Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-11 of 11
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Transport committee  Well, of course, our recommendation is to eliminate the exclusions, but one of the things that could be done to make the long-haul interswitching rate efficacious is to make its application automatic. Right now, a shipper would have to apply to the agency. I'm quite well aware of what happens when the shipper applies to the agency.

September 12th, 2017Committee meeting

Forrest Hume

Transport committee  I'll start off, if I may. It would be important that the bill comport with our existing national transportation policy, which highlights competition in market forces. If we can get these two railways to compete with each other in the manner that is contemplated by that policy, we will have a bright future in this country.

September 12th, 2017Committee meeting

Forrest Hume

Transport committee  Correct.

September 12th, 2017Committee meeting

Forrest Hume

Transport committee  The recommendation we make with respect to the changes proposed to the level of service provisions is important. We believe there is no need for further clarification of those provisions. In the last three years, there have been a number of cases that were litigated before the agency and the Federal Court of Appeal that clarified in detail the seminal Patchett case of 1959 and the agency's evaluation process for determining level of service complaints.

September 12th, 2017Committee meeting

Forrest Hume

Transport committee  I want to point out that in the time that extended interswitching was in effect, from 2014 to 2017, the railways earned record profits and were able to provide extensive capital infusion to their infrastructure. In other words, there was no hit whatsoever. In my opinion, the idea that cost-based provisions or regulatory intervention is somehow damaging to the railway's ability to make money and to invest in infrastructure is a false claim.

September 12th, 2017Committee meeting

Forrest Hume

Transport committee  In my view, there is no reason to exclude shippers in that corridor or in the Windsor-Quebec corridor. There are shippers within those corridors who do not have competitive options and could avail themselves of that remedy. It's a competitive remedy, at least as the minister contemplates it.

September 12th, 2017Committee meeting

Forrest Hume

Transport committee  It wasn't on that corridor. It was on the corridor between Waterfront and Mission City.

September 12th, 2017Committee meeting

Forrest Hume

Transport committee  It's a part, but only a small part of it.

September 12th, 2017Committee meeting

Forrest Hume

Transport committee  I don't think congestion is the concern of the railways; I think reduced revenues is the concern of the railways. U.S. railways making incursions into Canada constitute competition from the shippers' perspective. The Canadian railways can retain the traffic: all they have to do is sharpen their pens and provide competitive service.

September 12th, 2017Committee meeting

Forrest Hume

Transport committee  Mr. Hardie, on that issue, if I may—

September 12th, 2017Committee meeting

Forrest Hume

Transport committee  Thank you, Bob. The recommendations we're making on the rail shipper provisions are summarized in our submissions beginning on page 25. As Mr. Ballantyne has indicated, the recommendations that FMA is making have been designed to give effect to what we believe to be the goals of the transportation modernization act.

September 12th, 2017Committee meeting

Forrest Hume