Transport Committee on May 5th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 16 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to standing order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, January 31, 2022, the committee is meeting to study the state of Canada's supply chain. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order adopted on Thursday, November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room or remotely using the Zoom application.

Per the directive of the Board of Internal Economy on March 10, 2022, all those attending the meeting in person must wear a mask, except for members who are at their place during proceedings.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of our witnesses as well as the members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike and please mute yourself when you are done speaking.

Interpretation is available for those on Zoom. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

Colleagues, appearing before committee today, we have, from the Chamber of Shipping, Robert Lewis-Manning, president; from Food and Beverage Canada, Kathleen Sullivan, chief executive officer; from the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, Larissa Fenn, director, public affairs and corporate secretary; and from the National Cattle Feeders' Association, James Bekkering, chair of the board, and Janice Tranberg, president and chief executive officer. From the Western Grain Elevator Association, we have Tyler Bjornson, consultant.

We hope to also be joined very soon by the Canadian Ferry Association and Serge Buy, chief executive officer, as well as the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and Dennis A. Darby, president and chief executive officer.

We're going to begin today's opening remarks with the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority.

Ms. Fenn, you have the floor. I give you five minutes.

[Larissa Fenn, Director, Public Affairs and Corporate Secretary, Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's my pleasure to be here today to discuss actions to build sustainable, resilient supply chains in Canada.

The Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, or HOPA Ports, is the largest integrated port network on the Great Lakes, with ports and marine facilities in Hamilton, Oshawa and Niagara. We own or manage more than 1,000 acres of industrial port property, and the cargo we handle is connected to 40,000 jobs in Ontario.

In the Great Lakes region, supply chain resilience boils down to capacity and innovation. As we've seen in Hamilton and in Oshawa, there is a tremendous demand for transportation-intensive industrial land, and we are activating more valuable industrial spaces in the Niagara region to attract new jobs and investment. In all of these spaces, we ensure that businesses that locate at the port have a supportive partner and access to efficient connected multimodal transportation services.

One tool that's been extraordinarily effective in capacity building and industrial renewal is the national trade corridors fund, NCTF, which is a successful and well-administered program. Now, more than ever, the NTCF can support cost-effective, energy-efficient supply chains that feed Canada's economic recovery. Let me give you an example of the impacts we can deliver with the help of this program.

In 2017, HOPA started work on its Westport redevelopment project in Hamilton, upgrading port facilities and infrastructure at one of the oldest areas of the port lands. The project included investments of just over $17 million through the NTCF, which was more than matched by HOPA, in new docks, rail extensions, reconfigured cargo handling areas and new warehousing. Now complete, the project has leveraged more than $77 million of private sector investment, the creation of two new development parcels on pier 15, a 105% increase in employment within the zone, a 27% increase in railcar volumes and more cargo being handled through the port, including 100% more steel and 500% more sugar than in 2017.

As we look to other locations around the Golden Horseshoe, we have identified new, shovel-ready infrastructure improvements that would deliver an immediate impact for our local economies, while also enhancing Canada's supply chains.

It's good to look around and see so much opportunity but, like other ports, HOPA is constrained by its borrowing limit and ability to invest in new infrastructure. Ports require a greater ability to raise funds on our own, based on market criteria. I know you've heard this message from other Canada port authorities. HOPA is feeling it too.

We also recommend that ports be empowered to pursue our trade facilitation mandate through a wider definition of multimodal activities that would make it easier to acquire land and operate logistics facilities, inland ports and other supply chain uses. Finally, HOPA, along with our port colleagues, is positioned to help carry forward as champions of Canada's climate reduction goals. As such, we recommend that ports be eligible for federal programs dedicated to decarbonization, innovation and fuels of the future.

The other key to ensuring resilient supply chains is innovation. Here, I want to focus on two aspects: the increasing viability of short sea shipping on the Great Lakes and the role of data in helping us optimize our transportation choices at a system level.

