Transport Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone.

I'd like to welcome our guests joining us here today: Mr. Christian Jobin, Paul Gantous, Robert Dalpé, and we have Joanne Fisher and Brian Allen online. Basically we are here studying Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I would like to ask Mr. Jobin to start, and we'll go through the presentations and then we'll have questions from the committee. Please begin.

[Christian Jobin, Coordinator]

I would like to thank the members of the Transport Committee for inviting us here today.

I represent thousands of citizens, including the shunting yards in a number of Quebec municipalities, including Sainte-Foy, Limoilou, Charny, Saint-Jean-Chrysostome, for the Quebec region and Outremont, Côte-Saint-Luc, Mont-Royal, Pointe-Saint-Charles, and Old Montreal, for the Montreal region.

We are seeking to restore tranquillity and promote a harmonious cohabitation with the railway companies. The problem only began in 1998, when CN was privatized, at which time the shunting yard operations increased. Our group is not against development. However, we would like to be able to all live together in harmony. The concern over greenhouse gas emissions will cause an increase in the use of rail and marine transportation. We are in favour of that change. However, we would like CN and other railway companies such as CN and CP to take the necessary steps to mitigate noise for the benefit of those residents who live next to the shunting yards.

We did not come here today to provide solutions for the railway companies, even though it is a well-known fact that in Europe, many countries have found a way to promote a peaceful existence between local residents and the railway companies. For example, some have built underground shunting yards. And some railway companies use pneumatic noise dampening systems.

The term “unreasonable noise” is used in Bill C-11. Bill C-26 stated that attempt should be made to reduce noise. What we are asking is for railway companies to avoid generating noise that could affect the health or quality of life of citizens.

Unreasonable noise is a qualitative concept. We would like these measurements to be quantitative, and determined by the use of systems that will measure the decibel level, both during the day and at night. We would also like to see a national railway noise reduction policy similar to what is now being done in Europe, where railway shunting yard noise is monitored 24/7. Railway companies there must correct any shortcomings by implementing new technology, including research and development.

We know that CN is doing well and making money. We think that some of that money should be used in research and development to promote noise reduction and make things easier on surrounding neighbourhoods. We would also like Canada's Transportation Agency to have the power to issue orders with specific deadlines to settle problems caused by the shunting yards.

Bill C-26 provided for a 30-day period. It is 60 days in Bill C-11. We would like a return to the 30-day period for settling a dispute. In Charny, for example, there was a mediation committee that lasted 18 months. No report was ever written and no recommendations were made by CN.

As I said earlier, I represent thousands of citizens. These people have reached the end of their rope. From May to September, they have to keep their windows closed. If Canada's Transportation Act is not amended, their health will be in serious jeopardy. There are people in Charny whose health is seriously affected. Something must be done now. I am a former member of Parliament. I worked on Bills C-26 and C-44, which died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued in November 2003 and an election was called in June 2004.

We would like to see Bill C-11 passed and the word “unreasonable” replaced by another term, something relating to the fact that noise must not affect the health of citizens, as well as a provision to quantify noise levels both day and night.

We are in favour of the development of rail transportation, but it must be done in a way that will respect the citizens. We would also like the railway companies to abide by all relevant municipal and provincial regulations. If an individual citizen were to make as much noise as the Charny shunting yard, he would immediately be charged with a noise violation. We are up against a very noisy company that we are powerless to do anything about.

We are asking you to allow those living near the shunting yards to avail themselves of their right to live in peace, by implementing monitoring measures similar to the ones that now apply in European countries.

I would like to thank the members of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Dalpé.

[Robert Dalpé, Comité Anti-Bruit]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here today to speak to you about Bill C-11.

For the past 10 years I have lived next to the Hochelaga shunting yard. On my own, as well as with some of my neighbours, and more recently, with the support of my member of Parliament, Mr. Réal Ménard, I have made a number of attempts to deal with this issue; since there is no regulatory framework, we were unsuccessful.

We would very much like to see Bill C-11 passed as soon as possible, with the following minor adjustments. In the interest of clarity, I will deal with only two points, which I intend to emphasize.

