Evidence of meeting #19 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 westminster.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
I would like in turn to extend the warmest greetings at the Standing Committee on Transport to you. As you have seen, parliamentarians are capable of showing discipline and asking questions that concern many Quebeckers.
Furthermore, Hélène Bernard, who is here today and lives in Charny, was telling me that last night yet again, at 1:30 a.m., the noise from the Charny switching yard bothered her. I am thinking of Mr. Julian among others and his constituents in British Columbia. We can see that it really is a problem from sea to sea.
Thanks to one of your presentations, we have realized today that we are sometimes dealing with a corporate citizen whose behaviour can be questioned, and that a rather strict regulatory framework must be established. In the amendments that you suggest, you are probably showing us ways to ensure that there are not too many loopholes, in order to avoid re-experiencing these situations in mediation.
This brings me to my first question, for Mr. Lemaire.
We discussed clearly defining the concept of noise. I have this wording in mind: that there be the least amount of noise possible; that this not affect people's health. In the legislation, there is the matter of taking into account operational needs. You propose to take into account the basic operational needs.
Given the proposed amendments, do you believe that the bill would pass the test of a legal challenge and that people will see results in the short term?
4:40 p.m.
Member Executive Committee , City of Lévis
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe that the bill is on the right track. There are a number of issues, but right now we have absolutely nothing. The day the bill comes into force, we will have a lever to ensure respect for quiet around the switching yard and that noise is regulated somewhat.
Here is the problem: currently CN is not responding to our requests and is completely ignoring us. The Agency has no authority. That is why we want to ensure that it has authority and that the act stipulates “least possible noise”. Otherwise, the company will get away with saying that these activities are necessary for profitability and as in the past there are costs associated with that.
Indeed, there are costs associated with that. However, we must not forget that when someone causes pollution, they are responsible, they must accept that responsibility and control the pollution when it bothers the neighbours. That is not what CN is doing in our area right now. I understand that this may be the case across Canada, with other companies.
That is why we want the bill to be more specific and to confer the power to issue orders. In order to grant that power, the legislation needs to stipulate the words I mentioned earlier, “least possible noise”. That way, we will be able to work and hear ourselves. There will also be some pressure on the company, the Agency will also have some leverage and the citizens will have some recourse.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with my colleague Ed Fast.
I have a short question for Mr. Picard.
You are saying that you would like the bill to also address train whistling. If we talk about the least possible noise, does this not also include the problem with train whistling, in your opinion?
4:40 p.m.
Second Vice-President of the Executive Committee, City of Quebec
Yes. Besides, train whistles are heard almost 24 hours a day. Here is what we want to achieve with train whistling. In order to decrease this nuisance in the City of Québec — and this is likely true elsewhere — we want to introduce other measures such as grade crossings, fences, underground pedestrian crossings and so forth. The municipality pays 100 per cent of the costs of these measures. That was the thrust of our speech.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say thank you to all of you for coming.
Mr. Fassbender and Mr. Lowrie, I just want to let you know that Mr. Warawa was here listening to your presentations. Unfortunately he's on his way back to Vancouver. He'll be meeting with you tomorrow. He just wanted to request that you provide this committee with written copies of the presentations you've made, if that's all right with you.
4:40 p.m.
Director, Engineering Services, City of New Westminster
I'd be pleased to do so.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
All right, I have just one quick question for all of you. It's just a yes or no answer.
I heard a number of you suggest that perhaps the best way of addressing enforcement and the regulation and setting of noise levels would be for these powers to be delegated to the municipalities. Could you say in a one-word answer, yes or no, whether you would support that approach?
4:40 p.m.
Director, Engineering Services, City of New Westminster
From the City of New Westminster, I think that would be our preferred approach.
4:40 p.m.
General Manager, Engineering, Township of Langley
From the township, yes, that would be a clear way of being able to have some order of control over the situation.
4:40 p.m.
Second Vice-President of the Executive Committee, City of Quebec
We believe, obviously, that with our regulations, everyone would be equal. We would be in favour of such a measure.
4:40 p.m.
President, Chutes-la-Chaudière East Sector, City of Lévis
We would have to make sure that this power is constitutional, because railway companies come under federal jurisdiction. So we would have to ensure that the municipalities have this power and that, since these companies are subject to a federal charter, they also have basic federal obligations. This could apply to the municipalities, but we would have to ensure that this power does not become an empty shell.
October 19th, 2006 / 4:45 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good day, gentlemen.
Hello to those on the phone.
I want to review the brief that you presented. I would like to start with the brief sent by the City of Lévis. Forgive me, but I read it in English. I will try to translate my questions.
You have clearly identified the problem between “unreasonable” and ...
operational requirements
What is the word in French?
4:45 p.m.
An Hon. Member
Operational requirements.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thank you, in French it's called operational requirements.
On page 5 of the English version you state that this should be changed,
that what must be taken into account is the company's essential operational requirements.
Could you provide us with further details, in order to help us define what you mean by the word “essential”?
4:45 p.m.
President, Chutes-la-Chaudière East Sector, City of Lévis
Here is how I see it. Although we have no accurate data, it would seem that air traffic operates within a more disciplined environment, with less disruption to the lives of the neighbouring communities.
Take Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau Airport, for example. People living near the airport complained about the noise. Accommodations were made, and all live in harmony. This type of regulation could be applied to other areas.
I find it interesting that, when I listen to the people from out West, they sound just like the people who live in Charny. I can relate to what they are saying; the noise that they describe is identical to what we hear in Charny. So the problem isn't a local one, nor is it unique to one area. It is common to all of Canada, and involves a single industry.
We understand the requirement of the just-in-time delivery system, as explained earlier. These operators have time constraints and, because they have a tight schedule, they must work around the clock.
We think that the industry should be able to adjust, as the airlines have done; flights arrive from all over the world, yet they manage to respect the schedules. But there are a number of things to consider before setting an exact decibel level.
Of course, noise-level standards are one option. Attitudes must also be factored in. Earlier, the Western delegation expressed some doubt about the workers' ability to judge how much noise they were making. Engines are left to idle for long periods of time and alarms sound when they are put into reverse. Employee attitudes aside, it is also important to maintain cordial relations with the neighbouring residents; this must be done through Transportation Agency regulations.
I have touched on a number of points. I'm not sure that it can be expressed in terms of decibel levels, but that is one of the components that should be considered.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Now for my second question. Once again on page 5 of the English version, you quote the Union des municipalités du Québec which states that section 103(c) of the Canadian rail operating rules should be amended as follows:
“no part of a train or engine may be allowed to stand on any part of a public crossing at grade for a longer period than five minutes...”.
Take the situation in Langley B.C., where trains are often a few kilometres long. Or all of the traffic that flows through the Asia-Pacific gateway, and the sale of natural resources to China, India and Asia. Train traffic there is on the increase.
Do you think it would be feasible, in Canada, or should we change the railway access to Langley, for example? Should we not take a look at overpasses and underpasses rather than set a five minute limit? Is it a practical approach when our trains are carrying tonnes of our natural resources?
