Pierre Paquette

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his questions. In regard to his second question, the motion talks about a territorial approach. This is extremely important for us. As I said, Quebec and the Quebec manufacturing industry have already made choices in the direction of the commitments made under the Kyoto protocol. My colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said, I think, that the initial efforts to reduce greenhouse gases are the easiest. As we try to reduce them further, it becomes increasingly difficult. Our manufacturing industry in Quebec is in that phase now.

The objectives must be established, therefore, on the basis of both the province and the sector. For technical reasons, some sectors unfortunately emit greenhouse gases. Take the example of cement works. In this case, overall, both the territory and the sectors will have to contribute to meeting the Kyoto objectives, with assistance from the federal government.

Insofar as the first question is concerned, as I said, we absolutely must keep programs to provide financial assistance to groups that have expertise out in the field so that we can all promote the Kyoto protocol in what we do every day.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from the neighbouring riding of Berthier—Maskinongé.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to congratulate the member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie on a speech that was not only informative but also very passionate regarding a global issue that we just cannot ignore, as does the Conservative government.

I also want to congratulate my colleague on all the work he has done these last few years as environment critic for the Bloc Québécois. It is largely thanks to him that Canada signed the Kyoto protocol through legislation passed by this House in December 2002.

Lastly, I also want to congratulate him for putting forward this motion which, from what I see, has the support of the other opposition parties. It will show the Conservative government that it stands alone on this issue not only in the House, but also in the eyes of Canadians and Quebeckers.

I will read the motion again because it is extremely clear and complete in itself, then I will have the opportunity to elaborate on its various aspects.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) take the necessary measures to ensure that Canada meets its objective for greenhouse gas reduction established under the Kyoto Protocol, in an equitable manner while respecting the constitutional jurisdictions and responsibilities of Quebec and the provinces; and (b) publish, by October 15, 2006, an effective and equitable plan for complying with the Kyoto Protocol that includes a system of emission objectives for large emitters along with an exchange of emission rights accompanied by a bilateral agreement with Quebec and the provinces that want it, which could be based on a territorial approach.

As I was saying at the beginning, the motion before us today deals with a very important issue, that of greenhouse gases and global warming. Several other members mentioned it in their remarks. It is a fact that has now been scientifically proven. If we do not deal with it, not only will the consequences on the environment and even on the future of mankind be extremely serious, but they could even be catastrophic.

Therefore we cannot close our eyes, as the government is doing, and take an approach that recognizes that there are in fact greenhouse gases and we will try to keep their future increase down as much as possible. No, what we have to do is really stop the growth of these greenhouse gases. To do that, what we need is a watershed. And as we speak, that watershed is not to be found in the books of the Conservative government or the Minister of the Environment, much less in those of the Minister of Natural Resources, according to the speech I heard from him earlier.

It is unfortunate, but every minute that we do not make a firm and resolute decision to apply the Kyoto protocol makes the problem that much more difficult to overcome. That reminds me of a parallel I want to make.

In the softwood lumber dispute, as our companies went on paying illegal duties to the American authorities, the problem born of the dispute itself became ever greater, for the $5 billion that was at stake became something to be recovered, for the American companies.

It is somewhat the same thing with greenhouse gases. As long as we take no action and do not put a plan in place, those who are against the Kyoto protocol will argue that it is too much to swallow, that we cannot honour our Kyoto commitments.

The Liberals, for example, kept to the voluntary approach. They in effect abdicated their responsibilities. The result has been a 23% increase in greenhouse gases, instead of a 6% reduction from the 1990 emissions level, as prescribed in the Kyoto protocol. Of course, those who are opposed to the Kyoto protocol will tell us that the targets are even higher now, because it is not just the 6% below 1990, now it is 6% plus 23%, for a total target reduction of 29%.

The more we drag our feet, the more we will be told that the Kyoto objectives are unattainable and unrealistic. Therefore I believe it is necessary to alert public opinion. There is an urgent and immediate need for an effective and equitable plan, as demanded in the motion.

Otherwise, not only will the opponents of Kyoto try to find arguments in their own turpitude, but the achievement of the Kyoto targets will also do much more harm to the Canadian and Quebec economy.

