David McGuinty

[Canada Transportation Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to respond to the minister and to speak to Bill C-11.

Today we begin debating Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. I am pleased that this debate is taking place as it will enable us to help Canadians understand the path that this project has taken.

Amendments to the Canada Transportation Act were introduced for the first time in Bill C-26 during the second session of the 37th Parliament.

Unfortunately, the current Prime Minister and the rest of the Canadian Alliance at the time were opposed to these measures and voted against them at second reading.

We reintroduced these amendments in Bill C-44 in the 38th Parliament. Once again the opposition at that time felt that the bill presented to the House was not good legislation. It decided to bring down the government and at the same time to drop the bill for a second time.

If this sounds familiar, let me assure the House that it is not déjà vu. One of the last debates that was held before the House rose this past spring concerned Bill C-3, the first bill brought to our consideration by the Minister of Transport in the 39th Parliament. During the debate on the bill, I welcomed the minister's decision to bring important legislation, which had died on the order paper, back to the floor of the House.

Bill C-11 is the second bill that the Minister of Transport has introduced in this session, which relies on the heavy lifting of a previous Liberal government, and it will not be the last.

We are happy to see the minority government again endorsing solid Liberal legislation in actions rather than words, by pushing for Bill C-11's quick adoption in the House. While we agree in principle with much of what is being presented, there have been substantial changes to the workings of the bill. My colleagues and I will address some of these and outline our concerns today and in the days ahead. In turn, though, the onus remains on the government to convince us and Canadians that the legislation is still well-founded.

The parliamentary history of the bill is important at the outset for our context and so too is the wider history of the two bills that Bill C-11 aims to amend.

Back in 1996, a decade ago, the first of the two, the Canada Transportation Act, laid out our national transport policy. It was really a vision to modernize and deregulate rail and airline traffic. It consolidated the 1987 National Transportation Act, which itself had roots in a 1967 predecessor, and the venerable Railway Act into one unified law. At the same time the new Canada Transportation Act took steps to reduce or eliminate subsidies for transport, costs that were borne by all Canadians.

The second act to be amended by Bill C-11 is the Railway Safety Act. The act allows Transport Canada to review and upgrade the regulations, the standards and rules for rail safety oversight. It is precautionary legislation and should be the home of our attempts to improve the safety for the millions and millions of children and pedestrians, motorists, travellers and workers who come into contact with trains every day across our country.

A thorough statutory review of the Canada Transportation Act was completed again by our government in 2001 and it was very important in forming Bill C-11 by way of its earlier incarnations. The bill we debate today is the third attempt to legislate following that review.

Let me begin our consideration with provisions that are similar in principle to the most recent version that we presented, Bill C-44.

I would like to review some of the provisions of this bill beginning with those concerning noise caused by railway operations.

My riding, like a good number of Canadian communities, is home to railway activities and I am fully aware of the disputes arising between residents of the communities and the railway companies because of noise.

I am pleased to see that proposed amendments to the Canada Transportation Act empower the Canadian Transportation Agency to deal with noise complaints and, if necessary, to order railway companies to make changes in order to reduce unreasonable noise.

This is an important matter, one aspect of the problem that my colleagues and I look forward to examining in greater detail.

Also on the subject of rail, proposed amendments in Bill C-11 involve the expansion of the provisions on railway line transfers and discontinuances to cover rail corridors, such as spurs and sidings, in urban areas that could be used for urban transit purposes.

As members may know, I have long been a strong proponent and advocate of public urban transit. In fact , right here in the city of Ottawa I was pleased to help deliver $200 million of federal funding to expand our own O-Train.

Steps that we can take to improve public transit and advance the use of rail in Canadian cities are worthwhile undertakings. Giving a right of refusal for urban transit authorities to purchase rail that would otherwise be abandoned is very good public policy. That is why two previous Liberal ministers of transport have tried to pass the legislation through the House.

On a related subject, I am also frustrated with the government's ill-informed tax break on public transit passes.

