Transport Committee on Oct. 31st, 2006

[Harry Gow]

Mr. Laframboise, this issue has been around since the days of the Champlain and St. Lawrence Railway, the first railway in Canada, which was on the south shore of Montreal, when people living along the rail lines complained that the passing trains frightened their horses. Of course the horses might be distressed from seeing something so large and noisy rushing at them. Although horses have always been there, in the south shore area, we might ask ourselves, however, if all the condominiums and posh apartment buildings now being built near railways have always been there. I don't think so.

In the case of Gatineau, which I discussed earlier, the houses are not new, but the Gatineau Mill railway was there long before the houses. The residential area was developed after the war, with a fence that runs along the backyards for the length of the tracks. At the time, no one worried too much about it. Yet in Ottawa, real estate agents would sometimes tell potential buyers that the line was being abandoned the next year and that they should not be afraid to buy. I am referring to the transcontinental line used by VIA Rail and CN. People were being assured that the line would be out of service within a year.

Thus, this has been an issue for some time and it is not easy to resolve, but I definitely agree that standards and regulations must be established. Railways must also be held accountable for their activities. The example I told you about, the Quebec-Gatineau Railway, indicates that the carrier did not pay much attention to what people were saying.

In contrast, certain rail yards in Montreal, such as the Sortin yard and that of Côte-St-Luc, before Turcot, have been there for a very long time and the railways have made efforts to reduce noise. There are times when it is impossible to avoid noise, such as during humping operations. A rail car is taken to the top of the hill and, as it comes down, the wheels tend to squeal and so on. That is part of the operations. What we must ensure—and I believe this is where the federal government has a role to play—is that municipal zoning by-laws are respected.

There was a case in Hamilton in which a little girl was leaving her Sunday school class when she was hit by a train. People from the media were calling me and saying that it was appalling that this little girl was killed by a train. I asked them when the church was built and they said it had been built the year before. I asked them where it was built and they said it was in an industrial park. It seems to me that industrial parks are designed to accommodate industries, including railways. The fact that a church was built there seems unusual to me. There are situations such as this one, for which legislation makes no provisions.

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

The fact remains that noise pollution was not a phenomenon that was as prevalent at the time of early railways. These days, we can now calculate noise levels, measure decibels and so on. The World Health Organization is very critical of noise peaks and their potential harmful effects, which is one of the reasons why this debate continues. The industry is evolving as these phenomena continue to evolve. I can easily believe that horses were once frightened, but at this time, if we are told that the noise caused by rail activities is harmful to people's health, well then, our society is facing a problem. Europe is more advanced than Canada in this area.

Have you studied what is going on in Europe? Have you had the opportunity to learn more about that?

[Harry Gow]

You are absolutely right, Mr. Laframboise. This problem is not an easy one to resolve. Certain noises are unavoidable. For example, when a long train goes into a curve and must negotiate the bend, the locomotive will lean more towards one side. This movement produces noise as the wheels squeal on the tracks. It would be difficult to eliminate all of this noise. Technology can help us, in addition to legislation that is applied sensibly.

However, if the legislation goes too far, it could destroy businesses. That is our concern. For example, the Gare-du-palais in Quebec City lost its tracks. The federal government spent $600 million removing the tracks only to later replace them, after it realized its mistake. Thus, I am asking that the government show some judgment and moderation when applying any given measures.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

I'd like to come back to this issue of railway noise in high-density areas. I represent an area of the greater Vancouver area, downtown New Westminster, where rail shunting yards established many years ago are now very close to a lot of recently built high-density apartments and condos.

One of the witnesses we had from the area testified that when we have a roadway and afterwards a school is built, there are restrictions on the roadway. We lower the speed limit, and we make sure that trucks can't travel on that stretch of roadway. We do this in other transportation modes as well. If the population or the area has changed, we impose restrictions.

I'd like to come back to the issue of what kinds of restrictions would be appropriate to put on railways operating shunting yards in high-density areas. There seem to be two schools of thought that have come forward in testimony. One is that we restrict certain types of activities. This includes your suggestion, Mr. Gow, that we use certain types of technology to restrict activities from those shunting yards. In the case of New Westminster, this would mean that a lot of those shunting activities would go out to the Port Mann shunting yard, where there's no habitation. Another possibility is to restrict the hours of activity, so that rail lines would be restricted in their activities during business hours or during the day.

