Evidence of meeting #18 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was night.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Coordinator
I would prefer that the standards be set out directly in the legislation.
4:15 p.m.
ProPointe
ProPointe's preference would be to follow the World Health Organization's guidelines--I referenced these in our brief--purely because the WHO guidelines will probably evolve with time. They're going to keep their eye on this type of thing.
Unless Parliament wants to set up another committee to do similar work and effectively double the amount of work being done for the same end result, we think the reference should be to the World Health Organization.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I would suggest a combination: set concrete standards with definitive guidelines and give the Canadian Transportation Agency the ability to regulate the rail companies at the same time, in case an item falls outside of the standards that may be put into the act.
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
I'm in agreement that the Canadian Transportation Agency would be in an ideal situation to step in here.
One thing I've heard from the people who've spoken today is an acknowledgement of the importance of the rail industry. It's a matter of finding a balance point between rail interests and what is reasonable for communities to exist by.
Another comment I've heard repeated today by various members is that cohabitation was much more prevalent prior to recent years. I think that may be a benchmark we have to refer back to. There always will be rail noise, but there have to be some reasonable standards and limits set for it.
I would like to add one point in particular that pertains to the problem we've had here in Richmond. As rail operations change and evolve, they need to be balanced against the infrastructure that exists in yards. That is, in cases like this, where trains become longer, the position of the main switch for the yard would need to be analyzed. In our case here, one thing that would greatly help would be if the main switch were simply situated a little further back in the yard.
That would be an added point I would like to make on this issue.
October 17th, 2006 / 4:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to each of the witnesses. You're coming forward on a very important issue, so we're very happy to have you here, particularly Ms. Fisher and Mr. Allen from British Columbia. We appreciate your participation in the committee hearing today.
I'd like to start with Mr. Allen. You provided very detailed information to the committee on what has happened in the New Westminster area, and we appreciate that.
I would like you to speak for a few moments on the impact on the lives of people in the Westminster Quay area of New Westminster. What does the existing situation create in terms of living conditions in the quay? Second, I'd like you to come back to the issue of mediation, having actively talked to the railway companies. We actually have four, as you detailed in your brief. CP, CN, Burlington Northern, and the Southern Railway of British Columbia run through that area. How effective or ineffective would voluntary compliance remediation be if we don't amend Bill C-11 as you've recommended?
Could you talk to those two points--the impact, and how mediation or voluntary compliance would not be adequate?
4:15 p.m.
As an Individual
In terms of voluntary compliance, I think all the rail companies have failed miserably. As recently as two months ago I sent a letter to the president of CN, Hunter Harrison, and they haven't even bothered to acknowledge receipt of the letter or to reply to it. Two or three years ago letters were sent to public relations officials in all the organizations. Some of them didn't reply; some of them said we'll work on it. Really, they've been operating on their own accord for many years; they haven't been doing anything, nor do they see this as an issue or a problem on their side.
In terms of how it impacts the residents here, the rail yard can remain empty all day long, and then they just operate at night. There's no need for that. With a little bit of planning and the use of logistics, they can organize and coordinate to do this work during the day. If it's so urgent that they need to do it outside the normal operating hours that I recommended, there are lots of other rail yards. For example, underneath the Port Mann Bridge is a humongous rail yard. They could operate day and night, seven days a week, 24 hours a day if they wanted, and it wouldn't impact anyone, because there's no one living in the area.
It impacts the residents negatively because the shunting is so forceful and violent. It even sets off car alarms in the building and rattles household items on the sixteenth floor of the building. It is not a pleasant situation, and many efforts have been made to seek a reasonable solution.
We've made recommendations and suggestions to the rail yards over many years, and they've never implemented any of them, with the exception of CN. CN does not idle its engines beside the apartment buildings anymore, and that was through our efforts. That's the only organization that ever responded in any way whatsoever at all.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Are you suggesting that if we made the legislation obligatory, with clear penalties--because the railways do have alternatives, and you mentioned the Port Mann shunting yards as a very clear alternative--the railways, through their operational requirements, would simply make better choices about how they interact in residential areas?
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
That is very true. Today I sent you by e-mail an article from the Environmental Protection Agency in the U.S. They did a study on the Chicago rail yard. They were able to reduce their idling times by 80% simply through the use of new technology, and the payback period on it was two and a half years for the cost.
There certainly are technologies out there that can be utilized by the rail lines, yet they're archaic organizations that don't see a need to change, so part of it must be legislated; then ongoing supervision by the Canadian transportation association would allow them to deal with specific situations that arise from time to time outside the legislation.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Okay, thank you for that, Mr. Allen.
I'd like to ask you and each of the witnesses about some issues you've raised about restrictions around activities that would allow the railways to make better choices. You've talked about the possibility of restricting certain activities essentially to business hours from Monday to Friday.
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
Sure. That's if they're in proximity to residential areas. Yes.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Some of the other witnesses have mentioned the issue of setting standards based on decibel levels. In other words, the railways might be able to perform the activities if they used better technology to reduce the health impact or the decibel level of those activities.