Many riders, as we know, do not have monthly or yearly passes to use public transit. In fact, many users forgo passes for the flexibility of tickets. The most needy riders simply do not have the wherewithal to buy an annual pass. Studies that were shown to the Minister of Finance before he took his decision to make transit passes tax deductible, and brought to his attention by his own officials, demonstrated that tax deductible transit passes did not encourage increasing ridership and did not have the corollary intended effect of substantial greenhouse gas reductions that the government purported they should have. The cost per tonne of GHG reduction through these transit passes is exorbitantly high. This again speaks to the pattern of the government of never letting the evidence get in the way of governing by tax credit.

The Conservatives should have spent the budget money on better infrastructure and lower rates for all users.

However, getting back to Bill C-11, if these amendments mean more urban rail, then I say that we should take a look.

The minister has asserted that Bill C-11 would bring clarity in airfare advertising by giving the Canadian Transportation Agency the authority to regulate advertised pricing of airfares. The goal, of course, is to indicate all fees, all charges and all taxes collected by the airline on behalf of a government body or an airport authority. It must also disclose the price of an airline ticket for both domestic and international travel.

If these provisions, which are also inherited from our Bill C-44, ultimately help everyday Canadians to more readily understand and determine the total cost of a travelling ticket and the terms and conditions that apply to its purchase, then I will welcome them on behalf of my constituents who, as consumers, face a barrage of misleading information, often from the travel sector.

Bill C-11 would create a mediation process for disputes concerning federal transportation matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Agency.

The member for Outremont, as Minister of Transport, delivered legislative language to this House on this for us because mediation is less litigious and therefore quicker and cheaper and ultimately leads to friendlier resolutions in transportation disagreements.

Bill C-11 would add security to the list of purposes for which transportation data can be collected by the minister. This is an expansion of the minister's powers that was fiercely resisted by the Canadian Alliance the last time it was debated and fiercely by the Prime Minister the last time it was debated.

As someone who witnessed the events of 9/11 as a visitor in Washington D.C. on the morning that those awful events occurred, I am open to considering such measures. We need to give our government the tools to protect us in the event of threats to Canadian life that are meticulously planned and malicious.

However, I recognize that this provision sets off alarm bells for many actors in Canadian society, not least because it would allow the minister to set administrative monetary penalties for individuals or companies that do not supply data that the minister might request.

As I indicated earlier, the onus is on the minister to justify this expansion of his powers to all Canadians. I look forward to the explanations from the minister about the import of certain other provisions as well. Let me briefly outline some of them.

Bill C-11 would reduce the number of members of the Canadian Transportation Agency from seven to five. We just heard the minister state that this would lead to cost savings. I would be looking for the numbers. If we move from seven part time members to five full time members now resident in the Ottawa area, I would like to see the numbers to substantiate this claim that it will amount to cost savings while at the same time the mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency is being seriously expanded.

Our proposal was to streamline the agency in Bill C-44 and it could have been law by now. The minister will have to explain to Canadians why fewer members can do the job better than the seven who are currently endorsed, while the mandate of the agency is being expanded in the act.

Bill C-11 would allow Transport Canada to review mergers and acquisitions in all federal transportation sectors, not just airlines as our Bill C-44 planned in the last Parliament. This is a very large discretionary power, a power that is being invested in the minister and in the government. I imagine that the government would say that it is necessary to protect the national interest. However, it is a provision with economic consequences. I would ask the minister to outline his rationale for this incursion, for this disturbance, for this fettering of the market. It is unusual to hear a Conservative government speak of fettering the marketplace, particularly as it expands into the precious area of mergers and acquisitions.

Bill C-11 would require companies to set a process for complaints against their railway police constables under the Railway Safety Act. This too was part of our inspirational predecessor Bill C-44. It refers to the creation of an internal complaints process rather than a government process or board of some sort. Is an internal process up to the job? The minister has not addressed the question at all. By demanding that records be kept it should permit us to retrace the facts and timeline of any complaints.

One area that has attracted public attention and will inevitably require the government's thorough explanation is the elimination of the post of Air Travel Complaints Commissioner. Many Canadians will recall that this position was introduced by the Liberal government in 2000 with the merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines.

