THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 18, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 6:30 p.m. [ET], by videoconference, for a study on the impact of climate change on critical transportation and communications infrastructure and the consequential impact on its interdependencies; and in camera, to examine the elements of part 10 of Bill S-6, An Act respecting regulatory modernization.
Senator Leo Housakos Chair presiding.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, honourable senators. This meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is now called to order.
I am Leo Housakos, senator from Quebec and chair of this committee. I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting, starting with the deputy chair, Senator Miville-Dechêne from Quebec; Senator Clement from Ontario; Senator Cormier from New Brunswick; Senator Dasko from Ontario; Senator Dawson from Quebec; Senator Klyne from Saskatchewan; Senator Manning from Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Quinn from New Brunswick; Senator Simons from Alberta; Senator Sorensen from Alberta.
[English]
For our first panel, we are meeting to study the impacts of climate change on critical infrastructure in the transportation and communications sectors and the consequential impacts on their interdependencies. For our first panel, we are pleased to welcome by video conference witnesses from the railway sector. From the Canadian National Railway Company, or CN, we welcome Chantale Després, Assistant Vice President Sustainability, and Rahim Karmali, Chief Engineer, Supply Chain and Technology. From Canadian Pacific Railway, or CP, we have Glen Wilson, Managing Director, Environmental Risk at Canadian Pacific Railway. Thank you for joining us.
We will begin with opening remarks, and after that, we will move to a question and answer period with members of the committee. Each witness has approximately 10 minutes before we go to the question and answer period. We will start with CN’s Chantal Després.
Chantale Després, Assistant Vice President, Canadian National Railway: Thank you for inviting us to speak today. I’m the Assistant Vice President of Sustainability at CN, and I am joined by my colleague Rahim Karmali, Chief Engineer, Supply Chain and Technology.
[Translation]
We are pleased to be with you this evening to take part in this important discussion.
At CN, we are committed to building a sustainable future by continuing to reduce our impact on the environment and by providing our clients with greener and more sustainable transportation services.
To us, an environmentally sustainable future means thinking and acting in the interest of future generations. We are aware of our important responsibility to do everything in our power to reduce the impact of our operations.
We recognize that the climate is changing and that companies must not only adapt, but also be part of the solution.
As an economic driver, CN is committed to playing a key role in the transition to a greener economy. Our strategy is the foundation of our response to long-term climate change and offers measures to be taken to reduce the risks and take advantage of the opportunities related to climate.
The first pillar of our strategy is to decarbonize our operations. We strive to reduce the carbon footprint of our rail and non-rail operations, and are also committed to reducing the emissions of our entire supply chain.
Since 1993, we have cut our locomotive greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 43%, thereby preventing the release of 48 million tonnes of CO 2 into the atmosphere, and we continue to dominate the North American rail industry with locomotive fuel consumption about 15% below the industry average.
CN was the first class 1 railway and is among the 100 first companies in the world to have set, in 2017, an approved objective based on carbon emissions reduction climatology.
In 2021, CN was the first railway in North America to officially commit to achieving carbon neutrality by signing the Business Ambition for 1.5°C, and by participating in the United Nations Getting To Zero campaign.
The second pillar is facilitating the transition to a low-carbon future. We believe that rail offers significant opportunities to reduce the environmental impact of transportation. We are committed to playing a key role in the transition to a more sustainable world.
The transportation of merchandise by train rather than truck can reduce GHG emissions by up to 75%. We make a positive contribution by offering our clients transportation solutions with low carbon emissions.
We also work with our partners to reduce emissions by maximizing the efficiency of the supply chain. Moreover, we transport new products, solar-powered electric vehicles, thereby supporting the growth of sustainable products and markets.
The third pillar of our strategy is strengthening resilience and biodiversity. As a business facilitator, we recognize the importance of ensuring the resiliency of our rail network.
We adapt to the physical effects of climate change and analyze climate change scenarios in order to explore climate vulnerabilities and thereby improve our resiliency to climate-related risks.
We also recognize the importance of biodiversity and protecting natural capital. Through tree-planting and large-scale reforestation initiatives, we help improve air quality, support biodiversity, and create resilient and sustainable communities.
The fourth and final pillar of our strategy is working with stakeholders. We recognize the importance of working with governments, supply chain partners, and clients, suppliers, universities, and green technology companies in order to accelerate the fight against climate change.
In cooperation with the Railway Association of Canada, we have worked with industry peers and the Government of Canada since 1995 to manage the impact of rail operations on the environment.
In 2021, we announced major partnerships with our suppliers for the testing of renewable fuel and the purchase of a battery-electric locomotive as part of a joint pilot project.
[English]
I will turn it over to Mr. Karmali, who will provide you an overview of how CN is increasing the resiliency and recoverability of our rail network.
[Translation]
Rahim Karmali, Chief Engineer, Supply Chain and Technology, Canadian National: Good evening, everyone. First of all, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear here today and talk about this very important subject. My name is Rahim Karmali, and I am CN’s chief engineer, supply chain and technology.
I live in Edmonton, Alberta, and have worked in the transportation industry for 18 years. My experience includes the private sector, primarily with CN, as well as other transportation modes in the public sector. I have a master’s in transportation management from the University of Denver and a bachelor’s in electrical engineering from the University of Alberta.
[English]
As you already know, the transportation industry is an outdoor sport, even more so for railroads such as Canadian National Railway with its vast continental networks that span many geographies and touch both coasts across our beautiful country. As the railway saying goes, there is a storm every night somewhere on the railroad. I want to share with you how CN’s infrastructure is impacted by weather and changes to our climate, while focusing on the strategic and innovative ways CN is managing these challenges through engineering network resiliency.
CN has been working closely with leading meteorologists for many years. We use their services to anticipate short-term changes in weather that may impact our network and services. Data from these services for the past ten years identifies a noticeable increase in the volume and severity of these weather events. In 2021, CN received nearly three times the number of notifications for weather-related events with the potential to impact our operations versus in 2012. These weather systems lasted an average of one and a half times longer than our 10-year historical average.
Each season brings its own unique challenges to railroads. In winter environments, such as ours here in Canada, cold temperatures cause rail and steel to shrink. In extreme cases, such as below minus 30 degrees Celsius, this can cause rail to break or pull apart, requiring repair or remediation.
On the opposition spectrum, in warmer months, rail expands due to heat. In 2019, you may have seen the effects of this on Europe’s passenger rail network. Images of spaghetti-like tracks due to thermal expansion halted rail service.
