Transport Committee on Sept. 24th, 2018

[Jim Weakley]

I believe that provider pulled out of all of their LNG fuel bases, so I don't think that could have been the case.

I will tell you, in the Puerto Rico trade between the U.S. and Puerto Rico, there are LNG vessels as well. As Mr. Burrows has said, we're doing the same.

[Gregg Ruhl]

The challenge is typically the infrastructure. In short-sea shipping you go to a lot of different local ports. Sometimes you pull in; you can't even get to the edge. You have to take a rowboat to shore to tie up your lines. It's a little trickier to get LNG available in all the places you would need it to make the complex kind of routes we make on the Great Lakes.

It works great with a ferry, back and forth, point to point.

[Andrew Fuller]

I would add that distribution is the main issue I've heard in the marketplace, both from a trucking perspective as well as on the rail side. To use LNG requires more storage, fuel tenders, to work on the rail side, and so the distribution and the availability of it would be the issue.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

This is more for government than for you. You'd have to balance that with the enormous subsidies we've spent over the last number of years on solar, wind and all the other things. That's to say if we were investing that in the infrastructure you're talking about, we might be far better off controlling emissions than all these boondoggles that have happened on the other side.

I don't expect you to comment on that.

[Jim Weakley]

I would tend to agree.

[Gregg Ruhl]

I have a quick comment.

The new, large ships we have could be converted to LNG. It's the technology on the ship in terms of the infrastructure. It's a bit more expensive at start up but all the technology is there.

[Bruce Burrows]

Mr. Liepert, you're from Alberta but that would be a great speech here in Ontario too.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

That's whom I was speaking to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is for you, Mr. Fuller. You may see it as a little peripheral to the subject we are dealing with this morning, but I see a direct link. In fact, the transportation sector is where the success of the fight again greenhouse gases can be seen quickly.

A whole new population would like to travel from one large centre to another, using the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, for example. Is it conceivable that both your industry and passenger transportation can grow significantly and still use the same railway lines? If not, do we have to think about designing two systems, one for freight and one for passengers?

[Andrew Fuller]

Sorry, but I'll answer in English.

I'm certainly not an expert on the passenger system. As was mentioned by Mr. Burrows earlier, absolutely, rail is a highly efficient form of transportation, whether it's freight or passenger. We are one of the best in efficiency, right behind vessel. CN has reduced and improved our fuel efficiency by over 37% since 1996. We're the industry leader in fuel efficiency. We consume 15% less fuel than the industry average.

From the passenger point of view, we share the tracks already. Passenger VIA Rail does run on both CN and CP tracks. I can't get into should there be another track. That's a debate beyond my knowledge.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

My next question goes to Mr. Ruhl.

In your opening statement, you talked about optimizing and replacing your ships. I need a 101 course, rookie that I am. I was under the impression that the lakers sailing the Great Lakes were already as big as they can get, considering the dimensions of the locks. What is new, apart from the fuel economy? I imagine you cannot go a lot faster either, because there is a speed limit on the Great Lakes.

Where do you gain in efficiency? Is there more capacity?

[Gregg Ruhl]

The old lakers were typically 730 feet long. The new ones are 740 feet long. They still fit in the lock system.

The hull designs were optimized for fuel efficiency, pushing through the water with less energy. Also they are faster, not maybe in the canal, but when you're in Lake Ontario, Lake Superior or Lake Erie you can go faster so we go a bit faster and obviously we use fewer greenhouse gases. Our emissions are almost zero. We have scrubbers in all our new ships so we're scrubbing out all the sulphur emissions.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

When you go faster with these new ships, do they cause waves, whether bigger or smaller, that could erode the banks?

[Gregg Ruhl]

No.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

We have two or three minutes left. Does anyone have any outstanding questions that aren't too long and which they'd like an answer to?

Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux]

I have a follow-up question for Mr. Ruhl.

You gave the answer during my colleague Mr. Aubin's first round of questioning that we need to keep the Welland Canal open longer. Forgive me for not knowing all the reasons, but is the main reason icebreakers or are there other reasons why we don't do that?

[Gregg Ruhl]

I think we've been a bit conservative here in Canada. In other words, if we can't guarantee that every year it will be efficient, with no ice, and clear, then we close it between Christmas and New Year's just to be safe. We don't need that, though. Our business is full of uncertainty. We have to stop and anchor for a storm coming. We're used to trading all winter long in the ice.

As long as what we're seeing is four out of five years of open water, and the Welland Canal for at least another month, I think we're letting that be an untapped resource. Knowing that one time out of the year we'll probably not be able to go that full length of time just because the infrastructure will be tough with heavy ice, we can just switch to trucks earlier that year. But four out of five years we could take a lot of trucks off the road.

[Matt Jeneroux]

Who closes it, then?

[Gregg Ruhl]

It's the St. Lawrence Seaway rules, or the operator of the seaway. Certainly we're in discussions with them. They've been open to determining how much cargo we'll move. In my experience, certainly on the U.S. side with the locks there, we need to do it fairly quickly and take advantage. It's low-hanging fruit. Compared with the other discussions about keeping the seaway open year-round, where you'd have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, it's there. You can use it. Let's use it when we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Fuller, it was very refreshing to hear you make a comment about dialogue. If I'm quoting you correctly, you said that a “shared and committed culture” is needed to really strengthen the overall trade corridor.

My question is twofold. One, is that happening? I guess that would be somewhat of a rhetorical question. Two, to that end, how do we make it happen more?

[Andrew Fuller]

The second part is the harder part.

Yes, it is happening. It could happen in more places. A good example is that we have shared measures we can look at every day in every one of our ports that we operate with—out in Vancouver, and in Prince Rupert—and we both have shared measures for when an import comes in or export goes out. How long does it sit on the dock?

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Let me stop you there, Mr. Fuller, because we're under a time limit here.

It's happening in the Asia-Pacific. I get that. Ken reminds me about that daily. I'm talking about in this area, in the St. Lawrence Seaway-Welland Canal area. Is there consistent communication between you and Mr. Ruhl and his organization, between you and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, and, to go even a step further on the binational effort, between you and Mr. Weakley?