Transport committee  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

Transport committee  Indeed.

Transport committee  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 ex

Transport committee  Based on what we can tell, if bill C-11 is adopted, the Canadian Transportation Agency will recoup the power to issue orders which it lost in 1999 because of CN's litigation before the Federal Court. That is what would change. As well, we find the word “unreasonable”, which is

Transport committee  A power which was lost in 1999 because of CN's challenge before the Ontario Federal Court. It is significant that the CT would regain this power, but, if we are to amend the act, we would like the bill to go much farther in protecting citizens. As I was explaining earlier, we mus

Transport committee  I know full well that the Union des municipalités du Québec tabled a brief on Bill C-26 and that it said the same thing we are saying today. The brief asks that the CTA regain the power to issue orders. Bill C-26 referred to making “the less amount of noise possible”. For us, thi

Transport committee  The Chaudière-Appalaches Regional Health and Social Services Board conducted a study on the Charny yard and noise zones at night. The noise is so intense that people cannot sleep. They wake up in the middle of the night. People have reported high stress levels. Amongst other thin

Transport committee  Since I have worked on bills C-26 and C-44, since CN went all the way to the Supreme Court to challenge the ruling of the Canadian Transportation Agency in 1999, and since I was involved in mediation which, after 18 months, bore no fruit, I can tell you that there still is not a

Transport committee  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

Transport committee  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 operationa

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

Transport committee  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 n

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

Transport committee  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 compl

Transport committee  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 c