We have already fallen too far behind. The government must not wait: it must put in place an action plan for achieving the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. In the motion, we have set October 15 as the deadline for tabling that action plan. The minister has been telling us for weeks that she has a plan, people are working on a plan, it is being prepared. So I think she will have no difficulty complying with the motion when it is adopted. On October 15, then, we will begin working with objectives, with means of action and with a schedule for complying with the Kyoto protocol.

Hon. members know that this protocol is the fruit of a global effort by the international community. Canada ratified it in December 2002 by a vote in this House. In that context, the Conservative government cannot shirk its responsibilities. It must respect Canada's signature on a treaty that resulted in the Kyoto protocol. If not, Canada's credibility, as well as this government's, will be on the line. In fact, it is already quite poor, according to the papers. We will end up in a situation where it will not be very easy to explain this position to our parliamentary colleagues from the other signatories of the protocol.

This motion sends a clear message on the eve of the Bonn Convention on Climate Change. Canada must make a commitment to respect its signature. It must state it loud and clear. When the motion is passed, it will be clear that Canadian and Quebec parliamentarians deem respecting Canada's signature as imperative. If the government does not want to take its responsibilities, it will pay the price during the next election campaign, which will not be long from now, as hon. members know.

As I mentioned at the start, not only was the Kyoto protocol the fruit of the international community's labour, it received support from a vast majority of the Canadian public. In Quebec, 90% think we should comply with the Kyoto protocol objectives. I want to remind hon. members that these objectives are merely the first step towards a true resolution of the greenhouse gas problem.

The principles proposed in this motion are quite simple. They include respecting international commitments—which I already talked about—and fairness. The efforts made by the provinces have not been equal. Quebec in the early 1970s chose clean and renewable energy—hydroelectricity—which has contributed to preventing the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in Canada from being worse than it already is. As I was saying earlier, the increase since 1990 was 23%.

Energy options have to be taken into account. We will recall—and I hope to have enough time to come back to this—that the federal government chose oil. If memory serves, over the past 30 years, more than $66 billion was provided, in one form or the other, to directly or indirectly subsidize the oil industry, while only a few hundred millions were invested in clean, renewable energy sources. We have to go back on that choice, both resolutely and actively, by turning to clean energy for instance.

To conclude, any effective and equitable plan for complying with the Kyoto objectives that is put in place should include stringent motor vehicle manufacturing standards to improve the energy efficiency of motor vehicles. Tax measures and rebates are also necessary as incentives for buying such vehicles. For instance, we suggested that there simply be no GST on environmentally-friendly vehicles.

In addition, financial assistance should be provided for the development of renewable energy such as wind power. Hydro-Quebec has announced its intention to make significant progress in that direction. We believe that the federal government has a responsibility because, so far, Quebeckers have paid alone for their energy option, while all Canadians benefited from it.

I would have liked to talk about the very favourable tax system for oil companies.

In closing, we must continue subsidizing those organizations which help us toward our Kyoto objectives, and not back out, as this government did, of this unavoidable global fight.

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on her very eloquent speech.

The Conservative government's position is similar to that of the American government, that of President Bush. This was made very clear in the speech given by the Minister of Natural Resources. I would like to ask the hon. member if this position is not actually a submission to the oil lobby.

As the hon. member must know, we export 60% of our oil to the United States. Last year, the export of energy products--largely oil and gas--increased by 27.2%. Oil companies are therefore collecting enormous profits at present.

Lastly, is this government not simply a conduit between the major oil companies and the Americans' gigantic appetite for oil? We know that they consume one-quarter of all oil production every day.

[Bicycle Industry, May 4th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, eight months ago the Canadian International Trade Tribunal recommended to the Minister of Finance that a surtax be placed on imported bicycles. This decision was rendered following a safeguard inquiry into the importation of bicycles and painted and finished bicycle frames.

The Tribunal recognized that Canadian and Quebec bicycle manufacturers were seriously affected by increased imports of foreign bicycles between 2000 and 2004. The measure suggested by the tribunal respects Canada's commitments in respect of the World Trade Organization and various other trade agreements signed by Canada.

The bicycle industry is mainly based in Quebec. The two main Canadian manufacturers are Raleigh Canada Limited, of Waterloo, and Groupe Procycle, of Saint-Georges de Beauce.

