Debates of Feb. 1st, 1999

Railway Safety Act

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased for the opportunity to take part in third reading of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. This act is basically the same as the previous Bill C-43 introduced during the last parliament. Unfortunately it died on the order paper at the call of the last election.

The bill proposes amendments to the Railway Safety Act which came into effect in January 1998. The statutory review took place after five years. The result was the previous Bill C-43 and now the bill that has replaced it, the one before us, Bill C-58.

The bill will provide the necessary authority to require railways to implement safety management systems. This is a preventive measure that will work to enhance the procedures of railway companies. The bill will also provide greater involvement of the affected organizations in rule making. It will allow communities to become involved in the issue of train whistles.

It does not sound very important but it is. For one living in a community next to a railway track it becomes a disruption. I am being told that this will ensure local communities will have their say on how that is handled, not at the expense of safety but by attempting to eliminate that disruption in certain communities because of rail lines and their crossings. The community and the railway will be able to work together under the legislation to provide for minimal disruption of the community and, as I said earlier, to provide the highest level of safety at crossings.

The bill will now clarify and strengthen the federal powers at road crossings which will allow for safer crossings at a time as speeds and volumes are increasing, which makes safe crossings that much more important. Particularly with the increase of car and truck volumes using our road system and the rail industry competing globally with increased volumes, it is much more important that we become vigilant to support or provide for the safest possible system when these two modes of transportation meet.

Increased crossing safety is the utmost importance considering the circumstances when there is an unfortunate incident at a crossing. Railway crossing safety will become even more critical as volumes increase. The Maersk-Sea Land's post-panamax strategy for North America may and most likely will include Halifax. We are hoping Halifax will be the container port of choice by huge new vessels which will increase traffic volumes immensely. Nova Scotia's economy, indeed the Canadian economy, will benefit greatly if Halifax is chosen.

I take this opportunity to impress upon the federal government the importance of the Halifax bid. My seatmate from Nova Scotia and our transport critic from Cumberland—Colchester have been working very hard to make sure that the bid is given some recognition by the government. Unfortunately the government has been what we call shamefully silent on the issue. It has to be a little more aggressive in that bid if Halifax is to be successful.

I am getting off topic a bit but the Halifax terminal is up against some pretty stiff competitors. It all fits into the safety implications of the bill. The container line coming into Halifax and the super port would increase volumes dramatically on the railways and on the highways simply because of the loads super carriers would be bringing into the port of Halifax if it were successful.

One thing that annoys me about the federal government is its lack of support of the Halifax bid for the super port. I have before me an article that was carried in the Halifax Chronicle Herald in September 1998 wherein the federal international trade minister was urging New England business leaders to back the bid of Halifax for super port status.

It is interesting that Halifax is looking for $50 million from the federal government to help with the bid to become the named port in competition with ports along the American seacoast. Yet here we have the Minister for International Trade urging New Englanders or New England business to support our bid but not coming up to the line on behalf of the Government of Canada to support Nova Scotia in that bid.

Halifax is on the short list and it is coming down to a choice between Baltimore, New York, New Jersey and Halifax. It is up against some pretty stiff competition. The federal government has to be a little more active on that file if Halifax is to be successful. We can be sure that the Americans will use everything at their disposal to make sure they are successful.

Just a week or two ago I was listening to a New York radio station and I know hundreds of millions are now being spent to dredge the New York-New Jersey harbour in anticipation of receiving the go ahead; in other words that it will be the favoured port.

The Americans are doing everything they can to secure that bid, and we are sitting in Ottawa doing absolutely nothing. I urge the federal government to talk to the industry minister and the finance minister. It is time we did what our American competitors are doing to ensure success by investing in the future of Nova Scotia, the east coast of Canada and the Canadian economy. This is a big money maker, a big job maker. It is time the government at least acknowledges the writing on the wall and plays hardball with our American counterparts. Otherwise it is like rolling over and playing dead to the elephant. I do not think that we can afford to do that any more.

The transport minister's parliamentary secretary is here. He is a very capable individual. I hope he impresses upon his minister the importance of the bid so that we can move on with it.

Another measures contained in the bill is the authority to regulate railway emissions. Our environment is a valuable asset, one that we cannot replace. It is not as if it is a renewable resource. We have one and we have to take care of it. We support any measures to protect it, and that is included in the bill.

The last feature to which I will speak is the security of the railway system. Bill C-58 will improve safety, not only for the travelling public who uses the rail system through VIA Rail but also the vital link which has a major impact on the success of the Canadian economy.

The Railway Safety Act which passed in 1988 was a significant change in the way we regulate railways and how railways interact with government. This has proven to be a very good approach, and with the legislation before us today I hope it will become that much better. I might add that I was a member of the government that passed the legislation in 1988.

The member for Cumberland—Colchester examined the bill in detail at the committee stage and was glad to hear the witnesses who appeared before the committee, including CP Rail, Canadian National, the Railway Association of Canada and three groups representing labour. We are also pleased with the exhaustive consultations that took place with the stakeholders involved and their valuable input.

I emphasize that it is a top priority of our party to ensure safe railway operation. In conclusion, I am glad to say that we will be supporting Bill C-58, the Railway Safety Act, as we look forward to the safer railway system which will be a result of the bill.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party in support of Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act.

The bill is the product of an inclusive consultation process with representatives of the railway industry, organized labour and other stakeholders. These stakeholders have indicated their satisfaction and support for the bill.

The process of consultation that culminated with the bill is a rare and refreshing change from the autocratic way the government usually operates. Most of the time the government takes its cues from its business friends who are concerned with only their bottom lines and not with what is in the public interest. This obvious bias is most apparent in the way the Liberal government has slashed health and social spending and finagled with EI funds that are supposed to pay for unemployed workers and job training.

Most government bills come to the House from the bureaucratic backrooms like lightning bolts from Mount Olympus with little or no public consultation. When there is consultation it is usually only with high priced lobbyists. That is why the bill is such a rare and refreshing change.

It was a pleasure to see organized labour, municipal governments and the Canada Safety Council consulted in the making of the bill. It was rare to see a balanced process, rather than one skewed by a one dimensional perspective.

New Democrats and social democratic parties around the world know that business is fundamentally important to the public interest. After all, it is the engine that creates our society. Business is a valid and important contributor to society but it is only one dimension in the multidimensional reality of the public interest. In a healthy democracy business needs must be balanced with the needs of communities, with individual liberty, with compassion for the sick and the disadvantaged, and with other values that its citizens hold dear.

When business interests gain supremacy over others democracy is threatened. We see this in many third world dictatorships where business thrives but the people are denied liberty and most live in poverty.

The consultations that went into the bill are a case in point. Business was well represented by CP Rail, CN, Via and the Railway Association of Canada. Surely they made valuable contributions, but other voices were at the table as well. Labour was there to represent the workers. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities represented communities and the Canada Safety Council represented the general public interest. No wonder this process produced a positive bill that we are pleased to support.

