Transport Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2017

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

I will follow up with one comment. This amendment was put forward by the Western Canadian Shippers' Coalition, so it wasn't strictly one commodity that was raising concerns. The province of British Columbia was included in this amendment, I think, to address some of the concerns that are also contained within the long-haul interswitching, which would be the exclusion zones.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin.

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

In the testimony we heard during the week, the value—if I may call it that—of the 160 km distance was clearly established by a good number of witnesses. It is not my intention to discuss it again, so I am inclined to support the proposed amendment.

I just have one question. The amendment as proposed specifies Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I would just like to know why the 30 km distance stipulated in the act is maintained in the other provinces.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Did you want to respond to that, or would the department like to comment on Mr. Aubin's suggestion?

Ms. Block.

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

I would simply indicate that this was the Western Canadian Shippers Coalition putting this forward, so they may not have thought they could speak for folks in the east.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Ms. Borges.

[Helena Borges]

It is a good question. The reason we did not renew that provision in the act really is because it applies to four provinces only, and the rest of Canada does not benefit from it. The new proposal that we are presenting in the bill, long-haul interswitching, covers the entire country and longer distances. It includes all the basic products that have to be transported from one place to another. We believe that the new proposal is better than extended interswitching.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin.

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

My next question goes to Ms. Block.

In your opinion, would the idea of a 160-kilometre distance work for the whole country? Or are you set on the proposal keeping a distance of 160 kilometre for four provinces and a distance of 30 kilometres for the others?

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

If you were proposing an amendment to expand it across the country, I would see that as a friendly subamendment.

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

So I propose a friendly subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It needs to be worded in legal language for the legislative clerk, and it needs to be in writing. We could defer this.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

It doesn't need to be in writing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If it's really simple, Mr. Aubin, the clerk says he can—

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

It is really simple. It seems to me to be enough to put a period after the word “interswitching”. Then, by removing the names of the four provinces listed, the understanding would be that it would apply to them all. If the rest of the amendment were dropped, all provinces would be included.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr Fraser.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I'm curious as to the department's view on this. It strikes me that when the interswitching of 160 kilometres was developed, there was serious consideration about how much of the grain that needed to be moved was within 160 kilometres of an interchange point. I don't know what the infrastructure is like in northern Ontario, for example, and whether 160 kilometres makes sense at all. I assume, given the consultation process that went on with the minister, towards which many of the witnesses were very complimentary, that the figure he landed on for long-haul interswitching of 1,200 is no coincidence.

Can you elaborate on whether 160 kilometres is a workable distance, given our geography and infrastructure across Canada in different regions?

[Helena Borges]

We believe that the provision on long-haul interswitching is really aimed at captive shippers who are further away, who don't have close proximity to an interchange. Thus 165, 175, or 200 kilometres wouldn't do anything for them, and that's why the bill has the figure of 1,200 or 50% of the total distance. That is going to be of better value for many of the shippers across the country who only have the opportunity to use one railway, to give them a competitive alternative at the interswitch point.

The extended interswitching that was in the previous act was really meant for very short moves, and that was because the rates were at a cost base. For the LHI, long-haul interswitching, they are not at a cost base; they are based on comparable rate. We're thus talking about two very different mechanisms, but the real objective is to provide shippers who don't have competitive alternatives with a competitive alternative through the long-haul interswitching.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

I have a suggestion for the committee.

In order to give Mr. Aubin a bit of time to sort out just how he would like to make that friendly subamendment, should we allow clause 26 to stand for a short period of time to give Mr. Aubin an opportunity to ensure that his subamendment is prepared? Is that all right?

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

With all respect, Madam Chair, I proposed a very simple, friendly subamendment but I have had no reaction. If my colleagues agree with the proposal, we can move forward because there would be nothing to rewrite, there would just be something to remove.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Let's say that the clerk is not clear on exactly what it is you wanted to achieve.

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

I too am not clear what the actual statement would be, how it would read. If I had it in front of me....

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

I could read it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Let's just allow clause 26 to stand.