In order to protect the Quebec and Canadian bicycle industry as well as related jobs, the Minister of Finance must act with due diligence and immediately implement the decision of the International Trade Tribunal.

[The Budget, May 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I must first emphasize that the Bloc Québécois notes the government's firm commitment to resolving the issue of the fiscal imbalance by February 2007. However, given that we are starting the debate, I would like to ask the minister why this budget does not include measures to help the manufacturing sector. This sector is currently at risk due to competition from emerging economies such as China and India. The speech mentions this competition, but nothing concrete is proposed to help the clothing, textile, shoe and furniture industries. This is my first question.

I have another question. Given that the government promised to respect Quebec's jurisdictions, I do not understand how it can propose a Canadian securities commission. This was rejected by the Liberal government in the past. It would seem that this contradicts what the Prime Minister is saying and this could be a potential source of bickering between Quebec and the federal government.

[Labour, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in Canada and Quebec, more and more industrial sectors, sectors where there are manufacturing jobs, are threatened by unfair competition, due to the failure in many countries to respect fundamental labour rights, with the resulting use of child labour, forced labour, and clandestine labour.

Will the Canadian government agree that its criticisms would be more credible if it signed the international conventions concerning respect for freedom of association, prohibition of discrimination and prohibition of child labour and forced labour?

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is very pertinent. Although the tone of the Conservative government seems more conciliatory than that of the previous government, things are no different. Standards are being dictated in other jurisdictions—especially provincial, but also municipal in the case of Bill C-3—without the requisite funds being made available.

That is why, as I indicated in my speech, fiscal imbalance cannot be addressed by means of transfers alone. Tax point transfers to the provinces are needed in order to enable them to assume these responsibilities, without the fear that one day the federal government will unilaterally cut transfers.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would echo what my colleague said about May Day. I am pleased to know that this international day was celebrated in Whitehorse. Last Saturday, in Montreal, there was a demonstration in which over 50,000 people took part to call for improvements in labour laws, working conditions and health and safety issues. I am pleased that this has been echoed today in this House.

The member referred both to the Speech from the Throne and to tomorrow’s budget. I think he was quite right. Concerning the fiscal imbalance, we are expecting—as I said in my speech—to see a major step forward in increasing transfers from the federal government to the provinces, in particular in relation to post-secondary education. Tomorrow, we expect a response from the government, because our universities and colleges are underfunded, and this creates problems. In terms of productivity, the most important factor is going to be human capital, and thus training and education. We keep repeating it, but we have to invest the necessary money in order to ensure not only that there are adequate educational institutions, but also that the labour force is well educated, both now and for the future.

As for social housing and affordable housing, the Bloc agrees entirely with the member. The previous government had begun to slowly reinvest in social housing and affordable housing. Although we found the amount of funding inadequate, at least some investment was being made.

In that respect, one can only hope that the Conservative government will continue on the same path, by increasing investments, which are extremely effective socially and which create a dynamic economy. This involves more than just the construction industry. At present, there are social housing projects in small municipalities, which are facing two types of exodus: young people moving to larger centres in search of employment, and seniors leaving rural areas to be where services are provided. In my riding, for example, many people are leaving the municipalities surrounding Joliette to move to Joliette or Repentigny, where there are more services. This is both a social and economic phenomenon, and a matter of land use.

As for employment insurance, which the member did not mention, the Bloc hopes that the budget will include major announcements concerning improved access to employment insurance. As we know, only four in ten people who pay premiums are eligible for benefits. This is totally unfair. Employment insurance has become the federal government's cash cow. The bulk of the surplus comes from EI fund surpluses. This misappropriation of funds must be stopped, as well as the abuse of the principle behind employment insurance, which is to guarantee the economic security of workers who are temporarily unemployed.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary said, the Bloc thinks that section 39 is very police-oriented, very repressive. He said that nothing was more important than safety. I can agree with him, but for a long time the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government—both the previous government and the present government—to properly balance safety or security and the rights of individuals and corporations. Here, we are talking about the power to search without a warrant. Obviously, there should at least have to be some legal or judicial authorization to conduct a search.