The first relates to the lack of a regulatory framework to deal with the environmental impact of railway activities. The court decision to amend the mandate of the Canadian Transportation Agency has left a void when it comes to enforcing environmental standards in this area. Other modes of transportation have environmental standards and mechanisms to enforce them. In the case of the railways, the people in charge of the regulations suggest that we negotiate with the railway company management. As individuals with limited means, we must try to have the standards enforced, standards which, for the time being, are none existent. Moreover, as has already been said, there is no one to arbitrate a disagreement between the two parties. Therefore, I would first emphasize the importance of having a regulatory framework and allowing the Canadian Transportation Agency to enforce environmental standards.

I will now address my second point.

Bill C-11 deals with noise. That is the only concept that is stated exclusively. We would like other aspects to be included, so that things are perfectly clear. The Transportation Agency itself constantly raises the three following points: noise, smoke and vibrations. Let's look at pollution caused by odours and smoke. What we hate even more than noise coming from the Hochelaga shunting yard is smoke pollution. The engines are not well maintained, and there is often a chronic problem with locomotives idling, which is really a euphemism. These engines run for hours but they don't go anywhere.

At the moment, there is no regulation for these companies and nothing that is enforced by any federal government body. So these engines can idle for hours, which causes pollution and—this is something that never ceases to amaze us—a huge waste of fuel.

In closing, I would say that I would like to see a regulatory framework specific to environmental issues applied to rail transportation, something that is similar to the rules for other modes of transport. There should be penalties included, and they should be enforced by a recognized authority. Moreover, the regulations should promote a better protection of the environment. That would include noise, air quality, energy saving and the health of our citizens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Gantous.

[Paul Gantous, ProPointe]

Hello, my name is Paul Gantous. I represent a small group of residents in Pointe St-Charles, which is in the centre-south district of Montreal. We live very close to the Alstom rail yards.

My brief is pretty much in line with and very similar to the briefs you've already heard. We have the same concerns. In our opinion, the amount of shunting noise that's going on—it's been going on the same amount of time, since 1998-99—in the neighbourhood, close to people's houses, especially at two, three, and four in the morning, has increased exponentially.

I won't repeat some of the points these gentlemen have made already. I'll just point out the three things that are of great concern to us. One, as has already been said, there's no qualification of noise regulation in Bill C-11, and we believe it should be tied to the World Health Organization's community noise guidelines. The numbers are in our brief, but I'll just quickly mention that at night there should be a decibel level of no more than 30 decibels within a bedroom, which corresponds to 45 decibels outside the house.

Something that concerns us in the language of Bill C-11 itself is in the proposed section 95.1 of the Canada Transportation Act. It's just one line, paragraph (b), which says “taking into account...(b) its operational requirements”, referring to the railway company's. We're worried that this can be used to override the intent of the law. If the intent of the law is to protect people from excessive noise in the middle of the night, but the railway company can just come back and say yes, but we have operational requirements, it's equivalent to a “notwithstanding” clause in relation to paragraph (a). We're worried about that and would like to see paragraph (a) take precedence over paragraph (b).

The other thing we're very concerned with is the carrying and the parking of toxic chemicals in these trains, toxic chemicals that are parked in our neighbourhood, toxic chemicals that are carried repeatedly through the heart of Montreal, through residential neighbourhoods that are very close to downtown. To look at the number of derailments, CN reported 70 in 2005, up from 49 derailments in 2004.

Just this past spring, I believe it was, there was a derailment on the Mercier Bridge going from Montreal to the South Shore. If these cars had been carrying toxic chemicals, could we have possibly been in a very dangerous situation? For anyone who lives in the neighbourhood, for anyone who happened to be passing through the neighbourhood.... Considering the proximity to downtown, the number of people this could affect would just be enormous. We're very concerned about that, let alone the fact that toxic chemicals are moving through Montreal when probably their destination is not within the city of Montreal—they could easily be routed around Montreal, but they're not—and that they're parked very often in Montreal, just sitting on the rails overnight.

What happens if there are kids playing around there? There are fences around these rail lines, but we've all been children; we've all hopped fences when we were kids. There are going to be kids getting near these cars, and the cars should not be parked anywhere that anyone can have access to them other than the rail employees. And they shouldn't be in populated centres.

