Transport Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Seymour Isenberg]

First of all, the agency offers mediation in every case that comes before it. We have many professionally trained mediators. We in fact trained ourselves in this area. Over the past two or three years, we have been quite successful in settling disputes through mediation in all the modes of transportation. Noise is one area that lends itself to mediation. You're looking for collaborative measures, identifying the issues, seeing what can be changed on the part of the carriers, and so on. The agency's quite proud of the mediation it offers.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

How do you review violations? The act said the noise environment needs to be safe and secure. How would you conduct your reviews? How do you assess violations? What sanctions would you give?

General guidelines are fine, but sometimes guidelines can be vague and subject to misinterpretation. This could lead to arbitrary decisions. If the sanctions are not clear, it could lead to misunderstandings.

[Seymour Isenberg]

Guidelines are an overall framework to handle the situation. We react to issues upon complaint. The problem would be presented to us, so by application we would know what the problem is. The guidelines are designed to be general and cover virtually all possibilities that could come before us. They structure the process of what's going to be covered, the responsibilities of the initial parties to resolve it themselves, and how to approach the agency to go through an official case. In the case of a formal approach, we will also offer our mediation services. Our mediation has a reasonably good track record.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Say there's a noise complaint, do you have a timeline for resolving it?

[Seymour Isenberg]

According to the Canada Transportation Act, all cases before the agency have to be resolved within 120 working days unless the parties themselves agree to an extension.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I'm not sure I understand the licensing, the changing. It's in the part that talks about making the fare known in a public place. I think it's in clause 20: “available for public inspection at the business offices of the licensee”. How would the public know how to get that? Is it on the Internet, or where would it be?

[Joan MacDonald]

It covers two aspects: their physical and Internet locations.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

What does “display in a prominent place at the business offices of the licensee a sign...” mean?

[Joan MacDonald]

It means a sign indicating that they're available as well as making them available on the Internet, which is where a lot more people are shopping these days.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Would you, with that licence, also make public why the operation licences have been...? Would it actually also go into the...? This is the licence?

[Joan MacDonald]

This is for their tariff, their terms and conditions of carriage.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

That would all be made public?

[Joan MacDonald]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Blaney.

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

Welcome back.

We have indeed heard from quite a number of witnesses since your last visit here. You might even be interested to know that shunting yard noise is on the front page of my local newspaper. We have heard from witnesses, and we have even had recommendations. If things follow the normal course, you will soon be in a position to enforce the act.

I would like your opinion on some of the amendments that have been put forward, since we are now at the clause by clause phase of the bill and we are making amendments. My comments deal mostly with clause 95.1, which relates to noise. As you heard earlier, it has been suggested that we use the term “nuisance” rather than “unreasonable noise”. I would like to know if you have a preference, or if either one of these terms could make things more difficult for you. In fact I think that the purpose is to ensure that everything is clear and to eliminate any grey areas. We would really like this bill to be workable so that you may use it in the knowledge that the legislator's intention is clear.

There are a few things that I would like to discuss with you. The first one deals with “unreasonable noise”; it was suggested that we use the term “nuisance”, as it relates to situations that can affect public health. I would like your opinion on that.

Would you prefer to comment on each subject as it is raised or would you like me to list all of them first?

[Gilles Dufault]

: I can respond as we go along: it will be easier that way.

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

Okay.

[Gilles Dufault]

The Agency has experience with reasonable and unreasonable situations. We operate within the Transportation Act as well as in piloting and some provisions of Canada's Marine Act. We have the expertise and we are used to dealing with noise or with reasonable and unreasonable situations. The term “nuisance” is also confusing. What represents a nuisance? It is no more specific than what is reasonable or unreasonable. There is always a limit. We can play with semantics, but at some point, if you are suggesting that we use the term “unreasonable noise”, then I imagine that is what is used by Transport Canada, by the Minister, and then, in consultations with the Agency, among other things, after which it was decided that it is the most appropriate term, given the circumstances, that will allow us to do our job, to enforce the legislation and to interpret it properly.

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

Could the term “unreasonable noise”, as you seem to be implying, cause you to issue guidelines that might contain specific standards expressed in decibel levels? Is this something that you could...?

[Gilles Dufault]

The guidelines will be drafted. The use of decibels is only one way to assess noise. It will certainly be factored in when we consider our approach. They are guidelines, and not regulations. Guidelines are the preferred option because they will allow us to undertake a national consultation and come up with something that, once we have met with all of the stakeholders, including the municipalities, the provinces, citizen organizations, the railways, will be available within four to six months.

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

Very well. I have another question for you; it is about the time that is allocated to mediation. We are told that, in the current Act, the timeframe is 60 days. You said earlier that 30 working days is the average time for mediation.

Do you agree with the 30-day timeframe? My question is for Mr. Isenberg.

[Gilles Dufault]

Perhaps, because I...

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

Yes, that is it, I think he knows what I am talking about.

[Seymour Isenberg]

In the normal course of action in mediation we are able to resolve something in a relatively short time. If it's an official case before the agency the standard timeline of the agency case takes precedence.

Remember that we're operating in a court atmosphere with natural justice. We have to give all parties time to look at the issue, present their evidence, evaluate their evidence, and let the members make a decision and issue an official decision. So it's a constrained timeframe, but it has been operating rather successfully over the last ten years that the act has been in place.

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

You say that 30 days is a constrained timeframe, but you are able to manage with it. Is that what you are saying, Mr. Isenberg?