion put forward by my Bloc colleague regarding the Quebec Bridge. The motions reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should purchase the Pont de Québec for one dollar and commit to quickly finishing the repair work so as to respect its importance as a historical monument and vital transportation link for the Quebec City region.

I am from Quebec City and my paternal ancestors are from Quebec City and the surrounding area. When I was 15, I had the pleasure of being a guide at the Citadel, another historic site in a city whose heritage is internationally recognized. As we all know, Old Quebec has been designated a UNESCO world heritage site.

When I was giving tours to tourists visiting the Citadel along the cliffs overlooking the St. Lawrence, I would invite them to look to the west, towards the Quebec Bridge. I would proudly explain to them that that bridge was, in its day, one of the world's engineering marvels.

I would explain to them the great challenges that had to be overcome in order to complete the bridge. There was a great human tragedy that involved the loss of many lives.

I would also like to point out that I am myself an engineer. The association of professional engineers distinguishes itself by the fact that all engineers in Canada wear an iron ring—now it is stainless steel—after they graduate. In a ceremony that was written by Rudyard Kipling, we swear to be true to the values of integrity that must guide us in our profession.

I mention this because there is a connection to the Quebec Bridge. Rumour has it that the iron rings given to the first engineers were made from a beam that was part of the central section of the Quebec Bridge, the section that collapsed into the St. Lawrence during construction. I am sorry to say this myth still persists today, but it makes a nice story.

Close to my riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie sits the Victoria Bridge. Opened as a federal rail bridge in 1859, the Victoria Bridge was the first bridge to span the St. Lawrence River. At the time, it was a sign of progress and a symbol of the power of industrial change that drove the century.

In a similar manner, the Quebec Bridge was built to permit travel between the south shore of the St. Lawrence River and the north shore at Quebec City.

In 1987, the Quebec Bridge was declared an international historic monument, as my colleague from Louis-Hébert mentioned, by the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering and the American Society of Civil Engineers. On January 24, 1996, the bridge was designated a national historic site of Canada. When it was completed, the Quebec Bridge became the longest cantilever bridge in the world.

Both bridges, the Victoria Bridge and the Quebec Bridge, which both accommodate rail and road traffic, are important transportation routes in their respective cities and both are undeniably jewels of railway architecture.

The Canadian National Railway inherited the Victoria Bridge from the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada in 1918. In 1962, Canadian National reached an agreement with Transport Canada which set out, among other things, a cost-sharing formula for bridge maintenance. This agreement delegated the responsibility for costs relating to maintenance and repair of the road surface and other operating expenses to Transport Canada.

Transport Canada also began compensating Canadian National for lost toll revenues, in the amount of $664,000 per year. According to a 1997 departmental press release, $150 million had been transferred to CN between 1962 and 1997 under this agreement. The maintenance costs for this bridge are shared by the government and Canadian National. Between 1997 and 2008, Transport Canada transferred approximately $54 million to Canadian National under this agreement.

The Quebec Bridge has a different story. Ownership of the Quebec Bridge was transferred from the federal government to the crown corporation CN for $1 in 1993. In 1995, CN, as we know, was privatized, making the bridge privately owned.

Unlike the Victoria Bridge, there is no ongoing agreement between the federal government and CN regarding federal contributions to the cost of maintaining the automobile portion of this bridge. In 1997 the federal government agreed to participate in a $60 million restoration of the bridge with the province of Quebec and CN. Under this project, the federal government, as my colleague from the government stated, contributed $6 million of the $60 million, at roughly $600,000 per annum over 10 years.

Due to a disagreement over painting the bridge, CN and the federal government are currently in court. The federal government alleges that the project was to include painting the bridge, but CN decided not to paint the bridge due to the additional necessary environmental mitigation costs.

My Bloc colleague's motion proposes that the federal government assume responsibility for the Quebec Bridge and that it ensure that the necessary maintenance and repair work is completed.

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie suggested a very sensible amendment to the Bloc motion. Essentially, my colleague is proposing that maintenance and repair costs be shared, under an agreement naturally, by the interested parties, namely Canadian National and the government. In other words, it is not acceptable for the government to be solely responsible for the costs.