Ontario's Golden Horseshoe is one of the fastest growing regions in North America. It also suffers from some of North America's worst road congestion, costing the economy an estimated $6 billion per year. Coupled with the urgent need to reduce the carbon footprint of transportation, these factors are converging to provide the push necessary to move more traffic to the marine mode.

As you know, there is very little large-scale marine shipping container traffic into the Great Lakes past Montreal, where containers are typically offloaded from vessels and put onto trucks. There are more than 10,000 trucks a day, in fact, rolling down the 401, one of Canada's busiest highways.

Meanwhile, the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway system has capacity to spare, and the market is testing the waters. Just this past summer, our partner in Hamilton trialled a new container service between Montreal and Hamilton. This introduction of new modal choices can help us change goods movement at a system level, which is the scale necessary to make a real impact on GHGs and congestion.

One of the other keys to unlocking this potential is the use of data to uncover which cargo flows might be candidates for greater use of the marine mode. Supported by Transport Canada, HOPA is currently working on a data analysis project that looks at flows between southern Ontario and the U.S. midwest. Projects like this are essential first steps in understanding how new modal choices can transform transportation in the Great Lakes region.

Prior to the pandemic, we were pleased to host members of this parliamentary committee on a tour of the port of Hamilton, and we appreciated the committee's recommendation to establish a formal trade corridor in the Hamilton-Niagara region. The Great Lakes have felt supply chain challenges, but also hold immense potential opportunity. HOPA is always ready to do its part sustainably and in partnership with its port communities.

We look forward to working with you for a resilient and prosperous Canada that makes the most of its transportation infrastructure.

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Director Fenn.

Next, from the National Cattle Feeders' Association, we have Chairperson Bekkering.

Mr. Bekkering, the floor is yours, you have five minutes.

[James Bekkering, Chair of the Board, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, I am the chair of the National Cattle Feeders' Association, and a feedlot owner in Taber, Alberta. I'm joined by the president and CEO of the National Cattle Feeders'.

NCFA was established in 2007 as a unified voice for Canadian cattle feeders. The focus of NCFA is sustainable growth and profitability, improved competitiveness and industry leadership and partnership.

Agricultural supply chains are under tremendous pressure, negatively impacting national food security. In the beef industry, much of the current stress stems from two challenges: securing critical farm inputs, especially feed, and keeping cattle and beef products moving through the supply chain.

Last year's drought in western Canada was unprecedented, causing significant shortages of livestock feed and resulting in a surge of feed imports from the U.S. This increased feed demand, along with the fires and floods in B.C., exposed a multitude of weaknesses in our transportation systems. To date, dry, cold conditions in parts of western Canada are hampering the crop outlook, which may result in ongoing pressure on the transportation system.

Additionally, this year has been plagued with black swan events from protests at the Canada-U.S. border stopping the movement of beef and cattle, to labour stoppages at CP Rail, to an increased focus on feeding a global population due to the war in Ukraine, adding further stress to the livestock supply chain.

Using rail as an example, western Canada mainly relies on one company, CP Rail. In Alberta, at the time of the CP Rail strike, there was only a one- to two-week supply of feed grain available, creating grave concern about how we would feed our animals. Thankfully, the strike did not last long, but it brought forward the extreme reliance we have on CP Rail. While we recognize the right of Canadians to strike, when rail transportation is a monopoly and animal welfare is on the line, the Government of Canada must declare rail an essential service.

It's also important to understand the unique nature of live animal transportation. Cattle move across the U.S.-Canada border daily, with young cattle coming from the U.S. to supply our farms and finished cattle being exported to the U.S. for processing. Within Canada, truck drivers are needed to move cattle to and from farms and processing plants, for the removal of manure and for the transport of feed and supplies. These drivers require specialized training to transport livestock as animal welfare is of the utmost importance. Drivers must adhere to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's animal transport regulations, as well as safe driver regulations with respect to electronic logging devices, ELDs.

Unfortunately, these two regulations were not developed by the government in consideration of each other, nor do they recognize the unique needs of livestock transport. The two sets of regulations do not align the mandated breaks for the drivers and the available facilities for the mandated breaks for the livestock. The regulations do not allow for flexibility that would prioritize animal welfare, and the U.S. regulations do.