Bill C-11 would officially merge the complaints process into the mainstream of the Canadian Transportation Agency dropping the more autonomous ombudsman-like position which heretofore found its way into the office of the Air Travel Complaints Commissioner. Why? We have supported this position in the past and we may be prepared to do so again but not without a full and frank examination of the point.

Bill C-11 is composed of amendments that are the fruit of extensive consultations that our government conducted to update the legislative framework of our national transportation system. The way that Bill C-11 is currently written, the minister would be required to report on the state of Canadian transportation every three years and carry out a new statutory review of the Canadian Transportation Act eight years after Bill C-11 enters into force.

All of this being said, I must wrap up on a note of disappointment. Section 43 of Bill C-11 alludes to a major reversal in policy, a decision taken early on by the minister that has rightly upset farmers right across our Canadian western provinces.

The Government of Canada made a commitment in 1996 to transfer the federal fleet of hopper cars to the Farmer Rail Car Coalition. The final commitment was signed in the fall of 2005 but the Conservative government has now reneged. We have no explanation and no understanding. The minister spoke moments ago about cost savings and about a net saving of $2 per tonne of material shipped. No evidence has been presented to the House and I see no evidence at committee. I am looking forward to hearing why it is the government has reneged and why farmers continue to pay more than is necessary to ship their product.

My colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, has mounted a passionate opposition. We will hear from him again on this subject in due course.

I do commend the government for reintroducing many of our forward looking transport measures in this 39th parliament. For the most part, with Bill C-11 the minister has again lent credence to that old literary maxim that goes something like this, “sometimes good writers borrow, but great writers steal”.

I wish to be clear that there are significant new provisions in the bill. As such, I look forward to working with hon. colleagues from all parties to properly and thoroughly examine and revise Bill C-11 in committee.

[Canada Transportation Act, September 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for appearing this morning and sharing with us the salient features of Bill C-11. There are obviously many questions from members here that run through the essential elements of the bill.

First, I would like to congratulate the minister on being here this morning. We have not seen him for a few weeks, even though the important issue of security at the Montreal airport has been under discussion. This is a rather disturbing issue for Canadians.

It is important to raise a couple of core points before responding officially to the government's bill.

I have a couple of pointed questions for the minister that deal with what is not in the bill as opposed to what is in the bill. I do also at the same time congratulate the minister for his candour in reminding the House of Commons that the vast majority of this legislation is in fact legislation from our previous government. There was an awful lot of heavy lifting done by government officials and all members of the House, but I do want to give him those kudos because it does take great big shoulders to admit that the lion's share of the work here was accomplished by previous governments.

There are two pointed questions I want to put to him. First, if I understand the bill correctly, this bill provides new powers to the minister and the government to devolve further the responsibility for federally regulated railways, and this at a time when the government represents a government which strictly interprets the Constitution and responsibilities. Is that the case?

Second, there is no talk at all in the bill about final offer arbitration, a very contentious issue. I would like to ask the minister for his views in this regard. Why is final offer arbitration not addressed in the bill?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's wide ranging remarks on consultation. I would like to ask a couple of pointed questions.

He and his colleague are asserting in the motion that there needs to be a reference back to the standing committee to reconsider clauses 7 and 24. First of all, could the member tell the House what is the state of consultation requirements today with respect to anything that the bill addresses? If he does not actually know what the state of consultation is today, how can he assert that it is deficient?

The second question I put to the member concerns his definition of consultation, which is an interesting one. I have not seen it ever reflected in a judicial opinion. I have not seen it in conducting consultation in over 40 national consultation processes in the last decade before I entered elected office.

The member talks about consultation and almost implies that consultation means a seat at the table, and not only a seat at the table but the party being compelled to attend, or that there has to be a manifestation of the views of that party that is going to be consulted in the outcome.

Consultation has always meant consulting. It does not mean necessarily that the parties being consulted are going to get their way. It does not mean that they are going to have to see their views ultimately reflected in the outcome. From whence does he derive his definition of consultation?

