Transport Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair.

This is the one that has been circulated.

Amendment CPC-11 is deleting lines 5 to 42 on page 23, which contains the proposed section that has the exclusion corridors built into it. Although we're hearing that long-haul interswitching and all the remedies contemplated in this bill are an answer for our captive shippers, we heard testimony from many of our witnesses saying that this would do no such thing. In fact, it serves to act like the competitive line rates that they used to have to use and which were rarely used. Therefore, we have put forward this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Would the department like to speak to this amendment?

[Helena Borges]

Let me repeat, the long-haul interswitching is meant to give captive shippers the access to a second carrier that they do not have today. Shippers already located within the 30-kilometre interswitch distance have access to a second carrier and in some cases more than a second carrier, so they already have competition and access to more than one railway.

The other exemptions in there refer to traffic such as intermodal traffic, automotive traffic. They also already have access to competitive transportation alternatives. That's why they were excluded.

There were other exclusions proposed because of the nature of the handling of particular traffic, such as radioactive goods or oversized shipments, because it would be really difficult to switch that traffic between one carrier and another.

All of this is to say that the exemptions that were put in were well thought out and that there was a valid reason for each and every one of them: either that they have competition or that there would be difficulty in switching that traffic between carriers.

We cannot support this in the context of what the LHI was meant to do from a policy perspective, which was to give the captive shippers a new remedy that they don't have today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

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

I was just going to ask Ms. Block why she wanted all of this section to be deleted, because in the movement of toxic inhalation hazardous material, radioactive material, etc., where additional handling through an interswitching arrangement could increase the risk of some sort of mishap, you could have some pretty dire consequences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block, would you like to respond?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Yes, I would like to respond to two things.

First, with all due respect, I think it's highly inappropriate for the departmental staff to tell us what they can or cannot support in terms of an amendment that's come forward from a parliamentarian when we are working through a bill clause by clause.

I appreciate the explanation of the bill as it is written by the departmental officials, but knowing what they can and can't support I think is inappropriate. I think it's for the parliamentarians to determine that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, agreed.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Second, I think the answer to the question put to me by Mr. Hardie would be that we heard from the chemistry association and the fertilizer association that there is already legislation in place that governs the movement of toxic inhalation hazardous material, as well as other dangerous goods. They felt that this actually excluded them from using the long-haul interswitching remedy, which the two would need.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Do you have any further comments, Mr. Hardie?

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

Again, I would ask staff about the current provisions to deal with the TIH radioactive material or oversize traffic, etc. Would the current provisions that Ms. Block referenced stand as preventing the shippers of those goods from using long-haul interswitching?

[Helena Borges]

Yes. In the current provisions in the bill, toxic inhalants are excluded from using the long-haul interswitching.

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

No, I'm sorry. What I meant is that if Ms. Block's amendment carried and all of this were taken out of the bill, would the existing provisions prevent the shippers of these goods from using long-haul interswitching?

Mr. Langlois.

[Alain Langlois]

If we remove all the exceptions from the list in proposed subsection 129(3), then there is no impediment for TIH shippers in using the remedy to ship the goods.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question goes to the officials, but also to Ms. Block.

Ever since the beginning, when we talked about interswitching, it was about the economic advantage that a shipper can get. Now, we have just been told that all those who are subject to an exception would have no right to the competitive advantage. I wonder whether we are putting the problem in the right place.

In the transportation of hazardous materials, I understand that we do not want to increase the risk by doing this interswitching, but is that the real problem? If we are transporting hazardous materials, like petroleum in the DOT-111 cars, the problem is not about the interswitching but about the cars themselves. In my opinion, we should solve this problem in a way other than through this provision in the bill. I see no reason to deprive a grain producer, or a producer of anything else, of an economic advantage, if the problem is with the car in which products are transported.

Am I wrong?

[Helena Borges]

There is no ban on transporting products, as long as they are kept in appropriate containers. As you said, the provision in the bill provides an option for shippers who have access only to one carrier for their goods. That is the reason they are excluded. All hazardous material can already be transported by train.

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

Companies could also use trucks as another means of transportation, correct?

[Helena Borges]

Yes, and they can use boats too.

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

But that was not a real choice, according to a number of witnesses.

Thank you. That helps me to make up my mind.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

For the information of the committee, before we vote on the amendment, if CPC-11 is adopted, CPC-12, NDP-3, and CPC-13 cannot be moved, because this is effectively deleting that section.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Next we have amendment CPC-12. For the information of the committee, again we have like minds. Amendment NDP-3 is identical to CPC-12.

Ms. Block, would you like to speak to this?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Chair, I spoke to a prior amendment that I think was very similar in nature in terms of outlining the movement of traffic in the reasonable direction, so I won't take any more time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any comments on CPC-12?

Does the department want to add a comment?

Mr. Aubin.

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

Just to say once more that experience wins again. Ms. Block was faster than me, but I agree, both on the amendment and on the rationale.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll vote on CPC-12.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Now we have amendment CPC-13.

Ms. Block.