Transport Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

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

Yes. It states that Bill C-49, in clause 29, be amended by deleting lines 28 and 29. This speaks to my first amendment on this section, which did not pass, and we would be supporting recommendations by a number of witnesses to remove the following:

for the movement of TIH (Toxic Inhalation Hazard) material;

I think they spoke more around the common carrier obligations of a railway when it comes to moving this kind of material, and they said that if they do not have access to the long-haul interswitching remedy as a result of the goods that are being carried, there's a thin edge to the wedge there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further comments on CPC-13?

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Our departmental officials suggested previously that for certain kinds of goods excluded from long-haul interswitching, it isn't because we don't like them. There are some specific reasons about their handling.

I'm wondering if you have comments with respect to this amendment so you could explain this in greater detail.

[Helena Borges]

Yes. This is one of those I mentioned, actually: TIH and nuclear materials. Because they require special handling, there are liability considerations that go into the setting of the rate and the tariff for the movement of those goods. If you have the good transferred from one railway to another railway, the mechanism for attributing those liability considerations becomes very complicated. That's why they were excluded. It's for that reason: because they do get into a conflict between what one railway may do and what the other railway was contracted to do.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Is there nothing limiting their access to other remedies?

[Helena Borges]

No, not at all. In fact, I think a lot of these shippers have access to the other remedies in the act, such as the level of service provisions, final offer arbitration, and all the other elements that are already in the legislation.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Block.

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

Just to make a point, uranium is not transported by rail because the rail lines have made it far too expensive an option. For those companies that need to transport uranium, it's transported by truck.

They are not meeting their common carrier obligations. They have gotten around it by making it far too expensive for uranium to be transported by rail, so it's transported by truck. That's the remedy that's available to our uranium producers right now in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further comments on CPC-13?

(Amendment negatived)

Next we have amendment LIB-2.

Mr. Hardie.

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

This amendment seeks to address something that came up in the examination of the long-haul interchange scheme that was put forward. It concerns the exclusion corridors and the limitations on shippers that were outside those exclusion corridors and needed access. The exclusion corridors themselves, as we understand, do provide ample competition for shippers, because there are at least two railways operating in those corridors, and in many cases more.

In order to open up long-haul interswitching to more places in the country, the places that need it, I'm proposing adding after line 42 on page 23 the following:

(4) For the purpose of paragraph (3)(b), an interchange located in the metropolitan area of Montreal is deemed to be outside the Quebec-Windsor corridor for a shipper who has access to the lines of only one class 1 rail carrier at the point of origin of the movement of its traffic at a point north of the Quebec-Windsor corridor in the Province of Quebec if the nearest interchange in Canada is located in the Quebec-Windsor corridor.

The practical outcome of this would be to open up long-haul interswitching and, obviously, competitive rates in communities in northern Quebec, such as Chibougamau, Val-d'Or, and Lac-Saint-Jean.

Similarly, I'm proposing the following:

(5) For the purpose of paragraph (3)(b), an interchange located in the City of Kamloops is deemed to be outside the Vancouver-Kamloops corridor for a shipper who has access to the lines of only one class 1 rail carrier at the point of origin of the movement of its traffic at a point north or southeast of the Vancouver-Kamloops corridor in the Province of British Columbia if the nearest interchange in Canada is located in the Vancouver-Kamloops corridor.

Again, this would open up long-haul interswitching competition, this time for communities in southern B.C. in the Columbia-Kootenay area, as well as north, up through Blue River, north of Kamloops, and all the way to Prince George and that area.

I believe, Madam Chair, that this addresses some limiting impacts of those exclusion zones and, per my earlier comments, certainly opens up the ability for shippers of other commodities in the mining sector and the forestry sector to have access to competitive rates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Could the department comment on amendment LIB-2?

[Helena Borges]

Thank you.

The reason we excluded interchanges in those two corridors was simply because of the amount of traffic that moves in those corridors. The interchange points in those corridors normally offer competition, but we recognize the point you made about the captive shippers, particularly in northern Quebec and northern B.C., and in fact in northern and southern Alberta as well, which is that where they have access to only one railway, the nearest interchange point for some of them happens to be the point inside that corridor.

For example, in British Columbia, the interchange point is Kamloops. The other interchange points are further south. In fact, with the way we worded it in the bill, they would be precluded from interchanging traffic at that point. I think giving them access to Kamloops will enable a lot of those shippers in those remote area to have access to a proper interchange.

I think the same point applies to the Quebec-Windsor corridor for the traffic in northern Quebec, because they have access to only one railway. In the corridor, the logical interchange point would be Montreal, because there would be no other in-between interchange point. I think the member is correct: this would give them the opportunity to interchange at those two locations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

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

I was just wondering about this. What I've read here is our take as to how this could be worded. Would departmental officials potentially have the wording that would fit appropriately into the bill?

[Helena Borges]

I think we would. In particular, I think the wording for Quebec is a little easier, in that we can just focus on the north, but on the wording for the Vancouver-Kamloops area, the way the corridor is defined right now, in the definition section in the bill, it's really from Kamloops west.

If we're going to make Kamloops the interchange point, it would be better to exclude it from the definition and start the corridor just west of Kamloops. We can change the longitudinal definition in the bill. Right now, I think it's 120.25°. We would move that further west to the nearest point, which is probably Ashcroft, British Columbia. They have an interchange there, which would be at 121.21° longitude. That's a simpler change to make.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Are there any further comments?

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

I would just say that I am really thankful for the fact that members opposite heard some of the concerns of our captive shippers in northern British Columbia and northern Quebec and managed to find a way to amend this section.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Good.

(Amendment agreed to)

On amendment NDP-4, Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The intent of this amendment is to refer to subsections 127(1) and 127(2), which, under the heading “Interswitching”, describe a process under which all interested parties can ask the agency to order an interchange and under which the agency has the power to require a rail carrier to provide facilities suitable for interswitching at interchanges.

We think that the same should apply both to “interswitching” and “long-haul interswitching“. We are proposing this amendment in the interests of consistency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any discussion on NDP-4?

Mr. Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

On this one, Monsieur Aubin, I had trouble understanding what it's getting at. I appreciate your introduction.

I wonder if the department can add some clarity as to the impact this would have. I may come back to Monsieur Aubin because I'm still a little foggy on what they are trying to achieve here, but if the department could offer its comments to begin with, that would help clarify things in my mind.

[Marcia Jones, Director, Rail Policy Analysis and Legislative Initiatives, Department of Transport]

I can respond to that and clarify a couple of the points.

To be clear, the LHI remedy is designed so that short-line rail carriers are not subject to an LHI order, so if this amendment is aimed at subjecting short-line rail carriers to interswitching or long-haul interswitching provisions, that was a deliberate design of the remedy. Of course, care was taken in designing the LHI remedy so that shippers on short-lines are able to access LHI at the point of connection with the class I railway.

In terms of what provisions apply for the movement of traffic within a 30-kilometre radius, the interswitching provisions will continue to apply.

I hope that addresses your questions.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm curious. Was it short-lines that you were trying to get at with the proposed amendment?