As in the case of the debates regarding Bills C-35 and C-36 in the two preceding Parliaments, the question is one of finding a balance between safety or security and individual rights, including the rights of businesses. My colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel will have some suggestions to make in committee. I am not an expert, and if I was getting too far ahead of myself, it was relatively unintentional. I will therefore yield to the work that the committee will do, and in particular the work of my colleague in the Bloc Québécois.

[International Bridges and Tunnels Act, May 1st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the subject of Bill C-3. At first glance, this bill seems to stir up passions in this House. We are on our third bill and already we get the feeling that the pressure is starting to rise seriously.

This is also an opportunity for me to mention that today, May 1, is International Workers’ Day. I wish all workers a happy May Day.

This is also an opportunity to point out that this Bill C-3, An Act respecting international bridges and tunnels and making a consequential amendment to another Act, addresses a regulatory vacuum concerning the bridges and tunnels linking Canada to the U.S.

There are 24 international road bridges and tunnels. Of these 24 bridges, 14 are located in Ontario, nine are located in New Brunswick, and one is located in Quebec. I will come back to this one, since this bridge, the Glen Sutton bridge, is in poor condition. There are also five railway bridges and tunnels in Ontario, and only five of these bridges belong to the federal government. We must recall, on this May 1, that all these infrastructures were made possible thanks to the contributions of our workers. Unfortunately, many of them lost their lives on the job. Last week we had a day to remember all those who have been victims of work accidents. Once again, a happy May Day to everyone!

Back to Bill C-3. We know (several of my colleagues have already mentioned it) that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, in principle. As I indicated earlier, there was actually a regulatory vacuum concerning international bridges and tunnels. We also know that, since September 11, there has been concern about the security of these structures, which play a strategic role in trade between Canada, Quebec and the U.S. So we cannot be opposed to a bill that aims to improve the security of these infrastructures.

By the way, I wish to underscore something. As I mentioned, these infrastructures are obviously extremely important for trade and the circulation of people between Canada, Quebec and the United States. Eighty per cent of our exports go to the U.S., a good part of which, or perhaps even all, transit through these important structures.

According to the Department of Transport, local stakeholders are mainly in favour of the provisions of this bill. This remains to be verified, however, and I am counting a lot on the assistance of my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel to confirm this opinion from the Department of Transport among those concerned. We have heard that the Government of Quebec has some misgivings. By the time this is discussed in committee, I am sure that my colleague from Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel will have consulted local stakeholders, if he has not already done so, to make sure that the bill addresses most of their concerns.

Such are the essential points and the most positive points of Bill C-3. Some points, however, seem, questionable or outright negative.

The first thing is found in clause 39, for example. I seems to us that the federal government is being given virtual police powers in relation to regulating international bridges and tunnels: for example, the very authoritarian power to investigate without warrant and power of seizure. We will have to be shown what purpose these exceptional powers of investigation and powers of seizure serve.

I would note that the federal government gives itself powers to legislate, but the financial responsibility is placed on other shoulders. In the case of the Sutton bridge, for example, the municipality is responsible for a large portion of the maintenance of the bridge. It is always easy for the federal government to set the bar very high when it comes to some of the rules relating to the safety and security of these bridges and tunnels.

This is somewhat related to the commitment made by the Prime Minister. This power to legislate should therefore be better circumscribed, so that we can be sure that if the federal government makes decisions resulting in costs that go beyond day-to-day infrastructure maintenance operations, it will contribute to those costs.

This again reminds me of the Canada Health Act. For several years, the government patted itself on the back about the criteria set out in the Canada Health Act and threatened the provinces, which in its opinion were in violation of those five criteria—I believe that was it. However, in 1993-94, the federal government started making unilateral cuts to its transfers, which were significantly reduced. Everyone seems to agree on the fiscal imbalance. The idea is even catching on among the Liberals.

So on the one hand, we have some lovely requirements in the bill to enable the federal government to make this its trademark, to make it a component of its visibility strategy, and on the other hand we have the provinces, the municipalities or both, absorbing all of the costs of these lovely and very generous speeches. I am very concerned.