I was born in Quebec City and my paternal ancestors were from Quebec City. I would like the Quebec Bridge to be preserved by ensuring that it is maintained. In my opinion, the amendment proposed by my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie—suggesting that we share the costs with Canadian National, one user of the bridge—is a pragmatic solution.

I hope that my Bloc colleagues will adopt this change. A solution was found for the Victoria Bridge. It seems to me that there is a solution for the Quebec Bridge that will ensure the preservation of this important part of our heritage.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, this problem is truly quite simple. The Bloc Québécois' solution is the only realistic option on the table.

In the Liberals' proposed change I see another example of their tendency to contradict themselves, as they did yesterday. Their words fell on deaf ears for two months on the importance of women's rights when it comes to reproduction and contraception.

This is the same Liberal Party which, last year, voted with the Conservatives to deprive women of their right to equal pay for work of equal value. Now they are trying to pass a private member's bill that has no chance of getting passed in the Senate. In the first instance, they voted against their own leader last night, which is unheard of in the history of this Parliament.

This is the same Liberal Party that rises today to say that it is indeed true that we were ripped off by Canadian National, but we will only make it pay for half the costs. That means that there are enough people on the board of directors at Canadian National who are cozy with the Liberals to say that, even though they are wrong, we will find a way for them to be right. The issue before us today is simply a matter of whether a corporation that made an acquisition for $1 and received huge compensation in the form of land, has the right to take advantage of Canadian taxpayers by refusing to do the work that is clearly part of the contract with CN.

Sometimes the Bloc has some very harsh things to say about my colleague from Lévis—Bellechasse, which I do not necessarily agree with entirely. I want to help him by inviting him to think next time he speaks in the House. When we are discussing a specific matter, he should make an effort to stay on topic. He rose earlier to talk to us about Rouge et Or football, when we were talking about repairing the Quebec Bridge, which is at risk of falling down if we continue to do nothing about it. He really lacks seriousness when we are talking about matters of great public interest.

The fact that the federal government has been in court since 2007 shows that even the Conservatives know that Canadian National is at fault and did not respect its commitment. The minister's assistant admitted that although it had committed to complete the work in 10 years, only one third of the painting had been done; two thirds remain to be done.

It started out wrong. It was as though they just had to ask a few summer students to paint the bridge. We are talking about protecting infrastructure. As strange and implausible as it sounds in a society as advanced as ours, a structure that was built nearly a century ago will collapse because we are not smart enough to agree on how to maintain it. I am not making that up. This is what is going on with the Quebec Bridge.

I would like to have heard the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier on this issue, since he used to be quite vocal about his suggestions on a radio talk show back in the day. I lived in Quebec City in the 1970s and 1980s. I cannot believe that after years of discussions and delays, we still have not reached an agreement.

One of the two parties is not respecting the contract, and instead of taking action, the government is dragging it out in court. I am a lawyer and I have nothing against appearing in court; it is good for the profession. But seriously, it is not good for anyone if a structure this vital to Quebec's second-largest city, which just happens to be its national capital, were to become unusable overnight.

The weakest and most incorrect argument I heard came from the minister's assistant. He repeatedly said that CN has reassured us that the bridge is fine.

CN is a company that does not keep its promises. What do they expect it to say? The government is taking CN to court because it is made up of a bunch of liars, yet the government believes the company when it says that everything is fine, that the bridge probably will not fall down, and that everything will probably be okay.

The minister's assistant went to see the bridge with the member for Lévis—Bellechasse five years ago, and he said that everything seemed fine to him. What was he basing that assessment on? Is there nobody in Canada who is capable of carrying out an objective analysis? People who have seen the dilapidated state of this crucial piece of infrastructure for themselves know how gullible we would have to be to take CN's word for it. The government is responsible for protecting the public. Earlier, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie was talking about engineers and their rings, a tradition that goes back to one of the beams that fell when the bridge collapsed. All I can say is that the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec has one single mandate: to protect the public.

I was the member for Laval for 13 or 14 years, and there were all kinds of issues in my riding during that time. CNN ran stories about the City of Laval twice, both times because infrastructure had collapsed, taking human lives. Can anyone blame us for doubting what CN says about everything being okay and unlikely to fall down? Maybe it is time we put people first.

