Transport Committee on Oct. 30th, 2023

[Rick McLellan]

Nothing adds value more than somebody who has been there and done that. I see that in my life in my experience in the railway. I just think that, if you want to get the best bang for your buck and to be able to be as efficient as you can, having experience plays an integral part in being successful.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Right, and you mentioned as well the different modes of transport and the fact that short-line railways take a number of trucks off the road. We've heard that with marine shipping as well, with up to 1,000 trucks off the road for every ship, for instance, that was impacted by the St. Lawrence Seaway strike.

You spoke a bit about publicly funded roadways versus the railways. I assume you're talking about private investment that has to keep those going. What model do you think should be used for short-line railways to bring about a perhaps closer equitable situation between the two?

[Rick McLellan]

I definitely think that there's opportunity for different types of programs out there. I see the 45G opportunity as something where we're corporately investing into the infrastructure, and there's some form of relief through a tax credit that allows us to invest more in the infrastructure.

As I talked about earlier, margins of a 90% operating ratio often leave you with very little to work with when safety is number one and when you're trying to get a whole bunch of other little things done that are important to your network for efficiency and you're limited on the investment side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl.

Thank you, Mr. McLellan.

Mr. Rogers, the floor is yours. You have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome to all of our witnesses who have presented today.

We've heard lots of talk and discussion around safety and security.

Mr. Campbell, I'll ask you about this first of all. We hear from the railway folks and other people the suggestion to separate “safety” and “security” and to issue definitions for each so that they're distinct. Would you agree with that approach? Is that the way to proceed?

[Bruce Campbell]

When I was doing research for my book, the safety and security system was not part of it, so I can't really speak to the security, except to say just off the top that I would ask questions about how security would limit public access for the standing committee, the general public and municipalities and so forth. That would be one of my questions, but I can't say that I'm knowledgeable about security systems.

Thank you very much.

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

Mr. McLellan, you referenced the viability for the short-lines and the sustainability. You mentioned that there was no dedicated funding for short lines. I guess you have to compete with everybody else in terms of funding that might be out there and provided by government—under the national trade corridors fund or whatever—and it leaves you competing for pieces of the pie.

[Rick McLellan]

Yes, it does, but when I think of it, there are different arms of funding that our government does participate in. Their particular corridor funding, such as the NTCF funding, is built for a certain type of funding program, and other funding programs deal with other types of requirements for the industry.

When it comes to regular track maintenance, to things that are important to our business and essential to our communities and the growth of our customers and things like that, there is not really a dedicated arm for allowing for those types of opportunities. There's definitely a need for funding, as I said in my initial response. We account for 20% of rail volume. We continue to grow year over year with our customers in providing them the service and growth opportunities that they well need, so those funding arms are key and important for our success.

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

Thank you for clarifying that for us.

The other point I wanted to make is that Bill C-33 would amend the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act to establish a regime of administrative monetary penalties and provide for fines and even the terms of imprisonment for failure to comply.

I'll ask you first, Mr. Campbell: Do you expect the proposed new regime of administrative monetary penalties to have a positive impact on compliance with the provisions of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act?

[Bruce Campbell]

My recollection was that they were first implemented post-Mégantic with the regulatory changes. Again, in the amendments to Bill C-33, anything that implies a penalty for a violation.... If you have the ability to oversee and determine that there's been a violation, then of course those monetary penalties are helpful.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. McLellan, do you want to, from the perspective of the railways, comment on that question?

[Rick McLellan]

I'll offer this comment, and I appreciate your allowing me that.

Penalties are penalties and the result of something that took place. I'm more so inclined to focus my attention on the regulatory obligations and ensuring that my safety management system is meeting all the needs of the rail service that I provide. I think due diligence and a rigorous process, lots of auditing and ensuring that the policy fits right and people understand it are important. More important than anything is that we know how to deal with it when it happens, because that avoids the accident from happening before it even starts.

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

Given that we're reviewing Bill C-33, of course, with the objective of making it a much better bill than currently exits, if you look at it from that perspective, would you have any specific suggestion on any particular part of the bill that you would like to, say, strengthen or improve? Maybe this is for Mr. Campbell and Mr. McLellan.

[Rick McLellan]

I'll simply say, as I think my colleagues have clearly stipulated...in terms of the opportunity with self-governance, and having the right people in the right place is a key element. I spoke to that earlier. I think the big opportunity for us is having the right people in the right place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rogers, and thank you, Mr. McLellan.

Ms. Boyer‑Villemaire, we are getting back to you and will test the sound quality once more. You have the floor and thank you for your patience.

[Ursule Boyer-Villemaire, Head, Climate Risks and Adaptation Team, Ouranos]

Good afternoon. Can you hear me properly?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes, it seems to be working.

You have five minutes for your opening statement. Go ahead please.

[Ursule Boyer-Villemaire]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon to everyone in the room. I am sorry that I can't be there with you. It's a pleasure and an honour for me to be speaking to you today about my perspective on climate change.

I work at Ouranos on climate change adaptation, and more specifically on the physical risks that will affect infrastructures. I have a PhD in environmental science and a working background in oceanography. I've also worked under several contracts on behalf of the ministère des Transports du Québec.