I'd like to hear from both of you whether you see any problems with either one of these approaches. If so, what might those problems be? Where railways are operating shunting yards or rail lines in high-density areas, would you prefer to restrict activities or hours of operation?

[Phil Benson]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Simply to make you aware, in other transport areas they are looking at things like speed limits for marshalling yards for other reasons. You talked about the humping; there are also remote control units they're pushing, which give less control over how fast things go, how hard things couple. While you're looking at Bill C-11 and talking about noise, at the same time there are what are regarded as complementary consultations and discussions going on about various technologies and uses they have to marshal. Again, that's why I said the devil's in the details, because we are aware that things are happening in other areas of Transport Canada that kind of address some of these issues, or may address some of them.

Consider noise, one issue that was raised by our locomotive engineers. Again, if you pick an area where they have very high-priced condos or homes being built and we have a crossing that isn't a properly controlled crossing, they have to blow their whistles: there's no option, they have a requirement to do it. Of course, we can go ahead and build a proper crossing for them and put an overpass in at $25 million to $30 million or more a pop. So I think the devil is really in the details about how we deal with it. Certainly, having lived across from a marshalling yard in Vancouver and being awakened at three o'clock in the morning with a loud clatter and bang, I can appreciate it.

I think somehow we have to balance the needs and interests of the business with what the community needs. I think we have to respect things like sound levels, and we have to do it in a meaningful way. I think we have to look at it holistically. We can't have one part of Transport Canada creating regulations that will make noise under one act and under this act have a bunch of regulations to make less noise.

The devil is really in the details, and we look forward to working with you on them. It's something I really sympathize with.

When we talk about long trains, Transport Canada gave authority for long trains so we can move stuff out of Vancouver. As you understand, coming from there--in fact, we got together out there because it's my original home as well--we have complaints about screeching wheels going around a bend and that it's the railway's fault. Well, we had an economic problem. How do we move all that stuff off the port? Let's make one-mile or two-mile-long trains. Now we have people complaining about screeching. So are we going to use Bill C-11 to stop the screeching when some other department has said we have to do that?

Coming from Teamsters Canada, where we look at all modes of transportation--we look at everything--we tend to view it in a more holistic manner. I think that's why, as we move forward...it's how we link all of these things together to get a solution that will allow our members to do what they do very well and allow the businesses to make business and get the stuff that has to be...and also to make sure that your constituents and Monsieur Laframboise's and others' constituents can have a good night's sleep as well.

[Harry Gow]

Mr. Julian, I guess I'll have to give you a yea and a nay. The yea is that there are locations such as this Gatineau case that I brought out where it's quite feasible to tell the railway to quit shunting at night or quit idling your locomotive outside these nice people's bungalows, and that should be made to stick. If the railway doesn't cooperate after suitable discussion and mediation, then regulation can be brought into play.

There are other locations where I think, frankly, you'd wreck the economy of the west coast and possibly of Canada if freight trains could only operate, say, sixteen hours a day out of Vancouver. I think a lot of business would move to Seattle pretty quickly, and then there'd be a lot of people out of jobs who would follow them. And it would solve the problem because the population would be less dense around the rail yards.

I sound facetious, but these are problems that give us cold shivers when we start reading the history of the last fifty years of transport in Canada, where we see, time after time, rail lines ripped out of the centre of a city, such as Saskatoon, and then passengers such as ourselves having to spend the night, first, getting out to the station, and then waiting for the late train and being nowhere near civilization to do it. So these measures, while seemingly cost-effective and good for the urban population, in the end bring misery to a number of people.

That said, the other side of the continuum is the inconvenience suffered by the residents, and for them there are many remedies available that are not always used by Canadian railways. We mentioned in our paper in-curved sound walls along the track, as used by French national railways and the Swiss. Along TGV lines they keep the noise down. Another thing, which isn't in the power of the railways, is decent sound insulation in new construction going up near railways. Another is strict enforcement of zoning in industrial areas. Yet another is a form of lubrication of the rails, which is available but is not always applied, as well as the use of continuous welded rail to eliminate rail joint noise, and the restriction to the amount of noise that a locomotive can generate.