I would like to congratulate the Bloc Québécois member on this very practical motion. I disapprove of the Liberals' attempt to water it down and render it meaningless by suggesting that the burden should be shared. In the name of protecting people and preserving communications across this vast nation, I call on the government to shoulder its responsibilities and resume the process of taking control of this property for one dollar, along with all of the land given to compensate CN, which has turned out to be an unreliable partner. The government must start acting in the public interest rather than in the interest of its business partners, which have proven themselves to be unreliable when it comes to the public interest.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must agree with the member for Outremont about the future of the Quebec Bridge as well as with the motion from my Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert.

The Quebec Bridge has become a major issue for the latter member's riding, given what it represents. It is a recognized historic monument because of its engineering and construction. It is a cantilever bridge. It is also recognized as a main artery between the south and north shores.

When the Liberals were in power, the rust that is damaging the bridge was not taken care of. It was painted, but not with the right products. That has led to more rust and catastrophic deterioration. Not only is a historic monument being neglected, so is a main artery between the north and south shores.

The Conservatives are doing the same thing the Liberals did—hiding behind a legal battle between CN and the government.

For example, the bridge could be taken back and the restoration work done immediately and then an agreement could be reached with CN. It does not matter whose responsibility it would be; we just need action. The Liberals did not act. And no one is acting now.

We are talking about the Quebec Bridge. I do not want the member for Lévis to come to me saying that they had built a monument or that they had put money into the Quebec City airport. That is not what we are talking about. This is something else. We are talking about the Quebec Bridge. We will do our best to keep them from changing the subject tonight. The Conservatives have nothing to say right now and that is why they are trying to dazzle people with talk about the other investments they have made.

Yesterday morning we learned that the lead in the bridge's paint is running into the river and that the runoff beneath the bridge contains up to 76 times more lead than standards allow. That is a consequence of allowing so much rust to accumulate on the bridge. I find it ironic that a federal law forbids dumping any harmful substances into the river, yet the Conservatives are the ones responsible for doing just that.

Instead, they should take the bull by the horns and agree to repair it. Then when the time comes to negotiate with CN, they can try to recover the funds from CN, which is an irresponsible owner. We have known that for some time. The bridge has been left to deteriorate and everyone is hiding behind legal procedures.

They did the same thing regarding Shannon. They even wanted to challenge the class action suit in the case of Shannon, because they do not want to pay the price or assume their responsibilities. Yet that, too, is a question of pollution. The Department of National Defence polluted the waters of Shannon.

In the past, maintenance was done on the bridge every five years. That is no longer the case. The member for Lévis—Bellechasse was saying earlier that we are being told that the bridge is safe, that it poses no problem and there is no danger. As the member for Outremont was saying earlier, we believe CN, but considering the promises it made regarding maintenance for the bridge, we now see that it has been an irresponsible owner.

If not for the motion put forward by my colleague from Louis-Hébert, we would not be talking about the Quebec Bridge here today. The Quebec Bridge would continue to be ignored.

One might have expected to see some funds allocated to restoring the bridge in the last budget. As we saw, funds were given to other provinces and to Montreal for the maintenance of certain bridges. I am not saying that money should not have been invested. There are five Conservative members in the region and even they were not able to get any money or to lock in the funding that would immediately correct the situation.

I do not know if the member for Lévis—Bellechasse will speak to this issue, but I would really like to hear from him regarding the future of the Quebec Bridge.

How much money will the Conservative government invest? What will it decide regarding its position on the bridge?

It is before the courts, and we are waiting. I have been in this House since 1993 and for at least 15 years I have been hearing about problems with the Quebec Bridge. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have been able to find the right solution for the Quebec Bridge. Meanwhile, the bridge is deteriorating. It is a historic monument and has been recognized by experts as an extraordinary example of this type of bridge.

The Conservative government has greatly disappointed us in a number of files in the region. I also remember the plans to locate public servants in D'Estimauville, in the Beauport—Limoilou sector.

The entire Quebec City region, including the Chamber of Commerce and all leaders in the area, was mobilized. The Conservatives did not want to take action and the member for Beauport—Limoilou was not even at the press conference. She had to be pushed hard. In addition, there were three calls for tenders, and a great deal of time and money was wasted to finally get a “yes” out of the Conservatives.

