Transport Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome.

I'll call the meeting to order of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure, and Communities. It's meeting 19 and we're 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.

Joining us today, we have from the City of Quebec Monsieur François Picard; from the City of Lévis, Jean-Pierre Bazinet; from the City of New Westminster, through telecommunications, Jim Lowrie; from the City of Langley, Mr. Peter Fassbender; and from the Township of Langley, Mr. Kurt Alberts.

[Colin Wright, General Manager, Engineering, Township of Langley]

I'm sorry to interrupt, but it would be Mr. Colin Wright from the Township of Langley.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That's right, I apologize. I have the newly edited version in front of me now. Thank you.

One of the requests I've had, and I hope the committee will bear with me, is that we have Mr. Warawa, who is from the west...I would like to start with the teleconference communications. He won't be asking questions, but he has taken the time to be here and he asked to hear their presentations. Is this okay with the committee? Is it in order?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

All right.

From the City of Langley, then, Mr. Fassbender.

[Peter Fassbender, Mayor, City of Langley]

Thank you very much. It's a distinct pleasure to be able to speak to the committee today.

I am the mayor of the city of Langley, and I represent the perspective of this community as it relates to rail issues. I think the most important thing for the committee to know is that we fully recognize the challenges that a growing rail network poses right across the country.

However, there are varying impacts on communities. The city of Langley and the township of Langley are neighbours, and we are very much involved in aspects of the rail impact on our communities. We feel we have a very strong perspective and that we are perhaps in a unique situation.

In our community, the city of Langley, which is ten square kilometres--or four square miles--in area, we have in effect five level crossings that impact our community. Those crossings are all signalized. Through Transport Canada, we have been able to remove the whistling on four of those five crossings. The fifth one is being worked on as we speak. The impact of the train whistles has to some degree been minimized. However, we have crossings just outside of our border, in the city of Surrey and in the township of Langley. Because we live very close together, when the whistles blow for those, it of course impacts our citizens.

The other major issue we face--and I know the terms of reference of the committee are fairly broad and that there are a number of issues being deliberated--is safety. In our city, if a train stops at an inappropriate place anywhere within that four square miles, in effect our city is totally cut off from the north to the south. No emergency vehicles could cross through the normal routes.That has been a significant concern for many years now. It has a significant impact on the township as well, because of the length of trains--both the coal and the container trains--that go through our community from Roberts Bank.

The second critical element is that we currently have a significant traffic problem. All our crossings are over the normal warrants that have been defined by Transport Canada. Most of them--three of the major ones--are well over double what the current warrants are. In the township and the city, every single crossing we are referring to is over those recommended minimum warrants. So we have a significant problem with congestion that results from trains going through our community. Just to give you an example, if we have a 12,000-foot train that goes through our community, the traffic impact at every one of those crossings can last up to 20 to 25 minutes after that train has passed through. There are some significant congestion problems that come out of it.

The City of Langley is currently building a north-south overpass. We received minimal funding from the federal government for that project, but fortunately, the provincial government, TransLink, and the city came up with the necessary resources. So we have one crossing being built, and we totally support a second crossing in the township of Langley. This will eliminate one crossing that we share and help with east-west access, so that we again can mitigate some of the negative effects and safety issues we have.

That really is the essence of what I wanted to share with the committee. Of course I'm happy to answer any questions, should you have them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Fassbender.

I'm going to ask Mr. Wright to speak now.

Please begin.

[Colin Wright]

Good afternoon. My name is Colin Wright, from the township of Langley.

Our principal concerns related to the Roberts Bank rail corridor are to do with safety. There's been a problem with safety for 15 years or more, as train traffic has increased through the corridor. We're now at the point where the port wishes to expand, and we understand the importance of this to Canada; it's really important that the Pacific gateway work well, in the context of the national and the provincial transportation systems.

Almost 100 years ago our forefathers made some bold investments in the railway, and they have served us incredibly well. We need solutions now that are going to last us for the long term too, but there are some immediate needs that need addressing straight away. They're long past due.

As Mayor Fassbender has reported, we have congestion in the city and in the township almost every hour, and at peak hours and during the day there's total gridlock. A train may pass through and occupy the rail crossing for less than five minutes, but the residual congestion takes 20 to 25 minutes to clear. At this time, it's impossible for the emergency services to function properly.

