Transport Committee on Sept. 11th, 2017

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

You and I had the benefit of working together in the past, at Metro Vancouver's transportation authority. I know that quite a number of years ago they went through the process of looking at voice and video recording on the bus system in metro Vancouver. I know that some of the same issues we've been talking about here with respect to labour relations came up there. How close were you to that process? What can you tell us about the state of labour relations, to your knowledge, with that system in Vancouver?

[George Bell]

Actually, I can tell you very little. I spent almost my entire career on the rail side in Vancouver.

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

Yes.

[George Bell]

I wasn't party to the bus system.

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

Fair enough.

You don't get live feeds from the cabs, do you?

[George Bell]

We do not.

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

Okay.

It's been just a short period of time, but have you noticed any changes with respect to any missed signals or some of the other things that railways would be concerned with on a day-to-day basis, not necessarily leading to a crash but obviously a signal of risk?

[George Bell]

As of yet, we haven't proactively used the information. We're waiting on some of the results of your deliberations before we will consider doing that. As of now, we haven't proactively used it. However, if the outcome was significant enough, we would expect the Transportation Safety Board to intervene and use the information to the best of their ability.

So no, as of yet, we haven't seen the behaviours change because we're not in a position to see the behaviours change.

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

Ms. Southwood, I'm quite interested in the climate vulnerability assessments that you mentioned. We have a Burlington Northern and Santa Fe line that comes through the waterfront at White Rock, follows the Semiahmoo Peninsula, and then ultimately ends up in Vancouver. That route has been subject to frequent washouts, landslides, and degradation due to erosion from the ocean along the shores. Is that the sort of thing an environmental assessment might illuminate and maybe push toward some kind of resolution or change?

[Jeanette Southwood]

Yes, Madam Chair and Mr. Hardie, a climate vulnerability assessment would take into account those kinds of current challenges. It would also look to the future to better understand the impacts on the rail line of extreme weather, for example, or changing weather patterns on erosion and other vulnerabilities. It's a current view but it's also a future view so that when investments are made in, let's say, improving or maintaining the rail line, or in expanding such rail lines, a full understanding of the impacts of the investments but also the vulnerabilities to such investments are understood.

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

Mr. Orb, I'm going to ask this question a few times unless some of my colleagues beat me to it in any given round. One thing that is a question in Bill C-49 is the development of a definition for “adequate and suitable” service. When you're speaking with your networks, what do they think about that? Can you give us any directions as to the sort of things we would ask government to think about when coming up with the definition?

[Ray Orb]

I think that is a difficult question to answer within the industry. Obviously there are some delivery points, especially on branch lines, that require not an extra service but a different kind of service because of the fact that they're not on a high-volume line. The other one is producer-car loading sites. That's required in the Canada Grain Act. Although it wasn't in our submission, we noticed that it was a recommendation from the standing committee that the producer-car rights be continued on the loading sites.

So the level of service that's deemed adequate differs from point to point, but in the industry I think it has to be something that's acceptable—a basic service that's acceptable by the shipper and the carrier.

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

Do you have any thoughts as to the kind of data reporting that you'd like to see? Are there some key measures that you would want to see on the list of the data that railways would be required to report just in the interests of transparency?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Give a short answer, if possible.

[Ray Orb]

I think there should be a continuation of what's being done now. There is fairly good reporting, but I think it needs to be done a lot faster than it is. Rather than a month's end kind of review, I think it has to be done almost day by day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you.

Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to all three of you for being here with us.

I have questions for each of you and my first question is for Mr. Orb.

Before even talking about Bill C-49, I would like to point something out. It is almost the middle of September and a number of the provisions in Bill C-30 sunsetted on August 1. Without even knowing what will happen in a few months, are the measures that have not been renewed and that sunsetted on August 1 causing problems for exporters?

[Ray Orb]

Yes, they are problematic. One of the things that I mentioned was the interswitching that was in place in the previous legislation. That is creating some angst amongst the industry, particularly the grain elevator industry, because of the fact that they don't know what will happen if the opposing railway doesn't grant rights for another company to run on the same line. I know there are contracts already put in place, particularly to go into the U.S., and they're really concerned about not being able to service those markets.

The other thing I think would be minimum haul volume requirements. I know that's something that was recommended by this committee to be in this legislation, and we're hoping that it would continue. The fact is, as I mentioned, the crop that we're looking at is at a higher volume than expected.

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

In your opening remarks—tell me if I'm reflecting your comments correctly—I did not sense a great deal of excitement for Bill C-49. You seem to have trouble measuring the impact of some of the provisions and determining whether they are true solutions.

Let me give you a few examples of what I heard. I understood that the reciprocal penalties process should be better explained. My understanding is that you don't think the provisions in Bill C-49 are sufficient. You are saying that interswitching might be useful, but you don't seem sure that it is the solution.

Do you have some more specific solutions that you would like us to recommend to the government?

[Ray Orb]

On the interswitching, we would prefer that the interswitching provisions in place in the prior legislation be continued.

On the reciprocal penalties, we think there has to be a better definition in the legislation of what the penalties actually are. We know that there are penalties to the shippers if the railcars aren't loaded on a timely basis, and they know that there's a tariff in place that penalizes those companies. We think there should be a penalty. We're not going to mention a specific penalty, but we think that the railroad should be held accountable to deliver the cars on time.

I can give you a quick example of how it affects the rural municipalities, as well, in the wintertime. We often have to open the roads out to the farmers' yards to get access to the grain. If the grain cars don't show up on time, the roads have to be opened again, and it's an added cost to the ratepayers.

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

Clearly, I don't know Saskatchewan as well as you do, so I'm really pleased that you are here.

Do you have any major soy producers?

[Ray Orb]

We do have some soybean farmers. It's a crop that's being grown more regularly now.

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

I will jump right to my question because time flies.

How do you explain that soy is excluded from the maximum revenue entitlement?

[Ray Orb]

I mentioned this previously in response to a question by Ms. Block, from Saskatchewan, but not specifically about soybeans. I mentioned the crop logistics working group. That's a committee that has been created by the federal government. That is a request that will be coming from the crop logistics working group that soybeans be included in the MRE.

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

At this very moment, you have no idea why the government decided to exclude soy.