CN has been managing the effects of temperature for many years through innovation, such as advanced metallurgy and proactive rail maintenance practices. A specific and unique balance of rail strength and malleability properties has helped ensure CN can deliver through these widely varying conditions. CN has also adjusted its rail maintenance practices, ensuring each inch of steel is accounted for.
When emerging from winter, as we currently are, CN’s engineering forces remove any added steel and restore infrastructure to a neutral state for the upcoming warmer weather. These innovations and proactive measures support CN’s safety and efficiency agenda and have resulted in a 62% reduction in rail breaks across CN’s network over the last ten years.
Additionally, CN has invested significantly in its infrastructure to improve its robustness. CN has more than 50,000 culverts and 9,000 bridges across our network. CN has built thousands of miles of ditch and actively monitors and inspects for water hazards along our right-of-way. Last year in B.C., the supply chain succumbed to the atmospheric river event that occurred on November 13 and 14, 2021. Private and public infrastructure was severely damaged, and significant investment was required to restore operations.
CN acted swiftly, repairing 58 sections of track, and in one significant case, installing a new permanent bridge where a previous culvert had been washed out. As CN reflected on its learnings through this incident, we have engaged advanced modelling and prediction tools to identify areas of opportunity, such as asset hardening, interagency communication and emergency response, along with improved capabilities in our forecasting for future events.
Other areas that CN are innovating include the use of fire-retardant coatings on wooden structures, satellite imagery for fire risk analysis and autonomous track inspection technologies to improve track safety. Since the launch of our autonomous track inspection program in 2019 — the largest and most advanced in North America — CN has tested more than 1.7 million miles of track and improved our track safety by a factor of ten.
We firmly believe that institutional partnerships and incentives that encourage and promote a solution-through-innovation approach, developing or using the latest in technology and investing in new methodologies will help ensure network resiliency and a fluid supply chain for the years ahead.
We thank you again for today’s opportunity, and we look forward to continued engagement on this topic.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Karmali, and we thank Ms. Després.
Mr. Glen Wilson from Canadian Pacific Rail.
Glen Wilson, Managing Director, Environmental Risk, Canadian Pacific Railway: Thank you, honourable chair, and good evening. I am Glen Wilson, Managing Director, Environmental Risk, at Canadian Pacific Railway. I appreciate the opportunity to provide input for your study into the effects of climate change on Canada’s critical infrastructure. This subject is critically important to CP.
Last year we had to confront the impacts of climate change head-on when we faced wildfires during the summer months and then the atmospheric event in the fall, both of which created significant challenges for our physical infrastructure and operations.
I appreciate the opportunity to share CP’s climate strategy and the important work we are doing to mitigate the effects of climate change and the risks it presents to ensure we can operate safely while continuing to deliver for our customers and the Canadian economy. I will also outline CP’s industry-leading work in the transition to a low-carbon economy.
Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and it presents both risks and opportunities to CP, to Canadians and to global supply chains. Physical risks, including heavy precipitation, flooding, temperature extremes and powerful storm events — to name a few — have the potential to disrupt our network and are expected to intensify due to climate change. Meanwhile, shifting demand for lower-carbon goods and services presents opportunities for those same supply chains. Mitigating climate risks while capitalizing on emerging low-carbon opportunities requires strategic and decisive action.
Our climate strategy at CP applies to all of our business operations, and it supports ongoing collaboration and engagement with stakeholders within and beyond our value chain. To ensure relevance and comparability within and outside of the sector, our climate strategy aligns with internationally recognized frameworks, including the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, or TCFD, the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change as well as the Paris Agreement.
To respond to the risks and opportunities posed by climate change and to meet our decarbonization commitments, CP released that climate strategy in mid-2021. It is a comprehensive strategy consistent with those of global leaders, and it is built around five strategic pillars.
The first pillar is to develop a clear understanding of the risks and opportunities related to climate change and our business, and that’s fundamental to manage the impacts effectively.
To inform the development of our climate strategy, we completed a thorough and TCFD-aligned climate scenario analysis. This analysis evaluated the possible impacts to CP under different future climate scenarios, allowing us to stress test the business and assess our resilience under a range of possible climate conditions.
The second pillar of our climate strategy is to integrate climate factors across our business. We recognize the need to incorporate climate change risks and opportunities into our business planning, and we are enhancing our governance to drive effective management of our climate change commitments and actions.
The third pillar of that strategy is engaging with our stakeholders. Internal and external stakeholder engagement is essential as we implement our climate strategy. We are driving internal alignment while engaging suppliers, customers, rail transportation peers and policy makers such as this committee to help lead industry-wide change. These efforts are helping us better understand climate-related impacts, stay connected with emerging scientific and engineering advances that support emissions reductions and infrastructure hardening, as well as intentionally build capacity and awareness to integrate climate considerations across our business.
The fourth pillar is reducing our carbon footprint. CP has been focused on improving locomotive fuel efficiency for many decades, achieving a 44% improvement since 1990, and we have committed to further reduction in our operations. Our climate strategy includes ambitious, science-based targets that we have set to guide emissions reduction across our business, including reducing our locomotive greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 38.3% by 2030.
The majority of CP’s carbon footprint is associated with the operation of diesel-powered locomotives. For many decades, we focused on locomotive fuel-efficiency measures to lower our operating costs and reduce the environmental impact of our operations. However, we recognize that achieving further emissions reduction will require innovative, technological and operational changes. CP is a critical component of the North American supply chain, and our efforts to decrease our greenhouse gas footprint benefit our business while supporting our climate-action objectives and those of our customers.
Now, as we focus on accelerating the transition to a low-carbon economy, we are undertaking an innovative program to design, build and operate North America’s first line haul, hydrogen-powered locomotive. CP’s hydrogen locomotive program is evaluating the technical performance of hydrogen-powered locomotives and fuelling infrastructure in real world operations. The project includes retrofitting three locomotives and the installation of two hydrogen-production and hydrogen-fuelling facilities at CP’s yards in Calgary and Edmonton.
Finally, the fifth pillar of our climate strategy is responding to the risks from climate change. To address the physical risks presented by a changing climate, CP is aligning with leading climate science to improve the resilience of our network and operations. Results from our climate scenario analysis are now being integrated into CP’s capital planning and enterprise risk-management processes to mitigate climate-related impacts and build long-term climate resiliency into our operations.
Over the past year, CP’s resiliency was tested several times. In B.C. alone, we had to overcome extreme wildfires and catastrophic washouts, resulting in significant infrastructure damage, as well as polar vortex conditions that moved and persisted across the Prairies.