Some relief is being given by the north-south grade separation that's being installed as we speak, but to complete an east-west relief is absolutely critical at this time.

The township is anxious to be part of the solution. We basically are ready with funding to participate in getting this crossing in immediately. It would be advantageous if we could move the project forward just as soon as we possibly can. There's a study under way, which we expect to be completed before year-end. Our understanding is it's most likely to indicate that the works in Langley are a top priority in the corridor.

We also have an economic centre in the township and the city. It's actually the largest retail commercial area in the province, outside downtown Vancouver. This is an important area of commerce, business, and employment, and this train's impacts are making real damage to that growth and activity at the Willowbrook shopping area.

We got here really because there was an agreement in 1907 for trains up to about six cars long. We now have trains that are 12,000 feet and are possibly experimenting with ones going to 15,000 feet. The addition of the third berth at Deltaport will increase traffic impacts by 32%. There are plans to double that capacity after the third berth is completed.

Really, this is a success story, in that we have trade with China and the Far East. But it's important that we put in infrastructure so that the systems work safely. I believe that with the attention the federal and provincial governments are giving this issue right now, solutions are on the horizon, but we must stress the importance of moving straight away with the 64th Avenue-Mufford Crescent grade separation to deal with the existing and long-standing safety issues we have there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

I'll ask Mr. Lowrie now to make his presentation.

[Jim Lowrie, Director, Engineering Services, City of New Westminster]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Jim Lowrie, and I am director of engineering at the City of New Westminster. My submission is on behalf of Mayor Wayne Wright, and we're pleased to make this submission today.

Incidentally, Mayor Wright does invite members of the committee to the city of New Westminster to experience firsthand the impact of railway operations on the city.

By way of background, the city of New Westminster was the first incorporated city in the province of British Columbia, incorporated in 1860. The city is located on the north shore of the Fraser River and has strong historical ties to the river and to the railway, principally in the later half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Today the city of New Westminster is a thriving city with a population of approximately 60,000. The city occupies only 15 square kilometres, making it one of the most densely populated in the greater Vancouver metropolitan region.

The city hosts three major railway companies, each having marshalling yards located in relatively close proximity to residential neighbourhoods. Approximately 40,000 residents--over two-thirds of our population--live within one kilometre of a railway line or marshalling yard.

Historically the cooperation of railway companies in responding to neighbourhood complaints has been inconsistent. While some complaints are addressed, most others are not--complaints relating to shunting railcars, idling engines, squealing wheels on rails, and excessive whistle-blowing. It is the experience of city staff that railway companies have not been highly cooperative in modifying their operation to address the concerns of residents, particularly during the late night hours.

Mr. Chairman, specific comments on proposed Bill C-11, and we're speaking to clause 29 of this legislation, which suggests modifications to section 95 of the Canada Transportation Act. This section talks to the operation of railways, that they must not make unreasonable noise, taking into account various matters, including their own operational requirements.

Our submission would be that the balance here is between making unreasonable noise as it is perceived by residents and the operational requirements of the railway companies. Past experience in New Westminster has shown that railway companies are reluctant to modify their operations in meaningful ways to reduce or eliminate excessive noise, particularly in late night hours. We suggest that the use of language such as “unreasonable” invokes a high degree of subjectivity to the legislation.

With respect to proposed section 95.2, the concern here is the mention that the agency “may issue...guidelines”. We believe it's imperative the agency issue guidelines. That “may issue” should be a “must”, in our view. Perhaps the guidelines should be in the form of regulation. The guidelines are not proposed to be statutory, and we believe the guidelines or regulations must be made to be readily and easily enforceable. Given the geographic variation among municipal jurisdictions across the country, the logical enforcement agency would be local government. The suggestion here is the noise parameters could be nationally legislated, i.e., based on CMHC guidelines or those of some other agency.

With respect to proposed section 95.3, we question what authority the agency has in ordering operational changes of a railway company and what enforcement methods would be used in gaining compliance if the other companies are found to be non-compliant with adopted guidelines and regulations.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, we believe the intention of the proposed bill is laudable and commendable. The aforementioned suggestions are provided in the spirit of strengthening, improving, and providing clarity to the proposed legislation.

