Thank you, Mr. Chair.
CN, the Canadian National Railway Company, would like to thank the committee for its invitation to appear today in connection with Bill C‑33, which amends various legislative provisions, including the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Marine Act.
As the operator of a railway which links the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean within Canada, and to the Gulf of Mexico in the United States, we are pleased to be able to provide our comments on this bill.
Generally speaking, we encourage the government to show restraint and to intervene in the transportation sector only where a rigorous analysis has shown that there is a problem that business interests can't resolve, and only when absolutely necessary to deal with that specific problem. It should also factor in the impact that one or more interventions may have on the whole supply chain. Every legislative intervention needs to look at the major investments required to maintain safe and effective railway services that meet the legislative requirements for the services we need to provide to all our customers.
With respect to the amendments to the Railway Safety Act, we understand the government's desire to provide a better framework for railway safety. I would underscore the fact that Canadian railways have for many years, of their own volition, established protocols to prevent the types of events covered by the bill and to respond to such events. We therefore view this proposal favourably.
I would nevertheless like once again to repeat the suggestion that the words “security” and “safety” be redefined separately rather than combined in a single concept, as Bill C‑33 proposes. This failure to make a distinction could lead to unnecessary debates over the scope of implementation or monitoring measures.
We have also taken note of Transport Canada's intention to add prohibitions with respect to the alteration, damage and description of railway facilities, in addition to dangerous behaviour at such facilities. These would constitute additional legal grounds enabling us to respond where necessary.
The Canada Marine Act requires ports under its jurisdiction to manage their affairs on a commercial basis to maximize the efficiency of their operations and support the Canadian economy. We understand that Bill C‑33 will not change this guiding principle, and we appreciate that this is the case.
There is no doubt that Canadian ports are critical infrastructure for our national supply chain. Their efficiency defines the throughput of that supply chain and goes directly to the bottom line of the Canadian economy. From our perspective, Canadian ports have delivered in a manner consistent with their mandate under the current structure.
We support the provisions of the bill that will declare port terminals to be to the general advantage of Canada. This will provide greater certainty with respect to federal jurisdiction over these entities so that data can be collected and used to increase port efficiencies. To maximize the existing available capacity, better coordination between port terminal operators, port users, railways and other supply chain participants through the exchange of real time information is needed. This provision is a step in the right direction.
Even though Bill C‑33 does not deal with this question directly, we would like to comment on an important point for which there is a broad consensus: the need for investments in the Canadian supply chain.
A recent report assessed that Canada needs, in the next 50 years, investments of $4.4 trillion in marine and transportation infrastructure to meet growth in population and in GDP. This conclusion is consistent with the consensus that there is an opportunity for all participants in the supply chain and various levels of government to work together towards a collective goal. We have made suggestions to the government to put this option in motion, starting with fiscal measures that would encourage investments by all participants in the supply chain. We reiterate this imperative today. We believe that this measure would encourage grain terminals in Vancouver, for example, to prioritize infrastructure that enables the loading of grain ships in the rain, an operation currently not efficiently possible at our country's busiest port but available just south of the border, which limits the capacity of the Canadian grain supply chain.
We'd like to thank you, and we are grateful for the opportunity we have been given to discuss any questions you may have with members of the committee.