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.