Thank you for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Lowrie.

I'll now go to Monsieur Picard from the City of Quebec.

Due to age and bad eyesight, I can't read the name of the guest you have with you. Perhaps you could please introduce him and then make your presentation.

Thank you.

[François Picard, Second Vice-President of the Executive Committee, City of Quebec]

I am accompanied by Mr. André Demers, alderman for the Sainte-Foy sector, where there is a marshalling yard. Mr. Demers is also President of the Commission aménagement du territoire et transports.

I am also accompanied by Mr. Marc des Rivières, who is a professional director and expert on transportation for the City of Quebec.

First, the City of Quebec would like to thank the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport for the opportunity to present his comments on Bill C-11.

Thank you for listening to us. And of course, my presentation will be in French.

I will begin by talking about noise generated by railway operations, by addressing the legal framework as well as the overall approach that the City of Quebec is proposing. If time allows, although you already have our brief in hand, we will also discuss other nuisances or issues that could be improved in the bill.

First, I will talk about the legal framework with regard to noise generated by railway operations. In the short-term, the City of Quebec recommends that amendments be made to Bill C-11 as follows.

First, we recommend the reintroduction of the wording proposed in the former Bill C-26 so that railway companies are required to produce the least possible noise, replacing the wording of Bill C-11 which states the obligation "not to make unreasonable noise".

In other words, like the mayor of a municipality in British Columbia who spoke before us, we believe that the expression "unreasonable noise" is too vague and leads instead to confrontation with the railway companies. Consequently, we propose amending the wording which, although it is only two words, has vast implications for the City of Quebec.

Second, we recommend adding, in the new section 95.1 under Bill C-11, the following: "that noise levels caused by the railway operations shall not harm public safety or cause negative effects such as disrupted sleep for persons living in residential areas adjacent to switching yards or along railway lines".

Third, we recommend subjecting railway companies under federal jurisdiction to provincial and municipal laws and regulatory provisions concerning public nuisances and nocturnal noise in order to preserve the quality of life of populations living near railway facilities.

Another approach would be to reduce railway noise at the source. Even if the wording that companies make the least possible noise is reintroduced, we could require the companies to reduce noise sources by doing research and development on new technologies that would allow them to directly reduce the amount of noise caused by the cars.

Those are our recommendations with regard to the legal framework.

With regard to adopting a more comprehensive approach, the city proposes as part of a long-term strategy the adoption of a national railway noise reduction policy setting orientations, objectives and the most appropriate action strategies. This policy could be developed by Environment Canada, jointly with Health Canada, since it is part of a public health and noise pollution approach.

We could develop noise maps of areas where residents are subjected to excessive noise levels in order to gradually eliminate black spots. We could also give priority to reviewing the sites causing the greatest harm during the night, when thresholds exceed fixed limits.

We could also give priority to at-source noise reduction measures—such as those I mentioned earlier—by taking into account the three types of noise: rolling noise, locomotive and auxiliary equipment noise and switching noise.

Furthermore, various specific measures, some of which are presented in section 1.6.1, to reduce railway noise gradually through retrofits and better maintenance of rolling stock and railway lines, subject to available funds, could be taken.

A number of European countries have adopted regulations relating to decibel levels. It starts at 55 decibels, which corresponds with normal annoyance caused by noise, and goes up to 65 decibels which, according to the OECD, corresponds to constrained behaviour patterns, symptomatic of serious damage caused by noise. If you wish to take the idea of "least possible noise", you could adopt a targeted strategy in the hope that the noise from switching yards or trains will not exceed 55 to 65 decibels, during the day, when noise could reach as high as 65 decibels, or at night, when noise levels should not exceed 55 decibels.

So, a number of European countries have adopted similar regulations, which exceed what you are proposing, but which could prove interesting in the long-term, particularly if we opt for a comprehensive approach and a national railway noise reduction policy.

Other measures in our brief address other nuisances. Railway companies must be required to comply with local legislation and regulations on environmental protection and the protection of public health and safety, particularly with regard to odours and unhealthy conditions.

