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.