Evidence of meeting #63 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rail.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Commercial and Regulatory Affairs, Prince Rupert Port Authority
I would say that there wasn't the same motivation.
4:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Commercial and Regulatory Affairs, Prince Rupert Port Authority
I mean on the part of the railway. It's not that they weren't interested in service. I would say, in short, that certainly there was an encouragement to demonstrate that they were willing to listen to the concerns of port authorities and terminal operators, and they recognized we had something to add.
4:50 p.m.
Vice-President, Planning and Operations, Port Metro Vancouver
Certainly it's a matter of fact: there were no service-level agreements or memorandums as they relate to service between the port authority and the railways prior to 2010. I'd say for that period, that was most acute in terms of shipper concern. We would also characterize our relationship with the class 1 railways as one that did not enjoy a high level of engagement or focus on the impacts of rail operations at the local level. We've seen a significant change, as we've said previously.
4:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Global Container Terminals
My history won't allow me to comment too much from Canada. My experience is more in the whole of North America.
What I will say unequivocally, having arrived recently in Canada, is that the cooperation between terminal operators, the Canadian railroads, and the port authorities is by far the best I've seen in any North American port, and I've seen them all.
4:55 p.m.
President, Sinclar Group Forest Products Ltd.
I think the relationship prior to this was characterized more on the operational requirements of the railway, and probably adversarial from our side of things as well.
I think the service-level agreements have certainly promoted more dialogue, and certainly far more cooperation and significant improvements overall in terms of the expectations.
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Business Development and Operations, Halifax Port Authority
Yes. I would have to say that the relationship we have enjoyed has improved considerably with two factors that coincided. One was the federal rail review and one was a new management team at CN that opted to broaden and deepen and engage us more comprehensively, not only in daily operations, but in the critical aspect of business development as a whole.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Okay.
Mr. Mayer, earlier you made a comment that your concern about arbitration is that it might create an inefficiency in the system. Can you be more specific about what you mean by efficiency, or who you mean by efficiency, or what scenario you envision would create inefficiency?
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Commercial and Regulatory Affairs, Prince Rupert Port Authority
It's hard to come up with a specific example, but the concern is that because the arbitrator will have the obligation or the mandate to impose a service-level agreement on the railways, that agreement itself may impose requirements on them in terms of service levels that prevent them from rationalizing their resources in a way that makes the most sense from an efficiency standpoint. So really it's about allocation of equipment.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
You are aware, however, that Bill C-52 does explicitly require that the arbitrator consider the effect on network operations for other rail carriers in the determination of their agreement. I think shippers didn't want to see that articulated. Although it's sometimes considered in arbitration, Bill C-52 specifically includes that requirement.
So I'm not sure I agree that I foresee an inefficiency being created with respect to arbitration.
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Commercial and Regulatory Affairs, Prince Rupert Port Authority
May I respond?
4:55 p.m.
Vice-President, Commercial and Regulatory Affairs, Prince Rupert Port Authority
I agree, and I recognize that the provision is within the proposed legislation. I think it's critical in that case, though, that the arbitrator, the decision-maker, is as informed as possible as to the implications for the whole supply chain, which was the second aspect of our recommendations.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Fair enough.
Mr. Stewart, with you being a shipper, your perspective with respect to Bill C-52.... I just want to be clear about this, because you mentioned a preference I think that you would have service-level agreements or the current system. Are you suggesting that Bill C-52 is not something you'd like to see? I just want to be clear about that. Your position is a little fuzzy to me.
4:55 p.m.
President, Sinclar Group Forest Products Ltd.
No. I think Bill C-52 adequately addresses the concerns that shippers had due to the past performance of the railways. Regardless, though, I think service-level agreements need to be the priority. Commercial arrangements that encourage further understanding of each other's businesses, collaboration, and working together on innovation will only benefit both parties.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
The Coalition of Rail Shippers was asking us to amend section 115 by suggesting that a railway company shall fulfill its service obligations in a manner that meets the rail transportation needs of the shipper, and then defines the specific types of service obligations that would be done.
Is that prescriptive model something you, as a shipper, would support, or not?
4:55 p.m.
President, Sinclar Group Forest Products Ltd.
Speaking from Sinclar Group's perspective, I would not support that.
Where we sit, at the end of the line with our Apollo Forest Products, for example, if CN is required to meet those obligations of all the other mills on the line, it's going to result in a lot less certainty for our mill at the end of the line to get the service we require. I think that is the point around making sure that we understand the complexities of the network and how those decisions would impact all of the customers on the line.
5 p.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Thank you.
I'll start with a question for Mr. Edwards, if you don't mind.
We're seeing greater and greater integration of the North American rail network. There seems to be a consensus, which was mentioned by at least some of you, that exports will increase over time. Seeing as exports will increase, presumably some of that will be coming from the United States.
What is the impact on Bill C-52 as far as the...or what kind of impact will it have on Canadian shippers that more traffic will be coming from the United States on our rail network? What kind of impact do you think that might have?
5 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Global Container Terminals
There was an earlier question on what's included in the service-level agreements. I would say that our service-level agreements between TSI here and the two railroads are neutral on the origin or destination of the cargo. It's the operational performance that we're required to deliver to the railroads and they're required to deliver to us for the supply chain. Those examples will be who is responsible for certain actions when parts of the supply chain may fail due to lack of car supply or an unforecast demand for supply.
From purely the port or the port-terminal railroad interface, I would say that the origin or destination of the freight is neutral as far as we're concerned for the performance we need to do on the dwell time and the transfer of containers between ship to rail.
5 p.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Thank you.
Mr. Stewart, seeing as you're a shipper, do you have that same sentiment?