We propose that the bill require railway companies to put a communications plan in place aimed at resident populations concerning railway operations involving the transportation of hazardous goods.

With regard to, in particular, the obstruction of public crossings, there must be concrete measures requiring the strict application of paragraph 103(c) of the Canadian Railway Operation Regulations, so that no switching done at crossings can block road and pedestrian traffic for more than the five-minute maximum prescribed by those regulations.

Obviously, the City of Quebec is faced with one last nuisance related to train whistling. Section 11 of the Railway-Highway Crossing at Grade Regulations needs to be reviewed in terms of the allocation of cost for the construction and maintenance of new grade crossings, so that the benefits associated with railway facilities in urban areas can be equally shared by the railway company and the local government.

Currently, the municipality pays 100 per cent of the cost of changes made to grade crossings. We believe that at least 50 per cent of the cost of changes to grade crossings should be paid by the railway companies.

I have used my seven minutes. We are prepared to answer any questions you may have. Once again, I want to thank you for having taken the time to listen to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci, Monsieur Picard.

Mr. Bazinet, I would ask you to introduce your guest also. Please proceed.

[Jean-Pierre Bazinet, President, Chutes-la-Chaudière East Sector, City of Lévis]

Since my knowledge of English is limited, I will speak to you in French.

To the Chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, first we want to thank the members of the committee for allowing us to speak about our experience with noise generated by the Joffre switching yard in Charny. Our comments will pertain to an aspect of rail transportation which bears witness to the problems associated with the co-existence of rail traffic and daily life in an urban environment.

You have received our brief. I want to read you a summary that will be provided to you, if you so wish.

My name is Jean-Pierre Bazinet and I am a municipal councillor for the City of Levis. I am also president, Chutes-la-Chaudière East Sector, which includes the neighbourhood of Charny, Breakeyville, Saint-Jean-Chrysostome and Saint-Romuald.

I am accompanied today by Mr. Alain Lemaire, who is the municipal councillor for Charny and former mayor of the City of Charny, now part of an agglomeration. I am also accompanied by Mr. Alain Blanchette who is chief of staff of the mayor of the City of Levis, Ms. Danielle Roy-Marinelli. Finally Mr. Michel Hallé, a lawyer and legal advisor at the Direction des affaires juridiques for the City of Levis, is also here with me.

First, that current City of Levis is the result of the merger of 10 former municipalities which became neighbourhoods of that city on January 1^st, 2002. This city is home to some 127,000 people, making it the eighth largest city in Quebec.

The history of the railway and Levis heritage are intertwined. The railway was an important leader for economic development throughout the ages, and its rich tradition has grown over the years. Currently we want to maintain rail operations within our area, but in a more harmonious way.

Our brief deals with the following aspects: noise generated by the Joffre switching yard and its effects on public health; Bill C-11 and its amendments; finally suggested additions to the Bill.

As part of its activities, Canadian National operates a switching yard within the boundaries of Charny and Saint-Jean-Chrysostome. Given the elevated noise levels generated by switching operations conducted by Canadian National, numerous complaints have been laid by residents of the three former neighbourhoods that existed prior to the merger in 2000, as well as by residents of the other neighbourhoods that I mentioned earlier.

These residents believe that the noise pollution caused by CN's operations, particularly in the evening and at night, is affecting their health and impedes their peaceful enjoyment of their property. This situation came about in 1998 — and that date is important. Previously, the switching yard and the residents lived in harmony. The new situation coincided with the privatization of the company, which streamlined its operations not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada.

In that respect, the problems experienced by the residents of Charny are similar to those encountered in other cities in Canada. The preceding testimonies are compelling.

When CN failed to take action, a large number of affected residents signed a petition that was presented to the council of the former City of Charny in 2000. The municipality also received letters from home owners describing the situation as unacceptable and intolerable.

The former City of Charny decided to support the citizens' committee opposed to the noise from the Joffre switching yard in Charny. It hired an engineering firm Dessau-Soprin to conduct a noise study to measure the effect of CN's operations. The study, tabled in February 2000, copies of which I have, showed that the impulse noise mainly comes from such activities as switching of cars, acceleration and deceleration of locomotives, hooking together of cars, breaking of trains, train whistles, train movement, loaders, tow trucks and other vehicles and back-up beepers.