Among other things the bill allows for greater openness and transparency in the making of rules and regulations. It addresses concerns about train noise in communities and the problem of train-car collisions at road crossings. It clarifies jurisdictional issues over road crossings and extends the jurisdiction of railway safety inspectors. It provides the federal government with the authority to mandate safety programs from railway companies and enables the government to regulate railway emissions.

I particularly welcome the provisions for greater openness and transparency in rule making. The bill will ensure that unions and other interested parties have 60 days to review and comment on any new rules, rule changes or proposals for exemption. I know the transportation unions take the safety of the public and the safety of their members very seriously and will take advantage of this opportunity to add their input into the regulatory process.

One of the most difficult issues this bill deals with is noise pollution from train whistles. When these whistles blow at all hours of the day and night they disturb people living near railway crossing and lower property values. At the same time train whistles are important for safety because they serve as a warning to motor vehicles and pedestrians crossing tracks. Over 95% of train fatalities are caused by trespassing on tracks or at crossings. So the challenge in this bill was to balance the need for safety with the quality of life of people living near crossings. After listening to the rather strange story the member from Cypress Hills mentioned, the challenge will also be to ensure that the rights of those people who are on those tracks are dealt with in a fair manner. It would appear that is an area that will have to be looked at fairly quickly.

The solution found was to turn responsibility over to local governments which, as we know, are more in touch with the needs of their communities than the Ottawa bureaucracy. This bill will enable local governments to pass resolutions to limit train whistling. In order to ensure safety, the municipalities will have to consult with the relevant railway companies and other stakeholders and the crossing will have to meet certain national safety standards. Clearly this solution delegates a great deal of responsibility to local governments and depends on the vitality and good judgement of those democracies. New Democrats and community activists everywhere will closely monitor this new system to make sure it works.

Although I support this bill overall, I would like to note one reservation regarding the section about the medical testing of railway workers designated as critical to railway safety. Without a doubt, the public interest demands that these workers be medically fit to do their important jobs. My concern is with section 35 of the bill which states that these persons shall undergo a medical examination organized by the railway company concerned. Medical records are personal and private and we, as members of parliament, must take care any time we pass a law like this one that violates the privacy of citizens. I am concerned by the fact that this bill specifically states that the medical examinations are to be organized by the railway companies concerned.

I have a great deal of experience with these kinds of issues, having worked for 25 years in the health care field. For many of those years I served as a union representative and I have seen firsthand the kind of abuse that permeates with rules like this one. It is possible that the railway companies will try to abuse this section. Hypothetically they could have a company doctor declare a worker unfit to work in order to get rid of a union leader or to prevent an employee from having enough years of service to qualify for their pension. On the other side of the coin the company could have a doctor overlook some legitimate medical problem to keep an employee on the job when they are shorthanded. These kinds of abuses have happened before and we must ensure that they cannot happen again. This underlines why unions are absolutely essential for protecting the rights of workers and why the railway unions must be vigilant in protecting their members.

In summary, this bill attempts to improve the safety of Canada's railways. It presumes that the railway companies will not put profit before safety. Only time will tell if this confidence in the railway companies is justified. Despite these reservations I reiterate my support for the bill.

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, regarding the presentation made by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands he stated correctly that railway property is private property. Therefore anyone trespassing can be arrested if there is an officer of the railway or someone representing the law enforcing body of the railway as it was possibly in that case.

However, I would like to point out to the member and to members of the House that this bill is presenting a dynamic innovation in the whole area of railway safety. In the past rules and regulations were made and they were carved in stone. They remained that way for a great number of years. The tools, the processes and the regulations that were imposed in this bill will provide a dynamic model which means that it will continually grow based on concerns and input from all the parties concerned, not only municipalities, not only victims of accidents on the railway but all parties.

Safety will be number one throughout this entire process. Changes will be in essence ongoing because this is a very dynamic model with all parties concerned. I thank the member for New Brunswick Southwest for his comments with regard to the harbour. That issue has not yet been resolved because the Halifax harbour has not been chosen. That issue will be dealt with at the community, municipal and provincial levels before we are notified of any decision. We certainly cannot step into the picture and make declarations. In other words, we only deal with the facts.

I thank the hon. member for Churchill for her comments pertaining to the process we were all involved in devising this bill. I will take into consideration and pass on to the government the kind of concern raised by the member at the very end of her presentation regarding health management problems.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the ongoing process it is important for the dynamic aspect so talked about to really be there and for it not to be a lot of fluff. There is a concern that might not be the case. I know the railway workers and the municipalities involved will be very vigilant in ensuring this bill really works to improve railway safety.

I know the parliamentary secretary has committed to ensuring that what takes place is up front. We will see how things proceed.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will comment on what the parliamentary secretary said in terms of private crossings although they are disappearing in my area. Right in the middle of most towns in the prairies are private crossings, since the railway came in. Although they are private crossings they have been used as public crossings that give the railway the right of way.

If the parliamentary secretary had listened carefully to the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, he would know that it was an unprovoked, unnecessary approach by someone employed as a railway police officer. If this incident were to happen in my town we would consider it gross indecency on the part of the police. We have to take what he said as true. I know it is true and I know the hon. parliamentary secretary will give credence to what he has to say and that he will give some support to this individual case. Eventually it will come back. Right now it is laying in the hands of the Minister of Transport. I would ask him to look into that.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that the story related by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands should be of great concern. Without knowing exactly how it is proceeding through the Department of Transport, I am sure most of us here will follow up with the particulars to ensure it will not happen again.

I am sure most Canadians do not realize there are private police and such on the railways and on that New Brunswick toll highway. Authority is given to the companies that run that stretch to police it. I do not think Canadians realize that and I do not think they would be very happy to know that. As the word gets out we might find that more and more comments come back if things are not done in an acceptable manner. In this case it certainly appears it was not.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my party to address Bill C-58 on railway safety. From the outset, I would point out that our party intends to vote in favour of this bill at third reading.

Shortly after the accident at Biggar, the Minister of Transport announced he would be postponing the introduction of changes to the Railway Safety Act in Parliament, to give his senior officials time to examine the need for new improvements to the act and develop mechanisms to assess safety and apply regulations.

To this end, as is the practice in all bureaucracies, a task force was set up to examine railway safety that comprised experts in risk management and in regulatory matters.

On January 31, 1998, the senior officials submitted to the minister their report containing a variety of recommendations arising from the work of the committee. On March 18, 1998, the Minister of Transport announced his acceptance of the recommendations and gave his departmental officials the job of carrying out the statutory changes as quickly as possible.

On November 5, the Minister of Transport tabled the proposed changes to the Railway Safety Act in the House of Commons. They included a new statement of policy, the power to require railway companies to report all important information in order to ensure railway safety, the power to require railway companies to implement safety management systems and, finally, among other things, an increase in the powers of railway safety inspectors.