The tragedies of last year’s wildfire season in B.C. are well known. CP went to extraordinary efforts to maintain safe operations through B.C.’s interior during that time. We marshalled significant resources to protect our infrastructure and keep trains moving, which included constructing four fire-suppression trains and bringing in dozens of industrial and wildland firefighters from as far away as Texas.
Then in late November, an extraordinary atmospheric river slammed into B.C., causing catastrophic washouts along the Thompson and Fraser River canyons. The historic rains caused more than 30 separate track washouts on our main line and an eight-day service outage on the most critical part of our network that connects North America with the Port of Vancouver. Unfortunately, CN was down for over two weeks, which amplified the devastating impact of the rail supply chain servicing the port.
We worked closely with federal, provincial, local authorities and Indigenous communities to restore service and deliver essential goods, such as water, food and medicines to impacted communities in proximity to our network.
Recovering from natural disasters and moving swiftly in concert with our customers are examples of how CP has demonstrated its remarkable resilience over the past year. CP and our railroaders have overcome incredible obstacles to keep the rail system functioning with minimal disruption in service of our customers and the broader Canadian economy.
We are not just sitting by and waiting for the next disruption either. We are continually identifying locations on our network where infrastructure improvements can strengthen that resiliency.
In B.C., we are improving our storm runoff infrastructure by reinforcing and re-establishing slopes, installing new culverts and constructing new rock and debris fences. We are also investing in track and signalling to enhance connectivity with CN to better keep trains running if there is an outage in the directional running zone between Hope and Kamloops.
Final restoration of our infrastructure will continue into next year. We plan to construct three bridges over gullies adjacent to the Thompson River where there is now a higher risk of debris flow. We are also working in partnership with the B.C. Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure to deliver three projects. One is at a site called Tank Hill. The confined footprint of that area is where CP’s main line and the Trans-Canada Highway are both located. The reconstruction of that site can be delivered more safely and efficiently through a single project, which is an innovative approach for us both.
In order to position CP as a leader in the transition to a low-carbon economy and fully execute our climate strategy, we recognize that new and collaborative approaches will be required to deploy capital and people in the most efficient and effective ways possible. CP currently expends significant amounts of capital to maintain and upgrade our locomotive fleet and network, to improve overall efficiency and ensure system reliability.
We anticipate that new approaches to deploy those resources will be necessary to access and use the new data systems, technologies and fuels required to mitigate GHG emissions in the coming years.
I will close by speaking about working with government to continue to improve infrastructure resiliency. Our capital program complements investments made by our customers and governments, including projects funded through the National Trade Corridors Fund, or NTCF. CP supports federal investments in projects that improve supply chain efficiency and resiliency.
We applaud the government for committing an additional $450 million to the NTCF in the recent budget. Unfortunately, it often takes years for projects to get approval under the NTCF. We encourage Transport Canada to move with greater urgency to commit funding for projects that can provide immediate, tangible improvements for Canada’s supply chain. We will be working with Transport Canada to advance projects under the NTCF that can improve and strengthen the resiliency of Canada’s supply chain.
In the future, we anticipate that weather events will be more frequent, more severe and sometimes catastrophic, but CP is building resiliency to limit their impacts to our operation. We are adapting to a changing 21st century climate.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wilson.
We will go now to a period of question and answer. Colleagues, I have a long list of senators who are interested in asking questions. If we could limit it, because of time constraints, to one question per senator. If you would like to be put on a second round, with time permitting, we will do that.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is for the CN and CP representatives. I would like them to talk about interdependencies.
A federal government report published in 2021 said that, if we do not consider interdependencies and related risks, any individual investments to improve climate resiliency will have limited effect and unexpected consequences.
In light of these interdependencies, how is your industry working with other stakeholders? You talked about this briefly, but how can the federal government strengthen its role in bringing together stakeholders in the transportation sector? I am thinking in particular about the memorandum of understanding signed by the Railway Association of Canada, of which both your companies are members and which is supposed to be renewed for 2023-2027.
In your opinion, is this an effective instrument? What should the priorities of this memorandum be for 2023-2027? Thank you.
Ms. Després: Thank you for the question, Senator Cormier.
Cooperation is essential, not only for climate change, but for sustainable development in general, because the factors we are facing will not be resolved on their own. As to the impacts on railways, we have ongoing climate-change discussions with stakeholders regarding ports, for instance. For our clients, we have an ongoing commitment to making every effort to ensure the resiliency of our networks and help them reduce the carbon footprint of the transportation services we offer. That is also part of our discussions. As you noted, we also have discussions with Transport Canada through the Railway Association of Canada.
As to the memorandum of understanding that is coming up for renewal, for the time being, in addition to the work done in the past 20 years, and thanks to the most recent memorandum, which focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing contaminated air particle emissions, we are also helping to prepare the path forward that the industry must take to decarbonize railways in North America and Canada.
On the other hand, a topic that we have not yet discussed and that could be part of the next memorandum is the one we are discussing this evening: the resiliency of rail operations and transportation services in Canada. We are preparing to begin discussions with Transport Canada on the renewal of the memorandum. We have certainly discussed this informally with Transport Canada officials and have indicated our interest in taking part in discussions about the physical resiliency of rail operations in the face of climate change.
[English]
Mr. Wilson: I agree with everything that Ms. Després just spoke about. When I step back and take a bit of a Canadian economy look at it, you have to recognize that all of the parts are interconnected. While we’re talking about railways today and their critical and fundamental backbone to the movement of Canadian goods, it’s also about ports, marine transportation and shipper infrastructure. When looked at in that way, you can see all the links between each of those pieces and that it’s not just about railway infrastructure. That’s what we’re talking about primarily here today, namely, about the ability to move Canadian goods to market and the health of the whole economy. Whether that be investing in ports, railways or inland facilities, it’s all interconnected, as Senator Cormier said, and a critical part of how we have to think and approach these challenges and then act in the way that is best for the whole economy.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you to our three witnesses. Before I get to my question, I just wanted to point out that we did not receive your speaking notes before the meeting. I think that is a bit unfortunate because we like to prepare properly and it is always helpful if you provide them. It is of course best if they are in both languages.
That said, I am especially interested in what was said about steel at CN. You covered that very quickly. I think it is interesting because it relates to global warming. Have you changed the steel or its composition? What exactly have you done to your rail lines to help them resist the heat better? That is what I understood, but you were going quite quickly and it was very technical. I would like you to explain that again in detail because we are trying to understand how railways can prepare in practical terms for episodes of expansion and buckling owing to the effects of climate change.