He has asserted here twice now that the previous government undermined the powers of Parliament. He has asserted that we expanded the discretionary powers for ministers over 13 years. Asserting something does not make it so. Where is the evidence for either of those claims?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, first, my views about consultation in a previous life and my views about consultation in this life remain unchanged. In fact, if we want to talk about environmental considerations, there are extremely onerous environmental assessment standards across the country, primarily provincial but some federal. My views on the need to achieve sustainable development in the way we pursue international bridges and tunnels remains unchanged.

Second, with respect to my colleague from North Vancouver who tabled the motion, I am afraid I was not a member of the committee at the time that motion was tabled. I did not have the privilege of hearing about it nor debating it, but I would remind the hon. member, if I understood his recollection of the motion, it had nothing whatsoever to do with international bridges and tunnels. We are debating international bridges and tunnels here today.

Third, with respect to what I said moments ago, I will repeat it for the record. It is incumbent upon those members of the New Democratic Party who are concerned about the consultation question to answer some fundamental questions that are more complex than simply saying that any city where a bridge or tunnel is located ought to be, should be or must be consulted. It is not that simple. This is not a simple business and it is incumbent upon the NDP and particularly on the private sector side to explain to the House and to private sector actors precisely what the impacts of their calls for change would be.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to pick up on the theme of consultation because it is interesting to note this morning the extent to which it is driving a wedge between two parties which have formed an obvious partnership over the last several months together in the House, both of which have gone public now to explain to Canadians what that partnership means and why it is important for them.

But let me go to the specific question of consultation. I commend the NDP for raising the question of consultation. Our Liberal government was the government that transformed the relationship and the approach to other orders of government, particularly cities. We were the government that launched the cities deal. We were the government that launched infrastructure funding. We were the government that invested massively in public transit, in water systems and in waste systems.

We were the government that was brought down by the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives, and now we have a situation where a government that might have been perhaps more receptive to the notion of outreach to cities and provinces is now the official opposition. So first let me say that it is rich for the NDP members to not remind Canadians that they had and have some responsibility for putting into government a Conservative regime which, in the last election, was not endorsed by 37 mayors of the largest cities of this country.

However, given that we are talking about consultation, I think there is a duty here on the New Democratic Party, on this member in particular and his colleagues, to put forth with clarity here what it is they are trying to achieve. It is one thing to say that we are going to hold town hall meetings in an affected community and perform, as I think the member's colleague mentioned earlier, what I describe as flash card consultation, that is, now we see it and now we do not, we take under advisement; go back into the kitchen cabinet and make a decision.

There are provisions, it is true, in other federal, provincial and municipal legislation and bylaws that will compel a degree of consultation with the affected community. This is true, but there is a question that concerns me the most about the member seizing upon consultation with a specific and separate order of government, i.e. the cities in particular and the city of Windsor in particular. The question that concerns me, having seized upon that, is that the member has not at all brought clarity to the question of the impacts on private parties.

What does it mean if the minister is compelled? What does it mean that the minister “shall” consult with private parties? What are the legal ramifications of such consultation? What are the litigious possible outcomes derived from such possible consultations? What about trade secrets? What about enforcement?

All of these things have not been debated. I think it is a little disingenuous of my colleague to seize upon the municipal consultation question, which I deeply respect and am deeply concerned about, without bringing forward a fuller gamut of solutions to deal with the impacts of instructing a minister of the Crown that he or she would be obliged to perform some kind of consultation.

Yes, there is some legal definition around consultation as rendered by courts at different levels, but I think it is important now to circumscribe this. I am looking for more clarity.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here this morning to speak to the House on Bill C-3, respecting international bridges and tunnels.

As we have already heard, there are currently 24 bridges and tunnels along the 6,400 km of border that separates Canada from the United States. These bridges and tunnels have different owners: 22 are publicly owned, while two others, along with five rail bridges and tunnels, are privately owned.

In order to emphasize for the House just how important this bill is for Canada, let me state again for the record several key points about the subject of this legislation.

