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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Christian Jobin  Coordinator
Robert Dalpé  Comité Anti-Bruit
Paul Gantous  ProPointe
Joanne Fisher  As an Individual
Brian Allen  As an Individual

4:30 p.m.

Coordinator

Christian Jobin

We feel that the word “unreasonable” is too weak. Bill C-26 was stronger because it said “the least noise possible”, which is much stronger than “unreasonable”, as far as semantics is concerned.

Why do we wish, as Mr. Gantous was saying, to incorporate health concepts that comply with the rules of the World Health Organization? We feel that the bill should include specific enough criteria so that the Canadian Transportation Agency would unequivocally have the power to implement the legislation, so that the railways could not invoke the excuse of operational requirements and could not very easily disobey the rules.

Unreasonable noise is a quantitative concept.. What we would like to see, is that the control factors be qualitative, or conversely, that we at least be able to record the noise, quantify it and say it exceeds the allowable daytime or night time decibel level. The railway company that goes beyond the limit would be obliged to find solutions and to report to the Canadian Transportation Agency within 30 days of the violation. That would be legislation with teeth.

The railway company can find solutions. We must not be afraid. In Europe, this is how it currently works. If there is anywhere that the railway sector is developed, it is in Europe. While we were dismantling our railways, Europe continued to develop its passenger and road transportation infrastructure.

Europe has much more stringent standards in this area than we do. European tracks are very smooth, whereas ours are still unequal, which produces shaking and noise. We suggest the creation of a railway noise reduction policy including mandatory annual outcomes drafted together with stakeholders from the railway companies, in order to find solutions and to ensure the harmonious coexistence of all stakeholders.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

We met with representatives of the Canadian Transportation Agency, and they are prepared, through regulations, to implement guidelines that could potentially include limits on decibels.

I would like Mr. Gantous or Mr. Dalpé to talk about the wording of legislation that would have teeth, while taking into account the corporate responsibilities of the railway companies.

4:30 p.m.

Comité Anti-Bruit

Robert Dalpé

I will deal with the issue of profitability.

In our case, it was Canadian Pacific. When I moved to place Thomas-Valin, the first complaint we filed, as citizens, concerned poorly tuned locomotives, by which I mean they were burning their diesel fuel badly, and stationary locomotives that were left idling. We were very surprised to realize that fuel economy clearly did not particularly concern these people. As neighbours, we had trouble understanding how a business of this kind can carry out its day-to-day operations while wasting so much.

Moreover, I do not feel strongly that it should be the Canadian Transportation Agency rather than an other organization that should be in charge of the regulations. However, what was interesting at the time of the Canadian Transportation Agency, was that competent technical staff could, from what we had suggested, issue comments and criticism of a technical nature. They were in a position to discuss the feasibility of the solutions proposed by the engineers and the technicians.

For something to come of this, it is important that, within the federal government, there be competent technical experts, independent of the two or three major rail companies, who are able to discuss these kinds of issues as well as to comment and criticize the impressions of the three companies.

4:30 p.m.

ProPointe

Paul Gantous

Essentially, I agree with Monsieur Jobin's point that regardless of whether you're putting your own noise limits into the law or whether you're referencing the World Health Organization, the law has to have deadlines for them when there is a dispute. When someone makes a complaint, there has to be someone independent, as was described by Monsieur Dalpé, to go out to judge whether or not there has been an infraction; if there has, there has to be a time limit on it. If there's no time limit on it, you could go on forever.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

There is a 60-day deadline provided for the enforcement of the order.

4:35 p.m.

Coordinator

Christian Jobin

I remind you that Bill C-26 provided for 30 days.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

I will come back to the issue briefly.

I don't know if Mr. Allen and Ms. Fisher can hear me, but I would like to hear from them about the necessity of the company operating with regard to the law, and the necessity also of accommodating the neighbourhood in terms of noise as well as health-related issues.

4:35 p.m.

As an Individual

Joanne Fisher

I'm sorry, were you addressing me?

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC

Yes. I would like to hear what you have to say about taking into account the railway companies' needs, in terms of financial profitability, while ensuring that the legislation meets its objective, in this case that the shunting yards next to the railways tracks,in particular, be happy neighbours.

4:35 p.m.

As an Individual

Joanne Fisher

I believe in the case of Richmond, B.C., there are numerous solutions here that will keep the freight running smoothly while addressing resident concerns. In the specific example of Richmond, B.C., over the past few years CN has built a new shunting yard directly south of this one. It is in a solely industrial area. Around March of this year, it was observed that freight from that yard was being brought into this yard in the middle of the night. We were hoping that maybe it would be the inverse of that.