More specifically, the objectives of the Railway Safety Act as amended by Bill C-58 are as follows: first, promote and provide for the safety of the public and personnel, and the protection of property and the environment, in the operation of railways; second, encourage the collaboration and participation of interested parties in improving railway safety. It could perhaps be mentioned that there is a provision in this bill that unions be consulted, that there be greater co-operation between workers and railways. Our party can only give its hearty approval.

Front line workers are the best judge of optimum safety regulations, not managers in their ivory towers in Montreal, Toronto or Calgary.

We are therefore delighted that this bill makes provision for such participation and co-operation by the various parties concerned.

Third, this bill recognizes the responsibility of railway companies in ensuring the safety of their operations. And finally, this bill facilitates a modern, flexible and efficient regulatory scheme that will ensure the continuing enhancement of railway safety.

Generally speaking, this is a very technical bill, the purpose of which is to improve railway safety, as I have several times mentioned. This bill increases the government's power to have railway companies correct irritants and risk factors with respect to safety and the environment.

We saw a problem, however, when there was a need to improve the safety of level crossings within a municipality. We introduced an amendment at report stage. It read as follows:

That Bill C-58, in Clause 19, be amended by adding after line 7 on page 12 the following:

“Section 24 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) A railway company that operates a line of railway shall reimburse a provincial government, city or municipality for expenses incurred by the provincial government, city or municipality, as the case may be, in respect of the line of railway for the purpose of complying with a regulation made under subsection (1).”

In a fourth paragraph, we said:

(4) For greater certainty, subsection (3) does not limit the scope of subsection (2) with respect to a provincial government, city or municipality.

That was the amendment we introduced at report stage.

It must be pointed out, unfortunately, that, true to form, the government has not made use of the solutions or constructive suggestions offered by the opposition and has decided to do things its own way. What we were suggesting were not mere whims, but reflected our desire to reflect the reality of numerous municipalities in Quebec and in Canada, and their ability to pay.

In this connection, I will read a letter over the signature of Mr. Pierre Gaudet, mayor of Aston Junction in the riding of Richelieu. Mayor Gaudet wrote to his MP, my colleague for Richelieu, a most hardworking, serious and conscientious man, who referred the matter to me. Together we discussed the matter and raised it within our party caucus. This is the reason we decided to move an amendment to Bill C-58.

Mayor Gaudet wrote in his letter to his MP:

Sir:

Under this order-in-council, the municipality of Aston Junction now has financial and road maintenance responsibility for the Vigneault Street level crossing.

Referring to order-in-council 1998/R402 of July 15, 1998.

Since 1993, the municipality has been objecting to this responsibility. Now, without our consent, we have become responsible for this level crossing.

We are calling upon your assistance in freeing us of this responsibility. For our small municipality—

I should point out that Aston Junction is not the city of Montreal, Longueuil or Brossard, with their rich property tax base. The same goes for Saint-Lambert. I do not have exact population figures, but—still quoting the mayor—Aston Junction is a “small” municipality.

Resuming the letter:

For our small municipality, such a responsibility represents a very high annual investment, since our role was to pay without any right of review of CN's projected expenditures. We cannot afford such an expense over the long term.

In order to familiarize you with this matter, we enclose a copy of the order-in-council and of the resolution passed by the municipality.

What I want to illustrate with my comments on this is that, concretely, when safety improvements are involved, relating to a railway line which passes through a municipality—trains being unlike planes, this cuts the road in half to let the train pass—it is normal, logical, reasonable for the one responsible for blocking the road traffic to pay for improving the safety of level crossings.

I have tried to raise your awareness of the reasonable character of this, but let us look at the ability of CN and CP to pay. First of all, CN. We are aware of the context in which the Liberal government privatized CN. With passage of the act to privatize CN, something occurred that has never been seen anywhere else in the world. When CN was privatized, it was given the lines as well. In Canada, the railway was an instrument of east-west development. The rail lines, the rights-of-way, were paid for by the taxpayers of Quebec and of Canada.

I remember very clearly what I had to say in 1994-95 in the House: that the government ought not to hand over the rail lines to the newly privatized CN, headed by that same Paul Tellier who, we will remember, received $350,000 when president of a non-privatized CN, then a crown corporation. He got an interest-free loan of $350,000 to purchase a house in Westmount, and then the same Paul Tellier, CN's president, benefited from unbelievable treatment at the time of privatization.

I maintain that the government made a mistake in handing over the railway rights-of-way when it privatized the railway. Today this means that the passenger trains are at the mercy of the freight trains.

This means passengers having to wait two or two and a half hours in the middle of a field in Kamouraska or Mont-Joli, because trains carrying Volvos from Halifax are arriving. There are trains carrying rolls of newsprint. There are trains carrying lumber that pass while passenger trains wait. That is what has been happening since the privatization of Canadian National and its newly acquired power over life and death on the rails.

I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport is listening to me, and I would remind him that, regarding the whole issue of the future of passenger rail service in Quebec and Canada, a sword of Damocles hangs over the two big companies, CN and CP. I hope the government will stand up.

I am happy the Standing Committee on Transport said, and that the Minister of Transport acknowledged, that freight companies should find ways to facilitate passenger rail service in Canada. There is a sword of Damocles over their heads.

I congratulate the government, but I hope it will stand up. But I hope the lobbies, the bagmen—and I did not say “Batman”, I said bagmen, those who carry bags of money for the Liberals' campaign fund—will this once stay in their place and that the government will respect passengers, because we are talking about the future of passenger transportation. We are talking about lines, about franchising Via Rail.

I see the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik is listening carefully to me. He is concerned about the sale of the Montreal-Senneterre line to a private company. My colleagues in the Gaspé are concerned about the Montreal-Gaspé and Montreal-Jonquière lines.

The government will have to give this serious thought. If CN had not been given incredible benefits and unwarranted conditions when it was privatized, we would not be at the mercy of these companies.

Our amendment proposes that small municipalities, and municipalities in general, taxpayers, those who live in small bungalows and pay astronomical municipal taxes because municipalities have had to absorb the costs of other levels of government, not have to pay. The large companies should pay for the cost of making railways safe.

I would also like to congratulate the government in another connection—and I think that is part of our role as a reasonable and responsible opposition. When the government falls short, we stand up and say so, but when it makes an interesting proposal, as it does in this bill, I have no trouble congratulating it.

That is why we were elected. We are trying to fulfil our responsibilities as best we can. When the government does something well, we say so. When it falls short, we would like the government to listen to what we have to say more often, but unfortunately we do not always get our wish.

On several occasions my colleagues, the members for Rimouski—Mitis, Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, and Beauharnois—Salaberry have told me about the problems of whistles being blown at all hours of the day and night. I am happy to see that clause 18 of this bill amends section 23 by adding a section 23.1 that reads as follows:

23.1 No person shall use the whistle on any railway equipment in an area within a municipality if

(a) the area meets the requirements prescribed for the purposes of this section;

I am speaking here particularly to the elected municipal representatives listening to us this evening. I remember the years when I had the joy and pleasure of sitting on the municipal council of Boischatel, which is where I live. The first Monday of the month is always the public meeting, so they may be hearing the debates in replay. Still I am speaking to them most particularly.