Other than that, the conclusion is that we currently seem to be in a void of regulation in the train industry with respect to noise pollution. As has been said already, the municipalities and provinces are unable to apply their noise regulations where this industry is concerned.

We don't seek to remove the train industry; we seek to live in harmony with it, and we insist that we be able to coexist with them in a way that does not reduce the quality of life because of either noise pollution or fear of toxic chemicals being run through our neighbourhoods, and by an industry that seems to be running without control at this point in time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

I'll now move to Joanne Fisher, joining us online.

Ms. Fisher, you can hear me, I hope.

[Joanne Fisher, As an Individual]

Yes, I can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Please present. Go ahead.

[Joanne Fisher]

Thank you.

I'm representing the residents of East Richmond, and I'd like to thank the chair and committee members for the opportunity to speak today.

CN Rail's Lulu Island yard facility is located in northeast Richmond, B.C., in the midst of a primarily residential and farming area. The main switch for the yard is situated in close proximity to No. 8 Road, a residential side street where I live, and is positioned about 140 feet from the road. The yard itself is approximately one mile in length.

I would estimate my home as being less than 200 feet from the main switch and 105 feet from the tracks. The track leading into the yard from the east cuts the street in half, with the south side of the street coming to a dead end a few hundred feet from the tracks. Residents on the south side of the tracks have no other access route.

When I moved there over 20 years ago, the operations of the yard were not what I considered to be a problem. The trains were short, with single engines and cabooses. Activity in the yard was generally five days a week and not for excessive periods, with locomotives leaving for servicing on Saturday mornings and returning mid-Sunday evenings to be ready for the Monday morning shift. Locomotives would cross the yard and pull forward at times next to where I live, but much of the work was contained inside the yard.

For years, I did not use an alarm clock. I went to bed when I heard the chain on the main gate leading to the yard being locked at about 11 p.m., when the crew finished for the night. Crews would arrive and commence work at about 7:30 or 8 a.m., at which point I'd start my day. In the absence of late-night operations, my neighbours to the north side of my property were able to run a successful bed-and-breakfast business close to the yard for quite a number of years.

From 1992 onwards, operations in the yard dramatically changed. Increasingly, work began to be scheduled after midnight and in close proximity to homes. CN was notified as to the impact the noise had on residents, to no avail.

Now in 2006, disruptive noise from this yard occurs regularly after midnight, as well as throughout the day. It has been observed that the freight designated for assembly has often been sitting in the rail yard for several hours beforehand, with shunting not commencing until after midnight or later. Sometimes the work scheduled for after midnight is the most extensive within a 24-hour time period. In addition to the expanded schedule, CN has increased the number of locomotives kept in this yard and generally uses two or more locomotives for freight assembly.

As the trains are now longer and the infrastructure of the yard remains virtually as it has for decades, locomotives now have to constantly cross the road in order to not only access the yard but to assemble the trains. There are days when I would estimate that work takes place outside the yard in this manner for up to six hours a day, literally working in between homes.

With every crossing of the road come the piercing whistles and bells, sometimes to make a crossing of literally only a few feet. CN has been asked to use the west end of the yard in order to alleviate some of the noise, but east end assembly remains very routine.

Further concern involves the amount of time a public road is blocked during assembly, with my neighbours frequently waiting well beyond the appointed five-minute limit. Part of the concern is access in case of an emergency. With waits of 20 to 25 minutes and beyond being reported, this is a serious issue.

We attempted a bid for anti-whistling, but this was unsuccessful, with CN unwilling to accept the recommendations made by the city, the health department, and Transport Canada. This left us with the impossible situation wherein one of the busiest and noisiest crossings in a major Vancouver suburb, in terms of whistling and related noise, is in an otherwise quiet residential area.

The whistling, compounded with the drone of idling locomotives, bell ringing, and noise from shunting, has made it very difficult for this community. No distinction is made concerning the noise created, whether it be in the middle of the day or at 3 a.m. Whether it be shunting, bell ringing, or whistling, excessive noise is relentless here.

Residents have also commented that some shifts manage to perform assembly far more quietly than others. The noise from some of the night shifts have prompted some River Road residents to reorganize the location of their sleeping quarters to try to escape some of the cataclysmic sound emanating from the yard in the dead of night, to little apparent effect.

