Transport Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[Harry Gow]

It's changing. I won't--

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Okay. Finally--I only have five minutes--the other question I'd like to have answered deals with light rail and VIA.

VIA in particular rents track, or usage of track, from CN and CP, and they pay on the basis of units of cars plus. There are harsh penalties with that--at least VIA considers them quite harsh--if their trains are not on time. We have sidings where they have to move for freights to go by and vice versa.

You probably follow the issue, but that's what might happen with VIA, because if VIA is not on time, they're penalized so much per car per unit. On the other hand, when the freights are not running on time, passengers on VIA could be sitting somewhere for an hour and a half waiting for a freight to come. Is it a fair system? We heard light rail complain about 25¢ a passenger they're paying to use track in Montreal.

Should we have something in this bill giving some precedence and some motivation to stimulate passenger travel, whether it be by VIA or by light rail? There is a section in the act dealing with costing and a resolution system, but is it sufficient to promote and to have more people using rail as a means rather than cars or other modes of transportation?

I see David is giving you a few notes on that.

[Harry Gow]

There are a lot of aspects to this, sir. But the first thing I think is the time aspect. We recently had the experience of travelling to Saskatoon and finding that westbound we were held up constantly; eastbound, things were facilitated. The question of the length of sidings has not been resolved on the CN transcontinental main line, and this holds up VIA trains routinely. On the line between Montreal and Halifax, on the other hand, this has been and is being addressed.

With respect to delays otherwise, there are often delays because of, for instance, trains being concentrated on one track where there were formerly two. The Ottawa Valley line of the CN was removed, so all their trains are now run through Toronto, delaying VIA corridor service and local CN freights.

If you go back a bit to the root causes of this kind of thing, one of the problems is finance. CN has to spend its investors' money wisely, and they want a good rate of return. They have a very lengthy period of amortization in Canada for equipment--twenty years. In the case of American railways it's eight years, if I remember it correctly. This puts Canadian railways at a bit of a disadvantage in addressing problems such as those you outlined.

There is another thing. Amtrak has three things in its favour. One is a law of eminent domain, where if a railway gives it too much trouble, they can expropriate it. And they did that to Guilford on the Connecticut River valley line from Montreal to New York. There's no more problem with Guilford; they were out of the picture. Amtrak fixed the track, and then sold it to a competitor of Guilford. For quite a while they got a lot of respect out of the freight railways. That kind of thing has not happened in Canada.

Another thing that Amtrak has is a legislated mandate. There is an act, and that act gives them certain powers. One of the powers is to demand respect of the schedule, and then the sanction, which I mentioned, is the power of eminent domain.

Finally, Amtrak has better financing in the sense that the states buy into passenger services. In Canada it's a bit rare. Ontario purchased service from VIA between London and Toronto for $250,000 a year. But just the State of Michigan spends probably five or ten times that in a year.

So those are some examples, sir. I think I've answered your question in part.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

More so. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Carrier.

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

Hello. Welcome to our committee meeting.

I would like to ask Mr. Gow a question. Your association, Transport 2000, has some interest in transportation efficiency, in general, and how citizens can make the most of various means of transportation. Under an important provision of this bill, railway companies must absolutely inform federal and provincial governments, as well as urban transit authorities before dismantling any siding or selling a rail line.

The bill also includes a provision that railway companies must prepare and keep up to date a list of their sidings and spurs that they plan to dismantle. This list will allow for negotiations with respect to the sale of rail lines, or sections, to urban transit authorities who may need them in order to provide better services to commuters.

However, railway company representatives do not agree with how the property is appraised for possible transfer to an urban transit authority. The proposed method is based on its net salvage value. They told us that this is not nearly enough.

Do you not think that, under these conditions, some railway companies might simply avoid putting certain sidings on the mandatory list, because they would not get a remunerative price? This provision of the bill would therefore become completely useless. You seem to know a great deal about railway companies. I would like to know your opinion on this.