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, my preference would be for them not to operate in the area at all. How do you monitor and regulate that? That's just adding another layer of supervision and monitoring. Somebody has to do the job, collect the data, provide the reports. To me, that seems very inefficient. Why not just say they can't operate in this area in the evening, and if they want to shunt, they go to another location?
Every municipality has noise bylaws. For example, in New Westminster, it's ninety decibels during the day and sixty decibels at night. Those are hard enough to enforce for the municipality. It wouldn't be any easier to deal with the railways on those.
4:20 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you.
I'd like to ask each of the other witnesses to comment on the issue of restricting activities to reasonable hours, as opposed to restricting decibels, and what your preference might be, starting with Ms. Fisher.
4:20 p.m.
As an Individual
From talking to my neighbours and from the number of petitions we've done, I think the preference out here in East Richmond would be to restrict nighttime activities, this being a residential area. Part of that comment is based on the fact that it has been the observation of people here that a lot of the freight that gets shunted in the middle of the night has actually been sitting there for hours beforehand.
We've gotten a circuitous argument when we've put this forward in the past, and it has gone something like this. When we've asked CN about it, they've told us it's based on client demand. Then when we've approached CN about how noisy it is, they've told us the reason it's so noisy is that the work is being performed by spares. When we've pointed out that the work was sitting there all night, they've said they have to do it then because that's when they have power available. So the situation just goes around and around.
I would like to just say that some of my neighbours along River Road have been so impacted by this that they've actually had to reorganize their households. A common complaint that I've heard from residents here who have talked to me is that they can't open their windows at night, primarily because of the noise.
The other thing that has been very distressing is the amount of time some of my neighbours have waited to try to make a legal road crossing. We have had two incidents in particular that are very disturbing. One happened a number of years ago but was never addressed, and that was when fire trucks were obstructed from crossing this road. The train was actually stalled and blocking the road, and a family on our street just about lost their home over it. The crew wound up manually pushing empty rack cars off the road to clear it. And this was something that I found very upsetting from talking to my neighbours: calls that were made to CN about this incident were never returned, were never addressed. So that was something that was very disturbing for the people here.
I would also like to make a comment about what happened when I spoke to one of my neighbours last week. They live a fair distance from the road and more to the north end of No. 8 Road. They've been residents there for over thirty years, and they have found the impact of the shunting to be...well, Mrs. Lagaditis called it frightening. She told me it scares her sometimes, and then she told me she has to go around her house and straighten up pictures on the wall after some of the episodes of shunting out here. This is a family that has lived here since the 1970s, so I think there's a significant problem here.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
If I may, I'll allow you to answer, but I would ask you to just keep it brief. Time has elapsed, so we'll hear a brief comment from each one perhaps.
4:25 p.m.
ProPointe
Yes, I think it depends on how the act is going to go through. If the act is going to go through with some monitoring of the decibel levels, then sure, let's just follow the World Health Organization and make sure at night that the decibel levels are below an acceptable level. If there's going to be no monitoring, then stop the activities at night. I can reference people in our group whose children have woken up screaming in the middle of the night that they thought a war had broken out because of the noise. So if there's that level of noise, stop. If it's monitored and at an acceptable level, we think we can go ahead with it.
4:25 p.m.
Coordinator
I agree entirely with Paul: it will depend on the legislation that will be passed and its noise-level provisions. By setting out standards similar to the WHO's on allowable decibel levels by day and by night in the legislation, the rail company will have 30 days within which to comply, which would be given by the Canadian Transportation Agency.
By accepting the concept of unreasonable noise — which is a rather weak concept — or the least unreasonable possible, all operations would have to cease at night, particularly between the months of May and September, so that people can open their windows. If we set out the World Health Organization's standards in the legislation, it would be up to the railway company to find solutions.
4:25 p.m.
Comité Anti-Bruit
Thank you.
It seems to me that the concept of unreasonable noise is not clearly defined in the bill. It should take into account the neighbours, the surrounding area and standards in terms of health. When the shunting yard is situated in a residential area where trains go through, rail transportation should be subject to the same laws that apply to air transport or to trucking.
What has always bothered me, is that rail transportation often benefits from exemptions. On the one hand, you have municipal, provincial and federal legislation that applies, whereas on the other, there is nothing.
4:25 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I would like to welcome all of the stakeholders from across the country who came to Ottawa to discuss with us the noise that affects all of our constituents, regardless of their party. I would particularly like to welcome Christian Jobin, who has served as the mayor of my municipality, Saint-Étienne-de-Lauzon, for 12 years. He has also been a member of Parliament and wears that badge. Welcome, Mr. Jobin.
It is true that the Conservatives are closely linked to the prosperity of our country. There is much work that remains to be done in the rail sector. I will remind you, Mr. Hubbard, that the privatization happened under the Liberal government. But beyond partisan considerations, today we are discussing a bill that affects all citizens.
Mr. Jobin, my question is for you. First of all, you seem to be saying that the concept of unreasonable noise is vague and you would rather see us studying concepts of quality of life and public health. Then, you say that discussing operational requirements and recognizing that the company has an obligation to be profitable risks weakening the legislation.
We want to ensure that the bill has teeth, but on the other hand, we do not want to see the industry go out of business. How do you see this? The other witnesses may also intervene.