It is set out in clause (b) I had started to read you that:

(b) the government of the municipality by resolution declares that it agrees that such whistles should not be used in that area and has, before passing the resolution, consulted the railway company that operates the relevant line of railway, notified each relevant association or organization, and given public notice of its intention to pass the resolution.

(2) The Minister may decide whether the area meets the prescribed requirements and the Minister's decision is final.

(3) Despite subsection (1), the whistle may be used if [...] there is an emergency

I think this is entirely reasonable.

The message I am sending municipal officials, members of the public and municipal councils is that a municipal council operates by means of regulations or resolutions. A municipal council may therefore, by resolution, regulate use of whistles. It is agreed that the municipal council will consult the railway company and, if agreement cannot be reached, that it may forward the matter to the minister, with supporting arguments.

Today, during Oral Question Period, there was a planted question from a Liberal member to the minister. I always find this amusing, and I think that those listening are anxious to see the Standing Orders amended so as to put an end to this masquerade. Opposition members do not plant questions. Ministers do not know in advance what our questions will be.

This is a serious waste of the House's time. There is so much work to be done, and each question period two or three questions come from members on the same side as the ministers. The member reads the question, the minister reads the response and turns the pages. This is a charade from another era that should have disappeared a long time ago.

I invite the parliamentary leaders of the various parties to have this system of planted questions stopped. Nobody believes it anyway. I hope everyone watching knows. When a Liberal member rises to put a question to a minister, the minister knows the question is coming and reads the response, which he had ahead of time.

Today, because Bill C-58 was to be debated tonight in the House, the minister had a question from the member for Cambridge, concerning whistles as a matter of fact.

In conclusion, I would like to say we support the principle behind the bill, because we all want to do the right thing, but there are some interesting provisions. However, we would have preferred that the government be more open-minded and accept our amendment to clause 19.1 on giving municipalities relief from major investments they cannot always afford and for which they are obliged to borrow and tax an already overtaxed public.

We would have liked the government to listen to us, but, despite everything, for all the reasons I have tried my best to enumerate, I must say that our party supports Bill C-58, which aims to increase railway safety.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a pretty hard act to follow.

I have enjoyed listening to this debate. I want to inform hon. members, and some of the members of my party that I really am a railway man. I was born on the prairies where the only source of communication was the mail which came in by train. Passengers came in by train. All goods came in by train and the wheat went out by train. The greatest social event every evening was to go down to meet the train coming in to see what lovely girls were getting off the train.

I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary does not know that in Saskatchewan we named a fruit after the railway. We called prunes CPR strawberries and it was not meant in a positive way I might add.

Railways were a part of my life and they still are.

The railway comes through most prairie towns with the station at the end and the crossings on the outside of town. That is not always true in some of the larger centres.

The parliamentary secretary will probably know of the disdain the prairies had for railways, which they still have to some extent. In grade six we had a special class. All students were taught as they got older to hate the railways. That has been part of our vernacular, to be very anti-railway. However, that is coming to a close simply because the railways are disappearing.

I want to pay tribute to the transport committee. I asked for a video. It was a good video, although it was a little long, but it was totally made in the U.S. I suggest once more what to do for the thousands of school children in Canada who still play on railway property. We need a Canadian made safety video, which would be cheap to make nowadays, to send out across Canada. I have tried to research this and as far as I know we do not have a safety railway video available for teaching safety in our schools. That is a must.

I was once present at a scene where the speed of the train was not that great, but it hit a car and there were fatalities. I will never forget that engineer stepping down from the engine. It was impossible for him to stop. He had to live with that for the rest of his life.

This bill is more than just a safety bill. I believe it is to bring to the attention of the Canadian public that we still have railways, we still have crossings, we still have people who trespass and we need more education. I urge the parliamentary secretary to take that message to the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Industry or whoever. Let us design and produce a really good safety video to give to schools across Canada. That would not be a costly venture. One life saved would be worth the cost of the video.

I will present to the House one of my intentions with respect to Bill C-58. I wanted to have a firsthand glimpse of what has become a very unique problem in my constituency. There are two places in my constituency where what I am about to explain takes place.

Each aisle in the House will represent a distance of exactly one mile. That is the way the west was surveyed. Most of the trains currently in operation are unit trains. Both incidents happened on the CPR Soo Line. In the new operation, with newer cars coming on, the length of the train will only increase.

I want members to picture this centre aisle as being the centre of the city. Half of the city lives on one side and half lives on the other. The fire halls are all on one side. The train approaches and the flashing lights block off that crossing. When he gets halfway there, this one is crossed. The engine comes over here, so we have two crossings now blocked by the same train because a 110 unit train will be over a mile in length.

There is a fire alarm, but the fire truck is not aware that there is a train blocking those crossings. The centre crossing is the one which is used the most. The fire truck may arrive before we get past the first crossing. By the time we have blocked this crossing at least 12 minutes have passed. By that time traffic has built up on both sides of the crossing, so the fire truck cannot get through. Even if the train started to move forward in five minutes or seven minutes, that crossing could be obstructed for a period greater than 10 minutes. I witnessed a period of 13 minutes.

The reason I bring this to the attention of members is because this in itself concerns safety. I believe that the transport committee should look at the three groups involved: the municipality, the railway and the federal government.

There was no longer any need for rails, such as in the case of Regina, as there was no longer any passenger service. When there no longer is a need, as is fast becoming the case in these smaller cities, it is incumbent upon the governments of the province, the municipality, the federal government and the railways to take a look at this situation because sooner or later there is going to be a catastrophe because of the length of the trains.

In my day, if there was a train which was a half-mile long, that was a long train. The trains travelling now are well over a mile long in most cases. These trains are presenting new problems. First, they need a greater distance to bring the train to a halt. Second, because of the length of the train they are often blocking two crossings at the same time. They pose a communications problem, particularly for police but mainly for fire trucks in these centres. I would suggest that we take a look at the problems that are being created.

I would like to mention one other point that was brought up tonight. The hon. member spoke about the Halifax problem and the amount of money that is needed. CN explained very clearly to the transport committee that they can take goods from the port of Halifax to the Chicago market, beating the U.S. not only in dollars and cents, but by almost 24 to 48 hours depending upon the cargo.

I think it is incumbent upon this government to take whatever steps are necessary. Should the $40 million be spent? Yes. We must make sure that our port of Halifax does not lose this advantage to the United States. If that happens, I believe we would find that the maritimes would suffer a very severe blow, even a greater blow than that which is taking place on Cape Breton Island at this time.

I am not sure if the Minister of Transport is really cognizant of the importance of ensuring that this Canadian venture stays in place and that we do gain this facility and keep it for the welfare of Canadians.