[English]
Mr. Karmali: I’ll try to give you a bit more insight into some of the ways that railways — and specifically CN — accommodate the expansion or contraction of steel in our network.
As I mentioned in my remarks, we have a unique metallurgy. We look at the properties of the rail and we try to balance the hardness of the rail with its ability to expand and be malleable with changes in temperature. We also look at the neutrality of the rail. We keep track of when we install the rail, how much steel is going in and we look at what we call the rail-neutral temperature.
In climates such as ours in Canada, where we have the swing of temperature that goes from minus 30 Celsius to plus 30 Celsius, we try to set the temperature of the rail such that in the wintertime, when it starts to contract, we have enough steel available that it can shrink without pulling or breaking apart. Then as we transition from winter to summer, we keep track of the steel that’s been added through the winter and then we remove it from the rail to allow the steel to expand in the warmer temperatures without starting to buckle or go through what we call thermal expansion.
These methodologies are how we keep track of our infrastructure and the health of our infrastructure.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: But that’s not specific to climate change. You had those before. Did you change anything or did you make it because it’s related more to winter and summer?
Mr. Karmali: I think what we’re seeing as a result of climate change is stronger shifts between those extreme temperatures. Previously, we may not have seen, in certain climates, a high number of days where the temperature exceeded 30 degrees Celsius. When you go through those swings and those swings last longer or they’re more frequent, we have to adjust those practices and get better at maintaining the inventory —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Is it enough to sustain extreme heat or do you still have to stop the trains or go slower?
Mr. Karmali: The way we practise it today, it’s enough to go through the temperatures that we’re experiencing. Our practices that we employ today are sufficient. As we continue to evolve, we stay ahead of what we think the range of operating temperatures will be.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
Mr. Wilson: I can add one point, if you don’t mind. While we are the two class 1 Canadian railroads, we work together as part of the Association of American Railroads, or AAR, running research facilities in Pueblo, Colorado, and share best practices and information as well. I point that out because there are railroads that operate in the southern United States with whom we share research facilities, information and practices with who are very accustomed to much higher temperatures than CP or CN would be. As Mr. Karmali indicated, it’s a question of adjusting but it’s not a question of being able to not withstand.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: I would be pleased to attend the next meeting because I find we spend a lot of time on...
First, I am a grandson of the railway. My grandfather worked for CN for 50 years and my father worked for CP for 43 years. I have also chaired this committee, like my colleague, Senator Housakos. So I am very familiar with railways. I live and breathe railways. From my window, I can also turn my computer around and show you the Quebec Bridge. Seriously, I truly can. The Quebec Bridge is an example of resiliency and sustainability. It is also an image problem for CN. The fact that the bridge is rusted and its poor appearance make it look like it could collapse. In addition, as Senator Miville-Dechêne pointed out, we now have extreme heat.
You talked about 9,000 bridges. The one I am interested in is the one I can see from my window. The reality, however, is that CN and CP infrastructure is over a hundred years old. The infrastructure is aging from coast to coast, which means redoubling your efforts not only to maintain it, but to do long-term preventative work.
[English]
I understand, Mr. Wilson, that you’re cooperating, but I also know that you compete. But there is also the reality of how you will develop technologies that will permit us to ensure long-term resilience for our infrastructure. It is old. We recognize that it is and that it built Canada. But we’re facing a new challenge. We’re not talking about just minus 35 and plus 35. We’re talking about that occurring in a shorter period of time.
How do we assure ourselves that you get cooperation? We’ll have to make recommendations to the government. What can you tell us to tell the government to help you do the job of saving this infrastructure in the long term? I know you’re being very careful about the short term, but we’re preoccupied — potentially — with this report in the very long term, the sustainability.
[Translation]
By the way, Ms. Després, you should be CN’s spokesperson, because you certainly impressed Senator Cormier more than your president could have. That is just a remark in passing.
Turning to sustainability, what in your opinion should we tell the government to help you ensure that sustainability in the long term?
Ms. Després: If I may, Senator Dawson, as I said, we have a memorandum of agreement in place with Transport Canada through the Canadian Association of Railways. Being able to broaden the issues we are working on with the Government of Canada is certainly a first step.
As you said, climate change and its impacts affect CN and CP alike. We have the perfect forum to identify our common issues and discuss the aspects we are working together on. I think that is part of the solution.
[English]
I want to say that as railroad companies, we reinvest a significant amount of our revenue into rail infrastructure. We are a hundred-year-old company and have been around for a long time, but we reinvest approximately 20% of our revenue back into rail infrastructure on an annual basis to the tune of billions of dollars to ensure that this rail infrastructure is modern and up to date. The same goes for the locomotive fleets and the railcars we operate. We do want to extend the life of our assets as much as possible. That’s the truly sustainable way. It’s good for us, and it’s good for the environment. We do reinvest on a continuous basis in the quality of our rail networks, infrastructure and the fleets that we operate. I just wanted to mention that as well.
Mr. Wilson: If I may, I would add that CP is 141 years old. There is naturally a lot of infrastructure, and this situation isn’t unique to CP, CN or Canada. The world at large has 19th- and 20th-century infrastructure facing a changing 21st-century climate. The events we discussed in 2021 are not an aberration. To the extent that they broke records, those records were often set in 2020 or 2019.
It’s a new normal to face forward and look ahead, as you’re suggesting, Senator Dawson. That takes a different level of investment to keep the Canadian supply chain resilient. It takes, as Ms. Després just said, railways — with about 20% of revenue reinvested in capital — are one of the most capital-intensive industries in the world. It may be logical to suggest that the dollars invested in hardening infrastructure now can prevent so much disruption, response and cost down the road, but that doesn’t make it easier to raise that capital now to invest it.
In the interests of the whole supply chain, we have to take that view and ask: How do we collectively work toward developing, for the sake of Canadian competitiveness, an infrastructure basis for our supply chain that can withstand this climate going forward? Not from what we know from history but from what we know to expect.
Senator Quinn: Thank you. I first want to applaud both of the railways present tonight for your various programs, the four- and five-point strategies. Those are important cornerstones going forward, and I understand that.
This committee is looking at climate change and critical infrastructure. I want to zero in on critical infrastructure, not necessarily in the long term but more in the near term. Because I’m from the East Coast of Canada and New Brunswick, I’ll focus my questions in those areas.
CN is such a vital transportation link to Eastern Canada, specifically Nova Scotia and the Port of Halifax. We have a critical choke point at the isthmus between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, the Chignecto Isthmus. What specific investment strategies do you have in mind given that the New Brunswick and Nova Scotia governments are in discussion with the federal government over various options for investing millions of dollars? What will you be investing to ensure that that critical choke point is taken into account?