When you want the Conservatives to take action, you have to put pressure on them. However, when they make a decision, they make three or four announcements. They organize press conferences to announce the same amount of money that had been announced one or three months before, but with delays of several years.

If a decision is not made immediately, it will cost a great deal more. And not just because of inflation. There is more and more rust on the bridge. Experts have examined the bridge and found that it is so highly corroded that it is going to be much more expensive to restore the bridge.

The member for Lévis—Bellechasse may be the last to speak and I would like him to speak about the Quebec Bridge. I do not want him to speak about anything but the Quebec Bridge. The motion is on the Quebec Bridge. I want him to stop listing the investments made in the Quebec City region and to stop saying that the Bloc does not want the region to grow. On the contrary, file by file, we are monitoring the future of the Quebec City region.

The member for Lévis—Bellechasse is laughing his head off, but I think he should be serious and show that the Quebec Bridge is important to him. I would like him to announce that the government is prepared to invest in restoring the Quebec Bridge. I urge him to look at the deterioration of the bridge. When the Conservatives were in opposition, they said they wanted to do better.

It does not look as if they are doing better for the Quebec Bridge. Or the Quebec City armoury, for that matter. It burned down two years ago. The government promised to rebuild it, but we do not know when that will happen; we have not heard a date. The government held public consultations. During the first consultation, they had to be backed into a corner for us to get information about the future of the armoury. Then a second consultation was held by a building expert, but this report was not made public. The government keeps everything secret and works in a vacuum. Quebec's national capital commission asked to be more involved in the issue, so that it could figure out how to adjust its development work in the area surrounding this historic focal point of Quebec City.

The Conservatives only do things their own way and they operate in a vacuum. We do not know where they are going. Perhaps the member for Lévis—Bellechasse will talk about the building in D'Estimauville. I can say that some mistakes were made, and three calls for tender were needed because no one knew what was going on and the criteria were extremely vague. It was not until two years later that any questions were answered. After the greater Quebec City region starting putting on the pressure, press conferences were even held on the subject.

I hope that the member for Lévis—Bellechasse will give us some good news about the Quebec Bridge. I hope he does not get too lost in his files, since tonight it is the Quebec Bridge we are talking about.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Québec.

I listened carefully to her speech and I would like to thank her for taking the time to point out the many achievements of the Conservative members from Quebec since January 2006. I thank her for pointing out these fantastic achievements, such as the Quebec City airport. I am very proud, because before I was even elected I went to meet with the airport management, who told us that Quebec City needed contemporary, modern infrastructure in time for the 400th anniversary celebrations.

That is what we did, under the leadership of the minister responsible for the Quebec City region and the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou. Of course, there have been other projects. She mentioned Estimauville, but of course that is not the purpose of my speech today. So I would like to thank her. There is also the Quebec City armoury. Unfortunately, the member for Québec votes against the estimates and the funding that have been proposed to respect our commitment to rebuild the Quebec City armoury. This is not the purpose of my speech either, but again, I would like to thank the member for pointing out the importance and the great achievements of the Conservative members. I am not done here; we will continue.

That being said, I want to talk about the motion before us today, a motion about the Quebec Bridge from the member for Louis-Hébert. I must say that I will oppose it strenuously and tirelessly. Nevertheless, we have found common ground today. All of the members who have spoken to this issue in the House, regardless of their party affiliation, recognize the importance of keeping the Quebec Bridge in good repair and taking all necessary measures to restore this important structure. I agree that we need to find a long-term solution for the Quebec Bridge, a viable solution that works for all stakeholders and users. The bridge is a heritage gem.

The member for Westmount—Ville-Marie referred to the legend of the engineer's ring. He is absolutely right. As the story goes, the rings are made from a supporting beam from the Quebec Bridge. All Quebeckers and Canadians care about this structure. As we heard in his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, my colleague from Fort McMurray—Athabasca, reiterated his personal commitment and his commitment as a government member to finding a workable solution for the Quebec Bridge.