First, international bridges and tunnels play an indispensable role in Canada's transportation network. They facilitate a large portion of our vastly successful international trade. As one of the most trade dependent nations on the face of the earth, the role of international bridges and tunnels to our economy can hardly be overstated.

Second, some 13 years after the Liberal government signed onto the North American Free Trade Agreement, trade between Canada and the United States has increased rapidly, year after year. We know that trade increases averaged more than 6% per year over the last decade, thanks, at least in part, to NAFTA and of course the ingenuity and the commitment of the Canadian people.

Third, we also know that the great majority of Canadian exports into the United States go by rail or by truck, particularly in crossings between Ontario, New York and Michigan. This is extraordinarily important when we consider the role, for example, that the auto industry and the auto parts industry play in the context of central Canada's economy. As the jurisdiction that now produces cars more efficiently than any other single nation state in the world, it is extremely important that we ensure that transportation between our two countries remains unimpeded.

The reality of modern business practice now compels most companies to minimize their inventory and, in fact, many companies today track their inventory in live time as it is shipped or delivered. This just in time inventory management practice and system has swept through most economic sectors and has met with success in large part because companies count on seamless, continent-wide transportation and delivery systems.

Fourth, as I mentioned previously, in 2005 our bilateral trade exceeded $580 billion. Every single day trade between the United States and Canada exceeds $1.6 billion. One study rightly suggests that if Canada does not properly operate and maintain its existing stock of international bridges and tunnels and go further and consider developing new such crossings, then Canada might lose up to 70,000 jobs by 2030 and possibly forgo almost $22 billion in production.

To quote my colleague, the hon. member for Outremont, when he was the minister of transport he made it clear that what was needed was to give to federal government, finally, the legislative authority required for effective oversight of these international bridges and tunnels to ensure the interests of Canadians were protected.

The parliamentary secretary was right in reminding the House that this was, in large part, the work of the previous Liberal government. It was our government's work in this area which culminated in an understanding that we must make more coherent our overall approach to these vital structures.

It is no secret that this bill is identical in purpose to legislation that our government brought to the House on two separate and previous occasions. Here is the chronology of what has brought us to the debate this morning. It began with the Canada Transportation Act amendments that were very much along the lines of the current Bill C-3 we are debating. These were tabled as part of Bill C-26 during the second session of the 37th Parliament when our party formed the government.

It is extremely important to remind Canadians that the current Prime Minister and the rest of what was then the Canadian Alliance Party were not interested at all in working for those amendments and they voted against them at second reading. To this day I am unsure as to what the rationale, if any, was at that time.

In the 38th Parliament we tabled Bill C-44, which included the very same amendments, and once again the opposition of the day, now the government, found little, if any, merit in our proposals, as it did with so many good Liberal bills on the order paper at the time, choosing instead to bring down the government with the help of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois and, in effect, for a second consecutive time, kill the legislation.

As we know, outspoken members of the Conservative government are fond of the preposterous and now ridiculous claim that previous Liberal governments did nothing. The introduction of Bill C-3 is a clear statement for Canadians by the current government, in actions rather than words, that the previous Liberal governments were working in the interests of all Canadians.

I want to thank the Minister of Transport for this vote of great confidence. I am sure he and his parliamentary secretary would be willing to give credit where credit is due. At its core, Bill C-3 is the exercising of the federal government's constitutional powers. These are outlined in sections 91(29) and 92(10) of the Constitution Act of 1867.

However, for everyday Canadians who are watching, from Cornwall to Windsor, at every place where there might be such an international crossing, this bill reaffirms our government's investment in the safety and security of this country.

Although at first blush the bill would appear to invest, in an almost unfettered way, authority in the governor in council or the Minister of Transport when it comes to all matters dealing with international bridges and tunnels, but closer examination suggests that it achieves the right balance; a balance between the free movement of people, goods, services and the need for emergency powers, standards for building, owning, financing or operating such a bridge or tunnel but all the while building in safeguards to protect against excessive control and appropriate security standards.

For example, under the bill no one would be able to build, change or alter an international bridge or tunnel without getting approval. Most Canadians would consider that to be more than obvious, but this is a hallmark feature of the previous Liberal government's approach to this issue. I would expect no less from the current government than to cut and then to paste these sections into the new bill.

