Transport Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[Jean-Pierre Bazinet]

I am not familiar with the situation in Langley, Mr. McGuinty. However, can we really deprive the public of emergency, ambulance and fire services because a train is very long?

We have to proceed on a case-by-case basis. There may be urban planning considerations, or changes might have to be made to the transportation infrastructure, so that may happen. However, we must not forget that these people are entitled to essential services. We have to take a close look at this and understand that some trains are so long that emergency services cannot be provided.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

And I have one tiny little last question, Mr. Chairman.

Do we have any evidence at all of decibel levels from train disturbances or noise levels in this country? I see WHO guidelines; I see OECD guidelines; I see calls for changes. Do we have any actual measurements or evidence from Canadian situations where trains are causing obviously high noise levels? I've seen nothing in the briefs.

[Jean-Pierre Bazinet]

I mentioned in my presentation that the City of Lévis, in 2000, had commissioned a study on noise levels to be done by an engineering firm that specialized in this field.

The report contains data expressed in decibel levels, in urban areas as well as other measurements. We would be prepared to table this document.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, please, Mr. Picard.

[François Picard]

The WHO set a decibel level of 55 as a limit beyond which outside daytime noise could disturb normal activities. So, if an upward limit were to be set, for example, it could be 55 decibels. This is consistent with the OECD recommendation as well.

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

Good afternoon, I am happy to meet you and I am surprised by the quality of the presentation that was made by the two city representatives here today. The briefs that you have provided will go a long way in helping us to prepare amendments to this bill.

I would also like you to know that as soon as we have improved it, I would like to see this bill adopted. Passing this legislation is the only way to improve the situation that you have described, since the Transportation Agency seems unable to help you. I agree with my colleague Mario. We will work together to improve the bill.

As to your definition of noise, you say that “unreasonable noise” is not specific enough and you would prefer the expression “as little noise as possible”. However, Mr. Picard feels that it would be even better to add specific noise level standards expressed in decibels.

I am of the same opinion. What is done to reduce noise can always be a matter for interpretation, whereas standards would be much more explicit.

Could you elaborate on that and tell us how you feel about it?

[François Picard]

First, any concept of reasonable noise should be discarded. Second, as my colleagues as well as the people from the West have said, we would prefer the term “as little noise as possible”.

We took a look at what was being done in Europe, where rail transportation is light years ahead of ours. In England, particularly, noise is regulated according to decibel levels. Unfortunately, I don't have these documents with me, but I would suggest that you ask your researchers to take a look at what is being done in Europe, where a lot of good things are happening.

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

Could you provide the clerk with the information?

[François Picard]

We don't have the documents with us at this time, but with your permission, we can send them to you at a later date.

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

You may send them to the clerk. That will be fine.

In your report you provide a number of solutions to reduce railway noise at the source. I am pleased to see that you are aware of that. I know that there is a quieter locomotive that can be used in rail yards. I think it is called the Green Goat. These special locomotives operate more quietly when accelerating or decelerating. These solutions, if they are effective, will probably be introduced by the Canadian Transportation Agency.

However, are the municipality representatives aware of the fact that zoning can represent a source of conflict between the urban planners and the railways? When you allow a developer to build housing next to a railway track, you must not be surprised when the homeowners begin to complain.

With that mind, have you made any changes to your zoning bylaws, in order to deal with this problem at the source?

[André Demers]

Yes. In urban areas, there is also a shortage of space available for construction. Nevertheless, we certainly try to take into account existing constraints, but railway lines go through very large areas in our cities. As a result, a significant portion of the territory is affected regardless, even under current conditions. If rail activities increase exponentially, ultimately, shouldn't we push the neighbouring areas back, move away from certain areas, and create a buffer zone on both sides of the track? Then that would become problematic.

The most sustainable developed plan would see railway companies investing as much as they are able to generate from additional activities and investing in research and development to resolve the root cause of the noise problems, as many companies do for their own employees. Practically speaking, being in the vicinity of railway tracks is like sharing space with an operational industrial unit. So it would be normal for a railway company to take action. The Canadian Transportation Agency would be responsible for the rate of investment in that area. It would be normal for the railway company to invest in research and development to get to the root of the problem. Noise could be reduced considerably by reducing friction on the tracks and by improving locomotive equipment, as well as the use and management of this equipment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am happy to be at the committee this morning, because the Charny train station is in my riding and several constituents have spoken to me about the problem.

