Transport Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I'll start with Mr. Churko. We appreciate your coming before the committee today.

You made a couple of comments around the costings of rail cars, that the costings come from the railways themselves, which is a real problem for farmers. There is no doubt about that. Indeed, there is no process now for involving stakeholders, the farmers themselves, in the costing around rail cars.

I'd like you to go into some detail about what process you would recommend and whether or not you believe it's germane to Bill C-11 and whether there are possible amendments we could bring forward to that.

[Bernie Churko]

Thank you.

I'll think about the second one, but I'd have to go back to when I first started in the sector side, which goes back to the mid-1970s when we had the royal commission on the cost of moving grain. There has been a process for some time whereby the outside organizations--farm organizations as well as the railways--provide information to a third party, so it can determine as well as possible what is fair and reasonable. Our concern is we don't have a process that allows other parties to put forward their views. If it's just the railway and the agency, unfortunately—and we have a lot of respect for the agency—history has suggested that quite often the railways come off first best rather than second best.

It's important that there be an open process, open from the perspective of players coming in, recognizing that the proprietary information of the railway has to be respected, but that other stakeholders have a chance to come in to ensure there is balance at the table. We very much support the fact that clause 57 has been introduced, but if it doesn't realize the kinds of benefits that it should for farmers, then tens of millions of dollars could be lost once again. We went through this costing process previously. That's how we came up with the current numbers and a revenue cap. It has not served us well in that respect.

The concern we expressed, as we go forward with implementing clause 57, was to ensure other experts are allowed to bring their views to the table when the agency goes through that exercise.

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

Okay, let me come back to my second question, which is the issue of getting the stakeholders involved.

I gather you're saying beyond the agency, right?

[Bernie Churko]

That's correct.

Even if we look at the example of indexing—the indexing provisions in sections 150 and 151—in that case, the agency brings affected stakeholders in on a confidential basis. Everyone has their chance to make their views known at the table, before they ultimately make the decision on the index for the revenue cap.

At minimum, we would say this should have been available in the past, and of course this is a large multi-million-dollar issue. There have been times when experts in the field have been given access to railway information on a confidential basis to be able to debate their own analysis and make the case as to what the correct number should be.

I'm saying that part of the exercise is that we need other stakeholders brought into this process when the agency deals with clause 57.

Second, there is a benchmark out there, and if there's a divergence in terms of the numbers we get from the railway and what's actually in the industry, I think someone—and probably the agency—should be empowered to go out there and determine what the difference is and why.

Third, as we mentioned, if the private shops can do it for less, why would we not let them carry it out and lower the costs for farmers, as opposed to necessarily leaving it with the railways?

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

Mr. Chair, do I still have a few minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

You do.

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

Thank you for that.

I would now like to come back to Messrs. Chouinard and Gauthier.

A number of witnesses told us about the noise caused by the railways. I come from a riding where there is a shunting yard.

Two approaches were suggested to the railway to help alleviate the noise problem in urban centres, because the shunting yard came first, then, the population increased, as is currently the case in Western Canada and in British Columbia.

One approach would be to limit the yard's activities. In other words, certain operations could not take place in city centres, but outside the city limits. In Vancouver, this would mean settling in the suburbs, around Port Mann, instead of in New Westminster, which is closer to the centre.

Another possibility would be to limit the time during which these companies can carry out their activities. In other words, they could operate during the day or during office hours. Those are the two approaches.

You also spoke about limiting the decibel level.

Do you see any pros or cons in these three approaches: first, restricting the activities; then, restricting the hours; and, finally, setting a limit for the decibel level?

[Jean R. Gauthier]

I think the first thing to do would be to restrict the activities. People are annoyed. Someone wondered earlier whether or not this came under federal, provincial or municipal jurisdiction. The average citizen could not care less about that. In the end, it will simply lead to civil disobedience. If the residents are loosing money because the property values are dropping, they will not be happy. They do not really care if it is a federal, provincial or municipal jurisdiction.

In our brief, the first suggestion we would make to reduce the noise while awaiting a solution would be to stop the trains from running at night. Then, the trains themselves should be shorter, and, finally, noise barriers should be built.

I am partial to the latter suggestion, because there is no way around having shunting yards near the city centres. And noise barriers can be built. I do not mean building noise barriers around the shunting yard, but, rather, along the tracks themselves, in order to minimize impact noise.

I live one and one-half kilometre away from the Joffre shunting yard. Even with the windows closed, the noise still wakes me at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. It is even worse one and one-half kilometre away!

What are we to do? Until we find a way to deal with this, we will have to restrict the hours and the activities. We have to find a formula before people become so irritated that the situation degenerates into civil disobedience. In my opinion, that is where we are heading.

The federal government let this situation fester for 20 years. Companies generating $100 million a month can invest in research, in means and mechanisms to improve the situation at level crossings and reduce the noise from railway yards, etc. It is up to the company to take the lead. I do not think these companies should be subsidized. They already have an advantage through the infrastructures that Canadian taxpayers have provided.

All three suggestions are good ones. Which one should we choose? I think that, whatever else happens, we must aim to reduce the noise as soon as possible. If the rail yards have to stop operating over night, if we have to limit the number of rail cars to reduce the noise... There is also the grinding of the wheels. The wheels make an extremely irritating noise, because the rails are worn, and so are the wheels.