Yes, we will be supporting this bill. Yes, it was a timely bill. I personally enjoyed going through this bill because of my background with the railways. But let us not ever take it upon ourselves to think that this bill is the end all, that we do not have to touch anything more. There are many other factors concerning safety which will be coming up with the new modes of transportation, the new cars, the new braking systems and the new demands on the highways.

The railways and the department of highways have to work much more closely together than they have in the past. That is a foregone conclusion. It is not the case now, but it is up to this government to do that.

If we could ever get into a pattern of having a national highway program, then the ease of doing this and the ease of working with the railways would become a reality and Canadians would benefit a great deal.

This is a plug for the railways and a plug for the highways. We have a national railway policy. I see no reason why we cannot have a national highway policy too.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment. Although at the end of his speech the member said that we have a national railway policy, sometimes I am not so sure that we have one. Our policy in recent years has turned over half of our railways, that is to say the CNR, to American shareholders. That is not something which I think is in the best interests of the country.

I want to commend the hon. member for raising the point about the longer trains. That is what I came to the House to talk about. He talked about 110-car unit trains. However, I have information in my office, given to me by people who work on the railways, which concerns trains of 157 cars. We are talking about trains that, instead of being 5,000 or 6,000 feet long, which was long anyway, are 10,000 feet long. These trains have absolutely no possibility of clearing a crossing in the required time.

The most recent regulations are very vague with respect to what is required of the railways in terms of clearing crossings in a certain time. They have been made deliberately vague so that the railways cannot be held to account for what they are now doing. What they are now doing is having longer and longer trains.

This raises the problem that the member brought forward, not just with respect to the clearing of crossings and the obvious safety aspects concerning ambulances and emergency procedures, not to mention just plain hassles for people who should not be held up that long, but the time it takes to stop and the fact that they are running these trains with fewer units, so that when trains break down they are stuck for longer periods of time.

I want to reinforce the point that the hon. member made. The government, instead of looking somewhat amused by the point that I am making, which the member made before me, should take this very seriously. Some day somebody they know could be at a crossing, lying in an ambulance, wondering why they cannot proceed. They have to wait for the trains running this way, in defiance of safety concerns, merely so the American shareholders who own CN can make more money.

That is what has happened since CN was taken over by American shareholders. At one point, when it was run by the government, there was some notion of safety and the public good. Now everything is according to the bottom line. Everything is according to what Hunter Harrison wants so that he can please the shareholders in Chicago, Philadelphia, New Orleans or wherever they are. Who cares what happens in Transcona? Who cares what happens in Saskatchewan? That is just a place to make money. That is just a place to have Paul Tellier make more money, thanks to the plan that the Liberals foisted on this country.

It is a shameful and disgusting tragedy for which these people will be held accountable. A hundred years from now they will still be talking about the betrayal of Canada that was foisted on this country by that bunch.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back in time a little. I did some reminiscing and I would like to inform the member that, yes, we have lost a number of railways. I have lost a number of miles in my constituency, albeit we knew some time ago that it was inevitable.

I am reminded of the words of Will Rogers who visited western Canada. He made the comment that Canadians were building railways just for the fun of it.

I do not entirely disagree with what my hon. colleague said, but from my time as a boy until now, when I look at the various safety factors that we have now compared to what we had then, we do have more safety factors concerning the railways. The hon. member is quite right. The unit trains of coal which come out of Wyoming or come out of Estevan heading east are over 110 cars. Most grain trains are 110 cars.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Just ordinary trains.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Unit trains.

I have seen more co-operation of late between the departments of highways and the railways than I have seen for some time. I will admit that it is not perfect. I do believe that we are on the right wavelength as far as safety is concerned. As I said, it is a never ending thing and I hope we do not just close this bill and leave it to gather dust on the shelf.

I do believe too that the idea of the railways and the deregulation and so on has nothing to do from my point of view with this bill. It has nothing to do with the safety regulations in operating the trains.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my hon. friend that I think he is wrong. A lot of this does have to do with deregulation.

I know he does not want to admit it because it would be uncomfortable for him ideologically. This is a trend that the Reform Party, the Liberals and the Conservatives have all been together on: deregulation, privatization. The fact of the matter is this does have a lot to do with it.

A lot of the ways in which the railway is behaving now, particularly with respect to longer trains and these kinds of things has everything to do with making short term quarterly profit margins larger and putting that as a priority against what might be in the public interest.

Even though we agree about the safety problem that longer trains pose, I would have to respectfully disagree with him about what one of the contributing factors is in the creation of these longer trains.

I appreciate the historical lesson from Will Rogers that Canadians were building railways just for the fun of it, but the fact of the matter is these railways were built. They did serve a public purpose, an economic purpose, a social purpose. They did bring the country together. They ought not to be flippantly destroyed in the way that I think much of the infrastructure in western Canada has been destroyed.

This is not a romantic view of the railways. This is a future oriented view of the railways. Sooner or later, and it looks like it is going to be later with these guys, but sooner or later we are going to have to come to the view that railways are the way to go environmentally. If we are going to be dependent on the internal combustion engine, then it should be two or three internal combustion engines pulling a train rather than an army of trucks going down the road clogging up the highways that should be there for the use of ordinary Canadians and their families.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have been talking about in the transport committee. Even the Minister of Transport would agree. In the hub, the central area from Toronto, most of the trains going down will replace up to 274 trucks on the highway. It makes good sense that we do this. Indeed I would like to see that happen. To me that is one of the ways of solving part of the pollution problem. Eventually southern Ontario is going to have to move to rail transportation whether they want to admit it or not.

I just do not want to take the meaning and the purpose of this bill and tie it up with deregulation because I do not think that has anything to do with the passage of this bill. I want to make that clear.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-58, which deals with railway safety.

The government has particular responsibility for ensuring transportation safety. In the past, decisions were not necessarily taken with full consideration to the importance of safety. I will give the example of the creation of Nav Canada.

Nav Canada is the body which has taken over responsibility for air traffic, and which at a certain point pits profitability against the assurance of proper airport security and safety. We see this in all that is going on concerning negotiations on airport control towers.

In this case, where rail safety is concerned, the bill is satisfactory as far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned. It is a bill which modernizes the issue of railway safety. It is a bill which simplifies a certain number of actions in an interesting manner, and it must be acknowledged that it is the result of work in committee coupled with approval by the government.

It is also interesting that, when railroad safety is properly organized, it makes rail travel even more interesting, and in a way gives the environment of Quebec and of Canada a chance, because train travel is a means of transportation which protects the environment far better than many others.

From that point of view, then, this is worthwhile. It is important that this be done properly, because we are in a period of major change in the rail sector, a context of privatization. I do not think that we need to decide between the pertinence of privatization and railway safety. When making decisions on this, safety is paramount, because when private companies are involved, responsibility for safety takes on the legal framework given to it by the government.

As the private sector intervenes increasingly in the railway sector, it needs solid and proper guidelines to ensure the safety of both those who ride the train and those who use it as a means of transporting equipment.