In 2001, the Public Health Department of the Chaudière-Appalaches Health and Social Services Board conducted an analysis of the situation and produced a report entitled “Assessment of the public health risk associated with environmental noise produced by operations at CN's Joffre switching yard in Charny.”

The study concludes, and I quote:

Based on the available noise measurements the literature review and the specific context, we find that the environmental noise to which many of the people living in the residential area adjacent to CN's Joffre switching yard adversely affects their quality of life and potentially their health. Such noise levels are therefore a nuisance to the peace, comfort and well-being of the residents near the Joffre switching yard in Charny. From a public health stand point, these noise levels are likely to have an adverse affect on health by disturbing sleep, which in turn has a number of side effects. These noise levels are in our view incompatible with residential zoning unless special measures are taken to reduce the noise.

Around the same time, the residents of the City of Oakville, Ontario, filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency under the Canada Transportation Act. In its decision, the agency determined that CN was not doing as little damage as possible in the exercise of its powers. Accordingly, the agency ordered CN to take certain measures, among them preparing a long-noise reduction plan satisfactory to the agency.

This decision was a source of tremendous hope for the residents of Oakville and Charny. In response to the decision, CN decided to challenge the Agency's jurisdiction in the Federal Court of Appeal. In a ruling handed down on December, 2000, the court found that the Canadian Transportation Agency did not have jurisdiction under the Canada Transportation Act to deal with complaints about noise, smoke and vibration from duly authorized railway operations.

In the wake of the decisions in the Oakville matter, the Canadian Transportation Agency decided to offer a mediation service in a bid to resolve disputes similar to those in Oakville and Charny. In March 2001, the former City of Charny and the citizens' committee submitted a request for mediation to the Canadian Transportation Agency. CN agreed to mediation. Unfortunately, after several meeting between the parties, we concluded that the mediation was not going to work. Bound by an undertaking to preserve the confidentiality of the discussions, we are unable to provide further details. We can say, however, that the City of Lévis which succeeded the former City of Charny on January 1^st, 2002, made every effort to find a solution acceptable to its residents and even delegated to the mediation meetings three elected representatives, including two members of the executive committee at the time.

Section 29 of Bill C-11 introduces four new sections dealing specifically with the noise caused by operation of a railway. We are especially pleased that Parliament decided to fill a major void in the process of resolving disputes between the community and the railway company by giving the Canadian Transportation Agency clear authority to make orders to rectify a noise problem.

The new section 95.3 restores the monitoring authority the agency lost as a result of the Federal Court of Appeal decision in the Oakville case. This section restores to Canadians a mechanism for control that they had lost for more than six years, and which was causing problems. This would make it possible to turn to a tribunal with jurisdiction in order to condemn situations affecting public health.

Without making any assumptions about the agency's future work, we hope that the attitude the agency showed in the Oakville case will govern its orders. We believe that the wording used in Bill C-26 in 2003 requiring railway companies to make the least possible noise was better than the wording used in the current bill. We believe that the current wording waters down the obligation of railway companies to operate their facilities in a way that respects their neighbours. On the contrary, we want section 29 to be reinforced by adding a clause stating that railway companies are not to harm public health in the course of their operations. We are concerned that the obligation of railway companies to refrain from making unreasonable noise is subject to operational requirements.

Operational requirements should not be allowed to preclude that obligation. It should therefore be made clear that what must be taken into account is the company's essential operational requirements not just any requirements. For example, operational profitability should not be used to relieve a railway company of its obligation to refrain from making noise.

Section 7 of Bill C-11establishes the framework for the mediation process the Canadian Transportation Agency has been using for several years. As a result of our experience in this area, we are very hopeful that the prescribed 60-day mediation period will be reduced to 30 days as proposed in Bill C-26. We believe that 30 days is enough time to try to voluntarily resolve a dispute provided the parties make the necessary effort. More than 18 months should not be allowed to pass between a request for mediation and an outcome as was the case in Charny.