[Harry Gow]

It seems reasonable to talk about sidings. There is even a rumour circulating that GO Transit paid large sums of money to add not just one siding, but a third track, at the request of Canadian Pacific. After a short time, it removed one of the two tracks, reducing the corridor back to just two tracks, although there were supposed to be three.

Thus, legislation is needed to protect such investments, whether old investments made by the railway, known as legacy investments, or new investments such as those made by GO Transit.

I would like to add, Mr. Carrier, that my sympathy for railways is limited with respect to net values and so on, because the legislation was different for a long time. It was a means of abandoning and getting rid of unwanted tracks. We lost a great deal of tracks because of the old legislation.

Now that the net salvage value—if that is what you were talking about—must be appraised, this at least gives communities some opportunity to acquire tracks. This is why Mayor Jack Peake is calling for immediate action, not only to protect urban rail corridors, but also rural corridors.

From having worked on such issues with people from Gaspésie, in particular, and people from Vancouver Island, I think we need to be more strict, not more lenient. In any case, any time a railway is introduced for local purposes, this feeds the larger railway and the additional traffic brings in enough money to compensate for the money lost during the sale.

Additionally, when requirements are established, the railway company sometimes retains the track and makes money with urban transit authorities such as AMT or GO Transit. Thus, they are not exactly losers. You cannot imagine the sums of money they sometimes earn.

For example, on the west coast—

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

I am sorry to have to interrupt you, but as we said earlier, we only have five minutes.

Should legislation be more specific and require railway companies to keep a list of unused rail lines that are available? It would be the responsibility of the railways to keep this list up to date, but as soon as they have an unused track, the company would have to record it on the list of sidings. Would you prefer—

[Harry Gow]

I believe this protection is necessary, sir.

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

Alright.

On the topic of noise, we talked about standards that could be useful in certain cases. Current legislation states only that the board can establish guidelines. It is vague. Legislation should stipulate that the board must establish guidelines, without setting out the decibels and specifications.

[Harry Gow]

I am certain that talking about decibels will only lead to problems.

Mr. Jeanes mentioned that noise from a railway often has peaks. It can go from 0 to 100 decibels and then right back to 0 decibels. It is intermittent. Moreover, the noise coming from the Queensway here in Ottawa is at a constant 100 decibels from a distance of just one or two houses away. It is a constant background noise.

Thus, if we were to indicate an unvarnished decibel limit, this would cause serious problems. However, if we said that, in cases of complaints and so on, the board must investigate and, based on the facts, do as you suggest and adopt an approach by which it “must” set guidelines, and not just that it “can” set guidelines, then the answer is yes.

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

Would it be better if the wording said “must establish guidelines”?

[Harry Gow]

After investigation and only if the complaint is founded.

I think that granting unconditional power could be hazardous to the economic strength of railways and perhaps even to the overall economy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank you for coming to meet with us.

I would like to address this issue's global approach and a few particular points.

The committee has worked a great deal on the topic of noise because it is a matter of concern for many communities, not so much from corridors, but more from rail yards. I believe you expressed certain reservations about this.

I must wonder about this. I think, for example, that airports are a matter of federal jurisdiction. Between midnight and 6 a.m., there is no air traffic, and I do not believe that that industry is in any danger. Now, as for rail yards, we have noted that more problems have arisen with a company since its privatization.

Lastly, if, as legislators, we impose certain standards, how might this affect the competitiveness of businesses? That is my first point.

The second point is perhaps a broader question for Transport 2000 Canada. I believe your organization has a certain vision. Which is why I would like to hear your remarks on a matter in the bill that is broader and less specific, namely, the Montreal-Toronto corridor.

What do you think of the investments? In your opinion, how much do we need to invest to have a really modern infrastructure? The purpose of this committee is to study infrastructures and transportation. We therefore have a role to play in terms of sustainable development and we must make recommendations to the minister regarding the most beneficial infrastructures, especially concerning passenger transportation. I would like to hear what you have to say about this.

Those are the two points I wanted to address, but I would first like to hear you talk about the rail yards, in particular.

[Phil Benson]

Thank you very much.