Obviously, you will tell me that at the end of their reign the federal Liberals reinvested in transfers to the provinces. I would note that Quebec is still missing $5.5 billion. Once again, I appeal to the Minister of Finance. I hope that he will begin to provide us with some solutions in his speech tomorrow. It is quite clear that this cannot be fixed in a single day or a single speech. As we know on this side, the problem is profound. However, we have to hope that tomorrow’s speech will contain some elements of a solution to the fiscal imbalance.

Even if transfers to Quebec were restored to their level before the Liberals’ unilateral cuts, to 1993-94 levels, there would still be $5.5 billion missing, as I said. Thus it would not completely solve the problem of the fiscal imbalance. According to the Conference Board, $3.9 billion would still be needed in order to truly restore the balance between the revenue available to Quebec and the revenue it needs to meet its responsibilities.

You will therefore understand that seeing provisions of this nature in a bill relating to bridges and tunnels is a matter of great concern to us.

The member for Repentigny pointed out quite rightly that some items from Bill C-44 are missing from Bill C-3, for example, more transparent advertising of the sale of airline tickets. We know very well in this House what a difference there is between the advertised price of plane tickets and what they actually cost in the end. A number of somewhat random items are added with the result that the price is always substantially higher or even doubled. So it is a question of transparency. All the consumers’ associations have been asking for this for a long time. What explanation can there be that these provisions, which seemed very good to us, have simply been changed, forgotten, or deleted in Bill C-3?

As I just mentioned, I think that in the work done in committee, my colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel will have an opportunity to reintroduce these points.

Another point in Bill C-44 seemed very good to us. That is the mechanism for resolving disputes over the sharing of rail lines between passenger carriers and freight carriers. As my colleagues and I have mentioned, railway transportation looks very attractive insofar as the objectives of the Kyoto protocol are concerned. It is an environmentally friendly method of transportation. However, the rails need to be available to carry passengers.

I am not an expert. Still, until shown proof to the contrary, I have the impression that priority is always given to freight trains and this hardly encourages people to take the train when travelling among major centres in Quebec and Canada. My colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel can probably give me an answer after I have spoken. In view of all this, such arbitration will be very important over the next few years.

The member for Repentigny picked up on a certain aspect of the issue. I am returning to it as well because we are both from the Lanaudière region. If a train goes through Repentigny and Mascouche, the chances are very good that it will go to Joliette eventually. I will support him therefore, as well as Ms. Deschamps and all the people who are trying to get this commuter train.

In addition, when a railway company decides not to use certain lines any more, we must ensure that they are not automatically torn up. Rail lines that have been abandoned and torn up in the past could have helped meet our current need for commuter trains.

Bill C-44 provided that the local administrations would be offered an opportunity to buy the rail lines before they were torn up. We should draw an important lesson from the lack of foresight shown in regard to our entire road infrastructure. For a long time people said that there was no future in rail and we should rely on roads and trucks. Now the Americans have rediscovered rail, and in a few years, Canadians will rediscover it as well. We have already started to understand the importance of rail for transportation around big cities such as Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa and Quebec.

However, there has been an enormous lack of foresight, of clear-sightedness. So we must avoid committing the mistakes of the past over again. Bill C-44 contained a provision in this regard. It also provided for a new VIA Rail Act which would have given that corporation more autonomy in making its own decisions on improving rail transportation. As I was saying, this is one of the solutions that would allow us to meet our Kyoto protocol targets.

I want to mention one final negative element. Clause 32 of Bill C-44 granted the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to examine complaints of unreasonable noise caused by trains, so as to oblige railway companies to find the best possible solutions to this pollution. This is not greenhouse gas emissions, but it is extremely annoying pollution all the same.

I myself have been in contact with VIA Rail regarding a poorly set railway track. Unfortunately, the track was located a few feet from a seniors’ residence. Seniors sleep light. So we filed a complaint. Fortunately, a VIA Rail official, Mr. Daniel Lacoste, was extremely attentive, and I would like to thank him for that. He is a resident of Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes, in the lovely riding of Joliette. Things were resolved because all of us acted with good will.

Unfortunately that is not always the case. Sometimes the problem does not originate only in the marshalling yards. I am very familiar with the problem at the Outremont yard. As I was saying, tracks are sometimes poorly set, and that causes noise. It is a problem which can easily be corrected with proper welding.