In addition to expressing support for the amendments as indicated above, we would like to take this opportunity to suggest that Bill C-11 be amended to give the Canadian Transportation Agency jurisdiction over the use of train whistles. More specifically, we believe it would be appropriate for every request to prohibit the use of train whistles within municipal boundaries to be reviewed by the CTA in cases where the municipality, the railway company and Transport Canada cannot agree on the requirements for no-whistle regulations.

Furthermore, we support the request from the Union des municipalités du Québec made by its President Jean Perrault in his letter of July 6th, 2006, to the Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport of Canada, to establish tangible measures for ensuring the rigorous application of Rule 103(c) of the Canadian Rail Operating Rules, which states that “no part of a train or engine may be allowed to stand on any part of a public crossing at grade for a longer period than five minutes”, and to permit the application of Rule 103(c) of the Canada Rail Operating Rules to moving trains. In fact, vehicle and pedestrian traffic blocking a crossing for more than five minutes can lead to public safety problems, especially where the blockage prevents safety services such as firefighters police and ambulance vehicles from providing the required services.

The problem of noise, caused by railway operations is a fundamental priority for the City of Lévis. This situation is causing problems for more than 10,000 people in our area. A great deal of effort has been made in the past to restore the peace and quiet the neighbourhood so amply deserves. Unfortunately, our efforts have been in vain. That is why we support the federal government's desire to give Canadians a forum in which to assert their rights. However, we believe that the wording of section 29 of Bill C-11must be amended to ensure that the objective of the legislation is met.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I want to thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci, Monsieur Bazinet.

We'll start with questioning. Mr. Bell will begin.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today.

For those from Langley and New Westminster--the township of Langley and the city of Langley--I am somewhat familiar with the west coast issues.

Mayor Fassbender, Colin Wright, and Jim Lowrie from the two Langleys and New Westminster, and we had witnesses by telephone again earlier this week--on Tuesday, in fact--from both Richmond and New Westminster. They were representing residents groups who had expressed concerns about train whistle and railway noise from rail operations, particularly from the shunting of cars. I know that in the case of New Westminster there was a suggestion that a number of high-rise towers were within 100 metres of some of the railway track.

I am wondering if perhaps the three gentlemen I've mentioned could give reference to the issue of train whistles and the shunting noise and how they see the authority in proposed sections 95.1 and 95.3 in particular.

Jim Lowrie, you said that under proposed subsection 95.3(1), that “may” should be ”must”. Do you have any suggestions with respect to that and to whether the term “unreasonable noise” is adequate, or whether there needs to be a closer definition, either closer to World Health designations, or whether some decibel level should be set?

[Jim Lowrie]

Thank you, Vice-Chair Bell.

I am Jim Lowrie, here from New Westminster. I'm also accompanied by Mayor Wright, who has joined me and may wish to offer a few words.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Welcome.

[Jim Lowrie]

With respect to proposed section 95.3, I think you meant proposed section 95.2--

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Yes, I'm sorry.

[Jim Lowrie]

--the area where the agency may make regulations or, pardon me, guidelines.

It is our submission that the agency must. We believe that should be “must”, not “may”, and in our view the guidelines should be in the form of regulation, if that is at all possible.

Yes, we do believe that the guideline or regulation should be based on some established criteria. We suggest the CMHC, who have decibel levels for residential neighbourhoods, or if there's some other recognizable agency--the World Health Organization, as you referred to--that some objective standard be made, rather than the subjective language as is proposed. Your definition of “reasonable” versus mine versus a railway company's may leave a lot to be desired.

Perhaps that answers your question, Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

It does.

Mayor Fassbender, do you have any comment?

[Peter Fassbender]

Relative to some of those issues, we support what New Westminster is saying, because they're really faced with the issues of shunting and movement of a lot more cars within their rail yards.

Our issues are pass-through trains, the volume of trains and, with whistles, definitely the noise level they create and how that might disturb the citizens. But we don't have the same issues in either the city or the township as they have in New Westminster and some of the other cities that have been making presentations.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

Colin Wright, do you have any comment?

[Colin Wright]

My only comment really is this. You know, things that are somewhat discretionary, because they haven't any fixed levels attached to them, don't have any real effect. So we'd really like to see something whereby the decibels are actually indicated at the thresholds.