The Canadian Transportation Agency intervened in 2000. With the jurisdiction removed, conditions deteriorated further. Mediation, being on a voluntary basis, was declined by CN. Intervention and direct pleas from elected officials have been futile.

With no regulatory overseeing body, communities experiencing serious rail noise problems have no means of resolution. Rail industry self-regulation for noise issues does not appear to work.

I ask that the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency to both mediate and to make rulings on issues involving rail companies be strongly considered and reinstated.

The Canadian Transportation Agency is in an ideal position to fill this role, having a solid understanding of the real industry and its importance, while balancing those requirements against the basic needs of rail communities.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Allen.

[Brian Allen, As an Individual]

Mr. Chairman and committee members, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to present our community's concerns and recommendations regarding the amendments contained in clause 29 of Bill C-11. With the support of Mayor Wayne Wright and James Crosty, the president of the Quayside Community Board, I am representing the interests of 2,000 residents in New Westminster who reside within 200 metres of the New Westminster rail yard.

All of us here today recognize rail yard operations can create a significant amount of noise that negatively impacts many tens of thousands of Canadians living in close proximity to rail yards across Canada. The amendments contained in clause 29 of Bill C-11 need to be significantly modified if they are to truly address the concerns Canadians have with railway noise in close proximity to high-density residential areas such as the New Westminster Quay.

We recognize that the amendments in clause 29 of Bill C-11 were formulated in a way that requires the railways and concerned parties to try to resolve the noise problem through mediation. While this may be a desirable approach, it is not one that is realistic. We have supplied the committee with our report on the New Westminster rail yard operations and the efforts made over many years by local residents to try to work with the railways to eliminate or mitigate noise emanating from the rail yards. The bottom line is that they do not see this as their problem, and they see little or no need to do anything about this problem.

We have also supplied the committee with our rationale of why the amendments contained in clause 29 of Bill C-11 should be modified to better protect the interests of all residents who reside in low-rise and high-rise apartments in close proximity to rail yards. The following are suggested changes to the amendments contained in clause 29 of Bill C-11. These modifications are only suggestions. You may know a better way of wording the amendments to meet our common objective.

We recommend that proposed section 95.1 be changed to read:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must not cause unreasonable noise and must comply fully with all agency guidelines issued under subsection 95.2, taking into account a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114 if applicable, b) its operational requirements, and c) the area where the construction or operation takes place.

We also recommend that the following new subsection be added to proposed section 95.1:

Notwithstanding 95.1, where a rail yard or line is within 300 meters of high-density residential housing, railways can only shunt, couple, decouple rail cars and idle engines between the hours of 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM, Monday to Friday, excluding statutory holidays, unless authorized by the Minister of Transportation on a temporary basis during a National Emergency.

Under this proposed section, we would also recommend the following addition: “At no time shall a rail engine be left idling.”

We would like to see proposed section 95.2 changed to reflect the following points:

1) The Agency shall issue and publish for public access, in any manner that it considers appropriate, guidelines with respect to a) the elements that the Agency will use to determine whether a railway company is complying with section 95.1, and b) the process of collaborative resolution of noise complaints relating to the construction or operation of railways.

2) The Agency must consult with interested parties including municipalities where there are rail operations before issuing any guideline.

3) The guidelines are not statutory instruments within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act.

For the balance of the amendments contained in clause 29 of Bill C-11, it is not clear what sanctions, if any, would be possible if a railway does not comply fully with an order from the agency. We need to ensure that the Canadian Transportation Agency has the authority to levy sanctions. We must also ensure that these sanctions can be enforced. Otherwise, why would the rail companies feel compelled to comply with any order or ruling from the Canadian Transportation Agency?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for taking the time to listen to our concerns and recommendations regarding clause 29 of Bill C-11.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Allen and Ms. Fisher. We appreciate your participating in this committee hearing, albeit from a far distance.

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

It appears that we have an industry that was almost involved with the birth of our country, because a lot of these rail lines and yards were established, probably, well over 100 years ago. As a result, we're dealing with four or five major issues.

Today we talk about the new Conservative government, but we might also talk about the old Conservative government, because back in the days of Macdonald, railways were given some very broad concessions in terms of what they could do.

