House of Commons Hansard #19 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was main.
Ovid Jackson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions presented during the first session.
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal York North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development on Bill C-3, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (nuclear undertakings) and to make a related amendment to another Act, which agreed to report it without amendment.
David Dingwall LiberalMinister of Health
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-24, entitled an act to amend the Tobacco Products Control Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Allan Rock LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-25, an act respecting regulations and other documents, including the review, registration, publication and parliamentary scrutiny of regulations and other documents, and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-243, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (reimbursement of election expenses).
Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the special order of March 4, 1996 relating to the reintroduction of private members' bills, it is my pleasure to reintroduce this bill which is in the same form as Bill C-319 at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament. It will be coming back after report stage.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Canada Elections ActRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
The Chair is satisfied that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-319 was at the time of prorogation of the first session of the 35th Parliament.
Accordingly, pursuant to order made Monday, March 4, 1996, the bill is deemed to have been read the second time, considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and reported with an amendment.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present two petitions to the House today.
The first petition comes from Calgary, Alberta. The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families who decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
The second petition, Mr. Speaker, comes from Sarnia, Ontario.
The petitioners would like to bring to the attention of the House that consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems are impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages, to caution expectant mothers and others of the risks associated with alcoholic consumption.
Glen McKinnon Liberal Brandon—Souris, MB
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the people of my riding of Brandon-Souris.
A number of constituents from Waskada, Deloraine, Goodlands and area pray that Parliament enact legislation providing for a referendum to accept or reject constitutional amendments.
Simon de Jong NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, as I am duty bound, I wish to present to Parliament a petition signed mainly by constituents from Regina, Saskatchewan and district.
The petition, as many others presented to this House, implores the government not to increase the tax on gasoline. It notes that the excise tax on gasoline has risen by some 566 per cent over the last 10 years.
While this petition has come to me after the budget, I suspect the petitioners are concerned about next year's budget. Therefore, I present this petition to the House.
Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions but they will be presented as one.
The petitioners call to the attention of the House of Commons that the mining industry is the mainstay of 150 communities across Canada, an important contributor to Canada's gross domestic product and a cornerstone of our economic future. Canada's investment climate is now forcing many mineral industry people to look for opportunities elsewhere in the world.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to take action that will encourage employment growth in this sector, promote exploration, rebuild Canada's mining and mineral reserves, sustain the mining communities and keep mining in Canada.
Ovid Jackson LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Is it agreed?
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-14, an act to continue the National Transportation Agency as the Canadian Transportation Agency, to consolidate and revise the National Transportation Act, 1987 and the Railway Act and to amend or repeal other acts as a consequence, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and motions Nos. 2, 28 to 32 and 35 to 55.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I see the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke rising. Before he resumes his intervention and just to situate us all, the hon. member for Mackenzie had a response in terms of the unanimous consent that was granted. I think the words from the hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke were to the effect that he asked the House for a "brief intervention".
I would remind the hon. member of the sensitivities that have been raised by other members so that we could pursue this debate at report stage. I would ask him to please keep that in mind in his closing remarks on this intervention.
Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC
Mr. Speaker, I will make it extremely brief. I have actually finished except to comment on the intervention by the hon. member from the NDP.
When I spoke, I spoke not of branch lines or specifically of main lines, I spoke of railway lines. It does not matter if it is main lines, branch lines or the line that the hon. member gave you, his motion subverts the whole intent of this bill.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
I am a little confused. One moment no one is rising. The very next moment everyone is rising. Let us start all over.
Paul Mercier Bloc Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC
Mr. Speaker, the intent of our Motion No. 31 is to improve clause 141 of the bill, which we support entirely and which we aim simply to improve.
The clause in question is very short, and I quote:
A railway company shall prepare and keep up to date a plan indicating for each of its railway lines whether it intends to continue to operate the line or whether, within the next three years, it intends to sell, lease or otherwise transfer the line-or take steps to discontinue operating the line.
This clause is all the more needed, because, up to now, under the present legislation, when a railway company wished to stop operations or sell or lease its facilities, public hearings were held
by the National Transportation Agency. This is no longer the case, and this discrepancy will be covered by another of our motions.
As regards Motion No. 31, which applies to the plan the companies are required to prepare, the aim of our amendment is to avoid untimely and premature changes to the plan proposed by the company, and the motion provides that: "A plan prepared by a railway company that does not indicate the company's intention to discontinue operation of a line shall not be amended by the company for twelve months". It is simple and is intended solely to improve the clause.
