Transport Committee on Sept. 13th, 2017

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Masterson, I'll start with you, but I have only one question for you before I carry on.

Railways carry much more hazardous materials than just toxic inhalation substances. Some of them are called “special dangerous” in the industry, which crews just call “bombs”. Some substances are not even permitted on trucks.

The large carriers argued to us on Monday, I think it was, that if you have access to trucks, you're not a captive industry. You said that is clearly not the case.

Are there any other options for many of these companies besides trains?

[Bob Masterson]

This is a great question to turn over to Ms. Edwards. She is an expert not only on Bill C-49 but also on all matters on dangerous goods.

Kara, are you comfortable with that?

[Kara Edwards, Director, Transportation, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada]

Often rail is the safest mode for highly dangerous goods to travel, or, depending on the volume, you can transport it in cylinders as well that would go by road but in small volumes. With the other traffic on the road, with different conditions, often rail is the safest mode to transport dangerous goods, particularly TIH products and other very dangerous goods.

In Canada, I think we have to also look at how many of these very highly dangerous goods are travelling in high volumes. There is only a handful of TIH products that travel by rail. Often in our membership a lot of companies, let's say with chlorine, will not transport by road because the risk has been deemed too high.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

[Bob Masterson]

If I could, I'll just add an anecdote to help you understand that.

Styrene is another dangerous good. Previously, shippers in Canada would only ship that by rail. Our industry had a company in the Kelowna area of British Columbia. They took that styrene and turned it into resins that then supplied a small but important regional recreational boating manufacturing industry. Unfortunately, the short-line railway that served that facility decided to close. Neither of the two large class 1 railways picked that short-line railway up, so they suspended service.

Well, there was no way.... It wasn't that it couldn't be delivered by truck. It was a decision by the shippers that they would not move that product by truck. With the rail out of service, the plant that made the resins closed. With the plant that made the resins closed, the boating manufacturers closed.

There are goods that need to move by rail for very good reasons, and they have to be able to get to market. It's not just our members because, again, we supply other industries. The goods have to get to them at the end of the day.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I was in Kelowna last week at caucus, and they found that the track is now a bicycle path.

I have only a few seconds left. I had a number of questions for Mr. Nielsen, but I won't have time to get through them.

Very quickly, a freight car has a service life of about 40 years. How old are the freight cars in service right now?

[Jeff Nielsen]

Actually, I think they're over 40 years, some of them. They have been modified and they have been upgraded, but within the next 10 to 15 years, we're going to see the majority of our cars decommissioned.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

[Cam Dahl]

I'll just make a quick distinction between the hopper cars that the Government of Canada owns, which were bought in the 1980s, and the private cars that the railways own and lease, which are modern, high-capacity railcars.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Aubin.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair.

I want to officially say hello to all my colleagues on this third day, which is bringing us some perspective. Outlines are starting to take shape, and I'm sure our committee will not ignore them. Let's hope the government will follow suit.

My first question for the witnesses has to do with what I refer to as the diffusion effect. The drafting of a bill is not akin to writing a novel or drawing up a business contract. Two of your organizations insisted that the definition of adequate and suitable service must be changed.

I would like to hear your opinion on that issue, since even I am really confused. I feel that, if a service is adequate, it must also be suitable. I feel that synonyms are being used to try to cloud the issue.

You want those two terms to be revised, but what words or underlying definitions would you like to see used?

[Bob Masterson]

I think in our comments we provided some suggestion. In our written submission, we suggested that the ambiguity be removed, and we'd speak of the highest reasonable level of rail service that could be provided. Perhaps Ms. Edwards could expand on that.

[Kara Edwards]

I think a key part of that is understanding at what point there is no longer adequate service. It needs to incorporate that, as well. I think the Western Canadian Shippers’ Coalition did a very eloquent job of explaining the key differences yesterday.

We could propose and submit a legal text to the committee as well, if that's of interest going forward. We didn't bring a copy of the text to specifically note the word changes. They were only very minor, though, but it could save a lot of time and court cases in the future to clarify that early on.

[Cam Dahl]

Just quickly, I'm not a transportation lawyer, so I'm not going to say that the amendments in Bill C-49 are perfect, but the bill does propose to tighten up or better quantify the definition of “adequate and suitable”. “Adequate and suitable” really is how the railways are held to account. Bringing in that broader definition does help improve accountability.

Is that the perfect definition? Probably not, when lawyers give us different legal texts, perhaps, but it is a significant improvement over what is in the current Canada Transportation Act.

[Jeff Nielsen]

I disagree with the previous two comments.

Thank you.

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

Of course, we are open to any suggestions you could send us.

Mr. Masterson, you gave us concrete examples to help us understand the reality on the ground, especially in my case, as I may be light years away from that world.

In your report, you also recommend that the agency's inquiry powers be increased. Could you give me an example of what the agency could do to be more effective if it had increased powers?

[Bob Masterson]

Again, I'll turn to Ms. Edwards. She spends a lot of time with the folks involved in the transportation agency and is in a better position to speak on our members' behalf.

[Kara Edwards]

With regard to the agency's powers, we believe, if they're expanded for shippers, it gives one more opportunity for remedies to be available. Additionally, with some of the limitations of the agency right now, it might not be as easy for them to see how certain cases fall into the larger system. By expanding their powers, they can take certain cases and be able to see if they're consistent or if things are being followed through after measures are put in place. That's what we meant within our submission.

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

Thank you.

I still have one minute left.

I will quickly put a question to Mr. Nielsen.

I think you mentioned that soybeans were left off the schedule and should be included on the list. That is an anomaly, and I agree with you that soybeans should be in the schedule.

Should Bill C-49 provide a review mechanism for products on the lists, since we know that agriculture changes quickly? Eating habits change and industry habits change, as well. The market changes, and we can understand that a farmer may decide to change what they grow even though that involves high costs. Should there be a mechanism to review the list regularly?

[Jeff Nielsen]

I don't really agree with that. We're seeing just with the ability of our farming community the adoption of technologies that have really advanced how we as farmers take care of soils yet provide some of the best-quality crops in the world, and we're increasing those crops.

We're increasing those variety crops with technology to develop better breeding techniques. Soybeans are now less than 40 miles from me. Will I ever be able to grow them in my area? I'm not sure yet. I'm in a different climatic zone, but there's the ability to see those crops expand. Some of the crops are very good for our soils, so once again, we need to see some of those abilities to enter new crops into this agreement.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses for being here.

Before I begin, if you'll indulge me for just a moment, I'd like to communicate that I'm here with a bit of a heavy heart today. In Nova Scotia, we lost an absolute political giant yesterday with the passing of Allan J. MacEachen, who served as deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs and was responsible during his time in the health portfolio for implementing medicare. Despite all these incredible accomplishments in Ottawa, back home he's best known for his service to his constituents. As a young parliamentarian from Nova Scotia, I hope to emulate that today and over the course of my career.

In that spirit of standing up for Atlantic Canada, I can't help but notice that with the extended interswitching provisions that existed under Bill C-30 a specific sector and a specific region were impacted. Perhaps, Mr. Masterson, you may be best positioned to answer, although Mr. Nielsen pointed out that he has members in Atlantic Canada too. How does this bill service different sectors across the entire country, not just those in one important region?

[Bob Masterson]

From our perspective, as I mentioned, we have a very heterogeneous industry. It's from coast to coast. It's very complex, with a large number of different products. Our view is that this strikes the right balance in the measures that are proposed. If they can be adjusted as discussed, they will bring benefit coast to coast.

We've not identified any regional shortcomings in the provisions that are here at this time. We feel that it will benefit all shippers across the country.