Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Mr. Churko, you can rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will support you with regard to farmers' requests. My first questions are not for you; they are for Mr. Chouinard and Mr. Gauthier and deal with noise.
It is time we settle the noise problem. We have been talking about it here for too long. We need a bill to deal with this matter.
In the past, when I worked at the Union des municipalités du Québec, I had the opportunity to visit the Joffre marshalling yard along with the mayor at the time, Mr. Lemaire. As well, as Bloc Québécois transport critic, I have witnessed the problems you speak of.
We are about to do a clause by clause consideration of the bill. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. We will be dealing with the details next week. Rest assured that we will settle a number of them.
Regarding the definition of “unreasonable noise” contained in the bill, I have been convinced that it is not the best term to use. There are, however, two versions. The City of Levis has defended its position of “limiting the damages to a minimum”. The City of Quebec would have preferred “the least noise possible”.
Once again, words are important. One thing is certain: if it is a question of “limiting the damages to a minimum”, that extends beyond the issue of noise. But if it is only a matter of “the least noise possible”, then we only deal with noise.
Would you like us to be beyond the simple issue of “noise” to the issue of “damage”? I know full well that where you come from, there was a lot of analyses of what happened at Oakville and the decision that was handed down, because Transport Canada became interested in the matter. I know that you have followed the matter very closely. What do you suggest we do in this regard?