Some of the solutions for Richmond, B.C., would be simply examining the existing infrastructure of the yard here and how it's operated. Some changes to the actual layout of the yard would result in substantial noise reductions, we believe. Looking at the actual scheduling of the yard itself, we believe there's some leeway and latitude for rail companies to perform some of the work that's being done in the middle of the night done at a more reasonable time.

A lot of what needs to happen here...I heard the term “better choices” being used earlier in this discussion, and I would come back to that as being a core point I'd like to make. There are choices available, and it's a matter of being able to discuss them. I'd like to point out that we've not been able to discuss those with CN because we've been turned down for mediation.

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Mr. Bell.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC

Thank you.

I'd like to welcome the guests and also those from British Columbia.

Certainly, listening to some of the speakers here and to Mr. Allen and Ms. Fisher parallels my experience when I was the mayor of North Vancouver. We had problems when BC Rail was sold to CN. BC Rail, being a provincial railway, by obligation of the province, had to comply with municipal standards in terms of noise. Our noise bylaws and the issue of non-whistling at crossings applied. Once CN took it over, it no longer applied.

What I've heard you say sounds like a repeat of the things I've heard. I've had complaints from residents who were awakened all night, and I see that some of the submissions here have detailed times going through the entire evening--how many times the whistle blew. As mayor, I had people phoning me at night and playing tape recordings of whistles to let me know they were hearing whistles. Interestingly enough, I lived several miles away and I could hear the shunting.

It seems to boil down, as Ms. Fisher said, to an issue of scheduling and also of logistical changes. The yard was, in this case, close to a residential area. As Mr. Hubbard said earlier, the railways were here before many of these residential areas, but the very nature of the railways attracted workers and business. The very nature that made them thrive is in fact what is the growth of cities, as we've seen, and they have to recognize that. And they have to look at some of their logistical activities, such as shunting and the assembly of trains, in areas that are different from where they were in the past, because the areas they're in have changed. I agree with that.

Mr. Gantous, you referred to the European standards, and I think you made reference to 45 decibels. Was that the WHO standard that you were referring to? If it was, I'd be interested, because municipalities have bylaws that establish decibel ratings. The big problem with the kind of noise you get from shunting is that it's intermittent, whereas if somebody is running a stereo system or go-carts or something, you can stand with a meter and read them; if it's an industrial noise, it's consistent. It's the intermittent noise.... Some of the bylaws refer to it as nuisance noise, which can be intermittent and therefore difficult to measure, but if they have technologies and you can provide any information on that, I would appreciate receiving that.

Mr. Jobin, I heard you say you'd like to see qualitative rather than quantitative...but if I listened to your wording, I think you meant just the opposite, because what you want is some kind of measurable standard rather than one that is more vague, that talks to the qualitative as opposed to the quantitative standard.

Certainly the issues there are ones that we have to find out...and CN cannot simply hide behind the standards or the defence it has had in the past. It has to recognize that they have to work in cooperation with the areas they serve, and that it's a mutual benefit if they do so.

I'm not going to repeat much of what has been said by my colleagues, and I think they've all addressed the issues.

Some of the comments here relate to rail safety. There's an issue in Mr. Allen's presentation from New Westminster talking about the rail yard having had several derailments in the past. Most recently it was the derailment that destroyed part of the Westburne Electric building, and there are other references. This is also a concern.

I know, Mr. Chair, that in a meeting I was not at there was a decision made that rail safety would be considered by this committee once Bill C-11 has been dealt with, that that issue would come forward. I'm concerned particularly because of the recent CN derailments that occurred in the Prairies, Alberta, and also B.C. As you know, we had a toxic spill in the Cheakamus River that wiped out fish populations, that devastated those fish populations. Last June we had two deaths when rail workers were caught on a runaway locomotive.

It would be my intention, in compliance with the suggestion of what would be appropriate for this committee, that once we have gone through these issues and are ready to move on to rail safety...I would like to see us look seriously at the derailment issues and rail safety, particularly with CN. Whether it needs a formal commission or an in-depth study by this committee, I would like to hear a good discussion. It is certainly a concern that's been brought to me by my constituents.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

Thank you very much for appearing.

Monsieur Ménard, go ahead, please.

October 17th, 2006 / 4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

I would like to ask a question of both Mr. Dalpé and Mr. Jobin respectively.

Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is a neighbourhood situated between downtown and the end of the island of Montreal. It experienced industrialization rather early on. It has even experienced several generations of industrialization. What concerns me is the effectiveness of the bill we are studying. I must admit that I am not at all reassured. It seems to me to be very lax and rather spineless. I am not convinced that it will change much.

Mr. Dalpé, you say you hope that regulations will be passed, pursuant to this bill or another, that will control noise emissions from the air, smells and smoke. You hope that these regulations will be implemented by Transport Canada and not by the Canadian Transportation Agency. Is that correct?

4:40 p.m.

Comité Anti-Bruit

Robert Dalpé

I do not have a precise proposal to put forward, but the idea of turning to the Canadian Transportation Agency seems an interesting one to me, insofar as this organization having had certain technical skills in the past. In order to be able to implement the regulations, the responsible organization must have this kind of skills.

4:40 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

In the end, the railway companies have behaved like delinquents, like railway hoodlums. They had the technical means to invalidate rights. It was thought that the Canadian Transportation Agency had some authority, but the people of Oakville discovered that such was not the case. We all agree that the Canadian Transportation Agency, this quasi judicial body, must have the power to issue orders.

Mr. Jobin, I am very pleased to see you again. I have fond memories of you. You were a moderating influence in a caucus that was not always so. In your reading of the bill, would you say that the Canadian Transportation Agency has real power? There is a desire to see them able to initiate mediation and conciliation. I understand that; there is nothing unusual about it. But once the Canadian Transportation Agency has acted and has adopted its guidelines, how effective do you think it can be in obliging the major rail companies to adopt solutions and improve the quality of life of our fellow citizens? All of this does not seem very compelling to me, but I am asking you to prove me wrong.

4:45 p.m.

Coordinator

Christian Jobin

I agree with you that the bill, as presently worded, is spineless. It is very weak. The terms used are not strong enough to indicate to the companies that they are at the heart of the problem and that they must find solutions.

That is why I suggest that we quantify the standards in terms of decibels and that they be included in the legislation, so that they will truly be respected, during the day and at night. These standards would be sent to the CTA, which would hear from the railway companies and propose solutions. The companies would have 30 days within which to comply. In our opinion, this is the way in which we could give much more force to the legislation.

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Mr. Dalpé, suppose that on behalf of all of the people of Ville-Marie, of Thomas-Valin, in short of those who live in the neighbourhood of a shunting yard, an attempt is made at reconciliation, and that this does not satisfy the people and that they then file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency. If the bill is passed in its current form, even if the agency drafted guidelines, this complaint would not result in much. It is not compelling: there is no power to issue orders.

4:45 p.m.

Coordinator

Christian Jobin

That is correct, and the rail companies could invoke their obligation to protect their financial health in order to stay in business and could pretend that it would cost them too much to reduce the noise. They could also maintain that they are obliged, for very special operational reasons, to generate much more noise. The railway companies could in effect hide behind that sort of language, so that no solutions are brought about and they continue to make as much noise as they want.

It has to be said that before 1999, no one — and certainly not the people of Oakville — knew that there was such a regulatory vacuum and that the railway companies, in fact, were not concerned with the noise problem. Today, when faced with this regulatory vacuum, we say to ourselves that if we are going to amend the legislation, we might as well give the bill some teeth, so that the legislator can intervene. The laws are more iron-clad in Europe. And yet, that is where the rail sector is the most developed. These constraints are therefore not a handicap.

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

I will leave it to my colleagues Mr. Carrier and Mr. Laframboise to study the issue, but I will follow this file with a great deal of interest.

Has anyone thought of a wording that could inspire our very pleasant parliamentary secretary? I am referring here to amendments that could strengthen the bill and that could be submitted to the committee.

4:45 p.m.

Coordinator

Christian Jobin

Unfortunately, we don't have a lawyer with us.

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

I'm not sure that it is so unfortunate.

4:45 p.m.

Coordinator

Christian Jobin

Having worked with several lawyers, I can say that they are very pleasant people. Mr. Bélanger, who is currently working on the Outremont station class action, did not suggest any text. However, he recommended that we emphasize health and people's quality of life as well as the need to adopt standards with that in mind.

I know that the City of Québec and the City of Lévis will be tabling briefs here next Thursday. They will be accompanied by lawyers from litigation departments. They will certainly be able to recommend a wording. I have read the briefs from the cities of Lévis and Québec. They are very much in line with what I have said here today. The most important thing will be to implement remedial measures. The national policy on railway noise reduction would be an ongoing policy, but remedial measures could be proposed annually.

4:45 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Do I have time to ask a final question?

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed

I'm sorry.

Mr. Fast.