Robert Carrier

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor West for his question.

As I said in my remarks, part of the consultation and negotiation remains to be done. At present, we have faith in the government. We have to depend on the good intentions of the federal government when it comes to negotiations with the provinces, especially regarding legislation that involves areas where jurisdiction is shared by the provinces and the federal government.

The Bloc Québécois approves of the bill because it acknowledges that these are international structures. The United States is Canada’s immediate neighbour, so it is to be expected that the government will have control of and be able to legislate in relation to these international structures, which are—as regards the Canadian part—currently owned either by the provinces or by private companies. In the Bloc’s view, it is completely illogical to be at the mercy of a private company that could decide what it is going to do with its bridge, and how it is going to maintain it, in this way.

The Bloc Québécois will be following how the law is administered closely, as a precaution, in cases where there are financial implications. We have noticed one flaw in this regard. If something that the federal government requires to be done involves very large sums of money, then in my opinion there might have to be a special agreement in cases where the body that owns the bridge is unable to assume the costs of the federal government’s requirements in full.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak today about Bill C-3, an act respecting international bridges and tunnels.

Since this bill incorporates part of Bill C-44, which was introduced during the 38th Parliament and which the Bloc Québécois supported, we naturally support this bill. However, we do have some reservations, which I will explain later.

This is the first time the Government of Canada has put legislation in place to allow it to exercise its authority over international bridges and tunnels. The new government tells us it wants to ensure that the security, safety and efficient movement of people and goods are in accordance with national interests. The events of September 2001, it must be noted, made clear the importance of protecting these vital infrastructures.

The proposed amendments would give the Government of Canada new and broader legislative powers to oversee approvals of international bridges and tunnels. These amendments would give the government power to approve, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, the construction or alteration of international bridges and tunnels and to formulate regulations governing the management, maintenance, security, safety and operation of these structures. The bill would also authorize the federal government to approve the sale or transfer of ownership of international bridges and tunnels. Note as well that it would strengthen federal government oversight of all new and existing international bridges and tunnels in order to better protect the public interest and ensure the flexible flow of international trade.

There are currently 24 international vehicular bridges and tunnels and five international railway tunnels linking Canada and the United States. These bridges and tunnels carry the vast majority of international trade between Canada and the United States and play a vital role in Canada's transportation system. Although only one bridge of minor importance is located in Quebec, the Bloc Québécois still recognizes the relevance of this bill. As we have always done in the past, we are making a constructive contribution to the development of government policies that benefit the entire population.

For example, during committee review of the bill we realized the significance of the new law we are discussing today when we learned that the Ambassador Bridge linking Windsor, Ontario, to Detroit, Michigan, in the United States, is privately owned by an American corporation. The current owner is opposed to this bill and we believe that the Canadian government must have oversight and jurisdiction over all international links between the two countries.

What concerns Quebec the most about this bill is a provision affecting international bridges and tunnels on the St. Lawrence River. These provisions correct the legislative anomaly in the Navigable Waters Protection Act which requires a permit for all work affecting navigable waters but which does not authorize the issuance of permits for the St. Lawrence River. This anomaly became apparent when plans for the highway 30 bridge crossing the St. Lawrence south of Montreal were being studied.

The minister declared, in his speech of April 28, that any new crossing over the St. Lawrence would be subject to federal approval. In the past, the federal government has too often demonstrated arrogance toward Quebec and its areas of jurisdiction. We need only think of the choice of Mirabel as the site of the new airport dictated by the federal government against the wishes of the Quebec government at that time.

The Quebec government plans the use of its land and we would not be in favour of the federal government exercising its authority to prevent Quebec from exercising its own powers.

I therefore hope that, in confirming this approval, the federal government takes account of the advice and concerns made known by the government of Quebec, in compliance with the fields of jurisdiction of all the levels of government.

While the bill corrects a legal void in the area of international bridges and tunnels, is designed to make those structures more secure, and has the consent of local stakeholders, it leaves us with certain reservations.

In the context of the international bridges and tunnels regulations, the bill seems to us to grant the government very broad, quasi-police powers, for example, a power to investigate without warrant and a very summary power of seizure.

The government is assigning itself legislative powers, but the financial responsibility lies on other shoulders. Ultimately, we believe that this situation can lead to disputes.

We note that responsibility for international bridges and tunnels lies within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government under the British North America Act of 1867.

However, in most cases the Canadian portions of these structures are owned by the provinces. We should therefore ensure that the regulatory and financial implementation of this bill takes place in collaboration and in negotiation with the provinces.

In his speech of April 28, the minister stated that the federal government will be able to ensure that environmental assessments of international bridges and tunnels are conducted in accordance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, when appropriate.

What does the minister mean in adding “when appropriate” to the end of his sentence?

Once again, it is important to us that the minister take account of the powers of Quebec, that he respect the fact that the environment is a jurisdiction shared between the federal government and the provinces, and that he not necessarily have the last word in this matter.

We have consulted the Bureau d'audiences publiques du Québec, the BAPE. In the wake of those consultations, we note that the agreement between that organization and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency is yielding good results and that the fields of jurisdiction of each of the agencies are being respected. Given the declared openness toward Quebec, we would like that respect to continue to be applied to the bill we are studying today at third reading.