Joe Volpe LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that you were confused by those of us who were eager to enter into the debate. Just take it as an indication that we wish to represent our constituents with the kind of enthusiasm they have come to expect, at least from those on this side of the House.
If I may, I would like to express the government's position on Motion No. 31. The government cannot support this motion. This requirement would unreasonably restrict the railway's ability to change its activities.
After hearing the witnesses in full deliberations, the standing committee reached a conclusion about amendments to the conveyance provisions of the bill including the time periods that the committee member considered appropriate. This side of the House values the deliberations of the committee and must agree with its decisions. Therefore, we cannot support this motion.
On Motion No. 2, the section sets out a definition that differentiates between main lines and branch lines of the railways. The distinction provides the basis for a different treatment of main line and branch line tracks under other motions. There is no practical reason for treating main lines and branch lines differently. The government does not support this motion because a different treatment will discourage the formation of short line railways. I thank our colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke for supporting the government's position on this because it reflects the committee deliberations on the matter.
With Motion No. 28, the proposal is redundant. The opening words of the section already allow for an "interested person" to present applications to the governor in council. Again the government cannot and will not support this motion.
On Motion No. 29, I have already indicated that separate treatment of main line and branch line tracks for the purpose of sale or abandonment is unwarranted. The government again supports the standing committee's reflections and amended versions of the conveyance provisions and therefore will not support the motion.
On Motion No. 30, this would potentially require railways to have a plan available for inspection in every office since every line will be included in the plan, even those the railway intends to keep operating. In our view that would be excessive and an unwarranted burden on the railway. Again, I make reference to the standing committee's amended version of the conveyance provisions. Since the government supports the standing committee's deliberations, it will not support this motion.
I now turn to Motion No. 32. The hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke made reference to the government's or Parliament's concern for the Atlantic provinces in terms of linking them with the rest of Canada. That has been a tradition of policy development with this government and this party ever since Confederation. We keep those considerations very much in the forefront whenever we make pronouncements on legislation like this. I would not want the member to think or to attempt to convey the impression that members of the Liberal Party have forgotten their roots. The reason we are still very much acceptable in Atlantic Canada is precisely because we consider its needs and its interests first and always.
After hearing witnesses on Motion No. 32 and after full deliberations, the standing committee reached a conclusion about the amendments on the conveyance provisions of the bill which I mentioned earlier. It did not support renewed regulation by the agency. Therefore, in support of the standing committee's amended version, the government will not support this motion.
The government does not support Motion No. 36 because property negotiations generally occur on a case by case basis in the commercial world and are not placed in any uniform, regulatory scheme that the utilities propose to apply to the railways. Utilities face the same problems in their dealings with municipalities and other property owners. The utilities as property owners are under no similar obligations as to the timeliness or quality of easements that they must provide to other parties.
If there are problems with the genuine transportation dimension to be addressed, the agency should assess them as a matter of course in its annual review and with any amendments carried out at the time Bill C-14 goes through its final review.
On Motion No. 37, I can offer the same kind of rationale. Therefore I can advise the House that the government will not support this motion.
On Motion No. 38, the government cannot and does not support this amendment because it runs contrary to one of the main thrusts of the bill, which is to allow railways to rationalize their network as commercial transactions. The best way to assure the continued
operation of the CN Halifax to Montreal line is to allow an unfettered rationalization of underutilized track.
I consider Motions Nos. 39 through 55 as one in the interests of time and offer the comment that would apply to all of them. I hope that members of the House will accept that the government does not support any of Motions Nos. 39 through 55 because Bill C-14 recognizes, as I said earlier, that railways are commercial enterprises and must have the freedom to adjust their networks under change of conditions. I can further add that these motions would require the railway whose lines are uneconomical to operate them without being compensated for losses. This would be in direct conflict with the existing national transportation policy. I repeat that the government will not support Motions Nos. 39 through 55.
David Anderson LiberalMinister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment today to speak to a few issues relating to Motion No. 35.
To provide some background, the present Railway Act is a piece of virtually historic legislation. It provides railway companies with their own independent powers to expropriate land. This dates from the era when railways were used for the purpose of nation building when just about any government would make just about any deal to achieve the construction of a railway. Under the Railways Act, private land can be taken by the railways. However the Indian Act requires that governor in council approval is needed for taking of reserve lands.