[Janice Tranberg, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Cattle Feeders' Association]

On top of these issues are the rising costs of transportation. The cost for feed is at the highest level in history, and that's without factoring in increased transportation costs. The rising cost of fuel, in combination with the current price on carbon at $50 per tonne, means trucking is no longer a viable option in some areas, and this will only worsen as rates move to $170 per tonne. Finally, the rural nature of the industry requires proper maintenance of rural roads and bridges, yet your local municipalities struggle to find funding. The combined impact of all these challenges manifests in terms of higher production costs, lost production, lost sales, lower incomes, less investment and overall a less competitive industry.

We appreciate the transport committee looking into supply chain issues. To ensure that Canada's beef sector remains competitive, we offer the following recommendations. Railway service in the west operates as a monopoly, with no alternative, and railway should be designated as an essential service. Regulations like those for ELDs need to accommodate the unique circumstances of livestock and Canada's ELD regulations need to be increased so we're not at a competitive disadvantage to the U.S. Immediate attention needs to be given to the growing shortage of drivers in the trucking industry, with particular notice of the specialized needs of the livestock sector. The rising costs of transportation and increased levels of taxation need to be considered so the government does not put its industry at a competitive disadvantage. Beyond the focus of rural broadband, agriculture requires essential investments in hard economic assets, such as roads, bridges, local transportation networks and improved rail transfer and storage facilities and infrastructure.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Tranberg.

Next, we have Mr. Tyler Bjornson from the Western Grain Elevator Association, .

Mr. Bjornson, you have five minutes.

[Tyler Bjornson, Consultant, Western Grain Elevator Association]

Thank you for the introduction, Mr. Chairman.

Canada's bulk grain shipments make up roughly 20% of total railway volume and revenue each year, making WGEA members some of the largest single users of Canada's railways and ports.

For decades, our industry has faced challenges in moving grain products to market. The committee will know that the Canada Transportation Act was amended in 2018. Parliament, at that time, made three changes to the act that were supposed to be helpful to shippers to address the monopoly-style imbalance of power that we faced.

Those included replacing extended interswitching with long-haul interswitching, allowing for reciprocal penalties in service-level agreements, and providing the Canadian Transportation Agency with own motion investigative powers. Since these measures were brought in, not one application for long-haul interswitching has been made, none of the WGEA members have been able to negotiate a railway service agreement with true reciprocal penalties, and the own motion power of the agency has failed to address very obvious service problems.

Grain shippers have had very poor service in 2022, with weekly car order fulfillment routinely less than half of what was required. In the railway grain plans, CN indicated it would provide 5,350 cars each week in winter months, while CP said it would provide 4,350 cars. Unfortunately, Canada's farmers faced one of the worst droughts on record, and total production was 35% lower this year.

As a result, Canada's grain shippers required a lot fewer railcars than planned. For example, in the week of February 13, grain shippers ordered 1,204 cars from CN, but only received 550, or 44% of what we ordered, even though we asked for only 1,204 cars, rather than the planned 5,350. CP is a similar story, and the month of January was actually much worse. The railways provided incredibly poor service in the critical winter months this year despite a major drought and dramatically lower demand.

None of the new remedies from 2018 resulted in any meaningful change. The current measures in the act are fundamentally flawed. They do not allow shippers to hold railways accountable for their service performance on a day-to-day basis. If we want to change behaviour, it has to be done through the railways' pocketbook; otherwise, there is no proper incentive to deliver. That could include bringing back extended interswitching, and making reciprocal penalties automatic. It could include holding the railways accountable to the numbers from their annual grain plans, and it could go so far as to introduce joint line running rights.

I would like to provide a couple of final remarks on two other interrelated concerns.

For more than a decade, a strike or a lockout has occurred, or been threatened, every year at one or both national railways. On each occasion, Canada's food processors and international customers are told that they may not receive the grain they need to make staple food products. They are then left scrambling to determine how they'll manage their operations, and are forced to consider alternative, non-Canadian, sources of grain. This damages Canada's reputation.

