Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up where I left off which was on the issue of safety at rail crossings. As members know, at unprotected crossings there is a requirement for the engineer of an approaching train to warn, from a certain distance, anyone who might be at the crossing.
I was telling the House about the example in my own community where we were experiencing, in the middle of the night, very extended whistles that were disturbing entire residential communities. We discovered that there was one dirt or country road in the heart of the city not far from a landmark that many members may be familiar with, the Square I shopping centre. This gives members an idea of the density in the community.
This situation was caused because of an inability to acquire this particular piece of property when Highway 403 was built. It was left as an unprotected crossing and, as I mentioned, led to what is commonly referred to as lover's lane. This crossing was disturbing an entire neighbourhood.
It highlighted for me the importance of putting in proper protection at railway crossings.
I come from Mississauga. Recognizing that it is the 20th anniversary of the train derailment which occurred in our community which resulted in the largest peacetime evacuation in history, this is an issue which is very near and dear to my constituents and the people in our city.
I hope there is a vision for improvement to rail services. I think for example of the debate going on right now as to whether Union Station should be acquired by the city of Toronto, the province, the federal government, a private sector developer, or a combination thereof to ensure that the architectural structure of Union Station is preserved. While the history and the architecture is important it is the facility itself which I think is critical. I can see the day when Union Station would be connected to Pearson airport hopefully right through the heart of downtown Mississauga out to the airport. I could see a rail connection for charter passenger flights from the Hamilton airport connecting into Union Station and the downtown area of my community and perhaps even Pearson.
We could see in the future an expansion of rail services with high quality infrastructure in place which would allow commuters going to and from work and other people to access facilities such as Hamilton International Airport, Pearson, Union Station and everything in between. The future of rail I hope is not dead in this country. It is very important that we take a serious look at issues surrounding safety.
Short line railways have started up around the country as a result of the abandonment of certain sections of rail. We are winding up with private sector businesses getting together in some instances almost in the form of a co-op. I think of the short line that connects Collingwood, Stayner and Barrie in the south part of northern Ontario. It primarily serves the local businesses and allows them to interact with one another. It is vitally important if private sector railway companies are operating on these short line systems that safety be of prime concern.
I hope that one day the role of rail service in this country might be similar to the experience in Europe and in Japan. The bullet train in Japan, the Shinkansen, operates through the entire country. As our country grows and the infill of population occurs in urban communities, large populations are needed to make passenger service economically feasible, particularly when it is short line or commuter passenger service.
For example a subway system cannot work in areas where there are not large concentrations of people who can get on and off that facility. The same thing could occur in the area of rail. It is not a vision that exists today but I think it is one that we should be taking a serious look at.
There is a bit of history to show that this government is responding to safety in the area of rail services. I believe opposition parties are supportive of this. The government response to the report of the railway safety act review committee was tabled in parliament in June 1995. There were a number of amendments.
One was to streamline the administrative process, cut down on red tape, provide greater involvement for interested organizations in determining the rules which I think is a very democratic response.
Another was minimized disruption by train noise in communities. I referred to the unprotected crossings. It is not just the actual noise of the train that causes concern, but it is more the whistle as it extends to the broader community.
Another was to strengthen and clarify federal powers at grade crossings, something municipalities are very concerned about. To go under or over the tracks at a grade crossing I believe costs $7 million or $8 million in today's terms for a fundamental, simple grade separation. Municipalities are concerned with the interaction of the automobile and the train and would prefer to have those grades separated but obviously not at their expense.
The other amendment was to simplify and improve provisions for ensuring that appropriate safety measures are in place and finally to clarify and strengthen the power of railway safety inspectors.
Following that, Transport Canada immediately proceeded to make a number of other modifications which I would like to share with the House. One is that the new section on testing exemptions be amended to include immediate exemptions for a limited application of short duration; second, that the new section on whistle cessation be amended in order that any relevant association or organization be advised of the municipality's intention to pass the anti-whistling resolution. Once again, the importance of an unprotected grade crossing without a whistle would endanger public safety and is not something that any of us would like to see.
The bill came back to the House in 1996 but unfortunately, or fortunately as some of us would not be here if this had not occurred, the House was dissolved, there was an election and the bill died on the order paper.
However, I am pleased to note that amendments in Bill C-58 improve even further on the earlier amendment put forward and accepted by the government that were originally in Bill C-43. I will just share those with the House: a new policy statement and new definitions and, very important, the authority to require railways to implement safety performance monitoring. I refer the House to my earlier comments about the identification on the actual train cars that may be carrying chemicals that could be dangerous and this will help to improve that; a new safety compliance order targeted at safety management system deficiencies and increased authority even further for inspectors.
I think we can all take some pride in this bill because the reality is the government is recognizing the significance of safety in the rail system not only in rural Canada in western and eastern Canada and northern Ontario but indeed in the heart of our hustling, bustling cities where citizens are impacted both in terms of noise and in terms of safety. Municipalities can also be impacted tremendously in terms of their fiscal responsibilities.
I think it is great to have this bill here. It is about time. I agree with members that it would have been good if we could have done it quicker, but better now than not at all. I look forward to this going to committee and coming back to the House for third and final reading with the support of all members.