We have talked about noise, and we have locomotive noise and we have noise of the shunt, when the cars are brought together. I guess both of those would be factors in waking you up in the middle of the night or preventing you from getting some sleep. The vibration system, of course, depends upon the type of real estate those yards are on, and, depending upon soil conditions, vibrations can travel any given distance.

Pollution, Mr. Chair, is a major issue. A lot of us recognize that many of the locomotives that are used today are very old. The engines certainly would not meet the new requirements that we're looking for in the trucking industry, beginning in the very near future. So I would think that type of pollution is something that might be looked at.

We are also talking about safety and the movement of dangerous commodities that I think railways have been fairly good in dealing with in terms of the movement. But I know that when they are within a few hundred yards of your home, it would certainly be an area that you might want to be concerned with, not only in terms of solid materials but also in terms of the movement of gases--chlorine and other materials are moved that could escape and cause very serious problems.

Maybe Mr. Jobin could comment on what he knows from other countries that deal with this. Could we use electric engines, for example, instead of diesel ones? Could we have special types...? You referred to rubber rather than steel wheels. Maybe you could give us some more information on what you've gleaned from the United States and from Europe.

I would also like to get some comments, Mr. Chair. When we dealt with the privatization of CN, we stated in that legislation that Montreal would be the headquarters of CN and it would be a very important centre of rail activity. I'm not sure if some of that activity could be moved out of the city centre, or way out in terms of areas with less population, but maybe one of the witnesses could give us his impression of what a railway company could do to move its works or to provide a better environment for everyone.

[Christian Jobin]

It would be hard for me to find a solution for CN, but I can give you a few ideas. I know that currently, in Europe, there is a pneumatic system to dampen the noise when trains are assembled. Here, they still do it the old way, and the engines hit the rail cars.

Also, procedures have changed in the shunting yards, which is why they are noisier. Before 1998, they proceeded manually. The engineer drove the locomotive, with a spotter standing behind the rail car. He would tell the engineer to slowdown, for example, and it was all done quietly. But that is not how they do it now. The shunting operations are remote, and a control lever is used. There is nobody driving the locomotive, which is why the vehicles bump into one another. In some areas, at night, noise can be as loud as 90 decibels, which, as you can well imagine, seriously disrupts the sleep of those living adjacent to these yards.

There are ways around this, such as, for example, using pneumatic technology. In Japan, trains are assembled in buildings. I think that we could look to countries that are older than Canada which have managed to make the areas surrounding their shunting yards a lot quieter.

I think that CN must have already done some research and development in these areas. I am not a railway professional, but I speak on behalf of citizens who have had enough. I am told that countries like Japan, and Holland in Europe, have found marvellous solutions that could be applied here. I think they even have underground shunting yards. We are not trying to tell CN what to do, but we know that something can be done to improve the way in which they operate their shunting yards, particularly with respect to the remote operations. As I explained earlier, the use of the control lever causes the metal to hit metal in the middle of the night.

Any individual citizen who would dare to make the same amount of noise would be thrown in jail, because he would be breaking the law. Yet, a company is allowed to get away with it. I think that Bill C-11 needs more teeth, in order to put an end to a problem that is widespread in Canada. We don't want to weaken the railway industry: however, its progress must not be at the expense of our citizens.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Chair, in terms of the trucking industry, we have similar concerns in the cities, where they have so-called reefers and they keep the units going in the trucks all night. I believe in the city of Moncton, for example, they had to make sure those parking areas were outside and away from a populated area.

How could we deal with the noise in terms of measuring the amount of noise? What would happen if they couldn't meet the standards? One of the papers mentions so many decibels, whether it be fifteen, thirty, or whatever.

Would you suggest that the legislation has some standard and railways are given a certain period of time to meet that standard? How would you see this legislation being changed to enable both groups, the population and the companies, to coexist?

[Christian Jobin]

The Coalition québécoise contre les bruits ferroviaires would like to see a standard established to control the number of decibels allowed for day and night time activities, creating an offence for any railway company that exceeds the limit. The CTA would have the authority to intervene and give the company 30 days to make things right. If, after 30 days, the situation persists, then penalties would apply.

