Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I'd like to thank and congratulate members of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for beginning this consultation. I also realize that having heard Messrs. Masterson and Case allows me to put myself in the middle, since one manufactures hazardous products, while the other intervenes when incidents or accidents occur.

I'll address three points: the safety of our community, emergency preparedness and the importance of paying particular attention to rural communities. However, I would first like to provide some context.

Saint-Basile-le-Grand is a semi-urban city with a population of 17,500, where 78% of the land is agricultural and protected. Every day, several trains carrying goods pass through the heart of our town and our entire territory without stopping. More than 500 cities and towns in Quebec experience the same situation.

The main sources of danger in our region are a lack of preventive information on dangerous goods transported by rail, as well fear of a train derailment in an urban area. I think you have the list, but some of the dangers facing our municipality are the speed of freight trains passing through; the number of cars per train; signal errors, such as gates lowered without the presence of a train; trains stopped on the railway track, dividing the city in half; and the transfer of hazardous materials unknown to the municipality, which is responsible for responding to an accident or incident.

In the last two or three years, things have gotten worse. There's now more vibration caused by the trains, day and night. There's also the noise caused by rattling, which is extremely disturbing. Even in winter, when the windows are closed, that noise is noticeable.

Today, there are often more than 200 cars per convoy, without our knowing about the hazardous materials they carry, while towns are responsible for taking emergency action when rail activity causes an accident caused on their territory.

In addition to potential long-term damage to the foundations and structures of houses and public buildings, Saint‑Basile‑le‑Grand's territory is literally divided by railroads. The passage of a long train can quickly create compartmentalization and considerably increase vehicular congestion, completely blocking the way in and out of the southern part of the city in the event of a medical emergency or fire. So it becomes impossible to get out of the city.

We also fear a worst-case scenario: a derailment exposing our populations to toxic or flammable materials. The presence of a railway in the heart of a city like Saint-Basile-le-Grand creates considerable problems, both in terms of the safety and well-being of citizens, as well as the fluidity of car and pedestrian traffic.

In recent years, there has been a consensus on the need for railways to try to eliminate hazards at their source. That's what the Union des municipalités du Québec wants. We must admit that it's not easy, but there surely are solutions. To do that, we must now acknowledge the reality we face every day and that we have to adapt to: rail is the best means of mass transportation for people. Public transit is also one of the best ways to combat greenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, there's an incompatibility between passenger trains and freight trains. To answer your main question, I'd also say that we must necessarily consider exclusive rail lines in certain locations for each use, which is to say for the transportation of goods and people.

In conclusion, there's no longer any obligation for freight trains to pass through cities. There was a time when agricultural trade made it necessary to stop trains in almost every municipality. Those days are now gone. Why not broaden the range of possibilities that could make the transportation of goods safer and thereby eliminate dangers at the source? We'll be able to make suggestions in response to your questions.

Thank you for your attention.