Oddly enough, the move towards reduced environmental pollution often also leads to sound abatement. A Euro II class engine, such as the MTU engines on the Talent trains in Ottawa--to get technical--those red O-Trains, emit almost no noise. People who live next to the track can't even hear them. The reason is that it's an extremely modern European engine that's muffled properly. There's probably a power penalty from that, but not a big one, and the emission of particulates and gaseous matter as well is much reduced.

Canadian railways are moving toward that, and I think you'll find, as time goes on, switching locomotives will be more of what is now called genset, or the Green Goat, which was pioneered on the west coast actually. That's a hybrid engine that runs a lot of the time on batteries--the Green Goat. The genset puts only as much power out into traction as is needed for a specific job.

All of this means that a great deal more work has to be put into interaction between the communities, between riding offices and the railways. I think a good deal of the problem could be solved if the railways listened better, and that is probably 50% of the problem, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Blaney.

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

Thank you. I will defer to Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to address the issue of noise again. It appears to have been a common refrain amongst the various witnesses who have appeared. I noticed in your comments that you suggested that rather than imposing restrictions that might be detrimental to the industry itself, current means of mediation be used to address noise concerns from the public.

Of course, numerous witnesses who appeared before us actually complained about the mediation process. They alleged that whatever mediation and dispute resolution was available didn't work. Residents became frustrated, municipalities became frustrated with the process, and they were asking for a much more rigorous regime within which their complaints could be heard.

You've suggested that mediation is still the optimal route and that you would prefer that mediation be the primary way of resolving these disputes. Could you comment on some of the statements that have been made by residents about the inadequacy of the mediation process, and also what would lead you to believe that mediation is going to adequately address noise problems without the legislation or regulations actually specifying noise levels?

[Harry Gow]

Sir, I have seen this thing go both ways. I've seen mediation that led to nothing.

I think Mr. Laframboise and others will probably be familiar with the case in Outremont, where buildings were put up near the tracks. No remedy was really ever found, and I think the problem continues today.

In other cases, such as the Quebec-Gatineau thing, with a mix of hectoring and finally getting the railway's attention and doing some mediation, the problem was solved. I can't say that mediation is a panacea. I'm sorry if my remarks in the paper seem to indicate that. I simply say, before resorting to draconian measures, try mediation.

In the case of Quebec City, where the federal government spent $600 million on removing the track and then putting it back, mediation was never tried. There were a lot of guerilla operations: dumping garbage on the track, coming to city council and raising hell, and writing angry letters to Transport Canada. The establishment ripped out all the tracks. After ten years, everyone was tired of going to Ste-Foy to take the train. They put the tracks back. I think had a little mediation been tried between the curé de Saint-Roch, the parish priest and his people, on the one hand, and CP and CN, on the other, that needless expense to the Crown could have been saved.

It isn't easy for the communities where mediation hasn't worked. As a Transport 2000 person, I have been known to suggest to them ways of getting the railway's attention.

But as I say, the laws of physics apply to railways. We've had railways for over 150 years in Canada. Some of these are just part of nature. They won't go away, just like people won't stop building condominiums right up against railways. If there was a way of indicating a process in the legislation, where you try A, then you try B, and then you try C, and only then do you rip out the tracks, for example....

We at Transport 2000 have seen too many cases where passengers and shippers have been penalized because the shortcut--a quick fix--was taken: we'll just rip out the damn track, we'll fine the railway, or we'll do whatever. Then lo and behold, there's no more freight service to our community. Nobody gains from that.

That's a point of view. I can't answer your question totally, because I know how frustrating it is for some communities.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Am I correct in assuming that you take the position that specific noise level restrictions should not be included in the act itself?

[Harry Gow]

I think that regulations should set performance standards, rather than forbidding this or that. Does that answer your question?