If I may, CP has recently reintroduced itself to the East Coast. I’d like to know the critical choke points you see and what plans you have in that regard. Maybe we can start with CN.
Mr. Karmali: Thank you, Senator Quinn. With regard to infrastructure investments, CN does invest — as my colleague Ms. Després mentioned — a significant amount of our revenue in our capital. On an annual basis, it’s to the tune of billions of dollars to reinforce our infrastructure and provide capacity. Both CN and CP have been here for more than a hundred years, and we want to be here for at least a hundred more.
Specifically regarding the East Coast, we do go through to replace and renew our track infrastructure, as well as our signalling and communication infrastructure, to ensure we have fluid and strong communication with our assets that allow efficient transportation of goods to and from the port. We’re also working closely with the ports in the area to ensure we have the capacity to move the business that’s coming into that area.
Senator Quinn: I’m talking specifically about Chignecto, and the investments that need to be made there with respect to the dikes and whatnot. That’s an area at real risk of sea-level rise, et cetera, and if it floods — railway, highway — it’s all at risk. What specifically in that area are you doing to contribute to the remediation plans that are being discussed between the provincial governments and the federal government with respect to renewing the Acadian dikes and the highways? Rail form is part of that. What specific plans do you folks have with regard to that specific challenge?
Mr. Karmali: Senator, what I would like to do is come back, if I’m so permitted, with specific details about the investments that we’re making in that area.
Senator Quinn: Sure. Thank you. And CP?
Mr. Wilson: Thank you, senator. We purchased Central Maine & Quebec Railway, which links to Port Saint John that you’re referring to, two years ago. In that time, two years, we’ve invested $90 million in capital, and there’s more coming, to bring that line up to CP’s high safety and efficiency standards. There’s been substantial investment. There’s continuing investment.
In terms of what else can be done, there’s a National Trade Corridors Fund project that Port Saint John has applied for that’s been stalled for 18 months. I would encourage us, wherever we can, to knock down barriers to continuing those kinds of investments and making sure they happen.
Senator Quinn: If I may, are there choke points along the new line that are exposed to climate change in particular?
Mr. Wilson: In the climate scenario analysis we’ve done — and I referred to having done a fairly extensive analysis across our whole network — that region doesn’t show up in terms of high climate risk other than the potential for — and this is really long term — sea-level rise that would occur at the ports themselves. In terms of creating choke points or infrastructure risk, we don’t see anything approaching what we’re talking about in British Columbia, for example.
Senator Simons: My questions are for Mr. Karmali and Mr. Wilson, and they deal with the issues of landslides and debris flows. We were lucky enough last month to have Michael Hendry from the Canadian Rail Research Laboratory, who spoke to us in quite hair-raising terms about the dangers of ongoing landslides in places like the Thompson River area.
I wanted to ask a two-pronged question. What initiatives are you taking to safeguard against not only flash floods that cause mudslides but also landslides that we know are sliding every day in slow motion? Mr. Henry said we can’t rebuild everything, but he suggested that we ought to be focusing on identifying the assets that are exposed to hazards that cannot be rapidly reconstructed, for example longer-span bridges, and that those should be targeted by the rail companies for improvements and weather proofing, if I can put it that way. That way, you’re identifying the points of greatest vulnerability that would be the most difficult to reconstruct and to harden them.
That is my two-pronged question.
Also, Mr. Karmali, thank you for coming to testify on game night.
Mr. Karmali: Thank you for recognizing that.
Senator Simons: I’m wearing my blue. I have no orange, but I’m wearing my blue.
Mr. Karmali: Senator Simons, thank you for the question. I’ll start by speaking in some terms with regard to the type of infrastructure we’ve added along our rail network to ensure we have visibility into these types of issues and how we’re improving resiliency. Then I’ll talk about some options that I can see going forward to help strengthen the network.
We have various detectors that we install along our right-of-way, and those detectors monitor for all types of various land movement, such as rock slides, slumps or washouts. That information is communicated from the right-of-way in real time back to our central offices and sometimes locally, immediately to prevent the hazard or the exposure from those events to any of our train crews and the movement of the materials that we haul.
With regard to other initiatives that we do, we do a lot of shoring in those locations. Where we have visibility into things that are immediately impacting us, we do take precautions. We have a team of geotechnical engineers, especially in the B.C. area, who work on that on a consistent basis. We do a lot of work to ensure that ground stability is something we focus an investment in as well as mitigate on a go-forward basis.
One of the things I’ve been involved in and understand, especially from this past year, is the need to look at this holistically. In a lot of cases, where we have railway operations, we also have provincial and transportation networks that are adjacent to us, either above or below. When we talk about improving the resiliency or the robustness of our network, often what’s happening above us in the roadway space on provincial highways and their ability to manage drainage and their capacity to manage movement has a direct impact on us.
I think we need to look at this as a one supply chain type of approach and ensure that all of the stakeholders are taking the necessary precautions to ensure that any impacts from those types of movement don’t have downstream effects on railroads as well.
Mr. Wilson: Thank you. Being in Calgary, I’d encourage you to wear red rather than orange.
Senator Simons: You have to speak to Senator Sorensen about that.
Mr. Wilson: What Mr. Karmali just said is similar to what I said earlier about looking at the supply chain on the whole and all of the links in it as opposed to just railways. Very similarly, and in the example I gave in my opening remarks at Tank Hill, we’re rebuilding as a collaborative highway and railway project and considering some of the things you’re talking about in terms of how to avoid presenting future risk to each part of that infrastructure.
When you look at it holistically like that, things can be seen differently and you can prevent more for the future.
That’s one specific location and, as you said, we do very much have an understanding of which are the most risky assets and which are the most difficult to respond to and overcome if they were lost. We prioritize protecting those or rebuilding them to be stronger. But in many cases, it’s not just within the control of the railway. If I cite the wildfire risk, it can be dead timber and forestry management practices that pose the greatest risk to a railway bridge. That’s not on our land or within our control.
Similarly, that same dead timber — and you alluded to it, senator — one of the biggest challenges with the washouts that we experienced in November was not necessarily the rainfall so much as the debris. That’s much more difficult to predict when you do climate modelling. You can predict the rainfall, not always with perfection, of course, but debris flows that get picked up from properties that are not even necessarily adjacent to the railway — they might be further away than that — are the source of some of the debris that plugs the culvert that causes the issue for the railway.