In recent years, short line railways have sprung up. These rail lines give new life to the network. For example, in our region, between Matane and Rivière-du-Loup, the Société des chemins de fer du Québec bought a rail line from the CN. This local company will develop this section of line, possibly providing a link-up with ports and other means of transportation. These short line railways must operate in accordance with adequate safety rules.

Things have happened in the past, for example in Mont-Joli, a railway junction, proving the need for clear and compelling regulations for both businesses and other stakeholders.

The other thing is that Via Rail is soon going to be franchised. This will have an effect on safety too, because it carries people. How will they organize in the event of accidents?

So this bill had to be considered taking account of all these new railway market conditions.

There were some very good provisions in this bill, but improvements that could have been made were not accepted. I would like to return to an amendment that was proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, by the member for Argenteuil—Papineau acting on behalf of the member for Beauport—Montmorency— Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, to ensure that municipalities facing financial hardship occasioned by the cost of maintaining level crossings be given proper financing terms.

Not all municipalities can afford what it costs to upgrade level crossings and introduce appropriate safety measures. That is why the Bloc Quebecois proposed an amendment.

The amendment was set out in the letter sent by the member for Beauport—Montmorency— Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans to Pierre Gaudet, the mayor of Aston Junction, on January 18, 1999. The letter reads as follows:

The Bloc Quebecois recently proposed an amendment to the legislation that would provide a solution by requiring railway companies to assume the costs of maintaining their lines. After all, it is only fair that a company maintain what it owns.

This amendment indicated, I feel, a willingness to assign responsibilities appropriately and to see that negotiations between municipalities and railway companies were on an even footing. When a municipality of 500 or 1,000 people comes up against CN in this sort of negotiation, the parties are not always fairly matched. It would have been interesting to see the company's responsibility spelled out clearly.

This was not done, but that is no reason to scrap the bill. It would have been an interesting improvement for all small municipalities in Quebec and in Canada.

In fact, this bill will modernize safety in our railway sector. I would have liked to see provision made for experiments, such as giving passenger trains priority over freight trains on certain lines at particular times of the day, or setting aside certain lines for passenger trains rather than freight trains, and including this in the bill as interesting experiments. If they were included in the bill, companies would not be liable and this would have facilitated the introduction of new approaches.

The particular issue I am going to address concerns municipalities in my riding. By way of example, Saint-Philippe-de-Néri, a small municipality in my riding, and Trois-Pistoles, a small city that is important in cultural terms and because of its impact but that is part of a region. I give Saint-Philippe-de-Néri as an example, because it is particularly relevant. This municipality took steps to have enough barriers to ensure safety. This way it could put an end to the famous whistle that bothered people at night.

There are some interesting legislative provisions in this regard. Now, with a resolution by the municipality, in accordance with the regulations, the whistle will be heard no more. This is much simpler than before. So there has been a gain in terms of the bill.

The problem is that, as in the other example I gave earlier, the financial responsibility for the studies required is not clearly established. Specifically, Saint-Philippe-de-Néri was presented with a bill for $2,500 by Canadian National for a feasibility study to put the appropriate security measures in place.

For Canadian National, with the profits it makes, $2,500 is not an astronomical figure. But for a rural municipality, it can be pretty significant.

I approached the minister on this. I think he lent me an attentive ear. The minister's response today to the question by the Liberal member seemed to confirm this. I hope that the companies will take steps to assume the costs when they are responsible.

In a case like this one, I hope Canadian National will return the money it demanded in order to have the change in place before the bill passed. The bill was not passed, but changes were coming and Canadian National could have taken them into account before billing the municipality. That would have been interesting. It would have been a good gesture on the part of Canadian National as a show of social responsibility. Something we did not see in the past with the job cuts.

This is a concrete example to help, with a little ad hoc financial assistance, a number of municipalities to have changes made to improve the quality of life of those living beside the railway. At the same time, an appropriate safety system would be in place.

Now municipalities would have a way of making changes simply, under the law, without being hampered by the size of the cheque they might get from CN or any other company owning the railway. That would be important.

In my riding, there are a number of municipalities from La Pocatière to Saint-Simon that are crossed by a rail line.

Some will be wanting to take advantage of this possibility, when they see that the bill makes it possible. They will perhaps be stopped by the size of the bill that will be run up if CN maintains the same position it has to date.

In summary, then, the Bloc Quebecois is pleased to vote in favour of this bill. Once again, this is proof that, when a constructive bill is at stake, we are capable of going along with the government position. In our first mandate from 1993 to 1997 the Bloc was the party that voted most often with the government.

On the other hand, when things runs contrary to the interests of our constituents, we are capable of showing that too. We did so with Nav Canada. Unfortunately, the reality is that these are two different cases, seeing what is going on with airport security and safety, and particularly the pressure that is being brought to bear on this body to ensure cost-effectiveness by such actions as cutting back on the number of control towers across the country.

Where air travel is concerned, we would have liked to have seen a result similar to what we have before us today. Is the difference there because railway safety has been around a long time? It is hard to know why, but we would have liked to see the government taking the same attitude to both.

Let us hope that the bill is passed and that ultimately there are fewer obstacles to the safety of passengers and goods transported by rail, that this is achieved as simply as possible and, as I was saying earlier, with the co-operation of the companies, so that now that the administrative obstacles have been removed, we are not impeded by unacceptable costs to municipalities.

Let us see what this bill will make possible in the years to come and, if in a few years improvements are required, let us hope that the government has the wisdom to agree to the necessary amendments.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-49, an act providing for the ratification and the bringing into effect of the framework agreement on first nation land management, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

First Nations Land Management Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There are seven motions standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-49.

Motions Nos. 1, 6 and 7 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows.

A vote on Motion No. 1 applies to Motions Nos. 6 and 7.

Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate, but voted on as follows:

(a) A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motions Nos. 3 and 4.

(b) Motion No. 5 will be voted on separately.

Pursuant to an order made earlier this day, all the motions are deemed moved and seconded and all the questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of Bill C-49 are deemed put and the recorded divisions are deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, February 2, 1999 at 5.30 p.m.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of the motions in Group No. 1.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-49, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing lines 39 and 40 on page 2 with the following:

“ratified and will be brought into effect in accordance with its provisions for any band on the addition of the name of that band to the schedule in accordance with section 45.”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-49, in Clause 45, be amended by replacing line 16 on page 22 with the following:

“so signed, that a land code has been developed and adopted in accordance with this Act and that the governing bodies of neighbouring jurisdictions have confirmed in writing that consultations respecting the land code have been completed in accordance with the laws of the province in which the first nation land, for which the land code has been adopted, is situated.”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-49 be amended by deleting Schedule 46.

Mr. Speaker, we in the Reform Party truly would like to be able to support this bill because in many ways it fits with the Reform principle of devolution of decision making closer to the people who actually have to live with the effects of that decision.

For far too long the decisions with respect to aboriginal people in Canada have been made in Ottawa and the obvious results of that are everywhere across this land. In that vein, we looked at this legislation long and hard and really wanted to support it and would really like to support it.

