Transport Committee on Oct. 19th, 2006

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

I commented earlier this week on my experience, obviously in North Vancouver, with the problems of the trains, particularly with the takeover between BC Rail and CN. The noise levels seemed to accelerate because of different operational methods and standards, and shunting was going on all night.

We had a presentation from the lady speaking from New Westminster, Joan Fisher, who on Wednesday, October 11, starting at midnight and going right through the evening, detailed all the noise that had occurred almost hour by hour. In my previous life as mayor and since then as MP, I've heard those kinds of things from residents in North Vancouver, so I have some empathy for the points that have been made.

Mayor Fassbender, you referred to the issue of train crossings. The gateway proposal that we put forward last year as the previous government, and I believe it's being responded to in terms of the announcement we heard last week, included a number of rail grade separations so that the trains could move through and the interference between train/truck traffic and train/car traffic would be reduced and there wouldn't be the need, perhaps, for the amount of whistling that can disturb a neighbourhood. Are you expecting to see some relief in that area?

[Peter Fassbender]

Yes. We are, indeed, with the current overpass that we're building, plus the one that is proposed. Needless to say, with grade separation there is no need for whistling, so that will provide some significant relief for our citizens who are fairly close to the rail lines.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

I have a final question to the three gentlemen. I apologize to the gentleman from Quebec. I have other members here who I'm sure can pick up on your questions, but I am familiar with B.C., obviously.

The description is that they're looking toward a collaborative approach, mediation with the community, with the municipality, with the residents who are complaining, and I'm wondering how you have found the voluntary process working so far. I wonder whether there needs to be...it's sort of insinuated in the bill that there needs to be teeth to force the railways to have serious discussions, because in many cases, I'm told, meetings with the railway have been less than satisfactory. Their attitude has been poor in responding to complaints under this so-called voluntary process that's in place.

[Peter Fassbender]

Our experience would echo those comments. We have been disappointed in the length of time it has taken to get the railways to the table to discuss local issues that need focus and priority. Each of the railways has been a little bit different. Irrespective of where this goes, we want every one of them to respond in a manner that is sensitive to the local needs of each community.

[Jim Lowrie]

I agree with the comments made by the witnesses from Quebec. In this community, we have three railways with marshalling yards. Without naming names, there is a wide variation in how the railway companies respond to complaints. One of the larger companies has a PR person who is quite responsive. With others, we're dealing with operations personnel who have other priorities in mind. Historically, the collaborative process has not been workable. We believe there needs to be a common standard, and that the guidelines proposed in the legislation should be firm and in the form of regulation.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to thank the representatives of the City of Québec and the City of Lévis as well as of the City of New Westminster, the City of Langley and the Town of Langley.

Rail transportation is increasing. The cost of oil and gas means that an increasing number of trips are made by rail, which is good. The problem is that this situation means increasing problems over time. I see Mr. Alain Lemaire here whom I knew in another life, when I was with the Union des municipalités du Québec.

I want to ask you the question my colleague raised earlier, namely that mediation was a failure. That is why we see situations such as this occurring. Legislation needs to be adopted to resolve this situation. I believe that is our role. You can count on the support of the Bloc Québécois to ensure that such legislation is passed quickly in the House of Commons. There must not be yet another election before legislation can be passed.

Mr. Lemaire, based on your experience with mediation and this entire process, what were the results and why are we facing the situation before us today?

[Alain Lemaire, Member Executive Committee , City of Lévis]

Mr. Laframboise, committee members, good afternoon.

We have worked hard in Charny in an attempt to resolve or minimize the problem. After Oakville's failure we knew that we would not get anywhere. The CTA no longer had any authority however we did turn to them for mediation. Canadian National agreed to sitting down at the negotiation table with us, in the presence of the CTA. The discussions, which were confidential, lasted for 18 months. Nothing came out of these discussions.

I had experienced this in other areas. My impression is this. It's really quite simple: Canadian National spends a few hundred thousand dollars on hiring four or five lawyers, has them sit down with us, along with five, six or seven experts, and buys time. They succeed by wearing us out. In our case, the citizens' group ended up giving up. People left feeling that they couldn't do anything. That has been our experience of mediation.