The issue of fields of jurisdiction was also raised many times in committee, during the clause-by-clause adoption of the bill that is before us today. We have said that we place our confidence in the minister in certain emergency situations when he would assume exceptional powers in a major crisis.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois will support the bill at third reading, even though it is a very partial solution to the many remaining transportation problems that need to be resolved in Quebec and in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the presentation by the member for Ottawa—Vanier. I am surprised at the lack of recognition that MPs in general have received in the past few years, mainly because of the 13 years the Liberal Party spent in power.

The Bloc Québécois sees gaps and shortcomings in the current bill. It is certainly not perfect. Nevertheless, it seems to me that it can help us gain a little more recognition from the public, whom we would like to convince of our legitimacy and the importance of representing them here in Parliament.

I would like to ask the member for Ottawa—Vanier whether he thinks it is worthwhile at least to take this opportunity to improve the situation. Regardless of what people may think about the responsibilities of the previous government, he could demonstrate his good faith while he is in opposition and show that there is hope of improvement in the years to come.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the generalities presented by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and her reviews of two American movies. I would like to point out that there are also good Quebec movies produced by the film industry, sometimes with grants from Canadian Heritage.

In 2004 and 2006, after a career as an engineer, I stood for election. I truly believe in democracy and I wish to participate in the democratic way so that as many citizens as possible can participate in our Parliament.

I was struck by the fact that, in general, politicians were held in low regard. I arrived on the heels of the sponsorship scandal and revelations about various other corrupt government practices. I am referring primarily to the appointment of returning officers, until now, by the Prime Minister's office .

I could talk about all the outrageous things that were done in my riding to prevent constituents from voting because a well-known Liberal was the returning officer. I am most satisfied with this aspect of the bill. I would like to hear the member's views on this important reform.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the reply given by the member for Palliser to the question posed by my colleague from the NDP did not seem convincing. A political organizer was appointed as a senator, only to then be given a cabinet post. That minister is not responsible for answering members in the House. It is not enough to say that he gives a voice to the Montreal area, where he resides.

I would like to use the example of a minister from the Montreal region in the previous government: Mr. Gagliano. This is not necessarily a positive reference, after everything that was revealed by the Gomery commission. This is precisely the kind of problem that can arise with appointments such as the one made by the government. The fact that he is proposing a bill on accountability here today adds little to his credit.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the presentation by the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering. I noticed that he did not talk about one very essential point included in Bill C-2 and that is the appointment of returning officers following a public competition by the Chief Electoral Officer.

As a relatively new member, I had a hard time with the fact that the returning officer in my riding was a known political patronage appointee. I feared that, regardless of the party in power, following a change in government he would simply be replaced by another appointee of the new government and therefore not necessarily fair and honest in his decisions.

This is a victory for the Bloc and an important one. Now the bill includes a provision to appoint returning officers following a public competition.

I would like to know what the hon. member for Ajax—Pickering thinks of this aspect of the bill. Why was this not done before and how does he now see this aspect of political life?

[René Boucher, June 8th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to a great man from Laval who has done a great service for his community and recently retired from his position as carnival director for the Laval figure skating club: René Boucher.

The ice carnival he directed was recognized across Quebec and Canada and enjoys an excellent reputation. The best skaters in the world performed in this ice carnival. Brian Orser, Tracy Wilson, Toller Cranston and Karen Magnussen are but a few of the athletes who have thrilled fans and taken part in this famous ice show at the Laval Coliseum.

Mr. Boucher directed his last show on April 22 and 23, as part of the 40th carnival. I wish to thank those who worked closely with him, as volunteers like him, without whom, as he put it so aptly, there could have been no show.

The Bloc Québécois salutes him and says, “Thank you, Mr. Boucher, for the great job you have done”.

[Criminal Code, June 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by the Minister of Health. I share his goal of having a peaceful society where our families, the public, our fellow Canadians live in safety. We agree on that point. However, I do not share his opinion on how to achieve that. As you know, if this bill were implemented, about 300 more people would be incarcerated in federal penitentiaries and about 4,000 more in provincial institutions.

Of course, with more people incarcerated, we would come closer to the American standard. Far more people are incarcerated in the United States than in Canada.

Does the minister believe that the United States is safer than Canada? Are cities like Los Angeles, New York and Chicago safer than our cities because more people are in prison?

As well, he is not taking into account the proven fact that prisons are crime schools. Very often, young offenders learn how to commit other crimes when they go to prison for the first time. They are better criminals when they are released from prison, so they naturally return to a life of crime. I would like the minister's opinion on that.

[Richard Roy, June 5th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay a special tribute to the executive director of Collège Laval, Brother Richard Roy, who is retiring this year.

He started his career in the early 1970s. He was an instructor in Iberville, then head of educational services at Collège Laval, and finally its executive director for the last 12 years. Brother Roy’s departure marks the final stage in a renewal process through which a religious community has passed the torch to a secular organization. For more than a century the Marist Brothers have been running this college, which year after year earns the highest accolades in education.

Brother Richard Roy devoted his life to educating students. Although he is retiring, he will not be inactive. He is going to take part over the next few years in a mission to the Philippines and Sri Lanka.

The Bloc Québécois pays tribute to the prestigious career of Brother Richard Roy and wishes him all the best in his future endeavours.