However, we see some flaws in the bill that can be fixed with amendments. We see some flaws with respect to the disposition of marital assets in the event of a marriage breakdown. We see some flaws with respect to consultation with communities, surrounding municipalities and so on adjacent to reserves to be covered under the land act, and we see some real concern with respect to the expropriation rights that bands will receive under this act.

However, in talking about the way the Liberals respond to constructive suggestions, it is just typical for them to say “we don't agree with you”. We could have had this legislation through the House before Christmas had the Liberals and other opposition parties agreed to fix these flaws in the bill. Of course we have not been able to achieve that and that is why our amendments are on the table now and why we are debating them.

I begin with Group No. 1 amendments. They deal with concerns of adjacent municipalities, municipalities that were not consulted with respect to Bill C-49. I think that is important because it really does tell a story about how the Liberals approach government and passing legislation.

It would have been a relatively easy exercise to have the adjacent municipalities where this legislation was to have an impact notified, consulted and asked for their opinions prior to drafting the bill and prior to bringing the bill before parliament. Sadly that has not happened. Sadly municipalities have been left out of the picture. It also really does demonstrate the Liberal government's lack of concern on what is arguably a very sensitive issue. We all know that this is a sensitive issue. Land is always a sensitive issue.

Good neighbours, in our view, always discuss development plans which may affect or impact on their neighbours next door. It is only sensible that people would do that.

Not long ago at my home I decided to build a fence. The fence I was to build was on a property line separating my property from my neighbour's. Before I constructed the fence I talked to my neighbour and told him what I intended to do. I told him what kind of fence I intended to build and asked him if he had a problem with it. I told him that if he had any objections that I would like to know before I spent any money on building the fence. I told him that if he had a problem we could sit down and talk about it to see if we could work out some sort of resolution.

Consultation is vital in these matters. In the matter of the bill before us it is vital that bands that are to receive the decision making authority under this legislation have some requirement to consult with adjacent municipalities. That requirement for consultation should run both ways. It should not just be one way.

There are so many things we must plan for such as transportation corridors, services and so on that there has to be some sense of reasonable integration. All our amendment serves to do is require neighbouring municipalities and neighbouring aboriginal bands to sit down and talk about their plans, to make sure there is integration and that there are not two communities working at cross-purposes.

I underline that our amendments are not intended to provide a veto for anybody else's decision making authority. That is not so. They are intended to require that a band coming under the umbrella of Bill C-49 actually proves it has consulted with adjacent municipalities prior to implementing changes in its land management.

This lack of consultation goes further than with just municipalities. I will discuss the expropriation provisions in the bill. That is really important. It is important for Canadians to understand that. It is important for those Liberal backbenches who are not familiar with this bill. It is important for them to understand the tremendous powers of expropriation that are to be handed over in this bill.

This legislation grants the right to expropriate if “in the band's opinion it is necessary for community works or other first nations purposes”. The phrase “other first nations purposes” is a very broad statement. It is very wide open in terms of interpretation. It could mean virtually anything. You could establish almost any reason as a reason for another first nation's purpose. It could be a golf course, a condominium complex or a casino. If the band were to determine that was a first nation purpose within the meaning of this legislation, it could expropriate people from their homes including band members and non-band members who may be on leased land on that reserve. That band could do this because it had decided this was a better purpose for the land.

We all know municipalities, provinces and the federal government must have a higher purpose than that before they enact expropriation legislation. This bill would grant that kind of power without defining the actual services that might be required by the community for the band to enact expropriation proceedings.

The Muskoday people have already designed a land code which I am familiar with. Within their land code they have defined the reasons they would use expropriation. That is a much clearer, more focused definition. We certainly find it is much more agreeable.

I will talk about this lack of consultation because I think it is so important. Most of us are familiar with what happened on the Musqueam reserve in Vancouver. This has come about as a lack of consultation. The department of Indian affairs induced non-Indian lease holders to come on to the reserve in 1965 to build homes and to enter into long term leases. The long term leases were between the department of Indian affairs and the lease holders. In 1980 without any notice or consultation, the minister of Indian affairs of that day, a Liberal minister, Mr. John Munro, signed an authority under section 53 of the Indian Act that gave the band all rights to deal with the leases. Although the department of Indian affairs was named on the lease and that is who the lease holders had signed their leases with, it was the band that was dealing with the leases from that point on.

No notice was given to the leaseholders. That is the crux of the problem that many of those leaseholders face today. I have just come back from Vancouver having spent hours in meetings with the leaseholders on the Musqueam reserve. They have not been consulted on Bill C-49. They are not familiar with the clauses. They have not been told that this is coming. They have had to find out from people like me and others in recent days that this land management act could very much affect them, and this is outside the problems they already face.

That is what is wrong with this legislation. There is no requirement to consult. The people who are going to be affected by this ought to have that right and expectation that they are consulted. They have not been consulted. It is a flaw and it must be re-thought.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-49, the First Nations Land Management Act, tabled sometime around June in the House of Commons by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

It is also an honour for me to be speaking this evening because we have chiefs with us here in the House of Commons, who come from Ontario among other places. They are Chief William McCue, of the Chippewa of Georgina Island, Chief Austin Bear of the Muskoday First Nation in Saskatchewan, Chief Bill William of the Squamish First Nation in B.C. and Robert Louie, acting chair and former chief of the Westbank First Nation in B.C.

This bill will apply to the 14 First Nations that developed this initiative and that signed the Framework Agreement on First Nation Land Management in February 1996. It will allow First Nation participants to establish their own land and resource management regimes.

This government-to-government agreement puts an end to the discretionary power of the minister under the Indian Act, by allowing the 14 first nations to opt out of the sections of the act governing land management. As well, it allows the 14 first nations to implement a community consultation process for the development of general rules and procedures respecting, in cases of breakdown of marriage, the use, occupation and possession of first nation land and the division of interests in case of marriage breakdown. At the present time, the agreement and the legislative measure apply solely to participating first nations.

This initiative, a significant component of self-government, was drawn up totally in conjunction with these first nations. These communities are opening up the way for changes to land management by implementing a new land management regime and by opting out of the Indian Act. This legislative measure will return administrative powers to the communities and will do away with the minister's participation in the day-to-day decisions on land management and in the activities of these first nations.

According to Austin Bear, Chief of the Muskoday First Nation, “the framework agreement and the legislative measure recognize our fundamental right to manage our reserve lands and our resources. As well, they ensure protection of our lands for future generations, by banning any transfer or sale, or any expropriation by provincial or municipal governments, both of which are now possible under the Indian Act.”

Chief William McCue of the Georgina Island First Nation said: “I strongly urge all parties in the House to support this bill and to pass it quickly. Once the framework agreement has been implemented, we will be in a position to respond to economic opportunities and to generate jobs and income for our members. Georgina Island will then truly be open for business.”