That is why we are insisting so strongly on giving the CTA real authority and on developing a legislative framework that will allow for action to be taken. This is the only business in our environment that does not have to answer for its actions.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

That brings me to the question I would like to ask the people from Quebec City.

The city of Lévis' brief was very good. I also read the documents submitted by the Union des municipalités du Québec. There is considerable pressure in Quebec. However, it must be clear that any proposed amendments that change the nature of the bill will not be in order.

I agree with you that the basic definition, that is "unreasonable noise", has to be modified. We need to determine whether or not replacing it with the expression "the least possible noise" is the best alternative. We'll see. The best approach would probably involve measuring decibels but we need to determine whether or not that would completely change the nature of the bill, thereby rendering it inadmissible. We mustn't make that mistake. Committee members will be considering those questions. I think they all want to solve this problem.

I quite like your second amendment which involves adding, in new section 95.1, that noise levels caused by railway operations shall not harm public safety nor cause negative effects such as disrupted sleep.

I think it would be good to state that guidelines must be established. Perhaps decibel levels could be used for that purpose.

Your third amendment, an equally important one, would subject federal jurisdiction to provincial and municipal laws. That is a dream that I do not think the Canadian Constitution would allow but obviously the idea should be analyzed.

I would like you to tell me which provisions you would like to see adopted. You could also tell us about the problems you are experiencing at the Sainte-Foy and Limoilou marshaling yard.

[François Picard]

With your permission, I will begin. Mr. Demers experiences this problem a on daily basis along with his citizens so he will be able to expand on my answer.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

You have the floor.

[François Picard]

For a variety of reasons, several railway lines were closed down in Quebec over the years. On the other hand, railway traffic has increased. The activities are concentrated on new lines as well as on two switching yards. Even as the deregulation of transportation was taking place in 1996, railway lines were being closed down. Traffic therefore increased in the switching yards, including the one in Sainte-Foy.

It must be understood that the railway companies are struggling more and more with just-in-time delivery. When we talk about just-in-time delivery, we are talking about evening and over-night work in order to deliver merchandise as quickly as possible. This is what we are currently experiencing in the vicinity of the City of Quebec. More and more, people are awakened at night and are suffering from health problems. There has even been an increase in stress. At this point, I will ask Mr. Demers to continue.

[André Demers, Municipal Consellor, City of Quebec]

As far as the solution to the problem related to increased rail operations is concerned, the bill—I also checked in the background documents—suggests that there should be cooperation and partnerships. The current wording could result in things remaining at the level of lip service, magical thinking or indecisive statements. To ensure that this doesn't happen and that the bill truly be enforceable, it is important that criteria defining noise be passed, whether it be within the legislation or, for example, by allowing the CTA to establish guidelines when the time comes to assess the solutions.

These criteria affect the people's health, and this includes sleep disturbances. All of these elements really bother people. It is truly an issue of assault. I live more than a kilometre from the switching yard and yet, I have been awakened—my window was open, I must admit—in the middle of the summer several times over the course of the last few years. I do not consider myself to be a victim in this situation, but I represent people who live close to the yard. Health problems and sleep disturbances are very important elements. We also have to think about the economical aspects, for example the loss of productivity, whether it be at work or carrying out daily chores.

It is also very important to understand that the problem exists because the company has the same infrastructure and the same technology whereas the level of operation has clearly increased exponentially. There is therefore a disconnect between the quality of the technology being used and the objectives to achieve, that is the fulfilling of their mandate. It is this time lag that has consequences for the neighbouring populations.

We know that urbanization came about through this process. Canadian National—as an example—is over 100 years old. In truth, Canada became urbanized only after 1921. Statistically, we recognize that there has been more than a 50 per cent level of urbanization. It is clear that urbanization followed closely along the rail lines. Nevertheless, this allowed for an increase in productivity and financial performance of this company. Now, the people who are victims of this situation must be compensated.

It is therefore very important that there be criteria in terms of health and safety. A resolution was unanimously adopted by the members of the city council. You should have received it. If you did not, I can send it to you. It states that within the scope of its activities, the company must reduce noise that could badly affect the quality of life and health of the neighbouring populations as much as possible. It is critical that we deal with this issue. It should be included in the legislation and not simply suggested by the legislator, as is presently the case.

I thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to all the witnesses for being present today. I've particularly enjoyed our special guests from New Westminster, Mr. Lowrie and Mayor Wayne Wright, who is hopefully still there. We appreciate your coming forward.