That is the review I wished to offer of Bill C-3. It is a first step toward filling a legal void, something which can only be our common desire. All the same, it is not enough. Clearly there are corrections to it that we will have to make.

I would like to return to the questions concerning the most important clauses of this bill. Clause 2 defines the terms of the bill. This is its definition of an international bridge or tunnel: “a bridge or tunnel, or any part of it, that connects any place in Canada to any place outside Canada, and includes the approaches and facilities related to the bridge or tunnel”. As I was saying earlier, most of these infrastructures are not the property of the federal government. So far as I know, even though the bridges and tunnels lie within exclusive federal jurisdiction, relatively few of them are owned by the federal government. As I said when I began, I have counted five of these. So it will be extremely important to clarify the powers of the federal government in this regard.

Clause 6 states that “no person shall construct or alter an international bridge or tunnel” without the government’s approval. That is self-evident.

But, as I said, who will pay when the federal government has requirements that go beyond the proposals made by those responsible for maintaining these structures?

According to clause 4(4), “approval may be given...to the site or plans of an international bridge over the St. Lawrence River”. We have a great deal of concern about this. We do not know whether there are any projects in the works. In my opinion, this will have to be much clearer. There is certainly a need for such a structure, but it is still surprising to see a clause reserved for something that is to come, a project that, to my knowledge, does not even exist yet.

According to clauses 14, 15 and 16, the government may make regulations respecting the maintenance and repair, operation and use, and security and safety of international bridges and tunnels. This takes us back to the comment I made about clause 6. It is all well and good to talk in broad terms and have high standards, but who is going to pay for these infrastructures? Perhaps the Minister of Finance will announce a new infrastructure program in his budget tomorrow, with a specific component on international bridges and tunnels. In any event, I am convinced that that would reassure a lot of people.

According to clause 17, “the Minister” of Transport “may make directions” if “the Minister is of the opinion that there is an immediate threat to the security or safety of any international bridge or tunnel”. Logically, everyone should agree with this, but once again, who will pay the costs associated with these directions made by the federal government?

According to clause 23, “the approval of the Governor in Council” is required for any change of ownership, operator or control of an international bridge or tunnel. This goes without saying, although it reminds me of a debate we had about satellites that take pictures. In the case of the Telesat remote sensing satellite, if I recall correctly, the Bloc Québécois had a great deal of difficulty understanding how the Canadian Space Agency could give up ownership when the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec had paid for all the research. It likely would have been simpler to keep ownership of the satellite.

In the Telesat bill, whose number I have forgotten, there was no provision for a company that might become a foreign company. So, when the Canadian Space Agency transferred or gave the satellite to this company, for a few months, the company in question belonged to some Americans. It would have been pretty extraordinary if a technology developed with income tax and taxes paid by all Canadians and Quebeckers had been given to a foreign company. We were assured that all sorts of provisions of the act prevented that. Nevertheless I prefer an explicit mention, as in Bill C-3, because of significant strategic elements pertaining to both security and international trade.

According to clause 29, it is possible to create a crown corporation to administer a bridge or a tunnel. This is credible, to my mind. If we have a new structure on the St. Lawrence River, it seems to me that this should be public property. So clause 29 provides for this possibility.

I said earlier that clause 39, whereby the government is given very extensive police powers, such as searches without a warrant and a very authoritarian power of seizure. It seems to us that there are some things to be corrected in this area.

I wanted to end quite simply by pointing out the state of the Glen Sutton bridge, the only one in Quebec linking Quebec, which is still politically part of Canada, to the U.S. It is a metal bridge built about 1929. It will probably go from being a strategic axis of communication to being a museum artifact, where finally people will go to see it. It is relatively long, covering 50 metres. It spans a gorge. It is a magnificent sight. It is also used by trucks. According to our information, it is in a fairly pitiful state. I mentioned, though, that ownership of the bridge is shared between the state of Vermont and the municipality of Sutton. If there are, in connection with Bill C-3, instructions from the federal government with a view to improving safety and security, who will actually pay?

Will the municipality of Sutton be asked to pay these costs? It seems to me that this would be irresponsible. I hope that, when Bill C-3 goes to committee, an infrastructure fund will be created that is dedicated specifically to international bridges and tunnels.