Providing a framework for the fair and orderly resolution of labour disputes between railways and their unions through binding arbitration, thereby avoiding the needless harm from rail service interruption, has unquestionable merit, particularly if both parties truly believe their negotiating positions to be reasonable.

Concerns that such an approach threatens the integrity of labour relations fail to take into account the unique market dynamics of a single carrier, monopoly rail service, and are far outweighed by the harm caused to the Canadian economy by incessant railway disruptions.

The grain sector is part of a growing chorus of business groups across Canada urging the federal government to designate rail as an essential service.

Finally, the WGEA believes that the governance of Canada's port authorities requires an overhaul. These entities are legal monopolies with sole decision-making power over aspects of strategic importance to Canada's marine gateways and the economies they serve. Governments normally put in checks and balances where this imbalance of power may lead to questionable outcomes.

Proper checks and balances do not exist today. In some cases, this has led to conflicts of interest, exorbitant rent and fee increases, lease renewal issues, encroachment on jurisdiction by municipalities and provinces, and questionable infrastructure-setting priorities at times.

We would implore this committee to include the need for amendments to the Canada Marine Act to address these concerns.

Thank you for your time. I would be pleased to answer any questions that committee members may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bjornson.

Next and finally, we have Mr. Dennis A. Darby from the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters.

Mr. Darby, the floor is yours. You have five minutes.

[Dennis Darby, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters]

Thank you and good afternoon.

It is my pleasure to be here on behalf of Canada’s 90,000 manufacturers and exporters and our association's 2,500 direct members to discuss the state of our supply chain.

Just to recap, Canada's manufacturing industry represents about 10% of our GDP and about two-thirds of our value-added exports. It employs about 1.7 million people in well-paying jobs across Canada. Our association represents companies of all sizes from all regions and all industrial sectors.

CME has long been an advocate for addressing manufacturers’ supply chain problems. We were at Minister Alghabra’s supply chain summit and we continue to engage across Canada. We are very concerned about the state of Canada’s supply chains, particularly manufacturing supply chains.

In March, we conducted a survey of manufacturers on their problems related to the supply chains. It confirmed what we've been hearing on the ground for months, which is that nine out of 10 manufacturers are encountering supply chain issues, with 60% rating them as severe or major.

As a result, they've lost about $10.5 billion in sales through delays and lost contracts. Eight out of 10 have been forced to increase their prices. Less than 20% have planned on moving their sourcing into Canada in response to disruptions because there are no Canadian suppliers. About 44% said there are no Canadian suppliers. Because of a lack of availability and cost of labour, just 28% of manufacturers said they would likely relocate or even scale up production in Canada to mitigate supply chains. Finally, most manufacturers across Canada think that these disruptions will not end until some time in 2023 or even as late as 2024.

To sum up, the supply chain crisis touches every part of manufacturing, all kinds of products, all kinds of materials and all kinds of ingredients. There's no end in sight. Simply put, it's holding back our recovery and the recovery of the whole economy.

We have some ideas. We know that some of Canada's supply chain problems are beyond our control. We can't magically end everything that happened as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We can't end China's zero-COVID policies, which are driving the disruptions to the supply chains over and over again.

That said, most of these are things I mentioned about the survey we can probably address ourselves. I know the federal government and the committee understand this, but we need to take more action to address it.

The supply chain summit that was convened in January as a forum for stakeholders was a great step, but we need action. Here are some solutions that we can suggest.

First, in the short term, we need to provide assistance to manufacturing companies that are still feeling these supply chain disruptions. It doesn't get a lot of press, but because our manufacturing companies are, on average, smaller than our global peers, we are lower on the priority list when it comes to getting short supply parts like microchips. We need to correct for this uniquely Canadian problem by bridging manufacturers through these shortages.

Second, we really have to work on Buy America and other protectionist actions. We know our government and our diplomatic core are hard at work mitigating the protectionist tendencies of the current administration in the U.S. We have to keep up the pressure, as business and government together. We need to approach this as “buy North America”, not Buy America. It's one way for us to continue to be part of its supply chain and help shorten its supply chain.

