Transport Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

What happened, Mr. Hubbard, is that the Bloc put in an amendment that included vibrations and noise. When you disqualify an amendment, you disqualify the entire thing.

Vibrations are included within the context of the bill; fumes are not. Therefore, they don't say, well, you can't have fumes so you can't have vibrations. What the government is saying is that we are putting forward vibrations because it's within the context of the bill.

But whether we did it or not—

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

I'm sorry, but I thought the advice we got from the department was that vibrations should not be in the amendment.

No? Only the government thought it should be left out. Okay.

[Helena Borges]

Vibrations and noise to us are hand in hand. They're related to the activity. Fumes and emissions are covered by other pieces of law. That's why we believe it shouldn't be part of this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

So we're debating—?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The entire document. I have suggested which ones may or may not be included, if the motion passes as presented, but I think we'll leave it open for debate until we get to that point.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We've got all night.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I just didn't think a member could propose an amendment to their own amendment. But that's another issue. We can move on.

I assume it's a friendly thing we're moving forward. Have I got that right?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Actually, it wasn't an amendment until I read it into the record the last time, but whatever you want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We had debate with regard to this piece of paper. Then we reverted back and Mr. Laframboise agreed to withdraw his challenge. I then asked Mr. Jean to actually move this as an amendment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're debating that. If you look at the right-hand side, it does suggest which amendments are impacted by this document and would fall by the wayside, one way or the other, with input from the committee.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Perfect timing.

I'd like to pick up on L-3.3, then, Mr. Chair, if I could. I think it would be interesting if we could marry the new wording put forward by Mr. Jean, where he says, “When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must cause as little noise and/or vibration as possible”.

I'm proposing that we consider adding to that sentence the following:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company must cause as little noise and/or vibration as possible for human health, as determined by reference to current scientific research and relevant national and international standards.

Then you could simply add, “It must further take into account”, and you would follow with paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d).

I'm proposing that, Mr. Chair, because I am concerned about the breadth of what constitutes an operational requirement under paragraph 95.1(b). It isn't defined. Does that constitute economic operational requirements? Does it constitute engineering operational requirements? Does it constitute passenger or cargo ridership operational requirements? Does it constitute gross income operational requirements? What does this mean?

I wanted to pick up on two things. One was the six or eight witnesses who came to committee and presented briefs saying this was a problematic area for us, which is why we're dealing with it.

Secondly, I want to refer back to the agreement between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Railway Association of Canada. An MOU, Mr. Chair, was struck between those parties. It was long in its working out and was detailed in its scope. For those of you who may remember having read it, it does set out very specific decibel level tests on the question of noise in and around railyards. It goes as far as saying I think that if you're in your living room at nighttime and your windows are closed, there cannot be precisely more than 37 decibels of noise.

I think it would help Canadian citizens to have a higher level of comfort, in that the tests that will be used to identify what is “as little noise and/or vibration as possible” will be informed with actual scientific criteria, as well as being balanced against

(a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114, if applicable;

(b) its operational requirements;

(c) the area where the construction or operation takes place; and

(d) the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.

I don't know if anybody remembers when I put this question to the Railway Association of Canada, but the answer was that it wasn't required and that the committee and legislators should not try to go further into the details in terms of how we would measure noise or how we would test for noise.

I think we could actually marry L-3.3 with the proposal put by Mr. Jean, which embraces much of what Mr. Laframboise has suggested in terms of embracing the question of vibration. That's my suggestion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's now 5:30. At the last meeting, we said we would have some discussion at 5:30 to see where we were on the bill. I'm prepared to entertain that discussion right now.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Chair, I would move a motion to the extent that we sit until this bill is done tonight. I understand that there are some other commitments, but given what we have in front of us right now, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that this would take no more than 20 to 30 minutes to finish up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Julian.

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

I would oppose that motion, Mr. Chair. We said very specifically last week that we would keep Wednesday evening, if possible, for consideration of the bill.

You're absolutely right to remind us that at 5:30 today we were to look at that issue of whether or not to sit tomorrow. I understand that our Liberal colleagues have a Christmas party tonight, and I think it is unfair to impose—

[Some hon. members]

It's tomorrow.

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

There are two dinners tonight and there's a party tomorrow night. It's Christmas.

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

Given all of that, it is unreasonable to extend the hours automatically at this point, although I would suggest that we could perhaps find a compromise at another point this week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any other comments? There's a motion on the floor. I do remember the debate the other night, and I know Wednesday night was not agreeable.

The motion on the floor is to continue with this meeting until we come to some conclusion. All those in favour of that motion—?

[Don Bell, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

Is it possible to amend that? Can I try an amendment imposing a maximum of 30 minutes?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

What about an hour?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

An hour?

I've put the question, and I'll ask the committee to vote on it.

(Motion agreed to)