The word "unreasonable" has a quantitative connotation [Note to editor: the witness strikes the table]. Have I just made an unreasonable amount of noise? The railway company could undoubtedly justify any unreasonable noise arising from its activities by arguing financial imperatives or operational requirements. That is why we are asking that clause 95.1 be amended by adding a subclause stating that people's health must not be affected, while stipulating the exact decibel level for day and night time operations. The Canadian Transportation Agency could then order the railway companies to correct the situation within 30 days. If that is not done, they could be fined.

The concept of unreasonable noise does, to some extent, change the act, but we don't think it goes far enough in protecting the quality of life for people who live near the shunting yards. Some might wonder why these people decided to settle next to these yards.

In Charny, for example, there was a buffer zone owned by CN. It sold the buffer zone to a developer. If CN didn't want people living next to its shunting yards, it should never have sold the buffer zone. CN made the wrong decision. The buffer zone should have been maintained to protect the shunting yards. So people are living there now. Some way to reduce the noise level must be found.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would also like to thank those who have taken the time to appear before the committee today, particularly the representatives of ProPointe, which is in my riding. I know that Phaedra and others, who are here today, have done a lot of work on this file. They have taken the time to come to Ottawa, and we appreciate their effort.

Mr. Jobin mentioned that CN had sold the land adjoining its shunting yard. There are also historical reasons. For example, in an old neighbourhood like Pointe-Saint-Charles, housing was built beside the railway because that is where people worked. They walked everywhere. In many cases, the problem is a recent one. People have been living next to the railways for years, but it is because rail activity has increased that we are now seeing these problems.

There are solutions. Recently, a representative from the railway equipment industry told the Standing Committee on Finance that there are quieter locomotives and shunting mechanisms. The railways should be given a tax break to buy this type of equipment. These incentives would provide a greater benefit to our citizens than the tax breaks that we give to the oil companies.

I don't know if this happened throughout Quebec, but I was told that the trains make quite a bit of noise going around curves. When a train turns, the wheels lean on the rail which causes a squealing noise. Someone from my riding told me that his dog could hear the train coming. A dog is sensitive to high pitched noises. This gives you an idea of the scope of the problem. I think everyone would agree that we have to strengthen the existing legislation.

My question is for Mr. Gantous and it deals with dangerous goods. Has CN ever told you if it has an emergency plan? Did they tell you what specific steps they would take if a problem were to occur? Have you seen any evidence of some type of monitoring? Are these people concerned about the safety of the products that they store in your facilities?

[Paul Gantous]

As far as we are aware, no, CN has no plans in case of emergency. There's no emergency plan for evacuation and there's no emergency plan for cleanup of any chemicals that could be spilled in the area.

Just from personal experience, I can tell you that when you come home late at night you can see the cars parked not in the shunting yards but on the rails that pass through the neighbourhood. You can see the cars parked there with all kinds of chemicals. You just have to look at the side of the car to know that it's not a boxcar full of car parts or something innocuous like that. It's a car full of chemicals, and it's just sitting there. There's no protection, there's no guard, there's no nothing; it's just sitting there in our neighbourhood. Combine that with a lack of emergency plans and it could just be....

I don't want to sound like an alarmist, but if something happened, yes, it could be a recipe for disaster.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I think that what you have said, and what each of the groups have said in the briefs they presented to us, illustrates to what degree CN — I know them well because it is located in my riding — is, in several respects, a very bad corporate citizen. We should no longer rely solely on the good faith of a business; we must regulate and act.

We have seen two trends. Some have s asked us to create regulations through legislation, others have suggested that the Canadian Transportation Agency be given the power to regulate. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach.

Obviously, if the rules are clearly set out in the legislation, we know where we stand, but if the legislation is flawed, we will have to wait for a government to address this issue once again. We can give the CTA the mandate to do the job, but the results are not guaranteed. I would like to hear each of you on that point.

Mr. Dalpé, what do you think?

[Robert Dalpé]

Yes. Thank you.

What is preventing any action is that for the moment, we have nothing. In my opinion, the most important thing to do would be to return that authority to the Canadian Transportation Agency which has not had this authority for several years now.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

To the Canadian Transportation Agency?

[Robert Dalpé]

Yes.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Jobin, which approach do you prefer?