The issue is that often when we look at one statute, in this case Bill C-11, we tend to look at one problem. If we stand back and look at a broader concern, we could be parochial and say, “If it doesn't go by rail, it's going to go by road; fine by us.” At the same time, we have a lot of social concerns. We have concerns about clean air. We have concerns about using things environmentally correctly. We have all sorts of broad social concerns.

We also have issues where, in other parts of Transport Canada, different regulations and different acts permit different ways of marshalling that, quite truthfully, we've had concerns about for safety and other reasons. They tend to make things a tad noisier. We don't like the squealing of large trains going around bends, but we permit the trains because, for the economy, we just have to have them.

So the only concern I would raise is that it's not the issue of reducing noise. People have a right, and I think as a society we should stand up for that right, to have a certain quality of life, and that includes not being harassed by screaming noise. But quite often with government, and especially with regulatory bodies, the right hand is doing one thing and the left hand is doing another. One says we don't want noise, the other one says it's okay. One says we don't want marshalling yards close to cities; if that means there are going to be more trucks, fine. The other one says we don't want pollution, we want to have more efficient use of stuff.

That's why I say that when we go to the regulatory thing, if parliamentarians retain some kind of control and handle on it, we can actually have a holistic solution. When we just look at one thing in isolation, we come up with one answer. From our perspective, if you look at it in a global way, you end up with a simplistic solution that may in fact....

Would people like a little bit more noise and a little less pollution? This is the type of thing we have to weigh. I'm looking forward to things like the Clean Air Act coming forward so that we can discuss them.

Thank you.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you.

I would now like you to address the second point.

[Harry Gow]

This situation requires further examination. Any regulation or legislative measures should include sections that say something to the effect that, when making a decree, we must take into account the needs of the public service, take into account the needs of the population and of shippers, take into account the volume of traffic measured over the course of recent years, and so on, rather than—

“You will do this and that's it.”

In other words, I support what Mr. Benson said, that is, we must adopt an approach that takes into account hidden costs and adverse effects, and eliminates them through regulation—

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I would like to hear you talk a little bit about the corridors.

[Harry Gow]

I would add that, in the case of the Quebec City-Gatineau corridor, two trains a day are sufficient. It is entirely possible to operate only during the day. However, if we did the same thing with Canadian National and Canadian Pacific in Vancouver, that would kill the western Canadian economy. It is as simple as that. I do not mean do be pessimistic, but I am from there and I know how things work.

That said, with regard to VIA Rail and the corridor, a study concluded that it would cost $11 billion to renovate, rebuild or construct new sections of the line, as they have done in France, Germany, Italy or Spain. This means $11 billion for the corridor between Quebec City and Toronto. The brilliant folks at Transport Canada immediately added another $7 million in interest charges to frighten people. The air transport lobby took care of the rest and the project was shelved. However, $11 billion is a completely reasonable price for a high-speed train. European and Asian countries routinely pay such sums.

In the case of that corridor, the position defended by Transport 2000 Quebec, our affiliate, is that all money invested would be paid back. In the case of Paris-Lyon, they thought it would be paid back in 12 years, but it took only eight. In the case of the first shinkansen, in Japan, the new tokaido line, it took only four years to pay for all construction and all other costs.

It would be beneficial not only in terms of social, environmental and economic aspects, but it would also be profitable, in certain cases. I think the Montreal-Toronto corridor would prove a good case in point. Then again, we could also take a more gradual approach, as they did in Sweden, where they progressively improved the trains and infrastructure, and where they travel at speeds of 125 miles per hour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, gentlemen. I'm sorry I missed part of your presentation, but I did have a chance to read the written submission and I followed the discussion.

Mr. Gow, I'm going to the sheet that you handed out. You spoke to the four points of your concern. I note that in the third bullet down, you state that “the new Act reaffirms established principles and embraces new ones—notably the environment—[that strike] us as needlessly restrictive”. You would suggest that perhaps there be a reference to sustainable development.

Most of the acts and legislation that I've seen at local, provincial, and even federal levels may make reference to sustainable development. They may also include the environment separately. There's a specific reference to that. Sustainability is the broader package, and I heard Mr. Benson talking about looking at the bigger picture.