In the brief I sent to the clerk, there are details about the position I hold today. I will explain a few of the reasons for my opinion on climate change adaptation and on the serious and irreversible changes that are affecting the climate and oceans.

I'd like to remind you that combatting climate change requires a two-part strategy, to simultaneously reduce greenhouse gases and adapt to inevitable climate change. Such adaptation requires the deployment of a set of initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerabilities of critical infrastructures and strengthen the resilience of natural and human systems to the expected impacts. To strengthen this resilience, planning, preparation and prevention are becoming increasingly affordable compared to simply reacting to climate change consequences and waiting to see what happens.

In the transportation sector, we know that interim modality is important to reduce GHGs. However, it's also essential to build in the growing climate risks that amplify physical risks. Infrastructure management needs to be transparent and well-planned.

In the context of continued climate evolution, it's important to adopt a flexible approach that can adapt over time in keeping with the scale and pace of changes in climate conditions. If this approach is to lead to a well-informed decision, it needs to be based on robust research and development and on tools that incorporate risks and adaptation measures. In an approach of this kind, costs and benefits are also factored in, along with the positive indirect impacts of adaptation solutions, thereby creating opportunities for economic development.

It's important to act in a highly coordinated manner when decisions are being made by the various levels of government. The transportation sector is a cornerstone of resilient asset management. As one of the leading sectors in the country, it needs to follow best practices.

I will now describe five more specific recommendations with respect to the changes being proposed to the Canada Marine Act.

First of all, the concept of adaptation measures needs to be added in the preamble to the environmental regulations.

Enhanced synergy is also required between climate change plans and plans for the adaptation measures by using the superordinate expression “climate change”. These plans need to adopt common assumptions and there must be synergy between them. Combatting climate change does not simply amount to reducing greenhouse gases and the expression “climate change” is preferable because it is more generic.

I would also suggest that you look at the work being done by the task force on climate-related financial disclosure, which identifies several levels of adaptation measures.

For consistency's sake, it's important to acknowledge the regulatory changes being made for physical risk disclosure, in terms of placing an emphasis on resilient management of infrastructures with a view to establishing genuine climate and environmental leadership rather than simply searching for short-term solutions.

The final recommendation on climate change proposed in the Canada Marine Act is to more clearly illustrate the desired efficiency in multilevel coordination mechanisms by placing an emphasis on regional adaptation, which was promoted by Natural Resources Canada in its adaptation platform.

As for the changes proposed to the Railway Safety Act, I would first recommend more explicitly prescribing a knowledge of future climatic ups and downs in order to be able to do a more effective job of identifying them as physical climate risks.

Consideration must also be given to including the concept of a risk acceptability threshold and triggering sustainable transformation of certain rail lines to reduce risks equitably. There are areas that have a high level of exposure, and sometimes the solution is to move some lines to a risk-free zone. Of course, it would be impossible to do so across the country at the same time.

The final recommendation…

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Unfortunately, I must interrupt you. However, everything that you sent us by email will be added to your testimony today.

[Ursule Boyer-Villemaire]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you.

I'm now giving the floor to Mr. Barsalou‑Duval for six minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Ursule Boyer‑Villemaire, in the past, we heard from witnesses who reported anchorage problems, especially in western Canada, and more specifically in the Vancouver area. However, I must say that this also happens in my riding, where people have been complaining about anchorage, mainly in the vicinity of Contrecœur.

Based on what we've heard in the committee discussions, the assumption seems to be that the reason for these anchorages is often poor transportation planning or things like long queues in the port that require ships to drop anchor. Nevertheless, it can be particularly annoying when ships stop in front of people's homes or in sensitive aquatic environments.

I understand that you've conducted studies on this. Can you tell us anything about the impact that anchorage might have on these environments and on the people who live near the anchored ships?

[Ursule Boyer-Villemaire]

Even though there is no wake when anchored, it would definitely have an environmental impact known as sediment and seabed disturbance.

While on a number of oceanographic missions, I noticed freshwater or brackish water marine species that live on the seabed. Anchorages disrupt and destroy these habitats, which could harbour sensitive species. I would advise you to ask biologists to identify the species more accurately. Anchorage has a direct impact on seabed sediments.

As for the communities, landscapes can be transformed by the presence of these ships. One example is ships that were anchored for an extended period in the Beauharnois region, and which ended up becoming a blot on the landscape.

Before coming to any long-term decisions, it's important to recall that this mobility and temporary anchorage can certainly diminish the quality of life for residents. These should be factored into things like the impact matrix of cost-benefit analyses.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you.

At the same committee meeting, we also learned that in the West, certain ships were sometimes anchored for coal exports, which is prohibited at American terminals.

I'd like to know what you think about Canada becoming the American coal export hub because it can't be done from American ports. This is for coal used to produce electricity.

[Ursule Boyer-Villemaire]

I'm no expert in international trade or coal exports, but one thing is certain: among the options available for the electrification of transportation and the various adaptation platforms available, the use of non-renewable energies like coal is not anything that ought to be encouraged. At best, these could be considered temporary economic solutions while awaiting a more sustainable approach to this operational capacity and using these physical infrastructures for responsible trade.