Evidence of meeting #68 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was railways.
A video is available from Parliament.
September 12th, 2017 / 6:45 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to ask another question of you, Mr. Northey. I noted that in your response to the CTA review report, dated April 18, you had recommended that the 160-kilometre limit be made permanent. You've seen Bill C-49, and I know you made other recommendations.
How does Bill C-49 address the recommendations you made following the release of the CTA review?
Director, Industry Relations, Pulse Canada
We wanted it to be made permanent because we were seeing real value for shippers. Service capacity at a fair cost comes from competition. Extended interswitching was providing that. It was very clean and simple, and it worked well.
We had an exhaustive list of other recommendations. At Pulse Canada, we focus heavily on data; we're very data-driven. We're evidence-driven: we don't want to use anecdotes to describe service failure; we want it measured. We have put lot of money into developing new data. Data is a big piece. Bill C-49 really moves the bar on data. It doesn't quite get to where we want it, but it's there.
As to own-motion powers for the agency, for small and medium-sized shippers there are serious roadblocks to being able to access level of service complaints, or FOAs. They have neither the time, the money, nor the desire really to go up against a railway when service is failing. Our view is that in those cases you need a strong regulatory backdrop, and we need an agency that has data and evidence, and that can monitor the network and intervene when service is failing.
As was discussed earlier today, own-motion powers are extremely important for us. We don't see provision for them in the bill, and it's one of our recommendations now. We would like to see such a provision in there.
Those, I think, are the key issues. Reciprocal penalties are also very important. We do see provision for these in this bill. All we really want is a clarification of intent, of what it means. When you talk about a balanced penalty or a balanced amount, what a shipper can pay versus what the railway can pay, and also what that number has to be set at to drive a change in behaviour are very different. If a shipper had to pay a fee of $100 for not loading a car in time, that has an impact, but a fee of $100 for the railway for not delivering cars to a shipper who's shipping 15 cars.... They're probably just going to pay that penalty, potentially.
What is it, then, that will drive a change in behaviour within a contract? That's really what we want. It's all there. It's not a change in the wording of the bill; it's just clarifying the intent of it. Balance needs to take into account the ability of a small shipper versus that of a large railway, and how you drive performance.
I would say, then, those three: data, reciprocal penalties, and creating a competitive option that extends interswitching. We want to make long-haul work. We don't really care what the name of it is or how it works; we want to see a result from it. We're concerned right now by all the exclusions.
As you heard today, the costing.... We support all of that. We really need it to work. It's a result. We're results-based. Shippers don't care what the names of these things are; it's the result.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
I have one minute. I would just make an observation. I think our witnesses have been very gracious in extending to the authors of this legislation a belief that the intent is there in the bill.
It is my hope that the recommendations and the amendments that have been suggested and have come forward from so many witnesses will be seriously considered, to address the concerns that each of you has raised, and their implications for the industry.
Thank you very much.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to speak to Mr. Northey for 30 seconds.
You said something that burns my ears every time I hear it, which is that Bill C-49 is a step in the right direction. If it's in the right direction, why aren't we going there? I find it difficult to understand this approach that makes many witnesses say that the bill is a step in the right direction.
Do we want to get the consent of the various lobbies to arrive at a bill that ultimately doesn't make anyone happy? For some, this is a step in the right direction, and for others it is a step in the wrong direction. Shouldn't Bill C-49 make a decision and go as far as possible in the areas where we can, be it in data or interswitching? I have the impression here that the positions are always neither here nor there.
Director, Industry Relations, Pulse Canada
We've had a lot of rail legislation in the past few years. It has been about incremental improvement each step of the way. That's the nature of what happens. We've been discussing this for 100 years. Shippers carry on with what they get—restricted capacity, poor service, unreliable rail delivery. We just soldier on.
In legislation we've certainly seen these incremental steps, and Bill C-49 just adds to that. We would love it if it would really resolve the issues we have and the fact that there is not a functioning market in rail, but it's difficult. Legislation is clearly difficult. We really want to get there, and we think this step could be a big one. We just hope it can be. The intent is there. We're trying. We want to make this work this time to the extent we can.
I'm sorry. It does seem unsatisfactory, but I'll tell you what. When we talk to our stakeholders, they ask exactly the same question, because ultimately when it comes down to it, they are going to ask for results. Is this going to work for them? We look at it, and some of it likely won't work for smaller shippers.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Thank you all the same for making that distinction. We've gone from one step to a big step. I imagine we're ahead.
I'll now go back to Mr. Hackl and Mr. Benson.
As far as the recordings are concerned, which have created quite an uproar, I think we agree. The TSB asks for access to the recordings to conduct its investigations, and you are prepared to give them, as long as the recordings remain confidential. I think we agree on that. That said, it is a post-accident measure. You have given me a glimmer of hope as to possible measures to counter fatigue.
I would like to address one last point with you. For decades, Canada's rail industry has relied on a visual signal system to control traffic over a significant portion of the network. It has also been more than 15 years since the TSB has steadily emphasized the need for additional physical defence. We are talking here about alarms. It even asks that the train be automatically stopped if the driver misses a signal, for instance. Bill C-49 says nothing about all of these measures. In my opinion, these are genuine rail safety measures, since they allow pre-accident response, not post-accident analysis.
Where do you stand on these measures? I would like to hear your views on establishing additional physical defences on locomotives.
Vice-President, Teamsters Canada Rail Conference
That's an interesting question, and I wish there were a short answer. Unfortunately, I think locomotives are currently equipped with LVVR. The only cost that the railways will see is for the maintenance of that and access to it. Positive train control or cab override systems or those types of things would involve a multi-billion dollar input on the part of the railways.
First of all, let me say that I hope we're not arguing about these things. We're discussing them. I think it's the line of least resistance right now. LVVR is something that exists, and the railway companies are seeking to exploit the legislation. Whether they are interested in putting billions of dollars into positive train control and those types of things, I don't know.
Whether that's the answer or not.... I don't know if that helps you, but that's the concern I have with respect to what you have asked.
Lobbyist, Teamsters Canada
Taking away our privacy rights doesn't cost them any money. Quite often when I look at rail regulation, it involves a lot of smoke and mirrors, a lot of stuff, but we don't really want to spend any money.
One of our concerns here that Mr. Hackl has laid out quite eloquently relates to all of the features already in place that could be used currently. When you are going to take away somebody's privacy right, the first question the courts will ask you is whether there is an alternative way that could be used that would achieve the same ends or better without taking away that privacy right. The answer is yes. It already exists.
The question I have for all of you MPs to think about is that slippery slope, the fact that I think the bureaucracy has been pushing their agenda for a long time on this. It's something that we have been fighting them about. They are not particularly friendly to us or to labour. The point simply put is that they want this policy because they want it to happen. There are other ways of doing it, but they're just going to exempt somebody from privacy. They think, let's just exempt somebody from the Constitution. Let's just exempt somebody's rights.
I think every parliamentarian should have their back up about this and should be thinking seriously. Especially for the Liberal Party, this is the foundation of most of these rights. Just because a bureaucrat or somebody walks in and says this is something they would like to do.... Mr. Hackl has laid out quite eloquently what else already exists, and that slippery slope is something we should try to avoid at all costs.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mr. Benson.
Thank you to all the witnesses.
I think you can see by the questioning that we all care very much about Bill C-49. More importantly, we care about doing the right thing.
I thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. The committee will continue to grapple with this as parliamentarians always trying to do the right thing.
I move adjournment for today.