Third, we have to plug our labour shortages through immigration. Pandemic backlogs really have to be addressed. We encourage the government to dedicate every resource it can to do it. In time, we need to aggressively increase our intake targets to at least 500,000 people per year in the economic stream alone because we need those workers. There are shortages in every aspect of our economy, but certainly in manufacturing.

In the long term, we think we need to have a manufacturing strategy for Canada that maps out our supply chains. As the pandemic showed when manufacturers retooled their operations to produce PPE, we have a very limited knowledge of our own supply chains in Canada. The government is best suited to undertake this mapping project, so we can identify and remedy the weaknesses we have.

We must make sure, as others have said much more eloquently than I, that our transportation infrastructure is protected from disruptions. Blockades and labour disruptions do massive damage to the manufacturing supply chains, but more importantly, they tarnish our reputation abroad, especially with our biggest trading partner. Canada loses every time these happen. These are goals that we're scoring on our own net.

We need to speed up investments in critical trade infrastructure projects, like the ports, the rail and the borders. We have to better leverage government procurement in the areas to support these supply chains. Budget 2022 announced some positive steps. However, we're going to need to spend more aggressively if we're going to catch up with our peers.

Fourth, we need to provide more support to help manufacturers accelerate the adoption of automation technologies. Why am I saying that? By increasing our competitiveness and our scale we can produce more products here and reduce our reliance on foreign suppliers.

In conclusion, we're very worried about the state of the supply chain. The scale of the problem our industry faces requires immediate and bold action. We're committed on behalf of our members to work with the government, and I believe the solutions are a good place to start.

Thank you for allowing us to speak here today and for inviting us to be part of this really important study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, President and CEO Darby.

I would like to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before our committee today.

To kick off our questioning, we have Ms. Marilyn Gladu.

Ms. Gladu, the floor is yours for six minutes.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to all of the witnesses, especially those who have returned again because of our vote disruption the last time.

We've heard a lot of testimony talking about how labour shortages, missing infrastructure or burdensome or ineffective regulations are really impacting both the supply chain and Canada's competitiveness.

I'm going to ask a bunch of you to comment on how specifically Canada's competitiveness is being impacted in your area by these things. I will start with Ms. Sullivan.

[Kathleen Sullivan, Chief Executive Officer, Food and Beverage Canada]

Thanks very much. It's a pleasure to be back with you again this week.

In the food and beverage manufacturing sector, which I represent, we have been significantly impacted by the range of issues that you just listed.

Labour alone, which is a topic that we've been seized of for the past six months, has had, I would say, a devastating impact on the food and beverage manufacturing sector. A survey in January showed that food and beverage manufacturers were running at a structural deficit of about 20% of their workforce and that, in turn, had reduced food production by about 20%. Normally we're trying to increase production, increase export and increase our productivity. What we've seen throughout the pandemic is a reduction in our output.

Equally I would say that infrastructure issues have hit us particularly hard over the last number of months. I include in the infrastructure issues the border closures that took place with the various blockades.

Certainly the B.C. flooding situation was a little bit of a microcosm, if you will, that demonstrated for all of us how dependent we are. We often talk about foreign markets closing and challenges there, but I think we are also seeing that we are very much at risk within Canadian borders when we have infrastructure disruptions, and we were quite challenged.

We saw in some cases freight costs for food products increase by sixfold for trucking coming out of B.C. during the B.C. flood situation, and we even had at least one case of a food company that had to decline to ship food into central Canada from B.C. because the food costs were so high. Imagine being a country like Canada where transportation costs have reached a point—in this case due to natural disaster—where we can't afford to ship food. I think that is a really stunning situation that we really need to reflect on as an example of how extreme some of these situations can become.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Is the carbon tax making the situation worse?

[Kathleen Sullivan]

One of the challenges we have as an industry, and I suspect a lot of manufacturing sectors are the same, is that we have 8,000 facilities across the country, and the vast majority of them are small and mid-size. Most companies really struggle to even keep up with what the evolutions are in different regulations.

