Transport committee  Fences, level crossings, that kind of thing, graffiti, garbage, things like that. Those are important neighbourhood issues, as I would call them.

Transport committee  I would say it's the same for the railway industry in North America. By definition, railways are porous. You can argue this one at length, but right to the land use planning, if you put a school on one side of the tracks and a strip mall on the other, kids take the shortest distance between two points.

Transport committee  Transport Canada has certain standards, and we certainly follow those. There are specific engineering standards through AREMA, the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, which is a North American-accepted engineering standards association. We adhere to those.

Transport committee  They are stakeholders to that, yes. They get involved in setbacks, that kind of thing, for fencing and structures.

Transport committee  Some are.

Transport committee  Absolutely there are, and I would say the freight, the inter-city passenger train, and commuter train all take the high road and adhere to the higher standard because it's good business to do that. But they may vary across Canada; I can't really speak to that that well. But I did just want to speak to the difference between provincial and federal.

Transport committee  Certainly. GO Transit actually owns or will own 61% of the corridor over which it operates in April of this year. The province has supported GO in acquiring its own corridor from the class ones. So GO's interests for Bill C-33 deal with the other 39%, where we run over CN or CP rail.

Transport committee  The municipalities are more.... They are not in terms of railway regulation; they are more involved in terms of the railroads as interfacing with communities, in terms of adhering to municipal guidelines in terms of how we build certain things. It's mainly—

Transport committee  Yes, it is, although we have an excellent working relationship with Transport Canada. We don't need to change the relationship to make it work; it's working very well today. And whether it's through the class one railways or in some cases, as pointed out by Doug Kelsey, that Transport Canada works directly with us today, it works very well.

Transport committee  We actually did provide a technical paper much more substantial than my speaking notes, in French and English, which we'd be happy to give you another copy of.

Transport committee  In our view, that's unnecessary from a UTA perspective. We think that we already have the rigour in our safety process and it does not require that extra layer of rigour. In our view, it should not apply to urban transit authorities.

Transport committee  We would have no problem with Transport Canada contacting us directly. But I would add that the model today works. Again, our safety record is admirable. You are correct, Transport Canada goes through the class one railways today. We'd be more than pleased if they came directly to us.

Transport committee  We would have no problem working with Transport Canada to create our own memorandum of understanding in terms of the rigour they feel is appropriate to manage safety with us. Again, we hold ourselves up to high standards. But we are more than pleased to work directly with them in a different set of circumstances from what is outlined in Bill C-33.

Transport committee  If I understand the question, you're talking about monetary penalties for non-compliance. Is that what you're saying?

Transport committee  Thank you. We are urban transit authorities, publicly owned and funded transit regulatory authorities, established under provincial law, with local and regional mandates and accountability. We are committed to safe operations, and our safety records and investments show this. Bill C-33, as presently written, would impose inappropriate, inefficient, and expensive burdens and risks on urban transit authorities, burdens and risks that cannot be justified or fulfilled, in our view.