Our position is quite clear. The concept of “reasonable noise” is rather vague. That is why I prefer using the term “nuisance”. We have to go beyond noise. Noise can be measured with a decibel meter, and standards can be established, as has done the WHO, which is an international organization. I do not think we can find faults with those standards, because they are not quantified in an empiric manner. In fact, the measurement of noise is not totally speculative; noise is measurable.
Furthermore, on a more general level, we hope that the Department of Transport give back more powers to the Canadian Transportation Agency, or CTA, by establishing clear rules, standards and procedures. In fact, we would ask you to avoid using the term “reasonable”. We know very well that, over the past few years, all initiatives dealing with train whistles and marshalling yard noise have been stifled by the word “reasonable”. Mediation never got beyond “reasonable noise”.
Do you think it is reasonable, Mr. Laframboise, and you, sirs, to be awoken at 3 o'clock in the morning by a “slam” in a marshalling yard, because you are convinced that a 747 aircraft crashed on your street? You have already visited the Joffre marshalling yard, so you know it is a chronic situation. We are not talking about sporadic noise, but about a chronic situation. Each and every night, there are two or three such “slam”. The train whistle is heard regularly, 20 times.
I prefer using the word “nuisance”, because noise has already been measured. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, for example, that the City of Montreal had jurisdiction over nuisances caused by noise in a bar, among other places. I am convinced that the bar in question generated a lot less noise then a two-stroke diesel engine locomotive running full blast in a marshalling yard.
We believe that the municipal and provincial regulations are there to prevent nuisances, and not only noise. There is no reason why the railway industry should not be subject to them.