Transport Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2018

[David Chaundy]

We don't have any public studies on that particular topic. We do keep track of all the major investment projects in Atlantic Canada, and we had done a study at one point, looking at those from a transportation perspective. That was for a particular client, so that is not a public report. We were looking at the implications and the tie-in to those big projects, which would include things like the energy east and that type of infrastructure, and how that ties in to transportation and these big investment projects.

To make a general comment, our sense at that time—and this is true with a lot of transportation things, as Mr. Sharma mentioned—is that capacity is a big issue. Having increased capacity would allow, for example, that refinery to have greater access to supplies, not just importing crude oil and bringing that in by rail but being able to access different sources, and then just improving capacity and issues around that.

We haven't specifically examined what that does to increase flows.

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

Do you have any numbers compiled, either by studies or by your own work, on how much investment the country lost with the cancellation of energy east?

[David Chaundy]

We don't have any specific numbers, other than the numbers that were in the original energy east pipeline proposal. We know that Irving Oil was planning to invest in its own terminal as part of that project.

I don't have the numbers at hand, but I think some of those were made public as part of that submission.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being here.

Mr. Sharma, you made a number of very interesting comments. The cost of how we organize was evocative, I suppose.

Not to impose too much additional work on you, but I'm wondering if you could get back to us with a briefing as to what you meant by that—where we are now versus where you think we should be—so that we can look at those gaps. That would be illuminating.

[Rajesh Sharma]

Most definitely.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Chaundy, you mentioned the regulatory differences between one province and the next, particularly as an impediment to truck movement. We've discovered—in fact, I've known for some time—that those exist from municipality to municipality in metro Vancouver.

I'm wondering if that is also a factor in Atlantic Canada.

[David Chaundy]

Certainly the general issue of regulatory differences is not specific just to provinces. It does occur around municipalities within provinces. Even within federal departments, we've heard of inconsistent application, on the transportation specifically. We have not heard of any specific issues around different municipal standards that impact that. Certainly in other areas, whether it's Sunday shopping or development or construction, we have heard of those types of issues.

I haven't heard anything specifically related to transportation in terms of tracking or other transportation-related issues.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Another common theme that has come up in a number of the studies we have done has to do with the health of short-line railways.

Can you comment on that, from Atlantic Canada. As well, Mr. Sharma, you alluded to it.

We'll start with Mr. Chaundy on that one.

[David Chaundy]

Again, as I said in my opening comments, one of the challenges in Atlantic Canada is low density and reliance on a few providers, and those providers also then sometimes being heavily dependent upon one or two users. I think this is an ongoing issue that limits choice and capacity.

We do have, especially in New Brunswick, a number of short-lines that are important connections, which allow trade with the United States, for example.

I don't have any specific recent issues that I can bring to your attention where we are hearing about challenges. Certainly in the past, every time you were having to make connections from one line to another, that's where some of these inefficiencies came in, as Mr. Sharma noted. That's typically the same challenge we have heard in Atlantic Canada in the past. I don't know whether over the last three years those issues have become better or worse.

There has been a lot of concern around maintaining some of those short-lines, because once you lose that line, a number of businesses may be impacted, even if it's just due to the closure of one facility. Again, that dependence and the public impacts of that are still an issue for some of those lines.

[Rajesh Sharma]

Again, the policy has to recognize—and I am sure it would—that short-lines are a means to an end. If you recognize that, then there will be times when there is stress on the system in terms of economic potential of a particular industry operating in a particular region. Sustained support will be required for the lines.

I'll give you an example. We built a short-line connecting our mine to the main line called TSH. We put in the money along with the partner and it was a significant investment, but that money was put in at a time when the iron ore market was booming, in 2010. If you asked me to put in that $50 million or $60 million today, we would not have been able to do that.

I think the policy needs to recognize that they are a means to an end, and there will be times of stress when support is required.

That's my overall comment on this.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I have one last question for you, Mr. Chaundy. Again, we discovered or have heard a constant theme about land use and planning, particularly when you have a port in a metro area. There are ongoing challenges for municipalities that see them converting industrial land to residential or allowing residential development next to port operations or transfer points, which create rubs between residents and industry.

Is that an issue in Atlantic Canada?

[David Chaundy]

Certainly. I can't speak about other ports, but I know that there's been an ongoing issue with the Port of Halifax. I think that the port authority recognizes that there's the issue around a lot of truck traffic in downtown Halifax and coming through the business areas and now increasingly the residential communities, and if and as they look to expand, there are implications for those neighbourhoods. Yes, I think at least in that specific example, this has been a long-standing concern for the port users and those in the vicinity of the port.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

What about land availability if the port wishes to expand?

[David Chaundy]

I can't comment on that specifically. I know the port has been developing some of its lands around it. I don't know if there have been specific challenges, issues or tensions around that specific point.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We've come to the end of this segment. Is there anyone who has a pressing question that they would like to ask?

Mr. Aubin.

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

My question is for Mr. Chaundy.

I understand the need to harmonize regulations in order to prepare for the potential growth in trade. Could such harmonization also have environmental benefits?

[David Chaundy]

Can you clarify what specifically you're thinking about in terms of the environment?

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

Yes.

From the start of this study, we have been talking about economic growth. We want to transport more goods, and more quickly. Yet this will clearly have an impact on our greenhouse gas emissions.

Is that part of the equation in some way? Are there any measures we can take to allow for economic growth, while at the same time actively fighting greenhouse gas emissions?

[David Chaundy]

Yes, we did release a report this summer talking about clean growth and essentially arguing that we need to find a better way of balancing economic opportunities, especially in Atlantic Canada, with the environment. As part of that study, we did also highlight greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation. These issues can overlap. If different provinces are implementing different carbon pricing systems, one of our concerns was that it was going to add to and further complicate these differences that we already have on basic transportation regulation.

A harmonized or an Atlantic approach would help minimize different provinces having different carbon prices or fuel taxes as part of what adds another layer of difference. Again, companies are trying to get the goods from A to B. They're not looking at the provincial barriers between that, but they have to build that into their pricing and they have to make sure they are compliant with different provincial standards, whether it's on weights or whether it's on environmental and carbon pricing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Sharma and Mr. Chaundy, your information was very timely after our trip last week. Thank you both very much.

We will suspend for a moment for our witnesses to leave, and then we will reconvene for committee business.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]