Everybody wants to do the right thing. I think everybody understands that contributing to a reduction in carbon emissions and contributing to sustainability in general are important. What we haven't done particularly well is help companies to adopt those measures and enable them to do that. In many cases, companies are, in fact, struggling with how they adapt their businesses to accommodate all of these new regulations and requirements that are coming through.

I will just say that we see the same thing on plastics and packaging. Companies really do want to move to sustainable packaging, but they're struggling because they don't manufacture the packaging themselves, and, as you well know, garbage collection and recycling are provincial and, at some points, municipal, and across the country we simply don't have the infrastructure in place to even accommodate the collection of some of these more sustainable packaging options.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

I'm going to go to the beef industry and ask the same question. What are the impacts to you from the things I've mentioned?

[James Bekkering]

I will speak first, and if Janice wants to add, she can. When we talk about the regulation side of things—and we did bring this up—there's the disconnect between the transport regulations and the CFIA regulations. One of the disappointing aspects, especially on the CFIA regulations, is that they changed the regulations before the science was proven, and they're under current.... They were doing studies at the time, and they changed the regulations for animal transport. When they changed that, they didn't take into consideration the transport regulations inside of that. The two regulations are in conflict with each other. That's part of the regulation side of the things that has been difficult inside the beef industry.

Maybe Janice can add to that.

[Janice Tranberg]

Yes. Thank you, James. I think you've hit on it really well.

The only other thing I would add is that, as we identified, it's the layering-on effect. We're very short of drivers. In particular, there are complications in getting drivers in rural locations, and specialized for livestock. We're short of labour. Gas prices are going up. The carbon tax is adding on to that. There are changed regulations. Really, it's that layering effect that's having the complications.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Very good.

I have a question for the port of Hamilton. We heard testimony that we need to have more international ports across Canada for resiliency. Would the Hamilton port be something that you think would fit into a model of more international ports?

[Larissa Fenn]

Absolutely. We are, of course, very internationally oriented. A good portion of our commodities move overseas. Whether it be inbound steel or other materials, or outbound Canadian grain exported primarily to Europe, we definitely see the need for the Great Lakes to be considered when a—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm sorry. Thank you very much, Ms. Fenn.

Ms. Gladu, perhaps you can follow up in the next round.

Mr. Rogers, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thanks, Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses today.

We've been doing these meetings for a period of time now. We've heard from many witnesses who have provided some great information. There has been a smattering of views and opinions about supply chain issues.

With regard to all the issues and disruptions we've had in the recent years, I want to ask you this. I'll probably start with Mr. Darby, and if any other witnesses would like to make a comment, I'd be pleased to hear about their particular situation. So far a number of things have been identified: backlogs because of the pandemic; blockades; extreme weather events; and labour disputes, which a couple of witnesses have referred to. Which ones have been most significant for your particular organization, and why?

I'll start with you, Mr. Darby. If others would like to chime in on that question as well, they'd be quite welcome to do so.

[Dennis Darby]

I'd like to say that I have a very simple answer to that complex question, sir, but I'll try. Across the broad range of manufacturers, clearly those related to the pandemic that slowed global movement and increased costs by tenfold, in some cases, have been the most significant to the manufacturing sector across the last two years. But I must say that the blockades that happened in the last few months, and other stoppages like the rail work stoppages, affected trade with the U.S. and our manufacturers in the U.S. most significantly.

As you probably know, about 75% of what we trade is with the U.S. When those corridors are shut down, it gets noticed immediately. Plants start to turn down, whether it's in making food or automobiles or aerospace.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you.

Maybe we could go to Mr. Manning.

[Robert Lewis-Manning, President, Chamber of Shipping]

Thank you.

I'll take a slightly different perspective. From a marine carrier perspective, it's actually the loss of the supply chain to climate change events. It's significant, because it has long-term consequences for the reputation of the resiliency of our supply chain. Yes, there have been lots of other things that have had huge impacts, but that one could be a lasting impact if we don't tackle it aggressively.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Thank you very much.

Would anyone else like to chime in on that question?