Transport Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I was just about to speak about amendment 3.3. I understand Mr. McGuinty's concerns about standards, but we must remember that section 95.1 of the current act is aimed at reducing the noise level to a minimum. Thus, as we set standards, we authorize companies to reach the maximum permissible levels by those standards. This takes away any flexibility for studying specific cases in order to determine a minimum level of noise. In fact, Mr. McGuinty's amendment contradicts what was just said, namely that a company must make as little noise as possible. This is why we should oppose this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

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

I wanted to come back to Ms. Borges' comment. She started off by saying, “If we start putting decibel levels into the legislation”, and then Mr. McGuinty said something, and you went on to something else. What was going to be the end of your sentence?

[Helena Borges]

If we start including decibel levels here, and they're high, and you get a complaint, and a citizen is complaining that the noise is too loud, then if the agency goes in and determines that in fact the decibel levels are within the regulation, the agency's hands are tied; they can't take any action that potentially would allow the agency to correct whatever is causing the problem that the complaint is about. Our concern is that you don't want to be setting thresholds, because you notice these decibel levels are fairly high; once you put something in writing--once you put a law in place--the agency has to live by that law, and that's how it became subject to challenge in 2000.

Give it the flexibility. It may be that an activity is within the decibel levels, but there's still action that the agency can prescribe to try to minimize the impact on the complainant.

That's it. If you start putting limits, the agency has to abide by those limits.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Shall amendment L-3.3 carry? This is Mr. McGuinty's amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're going to go to Mr. Julian to do amendment NDP-13. It'll be—

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

Might I suggest, Mr. Chair, that we dispose of Mr. Jean's amendment to his own...the subamendment on his amendment—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

There will be a subamendment brought forward, I presume, by Mr. Bell.

Mr. Jean, when he presented it, made the changes and then read it into the record as the amendment, so what we're dealing with now is NDP-13. Just for the record, this amendment creates a new proposed section 95.11. It would fit in between proposed sections 95.1 and 95.2.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will move that amendment. Given the hour, I won't take a lot of time to speak to it. However, it's very clear from all the testimony we've had over the course of this fall that those who live in urban areas are very concerned about the noise aspect. I think it's fair to say as well that they have tried to work with the railways, as we heard from Mr. Allen and Mr. Wright from New Westminster. They've tried to work with the railways and they've tried to have elements in place that would preclude the kinds of activities that create a lot of noise in urban areas, such as decoupling, coupling, and shunting.

The railways know. They've made commitments to try not to do shunting, coupling, and decoupling in the middle of the night, but they haven't kept to the commitments that they made, so the problem here is the choice we've faced all along: there's the issue of activity and there's the issue of decibel levels.

Ms. Borges has quite rightly pointed out that putting decibel levels into the legislation may not be appropriate. We know that whether or not the agency develops regulation around the types of equipment that can be used, inevitably we're talking about years before the railway companies would actually incorporate that new technology, so the only real opportunity for us to provide some immediate relief to those high-density urban residential areas located adjacent to shunting yards is to ensure that we have some restriction on activity.

That's what's proposed here--that we provide some restriction on activity in high-density urban environments. In the case of greater Vancouver, for example, it would mean there would be more activity in the Port Mann shunting yards and less activity in the Westminster Quay shunting yards.

Now, one might agree or disagree with the actual time allocated here, or agree or disagree with whether 300 metres or 100 metres is reasonable--those could be subject to amendment--but the principle is to restrict some activity. The railways already have implicitly acknowledged that it is a problem by making these agreements to not do these activities in the middle of the night. That's the objective of the amendment--to not have people wakened up at 11 p.m. or 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. by shunting or coupling or decoupling, or by the idling of diesel engines.

I'd like the committee to look at subamendments if they're concerned about the particular time period envisaged or what the distance should be. The principle of restricting those activities is sound, and it would help those high-density urban areas that are subject to a lot of noise right now at night. We can't expect that the agency, over the long term, would be able to deal with each of these individually; we know that inevitably it would be a restriction on activity. That's why I'm proposing this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I understand what my colleague was driving at: we can add more measures without coming to a breaking point. However, we decided that there should be as little noise and vibrations as possible, and to add to subsection (d) "the potential impact on persons residing on properties adjacent to the railway". The agency will take all this into account.

[Helena Borges]

Yes.

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

The industry is evolving. Have you calculated the impact that a limit on its working hours could have on the industry?

[Helena Borges]

Yes, the agency must assess this impact. Imposing limits on working hours would greatly slow down the economy. Mr. Bell explained how such measures could impact on the Asia-Pacific Corridor Initiative.

Currently, all companies are working 24 hours a day, and railways have to keep up with that. Otherwise, when will the freight get to its destination? We cannot impose such limitations. The agency can nevertheless look into the possibility of moving certain activities to places further away—

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

Could the agency decide that certain time schedules must be respected in certain places? Would the agency have this power?

[Helena Borges]

Yes.

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

If it had to look into a specific situation—

[Helena Borges]

I think that in Oakville, near Toronto, the agency asked Canadian National railways to change its schedules in order to lessen the impact on the public.

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

All right.

[Alain Langlois]

As Ms. Borges said in her presentation, section 95.3 of this bill confers almost unprecedented power on the agency. There are no checks or balances to this power. The agency can make any decision at the discretion it deems reasonable in the circumstances. If the agency decides that in certain circumstances, working hours must be limited, it has the power to do so.

As was mentioned earlier, the agency could also require noise-abatement walls to be built if need be. According to the legislation, there are checks and balances for all the agency's powers, whereas section 95.3 of this bill has none at all. The agency is being given extraordinary powers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bell.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you.

I'm sympathetic to Mr. Julian's motion, but there are two things. First, I think we've all received a letter from SkyTrain and West Coast Express explaining the implications on their passenger rail service. I note specifically that proposed section 95.4 indicates that proposed sections 95.1 to 95.3 would apply, with any modifications that are necessary, to public passenger service providers.

With the changes that are being proposed to proposed section 95.1--and then I suggest proposed sections 95.2 and 95.3 for consistency--we are addressing noise and vibration now, so let's see if the system works the proper way, without going a step further. If we find from experience that it is not addressing it, then we can come back at some point and take a further look at this, either with the government's introduction or a private member's bill.

I think it would be very popular, if there is still the same level of complaints. But if the system allows for it now, we should pass what is being proposed and not pass what's being proposed in NDP-13 at this time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Shall NDP-13 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're going to deal with the amendment put forward by Mr. Jean. Mr. Bell has a subamendment to make to it.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

For proposed sections 95.2 and 95.3 to be consistent with the change in proposed section 95.1, after the first line in proposed paragraph 95.2(b), it would read, “complaints relating to the collaborative resolution of noise and/or vibration complaints”.

In proposed section 95.3, in the first paragraph, from the sixth line down you would delete “prevent unreasonable noise” and replace it with “cause as little noise and/or vibration as possible”.

So I've taken the same wording from proposed section 95.1 and pulled it down to proposed section 95.3.

I'm sorry, I'm not capable of translating that into French, but it's the same wording. That is my motion.