Evidence of meeting #20 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was railway.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Managing Director and Chief Executive Director, GO Transit
No, bylaws don't impact us.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bélanger, I have a few brief questions to ask you.
In answering the question from one of my colleagues, you spoke about savings. It's odd, but I don't see it that way. You're afraid of a lease increase that could reach 80 percent if the standard isn't changed. That's somewhat what Mr. Kelsey was saying earlier. Ultimately, these aren't savings; it's a price that will be fairer for everything you have.
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
I agree with you.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
If there are savings, I'd like you to tell me so because the railway companies will say that revenue is being taken away from them. Do you think you are achieving savings over what you pay today? If not, are you going to limit increases?
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
That will prevent us from having to increase rates later. Our answer to that is that we'll have to increase rates at some point.
I'm using the incorrect term. It's more a reasonable price that will enable us, if it falls, to reinvest money immediately, because the demand and needs are there. Right now, we can't increase service because we can no longer afford to pay for it. It's as simple as that.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I have one fear. The fact that you're on the list as a buyer of abandoned lines scares me. The companies have an obligation to put everything they're not using on that list. As a result of the new ways of doing things, I'm afraid they'll put less on the list.
Do you have that fear?
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
That's no longer a fear right now; it's a reality. That's what they're doing, and a company, the name of which I won't mention, is doing it more than another.
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
It's not only the purchase price, but it's also in reconstruction.
If we issue a call for tenders to rebuild a line, the cost isn't the same either. Here we haven't addressed the surcharge issue or other similar issues. That also comes into play. So it will cost us much more to rebuild.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
My last question concerns clause 44 of the bill, which amends section 152 of the present act. This doesn't just concern price. The text reads: “[...] in respect of any matter raised in the context of the negotiation [...]” There could also be an intervention concerning times of use, and so on.
Do you have any problems with that, or would you like the Canadian Transportation Agency...
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
That's what we're going through today.
Yesterday, I worked on scheduling matters. All these matters come into play. It's an eternal struggle to determine how we can manage to agree so that the service we put in place meets the public's needs.
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
Yes, that can definitely help us as well. It will limit the discussion and make things much easier.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to our witnesses.
Last week we had very extensive hearings on the issue of noise from both community groups and some cities. There seem to be two proposals on how to regulate or make the legislation stronger in dealing with railway noise, particularly in residential areas. The first is to restrict certain types of activities on rail lines to daylight hours or office hours. A second is to limit the decibel levels from railway lines.
I know this is not directly related to what you've come to speak to us about, but I am interested in knowing if you have an opinion on whether one approach is better than the other, or whether you feel both approaches are valid or not.
President and Chief Executive Director, West Coast Express
My home backs onto a railway, so I'm living the nightmare, or the dream.
President and Chief Executive Director, West Coast Express
It's in Langley. So as a resident I see no need to restrict the activities of the railways regardless of what's on the track, whether it's freight movement, a coal train, potash, or the Rocky Mountain VIA Rail train. So as a citizen I'd say it's not appropriate. There's so much investment this nation has made in the railways and around the railways, we have to optimize the asset, the plant, together.
Most people are moving in, and they're either building or have taken over something that has a railway line. It's not hard to find out where it is and do some due diligence before you make that purchase. If you make the purchase, it can also be factored into the purchase price, so it's relative to supply and demand. But I think it's unfair to make the railways responsible for all those restrictions.
On the decibel levels, some trains are louder than others. Sometimes it's also the length of the train. Our passenger trains are light, move fast, accelerate quickly, and slow down quickly, so we're probably in a slightly different circumstance compared to a typical freight train. We have yards that we work in. In the case of West Coast Express, there are no residents around those yards, for the most part. There are a few in the downtown one, but we have worked with those people. We shut locomotives off at certain times. There are best efforts that can sometimes prevail, and it has worked out quite nicely.
Vice-President, Trains, Agence métropolitaine de transport
If I might add to this, right now the locomotives we're buying have very high restrictions, not only on noise but also on emissions. We could still reduce that, but there comes a point when it's useless. Also, most of the time we're running on welded rail. Welded rail reduces the noise extensively.
As we all said, the surrounding noise is worse than ours. That doesn't mean we're not trying to reduce it, but I don't think we're creating a problem. That would be for the agency to decide or resolve. But noise is part of the railway, and noise is a very subjective issue, like temperature. For me right now, it's 90 degrees here, and I'm sure it's not the same for you. It all depends on how you see it.
When I was a youngster, I was living right next to a sumping yard--24 hours a day. After two days my father said, “We're not going to live here; we're moving.” We couldn't sleep. But after a few years, when we went on holiday somewhere, we could not sleep because the noise was not there.
It's not a noise that is like a pitch noise, and it doesn't last long. When a train goes by, it doesn't last long. It's five or ten seconds. It's not like the autoroutes, where it's a constant pitch all day. That's bad. That's what can damage the ears. But our noise, I would say, is a friendly noise.
That's my point.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think if there's a conclusion that can be drawn from today's question and answer session, it's that if this bill is passed, at least with respect to proposed sections 152.1, 152.2 , and 145, the big winners are going to be taxpayers, commuters, and maybe the environment--in fact, it almost certainly will be--which brings me to my question to all of you.
I believe all of you suggested that at this point in time you're still hesitating on whether to expand your systems and purchase additional rail rights, simply because of the cost, and that this legislation would enable you to improve and increase the level of your service. Are you in a position to provide us with some particulars as to what kind of expansion you're looking at if this legislation goes through?