You have to look at the climate science and all of the potential ways in which that can impact our infrastructure to really inform how to best harden and armour that infrastructure to be more resilient. It’s not an easy equation, but I think your question was very astute in identifying all the different components of it.
Senator Simons: For a Flames fan, that was an excellent answer. If there’s a second round, I would love to ask you about hydrogen fuelling for trains.
The Chair: We will have a second round if our witnesses will indulge us. The committee does have an extra 15 minutes. I know it’s a big night in Alberta, but if they will indulge us, it would be appreciated.
Senator Klyne: Welcome to our guests, and thank you for the enlightenment of your presentations.
My question is for representatives from both Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway. Given the sheer size of your networks and the amount of goods or freight you move across this vast country, I welcome your expertise. My question centres on sustainability and resilience in the face of increased climate risk given, as Mr. Wilson notes, that we can expect extreme weather events to continue, likely with increased frequency.
With that backdrop and in the context of resiliency in the face of climate change, I’m interested in your business continuity plans and resiliency on two fronts. The first is that the flooding in B.C. heightened awareness of the susceptibility of our critical infrastructure. Please tell this committee how you will renew aging infrastructure and “build back forward” by being forward thinking and via lessons learned through events like the flooding in B.C.
Also, I’m sure your organizations are increasingly dependent on technology, so I ask that you tell this committee about your business continuity plans as they relate to cyber events and cyberattacks, generally, with specific focus on your thoughts of 5G networks being able to hold up against prolonged heat events like that of last year on the Prairies. Written answers are acceptable.
Mr. Wilson: In terms of business continuity plans, just as we’re having to adapt our infrastructure, we’re having to adapt our planning. I say this with no criticism of the B.C. Wildfire Service, but we learned quickly last summer that they were simply overwhelmed by the situation that was presented. So when I alluded to bringing in dozens of wildland and industrial firefighters and building four fire-suppression trains, we did all of that on the fly and as a rapid learning that we had to be self-sufficient. So our emergency response capability wouldn’t have previously contemplated those kinds of responses.
Now that we have those assets and we have that understanding from the experiences we’ve gleaned, our business continuity planning includes how to deploy those assets and how to maintain them. We’re already going through a process now, which I hope we don’t need, of tuning up all of that equipment, revisiting all of the contractor availability and putting ourselves in a position of readiness so that we’re much more capable of operating and at least responding to the early stages in anticipation of having to do much more of it on our own.
I would say that just like trying to plan for a low-carbon future or a resilient infrastructure, we’re having to adapt business processes, governance and all of those other pieces as well, and we are learning as we go.
These experiences are teaching us — if I can skip over to the washout we experienced in November, with the duration of rainfall and the record-setting nature of it, we were suddenly facing 500-foot outages that were 200 feet deep and an unimaginable need to rebuild infrastructure. The equivalent of 10,000 truckloads of fill had to be dumped in a very short time.
When you go through that, you learn from it and you adapt your future planning in recognition that you may have to go through it again. These are new experiences that teach us all and I presume are part of the reason this committee has an interest in this topic as well.
Mr. Karmali: I will add to some comments from my colleague Mr. Wilson. Thank you for the question, Senator Klyne.
We are a transportation company. Our core business is to move merchandise and to be sustainable through whatever this outdoor sport throws at us. We lived through 2021 and we continue to learn from the effects of the environment on our operations. We’ve started to look forward and adjust our modelling accordingly. We’ve taken what would have previously been a one-in-50-year storm or a 1-in-100-year storm — and I know these are terms we have heard a lot more recently in the news media, especially in weather reporting — and we are starting to just adjust what that means for our rail network. We are looking at this from asset hardening perspectives and saying that what used to be a 1-in-25-year storm is now maybe a 1-in-17-year storm, and so on. We are looking at improving infrastructure resiliency through recognizing that these events may occur more frequently.
If I look at the technology that supports this type of modelling and the understanding of the natural environment and some of the things that we’re doing in that space with light AR-based assessment of the geography of land slopes to identify when things are moving with precision so we can understand, in advance of a significant slide, that there is some debris or some small movements in these areas — we can use support in these areas to bring this technology forward quickly.
The railway industry has been around for 100 years. From the outside looking in, the ties, ballasts and steel look similar to what they did 100 years ago. But we look at this as an opportunity to leverage the innovation that’s happening behind the scenes — that is, inside the metal. Even when it comes to innovation that’s coming from an inspection methodology perspective, we’re moving fast. We are investing a lot in digitization, technologies and automation. To able to bring this forward in a way that helps us improve resiliency and identify what is happening on our network is a great opportunity in the Canadian rail sector.
I will defer questions on 5G to one of my colleagues at CN who, unfortunately, is not with us here today but who will come back with some answers for you.
Ms. Després: To add to the comments made by my colleagues, my role intersects with Mr. Karmali’s role in climate change disclosures. With that, and aligned with what Mr. Wilson was saying, both CN and CP are aligned with international frameworks, namely, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. A big part of their role has been better disclosures to investors and stakeholders on the risks of climate change, including the physical risks of climate change.
We are embarking on this more robust, expanded journey of climate change disclosures that includes scenario analysis. This is fairly new around the world globally, mainly involving a big push by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures to have a more forward-looking view into the next 20 or 30 years — so to 2030 or 2050 — with respect to what the impacts of climate change could be on our rail network and on our business.
These climate scenario analysis techniques are new. They are being uncovered and developed by pioneers like CN and CP, who are quite advanced in terms of climate disclosures. We are collaborating together and with our colleagues. I am part of net zero working groups in Canada that try to exchange as much information as possible in terms of how do we do this well to extract the best possible information to prepare for the future. This is where maybe the role of sustainability disclosures or climate change disclosures and analysis comes back in to collaborate at the engineering level to project and have a better understanding of different climate scenarios regarding the potential impacts by 2030 and 2050 and how we need to prepare for them. Again, this is very new and pioneering.
To the comments made in terms of parallel infrastructure or nearby infrastructure areas where we might be able to collaborate in the future with the federal government, as we run these scenarios in the future — that is, if there is going to be mudslides, flooding or sea level rise — several of us will be impacted. This could be a potential area, as per my earlier comments with the MOU with the Railway Association of Canada, to expand the view from minimizing carbon to also looking at the resiliency of the rail network and the transportation network moving forward.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you to the witnesses. My questions are for Mr. Wilson. You have mentioned that you are developing hydrogen-powered locomotives. I’ve seen some communications literature about your locomotives — nice pictures and everything. This is my chance to drill a little deeper into it.