In other words, you want a result. With the TGV lines, for instance, in France, I think it's 30 metres...and they can only emit 65 decibels. They're travelling at 300 kilometres an hour. That is their objective, and they meet it. If you set objectives for quality, you're going to get a lot further than if you legislate this activity or forbid that activity.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I believe the legislation right now refers to the term “reasonable” to describe the kind of limitation that would be imposed.

Some of the witnesses before you suggested that the actual decibel level should be included in the bill, or at the very least in the regulations. Am I correct in assuming you would oppose that?

[Harry Gow]

It seems to me, sir, that the mention of a specific standard, if done right and if people know what the objective is, might help the discussion. But as I say, I think you have to go for a performance-based regime rather than a prescriptive regime that says how to get there. In other words, tell the railway that this is their target and they should figure out a way to meet it. That is the basic stance I would take. This is from a lot of observation of how these things work out.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Any comments from Mr. Benson?

[Phil Benson]

We sit on committees that look at multi-modal means of transportation. Holistically, we are looking at a Clean Air Act, and the issue always becomes whether trains should be used more to move things. Is it more efficient? Is it going to be cleaner air?

From the Teamsters' perspective, the Teamsters Canada Rail Conference, freight and tank haul division...if Teamsters do it, then I guess we'd say we're happy. But from a holistic approach, if we end up with a bill that says you can't make noise so you can't use trains....

There's another committee I'm appearing before that has asked me from the Teamsters Canada perspective and intermodal how we do this to use clean air. The answer again from our perspective is that you're legislators; you pass bills to meet various needs, and you do it quite well most of the time.

Looking at it again holistically, we have one part of the department passing regulations that perhaps will make things more noisy, we have another part doing something else, and we have this one here. The devil is in the details. When we go to the regulations and find out exactly what we're trying to do, we will probably have a much clearer content.

As to the actual idea, none of our leadership has expressed a concern with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Hubbard.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses, for coming.

It appears that what you've said to the committee is that the bill is okay, but you have concerns with the regulations, and we know, Mr. Chair, when the bill goes through the House, the regulations don't come back to this committee. We normally don't deal with regulations.

Are you suggesting the committee should seek permission for the regulations to be presented to the committee before they are gazetted?

[Phil Benson]

If I may--

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

It's unusual, but sometimes it is done.

[Phil Benson]

Looking at the Arthurs report on the Canada Labour Code, Transport Canada's main function is to promote the efficiency of the economy of the marketplace. From a labour perspective, I could be cruel and say, if a company wants it, it gets it, and sometimes quite truthfully that may be true and other times it isn't.

The Arthurs report hit the bunny on the head about how Transport Canada deals with things like work time and all sorts of issues dealing with workers, and perhaps Labour Canada would do it best.

There is a general dearth, a lack of review of the entire regulatory scheme with parliamentarians, and more and more legislation is passed that says, “Here's our general vision and here's a bunch of regs”. It would be a darn fine idea sometimes for parliamentarians to look at regulations to see how they're developed, what happens, and the entire scheme of where they go.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you.

Mr. Gow, when CN was here the other day, they presented a very good financial picture of what's happening with their company. I know your organization watches rail in particular very closely. Are the railways--not only CN but others--putting back into the system a proper investment to maintain a system for the future and to avoid these kinds of complaints that we're getting on noise? You talk about long rail in the marshalling yards. It seems like a very simple solution to that clack clack clack you might hear if you live next door, but apparently it's not being done to a great extent--but it could be done.

Are you satisfied, from your perspective, that railway companies, the big ones, are putting back into the system a good percentage of their so-called profits to maintain a system that can go into the 21st century?

[Harry Gow]

If you'd asked me that question two years ago, I'd have said no. About that time, Canadian Pacific announced a $2 billion investment, mostly on western corridors. Canadian National waited about a year and a half and only announced a similar investment, practically a photocopy of the CP program, after considerable embarrassment: criminal charges at McBride for the trestle incident; long trains that people told them not to run on the B.C. Railway, which had recently been purchased by CN; spills in the canyon at Squamish; and a number of other incidents that are pointing the way to too much train on too little track, if I can put it that way.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

So today you are satisfied that--