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 comply with the rules of the World Health Organization? We feel that the bill should include specific enough criteria so that the Canadian Transportation Agency would unequivocally have the power to implement the legislation, so that the railways could not invoke the excuse of operational requirements and could not very easily disobey the rules.
Unreasonable noise is a quantitative concept.. What we would like to see, is that the control factors be qualitative, or conversely, that we at least be able to record the noise, quantify it and say it exceeds the allowable daytime or night time decibel level. The railway company that goes beyond the limit would be obliged to find solutions and to report to the Canadian Transportation Agency within 30 days of the violation. That would be legislation with teeth.
The railway company can find solutions. We must not be afraid. In Europe, this is how it currently works. If there is anywhere that the railway sector is developed, it is in Europe. While we were dismantling our railways, Europe continued to develop its passenger and road transportation infrastructure.
Europe has much more stringent standards in this area than we do. European tracks are very smooth, whereas ours are still unequal, which produces shaking and noise. We suggest the creation of a railway noise reduction policy including mandatory annual outcomes drafted together with stakeholders from the railway companies, in order to find solutions and to ensure the harmonious coexistence of all stakeholders.