Transport committee  I'll jump in on that one. In fact, our biggest concern regarding Bill C-49 is that it does just the opposite. One of the greatest challenges we're facing as we look ahead to increasing Canada's trade, export-import activity, is that we need investment in the Canadian rail system that underpins Canada's economy.

Transport committee  I think that actually might have been a comment from CP. I think the changes to the maximum revenue entitlement improve the situation with respect to getting the investment credited to the railway that actually makes the investment. It is a rather complex formula, and we feel that there is an opportunity to simplify it further.

Transport committee  While the existing exclusions included in the bill we think are very important and need to be maintained, they do not address the issue of U.S. reciprocity in the three prairie provinces. To the point made earlier by my colleague at CP, there is still an opportunity for railroads to come into those three prairie provinces and to take business away from the Canadian rail network.

Transport committee  We certainly participated extensively in the consultation process. Clearly, we're dissatisfied with some of the outcomes that remain in the existing bill.

Transport committee  We have.

Transport committee  Yes.

Transport committee  Thank you, Sean. There are a number of provisions in Bill C-49 that run a high risk of unintended consequences. The part of the bill with the greatest risk potential is long-haul interswitching, which I'll subsequently refer to as LHI. LHI is a remedy which, until it appeared in this bill, had never been recommended, discussed, or considered.

Transport committee  I think the issue there is what “on time” means. The existing regulatory framework will pay the railways the same amount of money whether we move the grain in six months or in 12 months. So that regulatory framework that exists does put a kind of overarching framework, if you will, in terms of how and when grain moves.

Transport committee  First of all, I would come back to grain on the farm, and the reality is that no matter the number of bushels that need to get off the farm, it is all going to start by moving in a truck. The efficiency to move it by truck to an elevator on CN or on CP is actually far better than what we're talking about with extended interswitching.

Transport committee  Let me be clear. I think our preference would be not to have the maximum revenue entitlement. Notwithstanding that, at a minimum, we think that regulation needs to be modernized. With respect to the specific formula that governs the investment component and how that's dealt with, that is an issue that both customers and railways understand well.

Transport committee  Let me make a few comments. I think it's important to recognize that when we speak about railcar capacity, oil moves in a completely different kind of railcar. Those railcars are actually owned by the customers who ship oil, not by the railway. In the context of actual equipment capacity, there is no conflict.

Transport committee  For reciprocal access to the U.S.— Don't start with that one?

Transport committee  In terms of a commercial—

Transport committee  I don't have an exact number on that. We know that all rates in Canada for all commodities, and for all goods shipped, are among the lowest in the world. We've had studies from the OECD that speak to that evidence.

Transport committee  Shipping grain by container already happens today. It is a small piece of the overall grain supply chain. It tends to be more specialty crops that are shipped in smaller quantities to specific markets. I think it can help alleviate some of the issues with respect to surge capacity.