A transparent and predictable approvals process is set out in Bill C-3, including the need for documentation, giving very wide scope for the imposition of any terms and conditions that the Crown, on behalf of the people, considers appropriate.

When it comes to maintenance or repairs, the Minister of Transport would be authorized to order any action of an owner or operator to ensure that for Canadian businesses and citizens the bridge or tunnel is kept in good condition.

Perhaps of all the parts of the bill I am most supportive of is the work done by our government and taken up by the Conservative government, which is now reflected in the bill, and it deals with the issuance of letters patent for incorporation. In simple terms, this allows for the creation of a new company or corporation which could build or operate an international bridge or tunnel. This is not unimportant going forward with the growth of our economy and the concentration of trade with the United States.

Our government worked very hard to ensure a high degree of specificity around any new company that might get into the business of building a bridge or a tunnel. We went as far as to require approval for the number of directors on a corporate board. The current bill reflects this. We are asking to see their powers and duties. We are demanding that a code of conduct would apply to such directors and officers. Finally, the terms of ownership of the corporation would be spelled out in black and white for all Canadians.

We went further to protect Canadians. It is reflected in the bill that we believed then, as we do now, that the government should be in a position to revoke letters patent of incorporation that had been previously granted. This is a strong power vested in the Crown, but one that we felt at the time, and we still agree, might be necessary in the case of risks associated with the free flow of goods, of people or security. As well, we provided very onerous duty of care provisions for any directors or officers of corporations in the international bridges or tunnels business.

All in all, our foundational work, which underpins the bill, reflects the fact that it is simply appropriate for the federal government to oversee international bridges and tunnels. Other orders of government would expect that their national government would have these powers. Canadians who are watching would assume that their federal government was looking after these matters because they deal with one other country in particular.

To pick up on a comment I made earlier, for all their allegations about a government that apparently did nothing for 13 years, a blame game theme that is wearing thin for most Canadians, it is terribly ironic that the new government continues to take our substantive work for the underpinnings for the bill. This is not the first time that Liberal ideas have been begged, borrowed or stolen, or usually adopted, and neither will this be the last.

Canadians could be forgiven for concluding, from its stance on the bill and so many other actions, that the Conservative government speaks out of both sides of its mouth. It wants Canadians to believe a fundamental falsehood: that the heavy lifting and the substance of our time in government simply did not occur. So it is important, I think, to be very honest about the bill.

As the minister is well aware, and as we have just heard in previous exchanges, there is a lingering debate in the House about the provisions in Bill C-3 that speak to the issue of consultation. That is to say, should the Minister of Transport ultimately authorize, for example, the construction of a new bridge or the expansion of an existing tunnel, what might be the obligations on the minister to consult with other orders of government and any other interested parties such as banks, finance companies, corporations, international owners and national owners?

Some have argued that municipal or provincial governments ought to have some form of veto. I have not heard that yet on the floor of the House, but some do argue that municipalities or provincial governments ought to have some form of veto on pursuing such a project. Others have said that compelling private parties, the proponents of projects to build a bridge or a tunnel, to be consulted by the minister might compromise what those private parties describe as trade secrets. I think it is very unfortunate that the government, in its approach to this debate, has not at all enlightened the House with respect to the specific issue of consultation.

It also did not illuminate the state of the debate when it comes to mandatory or discretionary consultation requirements, but instead has chosen to generate more unproductive heat. In this, I think, the government has failed, and its continuing partnership with the New Democratic Party in particular, a partnership referred to just yesterday by the Prime Minister as one that might keep his government afloat until 2009, appears to not be so amicable today.

That being said, I look forward to supporting Bill C-3. In sum, with this bill I think that our previous government crossed the Rubicon and moved as a government to tie together our social, environmental, trade, economic and security concerns as they relate to our outstanding relationship with our southern neighbours. Bill C-3 is at its heart another example of the Liberal legislation that for 13 years has strengthened the Canadian economy and defended Canadians against threats to their safety, their security and their mobility.