But what did the opposition propose today? The Bloc has a tendency to improvise. Over the past three years, Bloc members have come up with three impossible ideas, much like a magician produces improbable rabbits from a hat. Some of those ideas have been utterly preposterous. They have suggested fixing a bridge that does not belong to us, reclaiming ownership, and investing. They are going madly off in all directions. Maybe they will have yet another idea by next week. The Quebec Bridge deserves better. It deserves good ideas. Most of all, it deserves a clear direction, a strong will, and a solid commitment to see to its long-term viability.

Earlier, the NDP member from the Montreal region said that there was a problem because the private sector had not done its job and taxpayers were going to have to pay the price. He suggested that taxpayers were being played for fools and would have to clean up the private sector's mess in the end. That is not quite how we approach the issue. The government has to take a responsible approach. I would like to offer the NDP member some reassurance. Transport Canada inspectors have inspected the bridge. It is safe. My wife crosses it every day, and I sleep soundly at night.

That said, I would like to remind the members of the House that it was the members opposite, the Liberals, who were in power when the problems with the Quebec Bridge first began. They chose not to act. We had to wait until February 2007—I remember that we came to power in 2006—before the government took concrete measures to force Canadian National to respect the agreement. So, we put an end to the inaction and we took measures. That is what I want to talk to you about today, the measures that we are taking to restore the Quebec Bridge to its glory days as well as its role as an important symbol for both the Quebec and Chaudière—Appalaches regions.

In February 2007, we took legal action after years of dithering from the former Liberal government. That government had done little to ensure that Canadian National would repair the bridge, as it had promised to do.

We saw enough of their promises without results. It is a broken record.

In the meantime, the Bloc, yesterday and today, has proposed a host of inconsistent policies that taxpayers will eventually have to pay for.

In 2008, the leader of the Bloc or the leader of the resistance—I am not sure what to call him these days—improvised by proposing:

that Ottawa resume the work immediately and cover the cost and when the trial is over, if the government wins, it can send the bill to CN.

How can the government unilaterally do work on infrastructure that does not belong to us? The answer is in the question. That is just not done. This makes no sense. We are not going to commit taxpayer money to something so risky.

That is surely why today the hon. member for Louis-Hébert is proposing another idea. He is pulling yet another rabbit out of his hat. This is full-blown improvisation. Fortunately, recess is over. The Liberals' inaction and the Bloc's improvisation stop with our government.

We think the Quebec Bridge is in good shape, but we must take the necessary measures to ensure the work is done.

I would now like to move on to the lawsuits against CN that are under way. In the proceedings, Transport Canada is asking the court to rule that Canadian National did not meet its contractual obligation to repair the Quebec Bridge. We are also asking that CN be required to finish the repair work, including painting the structure. If not, it will have to reimburse Transport Canada for the contributions made for repairing the bridge.

When do we expect a decision to be made? The court has accepted CN's proposal to split the proceedings in two. Accordingly, the first case will determine the nature and scope of Canadian National's obligations under the agreements made in 1993 and 1997.

A second case to determine whether Canadian National has breached its contractual obligations will be heard afterward.

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

He will have two minutes left when the bill is next considered by the House.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, something really exciting is happening in Nova Scotia.

There was a very exciting announcement this summer where our government announced that it was looking to get 25% renewables on line by 2015. This is a pretty ambitious target when we consider the fact that Nova Scotia does not have vast sources of hydro like other provinces. The vast majority of our electricity actually does come from coal-fired power plants. I applaud the NDP government in Nova Scotia for this bold move.

We are one of many provinces across Canada that is looking to renewables to clean up our electricity systems while at the same time creating the jobs of tomorrow.

Earlier this month in question period, I asked the minister if the federal government planned on being a serious partner with the provinces in these efforts. Right now it does not look like it is ready to be that serious partner, because the ecoEnergy for renewable power project is out of money for new projects and the sustainable development technology program was completely absent from the last budget.

This hurts Nova Scotia, Atlantic Canada and all of Canada. The government is funding carbon sequestration projects over renewables at a ratio of 7 to 1, sending more and more of our money to oil companies and coal-fired plants than to tidal research or wind or solar. We have all kinds of wind producers in Nova Scotia, as an example.

In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and Newfoundland and Labrador, we are poised to produce green power, clean power. We have literally a tar sands worth of jobs right there, waiting for it, if we would just invest strategically in research and development.