Mr. Lowrie, I'd like to get back to your presentation. You talked about the New Westminster Quay area. We had Brian Allen, who was representing the New Westminster Quay residents association, with us on Tuesday. He spoke to some of the difficult issues residents of New Westminster Quay have faced in trying to mediate or in trying to negotiate with the railways—three that you mentioned, plus Southern Railway of British Columbia.

If you could, I'd like you to touch upon what some of the issues have been. I know New Westminster City Hall and Mayor Wayne Wright have been involved in discussing with the railways how to resolve some of these issues. What has the outcome been, more specifically on the evening noise that we've had in the sorting yard in particular?

[Jim Lowrie]

The New Westminster Quay is a waterfront community on the Fraser River foreshore. It has a population of about 3,000 people in high-rise condominium properties. They back immediately onto a rail marshalling yard, and there is no stop to the complaints we receive from this neighbourhood.

It's one of our premier neighbourhoods, and it is set for expansion. All planning approvals are in place for expansion of this neighbourhood, which is located along the waterfront and abuts on the rail yard.

We have had some cooperation from the rail company. They are quite good at giving out notices. However, our efforts to convince them to cease some of their activities during night hours have been almost fruitless. We have no stop to the complaints we receive from New Westminster Quay residents, and we have had little cooperation from the railways.

There is a need for some established criteria in the form of a regulation or law, something that can be enforced. The city has no authority to enforce its own noise bylaws, as is done in other communities.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Lowrie, having mediation or negotiation rather than obligatory regulations would mean that the issues you're mentioning would continue. Is this correct?

[Jim Lowrie]

In my view, yes, they would continue.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Could you give us a couple of examples? Mr. Allen spoke a bit to this on Tuesday. Without mentioning the names of the companies, could you give us a few examples of unresolved issues?

[Jim Lowrie]

I have numerous examples. One is that stationary engines, before being hooked up to rail cars, have been parked close to residential dwellings, with their engines running. Then, when they are hooked up to rail cars, they fire up the air lines, which is a noisy process. People in the neighbourhood feel this is being done to spite them. Of course, this is unsubstantiated, and it may not be the case.

There are almost nightly complaints from shunting and banging. The operation in the rail yard is done at a speed higher than what you might think would be reasonable. There is a lot of back-and-forth, a continual banging of cars and engines.

In close proximity is a rail bridge to Annacis Island, an industrial area south of the city in a neighbouring municipality. The approach to the bridge has a very tight radius, and as trains go through there's a great squealing of brakes. We've had some success in getting them to lubricate the tracks, but it requires a lot of maintenance and it's not always done. So there has been some response, but it's certainly not up to what the community believes is required, particularly in residential communities.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Allen mentioned in his testimony on Tuesday that the obligatory measures should cover restrictions on activities. He was proposing business hours for certain types of railway activities in sorting yards near areas with high population densities. He suggested that this would be an effective way of pushing the railways to make better choices. He thought that some of the railways would put their sorting operations out towards the Port Mann yards, where there is no high population, and move fewer activities into the New Westminster Quay area. So that's one proposal.

The other proposal we've heard today, from Quebec and Lévis, is to set restrictions or regulations on decibel levels. I'd like to ask each of the witnesses to comment on the obligatory aspect of the regulation. Should it be based on activities and have restricted hours, which has the advantage of restricting night activities, or should it be based on decibels, which may be more difficult to track?

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Lowrie, and then work through each of the witnesses.

[Jim Lowrie]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

My response is that I think it would be a bit of both. I think during the daytime hours there could be a different standard from what there is in the evening hours, as far as rail operations go. I would draw a comparison to the Lower Mainland here, where there are a number of trucking companies. My impression is that they typically operate during daylight hours only, so they effectively close down at night.

I appreciate that the railway companies run on a 24-hour clock, but if a marshalling yard is located within close proximity to residential neighbourhoods, I believe there should be some acoustic restrictions placed on the operation of that yard in the evening hours.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Fassbender, go ahead, please.

[Peter Fassbender]

I would simply echo what has just been said. As I said, we're not affected by marshalling yards. I think the solution has to have the kind of teeth in it to ensure that the levels being either suggested or built in can be enforced.