You haven’t been using many of these locomotives, but they are a way to reduce the carbon footprint. Could you explain the long-term viability of these locomotives? Is this an industry solution that you think is viable for roll out across the industry? Or is it like a pretest where you are testing it out? Can you expand on this technology? Is this the answer to reducing the carbon footprint? I would also ask CN if this is in the future for them.
Mr. Wilson: Thank you for the question. It is more of the latter in the way you have framed it. This is an evaluation. We wouldn’t be doing it if we didn’t think it had real potential, but, as an industry, there are not a lot of solutions out there yet for converting from the diesel-powered locomotive that moves all of the rail industry’s freight.
At CP, we took the challenge head on. When you look at battery power, various alternatives are being evaluated. I think it is key that, across our industry, different railways and different suppliers to our industry are looking at different options. It is important that it be done that way because we need to understand the full slate of options available to our industry.
When we look at line haul or over-the-road locomotives — that is, the long, heaviest trains that move from one city to another — we don’t see battery as having any indication yet that it can handle that sort of operation. That’s why we are looking at hydrogen. I’m happy to report that we did the first movement test in December in a very Canadian way. It was minus 28, we stood outside and tested whether that locomotive could operate under its own power, and it succeeded. That’s a big step forward for us in knowing that the hydrogen fuel cell that we substituted for a diesel engine in that locomotive could power the wheels and turn them. Now we are advancing further, yet again.
There was a recent announcement from ATCO about working on fuelling stations, so the supply of hydrogen, the ability to fuel from that supply to demand — and I don’t limit that to just railway locomotives when I say that; it is other heavy equipment as well.
We see — and I know many others see — that it has very real potential. We’re now moving on to building our second locomotive as the first one moves into field trials. I expect in the coming months that it will be out in those field trials, and then we will be advancing to a second and then a third locomotive, and that’s with the assistance of Emissions Reduction Alberta that we’ve been able to advance that.
In sum, I would say it has very real potential, but it is too early to say that it is the solution.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Would CN be working on this?
Ms. Després: Yes, senator. At CN, we’re actually moving ahead with a battery electric locomotive demonstration in the state of Pennsylvania, where we did obtain funding, and we are doing that with Wabtec. As for the comments from my colleague, Mr. Wilson, the technology is not there yet in North America. We are at the phase of piloting and testing. We feel it is very important. We want to be a part of defining the future of our sector and the technology that we will use in the future.
Quite frankly, we are not sure what the technology of the future is going to be for the rail sector. We think it is very interesting. We are observing what CP is doing. Some of our colleagues in the U.S. are also testing battery electric technologies, and it could very well be a variety of technologies that might be used in the future. We might be thinking about battery electric, catenary electric technologies, perhaps, with the locomotives that we use for switching in our yards that don’t go out on the main lines. We may have different types of technology out on the main lines.
If we look to Aurizon, for example, in Australia, they have electrified their rail network where they carry coal from mine to port because it is a loop and it is an easy origin destination kind of situation. So we are participating, again, with the Railway Association of Canada and Transport Canada in a study to observe what is happening around the world in this sector, and then moving ahead in North America with our colleagues in testing these different technologies.
Together, our voice, I think, is pretty powerful. In North America, the entire rail sector has announced science-based targets, so the whole industry is really taking decarbonization seriously, which signals — very importantly to our locomotive manufacturers — that we need to collaborate and work with them towards the technology of the future.
We’re on it. We want to help define our future. It is exciting times, and who knows what the technology of the future will be. It might very well be, as I mentioned, a variety of locomotive applications in different areas.
The last thing I will say is that part of the nut to crack is energy. If it is a hydrogen technology, then you need hydrogen to power it. We operate across North America, so we have to think about fuelling across North America. The same goes for electrification. Our rail network cuts across coast to coast to coast, all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. So whatever technology we choose to deploy, we are thinking about it from a North American perspective and from the perspective of bringing the energy required to run these technologies.
Again, it requires collaboration across all stakeholder groups.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Després.
Senator Clement: Hello, and thank you to all of the witnesses.
I was heartened to hear you all speak of partnership and collaboration because I think that is the key to facing big challenges, as you have described. You mentioned resiliency, all of you, repeatedly. I think resiliency is linked to partnership. It is also linked to governance.
Mr. Wilson, you alluded to governance, and I would like to ask both CN and CP, have you considered diversity as part of your governance structure? Because when we’re dealing with big problems, we need to have a diversity of people, of ages and of genders around the governance table in terms of long-term planning and dealing with big challenges.
Do your corporations have those conversations around governance, diversity and being even more effective around long-term planning?
Mr. Wilson: I can certainly start and then defer to my colleagues from CN to add on anything they wish.
Yes, we do, in a nutshell. I think you are recognizing something that sometimes isn’t necessarily linked when I look at sustainability generally or ESG reporting generally.
You can blitz climate change, but diversity includes diversity of thought. We have three diversity councils within CP. We’ve made it a priority both at our board level, in our executive and management levels and all through our organization.
They are linked, and the ability to address all of the different topics — and we identified in our sustainability reporting 11 individual topics, climate change being one of them, that need to be prioritized for long-term sustainability overall.
I think you are absolutely correct that diversity in terms of race, gender or other areas encourages diversity of thought, and that’s what is needed to solve some of the monumental challenges that we face.
Senator Clement: Thank you for that, Mr. Wilson.
Could I get an answer from Ms. Després?
The Chair: Yes, Ms. Després, would you like to weigh in?
Ms. Després: I will keep it brief this time.
The same as Mr. Wilson, I guess. We are focused on diversity and inclusion at CN, and we have started by setting targets at the board level, in particular for female representation. We signed the Catalyst Accord in 2017, and then the latest Catalyst Accord that calls for bringing down those targets further into the organization. We are looking to have 30% female representation at the executive committee level. Those are some of our public commitments that we’ve made. I am happy to say that we have achieved and exceeded those targets at the board level.
We have a human resources committee of the board that is focused on these topics. Recently, we also appointed a director of inclusion and diversity, and we have created employee working groups. So this a big topic.
It links back to this whole “just transition” piece and how we transition to a cleaner economy and how we make sure that everybody is included, including the Indigenous people of our country. To that effect, we recently appointed an Indigenous council that is an advisory to our board of directors.
Senator Quinn: Very quickly, it is not a question but more of a request because the committee heard a lot of good information tonight, and we talked about different parts of the country in terms of where incidents could occur.
Would it be possible for each of the rail lines to provide a systems map with the top areas of climate change risk and identify what those risks might be so that we have a better appreciation?
