Evidence of meeting #31 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Chair, I don't think that falls under proposed subsection 95.3. I think what we heard from witnesses galore and I think what we heard from across the country is that even though the text, as presented, says that they must cause as little noise or vibration as possible, proposed paragraph (b) is the operative part of proposed subsection 95.1 that causes the most concern.
I still haven't had a satisfactory answer from either of you as officials. I know you're crystal ball gazing for the agency.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
No. I'll tell you what operations mean. You didn't ask me the question. I'm the railway expert.
Operational requirements does not refer to finances. Operational requirements means what a railway needs to do to conduct its operations.
A railway must hook cars onto a locomotive. That involves switching from one train to another. That causes shunting noises, which we heard a lot about. A railway must move those cars along the track. You heard that there are very long trains, often now two to three kilometres in length. That's part of railway operations.
A railway does what is called “humping” in the industry. That happens at a yard, and it's when the cars are sorted onto the actual trains. Those cars are taken down a hill and the cars are sorted onto the proper trains. That's rail operations.
Railway operations also means inspecting the train before the train leaves. Often before the train leaves or when the train consist is being made, the locomotive is operating and it's idling. So there's a potential idling noise, a potential vibration noise. But once that train is set up, the railways are obligated, by law, by federal railway safety law, to inspect that whole train before that train leaves the yard. That, too, is part of railway operations.
To categorize it very broadly, anything that involves the movement of a train from the point of origin, where it collects its goods, to the point of destination, where it delivers the goods, are all operational requirements. It has nothing to do with the financial bottom line. Yes, that's how they earn their income, but the financial requirements are separate. I think we saw when we were talking about the airlines, when we were talking about reporting, that the two are different. This is what a railway has to do to carry out its business. All those activities we heard about, yes, they're part of railway operations, and that is why that is in here. They must try to limit the noise or the unreasonable noise. I think we've agreed now to limit it to the minimum. But all those are operational requirements. They can't function without doing those activities.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
We heard from a witness who said, for example, that one of the ways you could actually significantly reduce noise is to bring in a new form of braking system, which is shrink-wrapped and on the shelf right now, and most locomotives and cars don't have that braking system.
If there were unnecessary noise, if a railway was not causing as little noise and vibration as possible and it could be minimized by changing the braking system, could a railway company successfully argue to the agency that operational requirements prevent it from changing its braking system?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
I would think they would have a very difficult time if the agency could demonstrate that in fact there are other technologies and that they could change the way they're operating. Let them make their case, but the agency has that same opportunity to argue that case, so it's something the agency will follow up on.
We heard about when shunting is happening. They can locate the shunting operations. That's been done in the past. Somebody mentioned earlier about the agency looking at the latest state-of-the-art technology, state-of-the-art-practices. That's exactly the flexibility we want to provide to the agency, because what is operational today will change in a year from now.
There are new standards for locomotives coming out. There are Green Goat locomotives, which are yard locomotives. They're much quieter. They're more fuel efficient. Maybe the agency can go in and say that rather than using your regular locomotive, use a Green Goat locomotive. It's more efficient, makes less noise, and does the same kind of activity.
Let's preserve that flexibility for the agency.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
This is my last question, Mr. Chair, finally.
I am going to ask you this again, just for the record. Having the agency determine what is as little noise and/or vibration as possible by using current scientific research and relevant national and international standards, it's your belief, would fetter the discretion of the agency to come up with the appropriate balance here.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
I would say it would, and I'm going to read something to you. You heard from witnesses, I believe, who said that the WHO has regulations. The WHO does not have regulations. I'm going to read from a document. I'll read exactly what it says:
WHO has responded in two main ways: by developing and promoting the concept of noise management, and by drawing up community noise guidelines.
Not regulations, guidelines.
I think you heard from some of the witnesses that they would prefer the noise to be somewhere from 50 to 55 decibels. I'm going to quote you the number from the WHO guidelines in terms of the category called “industrial, commercial, and traffic areas”. The decibel levels that are allowed here are 70 decibels for up to 24 hours of operation a day.
That's the guideline the WHO has.
In terms of regulation, I'm going to quote you from the European Union regulations and compare them to the U.S. regulations. You should know that Canadian operational requirements are consistent with U.S. operational requirements, because our industry is integrated.
For a stationary noise, for an idling locomotive--stationary, not moving--for diesel locomotives, which are what we operate here in Canada and the U.S., and in Europe, by the way, the European noise threshold is 75 decibels. In the United States it's 70 decibels.
For a moving locomotive, a locomotive en route, and again, this is for a diesel locomotive, the level allowed in Europe is 85 decibels. In North America, it ranges between 88 and 93 decibels, depending on the age of the locomotive.
I just told you a minute ago that they're in the process of designing new locomotives. Those are going to be coming into effect in the next couple of years. So again, these regulations are going to be updated in North America to take that into account--state-of-the-art technology.
If we start putting decibel levels into the legislation, rather than saying let the agency determine—
December 12th, 2006 / 5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Right. But just in terms of limiting, I think it would be useful to let the agency look at what's in existence at that time for that activity, and use those elements.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I know I promised it before, Mr. Chair, but I promise it's the last question.
Basically, the United States—
Conservative
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
The United States and the European Union both have decibel tests. Is that right?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
They have it for locomotives only. It doesn't talk about railway operations.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
Our locomotives follow the U.S. requirements because they're made in the U.S., yes.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
But we have none in terms of the bill, in terms of the legislation?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
No, and our suggestion is that you don't need them because they already meet the U.S. requirements.
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Thank you.
Do I understand that we're dealing with proposed sections 95.1, 95.2, and 95.3 simultaneously?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We're dealing with the entire document in front of you, including proposed section--
Liberal
Don Bell Liberal North Vancouver, BC
Okay. Then I don't know the appropriate way to deal with it, but for consistency with Mr. Jean's amendment, which is on proposed section 95.1--and I won't reread it, but the part about “must cause as little noise and/or vibration”--in proposed paragraph 95.2(b) it should say “the collaborative resolution of noise and/or vibration complaints”.
In proposed subsection 95.3(1), the last three sentences should say, “any changes in its railway construction or operation that the Agency considers reasonable to”--and at this point it should say--“cause as little noise and/or vibration as possible, taking into account the factors referred to in that section”. That flows through all three.
I don't know if that needs to be a subsequent amendment or an amendment to the amendment, however you wish to deal with that, but it is the continuity through the three portions.
Otherwise what you've done is you've gone back to unreasonable noise and not talked about vibration in proposed sections 95.2 and/or 95.3.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
It would have to be presented as a subamendment. I think what we'll do is deal with Mr. McGuinty's amendment L-3.3 first.