The Pembina Institute and Environment Northeast have done a really great analysis of this past budget in relation to renewables and energy efficiency technology. They actually did give this budget a failing grade. Despite the government's claim that we are in step with our American neighbours, we are in fact being outspent on renewables by a ratio of 18 to 1 at the federal level.

These two groups point out that the relative share of expenditures between our two countries is really important when we consider the inter-connectedness of our energy markets, and that we actually compete for clean energy jobs and capital investments. The relative levels of government investment and support in clean energy will actually play a part in dictating where clean energy investments are likely to happen.

I have witnessed this in Nova Scotia, at both the micro and the macro level. Starting with the macro in Halifax, I have met incredible researchers who are doing this kind of research and development in renewables, in particular in tidal and wind. We are centre of research and innovation in Halifax. We are a hub of knowledge and exploration. It is this kind of work that must be supported federally with programs like the SDT and ecoEnergy renewable power.

On the micro level in Nova Scotia, I had the privilege to work on the demand side management programs. These are energy efficiency programs that would actually be paid for and run by the utility. This was part of my work with the Affordable Energy Coalition prior to being elected.

In developing these programs, we actually had to have a budget line, right there. It was there for training new workers for these green jobs that we had created. Now it was not very many jobs, but we created jobs by investing in the green economy, by investing in green technologies. This is what we are losing out on if we fail to continue funding important programs like this.

I call on this government to renew funding for the sustainable development technology program and the ecoEnergy for renewable power program as soon as possible to ensure—

[The Acting Speaker, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, allow me to shine the light of reality on the real and significant extent to which the Government of Canada is supporting the full spectrum of Canada's diverse energy sector.

This government is putting into action a balanced set of initiatives that are delivering tangible benefits for Canadians by increasing our competitiveness, creating jobs and improving our air quality and the environment.

I should not need to remind the House that Canada is blessed with unparalleled economic advantages and resources. This government recognizes its responsibilities to leverage those advantages to secure Canada's place as a clean energy superpower and a leader in green job creation. We lead the world in clean electricity generation and will continue to do so.

Canada's electricity supply mix is already one of the cleanest in the world and we plan on making it even better through regulation. That is why we have set the goal of providing 90% of Canada's electricity needs by non-emitting sources such as hydro, nuclear, solar or wind power by 2020.

We are making the investments to make that happen. Natural Resources Canada is investing over $7 billion in clean energy through initiatives such as our eco-energy programs, the clean energy fund and Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

On renewable energy investments, budget 2010 announced $100 million over the next four years to establish a next generation renewable power initiative that will support clean energy technologies in the forest sector. That is good news for my home province of British Columbia and all forestry regions.

Our initiatives and our investments are helping Canadians use energy more efficiently, boost renewable energy supplies and develop cleaner energy technologies. This investment is creating jobs and providing economic and environmental benefits coast to coast to coast and will continue to do so for many years to come.

Our renewable incentive programs provide incentives for each unit of energy produced for several years. The $1.5 billion eco-energy for renewable power initiative provides incentives for up to 10 years after a project is built and is leveraging $14 billion of private investments over 20 years. The $1.5 billion eco-energy for biofuels initiative provides incentives for up to seven years after a project is built.

Many of these projects are still being built or will be built shortly, which means these programs are also creating jobs in trades and construction.

While these projects are being built and for several years after these projects are built, they create and maintain green jobs and provide economic and environmental benefits for Canadians.

Our clean energy fund is investing up to $146 million over five years for renewable and clean energy demonstration projects, including the integration of renewable energy sources for heat and power.

In addition to our renewable energy programs, our energy efficiency programs support businesses, industry and households, reduce the amount of energy they use, helping the environment and leaving more money in the pockets of Canadians.

We are also investing in clean energy technologies to demonstrate the greatest potential for progress, such as carbon capture and storage. These programs are substantial and ongoing investments in jobs, our economy and our environment.

Our $7 billion investment in clean energy at Natural Resources Canada has achieved results and will continue to do so for the coming years.

Our actions are paying off. By developing and deploying clean energy technologies, we are helping Canada to become a clean energy superpower.