Clearly, the thing that concerned me when we had the telephone witnesses in particular.... We had some witnesses from the Quebec area, as I recall, and then we had those who came in by telephone from British Columbia--Langley, New Westminster, Richmond. As I recall their statements, I think the witnesses indicated that their problem in the past had been that the railways had not been cooperative in terms of addressing noise issues, particularly the shunting and switching in the yards.
I understand the problem. I think it was pointed out that in one case in New Westminster, British Columbia, apartment buildings had been built within 100 yards of the railway lines. I see here in amendment NDP-13 a reference to 300 metres, which is about 1,000 feet.
The concern I have is that as in North Vancouver, noise problems have been substantial and they have continued. They're serious problems for a residential area. Whether it's high density or even residential...and I can refer to the Norgate neighbourhood in North Vancouver, where both as mayor and as MP I have had calls in the past from residents concerned about the shunting.
The intensity of the noise seemed to change, number one, with the change of ownership of the railway to some degree. That was where BC Rail switched over. Part of the noise came from the requirement at that time for whistling at crossings. When it was a provincially regulated railway, municipal councils were able to pass resolutions instructing the railway not to whistle, if the municipality chose to make that instruction, which they did through West Vancouver; they did in North Vancouver.
When it became a federally regulated railroad, the municipal bylaws no longer had any effect. The municipal motions no longer had any effect. And not only did the whistling start again, but the shunting complaints went up as well.
So I understand the importance, the obligation, to provide service for the railways. We have a letter from SkyTrain talking about urban rail transit, and another proposal that's later on, and it talks about the conflicts with its operational practicalities.
I just wonder whether or not the term “unreasonable”.... I'm happy to see proposed paragraph 95.1(d), the reference in here to the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway--which is new, I presume. So it does acknowledge that.
We talked before about health. Some of the presentations we had from witnesses talked about whether we could use a World Health Organization or a European standard for noise. I don't know if the department has done any research on that, but it seems to me that we need to put an emphasis on.... The goal should be to create the least noise possible while still operating a railway, rather than leaving the railways with the ability to say they have to run a railway; therefore, they don't need to seriously look at the noise question.
I think whether it's more modern technology, new couplers, different kinds of wheels, or track, or lubrication, or even policies as to how they do things within the yards, whether it's welding the rails, as you said in one example, or others, the goal has to be to reduce noise to the lowest possible level, recognizing that they have to run a railway.
I don't know if that's implicit in this, and that's my concern.