From the outset, I would like to congratulate the committee for dealing with this issue. You have a great deal of perseverance, you work hard, and that is to your credit.

My first question deals with an issue that we discussed a little earlier. How do you compare regulations for railway facilities with other facilities under federal jurisdiction, like airports? Mr. Bazinet, I know that you mentioned that briefly. Is there really a big difference between the two? Are there more deficiencies on the rail side?

[Jean-Pierre Bazinet]

In our area, we have a ship yard, an airport, and facilities that generate noise. We have been successful in reaching an agreement and negotiating with them. By setting up committees, citizens have successfully reached agreement and achieved a kind of social consensus so that the two can coexist, as the two must be able to coexist. The railway company, the ship yard or the airport generate lots of jobs and economic activity. As Mr. McGuinty stated earlier, the railway is important in the West. However, an activity, whether it is essential or not must not jeopardize the social balance and prevent people from sleeping at night.

To answer your question, there are indeed other companies that make noise. However, railway activities appear to be a problem, namely CN's activities. Earlier on, we alluded to just-in-time delivery. Since 1988, when deregulation occurred, we have really seen an increase in railway activities. These activities extended to evenings, night, and weekends. That is when we began to see a lack of balance between the noise created and urban coexistence. Those are really the types of activities causing problems today.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Do you think that having the Canadian Transportation Agency establish guidelines is enough, or do you think there should be regulations? Should we take a different route, or move towards regulations?

[Jean-Pierre Bazinet]

Given what has happened with the people of Charny, as Mr. Lemaire described earlier, we feel that regulations should be sufficiently restrictive to force corporations to comply with certain rules. After that, a case study could be done. Perhaps negotiations could be done locally. We believe that basic regulations are necessary, like the ones in other areas of activity, namely aviation.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

With the proposed amendments, do you think that this bill can improve living conditions for the people of Lévis, more specifically around the Charny train station?

[Jean-Pierre Bazinet]

If the Canadian Transportation Agency, which will probably have jurisdiction, is given enough authority, that will be an excellent start. In fact, there needs to be a legal framework, a regulatory framework so that people work together to establish the requirements and the objectives to be met.

For the time being, we are just paying lip service to it: the situation is being dragged out, so that ultimately, we never come up with a solution. Yes, we need a regulatory framework and some legal guidelines to enable us to reach a consensus.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

It's Mr. Scott's turn, but he's agreed to hand it over to Mr. McGuinty or Mr. Bell. I'm not sure.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

It will be Mr. McGuinty. Mr. Scott's a perfect gentleman. Thank you very much.

Do we still have our guests on the telephone? Good. I'd just like to put the question again. I'm not sure if it was completely understood. Is there any evidence, beyond the engineering report from Dessau-Soprin, on whether those decibel levels have been measured in fact? Wouldn't it help all your cases if we were able to get some kind of national snapshot of where noise levels actually were, as opposed to what they ought to be in theory? Can anyone answer that? Do we have any collated material evidence to show what the decibel levels are across the country?

[Jim Lowrie]

I'm from the city of New Westminster. I do not believe we have existing evidence. I'm speaking perhaps out of ignorance. My predecessors, before my time, may very well have had that information; my sense, however, is that we do not. I think that is partially, as noted earlier, because railways are federally regulated, and there would be no real need to measure that because enforcement is not possible. So we will certainly check in our offices here, but at this point I do not believe we have such evidence.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That would be very helpful, because I think in one of the briefs or in both briefs from the two cities in Quebec, there is a call for the applicability of municipal bylaws to a federally regulated railway. It would be helpful for us, I think, as committee members, to get a sense of whether there is any other evidence, other than this particular study in this particular city.

I think it was the City of Quebec that presented the idea of a national strategy for noise reduction. Are you suggesting that it be part of this bill, or that it should be considered outside this bill? It is an excellent idea, but would you like to see the inventory prepared, for example, after this bill? Do you have any additional details?

[François Picard]

We had two specific objectives: responding to the legal framework, in other words to the bill as such, in terms of unreasonable noise level; and emphasizing the importance of protecting public health and the quality of citizens' lives. That is our basic position.

Then, beyond the scope of the bill, we are advocating a longer-term comprehensive approach based on a national policy to reduce railway noise that would establish a direction, objectives, and strategies for intervention. So perhaps this national policy could include a comprehensive approach, once the regulations are very specific and a decision has been made with respect to noise and quality of life.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Could this strategy be prepared by companies in cooperation, for example, with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities?