Transport Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[Brian Allen]

I agree with the comments everyone else has made. There are noise, vibration, and pollution concerns. But I would not want to see this bill delayed to deal with environmental issues, because those could be covered under Environment Canada. But really, that's the choice of the committee on how they proceed with that.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thanks to all the witnesses.

And thanks to Mr. Blaney and the chair for suggesting, and insisting, that the citizens of Quebec and other areas of Canada come forward with this evidence.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Because we have a few minutes, I'm going to allow each party to ask one brief question. I'm going to give you a minute, and I will cut you off if you go too far.

Mr. Carrier...Mr. Scott, I'm sorry.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

As long as you picked me, go ahead. Don't be frightened by his.... Go ahead, Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I agree with the fact that the Bill would not be very strong as far as the noise issue is concerned. We all want to solve this problem as quickly as possible. However, amendments would have to be made to the Bill. It is possible to do so in the short term. As you mentioned earlier, we are only referring to unreasonable noise levels. Further, we are asking the agency to solve these problems, but we are only saying that it may establish guidelines. This is all very vague. I will not be happy if the Bill remained as vague as it is.

I share Mr. Dalpé's opinion, which is that the agency should establish standards with regard to noise, since this issue falls within its jurisdiction. I think this can be done immediately and that it would help the Department of Transportation, which also employs competent officials. The Bill should include these standards, so that it is clear that this is a Bill which will solve the noise problem.

I was wondering whether, since the agency has the expertise, you feel that standards on noise levels could already be included in the Bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Be very brief, please.

[Robert Dalpé]

I will once again repeat that environmental standards are applied practically everywhere, except within the area of rail transportation. We therefore simply have to apply the same standards which exist elsewhere. Our health departments have standards on all these matters.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Could that be included in the bill?

[Robert Dalpé]

Yes.

[Christian Jobin]

I agree, but I really don't care whether that falls under the purview of the Transportation Agency, the bill itself or the department's officials. However, I insist that we have a national noise reduction policy and that it not be included in the bill, so that we do not end up in this type of situation again in 50 years.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

But we agree on the fact that the Agency should not be the one to make that call.

[Christian Jobin]

Indeed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll have Mr. Scott, please.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses here and on the other end of the communications. And bonjour, Monsieur Jobin. It's a pleasure to see you again.

My question is specifically to all the witnesses who feel they can answer. Mr. Jobin has spoken of the regulations in other jurisdictions. Could you quickly elaborate on the principal differences between those regulations and what is being proposed?

Second, could you give some indication of the nature of the response to those regulations? Sometimes regulations don't necessarily have the outcomes you expect, although they are satisfactory outcomes nevertheless. Has that been the case, in your experience?

Then finally, let me just weigh in with others who have talked about the high quality of the interventions and briefs we've received from all of you on this subject. I think it is incumbent on us as a committee, and ultimately on the government, in recognition of the quality, to actually make those amendments you propose, unless there are some good reasons not to. For my part, they are going to have to be very convincing to not do the things that have been suggested by very thoughtful people here this afternoon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I would ask that your comment be very brief.

[Christian Jobin]

A national railway noise reduction policy could include the following initiatives: an inventory of the major rail lines located close to residential areas in municipalities with more than 250,000 inhabitants; put forward an inventory of sectors in which the abutting owners are exposed to excessive noise levels, which would be put together in consultation with the rail companies, Environment Canada, as well as provincial and municipal authorities; the establishment of acceptable noise levels and thresholds based on established WHO and OECD standards; an assessment of the feasibility of establishing an emissions cap, by way of regulation, based on agreements with the railway industry; awarding priority to actions or disruptions which cause the most harm, which is at night when the noise level exceeds established limits.

All these standards could be included in a national policy, but it would be a living policy. It might even go so far as to amend Bill C-11 and give rise to adjustments over time. This is actually how things work in Europe today. There is a national policy, and every year, the legislative framework is amended. This way, companies have to change the way they do things to stay within the law.

And has the railway sector lost ground in Europe? No, on the contrary, it has grown.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian, you have one minute.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much to all witnesses.

I was particularly hit by your comment, Mr. Allen, about what happens when we put schools in places where there are existing roads. Obviously, we don't sit down and try to mediate all of the traffic. What we do is once the school is put into place, we limit the speed limit, we take away the truck route, we ensure that parking regulations are in place during school hours. In fact, there is a whole range of regulations that we put in, and it is very similar to what you've been talking about in terms of railways.

Railways may have been there prior to Westminster Quay and other residential developments, but the reality is it's now our responsibility to ensure that residents in those areas live in the best possible conditions. So I thought that particular parallel you drew, Mr. Allen, was particularly convincing. We need to make sure that the folks in Westminster Quay and other places across the country are well taken care of. So I just want to thank all the witnesses.

Getting back to the issue of mediation, I'd like just a brief comment from whichever witness would like to say something on this. But obviously, in the case where we're talking about multiple railways, despite being the preferred route to take for the government, mediation is just completely impractical--

[Brian Allen]

Yes, I would agree with that. That sounds very problematic, because you'd have to mediate with four parties, for example, in the New Westminster Quay, each one of them requiring the time, energy, and effort of both the individuals and the government and lawyers to deal with it. So I think it's far better to legislate a solution and provide power to the CTA for future problems that may occur.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Blaney, one minute.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today, we heard witnesses from across the country who told us about their concerns. I think it is the role of our committee to improve the bill under study. And that is exactly what the members here today intend to do.

I will keep in mind Mr. Allen's recommendation. Don't forget that this is an urgent problem. Indeed, in everyone of our ridings, people go to bed at night, but cannot sleep because of the noise from the railroads. I agree with the idea of a national policy, but in the short term, we have the opportunity to improve the quality of life of the people who live in our ridings, our cities and municipalities. I believe that it is our duty to act.

That being said, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Brian Jean. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to hear from the people from our ridings. I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Dorion from Charny, who has also met with us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You're absolutely on time. Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

I would like to thank our guests. We call you witnesses, but I'd like to think you're guests offering advice to government. We appreciate that. And to our long distance guests, thank you very much.

If I may, just with the committee members, we do have one little piece of business to wrap up. We've circulated the budget request for Bill C-11, and what I really need is just an acknowledgment that you've looked at it and it's acceptable to submit. Is everybody comfortable with it?

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm just curious. You're talking about a budget of $16,000 for the witnesses coming from Victoria. Does that include hotel accommodation, meals, etc.?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

What we're trying to do, as we've done with this today, is encourage the teleconferencing first. So we should see that reduced. We will already, because today's expenses were covered by the teleconference.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It's refreshing to see a Conservative government at work, Mr. Chair.