Transport Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2006

[Seymour Isenberg]

If I can perhaps be helpful here, the estimate of $2 a tonne was preliminary, based on maintenance costs submitted by the railways that were based on their 2003 costs. They were not as such audited. They were an estimate.

When we get the legislation, we will do the detailed cost and we'll audit the railway's material. There may be some adjustment to the $2 a tonne. How much will it be? I'm not sure. We can't really tell you, and if you press us, my guess would only be a guess.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Do you have any analysis for the committee on the $2 per tonne? Have you conducted any analysis inside CTA that can be tabled with the committee?

[Seymour Isenberg]

Well, we provided our data to the Department of Transport, to the Minister of Transport.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Was the analysis done by the transport department?

[Seymour Isenberg]

No, the Department of Transport was our client and we provided material to them. A lot of the material is based on confidential railway costs, and I believe they have something in their possession that they may be able to table.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm sorry. Does the CTA have any analysis on the $2 per tonne figure that can be released to the committee?

[Gilles Dufault]

No, not to the committee. We act as a consultant to Transport Canada.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I see. You have an analysis, but it can't be released to the committee.

[Gilles Dufault]

It can be released to the committee by Transport Canada, but not by CTA.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Great. You have an analysis, but you can't release it.

Thank you. That's appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

I have two questions. One relates to railway noise complaints. In my community of North Vancouver we have a problem with CN taking over BC Rail's operations, and what we have is a change in the level of noise as a result of the change in the operators. We have shunting and whistle blowing at night on crossings that never happened before. The argument is that because it's federal they have to blow it, but this is at two o'clock or three o'clock in the morning that the communities are being bothered by both excessive shunting and whistle blowing. There are municipal bylaws that have dealt with it, and previously the rules with BC Rail were that if the municipality passed a bylaw waiving the requirement for whistling at the crossing, then they wouldn't whistle and it wouldn't bother them. That's for West Vancouver and for North Vancouver.

I know one of the questions is on how you measure it. Normally you measure noise complaints at a property line and you get decibel readings. The problem is with whistle blowing and shunting, it's intermittent noise, which can be unreasonable. When I was mayor of North Vancouver, I used to get phone calls at two o'clock in the morning asking whether I could hear it. I live several miles away, and yes, I could hear it. I just make that point. I guess the issue would be this. How long, when you talk about trying to resolve things, do you wait before an issue gets taken up? How long do the people have to suffer, in other words?

Before you try to answer it, I want to tackle the second issue that Mr. Fast talked about as well. I was on the TransLink board when we were dealing with the issues of the commuter access for West Coast Express to CP. Our concern was that the anecdotal information we have—because everything is supposed to be confidential—was that the gross margin that CP was getting was over 1,000%. What incremental costs are added when a commuter railway is added to a line, and what is a reasonable rate of return? Is it 1,000%? I think it's down to 700% now.

West Coast Express put $65 million to CP for the set-up of centralized train controllers, double tracking--necessary things--but once you've paid for all that...it then seems that they were being gouged, if you want to call it, compared to other commuter rates that were being charged. We asked for that and were told that we can't know what those are. I'm hoping this legislation is going to in fact provide that information.

Finally, is this bill going to provide some guarantees to have access to the tracks? I noticed in one section here it says that if a railway gets sold and someone else takes it, they have to protect the continuity of passenger rail services. Is that these rapid urban lines? Would they be protected? Is there a guarantee for access to the tracks? Otherwise it sounds as if in this legislation railways can just say no to having access, and we need it. That's part of the problem of communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

This is where I have to intervene and say please answer it as quickly as you possibly can.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

A thirty-second question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I regret having to restrict you, but we do have other members.

[Seymour Isenberg]

There were a whole multitude of questions in there, including what's an adequate rate of return. Without prejudicing how the members would deal with the case, we would look at any access movement in terms of what the average revenue gained on a particular line for a number of miles are and would try to apply something like that, so it would be fair and equitable. What are they earning on average? If we're adding this extra amount, less the penalty it might cost them to have, not less but in addition, there might be an operating penalty to having extra traffic that you don't want on a particular line. But it certainly would be done professionally, so that there would be fair treatment to both sides.

On your question related to rail whistling, I just want to point out, Mr. Bell, that that is a rail safety issue, and it's not us. We don't control the whistle blowing. It's a safety issue. It's not a noise issue from that point of view. You'd have to deal with the safety board on that. In response to a normal noise complaint, we will hear the case if it comes to us. We will hear both parties and we will decide what's reasonable and try to provide some solution to it if we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Could I suggest that perhaps we forward a copy of the questions of Mr. Bell? I think if they warrant a further, more detailed answer, you could provide it to the committee in writing.

[Seymour Isenberg]

I'd be happy to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Dufault.

People out there have high expectations about having the noise problems resolved. In Quebec, there are a lot of complaints from people who feel powerless in dealing with the government, which is unable to control that aspect. So they are putting a lot of hope into this legislation.

But what we read here is that a railway company "must not cause unreasonable noise", which is already ambiguous. Everyone is asking what is meant by unreasonable noise. For an operator standing by the track, it might be significant noise, but for people living and sleeping nearby, it may be a huge problem.

A little further, the bill states:

95.2(1) The Agency may issue and publish, in any manner that it considers appropriate, guidelines with respect to

That means that you will be able to do something, but you will not be forced to do so.

I would like to know how you are going to enforce that provision. Are you preparing to issue guidelines? If you undertake to set standards once the act has been passed, will they be uniform for the whole country or will they be specific to each municipality? That could take time, since there are a number of provinces and municipalities. What is your opinion on that?

[Gilles Dufault]

The agency will produce guidelines. The bill indicates that the agency must prepare guidelines in consultation with the various stakeholders. We have already started to prepare the framework for the guidelines, and once the bill is passed, we should be able to begin consultations with the railway companies and the municipalities. Obviously, it would be impossible to consult every individual affected by noise problems, but we will do the necessary consultations.

The bill also stipulates that all collaborative measures must be exhausted and that all mediation and facilitation efforts must have failed. In those cases, when there are complaints, the agency will be able to consider them, listen to the complainants, hear the parties and receive their submissions. Then the agency will make a decision based on the guidelines and criteria included in the legislation. The agency will be able to order corrective action. The agency will have the authority to intervene, which is not the case right now.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

You mentioned earlier that the agency was required to issue guidelines. That is different from what it says in the bill, which is that it "may issue—."

[Gilles Dufault]

The agency will establish guidelines—

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Perhaps we could amend the bill to bring it in line with what you are planning to do.

[Gilles Dufault]

If you like, but it will not change very much.