In Sweden, they have a metal strip that compensates for the wear. They are used everywhere. These strips are used in the city centres to reduce wheel noise. You can hardly stand the noise, when you live next to the shunting yard. So you see, there is more than one subject...

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Gauthier. I'm sorry to interrupt.

[Jean R. Gauthier]

Thank you. I have managed to say just about everything that I wanted to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Fast.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all three of you, for attending today. Your information will be very helpful as we continue to develop policy in this area.

I'd like to address a couple of questions to Messieurs Gauthier and Chouinard.

In your brief you covered a whole gamut of issues: hazardous materials, blocking of rail crossings, maintenance, safety, pollution, diesel pollution, etc., and also the issue of noise. I'd like to focus a bit on the noise, because it's one of the things that are covered by this bill.

You suggest in your brief that we should be fully enforcing the WHO's standards for noise--being 45 decibels during the night and 55 decibels during the day. However, later, on page 6, where you deal with some of your conclusions, you refer to the fact that you'd like to see municipal and provincial regulations enforced and that there's no reason why the railway industry should not be subject to them.

As you know, across Canada we have a patchwork of noise bylaws and nuisance bylaws. Every municipality has its own bylaws, and they're typically unique to that municipality.

In fact, we had a number of representatives from the city of New Westminster before us a number of weeks ago, and Mr. Julian may want to correct me, but as I remember.... Well, there were different noise bylaws, but there was an exception for construction noise from six in the morning to eight in the evening, which is probably inconsistent with the World Health Organization standards, especially when you're dealing with construction, piledriving, and machinery.

I'm wondering, first of all, what would you suggest be done to harmonize federal regulations--if in fact we propose federal regulations--with municipal bylaws and regulations?

[Ghyslain Chouinard]

Probably a pan-Canadian consultation with cities, to harmonize regulations that cover the noise generated by train traffic.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

So you're talking about a nation-wide consultation to try to harmonize all those regulatoins?

[Ghyslain Chouinard]

Yes, sir.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

It may be difficult to do that within the framework you've set out, which is the World Health Organization. Or are you suggesting the WHO guidelines should be exactly that: a guideline?

[Ghyslain Chouinard]

It should be followed as a guideline, you know, like a buoy is to navigation--an acceptable standard.

[Jean R. Gauthier]

They would definitely accept standards--reasonable standards, for sure--that would be acceptable to everyone.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I think you understand that we're trying to provide some balance between the industry, which is critical to the development of our nation--transportation, not only of goods, but of people across the country--and the safety and health of residents in the various communities.

Your brief also suggests that until further regulations are in place to protect human health and safety that trains be prohibited from travelling through towns during the night. Were you serious in that assertion?

[Ghyslain Chouinard]

I'm not quite sure if it was translated correctly.

We're not suggesting that the trains be stopped during the night. But I would promote something such as Mr. Julian said, a multi-solution, to reduce the activities during the night and permit them in the yards during the day. We don't want to completely stop the trains. We fully agree that the transportation industry in Canada is probably the most important infrastructure of our country. We do believe this, wholeheartedly. But we also believe that the citizens of this country deserve a quality of living that has a strict minimum of noise for people.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I want to read a quote from your presentation:

Until such time as a set of effective measures is implemented to bring about a more harmonious coexistence between people and trains, the number of cars per consist should be drastically reduced and movement of trains at night banned in towns and villages.

Could you perhaps clarify that? It sounds like a really extreme solution.

[Jean R. Gauthier]

It's mostly what I was saying a few minutes ago. If you can't find an alternative because of the jurisdiction, federal, provincial, or municipal, and they hide behind that to say nobody can touch them, it just doesn't make sense. Until such time as we find something acceptable to the municipalities and to the provincial and federal levels, the industry, which is making billions of dollars, should not just hide behind the fact that they're untouchable.

In order to have a reaction on their part, since they're making a pile of money, it's up to them to come up with solutions. We're suggesting a few, but they should invest in the solutions. Until that time, sit down and take it easy. They should find a solution, and then they'd be on. Run at night. I don't care. But until they find a solution, they can't, because thousands of people in this municipality are suffering as a result of that.

I can't expect much cooperation on their part. We have Saint-Cyrille-de-Wendover, which is a situation that is unbelievable. For thirteen years, they've been asking CN to stop the whistle. They've negotiated with CN. I've read so much about it. I talked to the manager of the city. I couldn't believe it. Today, thirteen years later, they still have to invest $200,000 to find a sensor in order to know whether the barrier should be down or be up, depending on the speed of the train.

We are at the point where I call it harcèlement—the word in English is “harassment”—to the point where they come up with things that are unbelievable. I can't think of a small municipality that can invest such an amount of money. In the case of Saint-Cyrille-de-Wendover, if they do that, they are going to spend almost half a million to find an alternative to the pollution coming from an organization that is using the infrastructure of Canadians. It just doesn't make sense. Stop hiding behind the fact that it's federal or provincial. Find the solution. They have to invest into it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Gauthier.

With that, unfortunately our time with this group has expired. I would like to thank Mr. Gauthier, Mr. Chouinard, and Mr. Churko.

The committee takes your presentation seriously, and we will consider all of your suggestions when we work through the bill clause by clause.

[Jean R. Gauthier]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.