The present government's message “Gathering Strength: Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan” establishes the direction of a new relationship between governments, native groups and organizations, and the private sector, founded on the principles of mutual recognition and respect, responsibility and sharing. This initiative is built on the kind of partnership that makes a positive contribution to the lives of aboriginals.

The land management initiative will promote economic development on reserves, as well as make it possible to acquire experience in developing other self-government approaches in the future.

In addition, environmental assessment and protection regimes will be established by each first nation. These regimes will be harmonized with federal and provincial environmental regimes.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I call on the members in the House this evening to support this bill so as to help our aboriginal friends in Canada.

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the process of consultation that went on for this bill to get to parliament.

Bill C-49 was Bill C-75 in the previous parliament. Just to develop the framework agreement process the chief had to go to his council to be allowed to continue a process. He next had to go to his elders for approval in direction. He next had to go to his community. They developed the framework agreement. We are talking about 13 bands and the 14th joined later. They voted on a framework and a land code. Then it had to be ratified by their community before they could carry on further. We are talking about six years and then into parliament.

For 14 bands out of over 600 in this country, this legislation will allow them or hopefully will let them opt out of the Indian Act. This is not a land claim we are talking about. We are talking about a land management act for 14 bands. It would be in keeping with some of the recommendations by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. It would be something that would give some guts to the “Gathering Strength” document that is now a year old and certainly needs something to show for the vision that it put forward.

This bill would devolve power. It would devolve political evolution for the first nations involved and it would give them some self-determination. We are only talking about one section of the Indian Act and only for 14 bands.

The land management will be the responsibility of the first nations. I will give an example of something that came up at the committee meeting. Some of the witnesses thought that first nations should not be given the burden of governing themselves. I disagree. They have the right to govern themselves and in this small way we can assist them to do that.

There were other comments at committee that the Indian Act was just fine, that in fact Bill C-49 was a racist document and that we were giving them this power because they are Indians. The fact is we took away everything, their language, their children, their land, because they were Indians and enforced the Indian Act because they were Indians. We are saying that it is all right to take it away because they are Indians but we will not return anything because they are Indians and therefore it would be racist. That is just not fair.

This is only a small piece of legislation that will make an incredible difference in the lives of these 14 bands.

The Union of British Columbia Municipalities met on November 13, 1998 and set out an agreement. The meeting was cordial and resulted in a general agreement on a process for mutual consultations between municipalities in B.C. and those first nations in B.C. who are parties to the framework agreement.

This bill covers bands in many provinces and territories so hopefully that will be a standard set for other bands and communities to follow in order to come to mutual agreements. The bands involved, as I said, are in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick. It is a pretty broad coverage of our country.

There is a lot of controversy over this bill, as I think there usually is when anything is in transition and means real change for people. It is a major step in decision making power over land. It has a lot of good points in it. It replaces the Indian Act for these 14 first nations. It gives them lawmaking powers with respect to their land and resources in development, conservation, protection, management, use and possession but no taxation power.

They will be able to develop or lease their land but they cannot sell it. They may expand through negotiation. They can acquire land for community purposes. It sets out very stringent conditions of accountability between the first nations and their citizens both on reserve and off reserve. That includes all their members, not just those who live on the reserve but people who for whatever reason had to leave a reserve to make a living or get an education or who have chosen to live elsewhere.

The federal government retains the fiduciary responsibility for first nations. A lot of these first nations would probably opt out of the Indian Act if they could, but they cannot. This does set out a community process that will be established by the first nations people for their bands.

Another area of controversy is matrimonial breakdown. First nations people have different cultures. My immediate thought was that they should have divorce settlements and laws that are consistent with what I think is just. Perhaps what I think is just is not what they think is just, considering that the property is community and my history is titled and property owned by individuals.

The first nations would have a different thought process on how they would look after families, women or children who do not have the same access to property that I do. The fact is first nations people have not had that process in place because the Indian Act did not allow it.

What this bill will do is that within one year first nations people will have to deal with how they will settle and look after matrimonial property. They will do it based on their culture. It has been explained to me that some are already doing it. This has never been recognized because the Indian Act has not covered it, but the first nations have been looking after their people the best way they can.

The New Democratic Party supports Bill C-49. We hope to see it go forward very quickly.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage of Bill C-49, the first nations land management act. This bill was introduced in the House last June.

I am particularly pleased to speak to this bill as it will apply among others to the Chippewas of Mnjikaning first nation located in the riding of Simcoe North which I have the pleasure of representing.

The bill is the final step in the process to allow 14 first nations the power to opt out of the land management sections of the Indian Act and establish their own regime to manage their lands and resources.

The bill will ratify the changes brought on by a framework agreement. It is an excellent initiative based on Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan and will bring real and practical improvements to the lives of aboriginal people including those of the Chippewas of Mnjikaning first nation.

The process began with negotiations leading to the signature on February 12, 1996 of the framework agreement on first nations land management, known as the framework agreement, and 13 first nations. The 14th first nation was later added to the framework agreement.

Several other amendments were made to the framework agreement, including the application of the Atomic Energy Control Act and the clarification regarding the use, occupation, possession and division of interest in first nations land in the case of a marriage breakdown.

The framework agreement will require first nations to develop a land code setting out basic rules for the new land regime. First nations such as the Chippewas of Mnjikaning will also be required to enter into individual agreements with Canada to determine the level of operational funding for land management.

As I previously mentioned, provisions have been included in the bill to address the concerns raised by native women and associations representing them. These provisions should allay their concerns. The bill will require a mandatory community consultation process for the development of rules and procedures applicable on the breakdown of marriage in relation to the use, occupation and possession of the first nations lands and the division of interest in that land.

One specific motion I would like to speak to from Group No. 1 is Motion No. 6. This motion is to amend the bill that would require confirmation in writing that consultations respecting the land code have been completed with neighbouring jurisdictions, thereby changing the whole intention of clauses 45 and 48 of the bill.

The motion is ill defined as it does not set out who falls under the rubric “neighbouring jurisdictions” and seemingly involves consultations not on the land code but rather on cross-jurisdictional issues, an altogether different matter.

I was pleased to note that other first nations had expressed an interest in participating in a land management regime like the one proposed in the bill. This is proof that the model being proposed is a positive one that appeals to many first nations. A provision is in the bill to permit other first nations that may want to adhere to the bill the opportunity to do so subject to certain conditions.

The Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation is very much looking forward to the rapid conclusion of the ratification process. I have had the pleasure of following the issue and providing assistance to the Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation regarding this important initiative.

It is an exciting prospect for the Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation to have an opportunity as a community to collectively devise and manage a land management system tailored specifically to its needs. It will also allow the Chippewas of Mnjikaning an opportunity to generate additional revenue through economic development activities.

In conclusion, I quote Chief Lorraine McRae of the Chippewas of Mnjikaning when she said:

This initiative is an opportunity for the full and active participation of the members of our First Nations—elders, women and men, both off reserve and on reserve—to collectively develop land management systems appropriate for our communities based upon fairness, equality and accountability. I am confident that through this government to government partnership, we will achieve true community decision making.