The Chair: On second round, you can each take 45 seconds and put your questions forward, and after that our panellists can address them all at the same time as we wrap up and get to eight o’clock.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is for the CN representatives. First, I would like to commend you on your donation of one million dollars for the displacement of Ukrainians. That is a fine contribution and I commend you.
I am from New Brunswick. Via Rail uses your rail lines for its passenger services. In New Brunswick, it is said that the Chaleur Bay coast has among the worst soil erosion in the province.
For that stretch, as Senator Quinn suggested, how do you monitor the region? What are your long-term plans to determine whether or not this region is fragile? Your rail lines are very important to people in the region.
[English]
Senator Simons: Senator Dasko asked my question about hydrogen.
But I will sneak in a question and say I think many people in Alberta were very sobered and shocked when they were cut off by rail and road from the West Coast.
It made me wonder, realistically, is it possible that there would be new build construction — not to twin existing lines, but to move lines further north through the interior — so that there could be an expansion of capacity and alternate routes, or is that economically prohibitive?
Senator Klyne: Ms. Després, in your scenario analysis you were talking about where there are both of your networks in close proximity, that there are opportunities to collaborate. You went on to say collaborate with the federal government. Can you expand on that collaboration? It is like a tri-effect there. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I heard at least three questions there, and a comment at the start from Senator Quinn. I turn it over to our panellists to address them as we wrap up. Thank you.
Ms. Després: I can take the question of scenario analysis first.
Again, because our networks run quite parallel and also in close proximity to the Trans-Canada Highway, as we are all going down this journey of climate scenario analysis, there are opportunities for us to learn from each other in terms of identifying potential areas of vulnerability in the future as we advance in our climate scenario analysis. There are opportunities for sharing that information, I would say, through the Railway Association of Canada.
Senator Klyne: And collaborating with the government in that scenario too, as a partner in collaboration?
Ms. Després: Yes. There is already information that is being shared through a portal in terms of data and impacts of climate in Canada. So in that sense, there is already information being shared.
In terms of identification of all of the areas where we might be vulnerable and the request for that map, this is work that is currently under way. We have the historical events and impacts. But climate scenario analysis is really going to help us get a better view on what the potential impacts could be in the future. So I wouldn’t have that today.
Again, we have embarked on this journey. We are impacted by so many different types of climate events. It will take us, quite frankly, years to meet those disclosure requirements by the TCFD. We will keep refining and looking at various scenarios year over year and better understanding them.
Having been on this journey of climate change disclosures, I’ve been doing this for 15 years and we keep refining it. This is new data, new information and new ways of looking at business. It takes time. Sharing data sets and scenarios is definitely an area where we could collaborate with the federal government.
Mr. Wilson: I can add on, perhaps just to say — and I agree completely — the data, the information, the need to collaborate in that space and the ability of government to connect pieces that may not be seen to otherwise be connected to the supply chain and as part of the resilience.
For example, I referred earlier to forestry management and other challenges that are out there beyond our operations. But collaboration on issues like that solves problems for not just public safety, but the resiliency of the Canadian economy and supply chain.
There are other examples. I know there is investment going on in the ability to predict atmospheric rivers and better alert, and that’s got the alerting and public safety aspect to it. The more that government can do to develop tools like that and understand them, and not just alert but also allow — to the extent that we can — to plan or prepare for them.
In CP’s case, in the November experience with the atmospheric river, it was 30 locations significantly affected. Maybe success in the future is 15 or 10 in a similar incident. We may not ever conquer the challenge. But if we make ourselves more resilient, I think that makes the Canadian economy stronger and more competitive. As I said at the beginning, you don’t need to look very hard for the 2021 year in review to see flooding, extreme heat and wildfires all over the world.
The opportunity is there for Canada to strengthen itself and to be that much more competitive in the world economy. I think that’s the role that government can and should play in trying to guide and expedite our preparation and resiliency.
The Chair: Thank you to our panel.
We have a couple of minutes left.
Senator Simons: Mr. Chair, Senator Cormier and I had questions that didn’t get answered.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Senator Simons: Senator Cormier and I had each asked a question and none of the witnesses responded to our questions.
The Chair: You want to replace the question?
Senator Simons: I want to give them a chance to answer.
Mr. Karmali: Thank you, Senators Cormier and Simons. Thank you for the acknowledgement of CN’s support of the ongoing efforts in Ukraine as well.
Senator Simons, with regard to your question about expansion, capacity and new construction, CN has publicly disclosed almost on an annual basis areas of our network where we continue to invest in rail capacity, whether it is long sidings or additional double track to ensure that we can continuously move this nation’s merchandise and goods fluidly through our network.
I think your question was more specific around the ability to relocate or to move some of these lines to other areas that might be less vulnerable to some of the risks that they currently face.
There are always challenges associated with land acquisition and things of that sort. These are things and this is an area where if the desire and the need is such, I think we would definitely have to work closely with government to be able to go through processes such as that to make that feasible and a viable operation or opportunity for such things.
With regard to the specific question around the erosion, I think what I would like to do is join that with I believe it was Senator Quinn’s question and return to the committee with an answer around how we monitor and look at erosion.
As I mentioned previously, we do have strong geotechnical teams that are monitoring a lot of our network where we have areas of high risk. We are taking active and preventive measures to ensure that these types of situations do not negatively impact our network.
Senator Cormier: Thank you. That answers my question.
Senator Quinn: Are we able to get the maps that I referred to?
Mr. Karmali: Senator, yes, we will look at that. I think my colleague Ms. Després had also mentioned how this continues to be an evolving understanding of these risks. But we will do our best to come back with our current understanding.
Senator Dawson: I plead guilty to being a railway man. But I am also a senator. We have a report that we have to adopt before the end of the meeting, Mr. Chair. I think we have about 30 minutes left. So if we want to get into that analysis and future business, and all the while giving our thanks for the excellent performance and the very good presentation —
The Chair: Senator Dawson just muted himself.
What he was in the process of doing was thanking the panellists for their excellent presentations, and I completely agree. It was so good that we were scheduled to do this within 60 minutes and we are, as he pointed out, well into 90 minutes.
I think we could use another 90 minutes in order to extract all the wonderful testimony and information you have shared with us. We thank you for it and thank you for contributing to this study.
Now we will suspend before we come back to do our clause by clause. Thank you so much, Ms. Després, Mr. Karmali and Mr. Wilson.
Ms. Després: Thank you.
Mr. Wilson: Thank you for your time.
(The committee continued in camera.)