Certainly the environment has risen as a major concern in the public's mind, in the railworkers' minds, and in the environmentalists' minds, as we look at the effects of derailments that we've seen, particularly the CN derailments that we'll be dealing with in a motion later this afternoon. We've had disastrous spills in Alberta and British Columbia that have had a significant environmental effect.

So I would suggest to you that the reference to the environment is there for a reason. The world is changing. It wouldn't have been there ten years ago, maybe, in the way that it is now.

I'll make my points, and then I'll let you come back. Finally, in your fourth reference, you talked about the issues of noise complaints, again something Mr. Benson made reference to. You said decibel levels would cause problems. I'm well aware of that as a former municipal politician.

The noise bylaws that municipalities have relate to decibels measured at the property line, but they also deal with noises that are not consistent, that are intermittent. Where you can't effectively measure a continual decibel level, they refer to it as nuisance noise, because it can be short bursts.

I've had people phone me, both in my former life as mayor and as MP, at two in the morning and hold the phone up and tell me to listen. I've had them play tape recordings that they've made, showing 2 a.m., 3 a.m., 4 a.m., with the shunting. It's not so much the squealing of rail, because this is a shunting yard in north Vancouver.

[Harry Gow]

It's the bang-bang.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

It's gotten worse since the changeover from BC Rail to CN. Whether that has something to do with the length of trains, the operating procedures, or the attitudes of the employees, I don't know. But the fact is, it is worse. The neighbours tell me that, and I'm aware of it. And you can hear it, not just in the adjoining neighbourhood, which is a reasonable distance from the shunting yard—it's about half a mile, maybe, or two miles away—but several miles up the hillside.

Rather than costly measures to respond to this, you strongly advise that mediation be used first. Well, this committee had a hearing not long ago, a week or two ago, at which we had both people from Quebec at the table and people from British Columbia coming in by telephone telling us that they had gone the mediation route and it had been unsatisfactory. Particularly, again, in this case with CN--CP does seem to be more responsive, not ideally responsive, but more responsive—the complaints seemed to focus on CN's lack of response in that process. The attitude that was taken was not one of attempting to solve the problem but of stating that this is what they have to do to operate.

I would throw that to you. You can use the remainder of my time to answer, gentlemen.

Mr. Benson, you talked about, in effect, trying to have an overall balance, a—what's the term—holistic approach, I guess, if you want to call it that, to deal with these issues. And you talked about costs going up for railways if you do these things. For the alternate sources, the reality is that when we're starting to deal with the environment or with pollution, all industries are facing increased costs to deal with these things. That's demanded by society now. They don't accept the argument of cost when there's a detrimental effect on quality of life, a significant detrimental effect on quality of life, if it's applied to all the railways equally when they're causing this problem.

Second, the alternative, which would appear to be trucking, has its problems. I can tell you, again, as a municipal politician, a regional district politician, that we had the trucking industry come in and say that what we were imposing, in terms of load limits, in terms of a variety of things, was causing increased costs for them.

So I would leave it to you, gentlemen, to comment.

[Phil Benson]

Just briefly, I was talking about a holistic approach. It's not an argument about costs. We'll let the companies argue about that. It's simply that when we make one series of regulations that may in fact be counter to another series of regulations or another regulation.... It's just the simple fact that everything in this room came in the back of a truck, and if we're closer to a train, it's less of a truck trip, that's all.

I agree with you, hence the reason we're talking about the environment; we're talking about noise. I probably did that ten years ago, but I doubt if anybody was listening as much. It is a really important issue. That's why we're looking at it globally. Probably no other organization in the country is more interested in multi-modal, because we're not just roads and trucks, we're air, roads, trucks, and ports. We're everywhere. We view it as green is green, green is cash. We view it as a great opportunity as well, and how we can build it together.

As to your question on BC Rail, I will make some inquiries. I do not think the employees' concerns will have changed. However, perhaps some of the means of production may have changed. I will make some queries and I will get back to you, Mr. Bell.