Over the years statute for water related facilities like ports and bridges, although not rail or transportation, adopted the expropriation provisions of the Railway Act. This means that other private companies and some public corporations can also use the Railway Act as an expropriation mechanism to take private and reserve lands pursuant to the wording of other acts.
Bill C-14 is primarily a transportation bill and it cannot advance measures that potentially set important precedents with respect to aboriginal rights. That having been said, the bill does attempt to address some of the longstanding problems which are found in the Railway Act with respect to reserve expropriation. It also attempts to address several other issues which are of interest to aboriginal peoples.
First, the bill eliminates the private expropriation power of railway companies. These companies in future will have to apply to the Minister of Transport following which the provisions of the government's Expropriation Act will be the governing statute rather than the Railway Act, which is to be repealed with the passage of Bill C-14. Other private interests and some public corporations would, like railway companies, also fall under this expropriation mechanism and would lose under the Railway Act approach the rights that they now have.
Second, the new sale and discontinuance process under Bill C-14 requires that if a private sale of a line cannot be made, federal, provincial and municipal governments will sequentially have 30 days to exercise an option to purchase the line for no more than the net salvage value.
Initially under former Bill C-101 from the first session of this Parliament, the federal option applied only if the line crossed a provincial or international boundary. During the review of the former bill, the Standing Committee on Transport approved an amendment which expands the federal option to include reserve lands. This amendment is being made to address the concerns which have been expressed by some aboriginal groups that land in reserves over which rail lines pass might otherwise not be protected when the rail operations cease.
Third, section 96 of Bill C-14 states that a railway company cannot alienate land taken from the crown, except to transfer the land for continuing railway operations or to transfer the land back to the crown. Following review by the standing committee, section 97 of the bill was amended to indicate that nothing in this section would be construed to negate any pre-existing right or interest that anyone might have in the lands transferred under this section. That of course includes aboriginal rights.
Fourth, amended section 145 with one further proposed amendment will require an offer to the minister of any line or portion of a line which passes through land that is or was part of a reserve or that occupies land which is affected by land claims, provided the minister or the railway's owner have entered into agreement for the minister to recover the land.
I believe that Bill C-14 as amended is further evidence of the efforts of the government to accommodate the special concerns of a particular group in our society in transportation policy.
Simon de Jong NDP Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, I do wish to present a few points in this debate. Most have already been made by my colleague for Mackenzie in whose name several of the amendments have been presented.
We have been accused by the transportation critic of the Reform Party of trying to subvert the bill. Indeed we are. We feel that the bill before us does not meet the needs of Canadians and we make no apologies that as an opposition party we are opposing it. Had members of the Reform Party spent a little less time listening to bureaucrats in committee in Ottawa and gone to the prairies and to the back roads and listened to the people in the coffee shops, maybe they would have heard an entirely different requirement of how rail transportation should be dealt with.
In essence, the bill is everything the railways want. It totally ignores the needs of the users. Let us not forget that a tremendous amount of public money has gone into both of the major railways. There is a tremendous amount of public investment and public interest which has been backed up by Canadian tax dollars in the
rail transportation system. The users, the public, the people of Canada have some legitimate rights on the question of rail transportation.
That is why many of our amendments tried to create two classes of rail lines for the purposes of abandonment so that the main lines are considered in a separate category. These are not just the veins, they are the arteries of the system. We could lob off a finger and bits of pieces of the rail transportation system but when we start attacking the main line, we are attacking the essential structure of our transportation system. That is why many of our amendments tried to create two different categories for the purposes of abandonment.
Among many other things we tried in the amendments to make it a little more user friendly. One example is Motion No. 30. The act now states that if there is a plan for abandonment, the railway company has to prepare and keep up to date a plan and they shall make the plan available for public inspection in offices of the company that it designates for that purpose. We want to make certain that the plan is also available in the affected communities and that the plan is not just tacked on a bulletin board in head office in Montreal and the local people have no idea what is going on.
Our amendments are intended to make this act more user friendly, to protect the interests of the users, the communities, especially rural communities whether they are in the maritimes or in northern Quebec, Ontario, on the prairies or in the interior of British Columbia, communities that depend on the railway, that their interests are also taken into account, as they certainly are not in this present legislation. That is why we are opposing this legislation.
It would be interesting as well to see how the Reform Party will end up voting on it. We are being accused of trying to sabotage a bill that I suspect the Reform Party in the end will also be voting against.
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
Is the House ready for the question?
Canada Transportation ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)
The question is on Motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?