I commend the government for choosing a modest and well-founded work for its second bill this session. Working as a good faith opposition in a minority Parliament, I can assure everyone in this House that we will not play games with what is clearly a bill in Canada's public interest.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's passion and his comments.

First of all, obviously he speaks with great passion. His community is affected by the existing flow now in terms of the Windsor-Detroit crossing, but I have two very specific questions for the member.

First, leaving aside the merits of the process that has been followed to get us here this evening, question number one is the following: is he suggesting that the federal government somehow will be able to avoid or contract out municipal and provincial standards, for example on environmental assessment, should this bill become law?

Second, his colleague who sits on the committee just a few moment ago suggested that consultation ought to be between the federal and particularly the municipal governments, with a passing reference to the provinces, leaving out also, of course, the question of interested parties such as banks, financing companies, mortgage companies, those who are involved in sureties. Those who are financing the construction, expansion or operation of such international bridges and tunnels will be very big players.

If we make these consultation requirements any more onerous on the federal government, is there any merit to this question of making the whole bill more litigious in nature if we give interested parties more opportunity to proceed against the federal government for failure to pursue sufficient consultation, for example ?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his kind remarks at the close of his speech.

I would like to ask him a question that deals specifically with the amendment we are dealing with this evening, which is an attempt to achieve a balance in the bill. There are some fairly overwhelming powers here vested in the minister and the governor in council with respect to, for example, the construction, the alteration and the operation of a bridge or tunnel. This bill goes as far as saying that the governor in council controls completely the construction, the alteration and the operation of an international bridge or tunnel, that an elaborate system of approvals must be sought. It goes as far as creating letters patent and spells out in very detailed fashion what letters patent would look like in such a case. It goes as far as speaking about officers' and directors' liabilities, for example.

I want to come to the balance between these new powers being vested in the minister and the governor in council and the right of other orders of government to participate in the decision making. Our colleagues in the NDP on a couple of occasions have raised some concerns around this. I have found that the amendment as drafted achieves a relatively appropriate balance between new powers vested in the minister and access to input for other orders of government.

Could the parliamentary secretary comment on that, please?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will first enlighten my colleague and let him know that I did not have the privilege of sitting on the committee when that particular amendment was brought forward and others were debated, but let me do my best to answer the balance that I think it is trying to achieve.

In the first instance, I think it is trying to give to the minister authority where it is required, for example, to have those consultations should they be required. There is the ongoing question of the trade secrets type of information and private matters. For example, we have a couple of instances in the country where these bridges are in private hands. It will be very delicate for the minister, for example, when the minister is seeking information, as the member points out.

It will be delicate and I am sure that ultimately flowing from the bill provisions will be made, and also in the regulations that will follow, to make sure that such information that is provided remains confidential. If it does not remain confidential, obviously that will be quite detrimental to the case of private owners and operators. I am quite assured that the bill actually strikes that right balance.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, June 19th, 2006]

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

First of all, I think it is important for parliamentarians to demonstrate to the Canadian people from time to time that they are capable of working together. In my view, Bill C-3 is a very good example of this.

Next, with the intensification—or urbanization—and emergence of new city-states in Canada, it is almost mandatory to engage in increasing consultation with those provinces and municipalities where a bridge or tunnel now exists or will exist in future.

In my opinion, the amendment will have a positive effect on planning. It will not affect the powers of the federal government as regards its planning with the provinces and with the parties affected by the development or operation of a tunnel or bridge. In 2006, more consultation with the parties concerned and the different levels of government is mandatory.

I would close by saying that in a time of increasing urbanization, at a time when we are seeing increasing densification of population and of Canada-United States trade and the benefits that have flowed under NAFTA in the last 10 years, it will be extremely critical for us to ensure that provinces and municipalities, as well as interested parties, are consulted during the process.

Whether it involves the operation of bridges and tunnels, the construction of bridges and tunnels or the question of security and emergency powers granted to the federal government in this bill, it will be important for the federal government and the minister named in the amendment to deal with other orders of government going forward.